60
1.The
Daily Press.
HONGKONG, NOVEMBER 30TH, 1889.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE THE HON. SIR GEORGE PHILLIPPO, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND A SPECIAL JURY.
THE LIBEL CHARGE.
The trial of Robert Fraser-Smith on a charge of libelling John McNeil Price, Surveyor-General of Hongkong, was continued.
Mr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Brereton, Wotton, and Deacon, appeared for the prosecution. The defendant conducted his own case.
The jurors were Messrs. E. Burnie, H. Foes, D. Mosso, C. T. Kohlmann, B. B. D. Sayle, E. L. Woodin, and W. S. Young.
The prosecution now called rebutting evidence. A copy of the mail edition of the Telegraph of the 14th September was put in, in which the paragraph alleged to be libellous, and which appeared in the paper of the 3rd, was repeated, the object of this evidence being, Mr. Francis stated, to show that the publication was not a mere individual act of Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith but that it was repeated in the mail edition some days later.
Edward Rose was then called. He said—I am employed in the Surveyor-General's department, and have been so employed for three years and a half. I am overseer of the waterworks. As such I have had no connection whatever with the works now going on at Tytam. My duties are solely confined to the water from the Pokfulam reservoir, that which supplies the town. I have had nothing to do with the Tytam Water Works directly or indirectly. I do not remember ever having had any conversation with Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith or Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith or both of them together on the subject of the Tytam Water Works. I never said I would make something out of those works. I never passed such a remark as that I might make something more but that too strict an eye was now kept upon me. I never stated that Mr. Price liked to keep the good things to his own cheek, to either of the brothers nor to anyone else. I have never had any conversation with either of the brothers that would afford any basis for the statement that I had said so. I live next door to Mr. Fraser-Smith's office in Pedder's Hill. I have never spoken to Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith or Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith about delays in the payment of contractors in connection with the Survey Department. I have certainly not suggested to Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith that if he wrote in the Hongkong Telegraph about the subject the contractors would be willing to pay him a percentage on their bills. I have never taken Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith and introduced him to two or three of the contractors who were complaining of delay in the payment of their bills. Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith has been at my place several times and generally had a drink of some kind. I have five children. He has had champagne in my house, not that he liked it very much, I think, from what he said. I think that was on the occasion of the birthday of one of my children, but I do not remember. He has had champagne in my house on several occasions. My salary and allowances are $300, my rent $23, and one of my rooms I have let for $10 up to within the last two months. I certainly do not live beyond my income. I have some money saved of my own. I had no idea my style of living and scale of expenditure were being discussed by Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith.
By the defendant I swear I have never had any conversation with you or your brother about the Surveyor-General's department. I did not have some conversation with you about three weeks ago on our way to the Masonic Lodge. I did not express a hope that my name and that of the other foremen would not be introduced into this case. You said to me once, as I was passing, "You fellows need not be afraid about this case," but I passed on and said nothing. I swear I have never had any conversation with you about the Surveyor-General's department. I swear I have never spoken to your brother about the subject of contractors not receiving their pay at the proper time. The statement made in the witness box yesterday that I took him to some of the contractors is false. I am positively certain I never received any squeezes from contractors. I overlooked works in Gough street about two years ago in connection with the waterworks. I think Mr. Andrew Millar was the contractor for that work. I do not know that I volunteered to collect some private accounts for Mr. Millar in connection with the laying of some piping in the houses in Gough street. I have not collected those accounts, and have not paid them to Mr. Millar. In the case of one bill a gentleman called me in and asked me to pay the money over to Mr. Millar, which I did.
Defendant—Then you did collect them?
His Lordship—That is not collecting.
Defendant—It is only a difference of terms; he says he received the money.
His Lordship said that if Mr. Millar had given the witness bills to collect, and he collected them, that would be collecting, but if one gentleman merely called him in and asked him to pay the money to Mr. Millar, that could not be called collecting.
