1905-08-12 — Page 2

224

had a frantage to side streets. The result of abiding by this rule would certainly be very curious, and more curious still in the case of those buildings where there were no side streets. Such a proposal as this seemed to him to be entirely out of place and he moved as an amend. ment that the latter part of the second recom. mendation be deleted.

Dr. Penres said he wished to draw the atten tion of the Board to the fact that if the height of buildings fronting on side streets was not governed by some definite principle, the Board would not be in a position to tell the owners of property how far they should or should not raise their buildings. If there were no regula. tions the Board would be faced with the same difficulty on each application. Perhaps the Director of Public Works had some other view about the lighting of side streets.

The President said this amendment brought the Board back to their original report. It might be in the recollection of the Board that a report was to be presented at the last meet ing, but in deference to the wishes of the Medical Officer of Health the report was still furtise considered. Practically no alteration was made with the exception that this clause in question was added. There should be some definite rule laid down to guide the officers of the Hoard in malters falling under Clause II. The Director of Public Works had put his finger on one of the paints. They would be penalis ing buildings with side streets running pastthem if they adopted this motion. It looked as if one were not doing everything to secure the sanitary condition of a building if they offered no inducement to owners to build side streets, Beside the P. and O. office there was a narrow

1

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 1905,

KIENE 6. NEWMAN,

INTERESTING CLAIM IN COURT.

9th inst.

discharge, and we will also pay him any bonus if there is one due.

Mr. Gedge-Apart from that, if there was not a contract i am entitled to damages for the breach of the contract.

Mr. Gedge.I am suing for damages.

His Honour.-But you have not a contract. Mr. Gedge.—This is onn (holding up ́a, dô- cument).

promissory note for $5,000 in full satis of the defendant in Vladivostok. The cargo on faction for all claims Mr. Murray had board the Royalist was contraband of war and the port of Vladivostok, bétonging to one of against him. Shortly afterwards it came to the plaintiff's knowledge that Kwai Puk had the belligerent powers in the war now being a steam launch-the subject of this action- | carried on between Japan and Russia, was at

His Honour-How can you be; you have] at his disposal and Mr. Murray agreed to take the time blockaded, The defendant gave the A somewhat intricate action was argued be

not a contract. You should have sued in the fore His Honour Mr. A. G. Wise in the Sum.the steam launch in satisfaction of his claim. plaintiff no opportunity of declining to proceed

io Vladivostok, thus exposing him to extra-Lord Mayor's Court in London ; you cannot sus mary Court this afternoon when Mr. F. Kiene, That was agreed to and the promissory nota

was cancelled. A bill of sale of the yessel ordinary and unforeseen dangers and perils for wages here.

which were not contemplated and were not with manager of the Hongkong, branch of the

was executed on 27th January, too, by Equitable Life Assurance Society, sued Mr. M.

in the terms of the contract for service. After the K. Newman, canvasser to the China Mutual which Kwai Pak transfered the steam Life Assurance Co., Tower House,, Kennedy launch Competitor to the plaintiff. The plain steamship had got under way, after leaving tiff had no knowledge whatever that the Kwai Singapore, the defendant entered into a verbal Rand, for $1,000 (reduced from $1,651.45 so as

His Honour.-Oh, no. The contract you are Pak was entitled to transfer the launch or that agreement with the plaintiff whereby the de- to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the

he was partner in any firm which was in fendant in consideration' of the plaintiff pro-suing on is a verbal agreement, and the plain- Court), being balance of money lent.

financial straits. Shortly afterwards the Wi ceeding to Vladivostok promised to pay him if has given that away but saying he refused Yuen firm went into bankruptcy and the launch double wages and a bonus on account of the to accept it while the other was accepted under was seized by the official receiver. After some extraordinary and unforeseen dangers and pe protest.

Mr. Gedge. I understood he accepted the explanation it was released, but when Mr.rils to which he would be exposed in going to

learn. Vladivostok. The plaintiff had not received verbal agreement and went on to Vladivostok. Marray went to take possession of it

His Honour-should have thought so ; bot ed that it had been taken to Canton. The the said bonus, and he therefore claimed the

sum of $1,000 for breach of contract and such he saya ke didn't. plaintiff followed to Canton, spoke to the British Consul on the subject, and obtained double wagas and bonus as promised. possession of the launch which he brought back to Hongkong. On his return it was again seized by the trustee in bankruptcy, and this action was taken in order that the plaintiff might recover his launch.

