1909-06-15 — Page 5

Solicitor's Conduct Questioned

ACTION FOR DISBARMENT.

BERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF E»BEZZLEMENT.

The Supreme Court was comfortably filled with spectators this morning when the inter- locutory proceedings were taken, in which Mr Clive Fletcher Dixon, soliciter, late of the firm of Maiste, Hastings and Hastings, was called upon to show cause why his name should not be struck off the Rolli ́of the Sup. reme Court for alleged misconduct,

The visitors numbered some forty. persops. Including maoy Chinese gentlemen, officers of the Hongkong Police Force, and many civilians, who followed the care with considerable inter 11. The defendant entered the court-room accompanied by his lawyers and his brothari solicitor, a few minutes before the Court dat, and took up the same position at the left band end of the table is he occupied yesterday. He Appeared more cheerful to day, and chaited freely with his lawyers.,

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH TUESDAY JUNE 15, 1909.

Court case. Wan Hi agreed to pay Sgo cost He instructed Mr. Dixon and paid to him $10 on account. This money defendant duly cre dited to the firm as having been received on account. On the 13th or 14th January, Wan Hi paid to the defendant the remaining Szo out of the $30. This sum, however, was never credit ed to the firm by the defendant and the firm never received it. The text charge against the defendant was in January of the present year."

The defendant was engaged by an. Indian named Gulab in a case on the 21st January, and he paid the defendant; on account of Messrs. Bastings and Hastings, costs in the sum of $40. Only 530 of this sum the defend. aut credited to his firm.

At this juncture, Coupsel spoke as to the way in which defendant joined the firm of Messrs, Hastings and Hastings. The defendant, he said, came to this Colony soms ilme in Octo ber, 1904, and jolaed the firm as an assistant solicitor. He showed considérable ability în the conduct of the cases in which he had been instructed, and as far as Mr. John Hastings could see he was a capable and trustworthy map; and to show how Mr. Hastings looked The Judges, Sir Francis Piggott and Mr. upon the defendant as a valuable man it need Justice Gompenz, arrived in Codet shortly after only be mentioned that, at the end of his 'half-past ten, when Mr. E. Potter (representing term, defondant was called upon to enter Mesura, Hastings and, Hastings) the complain-into a second agreement: By that agreement „ante,, bagan his address to the Judges, Mr. | it was agreed to keep defendant for an addi- Potter was instructed by Mr. C. D Wilkinson, tional term of five years as managing clerk, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist.

and at the end of the term he was promised a partnership in the business,

Conorel went into the alleged facts, of the cate at great length. He opened his "address by saying that the application was on behalf of Mr. John Blastings, of the firm of Hastings and Hastings, that Mr. Clive Fletcher Dixon be struck off the Rolls as a «slicitor on the groupd that he had been guilty of grois misconduct in his capacity as a solicitor.

|

|

Mr. Justice Gompertz-Was that mentioned in the agreement?

Mr. Pouer-Yes. (Proceeding)-So, your Lordships will readily see that Mr. Dixon is. A Inap, whom Mr. Hastings could have had no dezire to get rid of, and your Lordships will more readily recognise the fact that Mr.. Hastings was to have Jeft Hongkong this year for some time and he, Mr. Cathrop (for the defence) —Might | aug-relied upon Mr. Dixon stepping inte bis posi gest that my friend specifically formulate the charges against my client. I understand there are three charges of embezzlement,

Mr. Justice Gompertz-Gross misconduçi ? Mr. Porter-Yes,

Mr. Potter-will come to them presently, The Chief Justice-Put them in the best form you can.

Mr. Calibrop returned that he wanted to knowthecharges Mosers. Hastings and Hastings are relying on.

lion, and to be of every assistance to the firm when the senior partner left the Colony, Your Lordships will see then that Mr. Dixon's a valuable man, and so far as desiring to get rid of him a partnership in the business was offered him..

