Jese 19, 1858.]
to me.
The Hongkong Government Gazettę,
By Mr Deut,—What are your grounds of belief?
everywhere. I should say particularly here, because the late „Vorney General,-I believe so, because Hoey had on Ordinance for the Supreme Court, which amends the " Ordi. stive to mislead me when he first communicated the matter nance for Fees and Costs of 1856" expressly recognizes the After I had warned him of the consequences, and principle of estimating the remuneration of counsel, not with that I should report to the proper authorities everything he reference to any circumstances in particular, but with a due ad said, and everything he was going to say, he had the regard to all the circumstances of each case. I do not know strongest motive to mislead me in the other direction, by whether counsel here see clients without the intervention of an retracting and explaining away what he had said before. For, Attorney, more frequently than they do at hoine. I certainly 1st, he knew that it was my intention to put him to his oath | do not do so.
a Court of Justice, which he strongly and earnestly pro-
In answer to the Chairman,The rule of the bar at home tested against; and, secondly, he was evidently most fearful of and here in reference to counsel seeing clients without the offending the Governor, whom he believed to be the patron intervention of an attorney is one of restriction. It is called of Chun-tai-kwong; and lastly, he was at least as much alarmed for by the unfortunate division of the profession into two at the danger of defeating an amicable and lucrative com-branches, the barrister having a right of exclusive audience promise which he hoped to effect of his disputes with Chun-tai-in Court shuts out the attorney from the chief ways to fame, wong at their private meeting which was to take place that day.fortune, rank, and power, and in return he is compelled by He nevertheless persevered in his statement, of the important statute to leave to the attorney the exclusive right of access particulars which I have set down in their order. My second
to and practice in the offices attached to the Court. To these reason for believing Hoey is this, that he never attempted even statutory restrictions the etiquette of the bar has superadded an "ambiguous" contradiction of my statement, until he was others, which were at first confined to the legitimate purpose brought into the presence of the Acting Colonial Secretary, of enforcing the restrictions of the former class, but which have and the two other gentlemen referred to in Dr Bridges's gone much further and are now grown up into a body of law letter of the 24th April. I feel bound to state that, in my and usage nowhere enforcible but in the courts of honor to which opinion, it was a most ill-advised measure to put any ques- barristers, but not attorneys, are subject, and which are in tion to Mr Hocy, except under one of two conditions: either many cases such as, in my opinion, ought to be considered as upon his corporal oath in the Police Court, or in my presence; impracticable, and as disregarded of late years by the great body and I am not surprized at the result. A further reason for of the bar itself. With this explanation I beg to say, that the my belief of Mr Hoey's statement is, that it is quite consistent rule to which my attention is directed must be considered as with what I have heard from other sources with respect to forbidding the access of the client to the barrister, without the the connection of Hoey and Chun-tai-kwong in the Opium intervention of an attorney in every case not coming under Farin, and the boasting vaunting way in which the latter has one of the following exceptions, viz: first, cases for opinion of been heard to speak of his assurance of influence with the counsel; secondly, conveyancing; thirdly, where thecircumstan- Government. I advise that Mr Day, and Mr Parsons, be re-
ces are such as to make it impracticable for the parties to obtain "quested to attend this committee, and that the former be asked the intervention of an attorney, within the spirit and meaning whether Mr Hoey did or did not state upon oath, in his pre- of the rule. I conform to this rule myself, and I am assured sence and hearing, that at a somewhat earlier period, Hoey by others that they conform to it also. Whether they under- attended upon the Acting Colonial Secretary at his request, stand the exceptions in the sense in which I do, it is of course and being examined by that officer as to his (Hoey's) interest impossible for me to say. in the Opium Farm declined to answer the question put, and whether, on being pressed as to why he declined to answer that questions, he did or did not make answer that it was because he (Hoey) knew that the Acting Colonial Secretary had an interest in the Opium Farm himself; and I advise that the latter (Mr Parsons) be asked whether Chun-tai-kwong person, days and weeks before he became the patentee of the Opium Farm, did or did not wait upon him, and informing him that he (Chun-tai-kwong) was to have it, desire Mr Parsons to accept his general retainer as Solicitor to the said Farm. I also think that a further proof of Chun-tai-kwong's assuming disposition, and his habit of leading men to think that he is one having authority (which here is governmental authority) is furnished by the fact of his having to my know-retainer I was going to give. I said, "Oh, $400 I suppose, as ledge, in more than one instance, exercised, and in other instances attempted to exercise, an arbitrary and illegal because usurped power, of imposing customs duties on ship- ment and exportation of prepared Opium to foreign parts, upon the false pretence, which he has even stated under his own hand, of being expressly authorized by government as holder of the Opium Farm to make such levy, for which he is in my opinion liable to indictment for obtaining money under false pretences. And I here recommend that Messrs Edwards & Balley be requested to lay before this Committee, their late correspondence with Chun-tai-kwong on the subject.
