1949-02-10 — Page 5

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPHI, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1949,

Full Judgment In Hotels Case QUEENS ALHAMBRA

(Continued from Page 1)

formed and the persun upon whom the penalty is imposed,

When the Legislature forbids an act to be donn under a pedalty and when the forbidden set is done, the offender is liable to the penalty whether he has or not or whether he any then rek intended to commit a breach of the LAW,

that 12. defending counsel, learned A

that That regulation ways that where

paid $24.00 and manent guests person convicted of on offenes against

of those regulations is body Iran jenis paid anything up to 30 per- aris'

cent more-over and above, the rate for corporate every person who, at the time

permanent guentu, of the commission of the offence, waR D

no contract and oc Dr Davis nads dieretur er oftteer of the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilly of dateupied room 30 on 14, February 1948, Dr Davis offence, unless he proves that the offence because he required.

Q. Why did you charge was cominitted without his knowledge of

$30.00 Instead of $36.00 per day. Mr that he exercised all due diligence to

Sheldon) prevent the commission of the fence.

examisalan, he forgot that he had writ-

On 23rd August 1945 Inspector Moore laid substantially the same complaint for servids the doing of an acl, it is sum-ion Battel Erlich

being, enabled to charge manager of Hongkong Hotel,

A

It has been laid down aver and over again that where a tatute ausulutely rlent to show that the person wretired did the forbidden act intentionably, and that it is not necessary to go further and prove what is commonly known mens rea or any intention other than to do the thing forbidden.

A review of the authorition makes 11 whalever the clear that abundantly

Axen the line Principle may be that

which between those offences for

those for ilmiled company can and which it cannot be indicte, it is not this presence or absence in the human ngent of a particular condition of mind.

1 be un would instatier Take, for

Hunited that a reasonable company can be indicted for a criminal tbel only in cases in which express analice le not proved or that could it delent a prosecution by proving that

was in duty authorised agent aclunted by malice?

to s

a

Jact

To stain a convietton under Regula tion 75 of the Detenen Regulatinn 1940 no mers rea is neessary. Such offence 14 Defendant with which the First charged fall within the enterory of what is known as unst erimtual effences of that Ai the of quoted winds celebrated criminal judge Channel 3 ne it in Pentke Gutmatun nad Tre Co: V Ward 11 2.1.1, p. and Brentnall County LA. V The London Cleland Council (1944) 2 ALI., ER, p 552 Per Viscount Catecote LC. at p 557.

The crucial question is whether return (Ex L1 & Exh. 1.2) furnished by its uicers on 14th June, 1090 was false within the meaning of that 2010- lation.

SAME COMPLAINT

com-

On the 6th September 1010 Inspector Moore Inid substantially the same plaint for a sumungos agatust Mr F. C. harry as the First Defendant's managing director

con"

The Learned defending counsel tend that there was netther any request made to the Second Defendant aur was there any information furnished by hon. but that the request Was trade to Mi J. H. Ehrlich the Third Defendant and the information was also furistien by the Thirti Defendant.

It is true that the request by the Com- petent Authority (Exh. ♫ Baled the im June 304 was made to the manager al the Hongkong Hotel for complete plan of each or used for the burpose of accommodation, run aumbers, the mem- ber of beds allocated to each room and prices per room and or per necunont thereof (fate) Sera the Price Control under vices) Regulations, 1946 and that the t foranation was furnished and signed by The Third Defendant on the 14th June 1940 (Exh. 1-1 and Exh, L-2).

There clear evidence that what the Third Defendant ld as Manager of Hongkong Hotel in mailer was done on the Second Defendant's or with his concurrenco.

instructions

The managing director formulated the Voley of dividing the hotel guesty and that ho admitted in cross examination Kave instructions which ronins should be charged $16 and whieh charged $24 pes he also day but he did so in 1940: nccepted as n basin of the derequisition of his hotels certain arrangement with Government relating to the cost of no- antiation,nt food in the hotels (Exİ. I nnd Exh. S agreeing to supply the Quartering; with a daily return of n resistents in the hotels, but ho denled Prom examination that he was under to Recommandation of my shilgation

any mor Government servants

ordinary guests.

of

A

than

ere was helle, tigh, that could only ten leiters previously to the Quartering he established from the mouth of Mr Eardley and that officers of a torga company did not give a falas return for Authority pi twa, occasions on the subject of fixing room charges.

It they did it was for some ob (1) On 24th December 1940 Mr Barry fun.

The returns were sent in, be« wrote to the Quartering Authority waying;ject.

