1905-06-10 — Page 13

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, SATURDAY,

adjournment, Counsel contending that Wong Ka Cheung had not been shown to be a subject of China under Article ar, of the Tientsin Treaty and section a of the Chinesa Extrdi. lion Ordinance. Also this surrender was required with a view to punish him for an offence which was not an extradition crime, and that no 'engagement had been given by the Chinese government that he should not until he had had an opportunity of returning to H.M.' dominions be detained or tried in China for other offences committed be fore his surrender. He also urged the prisoner's discharge on the ground that proof of guilt was required by the treaty, and that the prima faels evidence was not suficient to justify the magistrate in committing the man for trial ever if the offence had been committed within his jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice reserved judgment,

·EXTRADITION.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED.

6th inst.

CORRESPONDENCE.

JUNE

[We do not necessarlly endorse the opinions expressed by Correspondenta la this entums, į

10, 1905.

163

with their band-new concession and build | plated, opposition, and over-stepped fugin- on board the steamer during the five days, and

their new line and operate against us for a few selves in committing the company to the was to be charged $35 per day for the mono-

yanes &c.”. phly.An agreement was drawn up between

Gov.inment for the construction of Vaisnaw the two parties and in consequence plaintiff

We could not contemplate in the same light, hoc., I havo na objectium to their committing engaged a number of men to supervise

heasted manner, as Mr. Brown, the construction themselves individually, bari do still protest the cooking arrangements and laid in a stock

THE PEAK TRAMWAYS CÓ., LD.

of such a line working in opposition for many against their having committed the company of provisions. On the first day plaintiff saw.

reasons.. The new tramway which is to be à without first inving rereived the content of all Thero was considerable competition on board" To run Editon of the Hanakong Telkokarız? louble track would be capable of running a five, | the startholders, MAGAN the ship, the steward, for one, supplying the DEAR SIR--Following up my remarks mademiaule service. It will have u lerminus in the The investing public of Hongkong urually passengers with meals and drinks. Plaintiff at the extraordinary general meeting of the icon's Road, thus securing all the casual traffic sok for a return on their investments, and it is. remonstrated with the defendant and the latter Tramway Company on the 3rd Instant, which will be able to carry more passengers in each -still a very debatable queation as to whether an promised that on the following day the compe-were unavoidably curtailed, and perhaps not cat and have the further advaninge over the old investment in the new Line would have been tition would cease. It did not cease, however, covering the ground fully enough to make clear line of running through a populous district, and ufficiently inviting to wairant its being built. but continued for the Ave days and the plaintiff my objection to the deal, permit me; through if we had not acquired the concession would have for many years to come with the present Line had to destroy a considerable amount of provis the columns of your paper, to add a few further been in a position to carry Peak residents free persting against it for through Peak business, sions which remained over. The rent for the points for consideration of the shareholders in for the reason that leis estimated that the trafic and the only other business in sight being that nonopoly was paid in advance by the plaintiff, the old company before the confirmatory from Its intermediate stations would have more below Conduit Rond level. Consequently the and it was in connection with this that the menting, which may or may not legalize the than paid expenses. The old Company would achems now proposed by the general managers

sacrifice of the old company to a new one.

have been faced with the loss of its casual traffic and consulting commities it not inviting, no

· After avidence has been given the case was. -I would have, as stated at the meeting, noan', its intermediate traffic being insignificant, matter how cleverly, coloured, to say cotblog of adjourned.

objections whatever to a dissolution of the gid. would have had to depend entirely on the Peak the future prospects of the new. Lina or its company, and the sale of time to a new com residents, it could not have camed dividends.bility to injure us when shot of its one hope pany, were the price and conditions of sale by carrying these for nothing. Mr. Brown also of success, viz, the ravanus carning old Zint. reasonably near all equitable value, and such forgats that if the new Company had remained This may explain the desire to force the schema at would enable the old company-or rather a separate interest and made the new line, the through notwithstanding the protest of share. the shareholders in the old company-10 can policy of the General Managers and Consulting holderi representing at least 173 shares out of tinue enjoying the benefits the old company Commitice of the old Company would have 1,250.

·been to cut down dividends to the lowest point as eamed for them. These benefits are de- monstrated by the company's ability to earn satisfactory dividends on a market price of $315.00 per share.

cross action was instituted.

