171
June 1883 he was summoned by the editor of the China Mail at that time, a Mr. Bulgin, who claimed $1,000 and was awarded $100. In November following, he was prosecuted by the Surveyor-General, Mr. J.M. Price, for allegedly publishing a suggestion that this Government official had been guilty of jobbery and corruption. Mr. Fraser-Smith was, however, acquitted, and thereupon a hundred residents wrote to the Surveyor-General a letter offering to pay the costs of his action, which Mr. Price declined.
There was a long period of comparative quiescence, when in February 1890 suit for libel was brought against Mr. Fraser-Smith by Mr. Oscar Brandt, on three counts, and plaintiff was awarded damages of $50, $1 and $200, with costs. The most serious of these actions, however, followed not long afterwards.
In November, 1890, Mr. John Minhinnett, who was a foreman in the P.W.D., brought an action for "conspiracy to bring a charge" of a most serious nature, against plaintiff the defendants being Mr. Fraser-Smith and a reporter on his paper, named Ward, both of whom were convicted, by a majority verdict of four to three, the jury adding a recommendation for mercy. Both defendants were sentenced to six months hard labour. After being confined in Victoria Gaol for eleven weeks Mr. Fraser-Smith was released by order of the Governor on medical grounds. As a consequence of this case he was expelled from the Hongkong Jockey Club, of which he had been a prominent member.
Apparently dissatisfied with the case, Fraser-Smith commented further on the matter on his release, and in December 1891 Mr. Minhinnett brought an action for libel, claiming heavy damages, and being awarded $3,000 with costs.
The last of the series of actions on record was in September 1892, when Mr. Fraser-Smith was ordered to pay $250 to Mr. John Mitchell, a superintendent engineer of Butterfield and Swire, as damages for libel.
By this time the general public had largely lost sympathy for the stormy petrel of local journalism, but on his death a few years later there were many expressions of esteem for a man whose fearlessness in comment had won him at least the admiration of many readers.
The name of "Smith's newspaper" is still applied by the Chinese to the Hongkong Telegraph, the vernacular rendering being See-mit Sai Po, forming a unique memorial of its kind.
Page 130
Page 131
2.
171
June 1883 he was summoned by the editor of the China Meil et that time, a Mr. Bulgin, who claimed $1,000 and was awarded $100. In November following, he was prosecuted by the Surveyor-General, Mr. J.M. Price, for allegedly publishing a suggestion that this Govern- ment official had been guilty of jobbery and corruption. Mr.Fraser- Smith was, however, acquitted, and thereupon a hundred residents wrote to the Surveyor-General a letter offering to pay the costs of bis action, which Mr. Price declined.
There was a long period of comparative quiescence, when in February 1890 suit for libel was brought against Mr. Freser-Smith by Mr. Oscar Brandt, on three counts, and plehtiff was awarded damages of $50, $1 and $200, with costs.. The most serious of these actions, however, followed not long afterwards.
A
In November, 1890, Mr. John Minhinnett, who was a foreman in the P.W.D., brought en action for "conspiracy to bring a charge" of a most serious, neture, against plaintiff the defendants being Mr. Fraser-Smith and a reporter on his peper, nemed Ward, both of whom were convicted, by a majority verdict of four to three, the jury adding a recommendation for mercy. Both defendants were sentenced to six months hard labour. After being confined in Victoria Geol for eleven weeks Mr. Fraser-Smith was released by order of the. Governor on medical grounds. As a consequence of this case he was expelled from the Hongkong Jockey Club, of which he had been a prominent member.
Apparently dissatisfied with the case, Fraser-Smith commented further on the matter on his release, and in December 1891 Mr. Minhinnett brought an action for libel, claiming heavy damages, and being awarded $3,000 with costs.
The last of the series of actions on record was in September 1892, when Mr. Fraser-Smith was ordered to pay $250 to Mr. John, Mitchell, a superintendent engineer of Butterfield and Swire, as demages for libel.
By this time the general publio had largely lost sympathy for the stormy petrel of local journalism, but on his death a few years later there were many expressions of esteem for a man whose fearless- ness in comment had won him at least the admiration of many readers.
The name of "Smith's newspaper is still applied by the Chinese to the Hongkong Telegraph, the vernacular rendering being See-mit Sai Po, forming a unique memorial of its kind.
Page 130Page 131
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.