We fully appreciate that raising hotel cause the rents were going to be slashed. rater would further burden a large it Mr Barry and Bir Khrlich were con- section of the foreign community which spiring surely they would never put a than they ware actually already experiencing dimculty in rate lower

saling current liabilities, but as some charging but would put a higher one

Justinable wo seek your ty A. A manader I have the privilego! form of herenso thereon is necessary in the returns to Uie Quartering Authorl-

and readily

The learned Crown Counsel said that compatible |i6| ha

brought out the essential of Using any discretion in regard to rates. sanction, as a femporary ineasure, to our They were old customers of Ifongkong rates in respect of transient guests only. Ingredients of ine alfence charged. "I

know both De and Mr Davia personally. 1tofel so I quoted a little less than the leaving in abeyance for the time being it fraud?" "What fraud 1 bir Shel The Third Defendant was appointed

tite matter of raining rates now apply don called it froud, it was Mr Sheldon' tranaient rato, menager of Houtkong fotel In June 2048

Mrs Davis made no written contracting to the facet residents, pre or post word got mine sald Mr Hooton Crown ant mold that he had been very busy

way." both at the Hongkong Hotel and the with the hotel, because they required

Ve shall be obliged by your ac- and recupled room 500 for a matter of

quiescence to this request" (Exh, N). Pealnauin foto).

wrekk

(2) On 11 March 1047 BIF BATTY wrote to the Quartering Authenty to re- viewing accommodation charges in AC- contance with the term set out in the his letter bu concluded letter and saying:

real applicable to "permanent" forel

the above rates we propose to make dents only, and in the care of transient guests we intend charging 20 in ex-point that it lies within the defendants' cess of some" (Ext. O).

Air Dimond said he left for Australia about two weeks after Dr and Mrs Dāvin moved in.

4. Supposing you had remained a manager of the hotel and discovered Dr and Mrs Davis were occupying the room done anything about it? (ir Sheldon). at that rate for a month, would you have A. I would have mentioned it to Mr Davis asking her low long the intented to stay, 1167

Q. Would you have reduced the rate? (Court).

On 4th June 1943 the Third Defendant received a request for information of room of the hotel (Exh. 3); fiscussed the matter of this return with the Secund Defendant and wanted to know how Ex should be nonwered; the Second Defendant told him that the matter would be decided at a meeting inter : he was instructed by the Second Defendant to put in the usual chargen namely 10 and being inside ones $21. the Big racin

were smaller

Most of which private bath attached to them. the room had private bath root As

room No. G Axed at $24.

4040 the Third De- On 14th June. fendant fave the Quartering Authority the reply Exh. I and Exh. 1-2; he did nut keep a copy of Exh. L-2 (Man); he aut not get hold of the daily returns ant checked the figure Exh. 1-2 with th- dally return: before sending to the reium on 14th June, 1918, he did not check the price being charged for. No. 500: he at not cheek who 509: the Fan Exh 12 occupied t shower normal charge of $24.00 per day Dr Davis actually paid $30.00 whereas per day: Government paid $24.00 for him monthly Ext.A 1-1 and Dr Davis him- grif paid $1.00 per day monthly the Rame Plan Exh. 2 shows roma Nus 210: 309: 407; and 409 elsarsting $2400 per room per day, whereas in fact these rooms were charged at much higher rate (Exh. M),

וזמני tie! תו?

-INACCURATE AND FALSE

OTHER QUESTIONS

A. It she had told me she did not know how long and her plans had gone astray. I would have told her that we wanted to be fair and redisce the rate In the standard rate of $24.00.

Q. Supporing you and known at the Hnie that Dr and Mrs Davis had intended to stay la that room from 14 February to the actual time they left (nt the end at September 1 would you have let them that room? (Mr Sachlon),

rine

un

If Mr Ehrlich was Counsel and, that guilty in my, then the defendant must WAI surely a question of be fully: it Law; whether the return was faise was a matter of evidence; if the case were no really brought in good faith, flere was a remedy In other courts.

Mr Hooton said that the question of of the ferin fraud wax in his opinion something of a red herring.

Do that as it may, it is proper to the uan

knowledge to explain the various dis

returns- In Edi. L-1 written by his manager crepancies involved in the in the return innite to the Quartering subject matter of this complaint. Authority on 11th June 1948 the fullow-

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ing wards were writtent

The following questions and Ruests of transient "In the cate

the maller. Kubject to an would throw ye tht an only these enter wer

1re information Q. ARBurning that percentum

was conveyed

the returns Rive Increase of twenty to fifty According to locations and special services

under that request what effect wonde that have upon you n the Competent required.**

Authority in dang these ratra? (Crown Consell.

This covering letter Exh, L-1 was purt Thus on going through the evidenco ww notice the defendants' inconsistency and parcel of the retary in question,

and contradiction regarding their views of tradent guests.