THE COUNT'S DELAYS.

ADJOURNMENT OF CASES.

of the items of the account relate, back over a long period, during which it in alleged no notice was given to the surety of the compradore's liability. Recourse was had to the rule of law that if time is given to a debiar the surety, is discharged. I am of opinion that this rule has no application to the case of a compradore and his surely when time s given to Chinese customers whose liabilities Come within the guarantee of the compradors, If the rule had any application it would apply to the compradore as well as to his surety. But the very nature of the duties which the compradore undertakes show that he is privy to the granting of time if, in fact, he himself had not granted it. The rule, however, might be brought in if time had been granted to the compradore himself. This does not appear to have been the care. There was a proviso in the agreement to the effect that the compradore was not to be called upon to a greater extent than $5,000 la one month. It seemed to me al first sight that this proviso might possibly be construed as meaning that there should be a monthly rendering of accounts, and that if that had not been done it night have been tanta- mount to the granting of time. An affidavit was put in by the defendant firm to the effect The case in which the extradition of Cheang that the plaintiffs interests in the compra-Pat is sought by the Chinese suth writies dore's office was looked after by some one through the Viceroy of Canton, for armed representing him. If this affidavit stood unobbery gear the borders of Macao, on the contradicted it was unnecessary to COM

16th of December last, under circumstances strue the proviso. The plaintiff was call already recorded in there columns, was to ed, in order, it was said, to contradicts imed before Mr. F. A. Hateland this after it. His evidence was more than confused and 'noon. contradictory, it even went beyondhis Counsel's Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C, instructed by Mr. instructions, as he evidently tried to deny that F. B. L. Bowley, of Meas. Dennys and bis guarantee extended to $15,000. After care. Powley's office, represented the Chinees Goyment as he had only had an opportunity that fully examining his statements I came to the comment, and Mr. F. Paget Hett, of Messrs conclusion that the effect of his evidence was Rutton, Hell and Goldring, appeared for the that the accounts of the compradore's office ¿ccured. His Worship said that he had were in fact rent in him by the compradore a journed this case to consider the usual once a year, and that he had taken an practice, and had found that It had been active part with the compradore in. get the practice for many years past that ting inutual friend, one Yeung, into the the Chinese Government had been represented. compradore's office. I see no reason to 1 his was on account of Mr. Paget Hen's ob doubt, in this respect, either the plaintiff's | Jection to Mr. Pollock's appearance as repres evidence or the defendant's affidavit, thoughsenting that Government. Mr. Hett holding the plaintiff's evidence in other respects is not that on account of Mr. Pollock's appearance worthy of credence. Judgn:ent will be for the the proceedings so far were null and void. His defendant on his motion in the terms of the Worship held that in view of old established motion with costs; and the plaintiffs motion practice Mr. Pollock had a right to appear for is dismissed will costs.

the Chinese Government, and that being so the proceedings were not null and void.

COSIS.

6th ina. The Paine Judge had before him this mom- ing a case in which Chung Po Shang sued the Tung Hing alias Yau Kap for $700 odd, being principal and interest due on two promissory

What position are the shareholders in the notes, dated ret June last, and given in favour of the defendant and chopped by the Tong Hing old company going to occupy in the new Mr. E. Banner (Messrs. Dennys and company that is so anxious to absorb us? An Bowley) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and effort is being made to force a minority, repie: Mr. C. F; Dixon represented the defendant.

senting between 120 and 300 shares (out of At the outset, Mr. Dixon asked for an adjourn-250), to give up their interests in the entire ownership of the present company earning net morning of seeing his client, and from the evid-profits as it does of about $50,000 per annum on ence given him it would be necessary for him a capital of $125,000. And what are we pro to give notice of a special defence in the case.

miua în return? A third interest only in a Mr. Justice Wise -How is it you have not new company capitalised at $750,con whose seen your client before? Is it the client's only hope of a revenue return for the next fault? I fixed the case on Friday fast.

three and possibly four or five years will be Mr. Dixon:- was instructed on Friday by the revenue earned by the present company, some friends of the defendant.

and we will have to remain satisfled with a division of only one-third of those profits.

His Honour:You must surely have been instructed earlier than that.

Mr. Dixon I was instructed last week be- fore the Summary Court was held on Friday morning; but I did not have an opportunity of seeing the defendant until this week.