Counsel at this point explained the rule existing in the office of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings as to the receipts of monies. When money was paid över 10 any person in the firm, be said, a receipt is given to the

Mr. Potter-There are three charges, but before coming to them I want to give a sjelch "nt Mr.Dixao's connection-with-the-firm-of--client, entries_were_made_in_the_rough_casb.. 'Mosses, Hastings and-Hustings.

£

Mr. Celthrop-1 want to know the charges first.

Mr. Potter replied, that he would come to shem presently.

book by the solicitor receiving the money, and a wote made in the solicitor's diary of every transaction. When this was done the money is turned over to the cashier, who pays it into the bank. Of course, the reason why a soli

entries in the books was because of the bills of costs to be sent to clients.

Mr. Calthrop -We are entitled to know what 'citor should be so scrupulously exact as to the they are.

Mr. Patter Three, in cumber and beta Counsel opened: bis....case.......... He...siated, that a

witness, one Wong Hue Tong, of Cinton, would prove to the Court that on the 23rd July, igas, he paid the sum of $509 to Mr. Dixao for costs. That stim

Devar credited to Messrs Hastings and Hastings, nor did the firm receive the money, Mr. Wongui Tong would also

prove-

wai

|

This brought Counsel to the_and_February-

an important date in this matter. On that day Mr. John Hastings had a conversation with two of his interpreters, and by reason of bat cos versation he made inquiries and as a result of those inquiries Mr... Bastings discovered that so far from defendant being a loyal and faithful servant to the firm, and so far from Mr-Caltbron-Wo-want-the-three-charges-being-an-absolutely trustworthy person, that Mr. Poller-They will come to more than he bad taken these sums of money, bor xbree.

rowed sums, and made requests as already Mr. Calibrop-The man is fighting for his ineationed. All this evidence was obtained professional existence. And we want to know absolutely, independent of any employee of the charges against him,

Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, said Counsel. Only in one case did Mr. Hastings invoke any outside aid, and in that case a police-inspector brought him in touch with the man, Was Hi, jo securing the charges.. As he had already stated the charges are five in number, and are sup posted by Wong Hui Tong, who is an inde pendent witness, and managing partner of a wealthy and influential firm of silk merchants of Canton.

Continuing, r. Potter stated that during the continuance of 40 acion the defendant bor. rowed various sums of money from Wong Hui Tong, amounting in all to $750; that at the conclusion of that action—

The Chief Justics-Was Wong Hui Tong client of the firm?

Mr. Poller-Yes..

on, sum

of

of

|,

Apparently there was no reason why this moo should come here sed swear to roin Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixan conducted, the case for him and conducted it successfully, and so far from owing him any grudge Wong Hui Tang owed him a debt of gratitude. Was Hi, the other witness, is the manager of a fruit store in Hongkong, and Gulah is a jemadar in the Police Force. There

Mr. Justice Gompertz -What was the action? Mr. Poller-Yep. He was the plaintiff lo the action brought by the Kwong Ring Cheung film agniost Reuter, Brockelmann Rod Company, Át the conclusion that action, Counsel went 510,881 was due to Mr. Woog's 'firm from Keuter, Brockelmann and Company as costs. At as interview between the defendant and Mr. Woog, the defendant suggested that if he band. | could, therefore, be no collusion among the, ed over the full ambost in costs to Mr. Woog he (defendant) should get $1,000 for himself..

Mr. Calthrop—I would ask my friend to specify the dates.

Mr. Potter-I think the witness will supply the dates. I have not seen Kim,-but-I-think ho can give them I think the action conclud. ed some time in July, 1958.

Mr. Calthrop-That is very vague. The Chief Justice said that charges had been made against the man and dates should be KİVOD.

Mr.-Potter-1 cannot give the dates now, but I will as soon as I can..

Mr. Janice Gompertz inquired whether the money 'defendant was alleged to have borrow ed had been repaid,

Mr. Potter's answer was in the negative, Mr. Calibr'p-He denies borrowing any whobey..

