AFTERNOON HEARING.
Mr. Lee Hysan was further cross-examined by Mr. Alabaster at the afternoon session. He said that after the enquiry held by the Macao Government on September 22nd (as a result of defendant's petition), he had not proceeded any further in the matter neither had he gained further knowledge.
Mr. Alabaster asked witness whe- ther or not he had made a state- ment at the enquiry that he was not convinced of the truth of the
con-
report about the distribution of the two amounts mentioned in the let- ter containing the alleged libel. Witness replied that he did make such a statement. He was vinced that it was untrue for the reason that the sum mentioned was too small to be the security as he had been paying over 7 lakhs for the monopoly he held.
Questioned as to why he retained sixteen lawyers in Macao, witness said that that had been his prac- tice for the last eight years.
Mr. Lee Hysan said that it was useful to have them. They all come to ask for it," he added. These legal practitioners were receiving their retainers from the Yue Sing Co. and not from him personally.
60
reason
Mr. Alabaster : Is the you give the retainers that, if all the lawyers are acting for you, it is difficult for other people to have legal trouble with you?
Defendant: No, there are stil! others available.
you were
Mr. Alabaster : The fact that you were not consulted when the Government took over the mono- poly made you angry; disappointed, 1 suppose -- Yes, I was disappointed, because I still had a stock of opium, and I con- sider that I should have been con- sulted, and given longer notice in order to get rid of it.
Mr. Alabaster then pointed out that defendant's former manager Mr. Lu Kin But was consulted by the Macao Government about the new scheme. Mr. Lee replied that he was also annoyed with Mr. Lu on the ground that being his manager, he had failed to report the consultation to him.
In the course of further replies, witness said that he was not de-
no
Summing up the case for the de- fence, Mr. Potter said that as to Hong Kong, there was literally publication at all. The copy to the
Portuguese Consul General was given at the special request of the Consul, who wanted The handing over of a privileged it for purposes of the enquiry. document to a member of a Com- mission was privileged, and that was sufficient protection to the de- fendant. The copy given to Cheung Choi was for the purpose of trans- lation, and was covered by pre- cedents quoted earlier in the case.
On the question of malice, Mr. Potter said that the defendant was convinced that Yau Seng Company had made the statement that they had paid $120,000 for he concession, but the defendant was not satisfied that the Government had granted the monopoly for that amount. This allegation was of interest to the Macao Government, and de- fendant had therefore brought the matter to its notice, so that an en- quiry might be made. In the de- fendant's handling of the transla- tion there was no sinister motive and no evidence of malice.
Mr. Sheldon, made the closing address on behalf of the plaintiff. He said that although Mr. Lee Hysan had said he had no wish to injure Mr. Lobo, there was evidence of an intense desire to
ruin the head of the Opium Ad- minstration. "The Opium king of Macao had lost his Crown," said Mr. Sheldon, "and Mr. Lobo had stepped into his shoes." In view of this could it be believed that Mr. Lee Hysan was not angry?
Mr. Sheldon criticised Mr. Lee Hysan's practice of retaining so cal, and the court was entitled to many lawyers in Macao as fantasti-
draw an inference therefrom.
As to the letter which con- tained the alleged libel, Mr. Sheldon said that malice was shown in those interpolated words in brackets. If no malice was con- veyed, defendant could very well have inserted the original Chinese characters instead of romanizing them and adding the words in
brackets.
Mr. Sheldon said, in conclusion that it would have been most interesting to have had in the witness box the writer of that letter, Fung Cheong. This man was a most mysterious figure throughout the case and the defence should have produced him and given the Court an opportunity of testing the grounds Mr. Lee Hysan had for placing such reliance on the letter which he had used, counsel contended, to publish a most foul Ebel on Mr. Lobo.
On the question of damages, Mr. Sheldon said the Court was entitled
sirous of continuing the opium monopoly, as it was not profitable.
to take into consideration the de- fendant's conduct before and dur- Mr. Alabaster asked how witnessing the trial and he would point could have paid 25 per cent. on $3,000,000 capital to subscribers in the second term of his monopoly and on his own investment of $800,000, gained 25 per cent. if the business was not profitable. Wit- ness replied that it was not a profit of 25 per cent., but a repayment of capital not required and he had therefore returned it.
Witness was also asked how he could have voluntarily increased the monthly payment to the Macao Government
by $35,000, four months after the beginning of the second term of his monopoly, if he did not make very good profits. Mr. Lee said that sum was given in exchange for better facilities.
out that, although Mr. Lee Hysan Mr. Fung Cheong's letter the libel now said that he did not read into
upon Mr. Lobo which all the wit- nesses for the plaintiff said they theless-neither in his evidence nor! quite clearly read into it, he never- through his Counsel-had uttered a word of regret that he had been the means of circulating this foul and libellous allegation to such an ex- tent that it had now become com- mon talk in Macao.
In order that the addresses might be concluded, the Court sat until 5.25 p.m., and the Chief Justice intimated that he would deliver a written judgment.
67
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.