His Honour-Whose fault is that? Yours, or your client's ?

Mr. Dixon-It is not my fault. His Honour:-It's your client's then? Mr. Bonner-The writ was served on 23rd May,

Is this an inviting outlook for shareholders in the old company! And is it not wonby of reconsideration before giving away "the goose that lays the golden age which appears to be the plum the new company is after at half hs value as an incentive in inviting investment by the public in the new company.

יז

Concerning the estimate of the general in order to strengthen the Company's position managers as in the injury the opposition Line and enable li to meet, as favourably as possible, an do us financially, I contend that it cannot the competition of the new line. Thli would and will not injure un financially as much as mean that for the whole period during which this voluntary sacrifice they are now trying to the new line was being built and for as long as force us into; and, in this connection, I ques- it continued to run, always supposing as Mr. tion the good taste of the general managers in Brown does that the old Company was successiving expression or prominence, in the latter fut in suining the new, instead of being itself portion of their letter, to the power vested la ruined, say eight or nine years, the share thems and the consulting committee, in the holders in the ld company would certainly matter of adjusting future dividends,-toma not have received more than $15 per share per people might consider this in the light of a annum in the form of dividends and probably veiled threat liable and likely to injure rather under the circumstances less, so that in taking than to improve their prospects of success. 8.00 as the price to be paid under the recons

* Might” is not regarded and permitted; as struction scheme for the shares in the old "right" in British Law. Company we are of opinion that they are being aken at a fair value. As to Mr. Brown's con tention that because the Company has shown its abilliy the past (in the absence of any opposition) to earn satisfactory dividends on market price of $325 per share, the shares are still worth this price under present conditions, we cannot think he intended it to be taken seriously.

Mr. Brown Bays in conclusion: "I will not be found antagonistic to any proposal that is To my mind the argument, used by the going to benefit the old Company and my general managers at Saturday's meeting, seam-attitude now is only protection of the interests theed more of an effort to invite investment in the of the shareholders, one of whom i am,"

The Consulting Committee and ourselves new company than to justify the dissolution and His Honour cally, this is getting absurd.sale of the old company, and unless I am very when deciding on the amalgamation scheme All yesterday afternoon wasted, and this means much mistaken, those same arguments are held the of the company's capital. Doer Mr. Brown suppose that we, being by far the the whole of to-day wasted through somebody's likely to appear later on in the prospectus of mistake. You see, my list gets very thick, and the new Company, if formed, inviting invest-rgest shareholders, would have brought for

ward any scheme which would not in our now there will be nothing to do to-day. The appeal is off. What is your defence ?

opinion benefit the Company? We suppose as shareholders we ought to be grateful to Mr. Mr.. Dixon: The defence is want of cons

Brown for his attitude of protection interests, but it strikes us rather as an attitude His Honour-What do you say, Mr. Bonner? Mr. Donner must object.

of obstruction, and we consider we are justified His Honour (to Mr. Dixua): You had batter

in so regarding it. Mr. Brown has been a get on with the case.

shareholder in this Tramway Company for 22

After discussion as to what judgment should be given on writ issued by the plaintif for To Chun Wa; sergeant interpreter at the an account in order to complete the record, Central Police Station, said he was on His Lonship decided that as the result of the duty at the central station when the ac inquiry on the report being in favour of the cused was brought in on the 3rd of March defendant the proper course under rule 556 last at noon. When he was brought in was to enter judgment for the defendant with the inspector asked, through witness, the accused's name and status. Mr. Helt ob Mr. Pollock then asked for leave to issuejected to the question as the information immediate execution in the matter, and pointed should come from the inspector himself, who out to the Court that the matter had been should have taken down defendant's statement, standing for some considerable time, and ac and it was contrary to practice, and unjust to cording to the plaintiff's own statement he usu-he client, sa a sergeant interpreter had pus'deration. ally resides in Canton.

right to cross-examine a man at the time he was being charged. The question was allowed, and witness said he asked accused all detaili about his name, age, profession, and his native place.

Mr. Calthrop, while offering no objection to immediate execution, raised a point in connec tion with the form in which it would be made There is no section, he said, which allows the arrest of a man on immediate execution being obtained, and, in fact, immediate execution did

not mean the immediate arrest of a man.

