1924-10-25 — Page 4

WINTER

1924-5

Hata Shirts

Ties

Sooks

Stockingy

Pyjamas Woollies Overcoats Dressing

Gowns

Spats Shoes

SPECIAL DISPLAY

of MEN'S WEAR

THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESE, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28TH, 1924

The superb collection of goods gathered together in our store and window displays "constitute an authorative indication of the 'trend of fashion for the coming season.

We cordially invite you to view our special display this week and request you to ask for any articles of which you may wish to make a closer inspection.

Mackintosh & Co., Ltd.

MEN'S WEAR SPECIALISTS Alexandra Building Des Voeux Road."

TAKE A PEG

от:

JOHN BEGG.

All the Royal Palaces supplied with this excellent Whisky for over Seventy-five years.

h

JOHN BEGG'S

SCOTCH WHISKY (BLUE CAP)

#.

DONNELLY & WHYTE,

TEL CENTRAL 696.

די

SOLE AGENTS.

GOERZ BOX CAMERAS

With Celebrated GOERZ-LENS.

Fine Finished-Good Appearance.

The ONLY CHEAP, CAMERA in the MARKET that can give SERVICE.

SPECIAL REDUCTION

TELEPHONE C. 3217:

ASK FOR

$8.90.

HALL, LAW & CO.,

30-32, DES VEUX ROAD C

LEISHER'S

Through the uniform high qualities and convenient attractive.put:ap

THE FLEISHER YARNS command the patronage of discriminating yarn users.

THE WING ON CO., LTD.,

HONGKONG.

YEE

SANG

FAT CO

SALE

NOW ON.

Everything at

Real

Rock Bottom Prices.

Come and See for Yourselves.

6"

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE CHINESE CLUB DERBY SWEEP.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DATA

HONGKONG

ECHO OF RECENT NOTOR SMASH.

EVIDENCE CHALLENGED EN APPEAL COURT

In the Supreme Court yesterday morus

Odell, and said that the story told by fr. H. Odell at the hearing was entirely different to the one he told Inspector, Grant at the time of the accident.

Application was made before the Full. Court (Bir Heary Gollan, Chief Justice,

In the Award the arbitrators and "that and a promise of a further sum should the award be in Chik Sung Ling's favour the exact date on which ticket No, 03068 and nothing if against him. The amount was in fact purchased seems to us to bo paid to him out of the proceeds of the a matter of comparatively little import- sweep prize was $1,100 though he signedance. With this beg to differ. The a receipt for $4,900. The money actually date upon which ticket No. 3060. Was paid to this witness was 1.60k It was bought is of extreme importance. For if DAILY PRESS."]

also proved at the hearing of the libel purchased on the 24th December, 1999, action that this witness was not an im- as alleged by Mrs. Chan and her witnesses day. Mr. H. 5. Fitzroy, on behalf of S-I have read with much interest portant official at the Bank as he had and found by the Special Jury in the libel the letter of Mr. Fung Mani Sui, the Hon. alleged, but a servant to Li Yung Chai, action (the evidenco was that all tickets the Connaught Garage Company sought. Secretary of the Chinese, Club, written the Manager of the Bank in Shanghai, in the book containing Nos. 03061 to leave to appeal against the decision of This same Yaen Shing Dat is now the 03070 were sold on or before the 24th Mr. Justice Dyer Ballin favour of Mr. in reply to my letter of the 18th instant.

proprietor of his own shop in Shanghai December, 192) Chik could not have pur The only object of Mr. Fung Man Sui's purchased out of his bribe. This also was chased the same ticket No. 03080 on the 4th or 5th January, 1994, and therefore letter is to attempt to justify the conduct proved in the libel action. of the Club in refusing to pay to the per- Evidence was given by Mrs. Chan and Mr. Ng Quinn could not have obtained son who has now been proved by a Court Henry Wei before the arbitrators that that ticket from him on March 2nd, 1923, of Law to have been the holder of the telegram was sent by Henry Wei at the in Shanghai. If he did not buy ticket winning ticket the value of the first prize. request of Mrs. Chan to Mr. Ng Quinn 3068 then what ticket did he buy? The He founded his arguments on the fact in the afternoon of the 1st March after evidence given on this point by two wit- that there is no legal or moral liability she knew that she was the owner of the cases called by Mrs. Chan was that Chik on the Club to pay. That there is no winning ticket and that she could not find purchased 03076, a triend of Chik's, a legal liability 1 admit; had there been. The arbitrators deal with this in the Shanghai man, purchased 03077, and one and Mr. A. E, J. Gompertz, Puisne the Club would have been sued long ago. Award as follows: Wo find as a fact of the witnesses himself called by Mrs. Judge).