EARDLEY'S VIEW OF

TRANSIENTS

In cross examination by Mr Sheldon,

Eardley sold tint sie impression was, that permanent guests Rave one month's nolice before leaving and received one

onih'e notice to quit,

A. Nu. I find forward booking and readd nel possibly liave allowed them to stay for that Jengih, of time, because it was one of our hoped for transient TROIN

In answer to the Court Mr Dimond said "Di and Mr Davis arr Triends of in pile of that charged and them mure than the standard rale."

It interesting to recall here that in the course at launching his uttark

Crown ปว learned thy care for the

Transient guests were given daily rates defending counte) sald:

That is the cyldenice on which charges and did not give notice of leaving. The The maximum charge per room was or fraud have been made against the maximum may of a transient guest was managing director of a limited company a non ollier wire--they would uroly 33000 per day for translest became se,

guest was a cording to the covering letter Exh. Lot rome $9,000,000 capital, against the take advantage of the monthly rates; In when rooms were necupled by transtents,nager of the leading Hotel in long Hongkong the custom was that the very

keng, against a company which hus au- { maximum for a transient

month. they were charged from 20 percent to

illedly on all bands done verything 50 percent; he could not recall there was

in its power to help the Government this pressing problem of accom- any special charge for room Na, 500 In cross examination.

trustation for many years,"

forensic this in a piece of Indeed. eloquence which is not without substance office ከነ

for at least the latter part of it is ear- managing director's and set a copy-n dally state of the

roborated by the Wonkong at

Hotel-howing

correspondence both with the Colonial JOOMLA charges at $40 for each of these rooms

(refer to Exh. N. Exh. O, Exh. R and per day: 210; 300; 101 and 409 (Ext.Secretary nnst the Quartering Authority

Exh. St.

possible on what I wonder Then,

could Mr Dimond as Krounds keeper refuse to accommodate ur tura out his friend De Davis-thin local resi sfent, il Government employee chen- In need of seeuminoustiens In perolely the course of these days of congestion af restence in view of the correspon- view of the dence aturezaká

the aufforities. ruling laid down in

On 1st September,' 1918,

hotel Inspectar) Third Defendant at

the

The

S

Mz Lew called

So the returns showing lower pstees were Inaccurate and false within the meaning of that regulosion Recording is the preselios.

On 2nd September 1948 Mr Lewis called on the Third Defendant agata and pro- ra forma duced a docuser called a Haling the rous of Hongkong Hotel and requiring the naines of occtipank of Wiese roots on the 14th May 1948: 14th June 1910: 14th July 150 h, 1); the Third Defendant had ed in the particulars; he said he would have handed (Exh. Di to Mr Lewis and not the managing direc tor intervened in the 14th September 1040.

On 13th September by virtue of n search warrani Exh. A together with other documents refert in the salil warrant were seized by sector Monre. The Plan Exh. 1-2 contains a conpirte 31st of roots of Hongkong Hotel showing their various rates; of these rongs Nos. 202; 21; 309; 407 and 409 sewed their daily rate at $24.00 each per day.

PROVING A SYSTEM

But Exh. M; whien was hauded tu Me Lewis on 1st September 1918 showed the following figures:--202 T. $3; 219 T 540; 300 T. $40; 407 T. $40: 300 T. $40, these T. $30,

To prove a matem against the de

Crowa Counsel the learned fenuanta questioned bolh Mr Dumond and Mr

evidence The clear

direct managing director's active

preparation In the partiripallon furnishing of the renin; he had know- letin of the request (Exh. 3; he wrote to the Quartering Authority for extension of time in which to comply with the requirement (Exh. K); skeit why It www.necessary to send Plan Exh. L-Z in cross mibation he mail the wanted to keep the office copies as ofce reord Iru as the offer copies, mappiled the they becslike Authority blue Prints, looked better: he ordered blue peints and other matters in be made for the return: he gave the figures to his mana- ger for the return; he instructed his manarer to give the details contained 177-ExM-tho-daliy_sinię

Ehrlich with reference to the charges at these rooms,

The Third Defendant and his first wit- news and predecesor Mr Demond nought to explain and justify the discrepancy or Inaccuracy by pointing out that these rote eluding room 300 were vecupled by transien

Hrasonable cause has been said to be mich an would operate upon the mind of a decreet man. 3s there any evidence that the Third Defendant had reasonable Cause to believe that the return was false within the meaning of that regulation? which ma