Mr. Helt asked witness what were the actual

words used when he asked the accused his native country, as it would appear from the Chinese word used he had asked him where he came from, which might mean where had he come from at the hour, which was obviously

Witness

Mr. l'allock disagreed with this view, and said that immediate execution in this Colony meant bar a man is liable to immediate arrest

His Lordship recognised there was a difficulty.vague. The witness said the words he used in the matter, "but fund that under Rote 386 | were "what countryman are you ↑ " he was empowered on the verbal application of the party in whose favour judgment was given to order immediate execution He thought that the order should be made in the present case. I think it is for the bailiff, he added, to find out how he can do it.

Mfr. Pollock:We will take the risk of that. The case then terminated.

INTERESTING EXTRADITION

LASE

AT THE SUPREME COURT.

6th inst.

Some time ago the acting, Admiral of the Province of Kwangtung was appointed by the Government of China to superintend the work of exterminating the bar dits and criminals from that district, and in a proclamation issued by him be alleges that a certain Won Ka Cheung, the keeper of a gambling house and a native of Bau Kai in the Tung Kung district, is among those wanted by the Chinese Government for certain offences including the perpetration of an armed robbery. This person is now in Victoria Gaul, and the Chinese authorities require his extradition. Mr. H. N. Ferrers, in. siructed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, has been applying for his release from custody, and the Chief Justice (Mr. F. T. Piggott) has already held that the Chinese Governutent has no locus stand, and that its representative cannot appear before the Court.. question was taken a singe further this morning when the Grown was represented in Court before his Lordship, in the person of the Attorney General (the on. Sir H. S. Berkeley who, with Mr. H. E. Polluck, K. C., (instructed by the Crown Solicitor, Mr, F. B. L. Bowley, of Messrs. Dennys and Howley) appeared, pursuant to leave given, to serve a notice of motion in support of the substantive motion which the Crown was making for the discharge of an order absolute, in the first instance for a writ of habeas corpul, The Attorney General contended that no whit ef bibine corpus such

told all the accused's answers to Sergeant Fenton, who took them down in writing, and entered them in the charge sheet (produced) Accused was charged with 'armed robbery. and he denied the charge, and signed his denial on the statement form,

After further evidence the case was adjourned.

8th inst. The case in which the extradition of Cheang Pat is sought by the Chinese authorities, through the Viceroy of Canton, for armed robbery near the borders of Macao, on the 20th December last, was resumed before Mr. F. A. Hageland this afternoon.

|

ment therein.

I fancy, however, if the general managers and consulting committee, who repersent, we are told, seventy-five per cent, of the capital, are so anxious to dispose of the present tram. way company for $250,000 they will pro- bably find the public mare ready to buy it

In conclusion; it is not necessary to make any reply to the general managers' closing remarks in connection with my ownership of shares in the old company, as they are quite beside the question. Yours truly,

D, E, BROWN,

Hongkong, June 9th, 1985.

The liearing of the case was then proceed that price than invest in the new company days. At the time he bought shares, the scheme pany. The explanation given. by the goporal

with, but had to be adjourned later in the morning.

ALLEGED PERJÚRY.

COMPRADORE COMMITTED.

7th 1081,

The hearing was resumed this afternoon, before Mr. F.A. Hareland, of the case in which She Tat Troi, compradore of the Hongkong, Canton and Macia Steamboat Company, is charged with perjury, under circumstances al ready recorded by us.

Mr. H. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr O, D. Thomson, prosecuted, and Mr. Dixon appear ed for the defence

Li lung Mi, assistant interpreter at the Supreme Court, remembered the case of Chu Hok Lung and the present defend. ant, and also an inquity taking place in Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. April and May before the Registrar of F. B. L. Bowley of Messra. Dennys and Baw the Supreme Court, at which he acted as ley, appeared for the Chineze Government, interpreter. Defendant gave evidence in the and Mr. F. Paget Helt, of Mesura, Brutton, Cantonese dialect, and "witness would swear Hett and Goldring, appeared on behalf of the that he correctly interpreted the questions put defendant. Sung Kin said he knew a place to defendant, and also his answers. called Cheat Ming; it is in China. He know To Cheung Wa, sergeant interpreter at the Macao, Cheol Ming was about one and a half central station, testified to a statement made hours' Journey from Macao. Cross-examined by accused when charged by Mr. F. Pager lett, witness said he know Detective Sergeant O'Sullivan produced a about the boundaries of Macao approximately.warrant for the arrest of She Tat Tsoi, whom he