Mr. R. Harding, of Messrs. Ewens, Harston and Harding, represented plaintiff, and Mr C. E. u. Beavis, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for the defendant.

In opening the case Mr. Harding mentioned that since January when the defendant entered plaintiff's employ, Mr. Kiene had advanced to him sums of money amounting in all to $3,092.50, as against which Mr. Kiene now admitted $1,440.05 ay due to the defendant for commission, thus leaving a balance of $1,652.45 in respect of which the claim was now niade. He submitted three questions for his. Honour's decision: (1) Is the defendant entitled to coin. mission on prentia paid or due after the date of his leaving the plaintiff's service-the roth July? Defendant argued that he is entitled 10 commission on all premia, introduced into the firm as their agent. Plaintiff said he was not. If his Lordship held that he was so entitled the second question arose is defendant entitled to commiss

The plaintiff gave evidence hearing out the opening statement of his counsel.

Is it true that when the bill of sale was executed you had any idea of defrauding the creditors of Wi Yueno, sir. I know of only one, and I wouldn't defraud him.

Did you take farcible possession of the launch at Canton?-Never..

What loss have you incurred through this

Mr. H. J. Gedge (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. J. D. Stephens for the defendant.

After reading the endorsement on the writ, Mr. Gedge was proceeding to relate the facts of the case when

think as

evidence than what seems to mo.a somewhat fantastic theory as to what actually took place. There is no half-way house. Either the plain- tiff's story is true, or as, I said in my former judgment he was an accomplice in the robbery. In that judgment on further consideration, I do not think it necessary to alter a single word."

Appeal dismissed with costs. The Court adjourned zime dis,

HONGKONG DEBTORS.

A SIGN OF THE TIMEL

with Inst. There was a very small roster of cases in the Small Debt Court to-day. As a rule the Court. is crowded on Fridays with exultant creditors and tremulous debtors, but apparently people have taken to paying their little bills, and con sequently the game of the angler and the fab Plaintiff could not get out of the ship.is, for the present, out of fashion. His Honour Mr. A. G. Whaa, Puiana Judge, occupied the The ship was at sea.

|

Mr. Gedge. You have to treat these seamen | bench, with a little more latitude than in the case of ordinary witnesses.

His Honour.-Ob, yes. This man appears to know what he is doing. There is no contract: You cannot sue on the verbal agreement, you cannot sue on this other thing, and you are therefore reduced to the ordinary seaman action at the final port of discharge.

Plaintif intended to take this to the court in London or at the final port of dix. charge, but the captain informed me he was leaving the ship.

His Honour, You see he knows this case is

lane, but it was hardly likely the owner would due on premis after July 19th, when he -, l'attachment?The rental of the launch-$125 | proceed to Barry and having taken a cargo ope for the court in London. He should sue

he were to be penalised for doing so,

Mr. Badeley seconded the amendment. On a vote the motion was carried by a con- siderable majority and it was agreed to send a copy of the report to the Governor.

A DRAINAGE QUESTION, On a report by the Sanitary Surveyor as to drainage,

Mr. Rumjahh said it appeared from the ro port of the Sanitary Surveyor, that the drainage system at Inland Lot 1569 was defective and that a nuisance was caused by the drain. The drain bad been in existence for some years and it was defective owing to the amount of water which Bowed in from some score of houses there. He suggested that the flow of water should be diverted. At present all the water from the roofs of 21 houses as well as the water from the rear washed into a 6-inch pipe, which was not, be thought, a desimble state of things.

The President-Will it meet your views if the Sanitary Surveyor be asked to report whe- ther a 6-inch drain is sufficient?

Mr. Rumjahn-Well, you see the Surveyor is only acting

The President-Then we will include the Medical Officer of Health also.

Agreed.

INSPECTION OF CATTLE AND MEAT. A report was submitted as to a diseased car

cass.

Mr. Runjaho said that the present systemi of cattle inspection was not in any way up-to- date. It had been established in to gkong fully 10 years ago, and although the abattois had increased in size, the number of cattle "daily passing through the abattoir had doubled, and the trade generally had greatly expanded, no attempt apparently had been made to over. haul the system of cattle inspection or the inspection of meat. There ought to be, in his opinion, stricter examination of the cattle which arrived in the Colony from abroad. At present there was no segregation shed for the observation of cattle brought into the Colany, There was a splendid piece of ground on the foreshore of Belcher's Bay which might be utilised for the erection of segregation sheds. The importance of this question of improving the facilities and the system of inspection of cattle could not be overlooked. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to con. sider and report on the inspection of cattle and meat in the Colony.

