598
¿
Neither myself, nor the firm of Vogel, Hage- dorn & Co. through the medium of the Imperial German Consulate, have ever requested the Chinese authorities to prosecate, to imprison, or to retain in prison Clian Chin, the uncle,
I am not able to decide whether the Chin se custom, to which the Magistrate refere, has legal power in China or not, but I am firmly convinced that he acted bond fide, and that the i imprisonment of Chun Chm is solely to bel attiibnted to known and deplorable deficiencies | of Chinese legislation.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
O. LUEDER, H. I. G. M.'s Consul,
Cantou, April 28th, 1875,
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1875,
SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. (Before His Lordship the Chief Justice Sir
JOHN SMALE and Mr Justice SNOWDEN.)!
1st May, 1875.
MOTION FOR A RULE NISI
Chun Chew e Vogel.
Mr Hayllar, instructed by Mr H. L. Den nye, appeared for the plaintiff, and the Hon'ble the Attorney General, Mr Brams! ton, instructed by Messrs Caldwell and Brereton, appeared for the defendant.
This was an adjourned motion for a rule niet to restrain the plaintiff from continu Ing the imprisonment of a Chinaman at Canton by the Chinese authorities. case had been adjourned for the parties to come to an arrangement of giving security to each other,
The
In answer to the Court Mr Hayllar said no security had been given yet.
Some remark being made abont Mr Vogel not being in attendance, Mr Brere- ton said Mr Vogel misunderstood the hour of adjournment. He thought the case was to come on at 11 o'clock.
Mr Bramston said he was instructed to give security in $2,000 in this suit and $4,000 in the other, provided the other party gave security in $4,000 in the case of Vogel against Chun Shan.
Mr Hayllar said he was perfectly satis fied with that arrangement. It would take the Chinese security some time to come here, probably till this afternoon or Mon- day morning.
The Chief Justice then ordered the mo- tion to be adjourned outil the imprisoned man was sent down.
Mr Bramston said he would not bind his client to get the man released; all he would do was to withdraw the action in the Con- sutar Court. His Lordship was asking too much of his client.
His Lordship said he did not ask Mr Vo- gel for anything afterwhat had passed.
Mr Snowden said Mr Vogel was to do his best to get the man down here.
Mr Bramston said in asking the man to be sent down, they were asking what was an impossibility,
The Chief Justice said he did not ask for anything. He simply said that this motion should be adjourned.
Mr Bramston said he understood the giv ing of security would put the matter at an
end.
His Lordship remarked on the advisabi- lity of having the motion adjourned, as otherwise the man might be kept in prison for ever.
Finally it was ordered that this motion was to stand over eine die until the man was
sent down. It was open to either side to move with one day's notice.
The Daily
Press
HONGKONG, MAY 3RD, 1875.
SUPREME COURT. 1st May.
BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF-JUSTICE (SIR JOHN SMALE) AND MR. JUSTICE SNOWDEN.
CHUN CHIC v. E. VOGEL..
Mr. Hayilar, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Dennys) was for plaintiff; and the Attorney-General (instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Brereton) was for defendant.
It was now stated that the security agreed upon the previous day should be entered into on Monday, the case then to stand over. It was understood that each party might come into Court on a day's notice, if dissatisfied. Defendant's attorney promised to withdraw the action in the Consular Court in China, and Mr. Justice Snowden hoped defendant would use his best endeavours to get the man released, as a word from the German Consul would no doubt go a long way. The Attorney-General thought they ought not to be asked to do any. thing beyond withdrawing the claim, as they had no control over the Chinese authorities.
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.