in their minds? Trying to answer that question as myself a reasonable juryman, I should say unhesitatingly Yes. In order to give some shape to my thoughts, I should say this—that there must have been a discussion on the question of the use of tong names, leading to the preparation of the remarks; there must also have been a discussion as to the answer to the question as to the nine men, and that this view as to the use of tong names generally overbalanced the calm judgment of those jurymen who formed the majority on this point.
I think this brings the verdict on this point within the meaning of the word 'perverse' as applied to verdicts.
In view of what I have said with regard to the verdict on this question, looking at it independently of these remarks, this question is not material; but as it has been raised, I feel bound to express my views upon it. I think the verdict ought to be set aside as being against the weight of evidence; I think further that it ought to be set aside as being perverse.
Again, putting the other 8 out of question, I cannot for the life of me understand on what grounds the jury found that Leung Lai Nam was not a partner. There was no evidence at all to contradict his evidence. The only possible ground would be the fact, which he himself explained, that he had changed his tong name, and it would be, in my view, the height of unreason to disbelieve his evidence, otherwise unshaken, on this ground.
Now, what is the result of setting aside the verdict on this question? The 9 plaintiffs must have judgment on the pleadings. The only issue raised with regard to them is that they are not partners; the questions of libel, malicious prosecution, and all the other points (except, of course, the pleas to the jurisdiction) are not raised with regard to them. It is admitted that if their property has been seized, it has been seized wrongfully, because it was never alleged that they are partners in the Cheong Loong, and the suggestion that the Kwong Yiling Cheong as a firm was a partner in the Cheong Loong depended on the construction of a letter (Exhibit 2), which could only be advanced by leaving out the last sentence. It is not for the Court to raise any question as to their claim being good in law if the defendant does not. With regard to the 9, the defendant has raised one issue only, and the verdict on that issue being set aside, they are entitled on the pleadings to judgment. Supposing I am wrong in my reasoning as to the eight, then Leung Lai Nam must get judgment.
I now come to the second question—were the three men, Leung Lai Sang, Wong Hiu Ting, and Cheung Tsz Yuen, partners in the sugar firm, the Cheong Loong? The affirmative of this lies upon the defendant. The jury found that they were, by 6 to 1.
It is not alleged that the defendants knew anything about the matter, except what their compradore told them. Nor is it alleged by Mok Kun that he knew it as a fact, as one trader knows that a person is a member of a firm with which he trades from the fact of having transacted business with him personally. It is, as he says, a legitimate inference only from a variety of facts, which he swore to in the witness box. The evidence of the 3 defendants is a general denial of the facts by the men themselves (and also by Leung Lai Nam), and, except with regard to certain facts which are admitted, a specific denial of practically all the facts which were put forward by Mok Kun. So far as the facts which are admitted are concerned, the defence is that entirely wrong inferences have been drawn from them. There is also a letter written by one of the defendants (Exhibit 2), which the defendants allege supports Mok Kun's inferences.
The only thing to be done is to group this evidence under definite heads in order to see how much of it is worthy of credit.
There is first what I may call the "ancient history": facts which linked these men with the Cheong Loong firm as partners in Mok Kun's mind, so he says, from the very early days of the firm. If these facts are true, they would be the warrant for Mok Kun's action in what I will call the "interviewing period," which immediately preceded the
411
8
in their minds? Trying to answer that question as myself a reasonable juryman, I should say unhesitatingly Yes. In order to give some shape to my thoughts, I should say this -that there must have been a discussion on the question of the use of tong names, leading to the preparation of the remarks, there must also have been a discussion as to the answer to the question as to the nine men, and that this view as to the use of tong names generally overbalanced the calm judginent of those jurymen who formed the majority on this point.
I think this brings the verdict on this point within the meaning of the word 'perverse' as applied to verdicts.
In view of what I have said with regard to the verdict on this question, looking at it independently of these remarks this question is not material; but as it has been raised I feel bound to express my views upon it. I think the verdict ought to be set aside as being against the weight of evidence; I think further that it ought to be set aside as being perverse.
Again, putting the other 8 out of question, I cannot for the life of me understand on what grounds the jury found that Leung Lai Nam was not a partner. There was no evidence at all to contradict his evidence. The only possible ground would be the fact which he himself explained, that he had changed his tong name, and it would be in my view the height of unreason to disbelieve his evidence, otherwise unshaken, on this ground.
Now what is the result of setting aside the verdict on this question? The 9 plaintiffs must have judgment on the pleadings. The only issue raised with regard to them is that they are not partners, the questions of libel, malicious prosecution, and all the other points (except of course the plens to the jurisdiction) are not raised with regard to them: it is admitted that if their property has been seized, it has been seized wrongfully, because it was never alleged that they are partners in the Cheong Loong, and the sug- gestion that the Kwong Iling Cheong as a firm was a partner in the Cheong Loong depended on the construction of a letter (exhibit 2) which could only be advanced by leaving out the last sentence. It is not for the Court to raise any question as to their claim being good in law if the defendant does not. With regard to the 9, the defendant has raised one issue only, and the verdict on that issue being set aside they are entitled on the pleadings to judg. ment. Supposing I am wrong in my reasoning as to the eight, then Leung Lai Nam must get judgment.
I now come to the second question-were the three men, Leung Lai Sang, Wong Hiu Ting and Cheung Tsz Yuen, partners in the sugar firm the Cheong Loong? The affirm- ative of this lies upon the defendant. The jury found that they were by 6 to 1.
It is not alleged that the defendants knew anything about the matter, except what their compradore told them. Nor is it alleged by Mok Kun that he knew it as a fact, as one trader knows that a person is a member of a firm with which he trades from the fact of having transacted business with him personally. It is as he says a legitimate inference only from a variety of facts which he swore to in the witness box. The evidence of the 3 defendants is a general denial of the facts by the men themselves (and also by Leung Lai Nam), and ex- cept with regard to certain facts which are admitted, a specific denial of practically all the facts which were put forward by Mok Kun. So far as the facts which are admitted are concerned, the defence is that entirely wrong inferences have been drawn from them. There is also a letter written by one of the defendants (Exhibit 2) which, the defendants allege, supports Mok Kun's inferences.
The only thing to be done is to group this evidence under definite heads in order to see how much of it is worthy of credit.
There is first what I may call the "ancient history:" facts which linked these men with the Cheong Loong firm as partners in Mok Kun's mind, so he says, from the very early days of the firm. If these facts are true they would be the warrant for Mok Kun's action in what I will call the "interviewing period," which immediately preceded the
411
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.