Mr. Potter-Yes, be denias that,

Mr. Calthrop here proceeded to read certain rujes 'rom the Law Timet newspaper when Counsel for the plaintiff's objected to anything balug quoted from a newspaper. His friend had a similar objection yesterday,

Mr. Calthrop replied that in making charges against a mad the material char es and dates should appear in the affidavits, but his friend had other charges now which were not in the affidavits. Hare Mr. Calthrop said that if his friend "did not trust him" he would hand mp the Law Times vales to the Court which thedia.

|

witnesses: Wong. Hui Tong belongs to Can- top: Was Hi resides in Hongkong, and Gulab is an Indian,

On the 26th March, Mr. John Hastings bed an interview with the defendant on this matter. It might be stated here that at that interview Mr. Hastings was not aware of the charges to be made by Wong Hui Tong, of Canton,

At the interview, Mr. Hastings said to the defendant that it had been reported to him (Mr. Hastings) by Hung Kam

Ming (the late interpreter) that defendant had" been in the habit of receiving monies from clients for costs and of paying portions of it in. to the office and retaining the balance for him. self; that this was done penally in Police Court cases, or cases in which clients paid money to bim direct in cash. Mr. Hastings also said that he had made independent inquires into the mitter, and that he was satisfied that he had obtained sufficient evidence to satisfy him that the charges were true.

Mr. Dizon, Counsel said, answered-"It is not so." He then left the room, and had not gone for more than a minute, when Mr. Hastings called him back, and said to him:-"I have sufficient evidence to prosecute you, Dixon; but I bave no wish to do so. I want you to go away, for I cannot keep you in my office now."

admit having taken money from the office, but The defendant sat down, and thou said :—"1

it was only small amounts, and there were not many occasions on which I did it,

Mr. Hastings said :—": It is not, the question

of the amount. It is a matter of principle."

Mr. Potter it is not a question of the tresting.

The Chief Justice-F should say that the | Mr. Hastings went on to tell defendant that he -charges bo differently. formulated before they, was in a position of trust and responsibility, ›coms into Court,

and that he could not keep him in employment

Mr, Pollar—I shall be glad to do all in faimoss | after this. He (Mr. Hastioga) attributed the o the defendant. The next charge, he said, was whole affair to defendant keeping bad com- yon ibe Sib:January, 1959, when a man named pagy, and living with a European woman, who Wan Hi engaged Measre. Hastinge and Haa. ^ran Elm into greater expense than he could to act on behalf of a friend in's Police afford, and that desgodent bed promised him to.

give up this mode of life, and had poi done so.

To this defendant answered-"I might have taken thousands if I wanted to,"

"י:4

ble tights under the Agreement above mentioned are valid and subsisting,

Your faithfully,

(Sd) EWINS & HARSTOW. John Hastings, Esq.

Soon after, the receipt of this letter, said

" บ

"I must deny it," the defendant is alleged to have said, " or site & shail go under altogether." Mr. Blastings told defendant that there was Do necessity, "for him going under altogether." There were other places than Hongkong.

The defendant asked if he could not be allowed to practise in Hongkong.

Mr. Hastings then suggested that defendant should go to Japan, ostensibly dou a boliday, and that he should not return. He suggested Counsel, Mr. Hastings had another interview further that defendant should go to some other with the defendant. "What do you mean by place where he could continue his practice,admitting this thing to mo," he said, "and go Defendant said:-"I have nowhere to go to to a firm of solicitors and lastruct them to deny 1 can't go home as my father has already two | it*** sons in the business." He begged Mr.. Hast ings to re-consider the matter and let him stay on, adding that what had occurred would ba a lesion to him. That concluded the first interview..

On the 31st March, Mr. Hastings wrote to defendant the following letter:-

3141-March, 1969. Dear Dixon-Referring to our interview of the 16th instant, during which you ad- mitted to me that you had taken office money on various occasions, though you id the amounts were small, I have con- sidered the matter very carefully, being most anxious to do what is right both as regards yourself and as regards this firm; and I can come to no conclusion but that you must leave this office.