Mr. Fung Wa Chun-Do you think it is necessary?

The President-1 don't think it will do any harm.

Mr. Fung Wa Chun-Then I second the motion.

Agreed unanimously,

Other matters of minor importance were dealt with and the Board adjourned.

PAINTERS AT VARIANCE.

A PARTNER WITHOUT PARTNERSHIP BOOKS.

8th inst.

In the Court of Summary jurisdiction this afternoon, before His Honour Mr. A. G. Wire, Puisse judge-Toang Shui Hung, 39, Market Street, Hongkong, sued Tsang Ken, 16, Bulke ley Street, Hunghom, in the sum of 5201.60 in respect of a balance due for goods sold and delivered.

Mr. R. Harding (Messrs. Ewens, Harsion & Harding) appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. R. F. C. Master (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master)

appeared for the defendant.

It was explained that the defendant had beeb in the employment of the plaintiff, a painter, until May this year, when a charge was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant of em- bezzlament of moneys which had been collect ed at the Kowloon Decks, to the amount of $1,062. When the defendant was arrested 5406 was found in his possession, and when the Magistrate dismissed the charge he ordered that money to be handed over to the defend ant's solicitors in order that accounts might be settled between the parties. An account for $317 was made out and paid. The defendant now argued that the receipt he then gave for that monny was a receipt in settlement of all claims against him. But the plaintiff maintained that it was only an acknowledgment for money due in respect of the dock works. The point before

and which was not paid?. In that event when was such commission due, and is defendant entitled to it at the present time.

His Honour intimated that he considered the defendant was entitled to commission on alt

premin earned.

Mr. Hardinghe question is: Is it earned? I shall argue that it is not.

Proceeding, Mr. Harding maintained that the onus of proof as to whether it was or was not earned rested on the defendant, and con- tended that he was only entitled to .com. mission on the premia earned during the time he was in the service of the plaintiff.

The defendant was called and gave evidence showing that he was to be paid 30 per cent on the first year's premiums of any business intro- duced into the business. After he had been questioned at some length. concerning the various figures before the Court, his Honour asked him his reason for leaving plaintifs employ. Mr. Newman alleged that it was because of the unbusinesslike actions of Mr. Kiene..

a month.

In cross-examination, the witness was asked how it was that Kwai Puk came into the business in supplying coal? He replied that it was understood that he was to get the orders and give them to Kwai Puk who would fulfil them. He personally got the orders for the San Francisco but Su Wi Chui was to pay the money. Then Kwai Puk said "We will sup ply the coal."

Who did you understand by "We"?-Su Wi Chui.

Did he say where the coal was ?-No. Kwai Puk told me they would suppy the coal.

And who is "they"-The plural I took as the singular all the way through.

A royal personage etc ?-F. H. Murray and Co, was myself and Su.Wi Chui.

You didn't know that Su Wi Chui was a partner in the Wi Yuen ?-Never knew it. Had known it I should never have taken this

nction.

Both inst

The hearing of the case of E, R. Murray, 4, His Honour intimated that he considered Daddell Street, against G. H. Wakeman, that that would be an insufficient excuse for Truster in Bankruptcy for the Wei Yuen firm, leaving, but whether or not such was the case concluding, for the return of the steam launch and even if the plaintiff had punched the deCompetitor or payment of its value $5,000, was fendant's head, that had nothing whatever to resumed in the Court of Original Jurisdiction

de with the present action which was simply at-day, the Chief Justice, Sir Francis Piggott, claim for balance of an account due.

Mr. Kiene proceeded to give evidence showing that he had always handed defendant a monthly account of the various sums due. It was the recognised rule in insurance offices that if a canvasser left the employ of a com pany he would forfeit every cent due as com mission afte the dae of leaving. As to the defendant's allegations of unprofessional con- duct he denied that there was an atom of truth in the assertions.