WHAT IS A TRANSIENT? manager signed and handed to Mr Lowte the arredited Hotel Inspector on the lat September 1040; he also instructed manager not to let nor Lewis have the detail Exh. D) without any request in writing from the Quartering Authordy on the 2nd September 1918; he snatched Exh. away, wille bils

ofter its

about to hand it to Mrger was

remtellen on the 4th September 1946,

DEPLORABLE INDIFFERENCE

ins

an inn-

Q. What authority' you have for saying thi (Mr Sheldon).

A. It is cuminor sense; a person would not pay transient rates for a month or more, if he could pay cheaper monthly a transient person is one who moves from rutes. According to the immigration ruics boat to host, slaying just long enough thi he ohould get anolber

view of It appears that Mr Fa what constitutes a guest is mupported by Me Dhaand's view as stated in his letter written to Mr Robinson (Travel Advisers) In the re-examination Mr Eardley sald un 31st October 1947 (Exh. T..

agreement between the that in the Peninsula Hotel and Government there a

drawn between term distinction hotel guest reddent in Hongkong and one who was Using Hongkong merely ne an interval, The charges for transient guests were 20% higher. This is substantiated by Mr Barry's policy as stated. In his

ESARİXƏ

MR DIMOND'S ADMISSION in cross examination Mr Dimond act-previous letters (Exh. N & Exh. O). mitted that speelle length was stated: Dr and Mrs Davis were employed in the Colony; they were not pausing from ship to chip, from plane to plane ho knew that Dr Davis had no other accammuda- Bun; he knew ihal Dr Davis was des parte; to prove a system or to negative any, accident that might otherwise be alleged in detence Me Dinond, like Mir Ehrlich, was closely questioned by Mr fluoton with reference to the charges of nther rooms including room 202 occupied by Mrs Tobins at 5 per day in the return (Exh.31) Mrs Tobias was described as a transient; when pressed for a de Anition Air Dimond said It Is n word very diflebit to define; a transient is a person who comes in, is given a rale for a room; he does not complain about the rate, he stays for a week a month: or two months; it has no relation to ume"

Q. If Mr Gensberger Room No. 205) stayed in the Hotel for three years, be would sul ben transient unless he made a contract? Exh. D (Crown Counsel).

A. Yes. (Mr Dimond).

It is a hotel terin, it has no relation to time at all: Mr Dimond elld not agree he had made a with Mr Houton that slight inlsuse the word; the purpose his inftintive. of classifying guests is to make up daily rates; managers act on but there is any query, it would be

Auswers

A. if the Information supplied was false or incorrect. It would mean that my totes would liave been higher than Justified in the event that the informa tion was higher than that actually ob Caling. Mr Eardley).

Q. Suppose the charge was $10.00 and they told you they charged $5.00 what effect would that have in fixing your rates (Crown Counsel).

A. If the legal rate was $10.00-una they bad they were charging 33.00-18 Enrd- would have meant that the holes were penalised. Would it not? E

key).

G. On the other hand if they made $10.00 ETCIARCH a return the position? (Crown Counsel), charging $15.00-what would have been

A. I would base my rates on the chargo returned and it would then result in Big rates being high unduly unfair (Me Eardley),

We may recall here that Bir Eardley has told the Court in cross examination the return the that at the time of

WILD controlling Quartering Authority prices under what he called Gentlemen's

Atr

the

connection In this agrocanent. Barry's letter (Exh. N.) in which the managing director in applying to DE Quastering Authority for increase Too charges said on 24 December 1946: bo obliged by your "We

in '1 sub. acquiescence to this" nod sequent letier Exh. O dated 11 March (947 the managing director sold in con- clusion:

"The above rates we propose to make tecal ro- 1a permanent applienble

cate the

of in only and

charging transient guess we intend sidents 120 in excess of sane."

Further, the inanging director in ace examination that he ritting in Cruso

Chi night affert à complete answer to Mr Sheldon's quersus 12 shy the defendants did not give a himer rate it in returss, if the defendams were Comparing to detempd.

With the utmost respect for nultiorly and with the utmost desire most loyaliyave fils manager the figures $18.00 for to follow authority which to binding on

small rooms without private baths and $44 for soms with private baths con ine. I find that I have yet to decide the point in the case-what is a

aled in the return Exh. L-2 1old Un guest-without my express

Cuurt that tonade and fixed these tronalent

rates In 1940. authority upon the point to gulde me.

of the Inn- The seanly provisiona keepers Ordinance No. 3 of 1870 based on the Inakeepers' Liability Act 18 CAN afford no assistance in this inatter. The legal inclúents of the relation of holet Law and its guest rent mainly on common and cusion outside the scope of thr local ordinance. and the Honic Act.