He knew exactly where Macao ended and took into custody on the 19th ult. China began. He could trace on a map the Mr. Dixon pointed out the imponant exact boundaries between Portuguese and posts held by defendant, and stated that Chinese territory.

his employers had such complete con fidence in him that they were now actively interesting themselves in his behalf. The terms of the agreement between defendant and his surety were that, if there were any profits from the compradoresbio, the surety was to draw $48 per month. Mr. Dixon said that defendant had stated that the surety did art draw his $48 for two years because there were no profits, and two years later the agreement was re-made upon the old terms, This charge was of the Bimsiest character, and was brought maliciously, and he would ask his Worship to discharge defendant and to say that be left the Count without u stain on his character, since he was convinced that no crime had been committed, and no jury would convict,

Mr. Hatt here said he was unprepared to go on with his cross-examination until an admit. tedly correct map could be produced.

His Worship said it was a reasonable request to be allowed to reserve the cross-examination, The

as it would be unfair to the witness to ask him if the map, produced, was correct.

as was directed to be issued had been issued in pursuance of the order absolute made on the aid ult, and also that as a consequence the proceedings for the surrender of Wong Ka Cheung to the Government of China in accord ance with the requirements of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance of 1889 were being un- 'duly and improperly delayed. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the Crown Solicitor, filed on the 3rd inst, in which Mr. Bowley mated that he had searched the files of the proceedings in the matter and found that an ex paxie order was made for the issue of a writ of habeas corpuss whereas as a matter of fact no such writ bad, been issued,

His Lordship expressed his willingness to waive all questions of irregularity, and the Attorney General proceeded to argue the point as to whether or not the prisoner was a subject of China. He maintained that Wang Ka Cheung had been shown abundantly to be such. In the first place there was the man's des- cription of himself, where. he stated his village was Hau Kai, in Tang Kung di trict of Kwangtung: This was bome out in the proclamation of the Vice Admiral of Kwanging who offered a reward for the man's apprehension. In this document was set forth the names of all the bandits, their hick-names, their branches in the villages, and their addresses, together with the amount

Mr. Hett then asked witness from what he derived his knowledge of the boundaries of Macao, who said he made frequent journey from his village of Wong How to Macao,

To Chun Wa, sergenus interpreter, ro called, said he remembered the exact words he used when he asked the defendant his ad dress. Subsequently considerable discussion rose as to the right of the witness in refer to certain not.s he had made on these points, as withess said they were made a week ago.

His Worship said as the man was charged in Blatch that would not do. The case was remanded.

THE CHERWAN BESTIVAL.

A CABE IN COURT,

5th inst Atthe Supreme Court this morning the Puisne Judge, his Honour Mr. A. G. Wise, had before him a couple of suite arising out of the celebra tions attending the birthday of the Goddess of Heaven at Chekwan in April last. They were ones in which Yung Kwan Hing sued Ng Wal Chi for $718.13 and Wai Hing & Co. claimed $48 from Yeung Kwan King. As, however, they were practically to connection with the same affairs, his Honour decided to bear them together,

Mr. C. F. Dixon appeared for the plaintiff in the first action and for the defendant in the second, while Mr. H. Harshouse (of Messrs Donnys and Bowley) appeared for the defend art in the first action and for the plaintiff in the second.

Mr. Ferrers said the case was a clear one as they had it in evidence that on the 17th of April defendant said he did not consult plaintiff regarding the payments of the $150 and $48 respectively, and on the 16th of May he said he did tell the plaintiff about the arrangement and the plaintif agreed. Those contradictory sate ments made in the course of official examins tion constituted perjury, and that being so he must ask his Worship to do his duty and send defendant for trial by a Jury.

His Worship said he was satisfied a priexa facis case had been made out against defend ant, and therefore the only course open to him was to commit him to take his trial at the next Criminal Sessions. This he did, and allowed ball of $2,000.

NAVAL NOTES.

8th inst.

As anticipated in our columns several days since Vice-Admiral Sir Gerard H. U. Nosi has been promoted to Admiral, and has now hoisted his dag on board of the Glory...

|

even with the old company as a "nest egg."