After further evidence had been given his Honour said the an had discharged himself, and the plaintiff might bring an action against him for doing so without sufficient cause, He was not entitled to commission on premium paid before leaving for he lost all claim in that respect by discharging himself. He was only a hired servant,

The point was turther argued and eventually Judgment was given for plaintiff for $1,000 with stay of execution till Friday week.

SEQUEL TO A BANKRUPICY.

INTERESTING DETAILS OF A HONG- KONG COALING CONCERN,

9th inst. An extremely interesting action was com menced in the Supreme Court, in Original jurisdiction, this afternoon, the Chief Justice, Sir Francis Piggott, presiding. Edward Henry Murray, coal merchant and commission agent

Duddell Street, sued G. H. Wakeman, the. Trustee in bankruptcy for the Wi Yuen firm, for the return of the steam launch Competitor or payment of its value, 5000.

Mr. H. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. Gold: ring of Brutton, Hest and Goldring, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C.. instructed by Mr. Dixon represented the de fendant

The statement of claim showed that on the

27th January a bill of sale was executed of the steam launch Competitor and the vessel was

'The

handed over to the plaintiff. Afterwards it was seized by the trustee in bankruptcy. defence was that the steam launch was never the property of Kwai Yok the senior pari

on the bench.

Mr. H. N Ferrers, instructed by Messrs. Bratton, Heti and Goldring, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. . E. Pollock, K.c, instructed by Mr Dixon, represented the defendant.

When the case was adjourned yesterday, the question under consideration was whether the promissory note for $1,300 which the plaintiff had received from Kwai Pak, in payment of alt claims, and afterwards exchanged in. return for the steam-launch, was properly stamped and executed.

THE STAMPING OF DOCUMENTS. Ilis Lordship said this morning, when the rase opened. there was in the possession of the Court a document which purported to be executed dated iongkong, 26th January, 1905. There was a stamp on that document dated 30th lanuary, 1903. It was necessary to deal with this document as it stood irrespective of any evidence. His Lordship had intended in deal with the document as if it were unstamped and order it to be stamped and impose a penalty under section 8 of the Stamp Ordinance. But by paragraph d of sub-section 2. bills of ex change and promissory notes shall not be stamped after the event. Therefore, it would appear to be an offence under section 23 (1) and the Stamp Officer's attention should be called to the matter and the document im- pounded under section 12. Generally speaking, it was the duty of the Court, in nct in aid of the revenue and specially when a document was said by an Ordinance not to be receivable in evidence when unstamped or insufficiently

stamped. It was then the duty of the Court not to receive it whether the point was taken by Counsel or not. This document was not Siamps, and unless the learned counsel for the stamped in accordance with the Ordinance on plaintiff could urge anything in favour of it, his Lordship thought that by Section 11 it was not receivable in evidence,

Mr. Ferrers-Promissory notes cannot be stamped after execution.

His Lordship-On the face of this document we have a document which has been stamped after execution.

Mr. Ferrers suggested that the plaintiff might have spoken in error.

Ilis Honour (interrupting) said: a matter of fact the facts are all admitted.

Mr. Stephens. No, my Lord. Proceeding, Mr. Gedge said that the voyage was to extend for a period not exceeding two years, and Vladivostok was within the degree of latitur embodied in the terms of the agree ment. Afer leaving South Shields the ship of coal board left for Singapore which the

Mr. Gedge requested his Honour to refer to plaintiff thought was her final destination. He then outlined the facts of the case which would the case of Burton v, Piggott, and Mr. Wise he related by the plaintiff, and was alluding to promised to do so and reserved judgment the figures of the claim before the Court when accordingly.

Mr. Stephens said he would admit certain. On Friday his honour found for defendant, liability--double wages, for instance-and if with costs. there was any bonus due the plaintiff would receive it. As a matter of fact there was no' bonus due.

Mr. Gedge.I think I shall be able to prove to your Lordship that there was a bonus."

His Honour-Yes, all right. But I don't quite understand how this case comes to this Court. It should be heard in the Police Court There was a similar case before the Lord Mayor's court in London not long ago. It comes under the Merchant Shipping Act and I don't see why it should not go to the Police Court

Mr. Gedge-We cannot take it there. I submit that there was extraordinary peril.

His Honour-Oh, yes. There's no trouble

about that.

Mr. Gedge-There is a leading case on the point of wages-the case of Burton 24 Piggott, r. Gedge proceeded to quate the authority after which

His Honour said-I don't think it is disputed that at Singapore the destination of the ship was changed.

