1912-07-26 — Page 3

Page

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, 25th July,

IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOPERTI (PUINNE Judas).

THE CLAIM BY A NURSE..

His Lordship said he thought the ques tions might arise out of something which the witness had said yesterday.

Mr. Harris contended that the other side were bound by their pleadings.

note of Mr. His Lordship made a Harris' objection.

Witness stated that in her previous situations she had worn both uniform

THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS,

more for her on account of ber using the same cabin. Mrs. Looker slept on the Bola and witness in the lower bank.

No.

Mrs. Looker did not care for the fan

That was one of the reasons why the arrangement was made-No, it was because the sofa, was bigger.

Was not one of the reasons for mak- and mufti, but she had refused to wearing that change that Mrs. Locker would not get so much of the fant-I don't uniform when Mrs. Looker asked her.

His Lordship-Was this before the en- know.

Witness-Yes.

The hearing of, the action at the instance of Miss Emma S. Hamilton against Mr. H. W. Locker for 81,000, damages for wrongful dismissal, was con-gagement i tinued before his Lordship and a special jury consisting of Messrs. F. Maitland, Mr. A. R. Lowe, and L. Berindoague. Header Harris, of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, appeared"for plaintiff. Mr. Looker appearing in person.

His Lordship-And before the parties-No. had agreed 7

Witness-Yes.

as

Did you tell Mrs. Looker that the fan could not be turned on too full for you?

Did you maintain your illness was caused by Mrs. Looker turning the fan on you -Yes.

|

FRIDAY, JULY 2ðîñ, 1918. Witness did not suggest that when Mr. Looker opened two of hor letters that it was done with any improper motivo. She next detailed the occasions on which she had to pay her own tram fare. It was not a fact that on her arrival in Hong- kong Mrs. Looker offered her a nurse's ticket and that she refused it, saying that she preferred to pay for her own ticket. She did not refuse a nurse's ticket be- cause she thought it derogatory, The eccasions où which she paid her own fare were not occasions when she went out on her own pleasure: she was in charge of the child. She had nover asked to be repaid these fares. With reference to the drilling, Mrs. Looker did not ask her to undertake it, but she did so vuluntarily. She was offered remuneration but refased to accept it.

Witness added that when the Norland referred to any nurse they did so

Nurse Jane" or as the name might be, and that she was referred to as Nurse You told in yesterday that you did Bophio. Nurses were referred to in that little internally owing to the chill. Her a good memory?—Yes. not tell Mrs. Lanker that as soon as you manner until they became badge nurses.

Mr. Looker resumed his cross-examina. tion of the plaintif

You told us yesterday that you have

Saying one thing one day, and con.

beard of her application you were deter. When Mrs. Looket engaged her she said hy her passion for eating tropical fruits tradicting it the next--No.

mined she should take yon. Yun adhere In that?--Yes.

Did you tell her that you told the Norland Institute that it was

use

their putting the application before other nurses because you were deter mined to have it. Did you tell her that or not?--No.

You told us yesterday that you always received excellent testimonials 1--Yes.

You told us yesterday that it was not isual for employers to write in the festimonial book after temporary.engage- ments 1-No. 1 raid that was not always the case.

A nuras could ask for a testimonial or she need not.

There is no necessity to testimonial after mt?-No.

Was it not one of the regulations of

get

#

she desired to call her Nurse Sophie, but witness told her she refused to be called that. She wished to be called Miss Hamilton, but as a compromise it was arranged that she should be called-nurec or nursie by the child.

Do you say that Mrs. Looker, against your wishes, called you "Pongo"-Yes I put it to you that is untrue?-It is quite true,

I put it to you that the reason Mrs. Looker called you "Pongo" was because she used to refer to you to the child as nurse nod to other people as Miss Hamilton and you said you did not like that. Would she please call you

Pongo -No.

I put it to you that she rarely address-

on two following days.

Did you say the next time he came

:

COMPANY LAW: EVIDENCE OF MISREPRESENTATION.

IN DE THE DJAMB¡ (SUMATRA) Rubsea ESTATES (LIMITED).

3

HUGE IRRIGATION PROJECT IN INDIA.