Mr. "Fitzroy stressed the fact that as But as to there being no moral liability that this telegram was not sent off by Chan purchased 078 on the 4th January, join issue. The liability to pay is and Alt. Henry Wei on the instructions of the This evidence the arbitrators en

that he was following, the defendant's can only be for techment reasons that Defendant (Airs. Chan), in the afternoon tiroly roject. The ticket handed to Ng the time of the accident, Mr. Odell said

We find that the Quinn in Shanghai was 03078. are perfectly, well known to the Club's of the 1st March, 1923

That Chik and his nephew Chik You ear which suddenly stopped without Solicitors a moral one. The rightful Defendant did not tell him to send off owner of the winning ticket is therefore, this telegram and did not tell him to wire Chau told a deliberate lie at the arbitra-warning causing him to run into the to repeat the conclading words of my to lir. Ng at all. It is not for us to tion was clearly proved During the pro- original Tetter, "dependent entirely on speculate regarding the motives which the ceedings Chik produced telegrams which bank. The driver of the defendant com- the honour of the Members of the Com-sender bad in sending uns telegram: it had passed between himself and nephew pary's car at the time of the accident mittee of the Chinese Club,"

muy be as Mr. Alabaster suggested that and in cross-examination both stated that the sender thought that he himself had a there were no other telegrams and that said that he drove to the wide part of share in the ticket 03066 (this was denied the telegrams then before the arbitrators the rond (the road is 40 feet wide where by Henry Wei), or it may be that the were the only telegrams which had passed the accident occurred) in order to turn He saw the car some distance sender, knowing that the ticket 03006 had between them. Subsequently the cable been sold through Mr. Ng, assumed that office produced 4 other cables sent by round.

the nephew to Chik. On this falsehood behind and waited for him to pass and it was sold to a member of the family. There was not ne scrap of evidence to the Arbitrators after admitting that their felt a jolt. The stories told at the time evidence was false make this comment support this suggestion.

was almost identicall The telegram sent to Mr. Ng Quan at The Plaintiff might have been relantunt

Dealing with the facts of the case Mr Shanghai, c/o The Union Bank of China, to produce them for the obvious reason that at least one of them contained gratui informed him that his family in trong tour insults on a legal practitioner, in the Fitzroy pointed out that Mr. Odell had kong had won the first prize in the sweep Colony." Absolutely ignoring the fact said that he slowed down to ten mile rights and that the position of the Club with ticket 03060 and to return immed that if Chik and his nephew deliberately

ately. But evidence was given before

lied in one

Mr. Fung Man Si refers at length to the Arbitration to which the question of the ownership of the winning ticket was referred by agreement between the two claimants. He quotes from a letter writ ten on March 23rd, 1921, by the Club's Solicitors to the respective Solicitors for the claimants that the Club caly, agreed to such arbitration on the conditions:

(1) That the Club will not be bound to act according to the award of the

arbitrators.

(2) That the Club reserves all its

in law shall be deemed to be exactly Arbitrators by Mr. C.V. Soong, the stap in another particular they could do so per hour. when two cars came into calli

the same as if no such arbitration had

taken place.

ager of that Bank in Shanghai, that

now-a-days unless there was a heary mask.

sion the impact depended on the united In this letter I have not dealt with the velocity. The leading car was stopped did not receive the cable till the 2nd, Alarch and did not give the cable as de-alleged Memorandum put in by Chik in eided to Mr. Ng Quinn till after 12, the Arbitration. I trust that in future and yet when Mr. Odell's car hit the o'clock noon on March 2nd after the inter- correspondence I shall not be compelled bank the wheel was bad damaged, and view with Chik at which Chik handed Mr. to deal with it. If I am I can and shall the axle was beut. Axles did not bend Ng Quinn a ticket, which interview ac do so in no uncertain manner. cording to Chik's own evidence in the Arbitratiga took place between 11.50 am. and 12.10 p.m. the same day With re- gard to the evidence of Mr. 1. F. Soong, ine arbitrators dealt with it in this way "We cannot believe that Mr. Ng did not. know of the contents of this telegram

There has also been the libel action before he went to interview the Plaintiff wrote a letter to Messrs. Lo and Lo referring to the conditions made by the (Chik Sung Ling) on the morning of the Club that the Club will not be bound to before referred to tried by a Judge anch 2nd March" and again In our opinion act according to the Award of the azbi. Special Jury, in which netion. Mr. Na Mr. Ng also went to that interview with rators not to the Award and asking that Quina took upon himself the burden of the preconceived intention of getting

hold

So much for the main points in the Award behind which the Committee of the Chinese Club now shelter themselves, which was dated the 8th July, 1923.