His Honour-Ru: he is suing on that. Mr. Stephense don't dispute that. We will pay it when it becomes due. In the Mer chant Shipping Act it is provided that where a seanan is engaged for a voyage and that voyage is to terminate in the United Kingdom he cannot sue in a court of law for wages until the termination of such voyage.

Mr Gedge-We are not; we are suing for damages. For double wages and bonus.

Mr. Stephens. But the wages are not pay able until the end of the voyage. We did not promise a bonus.·

Mr. Gedge. At any rate your client got £500 bonus when the anchor dropped in Vladi vostok.

Mr. Stephens. That has nothing to do with the agreement, and I don't admit it; the cap lain has never informed me of it.

the owners.

THE INDO-CHINA ROBBERY

CASE.

APṚBAI, UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED."

STRICTURES ON MAGISTRACY METHODS.

toth inst.

The Full Court sat this morning to, give Judgment in the appeal against the judgment of the Chief Justice in the Lam Tung vi. Nam Lung firm case. The Chief Justice, Sir Francis Piggott, and His HoGour Mr. A. G. Wise Pulsne Judge, were on the beach.

His Honour the Puisne Judge, is his Judg. meat, related the facts of the case, stating that the Nam Lung firm, who carried on business near Saigon, was robbed of a large sum of money. Lam Tung was a cook on a French

In

A BAD BOARDER.

Mrs. Elizabeth Bamsey, residing at 56 Cains The debtor, B. Engel, was absent. It appeared Road, sued an erstwhile lodger for $229.19.

that the defendant had incurred a total debt of $239.20. for board and lodging, which included sundry advances: He had repaid $so, leaving! $179.29 unaccounted for. Mr. Beavis explained that the sum sued for included the money lent.

ལྡན།་ཞེ་

His Lordskip-All right. Never mind that. Go on.

Mr. Beavis said he wanted judgment for the fall amount, £229 odd.

His Lordship-I'll give you judgment for $129 19, with, costs on the scala over $200.

That satished the legal agent.

SAME DEBTOR AGAIN,

Mr. G. E. Morell, of Dennys and Bowley, presented a claim from the Tuk Shing firm for $141.75 which it was alleged B. Engel owed... His Lordship-Been lucky enough to get anything?

Mr. Morell-(sadly)-Nothing, my Lord The assistant manager of the Tuk Shing firm said that the defendant had received goods and advances of money. An I. O. U for $25 waE produced.

Judgment for plaintiff with costs.

FORGOT HIS CHITS. The Baltimore Hotel had a claim against an: ex-boarder named F. J. Haynes.

His Lordship Is this a Customs man ? It was stated that the defendant had no con nection with the Customs.

The compradore of the Hotel stated that the debtor stayed there from 1st June till 6th July and left chits behind him to the amount of $69.07.

Judgment with costs.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?"

to the name of

Aluring was a creditor to the extent of $13.75 for rice sold and delivered.

"Are you a Christian?" asked the clerk of the Court.

The plaintiff explained in Chinese' what his religious views were, hut the clerk required an answer in plain English.

!.

"Are you a Christian ?" he reiterated. "There's my wife," he remarked with a wave of his hand in the direction of a.lady in Court, as if to say, "Ask her."

Eventually he elected to be described as a Christian and was sworn accordingly,

"Judgment and costs" declared the judge, and the pleased plaintiff wandered back to his better half.

BANKRUPT FIRM'S ESTATE RELEASED.

IIth inst.

In the Bankruptcy Court to-day-the Chief Justice, Sir Francis Piggott, on the bench-an application on behalf of the Ching Hop firm, bankrupt, was heard.

steamer trading between Saigon and Hongkong. By the sama steamer travelled a man named Mr. Gedue-The plaintiff claims that there Chau Kwong who had been acquainted with was a verbal contract whereby in considera-Lam Tung for some years. When the vessel tioun of the ship proceeding to Vladivostoke he arrived at Hongkong Chau Kwong was arrested on the charge of being concerned in the burg- was to be paid double wages.

