1929-05-18 — Page 3

"VIVELLA"

WHITE or KHAKI GOLF HOSE

A man chooses "VIYELLA” Golf Hose instinctively, realising that they inter- prot the very qualities his idealistic nature demands..

"Viyella" Golf Hose

$3.00 pair Lens 10% cash discount

LANE,CRAWFORD, Ltd|

Men's Wear Stylists.

THE

BKT

AND

CHEAP.

EST

PER-

MAN-.

ENT

HAIR WAVING IN THE COLONY

Mr.. BETEN Tel. K, 681,

Kalansion Room 34.

PENINSULA HOTEL

MIRRORS

AND-

BATHROOM

FITTINGS

LEE YU KEE

SHOWROOM

40, Queen's Road, C...Tel, C.1888 PLUMBING WORKSHOP

}

14, Moan 81............Tel, 0.4778 CEMENT TILE FACTORY

85, Wakefluid Rond, ............ Tal. C.1483

STORAGE ADVANTAGES

CENTRAL POSITION Competent Service MODERATE RATES

FIAT GARAGE

67. Des Voeux Rd. C. Tel. C,4821.

MRS. MOTONO

HAND & ELECTRIC MASSAGE

No. 41B, Top Floor, Wyndham St. Hongkong.

METALS

of all kinds specially for ship building and engineering work.. Complais rock. Bank Termu, Immediate dalivary.

SINGON & CO.,

ESTABLISHED A.D. 1988,

HING LUNG EL

Phone kenmerkator. QazkrilSIS,

THE

HONGKONG

TELEGRAPH.

SATURDAY, MAY 18, 1929.

NO JUDGMENT INed to a certain amount of criti-and that there was a marked ab-ness of the matter as

BANK CASE.

GRAVE NEGLIGENCE IN THE

TREASURY.

cism.

sence of questioning of Tsang. It was clear that he had full Mr-King had obviously taken the responsibility placed in him with view that trickery might possibly regard to the cheques. All the havo been involved and Mr Jen- timo the Government never op kin had urged that even before peared to have lost confidence in the appearance of the Police him. Mr. Messer and Mr. Black Tsang On-wing had not been appeared to have been with him questioned. There was, however, all through and if he was the evidence that he made a statement criminal which the defence had in regard to the loss of the alleged him to be then he had cheques. showed the most extraordinary nerve. There had been no algn

LAW TO BE ARGUED. As briefly reported yesterday, although the spécial jury try

of failure of that nervo and in the Ing the etion between the Hong-witness box his mind had been kang Government and the Hong kong and Shanghai Banking Cor- poration delivered its verdict no judgment was entered.

·

perfectly agile.

The silence of Taang ̈ On-wing had been atressed by counsel for the defendant bank but he did not think a word could be said against Mr. Jenkin on that account, Counsel had hie case to present and had strongly argued that Tanag's silence pointed to his be- ing in the affair. That allenco was equally consistent with both the forgery and the trick sugges- tions.

On the morning of the 5th Yeo went to the Equitable and was informed that the Sang Cheung cheque had been returned by the Hongkong Bank. The cheque was handed back to Yes who returned in the afternoon with the Man Lee cheque for $95,000.

regarda Thang. It must be remembored that the whole of his reputation and character was at stake and they must also bear in mind the consequences which would follow an adverse verdict against him. Teang occupied a big position in the Treasury. He was drawing a salary of $2,000 a year. If he was in the swindle then there were certainly two persons concernod, Yeo and Tsang. Supposing there were two more a fourth share, of $260,000 was a very considerable sum of money. Would

another man involved have stayed to safe- guard his $2,000 a year? ..

Who Must Suffer? Concluding his summing up Sir | Henry pointed out that a large | sum of money was involved in the case. The fury had to decide which of the two parties was to suffer.

需

All the Cheques Forge.

(1) Are the signatures or any of them which appear upon the three cheques exhibits A. B and C. and purport to be the signatures of Mr. C. Mcl. Messer and Mr. T. Black forgeries, or are the same or any of them genuine?