Cross-examination continued—I did not collect the accounts and keep the money to myself. I do not remember receiving a bill from Millar for $13, on account of one of these houses in Gough street. It is very likely he may have given me a bill for $13. It is not likely I collected it or I would remember it, but I can swear I did not keep the money. I swear it is not a fact that I collected the money and paid him $10 and kept $3 for myself. I pay $28 rent including taxes. My five children are at school. The school expenses are $9. I pay my cook $5, I think, but my wife pays it and I do not know exactly. I have a small house boy whom I pay $2. I have no amah. I am allowed chair coolies by the Government. The whole of my household expenses amount to about $80. That includes everything. My show bill I suppose costs me about $30 a month. Beer and wine may cost $3 a month. My wife does all the washing herself very nearly, all except a white shirt or two. The washing may be a dollar and a half a month. I don't know about firewood; you might say a dollar for that. Other incidental expenses would not amount to much; there is nothing much left but lamp oil and that might cost 50 cents. I suppose clothing for myself and family might cost $100 per annum; but I think that is rather too much. I have not had a new suit of clothes for years. Before I went to the Surveyor-General's Department I was half proprietor of the Oriental Hotel. We did not compound with our creditors; we have paid everything off. We were not able to pay it off at the time.
Defendant—You entered the Surveyor-General's Department then a poor man?
Witness—The terms of my partnership did not compel me to bring in my private means. I had spent enough for my partner, and I did not bring in my private means.
Now what is your salary?—$68.
No, that is not your salary.—I get $68 a month. And your allowance?—$15 for chair and $5 for my Fire Brigade work.
According to the list you have given me, Mr. Rose, your monthly expenses, without any extraordinary expenses, such as doctor's bills amount to $86.50.—We don't pay for doctor or medicine; we have them allowed by the Government.
Well, without any extras your expenses amount to $86.50, and your salary and allowances to $88; that would leave you a dollar and a half.
His Lordship—I don't see quite how you make that out. He got $10 a month for one of his rooms. How long have you let your room?—I have had pay for it the whole time I have been in Pedder's Hill up to the last two months.
You are a member of certain Masonic bodies in the colony?
What are your fees per month?—$1.
What is that for?—That is my subscription, just the same as your own.
To the United Service Lodge?—Yes.
And what do you pay to the United Service Chapter?—30 cents a month, I think.
You are a frequent visitor to the Hongkong Hotel, are you not? You go there and play billiards?—No.
You never go there?—Oh yes, I go sometimes.
What is your bill there?—I suppose I get two drinks a month; that is what I pay for.
....
60
1.The
Daily Press.
HONGKONG, NOVEMBER 30TH, 1889.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE THE HON. SIR GEORGE PHILLIPPO, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND A SPECIAL JURY.
THE LIBEL CHARGE.
The trial of Robert Fraser-Smith on a charge of libelling John McNeil Price; Burveyor-Gon- eral of Hongkong, was coutinued. ¿
Mr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Brereton, Wotton, and Deacon, appeared for the prosecu- tion. The defendant conducted his own casO,
The jurors were Messra, E. Burnie, H. Foes, D. Mosso, C. T. Kohlmann, B. B. D. Sayle, E. L. Woodin, and W. 8. Young.
The prosecution now called rebutting evidence. A onpy of the mail edition of the Telegraph of the 14th September was nut in in which the pa- ragraph alleged to be libellons, and which appear- ed in the paper of the 3rd, was repeated, the ab- ject of this evidence being, Mr. Francia stated, to show that the publication was not a mere in- dividual act of Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith but that it was repeated in the mail edition some days later.
Edward Rose was then called. He said-I
am employed in the Surveyor-General's depart meat, and have been so employed for three years and a balf. I am overseer of the waterworks. As such I have had no connection whatever with the works now going on at Tytam. My duties are solely couficed to the water from the Pokfo. lam reservoir, that which supplies the town. I have had nothing to do with the Tytam Water Works directly or indirectly. I do not remem- ber over having had any conversation with Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith or Mr. Stewart Fraser- Smith or both of them together wa the subject of the Tytam Water Works. I never said I would make something out of those works. I never passed such a remark as that I might make something more but that too strict an eye was now kept apon me. I never stated that Mr. Price liked to keep the good things to his own cheek, to either of the brothers nor to anyous else. I have never had any conversation with either of the brothers that would afford any basis for the statement that I had said 60. I live next door to Mr. Fraser-Smith's office in Pedder's Hill. I have never spoken to Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith or Mr. Stewart | Fraser-Smith about delays in the payment of Loontractors in connection, with the Surrey Department. I have certainly not suggested to Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith that if he wrote: in the Hongkong Telegraph, of the subject the contractors would be willing to pay him a per- centage on their bills. I have never takon Mr. Stewart Frasor-Smith and introduced him to two or three of the contractors who were com plaining of delay in the payment of their bills. Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith has been ap several times in my plass and gouerally had a drink of some kind. I have five obildren. He has had champagne in my hoase, not that he liked it very much, I think, from what he said. I think that was on the occasion of the birthday of one of my obildron, but I do not remember. He bas had obarapagne in tay bouton veral occasions. My salary and allowances are $3, my reat $23, and one of my rooms I bave let for $10 up to within the last two months. I certainly do not live beyond my income. I have some money saved of my own. I had no idea my style of living and sole of expenditure ware being discussed by Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith.
