[iv]
I, therefore, respectfully protest against this application and against the issue of any distress against me.
To the Magistrates of HONGKONG.
I am,
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
J. H. LOGAN.
Extract from the "Hongkong Telegraph" dated 6th November, 1893,
At the Magistracy to-day, before Mr. HASTINGS, application was made for a distress warrant against the property of J. H. LOGAN, respondent in the opium appeal case of Lam Yik and another, in which the Chief Justice gave judgment with costs ($250) against the respondent. He had not paid the amount, although he had been allowed over two months. Mr. V. DEACON appeared for the defendant and submitted that as the opium seized by Logan had been confiscated by the Magistrate, and as the summons then served upon the present plaintiffs stated that "Regina upon the information of J. H. LOGAN," etc., called upon the owners of the opium to show cause, etc., it was clear that the Queen and not Logan was the proper respondent in the Appellate Court. But however his Worship viewed the matter, he thought it must be admitted that as the defendant could not possibly pay the sum demanded, a merely nominal term of imprisonment would meet the case. His Worship issued the order of distraint, to take effect to-morrow, and also bound LOGAN in $250 security to come up again, if required, in a week, if the distraint should not satisfy the claim; and in that case (which is very likely) he will either have to raise the money somehow or else go to gaol.
Report of Proceedings at the Magistracy on 11th November, 1893.
THE OPIUM SEIZURE CASE.
MR. LOGAN SENT TO PRISON.
Mr. JAMES LOGAN, Preventive Officer to the Hongkong, Canton and Macao Steam-boat Company, appeared before Captain HASTINGS this morning in connection with the Opium seizure on board of the Company's steamer Fatshan, two or three months ago.
The facts have already been placed before the public.
The case was called about 11:30. Mr. DENNYS, who appeared on behalf of the two men in whose baggage the Opium had been discovered, having addressed the Court.
His Worship said:- Well, LOGAN, the original amount was $256. Under the warrant of distress, your effects have been sold and realised $37, leaving still due $219. Are you prepared to pay?
Mr. LOGAN - No, Your Worship. I have got nothing to pay with. I am entirely in your hands, Your Worship.
His Worship. - I must proceed in accordance with the law, and the sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for three days.
Mr. DENNYS. - I submit that is not sufficient.
His Worship. - Three days.
Mr. V. H. DEACON, the Steam-boat Company's Solicitor, was to have appeared on behalf of Mr. LOGAN, but he had received notice that the case was not to come before his Worship till noon.
Enclosure 2.
Ref: C.O.1603/539 ODA94
Report by the Attorney General,
Hon: Colonial Secretary,
Before suing this petition, I had, in C.J.O.2806/93, stated that Sections 38 and 39 of Ordinance 21 of 1891 should be amended as therein mentioned so as to take effect when the farm comes into effect.
The present section 38 does not appear to satisfy the Company because it does not make opium which is covered by a permit forfeitable in this Colony merely because it is not on the manifest. If it is not covered by a permit and is forfeitable, then, if it is also not on the manifest, it is not handed...
[iv]
I, therefore, respectfully protest against this application and against the issue
of
any
distress against mc.
To the Magistrates of
HONGKONG.
1 am,
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
J. H. LOGAN.
Extract from the "Hongkong Telegraph" dated 6th November, 1893,
At the Magistracy to-day, before Mr. HASTINGS, application was made for a distress warrant against the property of J. H. LOGAN, respondent in the opium appeal case of Lam Yik and another, in which the Chief Justice gave judgment with costs ($250) against the respondent. He had not paid the amount, although he had been allowed over two months. Mr. V. DEACON appeared for the defendant and submitted that as the opium seized by Logan had been confiscated by the Magistrate, and as the summons then served upon the present plaintiffs stated that "Regina upon the information of J. H. LOGAN," etc., called upon the owners of the opium to show cunse, etc., it was clear that the Queen and not Logan was the proper respondent in the Appellate Court. But however his Worship viewed the natter he thought it must be admitted that as the defendant could not possibly pay the sum demanded, a merely nominal term of imprisonment would meet the case. His Worship issued the order of distraint, to take effect to-morrow, and also bound LOGAN in $250 security to come up again, if required, in a week, if the distraint should not satisfy the claim; and in that case (which is very likely) he will either have to raise the money somehow or else go to gaol.
Report of Proceedings at the Magistracy on 11th November, 1893.
THE OPIUM SEIZURE CASE.
MR. LOGAN SENT TO PRISON.
Mr. JAMES LOGAN, Preventive Officer to the Hongkong, Canton and Macao Steam-boat Company, appeared before Captain HASTINGS this morning in connee- tion with the Opium seizure on board of the Company's steamer Fatshan, two or three months ago.
The facts have already been placed before the public.
The case was called about 11.30. Mr. DENNYS, who appeared on behalf of the two men in whose baggage the Opium had been discovered, having addressed the Court.
His Worship said:-Well, LOGAN, the original account was $256. Under the warrant of distress, your effects have been sold and realised $37, leaving still due $219. Are you prepared to pay?
Mr. LOGAN-No, Your Worship. I have got nothing to pay with. I am entirely in your hands, Your Worship,
His Worship.-1 must proceed in accordance with the law, and the sentence
of the Court is that you be imprisoned for three days.
Mr. DENNYS.--1 submit that is not sufficient,
His Worship.-Three days.
Mr. V. II. DEACON, the Steam-boat Company's Solicitor, was to have appeared
on behalf of Mr. LOGAN, but be had received notice that the case was not to come before his Worship till noon.
Enclosure 2.
Ree
C. O.
1603 539
O DA 94
Report by the Attorney General,
Hou: Colonial Secretary,
Before sucing this petition
I had, in C.J.O. 2806/93, stated that Sections 38 and 39 of Qrdi.
I brought nances 21 of 1891 should be amend
ed as therein mentioned so as to
take effect when the farm cometh
let.
The present section 38 does
not appear satisfy
the
to
1-o
go for mough Company because it
- does not make opium which is
covered by
a
permit forfeitable
in this Colony merely because it. is not on the manifest. If it is
not covered.
permit and 20
is forfeitable, then, if it is also not on the manifest, it is not-
handed
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.