But why not let well enough alone? The old company is strong enough and surely doing. well enough. Let the new company go ahead with their "Findlay Smith Concession" and build their new line and operate li apainst for a few years when, unless I am very mich mistaker, they will only be too glad to to fell out to us at a price considerably less than it is going to cost now to build their line.

In conclusion, I will not be found antagonistic to any proposal that is going to benefit the old company, and my attitude now is only protec tion of the interests of its present share. It might have holders, one of whom I am. been made an acceptable proposition to all the shareholders if a more equitable price had been offered for the old company, or had a larger percentage of ownership than one-third in the new company been offered as some induce- ment to give up a "reality" for a shadow" Surely, the value of the old company to the new company, either as an asset or an inducement to investment, is worth at least a 50% interest in the capital of the new company, and why the general managers and consulting committee recommend letting it go for less I fail to under. stand. Then, again, is our reserve fund of $50,000 to be g ven away to the new company to enable then to buy out the Findlay Smith Concession to say nothing of ourother written down and valuable assets? It is a wonder under the circumstances that we were offered in the liquidation proposal a distribution of the undivided profits of the current balf year; and it is to be hoped that there will be sufficien! dissenting abareholders at the confirmatory meeting to vote down and prevent this enforced sacrifica of our interests and also prevent the accessity of testing its legality,

Thanking you in anticipation,-1 remain,

D. E. BROWN.

Hongkong 6th June, 1905.

for the reconstruction of the old and formation of the new company was practically decided upon and, in its broader outlines, was generally known in the Colony, even if the precise de- tails were not. Surely before investing for the first time in shares of a company in whose affairs is as common knowledge great changes were likely to take place, it would have been an ordinary precaution to inquire what was going on? Did Mr. Brown inquire? If he had asked us for information is an intending investor we would gladly have told him all we

To tum Epitor or tar "Hongkong Telegramız”, SIR-The controversy which has arisen over the proposed conversion of the High Level Tramways Company into the Perk Tramways - Company, whereby the old. Company is to be wound up-"yoluntarily as it is called—and a new Company brought inte being, has aroused the greatest interest. In their letter dated the 7th inst, Mears, John D. Humphreys & Son endeavour to refute the arguments of Mr. D. E. Brown as presented in a previous letter and in his speech at the meeting last week. They have accused him of distorting the facts and submit- ourting arguments based on an imperfect know. ledge of the actual conditions, and proceed to question the accuracy of his statement that the only hope of revenue return for the next three years will be that earned by the present Com managers is of such a nature that it might be characterised as no explanation at all. Messrs. lumphreys assume that a dividend of 6 per cent, will be obtained on a capital of $750,000 that is to say, there will be interest received on that sum to the amount of $45,000, and, sa far as I can understand, it will be distributed follows, vix, $13,500, being go cents per share on 25,000 Sio, shares, fully paid up, in the old Company and $23,500, being 45 cents per share on 50,000 now thases on which 55 in paid up, and §; remains to be called. Where do tha general managers get this $45,000 from? That is an exceedingly important question. If the general managers count on the old Company to bring in that sum, then the old Company when it comes to a distribution of thels prosts among the shareholders could have given them $36 per share on the old shares (or $1.80 per share on the new shares of the amalgamated concern) But, wisely enough, they have been giving $15 per share on the old shares or $18,730, and strengthening the assets by carry- ing forward the balance of $26,250. Now, is it fair and just that the general managers should take all the profits of the old Company.and propose to divide them en bloc on the money my letter of the 7th instant to the Press appear called up on the old and new shares alike?, is to have disturbed the General Managers and that a fair and reasonable reply to Mr. Brown's brought forth a reply from them through the Press argument that the old shareholders are be of yesterday, and in which instead of successing done out of their righta? I aubmit fully disproving same they accuse me of being it is not. Why should shareholder of inaccurate" and of using "arguments based | the Hongkong High-Level Tramways, who dass not believe in the roseate prospects of upon insufficient or imperfect knowledge of the

the new scheme, be called upon to sacrifice actual facts," permit me through the medium of your paper to add a fex more facts or pro nearly two-thirds of his rightful returns in order babilities for disposal by them, and for the that new shareholders who had nothing to do consideration of cibers interested.

knew.

