}
in support of his second contention on! the right of restraining by injunction.
After hearing the argument, the Chief Justice said the right thing to do was that the man should be sent down here, both parties giving ample security to abide by the result, and to pay the costs of the party wronged.
Mr Brereton who was present in Court said he would consent to the proposi tion. As to the man being sent down, he would not undertake that could be done. The matter was entirely in the hands of the Chinese.
His Lordship said, what could be thought of such conduct. It was nonsense to say that the man was in the hands of the Chinese. He was arrested at the instance of Mr Vogel, and if he said he withdrew all pro ceedings, the man must be released.
Mr Brereton asid be had not time to consult his client, but he had no doubt Mr Vogel would consent to the proposition auggested by his Lordship,-Chun Shuu to give security for the claim against him, and Mr Vogel giving security for the claim against him in this action. They would then do their best to get the man released. His Lordship then said that each party was to give security, and Mr Vogel to stop all proceedings in Canton,
Mr Brereton again expressed his consent to this arrangement,
The Chief Justice said the security abould be approved of by the Registrar. If the arrangement he suggested was not carried out, the only course was to proceed with the injunction, and he would see what he could do.
Mr Brereton said his instructions were that the claim was against Chun Shup, and had nothing against the man Chun Chew, who was taken up by the Chinese autho rities themselves.
His Lordship said the matter rested with the German Consul. He had admitted as much. The conduct was of such a kind that it could not be allowed. The question affected the liberty of a subject, and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had in a case where the liberty of a subject was concerned refused to allow a man to go on with a legal defence. The idea of putting an innocent man in chains and treating him like a criminal was fearful. After what his Lordship had said, Mr Vogel would con- tinne to keep the man in gaol at his own peril. And inasmuch as the matter affected the liberty of a subject, he would give special leave for the case to be brought up again on Thursday.
Mr Brereton said he could not get an affidavit from the German Consul by Thurs day. He would ask it to be put of till Friday.
His Lordship granted the application, and said if the German Consul thought fit he could avail of this opportunity to ex- plain his conduct in a public manner. Of course he was not obliged to do so.
His Lordship then asked when was the man first arrested. He was told that it was on the 7th February last. He then remarked that here was a man who was ad- mitted to be innocent but who had been kept in gaol as a criminal since the 7th February.
It was ultimately arranged that each party was to give security in $9,000, and the defendant in respect of this suit was to I give $2,000 in addition,
The Daily Pres
HONGKONG, ÁPRIL 28TH, 1875.
ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN CHINA-IMPORTANT CASE, In the Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir John Smale) and Mr. Justice Snowden, an application of considerable im portance was made in an action for alleged false imprisonment in China.
Mr. Hayliar, QC., (instructed by Mr. Dennya) applied for a rule nisi against Mr. E. Vogel, of Mésars. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co., to show caree why he should not be restrained from contina- ing the unlawful detention of Chun Achia in the King Sing Tong criminal gaol, or in any other Chinese prison at Cauton."
Mr. Hayllar said he made the application under section 18, paragraph 2, of the Code. The plaintifwns named Obun Achiu, and he brought an action against Mr. Vogel for false imprisonment.
The Chief Justice said the first question was had this Court jurisdiction; and then was the defendant bound to answer a prima facie case, A more important case had seldom been heard in this Court.
Mr. Hayllar said the plaintiff bad been re- siding at Singapore.
His Lordship asked if he was a naturalised Englishmar.
Mr. Hayllar said he was not, bat be should be able to show that that made no difference. Plaintiff returned a short time ago on a visit to bis native village, when he was seized in the night time by a band of soldiers, was put ins chains and taken to the city of Canton, and there lodged in a criminal gadi.
The Chief Justice said be supposed it was an ordinary gaol.
Mr. Hayllar said there were several gaols there, but this was a criminal one. There was no doubt about that. He was placed among | criminals and treated na a criminal. Ibe reason of his being in prison was that between the years 1871 and 1873, there was a firm of traders in Hougkong carrying on the business of a mat shop under the name of "Tak-wo." This firm bad, at three different times, shipped through the firm of Messrs. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co., of which the present defendant, Mr. Vogel, was the senior and resident partner, a quantity of watting to America. According to Mr. Vogel's version, the transaction resulted in a debt to him by the Tak-wo firm. This firm consisted of a number of purtuers, whose names had been set out in affidavita by those well acquainted with them; but it was distinctly asserted that the man in gaol at Cantou had no connection with the firm in any way. He was, however, related to Chan Shun, one of the partners in the Tak-wo shop. The object, as was alleged in the petition, of keeping the plaintiff in gaol was to compel bim to pay Mr. Vogel's claim against the Tak-wo firm. The plaintiff through his relatives bere, bad pti- tioned the Goverument to have some investi. gation of his case made. The result of that application was set forth in the affidavit of the Hon. C. C. Smith, The learned Coun- sel then read Mr. Smith's affidavit, which set forth that on the 22nd February last, he received a petition from Chun Shua and two others praying for the release of Chan Achia. This affidavit, remarked Mr. Hayllar, contained a very important point. It stated that Mr. Vogel did not deny that the man was detained in prison with his knowledge and at his in- atance, and Mr. Vogel also admitted that there was no ovidence to show that the prisoner was connected with the Tak-wo firm. This con- nected Mr. Vogel with the matter. Mr. Den- nye had been up to Canton several times in conucction with the affair. He also had made an affidavit, and it set forth that on the 16th February, he was informed by Chnu Shus that plaintiff was improperly imprisoned in the gaul at Canton, under the supervision of the Nam Hoi magistrate; that on the 17th February be wrote a letter to the German Consulate at Canton, stating that prisoner had bad nothing to do with the Tak-wo firm, and that be was suffering in bealth from being subjected to the! treatment of a Chinese prison; that Mr. Den- nye received a reply from the German Consul saying that the matter rested in the hands of the
593
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.