Evidence of Letters, The Chief Justice pointed out that the bank retained Professor Shellshear on January 18 or 19 and he did not think he was do- an injustice ing Mr. Hegarty when ho anid that whatever ques tions arose, in connexion with the Dealing in his Aumming

cheques the bank took precau- up with the case for the de-

tions and that the possibility of dence, his Lordship said the bank

forgery was in his mind as said that the cheques were genuine

woll as the possibility of the and that the signatures of Mr.

cheques being obtained by a trick. It was their duty to prepare for The summing up occupied two Black and Mr. Messer must have

any eventuality and consequently and a half hours, finishing at one been obtained by a trick, Mr.

counsel and Professor Shellshear | o'clock, the usual time of the Jankin had perfectly fairly said |

were retained early.

Court's adjournment. In reply to The Sang Cheung Cheque.

It had also been contended by Hia Lordship counsel on both that in order to present his, caso

Sir Henry pointed out that on the defence that if Mr. Measer | sides said they had no objection to clearly he had had to put wit- January 4 a cheque for $73,000 know the cheques wore forged the jury separating, and returning nesses for the Crown to a severe was paid into the Equitable Ene- there was no need for the search later to consider their verdict. cross-examination. He had also tern Banking Corporation on be- för vouchers. Mr. Messer, how-The jury expressed its desire to distinctly said he did not, and half of the Man Lee firm. That ever, was previously connected this course and the Court rose un- never had during any period of the Sang Cheung cheque with the Police Force and he til 2.15 pm.

which was presented to the Hong-would explore other avenues. The Court sat for a fow mo- the proceedings, called into ques-kong Bank and returned to the That criticism squally applied too ments at 2.15 when the jury re- tion the honesty of Mr. Messer | Equitable as the former bank did to the retaining of Professor turned to consider four questions, and Mr. Black,

not know the endorsement and Shellsbear.

The Jury retired for about an When the defence of a trick was quite properly asked for verinca- The Chief Justice went on to hour and gave their replies, The refer to the letters which passed questions and replies are given put before a jury, they naturally on of it.

between the bank and the Tron-below: asked themselves what was the

sury. The defence, ho said, aug- trick? Mr. Jenkin had put for

gested that the letter of the 19th ward certain possible suggestions

showed that the bank only had the but he did not say exactly what

trick theory in mind. In its reply the Treasury sald the difference the trick alleged Was as his

in the balance of the account was clients, were not present when it

accounted for by the three cho- ques which were the subject of an investigation. Mr. asked why, if Mr. Messer knew at that time the signatures were forged, did he not say so in his re- ply to the bank's letter. Mr. Messer had explained that the letter was written by a legai ad- viser and that he signed it. This

(3) Did Tsang On-wing or was a matter for the jury's co-Cheung Man-kun or either of sideration but it did not appear them know on or before the res very satisfactory evidence that pective dates of the presentation the cheques were obtained by a

and payment of the said threo che trick.

ques, and if so, on what respec- tive dates, that, after the receipt by the Treasury of the cheque The jury would appreciate the importance of Professor Shell-book which contained cheques (a) the printing_on the cover shear's evidence. The point tad numbered K/6 238601 to 299200,

of the said cheque book had been made of the difficulty of at-

been wrongfully and fraud- tributing writing to a certain per son. Professor Shellshear had

ulently altered? had ample time and ample material to arrive at conclusions. It had been alleged against Mr. In the consideration of hie evi- Messer and Mr. Black that at the dence, it must be remembered that: time the cheques came into pro- he had instruments at his com minence they themselves thought mand for, the purpose of discover- that they had been obtained by a ing a forgery, it was obvious trick. Both Mr. Messer and Mr. that the man who carried through Black had denied that, saying from the first that they were satisfied their signatures were not genuine. There was certainly a conflict of evidence on that point. The Bank witnesses,

so far

occurred.

►

With regard to the suggestion as to signing cheques in blank, it had been hotly repudiated by Mr. Black and Mr. Messer. His Lordship remarked he could not imagine a more Renselens and irregular proceeding as signing cheques in blank. He did not think Mr. Potter was putting it Iton strongly when he said that If Government officint was gulity of that kind of thing he had no business to be in the Treasury.

No Evidence of Trick, As to the possible trick, it was denied as impossible if the ordin- nry procedure in the Treasury had been followed and it was only fair to the two gentlemen involved to call the jury's attention to the fact that nothing they could call evidence had been called by tho defence in support of the sugges-1

tion,'

In fact, in his final address, Mr. Jenkin very frankly admitted he could really give no idea of how the trick was carried out, but he had said that the conduct of Tsang On-wing and the evidence of Professor Shellabear showed clearly that some trick must have been used to obtain the signa tures.