The Beeratary of State has accorded his sanction to a project for the con- struction of the Nira right bank canal in the Sholapur district of the Bombay a protcetive irrigation Presidency as Mr. Justice Warrington in the Chan-work. The total cost of the scheme is cery Division of the High Court of estimated at Rs. 257,72,000. This greatly Justice on the 26th ult. heard a motion exceeds the cost of any protective work on behalf of Mr. Robert James White hitherto sanctioned, but the sebome will that the register of members of the about 190,000 acres in a district which, provide water to a large additional area

Djambi (Sumatra) Rubber Estates above almost all others in Indio, standa (Limited) oight be rectified by removing in need of protection from drought and his name therefrom as the bolder of famine. It was with reference to this 1,044 shares on the ground of misrepre- district that the Irrigation Commission sentations in the prospectus of the com-expressed the opinion that, if an irrigai- ordered to pay him the sum of £625, the state of Rs. 25 per acre, a capital pany, and that the company might be ed area would yield a net return to the amount paid by him in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 221 per acro might be shares with interest thereon at 5 per cent, contemplated on the construction of an

From the per annum.

irrigation work.

present scheine the estimated revenue works out

Mr. Cave, R.C., and Mr. Nowbolt, on behalf of the applicunt, tendered as evi- dence of the misrepresentations in the prospectus the report of Mr. James Melmore Halliday, who had been in structed by the company to inspect and report upon the Djambi Estates. They submitted that the truth of the statements contained in that report was admitted by the directors in a report made by

them to the shareholders.

Mr. Gore Browne, K.C., and Mr. Ralt, for the company, abjected that this re- port could not be usad ng evidence against the company, and referred to In re

(22 Ch.D., 503).

to see you that there was nothing the Provident Gold Mining Company matter with you at all?-I did not say that nothing was wrong with me.

Witness agreed that it was an accident. that Mrs. Looker turned the fan on her. She admitted that she was deranged a

illnasa was not caused nor aggravated

in great quantity. Mrs. Looker had

I put it to you that you told Dr. warned her about eating fruit, but wit-Harston, who came to see you, what was ness did not reply to her that it was no the matter with you, and the next day use trying to reform her. She refused you said there was nothing wrong with to take the medicine which Mrs. Looker you at all!-He did not come to see me asked her to take. Mrs. Looker brought her some tabloids and when she reclined to take them Mrs. Looker said, "If you don't take them I will punish you by not allowing you to go ashore at Penang. Witness asked her not to do that as she so much wanted to see Penang, and added that if she were not better sho would buke then the next day.

Witness was then questioned as to two provious engagements in which she had not got testimonials. One was in Ger-

manent engagement but fell ill was i for a month there and had to leave on medical advice. The people bad been so kind to her that she could not trouble them further by asking for a testimonial, especially when she had not been able to do any work for them. The other occasion was when she travel led with a Mexican lady, but, on arrival at New York she was advised by a friend of the Norland not to proceed to Mexico. The lady had tried to stab her twice. She did not get a testimonial from the gentleman.

You told us yesterday you were per- fectly strong and had no nerves 7---I said I was not suffering from nerves, but I had nerves in the throat and the eyes.

Did you assure Mrs. Looker before sail ing in London, that you were perfectly

JUDGMENT.

at Rs. 4.39 por acro and the proposed capital outlay is only Rs. 135.6 por acre. The proposed canal will offtako from the Nira river at the southern end of the Vir woir, from the northern ond of which an existing canal. takes off and irrigates portions of the Poona district on the left bank of the river. In connec tion with this left bank canal a storage reservoir, known as Lake Whiting, was constructed on the Yelwandi river, & tributary of the Nira. Under the pre- sent project the capacity of this reservoir will be increased from 5,300 to 24,300 million cubie lett. The new canal on the right bank will have a total length of 100 miles with a head capacity of 1,500- cu. sees. It will deliver water to four branch canals and to sixty-three distribu- Mr. Justice Warrington, in the course

tories. For miles of its length it will of his judgment, said that in affect this

run through the Phaltan state in which was an action for rescission of the con- it will command a gross area of 7,500 tract to take the shares on the ground of acres. The capacity of the existing left. misrepresentation. In such a case the bank canal will be increased in order onus was on the applicant to make out that it may utilise a share of the addi the facts upon which he relied-namely, tional supply to be stored in Lake Whit not true. In support of that allegation either bank a gross area of 874,500 acres, that statements in the prospectus were. ing. The two canals will command on

ovidence at all; the only evidence tender-posed to irrigate annually 231,000 acres, ed of untruths in the prospectus was con- including an arca of 40,000 already tained in the report made by Halliday, irrigated by the existing canal. The net. who was employed by the directors of the annual revenue to be derived from the company to report on the property in now work is estimated at Rs. 9,29,300, question. Objection was taken to the representing a return of 2.6 per cont. admissibility of Halliday's report as on the capital outlay. The work will evidence of the statements contained in probably take about eleven years to com- it, and reliance was placed on the decision plete. This is by far the most important in In re Dovala Provident Gold Ming of the many protective schemes that have Company (supra).

been sanctioned since the Irrigation Com- mission submitted its report in 1903.

a temporary engage- cd you da "Podgo "-Almost invariably many, where she had gone to fill a per- strong and had nothing the matter with the applicant had tendered no sworner 1,366 square miles, of which it is pro-

whenever alie addressed me anless when people were present.

