endeavoured to get the money out of them. How a man can turn a belief into a fact in this way, and how reasonable men can accept his story passes my understanding. If this were once admitted to be reasonable, proof of partnership instead of being a very difficult matter would be surprisingly simple. And again the test must be applied, if Mok Kun knew so much and so confidently, why did he not tell Mr. Schluter?
This part of the case may be summed up thus: If he knew definitely that these 3 men were partners in the Cheong Loong, his action was consistent, and perfectly natural: But the argument inverts the reasoning process; thus because his action would have been consistent with the knowledge had he possessed it, therefore because he so acted he had got the knowledge. The argument lacks what the old logicians called the "distributive middle"; you cannot establish the existence of facts because you act as you would have acted if the facts existed.
There is therefore in my opinion absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that Mok Kun had any knowledge or reliable information as to these 3 men being partners in the Cheong Loong, and that his statement that he told Mr. Schluter in January, before the first letter was written, that these 3 were partners and not merely Leung Lai Sang is part of the fiction.
I now come to the letter (Exhibit 2) admittedly written by Wong Hiu Tung on 27th January 1907 to Cheong Loong immediately after Woo Yiu Nam had absconded. It was argued that it was chopped with two chops of the Kwong Hing Cheong: and that it betokened an intimate knowledge of, and interested anxiety in, the affairs of the Cheong Loong, and further, that as there are no personal pronouns in Chinese, it is just as easy to use the plural pronouns throughout instead of the singular; therefore for these reasons it was contended that it was a letter written by a partner in the Cheong Loong, and that that partner was not the writer Wong Hiu Tung alone, but the Kwong Hing Cheong firm itself. This argument is forced to omit the last sentence about the writer being involved by this "miserable person," which it was admitted was personal to the writer. It was suggested that it was a personal postscript.
On the other side it was contended the letter was what it appeared to be, a letter written in the first person singular throughout; that there was a satisfactory explanation given to the interest taken in the Cheong Loong by the writer: and that the expressions "respectable firm" and "your firm" are not the terms which a Chinaman would use in writing to a firm of which he himself was a partner. On this last point there is, as I understand, no doubt whatever: and it is rather curiously corroborated by what took place on the argument before us.
It was pointed out by Counsel for defendants that if it was a personal letter of Wong Hiu Tung it would have concluded "Your humble younger brother.” The Court translator was in Court and explained to us that the characters translated "Yours humbly" were in fact "Your humble younger brother." Speaking for myself after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that it was a personal letter of Wong Hiu Tung's, and that it was not written by him either as a partner, or on behalf of the Kwong Hing Cheong as partner, in the Cheong Loong, and that this is not the proper inference to be drawn from it. But I am clear that if this letter had stood alone, and if the jury had come to the opposite conclusion, their verdict could not have been set aside.
But it must be taken with other circumstances, and a material circumstance is what Mok Kun himself thought of it. He got hold of it on 11th February: he was looking for written proof: he had got hold of this letter, by somewhat disreputable means, before the letter of 21st February was written by defendants to the Consul-General, and yet it did not strike him then that it amounted to that clear proof of partnership which we are now asked to regard it. He did not go triumphantly to Mr. Schluter and say, I have found that written proof which we have been seeking for, proof that all the partners of the Kwong Hing Cheong were partners in the Cheong Loong. Mr. Schluter's letter
415
12
endeavoured to get the money out of them. How a man
can turn a belief into a fact in this way, and how reasonable men can accept his story passes my understanding. If this were once admitted to be reasonable, proof of partnership instead of being a very difficult matter would be surprisingly simple. And again the test must be applied, if Mok Kun knew so much and so confidently, why did he not tell Mr. Schluter?
This part of the case may be summed up thus: If he knew definitely that these 3 inen were partners in the Cheong Loong, his action was consistent, and perfectly natural: But the argument inverts the reasoning process; thus because his action would have been consistent with the knowledge had he possessed it, therefore because he so acted he had got the knowledge. The argument lacks what the old logicians called the "distributive middle"; you cannot establish the existence of facts because you act as you would have acted land the facts existed.
There is therefore in my opinion absolutely no founda- tion for the suggestion that Mok Kun had any knowledge or reliable information as to these 3 men being partners in the Cheong Loong, and that his statement that he told Mr. Schluter in January, before the first letter was written, that these 3 were partners and not merely Leung Lai Sang is part of the fiction.
I now come to the letter (Exhibit 2) admittedly written by Wong Hiu Tung on 27th January 1907 to Cheong Loong immediately after Woo Yiu Nam had absconded. It was argued that it was chopped with two chops of the Kwong Hing Cheong: and that it' betokened an intimate knowledge of, and interested anxiety in, the affairs of the Cheong Loong, and further, that as there are no personal pronouns in Chinese, it is just as easy to use the plural pronouns through- out instead of the singular; therefore for these reasons it was contended that it was a letter written by a partner in the Cheong Loong, and that that partner was not the writer Woung Hiu Tung alone, but the Kwong Hing Cheong firm itself. This argument is forced to omit the last sentence about the writer being involved by this "miserable person,'
" which it was admitted was personal to the writer. It was suggested that it was a personal postscript.
On the other side it was contended the letter was what it appeared to be, a letter written in the first person singular throughout; that there was a satisfactory explana- tion given to the interest taken in the Cheong Loong by the writer: and that the expressions "respectable firin and "your firm' are not the terms which a Chinaman would use in writing to a firm of which he himself was a partner. On this last point there is as I understand no doubt what- ever: and it is rather curiously corroborated by what took place on the argument before us.
It was pointed out by Counsel for defendants that if it was a personal letter of Wong Hin Tung it would have concluded "Your humble younger brother.” The Court translator was in Court and explained to us that the characters trauslated "Yours bumbly" were in fact "Your humble younger brother." Speaking for myself after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that it was a personal letter of Wong Hiu Tang's, and that it was not written by him either as a partner, or on behalf of the Kwong Hing Cheong as partuer, in the Cheong Loong, and that this is not the proper inference to be drawn from it. But I am clear that if this letter had stood alone, and if the jury had come to the opposite conclusion, their verdict could not have been set aside.
But it must be taken with other circumstances, and a material circumstance is what Mok Kun himself thought of it. He got hold of it on 11th February: he was looking for written proof: he had got hold of this letter, by somewhat disreputable means, before the letter of 21st February was written by defendants to the Consul-General, and yet it did not strike him then that it amounted to that clear proof of partnership which we are are now asked to regard it. He did not go triumphantly to Mr. Schluter and say, I have found that written proof which we have been seeking for, proof that all the partners of the Kwong Hing Cheong were partners in the Cheong Loong. Mr. Schluter's letter
415
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.