Each case inust be decided la s I have carefully reviewed incrlis, ond

it the evidence in the present" case. sers that the meaning of such terms to be con- transient guest has are rulered and determined with reference in economic position of the Colony correctly including what Mr Sheldon called its pressing housing problem,

any

REASONABLE TEST

May nut tais be a reasonable test under

Whether the roum the circumstances? therers inpored upon their gucus ac- shifting and incuti to their CGUE sister views of transients world inv

guests. Lee to the prejudice to the

whether they came from amongst th

travelers "ie mancat" local residen's (as in the cane at Dr Davi) or from from foreign pinees) without any special

owledge7

All these hotel guests must know Tha are not to be prejudiced by the absence of their special knowledge of these rates

axed by the defendants. These guests "permanen!" local residents or from or

10 whether they come from amongst the dinary transients are fully entitled the protection of the Law.

Authority en- Would the quartering courage the defendants to defraud the Reneral Public, if he gives cffect to ar Jegalise the defendants Inednsistent and shifting views of transient guest?

But the present case is not really a case of tort brought to this Court-for- adjudication.

The test is the existence of a genuine belief in the truth of the statement

It is not necessary for 1lability that the defendants should have known II iu be falas.

JUDGMENTS CITED Ilowever, I should like to cite certain Barrages from past judges, because on an important subject like this, they may be helpful to me as showing other minds felt upon similar problems and facts

Wright at p287 in Orchard V Bush 11898 2.0.1. satd: A guest is a person who uses the inn. either for temporary or more permanent stay in order to take referred to the managing director, Every-what the inn can give, in the same rase diva-no definition of what is a travetter; but looking at the reason" of the thing Mr Sheldon said that the rush bane ofly-un-daily Inte, ut he argus Kennedy J. at 5289 al: The authorities istance, Contaldered a permanest resident

Iould have thought that any person contention between the Crawa and the that the occupant of suum 202 was, for

what was meant by a

who was neither an inhabitant of the defence was

guest: he said that Dr Davior starged $25.00 per day for the room: agoin Mr Dhinand said guests could be

twuse nor a private test of the keeper. transient

transient unless they have a special con- but who came into the house as a guest occupied room 509 as a traveller and a transient. The cruelal question was when

tract: the charge in higher for a transient to get accommodation as 1 a!funded and the metamorphosts from traveller Into

because more linen is ured; men he was willing to pay. was n traveller. permanent guest; Dr. Davis was given n

charged more often for transient guests It does not seera to me to make DO AL A certiain gure: no length of

than for permanent uests; there are difference whether the sojourn be a long 1 am of opinion that line was contracted for, no terms of

of little Kervice that toin

key CAVE or a short one. nation were given; it could not be rea Jord

are a man is'in An lan for the purpuse Kuests and talent

accommodation as tur lgher charges thou

of receiving such in 11ongkong, he could not be a guest in a Incal hotel.

the standard rate for permanent guests; the innkeeper can give him, he is entitled service to the protection the Law gives a guen

at p698 that they gave to transient guests and be Ann.

Alverstone L.C.J. Lord these are grounds for bigher charger than the stamlard, rates for permanent Browne V Branett (1002) 1 K.. sold: zursix in answer to questions by the The true view is, in my opinion, that as Court: Mr Durand admitted that they Innkeeper any not pick and choose his were under we ebilention to aceon-guests;, he must give the accommodation he has to the persons who came to the morale

Rovemment servants (E. N

Innas travellers for rest and refresh- Q), Za Ext.

In rn-examination Mr Dimond agreed mept: the Innkeeper must act reason with Mr Sht-Ident that a transtent gueniably; he must not capriciously ur untrade.

to receive persona refuse is one who has ant Kot

a contract in reasonably. the hotel and that was the beginning when he has proper accuminodation for Darling at p253 In fly same case sald Mr T am of the same upino. No doubt

sonably held that because a person to

Mr Sheldon with that the Caurt RENT deelde as a question of taes whether Dr Davis was permanent or transient guest on the cyldenee given.

Th evidence Riven shows that Dr Davis gave no ulice ur terms and that he hoped to get out of the hell as soon ng he could.

I could not be deelded otherwise inti that Dr Davis was But a permanent Guest.

In that case the charge fatted for that question was the whole basis of the charge.

it was upon the prosecution to bring prima facie case of the offence charged if the defendants were guilty, then to escape Habilty defendants mus show their lack of knowledge or that they had taken proper care.

Air Hooton subinitted that he tone brought ample evidence of the know- ledge of fastly.

There was evidence that a return was requested by the Competent Authority and made by the defendant.

