THE CHINA MAIL,
To april 1875.
The argument on the rule Nisi in the mo- tion of the plaintiff of the case of Chun Chew v. Vogel, to restrain the defendant from continuing the imprisonment of the plaintiff at Canton, again came on for hear ing before Chief Justice Sir John Smale, and Mr Justice Snowden on the 30th of April last. His Lordship asked if any arrange- ment had been come to on the basis pro posed at the last adjournment. The Hon. Mr Bramston, the Attorney General, who appeared for the defendant, said his client was perfectly willing to give security provided the other side gave security in equal amount. Mr Hayllar, Q.C., on behalf of the plaintiff, said he understood the er rangement to be that the defendant was to give security in $2,000 in this suit, and $3,000 in the other, and undertook to have the im- prisoned man down here on Thursday, and inasmuch as that was not done, his client was not going to fulfill his part of the ene gagement, Mr Brereton denied that he ever made any engagement, either orally or in writing, that the defendant would get the man brought down hers on Thursday, As there was no chance of an arrangement being come to, the Attorney General proceeded to argue against the injunction; but in the course of it, his Lordship again suge gested a compromise by both parties giving security, Mr Hayllar would not consent to any terms except on the basis of the original undertaking. He did not ask for security from a factious spirit, but the Chinese in sisted on it and had a reason for it. Mr Bramston then proceeded with his argument and read a portion of Mr Vogel's affidavity in which he denied the truth of the Hon'bla C. C. Smith's statement in his affidavit, saya ing he had never been to the Colonial Res cretary's office on business and had never been even spoken to by the Honourable gen tleman on the subject of this action. He thought My Smith must have mistaken a glerk of his firm for him. He also dented thas be was responsible for the plaintiff's arrest and detention, positively asserting that he had never known the man or heard of him prior to his arrest. Mr Bramston pro- posed to read the German Consul's explanation, but the Chief Justice would rather not hear anything that was not strictly evidence, as the matter if proceeded with would most probably have to go forward elsewhere. He suggested that the Consul's statement be reduced to the form of an athidavit. After further discussion, in which references were made to the Prussian treaty with China and the translation of the Peking Gazette publish- ed at the office of the N. C. Daily News, Mr Hayllar said he would cite cases to shew, when the trial came on, that the further de- tention of the man for even an hour longer was against equity and the conscience of man. Finally at the suggestion of the Court it was arranged to submit a proposition to Mr Vogel that he was to give security in $4,000 in the suit of Chun Shun against him, and $2,000 in the present action, be undertaking to do his best to get the man released by the Canton authorities; whils Chan Shun on his part was to give security in $4,000 against the claim made by Mr Vogel or any such action he might bring against him. The hearing of this rule was postponed till to-morrow at 10 a.m. to en- able the German Consul at Canton Mr Lue- der, to file his affidavit, his Lordship expres- sing a wish for Mr Vogel's attendance in Court.
[We publish a letter, from H.I.G.M. Con- sul at Canton, on this subject, in another column.-E. C. M.]
177
The Daily Press
HONGKONG, May 1st, 1875,
THE ACTION FOR ALLEGED FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN CHINA.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE “DAILY PRESS.
FIR, Allow me to state in your columns the facts to which the report, inscribed "Action for false imprisonment in China-Important Case," and published in the Daily Press on the 28th April, refers.
In the month of December, 1873, a olaim was lodged at the Imperial German Consulate at Canton by the firm of Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. against the partners of the Chinese firm of Tekwo, formerly at Hongkong, on account of cash advances to the said firm of Tekwo against certain consignments of matting. The firm of Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. declared, producing the accounts of sale, that the firm of Tekwo was indebted to them, on account of short proceeds: on the sale of the said consignments of matting, in the sum of $2,720; that the firm of Tekwo had been dissolved; that the partzera had re- tired into the province of Kwang-bung; and that one of them, Chun-shun, residing at the village of Kaokong, was supposed to have taken with him from Hongkong the sum of $10,000. This action was banded over in the usual way to the Chinese authorities for the investigation and decision of the case. As the latter, after a long and protracted correspondence, finally replied that the debtore, who belonged to different dis- tricts, could not be found, and as there were indications that Übunisbun was at the time living at the village of Kaokong and had bribed the runners and officials in search of him, the Imperial German Consulate referred the case to the 1. G. Legation at Pexing. In consequence of this step the Tsung-li Yamen issued the strictest orders to the provincial authorities to have the case in issne investigated and decided. Ju the month of February, 1875, the District Magistrate of Nam-hoi (Canton) informed me that Chun-shun, against whom proceedings were principally directed, had absconded from Kaokong, from other sources I have beard, that he fled to Mongkong-but that bis paternal uncle, Chun Chin, had been arrested and conducted to Canton. On being examined, Chun Chin bad deposed, that Chun-shun, his nephew, possessed a house in the village of Kaokong. I distinctly called the attention of the District Magistrate to the fact that the firm of Vogel, Hagedorn & Co, had no claim whatever against Chan Chin, the uncle; but the Magistrate designated Chau Chiu repousible as paternal uncle, according to Chinese custom; an expression meaning, as far as I understand, that the unele was res- ponsible for the appearance of his nephew, Chan Shun, before the magistrate.
I ac- knowledged the principle, that the question, I whether the Chinese authorities were authorized in imprisoning the Chinese subject Chun Chin or not, had to be decided by themselves accord- ing to Chinese law and custom; but I informed him that the prisoner was not detained at my
instance.
Mr. Dennys, in the name of Chun Shun, asked me, both orally and in writing, to request the release of the prisoner from the Chinese autho- rities. I refused to do so, the matter resting eutirely in the hands of the Chinese authorities, who would have been justified in declaring that the failure of their endonyours was to be attri- buted to my interfering with their part in the onse. I guaranteed him that the action would be withdrawn at Canton, and consequently the prisoner released by the Chinese magistrate, if either Chun Shun, through Mr. Dennys, would and could prove, before me, that the action against him was unfounded, or a private set- tlement of the parties could be arrived at, or the amount of the claim, fees of court and law- yer, were deposited by Chun Shun in the Court of Hongkong. I added that this security was necessary before going to law at Hongkong, as Chun Shun's property was said to be in the province of Kwang-tung and not at Hongkong, and therefore a favourable judgment at Hong- kong did not guarantee the payment of the claim and expenses. Chan Shun adopted nei. ther of these three proposals.
597
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.