Extract from "Hong Kong Daily Press" dated 28th March, 1928.
63
MACAO OPIUM
MONOPOLY.
CASE AGAINST MR. LEE HYSAN.
INTRICATE LEGAL
ARGUMENTS.
TO TURN ON FOUR
WITNESSES.
The case in which Mr. Pedro Jose Lobo, of Macao, is suing Mr. Lee Hysan for alleged libel was con- tinued yesterday before the Chief Justice, Sir Henry Gollan, at the Supreme Court.
Mr. C. G. Alabaster, K.C., and Mr. H. G. Sheldon, instructed by Mr. F. H. Loseby, of Messrs. Lee and Russ, appear for the plain- tiff.
The defendant is represented by Mr. Eldon Potter, K.C., and Mr. F. C. Jenkin, instructed by Mr. D. H. Blake, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist.
The first witness called yesterday morning was the official court trans- lator, Mr. Chan Kwok Ying. He was shown the original letter from Fung Cheong to the defendant con- taining the alleged libel, and said that certain words in brackets did not appear in the original,
Questioned as to the sound "Tuk Po," witness said the characters were difficult to write because the sound might mean different things.
Commenting on the difficulty of writing sounds in Chinese the Chief Justice remarked that cross-word puzzles were nothing to it."
"
Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkin, witness admitted that it was very difficult to make translations of Chinese which everyone in a position to judge would accept as correct. Dialect had an important bearing.
The next witness called for the plaintiff was Dr. Carlos Mendes Leitao, a barrister of Portugal prac tising in Macao.
Witness deposed to copies of the petition.
receiving One was
|
The Defence: “No Case To Answer."
Mr. Potter submitted that he had no case to answer, remarking that the defence did not deny the pub- lication and the sending of the alleged libel. He contended that the mere fact that the alleged libel had been published and sent out, did not necessarily infer that it had been read or understood. He also
argued that the publication was privileged.
addressed to himself and two others} to lawyers who were former resid- ents of Macao. He did not forward the two copies to the recipients named on them because he did not think that he was under any obligation to do so; because he thought the petition was an attack on the Macao Government, and be cause he considered that the letter included in the petition (the letter which forms the subject of the present proceedings) was libellous.
Questioned as to the passage in the letter complained of, the witnessed that they had been read and said he understood it to mean that if they could not understand Eng- understood by the recipients. Even
his Government had been dis- land, they would have had it trans- honest and had done something lated for them. which was not legal in connection with the opium monopoly.
He understood the reference to "Tuk Po" to mean that, of the
monopoly, $70,000 had been handed sum of money paid to obtain the
through Ah Nok to the wife of the Governor of Macao.
The Chief Justice, before allowing Mr. Sheldon to proceed further. suggested that this point should be cleared up, as this was the first time such a suggestion has been made.
Mr. Sheldon: Yes, because this witness is the first one who can read Chinese.
Mr. Sheldon maintained that this evidence had a bearing on the ques- tion of malice. The defence of privilege had been raised, but if a person took advantage of રી privileged occasion to gratify his anger or malice, the protection of
privilege would therefore
46
be
lost.
Mr. Sheldon then asked witness what he understood by the refer-
"the ence to
sum of $50,000 through Lo Bo to Tsoi Teng (Chi- nese character sound: you can find out the meaning of it and who he is)."
Witness replied that he under- stood, from that, that the sum of $50,000 had been handed to the Colonial Treasurer or someone in the Treasury through Lobo.
As regards Mr. Lobo what, in your opinion, was the meaning of this letter -Mr. Lobo, being em- ployed therein, had been more or less conniving with the Company in obtaining the monopoly.
At the afternoon sessions, Mr. Alabaster dealt with the matter of malace and privilege. His conten- tion was that if the petitions had been sent out, it necessarily follow-
Mr. Alabaster said that, in the defence, it had been admitted that the defendant had sent and caused the publication of the alleged libel to two persons in Hong Kong and fourteen in Macao.
tention to publish by the words in which he declared (in the covering letter addressed to the lawyers in Macao) that he desired to publish his petition widely. Mr. Alabaster also submitted that the inter- polations in the translated docu- ment implied malice: the document was not allowed to speak for itself.
The defendant had shown his in-
The Chief Justice pointed out that the suggestion was that the Macao Government, having decided to act in accordance with the Geneva Conference, and having decided on a certain policy, nevertheless went back on it and allowed the old custom of opium farming to be i carried on. If certain facts had come to the attention of a person interested in the trade, would not representations made by him (leav ing malice out of the question) addressed to the proper authority be privileged ?
Mr. Alabaster: It might be privileged if communications were made to the Government, but it cannot be a privileged communica- tion which communicates something irrelevant.
看看
"
The remainder of the sitting was devoted to intricate legal arguments on the questions of privilege," publication" and whether pub- lication was complete without proof that the recipients attached the meaning to the words which the plaintiff alleged was implied.
""
On a review of the evidence call- ed the Chief Justice assented to Mr. Potter's submission that he had The case for the plaintiff was closed before the tiffin adjourning all but four of the persons to been definitely successful in exclud-
ment.
whom the alleged libel had been published from the scope of the trial. To the four remaining cases the defence to-day will be confined.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.