By the defendant I swear I bave never had aug conversation with you or your brother about the Surveyor-General's department. I did not have some conversation with you about three weeks ago on our way to the Masonic Lolge. I did not express a hope that my name and that of the other foremen would not be introduced into this cass, You said to me once, es I was passing, "You fellows need not be afraid about this case," but I passed on and said nothing, I swear I have never had any conversation with you about the Surveyor-General's department. I swear I have never spoken to your brother about the subject of contractors not receiving their pay at the propar tims. The statement
made in the witness box ye terday that I took him to some of the contractors is false. I am positively certain I never received any squeezes from contractors. I overlooked works in Gough. street about two years a o in connection with the waterworks. I think Mr. Andrew Millar was the contractor for that work. I do not know that I volunteered to collect some private accounts for Mr. Millar in connection with the laying of some piping in the houses in Gough. street, I have not collected those accounts, and have not paid them to Mr. Millar. In the case of one bill a gentleman called me in and asked me to pay the money over to Mr. Millar, which I did.
Defendant-Then you did colleaf them His Lordship-That is not collecting. Defendant-It is only a difference of terms; ho says he received the money.
His Lordship said that if Mr. Millar had given the witness bills to collect, and he collected them, that would be collecting, but if one gentlema merely called him in and asked him to pay the money to Mr. Millar, that could not been called collenting.
Cross-examination contiuned-I did ant collect the accounts and keep the money to mylf. I do not remember receiving a bill from lar for $13, on account of one of these houses in Gough- street. It is very likely he may have given me a bill for $13. It is not likely I collected it or I would remember it, but I can swear I did not keep the money. I swear it is not a fact that I collected the money and paid him $10 and kept $3 for myself. I pay $28 rout in- cluding taxes. My five childron are at school. The school expenses are $9. I pay my cook $5, I think, but my wife pays it and I do not know exactly. I have a small bonse hoy whom I pay $2. I have no amah. I am allowed obair coolies by the Government. The whole of my bouse- hold expenses amount to about $80. That in- oludes everything. Mv show bill I suppose custs me about $3) a month. Beer and wine may est $3 a mouth. My wife does all the washing herself very nearly, all except a white shirt or two. The washing may be a dollar and a half a month. I don't know about firewood; you might say a dollar for that. Other inci. dental expenses would not amount to much; there is nothing much left bat lamp oil and that might cost 50 cents. I suppose clothing for myself and family might cost $100 per an num; but I think that is rather too mach. I have not had a new suit of clothes for years. Before I went to the Surveyor-General's De- partment I was balf proprietor of the Oriental Hotel. We did not compound with our cre- ditors; we have paid everything off. We were not able to pay it off at the time.
Defendant-Yon entered the Surveyor-Gene- ral's Department then a poor man ?
Witness The terms of my partnership did not compel me to bring in my private means. I had spent enough for my partner, and I did not bring in my private means.
Now what is your salary?-$88.
No that is not your salary.—I get $68 a month. And your allowanow ? —$15 for chair and $5 for my Fire Brigade work.
According to the list you have given me, Mr. Rose, your monthly expenses, without any extraordinary expouses, such as doctor's bills amount to $88.50.-We don't pay for doctor or medicine; we have them allowed by the Govern. ment.
Well, without any extras your expenses amount to 386.50, and your salary and allowances to $88; that would leave you a dollar and a half.
His Lordship-I don't see quite how you make, that out. He got $10 a month for one of his rooms, How long have you let your room --I have bad pay for it the whole time I have been in Pedder's Hill up to the last two months.
You are a member of certain Masonic bodies in the colony PYen.
What are your fos per month P-$1.
What is that for PThat is my subscription, just the same as your own.
To the United Service Lodge P--Yes.
And what do you pay to the United Servios Chapter -30 cents a month, I think.
You are a frequent visitor to the Hongkong Hotel, are you not? You go there and play billiards ?-No.
You never go there ?-Oh yes, I go sometimes.
What is your bill there P--I suppose I get two drinks a month; that is what I pay for.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.