Under the circumstances, we can only con- clude that Mr. Brown bought the shares as t speculation and locked at in this light, the assumption by him as a shareholder of such short duration of a protective attitude towards shareholders of long standing who want no protection, strikes us as somewhat strained. Your obedient servants,

JOHN D. HUMPHREYS & SON. Hongkong, 7th June.

ToT EDITOR or tuz "Blorokong Telegraph," DEAR SIRA some of the hard facts in

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "Honguard TelegraPH." SIR, We do not know that, the letter ap pearing in your issue of yesterday over the signature of Mr. D. F. Brown requires any reply from us, as it is practically a repetition of a carefully written speech delivered by the same gentleman at the meeting of the Company held on the rd inst, but as some of Mr. success is in absorbing the old Company. Brown's facts are inaccurate and several of his arguments based upon insufficient or imperfect knowledge of the actual facts we have thought it tight to make some reply through the medium of your paper.

|

with the existing itamway may beneft? With regard to the statement that the general managers and the majority at the meeting hold two-thirds of the shares of the Company, there is a very simple answer to that. The interest, of the general managers is not alone confined 10 the dividenda the co. pany pay, but they have the much greater interest in reckoning the commission they will receive when the Companies are amalgamated. So that their interests are not to be considered as on the same plane as those of the shareholders who

In the first place it is not proven that my statement, "that all the shareholders in the old Company are promised in return for their shares a one-third interest in the new Com phoy," is wrong by merely contending that old shareholders are to be given a preference-in subscribing additionally to the new Company at Sio per share, nor does it convince me that this questionable privilege justifies the dis- solution and the sacrifice sale of the old Com pany, or that this privilege is sufficient com- pensation for putting additional hard cash into look to the dividends alore. The larger the a company that can earn nothing in return for capital the greater the commission received by a number of years and whose only hope of the general managers. But, also, the same

principle does not apply where the share Secondly, in dealing with the revenue re- holders are concerned, it comes to this...

it is proposed to distribute 6 per cent, turns from the new Company, the General

which the total return anticipated by the new Company, among the shareholders. Bot Managers dispute my statement as inacurate vie, "that the only hope of a revenue return for the next three or possibly four or five years for years the shareholders of the old. Company will be the revenus returns earned by the old have been content to take 15 per cent. Instead Company, and will have to remain satisfied of the 536 per share to which they were en (during that period) with a division of only titled if they had not followed the wise plan of one-third of these profits." I claim that my | building up a reserve, Who benefits by that statement is not disproved because shares in sacrifice? Not the shareholder of the old the gow Company issued to shareholders of the Company, if the new scheme is carried out, oid Company will be fully paid up and entitled No it will be the new shareholders who to dividends on the full amounts of Sro per share will earn dividends on an undertaking with from the formation of the Company"; neither which they had nothing to do and with do I consider this inviting because" on the will the reserve fund go? Probably to build other hand the remaining (two-thirds of the) up the dividends required antil the now shares will only be entitled to dividends on the tramway is constructed and paying its amount paid up for the time Loing, which will way. I think that the scheme in alto- certainly not exceed 85 per share for the first gether wrong. It is unfair to the shareholders year and may be, less."

of the old Company. It is inequitable and unjust ; it is robbing Peter that Paul's greed may be satisfied, and I hope that we have not yet heard the end of it all—1 am, etc,

FAIRPLAY.

Hongkong, 9th June.

In the frst place Mr. Brown in the third paragraph of his letter states that all that share. holders in the old Company are promised in return for their shares is a one-third interest in the new Company or $150,000 in shares out of $750,000. On the contrary, at the meeting above referred to, it was distinctly stated by the Chairman that shareholders in the old com- any applying for any further shares in the they repaid to and above the allotment they are entitled to under the proposed recon struction would be given a preference.