lary on the Nam Lung firm; he was handed over to the French authorities and convicted. When he was arrested in Hongkong the sum of $3,000 in notes was found in his possession, $2,600 of which formed the subject of the pre sent action. The Nam Lung firm demanded! the restitution of the moneys, as being part of the proceeds of the burglary. Lam Teng claimed the money alleging that he had given it to Chau Kwong for safe custody. The learned Chief Justice found for the plain: tiff and the defendants appellants appealed from that judgment. The counsel for the appellants took a somewhat unusual course. the one he asked that the judgment appealed He divided his stack into two parts, against should be reversed; and in the other he asked for special leave to adduce further evidence: His Lordship thought that the appellants were aking an ineffectuat altempt to get in further evidence, which ai tempt ought to have been more strenuously urged in the earlier stages of the case. After recounting what had happened in the lower Court, his Lordship said he bad come to the conclusion that the appellants knew perfectly well at the time of the trial what further evi dence they wanted, and that they had two opposition had been arrived at and agreed 10 in terms of the Ordinance. The creditors portunities of attempting to get that further evidence and had not availed themselves of i had, agreed to accept a composition of There never had been a surprise; so far as they 30 per cent. on the amount of their respective were concerned they acted with their eyes debts, in three equal instalments. Payment was open. Under these circumstances, if this sort guaranteed by Yu Chong S1, master of the of appeal were to succeed there would be no Wangial, which was approved by all the finality. He was strongly of opinion that in creditors. view of their laches they were not entitled to any indulgence, and that so far as this part of the appeal went it failed. On both points his Lordship saw no reason why the original deci- sion should be disturbed. He thoroughly agreed with the learned Chief Justice that there was considerable difficulty in the matter, bur he could only say that several doubts which he bad on first reading the papers had disappear. ed on further consideration. His Lordship was of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Gedge. He has said to himself. Mr. Stephers. It is quite beside the question. His Honour. There is no trouble about the law, Defendant has admitted that he promised double wages, and the sole question is whether plaintiff is entitled to be paid now or when the ship arrives in London.

Mr. Gedge. The articles only relate to the wages carned during the voyage of two years, and do not relate to any outside agreement entered into between the parties concerning payment for other services rendered during the voyage. For instance

Mr. Stephens.-1 think I shall show- Mr. Gedge-Will you allow me, Mr. Step hens. Don't keep on interrupting.

Proceeding, Mr. Gedge instanced a case in which remuneration apart from that stipulated under the usual agreement would be paid, and then called evidence.

ner in the firm of Wi Yuen. The delence the point and I took it down at the time-it is/amt his fears were subsequently borne out, for

denied that $5,000 was given for the launch and

His ordship-Hin evidence is very clear on trious. He was being cross-examined

if any document passed between Kwai Yuk and the plaintiff concerning this yacht it was executed to defraud the creditors of the Winnte. Yuen firm.

Mr. Ferters, in his opening statement, re- marked that the plaintiff was a citizen of the United States carrying on business in Hong. kong. In March, 1904, the plaintiff founded, in partnership with a Chinaman named Su Wel Chin, a firm under the name of E. H. Murray & Co, and its object was general commercial business, but more particularly to deal in coal. The plaintiff as an American citizen had a good deal of influence both with the American Navy and the American Government of the Philip pine Islands. His object was to use that is fuence for the purpose of obtaining contracts to coal American warships and supply provi, vions to the Government of the Philippines.

to why he destroyed the first promissory The second note, he said, was signed on the date 26th January, 1905. Was stamped

"I got it stamped im before, signature. mediately after-no. I mean before, signature." Mr. Ferrers said that the evidence was a mistake.

His Lordship remarked that he was merely concerned with the legal question whether the document was receivable in evidence and he found that in accordance with the Jaw it could not be received.

The cross-examination of the plaintiff, was continued, and in the course of his replies be remarked that he had made a mistake in his evidence regarding the dates the previous day, for which he was extremely sorry.

Evidence of officials from the Stamp Office

was heard ne to the procedure adopted in

Mr. Goldring, of Brutton, Hett and Goldring, said he had filed an application on behalf of

the debtors asking that the scheme of com.

position adopted by special resolutions of the creditors be approved by the Court and that the estate and effects be released. The com.

His Lordship Were all the creditors pro tent at the meeting?

Mr. Goldring The resolution was passed by the required majority.

The Court granted the application,

TRE ALLEGED PERJURY

BY AN INTERPRETER

1

rith inst..! The case in which Un Kam Wa, clerk and

interpreter to Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master, is charged with perjury was again called oa befors Mr. F. A, Hazeland this meroing.