We now cone to matters subsequent to the Award. On the 7th July, 1023, my

Their Lordships reserved their deci

sion.

The Club obviously meant to retain a free hand to pay whomsoever they liked independently of any arbitration. This is further exemplified by the Club's let ter of March 15th, 1923, in reply to an application by Messrs. Lyson and Hali, Solicitors for Chik Sung Ling, for an arbitration by two arbitrators and an umpire, part of which reads "The Club does not wish to take part in ady con- troversy your client may have with any person as to the ownership of the tie ket." It is only on being pressed by my firm on behalf of Mrs. Chan by a letter dated March 21st, 1993, that the Club's Solicitors reply as follows: We are instructed to inform you that the Club at the request of the parties is prepared to appoint such meinhers of the Club as are willing and as the parties shall agree to to act as arbitrators to inquire into the ownership of the licket No. 03066 as hetween the two present claimants" on the terms and conditions quoted above.

In paragraph 7 of his letter Mr. Fung Man Sui states that "it is true that the Club should not, and would not, be bound by the Award, but it would (and, here he quotes again from the above-mentioned letter from the Club's Solicitors) no March. doubt give the Award of the Arbitrators 1ts most weighty consideration when the Club comes to consider the question of payment afterthe Award has been made," and he goes on to say that as the Club saw no reason for differing from the co-owner of the winning ticket, one of theur" be given in case the ticket is afterwards as to the purchase by him of 03086. The witness Yuen Shing Dah in addition to clusion arrived at by the Arbitrators being a Member of the Committee of the produced. This letter was niso ignored,

the above gavo evidence that he was which, by agreement, was in fact to deter Chinese Club who was told by a member

With regard to the statement that in ticket No. 03068 handed by Chik to Mr. mine the rival claims, the oaly hocourable of the family that afternoon that Mrs. and possible attitude for the Club, to Chan was the owner of the winning tic view of the finding of the arbitrators the Ng Quinn in Shanghai..

Notwithstanding this new evidence and take up after the Award was to make the ket, that it was lost, and he was saked fudemnity was only taken ex abundante. tu report" the fact to the Committee of cautela I would point out that by the con payment to the claimant so found to be the true owner, and accordingly the full be Club. It must also be remembered ditions on the ticket an indemnity is re- the verdict of the Special Jury the. Com amount of the prize money was paid to that the telegram bereinbefore referred to quired even if the loss of the ticket is mittee of the Club as recently as last Mr. Chik on or about the 9th October, was despatched to Mr. Ng Quinn on the reported before the drawing, that in my Saturday held an extraordinary general firm's letter of the 21st July, 1993, the meeting of the Club and passed a re- same day. But do the Club now see no reason

The whole of this evidence was rejected Club was asked to obtain substantial solution authorizing the Committer to security before paying the money to Chik hold an inquiry into the allegation mado for differing from the conclusion arrived by the arbitrators for the sole reason, Sung Ling and the possibility of the miss by Chik against Mr. Ng Quinn," vir at by the Arhitrators" in the light of according to the Award, that the Assist

ant Clerk of the Chinese Club ou that ing ticket being found was pointed out, that be obtained the ticket by a trick. the following:-

afternoon between 130 and 400 telephon. and, that in the South China Morning This resolution can have only one object, of to Mr. Ng Quinn's resident and was lost of the 24th July, 1923, a notice ap namely, to again expel Mr. Ng. Quinn answered in a latly's voice (lady unknown peared to the effect, that the Club pro- from the Club, for this reason that as and anidentified by the witness or by any posed to pay the money to Chik Sung he had already been reinstated by the by the Club for this purpose was nees one) to the effect that the family dal nut Ling upon a guarantor being obtained to judgment of the Court no further step know who was the purchaser of the ticket guarantee the recipirat. No. 03068 and that Mr. Ne was in Shang: clear that the guaranice or indemnity, the one and only object-the intended

Under the above circumstances it is sary. The resolution can therefore have hai with the counterfoils. I should like:

of the ticket. 0066 which he must have the Committee will retain the prize proof. The jury found for Air. Ng Quinn recollected or discovered as baving been moneys in their hands pending au inquiry and awarded him $40,000 damages. I4 (Chik)." There was no evidence, what by them into the Award and pending the this action, in addition to the evidence the Arbitration, evidence of given at ever to support the finding of the arbi, hearing of the libel action. tratores that the telegram was received application to the Club itself.