You are in a position of great trust, and, responsibility and it is impossible that you can be continued in such a position, unless this firm has complete confidence in you which of course cannot be the case after what has occurred.

The Agreement between as must there. fore be cancelled nad i enclose you an Agreement cancelling sama which please sign and return.

I do not, however, wish to send you away at once; and have no objection to your staying.on for a month or two if you wish at the same salary, etc., in order to give you time to look round and make your plan as to what you will do.

It must be understood, however, that we are at liberty to determine such engage ment at any time should any necessity, arisa for doing so.

་:་

As regards the money paid by Sharpe Parkers & Co. for your admission as a Notary, I have written to my brother to try and get it refunded. If that cannot be dose of course you must pay it.

I trust that if you do stop here for a time as suggested, you will give up'living with the woman with whom you are now living and try and save all you can,

I should be glad also to know, particulars of the amounts which you have taken from the office monies and to have same re-. funded.

Yours faithfully,

(Sd) JOHN HASTINGS.

|

Mr. Hastings said he could not. Concluding, Mr. Potter said he did not know what the defence in the case would be. He did not know how defendant proposed to get over what seemed to be an insuperable difficulty created by his own language la these interviews But he took it the defence would be a total denial of the charges, which would mean that Mr. Hastings had invented them with mar- vellous particularity. When their Lordships bad heard the witnesses, when they had heard the defendent, and the cross-examination he (Counsel) will ask them to say that the charges had been proved, and that however. painful it would be to their Lordships, he would ask them to decide what punishment they would decree to a case of this kind.

Mr. John Hastings was then called to the witness-box. He said that, he had a solicitor's practice in Hoogkong and was the senior partner in the firm of Messrs, Hastings and Hastings. In 1904, Mr. Dixon first joined the firm as assistant solicitor. Os the 15th of April, 1907, he entered into a new Agreement by which Mr. Dixon was to continue is the firm's employment for another five years, At the end of which he was to be given a part- dership. Witness bad always found Mr. Dixon a valuable man and had no desire to get rid of him. He expected great services of him in case of witness' departure from the Colony, Witness preceeded home during 1958, where he re mained till 15th October. The rule in his office is when a solicitor receives money for costs, he enters it himself in a rough cash-book. He then bands the money to the cashier, whose duty it is to pay the money' at once to the Bank: A receipt was always given for all monies paid to the firm Each solicitor had to make an entry into the diary for all so vices rendered to clients and these entries went into the bill for costa Oe the 2nd February, 1909, wines, kad an interview with Tam Ling Kwong, his present interpreter, and with a former interpreter who had since retired from his service. In consequence of these inter views, be made inquiries and also requested quities in regard to a certain cast. Chief Detective-Inspector Hanson to make in-

He obtain

Today's Advertisements.

NOTICE TO CONSIGNEES.

"HE P: & O, S, N. Co.'s Stormer'

"MALTA,"\"

T

FROM ANTWERP, LONDON, MALTA,

PORT SAID, SUEZ AND STRAITS, Consignees of Cargo by the above-named vessel are hereby informed that their Goods are being landed and placed of their rish in the Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company: Godowns at Kowloon, whers each and dalivary can be obtained as soon as the consignment will be sorted out mark by mark, Goods are landed."

Optional Goods will be landed here unless

Intimations.

THE

DAIRY FARM COMPANY

LIMITED.

EXTRA CHOICE SUGAR CURED

BACON and HAM.

VERY MILD

instructions are given to the contrary before HONEYSUCKLE

Ja

6 hour

Goods not cleared by the 1st instant, "at 4 P.M. will be subject to rent

No Fire Insurance will be effected by ma to any case whatever................

Godowas for examination by the Consignee's Damaged Packages must be left in the and the Company's representative. at su appointed hour.

L

All claims must be presented within ́ten- days of the steamer's arrival here after which, dats they cannot be recognised. have laft the Godowns.