Mr. H. W. Looker, of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon appeared for the prosecu tion, and Mr. H. E. Peallock, K.C. Instructed by Mr. C. S. Bailey, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master, for the defence.

The case for the prosecution being closed, Mr. H. E. Pollock, addressing the Court, said that this was not one of the usual sort of cases which came before his Worship; it was a case in which the prosecutor was a man, who, of course, wished to press home the charge on account of concerns of his own. He subruitted there was no case to go to a jury. To substantiate the pecuniary interest, he having interests in the

of his judgment that he had experienced cao charge of perjury it was necessary to provs siderable difficulty in arriving at it, and he had that the accused either did not believable therefore been the more anxious to hear what assertion to be true, or actually knew it not to

the Court was whether the receipt for $317 was | For that purpose he was anxious to enter into stamping promissory notes; and counsel od• } plaintiff said, "Owing to the fact that I have further arguments could be advanced on either be true. When a man is served with a writ a receipt in settlement of all claims or not. co-operation with a Chinaman who could

dressed the Court on the subject.

His Lordship said he could not accept the

The first, and as it proved, the only, witness to be examined was the plaintiff, who said that when the ship arrived at Singapore, and went alongside the wharf he was instructed that they were going to proceed to Hongkong. Owing to the presence of a British naval lieutenant on board during the afternoon his suspicions were aroused concerning the destination of the ship,

The Chief Justice, in the cause of his judg. when he was getting the engines ready and ment, held that the fresh evidence which it was stand by" was rung on the telegraph it came sought to adduce had not been excluded in the this knowledge that the vessel was bound for lower Court by season of any technical objection Vladivostok. He immediately left the engine it was excluded by an order of the Judge ir. room and gave orders to the third engineer not Chambers; there was no appeal front that de to respond to the telegraph. He went to the cision, and no application of any sort was made chief engineer about the matter and subie- to the Court during the trial which would have quently saw the captain who told him the ship enabled it to make an order for this evidence was going to Vladivostok. Witness told him to be taken. After dealing with other points, counsel said it was very hard to have valuable he would not go and the captain replied his Lordship remarked that the defendant' "Surely you are not going to humbug me. Look here, there is double pay if you go be evidence excluded. But this arose from the sides a bonus from the Russian government andi fact that the affidavit made in support of the also a bonus from the owners. I can assUIT summons for a commission disclosed the actual you it will be paid." Witness was shown facts which it was alleged the witnesses in certain correspondence that had passed with the Saigon would give. His Lordship saw no ren- copy of the agreement, Witness told him being the case. It was apparent from the terms wners, but the captain refused to give him a spn to alter the opinion be formed after hear. would not proceed, and the defendant replied "You will have to take my word the same as I have had to take the owners." Upon this been deceived on two other occasions with a side to make the matter clearer to his mind. of mummone in a partnership it is neces During this time the ship was under way and alter the decision he arrived at nor any of the show it was so served on him as being one he remarked to the chief engineer "This is a subordinate opinions on different parts of the of the partners, or as one having full control of smart way to take people out of part." Two case which went to compose the whole.. In the management. In this case the complalo, days later there was a dispute with the men closing his Lordship referred to an argumentent was served as a partner. Therefore in no about a document which the captain had which occurred over a letter. His Lordship stage of these proceedings was it necessary for mislaid, Words were spoken over the said:"The really serious part of the case the defendant to make the statement, which if mess-room table with regard to mutiny, and made on this point is the discrepancy in the is admitted he did make, and therefore it was the chief officer said "The first man that re evidence of Kwong Kam Cheung. At the not material, and to substantiate a charge of fuses duty, the captain is ready for him; he will, Police Court he said he opened the envelope perjury materiality is necessary. Mr. Follock clap him in irons." As his certificate was at and that there were two envelopes inside. At nidhwould show that complainant had known stake witness did not think it would be advis. the trial he said that when be opened the defendant and had frequently admitted to able to refuse duly. At Vladivostok several of envelope there was a letter inside which be several meg that be was a partner is the Ko Further evidence was then called and the the crew asked the captain about the Russian put back in the envelope. It is much to be Shing Theatre