You say I referred to you as "Pongo" the Norland Institute that the testimonial book should be written in after an en---Only once to my face. gagement is terminated, either temporary or permanent 1-I think it is mentioned as one of the regulations.

And that occasion was in the bedroom?

་་ --Yes..

The child was there and Mrs. Looker was there--I think that is correct.

When you accepted the engagement

I was referred to, to decide some little with me did you consider you were work. ing in connection with the Norland In-point whether it was advisable to take a chair or walk -I don't remember it. 1 said to you "Pongo; you are wrung-o-I don't remember.

stitute or not?-I was working in connec tion with the Norland.

You told Mrs. Looker on one occasion that you had nothing to do with the Nor- land? No.

You deny that, 7-Yes.

You confirmed that statement to me on one occasion. Do you deny that --Yes.

If you were working in connection with

the Norland was it very important that. you should get a testimonial at the end of the year or when the engagement wELA terminated 1--No. At the end of every

I put it to you that is what did hap pen-I know I answered "Miss Hamil- ton, please,"

Certainly you did. That is one of your complaints against met- object to being called Pongo."

Witness was then cross-examined with reference to getting days off in London before sailing tʊ purchase clothing, and said that 31rs. Looker took her round in a motor car to buy hats because she ob-

She

Witness was then examined as to her She denied that ability in drawing, drawing formed part of her course at the Norland, and when she got a picture

to draw she did not trace it What wal referred to was perhaps a book with needle. That was for swing. cards to be pricked through with a

During your period of service did you comply with Mrs. Looker's desires 1-Yes. How do you account for the constant

yout-Yes.

And were you perfectly well and had nothing the matter with you all the time wore in Hongkong-I was well you except when Di, Harston came to see me. Were you not at one time suffering strongly from nerves I don't know whether you would call it nerves. I was suffering from loss of sleep and worry.

Did you not say that a person suffering from nerves was not fit to have the care of the child as it must have a reactionary

The matter there tendered in evidence was the statement made by the chairman holders, and Mr. Justice Try in rejecting of the company at a mecting of the share- it said:It is the case of an agent

INTIMATIONS

effect on the child ?--I meant bysterical maling & report to his own principal Chs. J.

nerves; hysteria.

.

Witness denied that her conduct at a denied that her conduct was so rude that launch party was rude or insolent. She

fortable and that a dead silence followed, it made everybody on the launch uncom

I put it to you that when you discover eat the child was eating a sandwich she was sitting on her aunt's knee 1. Yes,

You said: "What are you eating,

and in my view, when an agent is mak ing a confidential report to his principal the report is not admissible evidence in learned Judge went on to say that it was Then the favour of a third party."

said that the applicant was not a third party, but was a member of the company, and in that view the chairman was his agent and was making the report to him It does not as one of his principals. appear to me that there is either prin- ciple or authority which justifies the use of a statement made by the common agent

Chs. J. Gaupp

& Co..

ALEXANDRA BUILDINGS,

CHATER ROAD,

year, yes. It is not necessary to get a neted to those. she was wearing. Ques friction that existed 1-I cannot account June, sandwiches? I told you not to cat of two principals as evidence on behalf of Always have on hand a very large complete

testimonial in a temporary engagement, but it is in a permanent engagement.

How do you distinguish between a per- nauent and temporary engagement -A Temporary engagement in my case would probably be taking the place of somebody

who was absent,

How do you distinguish between them As a general rate?-I can not answer in any other way except that,

Witness

was then examined

sandwiches "I did not say it is that

ELE

to

vay.

tioned on the subject of the agreement she denied that she had ever said the for it. agreement was worthless or that she would leave whenever she pleased. She the testimonial which Mr. Looker had did not say that she could go home any written in her book. She wished that time as she was quite independent. She testimonial, even though it stated the did not tell people that she was going reason for her dismissal was rudeness, home to take a house in Edinburgh and because it was the only thing she could Her cousin saw. Mr. take in children. Neither did she tell get from him. Mrs. Looker that that was her last en- Looker and asked him for a testimonial. Mr. Looker then quoted No. 12 of the gagement as a nurse. As a matter of She did not tell cr cousin that Norland regulations, which stated: "fact she had another engagement as nurse | is

having testimonials "The employer is asked to write a

which was made before she left London which were all good as people might testimonial in the nurse's book on the

Her cousin Were you asked to. mend anything in think they were fictitious. completion of each year's work and also

Hongkong!-Yes.

told her that Mr. Looker said he when the nurse leaves her situation."

not write would

1 any testimonial You know that rule? Did you always get

until Miss Hamiltán had thought it over. a testimonial when you left a situation?