in
CHUN-TAI-KWONG,-Called in and examined.
In answer to the Chairman,-I am the possessor of the
I
Opium Monopoly. I became so a few days before the 1st April. I have no "Grant" of the monopoly-no document the Treasury, of my first and second monthly payments. I to shew that I am the monopolist except two receipts from also entered into a bond with the government connected with it. I-entered into two bonds, the first was cancelled- torn-up. I entered into the bond here for the second time, on the 23d March, I think. Mr Hoey came with me as one of my sureties. I did not on any occasion when I came up here pay, or settle to pay, Dr Bridges $400, or any money whatever. I did not tell Mr Hoey so. Hoey asked me what retaining fee and for advice also.” did afterwards pay $400 to Dr Bridges. I think on the 1st April. That was at Dr Bridges's private house. I have a receipt for the money. declare I did not say that " Dr Bridges could make any law he that I ever stated this, or anything to that effect, to any body pleased, and tear it to pieces, and put it together again." I deny at any time. I never acknowledged having said so-not to Mr Cleverly, or to any one else. I never told Mr Hoey that I thought I should give Dr Bridges $1000. After Mr Hoey went out on the day when I signed the recognizances the second time, Mr d'Almada was called in by Dr Bridges to be By the Chairman,-What do you understand to be the a witness that Dr Bridges told me that my retainer would not meaning and effect of a retaining fee to Counsel in this colony, have the effect of enabling him to act for me against the Gov
The Attorney General,—That is a general retainer which ernment. I had before this asked Dr Bridges's Comprador retains the Counsel against all and sundry; that is a special how much this retainer was to be; he told me $400. The retainer which retains him against a party or parties specified day on which I talked with Dr Bridges about the retainer, Their effect is however the same within their respective when Mr d'Almada was called in, I had signed the bond just nits. A Counsel who has accepted a retainer and the fee-before, and Mr Hoey had done so too. I understood that Dr. Dr actual payment is essential to the retainer-is bound to refuse to act in any matter against the client retaining him without that client's express consent. It has been said, and I know those who have so acted, that the true function of the retainer is exhausted as soon as a client, on being notified of the application from the other side, has made his election ither to deliver or to refuse a brief from himself to the Counsel so notifying him; but the matter is a delicate one, and I cannot reconcile such a peculiar act by notions of profes- onal delicacy and honour. The only difference between the practice here and in England is, that here the general retainer in all cases for a year, whereas, in England, it may be for 3 year, or generally for all time, and that of course in England the fee is lower.
In answer to the Chairman,There is no such thing as a eral consulting fee. I speak with reference not only to t ought to be the state of facts, but, what is so here and
Bridges was to act for me for a year as Counsel in Court, and to advise me on all matter relating to the Opium grant for a year, but not to draw documents or papers, or to write letters. Dr Bridges was to have also fees when he held briefs for me in these cases. He has held one brief for me, and I expect to pay a fee to him for it, but have not yet done so.
The $400 was paid in Dr Bridges's drawing-room. I do not know the day, it was not before I signed the bond. I declare I never told Hoey, when I left the Government Offices with him, that I had paid Dr Bridges $400. I never told Hoey or any one else that Dr Bridges had said bine, "of course this $400 is a cumshaw." Dr Bridges did not say so. It was not a cum- shaw. In the afternoon of the day before [28d April,] I and Mr Hoey were examined by the Colonial Secretary in the presence of Mr Cleverly, [24th April,] Mr Hoey did say to me, “Mr Chun, don't you recollect you told me something about your having given Dr Bridges $400 as a cumshaw." I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.