No claims will be admitted after the goads

الله

·E, A., HEWETT,"

Superintendent Hangkrag, 15th June 3009, i

NOTICE TO CONSIGNEES. FROM SINGAPORE, PENANG' AND CALCUTTA

THE Steamship

"JAPAN."

having arrived from the above Ports, Cos signees of Cargo are hereby informed that their Goods will be delivered from alongside.

Cargo impeding the discharge of the Vessel will be landed at once, at Consignees' risk and expense.

17th insty will be landed at Consignees' risk Cargo remaining on board after 4 PM, of the and expense.

Consignees of Cargo from SINGAPORE aud PENANG are requested to take IM- MEDIATE DELIVERY of their Goods charge of the vessel will be landed and stored from alongside, such Cargo impeding the dis at Consignees' risk and expense.

No Fire Insurance has been effected. Bills of Lading will be countersigned by the Undersigned.

DAVID SASSOON & CG, LIMITED,

Agents. Hongkong, 15th June, roog.

1481

to that effect.--This-request-witness-refused- bad be any motive to ruin him.' Witness had no wish to fight Mr. Dixon nor He was the most useful man in his office:

By Mr. Calibrop-Witness had bad his prac tice for a long time in Hongkong. ile. started in 1880-29, years, Witness did ant know if he had been very successful. During that perience in criminal and Common Law time, he had a great deal of, ex- C. F. Dixon, Esq.

cases. At the time Tam Ling-Kwong-made- by saying that Mr. Hastings wanted to cover Mr. Potter, after reading the letter, continued

his report, be did not specify any parti- cular point. He did not know of his own defendant as much as possible, and requested

Kam. Ming. Soon afterwards, be placed the knowledge but had been told about it by Lung him to slay on for two months more

Through Inspector Hanson, he got some evl matter in the hands of Inspector Hanson, leave the Colony. There was no reply to antil he had collected sufficient money, to the above letter, and on 2nd April Mr. Hastings; Brockelmann & Co. Mr. Dixon had taken

dence from Wong Hi which satisfied him. Du the 26th of March, he had information as to addressed defendant again, calling upon him up the case. On the 26th of March, witness about 5.80-or-515 in the afternoon. Besides wit Wong Hi and Gulab. The interview took place to aurreader the signed agreement which was had an interview with Mr. Dixon. On the folacas and Mr. Dixon, nobody else was present at sent to him on 31st ult. Go the 2nd Aprit, the lowing day, he wrote to his brother informing theinterview. He did not have a third and inde same day, Mr. John Hastings received a letter him of the result of the interview. In the in- pendent persoa present because he did not think

from Mesir. Eweos and Harston. The letter is appended :-

and April, 1909. Dear Sir, We have been consulted by Mr.C. F. Dixon relative to your letter. to him of the 31st ult, and Mr. Dixon has informed us of what took place at your Interview with him on the 26th ult.

Mr. Dixon instructs us that at such in. terview he denied the charges which you advanced against him:

•

In the first paragraph of your, latter under reply you allege that, at the later view in question; the charges were ad

mitted,

We are instructed to say that such as not the case and that the charges ip que tion were then and still are dopied.

We have further to inform you that, in view of your statement to Mr. Dixon at the interview of the 26th alt, above alluded to that Mr. Hung Kam Ning had admitted that the charges were true and that he was implicated, Mr. Harston has seen Mr. Hung Kam Niog and has been informed by him that he has not only never ad- mitted the truth of the charges, but strenuously denies them,

ad certain evidence in the case of Wong Hi. particulars of the case of Wong Hui Tong, io Tam Ling Kwong further gave him further

which the Kwong Hing Cheung firm sued Reu-

money

it necessary, Witness admitted that it would have been advisable to have had a third person present at the time Mr. Dixon was charged with the alleged embezzlement. He would not have advised a client to adopt that course. He wrote of it. a letter to his brother and preserved a copy

of the interview word for word but simply The letter did not give the result contained a summary of it, (Here; a letter dated the 27th March was produced and read in Court. Part of the letter contained matter permission from the Bench. The concluding irrelevant to the case, which was left over by portion of the letter said that Mr. Dixon hod. given up a good position and good taicous-and for what?),

proceeding when the Court zone for tiffin,

Mr. Hastings cross-examination was still

BRAND. Only 60 cents alb. Hongkong, 4th Jane, 1909.