She was content to have it in her book She had not expressed any desire through her solicitor that he should alter it.

Mr. Looker said he would read a letter written by her solicitor to him.

What, with the exception of the child's clothing -Mrs. Looker's stockings,

Anything else?—Yes, household linen. It is not true that in London Mrs. Looker said that as she was paying you such a large salary she could not keep a maid amab-No.

Part of the régime at the Norland was that they attached great importance to order, patience and neatness Did you dell Mrs. Looker during your service that you were neror orderly and that you I put it to you that you said, "I am were always aunoyed to see Mrs. Looker so orderly and noat-No.

Did you tell her you were never able to keep things tidy and always got an noyed because she had tidy and orderly habits! Did you tell her that ?-No. 1 am not absolutely' tidy.

Didn't you always maintain that your knowledge of the care and management

WBs superior to

Mrs.

of the child Looker's No.

Didn't you constantly throughout your period of service tell Mrs. Looker that her desires were not right and that yours ought to be followed regarding the child'

-No.

not going to do any of Mr. Looker's mending "She put that question to me and I said I would not do any mending

Do you say she asked you to do my mending ?--Yrs. She asked me in Lon-

don.

I put it to you that she told you in London you would not be asked to do my mending or any household mending, but that it would probably be done by a wash amah ?-No, after I had refused to do it she said she would try to make some arrangements.

Witness then stated that she massaged Mre. Looker in Paris because she had Did you not constantly maintain that chill. It was not because she was afraid breause you were a trained nurse you if Mrs. Looker did not get well the trip The knew better than she did and that she to the East would fall through. ought to defer to what you said?-No. massaging was not stopped because of her dictatorial manner in addressing Did you not constantly maintain that you were older than she was and there. Mr. Looker on deck in such style, "If fore she ought to accept what you said you don't go and lie down I won't mas sage you." She did not decline, to sew Mrs. Looker's cuff on deck one day, but she told her if she had any sewing to be done

No.

Did you not tell me later that you were an experienced trained nurse and that what you said ought to be carried

birt-No.

You deny that 1-Yes. Mr. Harris-My friend is going into particulars of which he has not given notice.

There is no allegation of my client saying she was older than Mra. Looker. It may be an allegation of rude- Jess, but I am not going into it.

His Lordship-It may be taken as a compliment.

Mr. Harris-Yes, it may be. fore I am not going into it.

There-

was no

use

Mr. Harris said that this was a private letter written by Mr. Wilkinson to Mr. Looker, and as a matter of etiquette it should not be read in Court.

Mr. Looker expressed surprise at such an objection.

His Lordship asked if the letter were written in pursuance of Mr. Wilkinson's professional duty.

Mr. Harris-No, Mr. Wilkinson's letter was marked "private."

Mr. Looker-I marked my letter to Mr. Wilkinson "private," but I communi cated with him as a solicitor.

I put it to you that the child said her mother gave her the sandwich -Whether the child or her aunt said that I cannot remember

You said to her, "You have no business to eat it: come here at once"?—No.

Witness was questioned as to her ideas on the feading of the child, and denied that she had asserted that the nurse was the sole person to be referred to in the matter of the child's food. She denied that she had said to the child on one occasion after a launch party, "Come away and get some syrup of figs after all the messes your mother has given you." She did not say in reference to another launch party that if her mother gave the child anything to eat she (witness) would throw it away.

Do you suggest that these are imagin ings or deliberate fabrications on the part of Mrs. Looker in order to win her case I don't know how Mrs. Locker got

hold of them.

Witness was further cross-examined as to the feeding of the child and denied that she gave it certain foods that it did

i

His

one of the principals against the other." Every word of that judgment applied to the report of Halliday. It was a con- fidential report made by the agent to the evidence of the truth of the facts con- company, and by itself it was not tained in it in litigation between the corporation and a third party. Lordship said that he was unwilling to 111 that admit the objection merely ground because it had been said that Halliday's report was referred to and adopted by the company in a report made by them to the shareholders, and it occurred to him that the report to the shareholders might contain an admission might of the truth of the report and so be admissible. Accordingly he had allow ed the report of the directors to be read

stook of

SCIENTIFIC AND

SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS

(Transits, Levels, Piezo Tables, Prismatic and Sight Compasses, Hand Levels, A., kt.)