-

The suggestion had been made and put to the jury that those facts went to show that the Man Lee cheque was forged between the morning and three o'clock in the afternoon. If the cheques had been obtained by a trick it would appear likely that the cheque for the larger amount would have been paid in first, The answer on that point by the defence would be that the four cheques were obtained by a trick at the same time, to which the plaintiffs would reply that if there were four cheques why were not four accounts opened instead of three. The question was solely one for the jury. Did, the cir- cumstances there paint to a for- gory or to the cheques having been obtained by a trick?

Conflict of Evidence.

Jenkin

Man of Considerable Skill

Answer: All the cheques are forgeries.

(2) Was Teang On-wing a party to the fraud which was perpetra ted by means of the said threo cheques?

:

Answer: No.

Answer: No.

(b) thirty blank cheques num- bered K/0 239171 to 280200, together with their respec tive counterfolls had been wrongfully and fraudulent- ly extracted therefrom? Answer: No.,

(1) that when the said cheque book was received by the Treasury the cover of the samo had already been

the transaction was a man of con- Or did the sald Tsang On-wing siderable skill. He was dealing or Cheung Man-kun or either of in large amounts and consequent-them up to and until the said res ly may have had a certain amount pective dates of presentation and of money to carry it through. payment believe. ди He would probably have access their recollection was concerned, to the same authorities at the If the jury accepted that sug- had said that there was no re-command of Professor Shellahear gestion then the only, conclusion pudiation of the signatures at the and the same apparatus for judg they could come to was that the bank, although one witness had ing the value and eleverness of his aginatures were genuine. It was admitted that the question of for- forgery. a very difficult defence

Dealing with pen pressure his to gery was mentioned. Mr. Messer mnke because if a trick was had said that he made it quite Lordship pointed out that the ex- suggested there might be clear that the signatures were pert witness had said that Mr. facts within the knowledge of forged.

Black's pressure was extraordin-

der the British system was inevit-

of 题

Rarities in Writing.

altered,

Answer: Yes.

(2) that the said book had been received from the defen- dants containing only 570 cheques.

Answer: Yes.

(4) Were the alterations on the cover and the extraction of thirty cheques and their counterfolls from cheque book "P" circums. tance of such a náturg that by the exercise of reasonable care and

diligence on the part of either Mr. Black or Mr. Messer or both, they, or any of them, should have been known to these officials or either of them in the month of December,

19277

Answer: The answer is yes.

the Crown which would show that Regarding the question of the arily even and had expressed the the suggested trick was impossi- telephone communication be- opinion that the pen pressure of ble. If they believed the evi- tween Mr. Measer and Mr. Gray- his general signaturo occurred on dence of the Crown the tricks sag-burn that was a very remarkable the three disputed cheques. In gested were Impossible... thing. If it did not occur and cross-examination it had been In order to establish a trick it if Mr. Messer's honesty was not in shown that pen pressure was a was necessary to find someone in question it certainly showed the truly elusive matter. formed of it and for that purpose possession

very vivid It depended upon, posture, the the defence had put forward Teang imagination on Mr. Messer's part. height at which a person wrote, On-wing, who had been severely They only had Mr. Messer's word state of mind and physical condl cross-examined by Mr. Jenkin as for it and it was difficult to see tion. Sir Henry reminded the Professor Shellshear had been how he could be mistaken. It jury that he had asked Professor severely cross-examined by Hr. was challenged by the defence Shellshear if there would be any Potter. In Tuang's C380 the on the ground that nothing was serious difference in the pen pre- The absence of adequate supervi- charge of fraud was most clearly said about it during the Yeo trial. sure on two signatures, one writion on the part of Treasury off- made,

It would not have been evidence ten when he went into the witcials amounts to grave negligence. for the Crown in that ease and if neas box and another when he

Exempt for Seven Years, Severe Cross-Examination, Mr. Messer had volunteered it he was tired. He had said that

A copy of the questions bearing there would be a difference in the written answers was signed Commenting on cross-examina-would have been checked.

pressure. The

more. Professor by the six members of the special tion, his Lordship said that

Unsatisfactory Point,

Shellshear studied pen pressure jury, Mr. II. A. Lammert (fore- severity of cross-examination, un- Mr. Jenkin said that in his characteristics and writing the man), Mr. G. F. Haslam, Mr. B. Wong Tape, Mr. C. L. C. Sandes, able. In fact it was essential that cross-examination he had brought more he discovered.

