CO129-377 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [5] — Page 141

r

asked him to. Ilis Lordship would notice that that was the auswer he gave to a number of important questions. Plaintiff also told the Court with a serious face--Mr. Potter did not know whether in his innermost conscience he was serious-that Watkins and Howell were going to carry on the Hongkong Butchery for him and ou his behalf. He expected that Mr. Howell would continue to finance the business, and that he could travel to America or any other part of the world, come back after any lapse of time, and again walk into his own. Counsel woul say nothing more than it was not a reasonable position for the plaintiff to adopt. He would call a number of witness who would give eridonce as to the points which plaintiff had not proved at all, and he would Satisfy his Lordship that as a matter of fact Mr. Howell had nothing to do with the Hongkong Butchery Co. whatever. He had no share in it, nor had he ever had a share in it. It was utterly untrue for the defendant to allege that the sale of this business was a pretended sale, and, ja fact, the defendant retained for himself the whole or a large share of the business. The evidence adduced to prove that Mr. Howell was, at any rate, a part owner in the Hongkong Butchery Co., was payments made to Campbell, cheques cashed for Tsam Keo, a letter written to Johnson and a chit given to the Ice Co. So that Mr. Howell with his eyes open, apparently in March, 1910, provided the plaintiff with evidence to prove that he was the owner of the Hongkong Butchery Co. Mr. Howell seemed not only to have been reckless, but if the plain" tiff's contention was correct, absolutely fool- hardy, because he was cashing cheques for Team Kee oven up to the present day. So that if Mr. Howell was proved to be the owner of the Hong- kong Butchery Co. it could not be suggested that he was covering bis tracks: he had afforded the plaintiff all the evidence he was able to addduce in support of that absurd contention. Mr. Potter did not wish to weary the Court upon questions of fraud, although they wore, from his client's point of view, the most serious aspect of the case. Mr. Howell was a Govern- mont servant, and it was a serious matter that a man should enter Court and allege gross acts of fraud against him. And his Lordship must have been struck at the light-hearted way in which that fraud Tras alleged. Plaintiff seemed to imagine, because he was prepared to say, "I think I have been defrauded," that the case was proved. There was no proof before bis Lordship, not only of a fraudulent net, but of any not which was not transparently honest. Every allegation of frand broke down utterly when the plaintiff was submitted to the test of cross-examination. Mr. Howell and a number of witnesses would be called, who would give the Court a full and complete history of the case, and satisfy his Lordship that this claim was wholly unfounded. He would also satisfy him that there was not one shred of truth in these allegations of fraud, and submitted that the evidence he would call would entitle the de- fendant to judgment.

Evidence was then called, and the hearing adjourned.

137