DRAWING

aluo

INSTRUMENTS

AND MATERIAL

Scalon, Inks, &c., ko.)

W. F. STANLEY & Co., LTD.,

LONDON.

te noe if it contained any such admission. (T Squares, Pot Squares, Straight Migos. In his Lordship's opinion it did not. All that the directors report said was that Halliday was a planter of experience and AGENTA FG2— that he considered the property a valu- able one, and that it would be a great pity if the directors let such a property go; the directors then said that the matter one for the consideration of the was sider whether it was desirable to wind shareholders, and invited them to con up the company or to week to acquire the was nothing more than a statement that properties it was formed to work. That the directors had received Halliday's re- port, and it did not contain any admis- sion by the directors on behalf of the company that the statements in that re

port were true.

It was incumbent upon the applicant to prove his case, and it was important that evidence in support of his case should be given upon oath and that the witnesses should be submitted for cross-examina tion. The motion must be refused, with

not like, or that she told Mrs. Looker she It was not truc should not interfete. that the child was not well all the time she was under her care. She did not beg Mrs. Looker many times to let her Mr. Harris said he objected to the go. She never wished to go until the costs.

Inst day. Witness added that in her con principle.

versations with Mr. Looker she was told by him, "Not to forget that he was a "lawyer," and to be careful of what she aid. Asked whether it was her view that

Bis Lordship said he did not see any legal objection.

WIDOW AND THE WAR OFFICE.

Mr. Harris said it was merely a que

The War Office has had to confess defeat- Dartmoor in an engagement with a tion of etiquette. His friend had asked

her, witness replied that that was not her dummy village, with dummy villagers, on him not to mention the names of his the child should only be taken out with widow. The Department recently built a friends in Court, and now be proposedew. It was quite true that on the day Oxhead Tor, for the howitzers to fire at to read private letters.

looking Okehampton. Mrs. Endicott, the Mr.. Looker said if he thought he was she left Mrs. Looker spent two hours try from the Artillery Camp on the hill over- receiving private letters which he could ing to induce her to remain. It was not tenant of Ockment Farm, who was within two hours begging to be allowed to stay would remove to another dwelling during the bombardment. She firmly declined to she would prefer to do it in her cabin, Bot read in support of his case he would true that she detained Mrs. Looker for the danger zone, was politely asked if she She was not aware that they took a motor not have accepted them.

This concluded the cross-examination.

budge. She has continued her business car in Colombo and went to Mount

It was decided to resume the hearing during gun-fire in previous years, and Lavina in order to show her the sights,

this afternoon and to-morrow and Mon- maintained that she ought to be allowed ed that the easiest way out of the diffi- She was sure Mrs. Looker used the words

the case in chambers during the after calty was to provide her with a shell- to her, when she declined to take medecine

day if necessary. An attempt to settle to do so this year. The authorities decid- proof structure in which she and her two which Mrs. Looker wished her to take,

children can take refuge when the firing "To punish you I will not allow you

noon failed.

is in her direction. It is constructed of rocks and plaster, and is lined with sheets A California paper bails Mr. Taft as of iron, and has involved considerable ex-

The farm labourers go to work. the politest man in America," because pense.

ceraible by the troops when they drive the when he rises in 2 tramcar to give up bis in red jackets, so as to be easily dis- cattic along the ridges out of harm's way.

His Lordship said there was no legal objection to the letter,

Mr. Looker quoted from the letter and asked if she had requested his testimonial to be altered.

Witness replied that she did not know to go ashore at Penang." She travelled what was in that letter. from London in the same cabin with Have you asked that my testimonial be Mrs. Looker and the child. Her agree-alteredt-Unwillingly, at the request of ment provided for a second class passage.

various ladies in the Colony, but under She did not know that they had to pay stipulations.

seat there is room for four ladies

E. R. WATTS & SON, LTD.,

LONDON.

45'

*

WE ELIMINATE

BY USING THE LATEST AND MOST SCIENTIFIC APPLIANCES

it

GUESSWORK

in testing the sight for glasses. Your eyesight is the most precious of your senses and you cannot afford to jeapordize by using incorrect lenses or ill-atting frames. We are competent professionally

and we have the equipment to satialy ourselves and to satisfy YOU what best for your eyes. If a physician is needed wo will advise you. Lazimn ground and polished on the precaíses.

•& Co

LARK

SCIENTIFIC OPTIERTE

WORK BLOGS, CHATER RD.

HONGKONG

15

75