There was alco

There is clear evidenes of the managing director's deplorable difference to the Truth of the return (Exh.L-1 & Exh1-2): examination in and inconsistency in

matters Chief he stated that detailed were handied by his managers; he was responsible for the formulation of Polley: the request (Exh.) was brought to th by Mr Ehrlich, but he did not tipster. aland exactly what was required by the Chartering Authority: as Ex, J did not cincity matters he asked his manager to Ente Mr Eardley: to the light of what he manager fold him he ordered Ex1-2 and other things to be prepared for the return; he wanted to give line prints; hence an extension of time was

until he received that felter La required;

Exh Gs from the Crown Solicitor dated the 110 September, 1048 he did not know wią secupier ruom No. 500 on 11 42 June. 1948; he and not the slightest Idea: he had never beat of De and im Davis Ja

10

was BUY Top 109 before Jeand: it did not cross his mind to make a fol- return about the matter. agreed that the Plan Evli, 1.-2 swith Ex. 11-the that

tovering letter whole thing belos fu dispute, but na the information his manager gave him he naturally concluded fint there was with his manager to OD OFFARgenurut which ir. Eardley had aererd: he said De Davis led been living in the Hong.

case

kong Betzt for some four months. if that was the informalion,

Que of the defendant

who actually Rive it to him": by that he did not intend to furnish a false document: algned the return was the hotel keeper, who having “find a guest for 4 muntha crom examinating he said it did not matter what his manager had put down should know and should be able to give 2 accurate return of the rates charged in the return: what he remerabered wi

which to hit eat. that there was an arranyembat tal manager had ninde with Mr Fard- le: he raid he were the maharre showing the ont asked for a return heds, the number of rooms and Bin number of necupants he would check the prices with the daily returns before ending in the reloen and would not bother about transient or so called her- nonent or Any other tene of .coom guesta; he did not know the detatis of the return at the time; he had merely dany from his manager; he knew the details after he received the sum

ekdence that there was reasonable 'cause on the tart of the WAR hotel to belk ve that the relurn false,

"Mr Hoxton reviewed and examined cer- Tak parsales in the authorities elted (Supra) and hit that these authorities did not support Mir Sheldon's submuk slor: there authorlifes' dich xay that

to Krounds

there

ᎠᎱᎵ.

lola-

and the end of the care.

Utte

Hexa

The Court reminded Mr Dimond of his letter (Exh, T) written to

hirm,

me very

the

It is sufficient if the defendants did not genuinely and honestly believe it to be Iruc

statement being a false To prevent v Peek (Sturn) there must be an honest fraudulen! says Lord Herschell in Derry bellet in its truth.

Ja there evidence In

old

of Mr Eselich's

presence of his conscious ignorance ul ohsence of any gemine belief and dire the truth of the matter contained in the return-subject matter of the complaint? PROOF OF FRAUD Ordinary tradid is proved when s shown that false representation.Js been 1. knowingly or. 2, without belle in reckless ur careless truth, r whether it be true or false.

1 fraud proved, the motive of the Kulity of it is immaterial, matters, not that there was to in tention to cheat or to injure the person 1 whom the statement wax rande.

In answer to its counsel Mr Barry

wh!!c the peolli Mated clearly that

its

thu

&

SHOWING TO-DAY AT 2.30, 5.15,.7.15 & 9.15 P.M. Jane 'Outlaw' Russell's First Technicolor Picture!

Paramount

Paleface

Calor by

Technicolor

starring

Bob

HOPE JSSELL

QUEEN'S:

Jane

"Added Latest News of the Day * The 1949 Presidential Inaugural!

PRIENTAL

UNFITEONED

TAKE ANY EASTERN TRAM CAR OR HAPPY VALLEY BUS FINAL SHOWING TO-DAY: 2.30-5:15-7.20 & 9:20 P.M. Packed with every pulsating heart-beat of james Hilton's famed novel! A soul-stirring story of two human beings to whom a strange destiny brought a great and poignant lovel

Ronald

COLMAN

Greer

GARSON

Random Harvest

Commencing To-Morrow:

TO-DAY

ONLY

"GUNGADIN"

Cathay

|AT 2:30, 5,20,~-

7.30 & 9.30 P.M.

HISTORY'S GREATEST ADVENTURER LIVES AGAIN?

Robin Hood

ALL ITS SPECTACLE IM COLOR BY

WARNER BROS.

TECHNICOLOR!

FLYNN HAVILLAND

BASIL RATHBONE CLAUDE RAINS.