ASAHI BEER.

SAPPORO BEEK.

OBTAINABLE AVERYWHERE.

MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA Solo Agents

[471

THE "HINA PROVIDENT LOAN. ÄND

MORTGAGE CO., LD.

{CAPITAL FAID OF $1,350,000) Loans on Mortgage of House Property, &c. Goods received on Stomge. Advances mada en Merchandisa, Loads made on the Provident Spattina

(Rams and Part,culars on application)." THE OFFICE OF T TRUSTEE EXECUTOR OF WILLS,

ATTORNEY, &c Undertakaq and Komenta

SHEWAN, TOMES & CO.,

General ManagSIS, Mail-bagy, roth Marek, took

terview, witness told Mr. Dixon that it was re- ported that he was in the babit of receiving money for coats from clients and paying a portion of it to the office and keeping the balance for himself. Witness gave Mr. Dixon to understand that he had been informed that this used to be dous principally in Police Court Casca Or in caics in which Mr. Dixon. received money in cash from clients. Witness said that he had made independent inquiries in the matter and was satisfied that the informaton given him was true. Mr. Dixon denied the allegations and shortly afterwards left the room, but witness almost immediately called him back. Witness When the proceedings resumed the attend- informed Mr. Dixon that he had evidence in auce in Court had increased somewhat. Among his possession on which he could prosecute the spectators were noticed some well-known bim, but that he had no wish whatever throughout the afternoon's proceedings. The local European merchants, who remained to do so. He, however, advised him to go cross-examination of Mir. Hastings WAY COO away, as it was impossible to keep him in Tinued-after Mr. Calthrop had read a lcites, the office. Mr. Dixon then admitted of having numbering some twenty typewritten pages, taken

from

written by Mesir. Ewens and Hariton to the office, but he said the amounts were small and the occasions that latter was also read to the Court, as were Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist. The reply to were not many on which he did so. Witness many others, all of which were put in as Ex- replied that the amount was not the question;hibits, Under cross-examination, Mr. Hastings but the matter was one of principle. Mr. Dixon reiterated that he found defendant a very use was in a position of trust and responsibilityful man. In 1907 be left for home in April, and and witness said he could not see how it was the agreement with the defendant was entered possible for him to keep him in the office. Be into just before that. The first agreement with Under the terms of the Agreement dated suggested to Mr. Dixon that he should go the defendant was for four years, and when the the 15th April, 19:7, made by your firm with sway and practise elsewhere. The latter re- second one was entered into defendant had Mr. Dixon he is entitled to certain substan plied that he had nowhere to go. He could only completed two and three-quarter years tial rights-which rights he is the more en sons in the business. Witabas suggested other Mr. Dixon, but the latter wanted terms. The not go home, because his father had already two under the first one, Witness wanted to keep titled to by reason of the fact that be has, places where he might go to. Witness attri second agreement was made by: winesi"bro in reliance upon the dus recognition by buted what had occurred to, the fact that Mr. ther-Mr. Geo. Hastings-and not by wildes. your firm of thess rights, partly performed Dizon was living with a European woman, who Under that agreement defendant was to get $325 the terms of such Agretmout,

must have run him into a great deal of expense a month for the first year and $150 for the last This Agreement we gather from your be did not spend more than be could afford.