Mr. Wong Kwong-tin and Mr. R. a witness who came before them Mr. Messer up to a point several

M. Dyer, and handed to His Lord. and asked them to accept a state-times where a reference to that

In the Yeo proceedings he had ship who thanked them for the ment or, opinion advanced by him, conversation would have been should have his credibility or his proper and reasonable. It must said that the absence of pen pres-very great care they had taken in expertness tested in every possi-be remembered that witnesses sure was a feature of Taung's considering the case. He exempted ble way. One could sympathise were not encouraged to volunteer writing. fe now said that after them from further service for a with a witness but it was no part statements under cross-examina- further inquiry he had come to period of seven years, adding that the conclusion that he could see the exemption would not apply to of his Lordship's duty to inter- in the present case notice had pen pressure In the writing. the seventh juryman, Mr. S. M. fere with severe cross-examina-

boen given to the defendant bank It had been urged by the de- Churn, who had developed illness tion unless it was unfair. In that that evidence regarding the con- fento that the signatures contain- during the early stages of the case it was equally clear it would bo a gross neglect of duty on his versation would be called by the ed rarities and that if they were trial.

His Lordship said that in the part if he did not stop it because plaintiff. The only reply to that forgeries it would be a very re-

was that Mr. Grayburn had no markable thing that they had been matter of judgment Mr. Jenkin recollection of it. It was rather caught by the forger. The argu-would probably desire to deal with pity that the matter had been ment was a justifiable one and the matter of estoppel. He there- allowed to rest there. Mr. Gray-one which required the careful fore proposed to take the verdtet burn's evidence could have been consideration of the jury but it of the jury on the questions and So far as neverity of

cross taken on commission and he would also required consideration on the to order further discussion.

Mr. Potter, for the Government, examination was concerned the have given his version and he ground that the presence of rari- jury should not in any way alluch would also have been subject to ties might cut both ways. On the formally asked for judgment, and blame to

efther side for the cross-examination. The whole of other side it could be urged that asked His Lordship to note that. Bir Henry Gollan replied that ho severity of the cross-examination the episode would have been more in the genuine writing there were

had not reserved Judgment but which the witnesses were sub-antiafactory. Mr. Jenkin had not so many rare features all

was not entering It because It had jected to.

done the best with the material in massed together. his hands and he asked the jury

Referring once more to Tsang been clearly understood that he to doubt the correctness of Mr. On-wing the Chief Justice said it did not want the argument before the jury. He added that he would Dealing with Tsang On-wing's Messer's recollection. That again seemed rather hard that his note Mr. Potter's formal applica- attitude the Chief Justice said na was solely a matter for the jury, character should be called into tlon and adjourn the case for argu- a witness he was dignified and It had also been suggested that question in a case in which he was ment. No date was fixed yester qulet and there was no truculence Tsang, was suspected In the first not a party. He wanted to im- day for the legal point to be In his bearing which was one of place because he was prosecuted press upon the jury the serious, ' argued.. frankness although he was expos-

a witness played a very great part in the administration of justice under the British system and he was entitled to protection.

Teang's Attitude.

tion.

Rain Is Due At Hongkong!

Telemac

BEST OF ALL LIGHT-WEIGHT WATERPROOFS

Affords Sure Comfort.

Stylish Waterproofing

At

Attractive

Prices

$12.50 & $20 each.

Call Quickly At

SINCERE'S

SOLE AGENTS.

PETER'S MILK COCOA

Creamy

U

PETERS

"Ik rott"

Delicious

Just Add Hot Water and Serve

No Cooking, no bother. Milk and Sugar already in it

THE MAN WHO CALLS FOR A

'BRANDY"

Deserves what he gets,

BUT THE MAN WHO CALLS

FOR AN

"EXSHAW"

GETS

HAT W HE DESERVES.

Sole Agents:

CALDBECK MACGREGOR & CO., LTD.

Cincorporated under the Compnales' Ordiannes of Hongkong.)

Prince's Buliding,

Ice House Street,

P. T. FARRELL

Tel.

0. 76.

Consulting Engineer & Manufacturers' Representative,

Agencies for

Bolinder's Crude Olt Engines Marino, Stationary and Lighting, -4.

“WYANDOTTE" Boller Cleaner and Cleanser.

King's Building, Top Floor

Telephone Central 4429: Talographie Addrau... “ FARBREING?