TO-MORROW

· TUČENE PALLKIR

EKSİ BOYAN MERAIS

EXTRA SHOW:-SABU in "ELEPHANT BOY" TO-MORROW ONE DAY ONLY Vivien LEIGH in

Barnard

F. H. Robinson, Travel Advisers, Queen's an innkeeper bound to provide ne irildi, dated the 31st October 1947 commodation for the travellers: is is in which Mr Dimond wrote as follows only bound in provide arrumadation o To Lave any future misunderstand. 1; as his house is not toll; when, it is ny in regard to the commission payable fall, he has no duty in that respect.

minie troin o years company on bookings for ac The question then arises, when an lan- depending upon the prosperity of the!

Colony-were substantially

and Pubile unodations in the company's hotels, keeper's house may properly be said to

restaurants bars, the do not think Kindly note that this coraladon will be tuli. I

made from roun De påld only for transteni bookings and cases

help CRA

negligthin much, catering, the profit

charges

comparatively WAA nat on monthly resident-the jimo because in olden times people wert That being the case why bether so

it in the former

sleeping many tr case being three in the habit of

much over this question of figures in the urek.

one room and several in one bed. People

returns to the quartering Authortly for SHAW'S "Under the present circumstances I

the declared purposes of the Price Con- trist you will agree that this Failey is unknown to each other could sleep, in the same room as is done in common lodging

trol Hotel Regulations at any given reasonable."

that there is time is not a fact houses at the Present time. Therefore it we got a definition at "full" in one of

hardly a reduct or delicacy the old cases, should not be surprised

Into the from the luxurious kitchen Bind that what was called "full" lien.

luxurious dining room of the hotel for we should now call "indecent aver crowd-

Chancer and the the guests consumption or satisfaction, Ing". Heferring to

which is not directly or indirectly con Canterbury Pilgrims one need look at

troited? A it not known to the gesseral to see how the sentimental Journey people's nee Sterne.

habits have altered since the time public that sit drinks at the har of the 17 Hankow Rd.

hotel are controlled? Where, lien, Her the mstantial objection to roain cliargen belog controlled for the purposes these regulations?

In reply Mr. Robleson said he fully axceed with the ferma set out in Mề Dimond's letter lorenald (dated Jist October 1947),

MR EHRLICH'S VIEW ife has never heard of itch term be fore, when he referred to Exis Malon he signed and handed.

Lewis an 1st September 1959,

In cros exatalnation Me Ehrlich sald

int in cases where the plea was nove

a guest did not laze his character of the usual rate, there must be transienta In

a traveller merely because of length of occupation: is definition of a transleni

slay, but the length of thine alone could Kuest being one, who is charged anore

NO SPECIAL CONTRACT.

Lord Faher M. R. at p10 in Medawar y said: (1001) 2.Q.. Grand Hotel Ltd.

diere Was 10 From first to tast special contract: there was nothing but

ATS

guest. though it was to continue for a specified time only ar rather for Indefinite time. We are to the facts a they are stated by the learned judge' and acting as a jury to draw from them tha Inference of Inet and in so doing wr mint into play our knowledge of the enrid.

turn the character trein iraveller ta than the usual rate and that, he said, the original reinton of innkeeper and permanent resident unlers there were WAR the usual way. Fuch circustances as_ilireza.

While explaining how he fed in of The circumstances of the pretent care "" and "" against the rooma in (Exh. A) ir rites said that there were no were that a perzon resident in itong

Auch remarks on his daily return so that mons; he was not in a position to check xong, with no other home to go in, lived whether the information

given av bls in the Isolal.

whenever the charges were higher than $24.00 ha marked against these rooms manager wan correct or inaccurate at

evidence must be interpreted itsnt

regarding them as room for transients the other toorns that were $10.00 and 324.00-were marked with P. (Permanent guests),

the date the summons was taken out: the Hongkong Hotel from February 14 he deltnes in answer to the Courts o to June 14, "104 war and we have Inent resident as a person, who resides bren known to defendants a Dr Davi in the Colony and has his empingmenti ponnanent hoine for that the teins. The Courl beld eint there was a cre Exh. NA in writing his letter Exh.

N.) to the Quartering Authority for to answer for all 3 defendants and that the proposed iner ass of roem rates na both the 2nd the 3rd Defendant's ac A femporary measure he readily drew committed as the int defendant's oftlenss palinction between transfent within thele scope of authority must be

+

presta and focal residents, pre or post-imputed to the defendant company, www.fah. N. dated 24/12/40).

Thereupon. Mr Sheldon called evidence for the defence,

Under these circumstances, how could

CICADO manacine director

tha

his Hability or evade his remorribility unless the return * Ti fals with a the magster at Tiamantel 75 of the Defenen Namingslang, jagas

1119 mmplant to recall hern that i kin puaning the tearsed Freser Contr| Kai Thgulation da war applicable to

Carnotaiona,

Ja Biner terre, skal penyakion impeg 11 and makes absolute certain duty and Habilt on the Frond. Defendant an officer of the defendant company.