regretted that the officials of the Police Court bonus and he told them that he knew nothin about it. When the anchor was dropped in do not seem to have been too careful to see what case was adjourned till to-morrow. Vladivostok the taptain said "That's my too." became of the enclosure whatever it was The Upon arriving at Shanghai the captain refused envelope came to the Registrar of this Court DUE to the great care which has been exercised to give witness any guarantee as to payment, opened, with no caclosure. Although this is a in all cases and suspected cases of plague, and witness saw the British Consul and Mr. serious matter, I do not think that there is Manila still continues to remain free from that to agree to certain anything in it to support the theory that the dread disease. The number of cases for the Douglas advised him written terms ander protest. As the ship was envelope was an old one, and was not in fact fiscal year ending June 30th, 1905," shows a about to leave and he did wish to delay her "opened" in the presence of the Magistrate, decrease of fifty per cent; over the number witness accepted the advice, and--

All parties wore present and it is not to be sup which occurred last year. During the fiscal Hi Honaun-You did not accept the verbal pased that any sleight-of-hand could have been year ending 1904 there were tot cases, while agreement, and you accepted this under protest. practised without somebody noticing it. But in 1905 there were only 51. This is considered Mr. Stephens,We are quite willing to pay again this points to frand and perjury, and we a very great result when it is remembered that cannot come to a decision which is only con the disease is epidemic in India and other mur. the double wages to the plaintiff when we arrive la London or as the final port of sistent with auch keinous offences on no better rounding countries.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant was in furnish the capital, the plaintiff supplying his his employment until 30th April last when commercial skill. That partnership was carried promissory note as evidence and non-suited verbal agreement i don't intend to accept that." He did not find anything to make bimary that there must be some writing to

Mr. Harding explained that the Police Court proceedings only concerned the money receive ed from the docks and said that there was other money due which was not then dealt with. He held that the defence that the receipt for the $317 barred further claims was not valid.

the plaintiff with rosts.

BLOCKADE RUNNING.

he left on being prosecuted on a charge of on from March 1994. The plaintiff spoke no embezzlement,

Chinese and as his partner spoke no English the services of Kwai Fuk was engaged as inter preter. The difficulties which led to this litiga tion arose in this way. The plaintiff was suc cessful in getting the offes to do business both

A SUCCESSFUL VOYAGE. with the American Government and with the Philippine Government. But he found,

AND DISSATISFIED ENGINEER'S CLAIM, the matter af coaling especially in

roth inst. San Francisca, the action the cruiser of Kwai Puk was such that he forfeited An echo of the days when every sailorman the contract which he had entered into to dreamt of being captured by either of the belli- supply coal. It had been arranged that the gerent fleets while on a vessel carrying contra- coal should be brought from a Chinese quarter band of war was heard in the Court of Sum- and that it should be suitable for a warship. mary Jurisdiction to-day, before His. Epadar Not only did he lose the contract to supply Mr. A. G. Wist, Paisne Judge: William Tamer coal to that warship, but he forfeited all his Seabrook, second engineer, sued W. A. Scott, His Lordship-Ten years a partner and no opportunities of doing business with the Amer master of the steamship Royalist, for breach of books?—I was not the accountant.

can navy. The plaintiff told Kwai Puk that it contract. In his statement of claim the plan His Lordship-Ten years ago there was not was of especial importance that the coal sup- tiff stated that he signed a contract of South a shop in this town which did not have partner-plied should be of the best quality. The coal Shields on 5th October, 1904, engaging to per- form the duties of second engineer for an or ship books. Now they have none.

actually supplied through Kwai Pak turned ont

His Lordship-11 1 could find out what you are fighting about we might arrive at some con- clusion,

The defendant, lagthe witness box, said he bad been a partner with the plaintiff for ten years, up to the time that he was prosecuted. Asked whether he had any books to prove that statement, the defendant said he had never held the books.

Did you get wages?—I got $15 a month. to be of very inferior quality with the result dinary voyage within the limits of the contract As wages? We both got $15 a month and that the cruiser rejected it The plaintiff in On arrival at Singapore, on the 27th Novem divided the profits.

formed Kwal Puk that he intended to take ber, 1904, the defendant represented to the Eventually after bearing considerable proceedings against him for spoiling the plaintiff that the next port of call was Hong, evidence from the plaintiff and defendant, bis coal business, and Kwai Pak in order to kong, whereas instead of proceeding to Hong Lordship non-suited the plaintiff

Avold Court proceedings gave plaintiff akong the steamship proceeded under the orders