-more than fie could afford. Mr. Dixon said three years with commission and be profit- felter under reply you are desirous should Witness reminded defendant that his (witness") the second year and so forth. The question of

one per cent, for the first year, two per cent, for LI KWONG LOONG & CO., be cancelled, but, upon the facts laid before brother had spoken to him about the subject of leave salary when away, and passage modeY us, we have advised L Dixon he should living with this woman and that he bad pro- (single passage only) were also mentioned. refaise to sign the Agreement of Cancella-mised to give up that mode of life. Defendant Witness first saw Wong Hui, Tong this year

begged witness to give him another chance tion which you have prepared and endor-

not laat year: The Reater, Brockalmann and said this would serve as n lasson to action took place while witness was. 'at sed upon the original Agreement.

him. He said he could have taken thous home. There was a large sum of money With reference to the question of the

anda" if he had wished to do so, é begged paid to Wong Bul Tong, by" witnans' : fem his brother Witoes said he had already with Mr. Dixon then. The accounts were written to his brother. Witness said he felt made up by Mr. Dixon. The account was absolutely certain that defendant bad admitted paid; to Wong about the middle of April. having taking money from the office.

There was a complaint made at the time by order in any design required. written by witness, dated the 31st March and When the complaint was made.Wong, Tam. Olub, Hongkong Hudal, Toge At this stage, two letters were produced, both Wong about the costs and Cown costs. Have been patronised by tha: 20d April, respectively. A reply was received defendant and witness were prosant Au Mem. A. %. Watson & Co. Firmal to the letter of and April from Mesem. Ewers Arrangement had been made to charge. Wong leading Retablishments in the (6) and Harston. Continuing, witness said that Stoo for making out the accounts. Wong, whom reference can be made! on receipt of the letter from Messrs. Ewans in his complaint regarding the costs, sud Superior Workmanship and Mancials) andarston, be called Mr. Dixon to bis that he had paid the sum of $100 to Mr. Turalture, dice, supplied. room and asked him what he meant by Dixon which had not been accounted for. Wit admluting that he had taken money from the office and the instructing a firm of down note at the time about the complaint. ness questioned him about it, but did not take solicitors to write a letter denying it. Mr. Dixon: He did not consider it necessary to make a noto, you are somewhat strained and the post-Witness sald be saw no reason why he shoulded aim if he would give evidence about the said he must deny it or go under altogether.. Authe next interview with Wong, witness ash- tion allogether by no means a desirable go under allogether. Hongkong was not, the money he had given to Mr. Dixon. Wosy wa one from Mr. Dixon's point of view, only place to the world. He could make unwilling, and stated that he did not want to Lila' passible that if Mr. Harston could s living anywhere. Winess, sald if Mr. have anything to do with the matter. Weng meet you to discuss the matter some satis Dixon witbid to fight, he was perfectly, also complained of the costs being too high factory arrangement might be arrived at, hat willing to dan souci Mrs Dixon said, and wanted them reduced." § Wilense, sald he you will please distinctly understand that, allowed to practise in Hongkong and said he

he did not wish to fight, He asked to be would go through them and work "In the meantime, Mú Digon claims that ! would not inks away witness' cliente qe "words, when our reporter left the Court,

The cross-examination was still going on AN

FURNITURE WAREHOUSE:

CABINET-MAKERS AND· ART DECURATORE, from Shanghai, has rs-opened their FURNITURE. STORE

No. 39, DES VIEUX ROAD CENTRAL,

mossy paid for his admission an u Notary him to reconsider the matter, and write to for costs. Witness may have seen Wong The only Shop In' Hongkong with this name

by Messrs. Sharpe Parker & Co. (who we understand are your London Agents) we bava advised Mr. Dixon that, upon the facts laid before us by him, it is perfectly clear that your firm and your firm alone is legally liable to reimburss Messrs. Sharpe Farker & Co. the amount, disbursed by

them.

In view of the position raised by the charges brought by you against Mr. Dizon, we can well understand (as we are inform. ed is the case) that the relations between

Wery ascription can be IX HERE HIGH-OLASZ FURNITUR

follows A

Mantra. A. S. Watson. & Os, Ltd, writ

:* We have pleasure in stating that

- KWONG LOUNG fernished to our Dispensary and gara faction.

(60) A

8th May, 15914 ORDE

CHARG

Page 5Page 6