On the 9th July my firm made a similar bribery wae proved against two of Chik's witnesses in the arbitration and evidenco by Jr. Ng Quinn before the interview.

At the hearing of the libel action there.

To neither of these letters did my firm as to the finding of the ticket was niso The Club will undoubtedly adduced. was the additional evidence of the inside receive a reply.

contend that this Libel Action was ex chit book of the Union Bank of China in

On the 21st July my firm again wrote to parte and that no witnesses were culled Shanghai which showed that so rahi wa the Hon. Secretary of the Club pointing by Chik Sung Ling. The only evidence received by that Bank on the 1st March out that the lost winning ticket may be r could have adduced would be the but that two were received on the 2nd found, having regard to the circumstances evidener called by him at the Arbitration

under which it was last and drawing the In the Libel Action it was proved that was also called at the Arbi Secretary's attention to Clause 4 of the two of these witnesses, Chik Yau Chau Evidence tration to prove that on the 1st March, Sweep Conditions providing for payment, and Yuen Shing Dab, were bribed, and 23, the day of the race, Airs. Chand only on substantial security being given, they were the only witnesses who in ad her family and others, not members of and auggesting that should they pay Chik, dition to Chik Sang Ling, gave evidence the family, knew that Airs. Chan was the substantial security for repayment should

1923,"

19-

·

"

On the 7th March, 1922, Mr. Sydney Ng Quinn on the morning after his reture from Shanghai tified the Hon. Secrs tary of the CH in writing that Mra Chan was the owner of ticket No. 03066 which was lost, and gave him the nates of each any every purchaser of a ticket: in the book Nea 93061 to 03070 and the

to publish the whole of the Award on this contemplated was a guarantee to replace pulsion of Mr. Ng Quinn. number of the ticket each purchased.

dix witnesses stated on eath or affirme point but it is far too lengthy, But if the money if it were subsequently dis. Under the above circumstacces it any of your readers turn up either of the covered that Chik Sung Ling was not seems clear to me that the Club are under tion that they saw the winning ticket No. 03066 sold to Mrs. Chan on December morning papers on the 7th day of July morally entitled to receive the same. a moral obligation to pay the prize money There would be no question of legally over to Mrs. Chan, unless they are now 24th, 1999, at the same time and place 1923 they can read the whole Award as the remaining tickets in the same book chased ticket No. 03000

Now as to the evidence that Chik pur- liability because neither Mrs. Chan, Chik prepared to say in public print in an His evidenca Sung Ling nor anyone else could possibly swer to this letter that they still assert No 03067-03070 were sold. The Arbitra-

witnesses called on behalf of Mrs. Chan whether the ticket was lost or not lost. tors said (para. 9 (e) of Award): We was that be purchased it on the 5th Janu have any legal claims against the Club, that Mrs, Chau, Mr. Ng Quinn and the are unable to accept the evidence given y 1923, in the private room and pre

sence of Li. Yung Chai, Chik Yau Chau It is here to be noticed that as the (twenty in all-myself included) per- as to the sale and purchase of tickets and Yuen Shing Dab, the two latter thu Clab has declined to be bound by the fured themselves in the Arbitration pro- Nos. 13066 to 03070. We reject such evi-bribed witnesses. Li Yung Chai was not Award they cannot in honour now say, ceedings and that the evidence given by dence as being untrue." On what called at the arbitration but his evidence as they are attempting to do, that in hir, Ng Quinn and his witnesses in the ground? Because Chik Sung Ling, Chik was obtained in, the libet netion and he view of the arbitrators findings the sub Libel Action was also perjured. Yau Chnu, his nephew, and Yuen Shing denied emphatically that Chik ever pur sequent production of the ticket has no The position in which the Committee Dah, who posed as an important officia chased a ticket in his private rooms in his effect on the ownership thereof as be of the Club now find themselves is that In the Shanghai Branch of the China prosence. Now as to the date the 5th tween Mr Chan and the Club, they must either (1) assert the above Specie Bank though he could neither red January, 1923 He (Chik) sail it was on The only