An

Were the defence's views of what constituted a transient gueat consistent or contradictory?

MR DIMOND'S VIEW Mr Dimond, inanager of Hongtong Hotel until the ent of February 164 st the prewar practice of dividing guest Info poniktu and

Q. You Almed that in cases where the price was above the usual rate there must be transients in occupation? (Crown Counsel),

A. Yes.

Q. Your denition of a transient is ong Usuai who is charged more than the rates? (Clown Counsel).

A. That is the usual way.

(Continued on Page 8)

color

“CAESAR and CLEOPATRA” in Tochni- GRAND OPENING ON SATURDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY. moving THE BEST PICTURE

"Gentlemen's Agreement" OF THE YEAR!

Radio Hongkong

crick

uf

Kowloon

STAR

At 2.30, 5.10.

7.20 & 9.30 p.m.

ON THURSDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY ONLY. LAVISH GERSHWIN MUSICAL FEAST

NOT TO BE MISSED.

SOMETHING

"RHAPSODY IN BLUE”

BOOK- EARLY

HEADACHE -FOR LIBERAL PARTY:

(Continued from Page 4)

UKT

6. Programme Summary: 6.01, Children's Story: "The River Bandit" by Elleston Ard Lord Magraillan at p. 375 in Shack-

Trevor (CTS) Part A: "The Battle lock V Ethrape Ltd. (1939) 3. All E. R.

House of Lorde gunted the words offor the Galleon': 5.30, La Denst-Itoure New Analysis (London, nelay; 7.15. Montague Smith et p 322 in Onbenheim Francaleo" (Studio): 7, World News and

Cat f{110) L T

in the main, a force behind the White Linn Hotel

Waltres froin Theatreland 7.30,Down

Liberal Party. It is improbable that GC.P.515: But the fact of the guest having

Beat Discs presented by l'aul Stuart the means of securing maelf, and

(Studio): 8, "From the Editorials" (Lon

Others of her Parly feel that the the Liberal Party can do anything choosing not to use them, is one which

dun Relay); 9.10. A short Concert wit circumstances of the

as Bolsist: overriding peril in Britain lies in to avert its continued teeline. When with the other

Jann, Hommand (Sopranoj

stato, Party, in British polities, has fallen care should be left in the jury. The

Fred Hartley' 1.20,

Music the drift to the totalitarian of course, depend

of from first to recond place, and then weight of it must,

Con with its threat. to every form (CT); 8.45, "Concerto" Pleno upon the state of society at the time certo No. 2 in F Minor. Om 11. (Chopin)

from second to third, recovery la Its more radical and pince.

The learned defending Cotinsel kub-

by Jche Barbirolli: 9.15, Book Review by likely to agree with Mr Churchill almost hopeless. that if he were the manager and asked mitted that there was no such the Alleen Dekker (Studio): 339, "The Odd in seeing Britain's most urgent need members tend to drift to the Party of

Amaliyeler fraud, that the complate

Story of Simon Ode” A Mystery Serial for a return showing the beds, the num

Its more conservative elements tend of roums, and the number milence from the prerections upon any by Lester Pawell (BIC) Episode 8: ne being to eject the Labour Govern- the Left which has supplanted it

allegedly for the ber

Meniparting”

10 Radio News Iteel ment and to arrest this drift. would check the suggested motive

force in to go further Right. of accupania, he

statements of Me

Liberalism in lill n THE London Relay); 10.10, Weather Report: prices with the daily returns before Jafae sending in the return and would not and Mr Ehrlich was a matter of which 10.38, Thursday Serenade A Programme Britain, and Lady Lloyd Georgo in of nutrition and crosion IndiMcult.

of Continumus Muste: 1645, Dence to Jornerronnlly

popular.. b. fed romplained more than ance in

while to arrest, and almost impossible to But the bearings of the care, that the rea-foons and file. Orchestra: 11.16, Weather Liberalism is clili a forve, it is not, I reversa. other aboul framefent or es called per

For l

that mileport And Closa Dawn, While Mr Harry was under the. lire of

because manent or any other type of room gueals.

Counsel's learned Crown

erous motive

MR BARRY'S VIEW

In criss examination Mr Barry sakl

transient guests had been discontinued since the reoccupation: transient, he said, was a daily guest, oh daily rates; no other form of cuesti the practice waÚ, in, answer

to the the

***

Kilence

was

could us

Suggested

Alfred Cortet (Piano) with Orch. Cond. personal liberty,

They are

THOR'S

The process

Page 5Page 6