"In the same paragraph, Mr. Brown continues speaking of the new company "whose only hope of a revenus return for the next three or possibly four or five years will be the revenue Then, again, if the promised dividends on | carned by the present Company and we will the two-thirds of the $5 or $10 shares of the have to remain satisfied with a division of coly new Company do not come from the earnings one, third of these profits." Apart from the of the old Company, and the pockets of the old shareholders, where do they come from? question of there being possibly two opinions

To assist in the Rotation of the new Company as to the length of time required to make the now line, the fast statement is lasccurate. The | we are asked to begin immediately, and to con share in the new Company issued to the share, tinua for a period of at fast three years giving | holders of the old Company will be fully paid' | away sufficient from our present profits, to in- vestors in the new Line, so as to bring them in

To tas Editos or the ↑ Hokakond TELEGRAPH,T up and entitled to dividends on the full amount

SIR,-The report of the directors of the Indo- of Sto.00 per share from the formation of the an immediate return and thus perhaps justify Company. On the other hand the remaining Investment in a venture that wuld otherwise China Steam Navigation Company for the past shares will only be entitled to dividend on the be difficult to float. It must not be forgotten year must have come pretty much as a shock amount paid on them for the time being which that it is not the old Company which proposes to the majority of shareholders in Hongkong, will certainly not exceed $5.00 persbars for the building the opposition Lins, but a new Com- particularly when a reference was made to the frst year and may be less. So that if 55.00 only pany, and, unless I am once more mistaken, dividend which it is proposed to give. There be called up on sooo shares the dividend they can only succeed in floating their scheme is a general impression that the distribution would go half to the holders of the fully paid if permitted to buy us out at a price more ad- proposed is utterly disproportiopate to the

enormous amount of profits made by the Com Further, the witnesses called by the prisoner apart for the celebration of the birthday of the same-are to treat her misch, as, the gunners ap shares' and half to the others, and on the | vantill of the oplaion that there is not pany during the past year. It is po exaggera

1 basis of earnings of six per cent on the full capital of $750,000 0o this would be equivalentulcient traffic for a second. Line through lotion to say that the decision of the gentral to go cents per share in the new Company or the Peak, nor of any moretary necessity for massgers in appropriating not a quarter of the $18.00 per share on each bare in the old Com another even in substitution for the old Line, profits towards dividends is regarded with the pany, actually $3.00. more per share than was Consequently I am forced to the conclusion utmost dissatisfaction by the very large-body paid last year,

that the general managers and the consulting of thareholders in China, In fact, to great had Again in paragraph 7 of his leter Mr. Brown committee, who claim to represent or control been the disappointment that within 48 bours says: Bot why not let well alone! The old 35% of the shares of the fold company arthe announcement of the dividend the stock Company is strong enough and surely dolog are beginning to realise that they over depreciated by over 20 per cent. The fall in wall snough. Let the new Company go ahead estimated, she importance of the contemfan markas value of the sock was 12%, bar

In stating this case to the Court Mr. Dixon said that the first action was brought to recover 5718,12, being amount of damages and loss sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a breach of a contract by the defendant. The con

of the rewards in each case. In one paragraph, tract was made between the defendant and theories to the tent. For this purpose the absolate of the proclamation appeared a list of names plaintiff under the following circumstances

of the absconding bandite of Hay Ksi village, The defendant was compradore to the Message and the first of theus was Wong Ka Cheongsies Maritimes, and during the five days sel

at the Magistracy testified that the man had Goddess of Heaven" (April 23 to 29) the resided in that district since boyhood. That, defendant chartered two steamers from the the Attorney General submitted, was evidence Messageries Maritimes to run between Hong prima facie that the prisoner was a subject of kong and Chakwan, and that shortly before China The feared Counsel then proceeded April 23-0 April 19-the plaintiff was ap to address the Court on the question of the proached by friend of the defendant's and onus of proof in the matter,

asked whether he would act as steward on board the steamers and sell refreshments to the pas. sangers. In was ultimately agreed that plaintiff was to have the sole right of selling provisions

The grounds upon which Mr. Ferrers argued that the prisoner was entitled to be discharged from custody wore dealt with at length after the

MINES v. TURPEDOES. One of the lessons taught, by the Russo Japanese war is that the submarine mine may be more effective than the torpedo. The Ad miralty have collected a deal of information on this subject, and are about to put certain the torpedo-gunboat Raillernake has been set aside for experimental purposes. Torpedolats and submarine miners in the Navy one and the did the Balletti According to a home journal the hull of the Rafflesnake is to be coated with coment, in varying thickness, and then stack ed by mines and torpedoes. Presumably the object of these trials is to ascertain whether ship's bottom can be suficiently stiffened to make her impervious to underwater attack But as the experiments are to be of a conf dential nature, one can only conjecture-what the authorities hops to Jara by them.

to them than to UL

THE INDO-CHINA S. N. CO.