proper course for the Club witnesses committet perjury; or, (1) sor write Chinese accounts and was in the same date that he pail nie s bill of to have adopted on paying Chik Sung admit that the Club is under a moral receipt of only $12 a month wager, gave costs for defending him at the Police Ling was to have obtained a guarantee obligation to pay the prize money to Mrs. evidence that the ticket was purchased in Court. The date he paid me was the 4th for the return of the money if it should Chan after having paid the same to Chik... private room of Li Yang Chai at the January, 1921, and I produce at the Arbi xbsequently turn out that Bits Chan Sung Ling in such a manner that on the 6th January, 1923, which evidence tration counterfoil receipt

for the WIS

morally entitled t to payment and return of the moneys can be enforced. Chai who was pot called at the money paid myoduce my journal. I also drawn fails to do. Li Yung

firm my bill book,

this is. the very thing the indemnity as That position would never have arisen office of the General Exchange Co., Ltd.. had ready to

if the Club had complied with condition Arbitration absolutely denied in the libel produced a letter of the same date seat In addition to this it is well to note 4 endorsed on the sweep ticket and with action recently heard in the Court here, me by Chik and gave evidence that Chik that the guarantee was furnished by the the request contained in my firm's letter It now transpires that of there witnesses himself called at my office on that date Tabaqueria Filipina and that one of the of the 21st July, 1923, and obtained w Chik Yau Chau and Yuep Shing Dah were with the letter and money. In dealing sums paid out of the prize money by adequate guarantee before payment, to bribed. Evidence was obtained in Shang with this the arbitrators say in the Award Messrs. Lo & Lo, through the hands of Chik Sung Ling hai on commission and read at the hear. We think that Dr. Bruston was mistaken Mr. M. R. Lo (who was not only the Fagain assort and assert most strongly ing of the libel action which clearly in thinking that the man who brought the Solicitor for the Club but for Chik Sung that the Club is in honour bound to pay proved this. The Promissory Note taking $100 to him in payment of his costs in Ling and the Tabaqueris Filipina) was the value of the first prize to Mrs. Chan. over Chik Yau Chau's liability to the respect of a Police Court case together the sum of $2,650 to Mr. K. E. Tasa, 3 would be instructive in the light of General Exchange Co., Ltd (which form with an accompanying letter was the the then Manager of the Tabaquczia this letter and the facts stated if you ed the bribe), was produced and a cheque Plaintiff (Chik) himself." signed "Lo and Lo" for $4,100 payable Mistaken when I had personally taken Filipina, for furnishing worthlous in would publish In juxtaposition to this to Yueu Shing Dah was also produced his evidence for his defence, seen him on demnity under which asither he nor the letter the Award which appeared in the (the latter with 12 other cheques all eiga at least two occasions in doing so and Tabaqueria Fitipiza could under any Priess of this Colony on the 7th July, ed Lo and Lo" and all paid out of the then again, at the Police Court and after possibility be liable. 1923. Every fact and statement in this Since the Azard behind which the letter can be proved by reference to the proceeds of the first prize), by the Hong-wards, all within a period from the 2nd Club are still, sheltering, the Club, with transcript of the shorthand notes of er kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to the 4th January, 10231 On this point

though the production was protested of purchase of the ticket two other wit out holding any inquiry by the Com-denec takes at the Arbitration, to the against by Mr. M, K. Lo who actually neases were called to show that the cor- mittes no called for by the Club's rules, Award, to the evidence taken in the Libe paid the cheque to Yuen Shing Dah, one rect date was as Chik himself stated, the expelled Sydney Ng Quinn from mom- Action, to the cheques paid out by Mesars of the bribed witnesses, and took a receipt 4th January, 1923, yet the arbitrators say bership An action was brought against Lo & Lo, to the receipts, to the indem from him. This receipt was also proWe see no reason at all a doubt the the Committee of the Club by him for nity, and other letters and documents duced It was further proved that Yuen Plaintiff's (Chik's) evidence that he did his reinstatement, in which, judgment referred to in this letters-Yours, fail Shing Dal had refused to give evidence bay this ticket on the 5th January, 1921, was obtained by consent for his rein- fully, at the Arbitration unless he was paid in Mr. Li Yong Chai's room at the once statements for

(Continued on next column.) cash $1,000 that he accepted $500 cash of the General Exchange."

GEO, K. HALL BRUTTON, Hongkong, October 24th, 1924,

11