we were incapable of arriving at a decision on the merits of the case! We think justice will be met by an award of $40,000 and for that sum and costs we give our judgment.
His Lordship then said-The award will there- fore be for $10.000 as the value of the whole pro- perty claimed by Cheung Sau.<
His Lordship continued-We have made the following awards :-
Claim
Claimant.
No.
11 Cheung Sau......
15%
A.B.C.
Tang Kom Shee...
The Hongkong
17
Amount Amount
Amount of Govt.. claimed.
awarded. offer. $56,000 $30,000 $40,000
$55,514 $30,000 $35,000
...
Fire Insurance $20,850 $13;316 $16,000 Co., Limited.
$5,000 Wong Ka Pat.......
$2,796
$3,500 With respect to costs, we are of opinion, looking at the sums offered and those which we have awarded, that costs should be allowed in these cases; but we regret to see that the rules which we have laid down have not been accepted or followed in some respects and we agaiu repeat the warning that in future in cases of exaggerated olaims we will not grant costs, even if we award more than the Government offers. I wish also to make some remarks respecting the meaning which it was sought to place on the 5th clause the interpretation paragraph of of Ordinance 15 of 1888, respecting the words "rateable value." 1 expressed myself, perhaps, somewhat too strongly at the time, but I have considered the matter, looked up some authorities, and have come to the con clusion that there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the words. The Ordinance says:-- Rateable Value -The rent at which any tene. ment might reasonably be expected to let, at the time of the valuation, from year to your, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and if the landlord undertook to pay the Crown rent and the costs of repairs and in- surance, with any other expenses necessary to
state to # maintain the tenement in mand that rent" Mr. Deacon and Mr. Wil kinson both contended that, according to this definition, there should, from the rent paid by the tenants, be made certain deductions for repairs and other outgoings and that the rate- able value' shonid be the net reut received by the landlord, and, therefore, from the sum assessed by the valuator no deductions should be made, because these had already been effected by the valuator. This is wrong. It must be borne in mind that the Ordinance does not εί net annual use the words “annual `value” or value," but it expressly says "the rent.
And, secondly, that the rates are to be borne and paid, not by the landlord, but by the occupier. It is ap occupier's rate." See section 32 of the Ordinance. What the Ordinance says is, that the rent is to be taken as the basis, suppos. ing that the tenant pays the rates and the land- lord the repairs. Mark the word rent. Now, supposing the rent was say $1,000, tenant to pay all taxes and all repairs, then the rateable value would not be $1,000, but $1,000 less taxes and plus repairs; because the rent is not $1,000 only, but that sum plus the cost of repairs; and, if the rent is $1,000, tenant to pay the taxes and the landlord the repairs, etc., then $1,000 is the rent and the rateable value.
com.
Take three cases
bas
that I know of; the German Club pays $4,500, rateable value $4,500. The rent of No. 3, Sey mour Terrace is $55, and this is the rateable value; because, in addition to the $55, the ten- ant pays the taxes and the landlord the repairs; and so, moreover, No. 35, Queen's Rond” Cen- tral: the rateable value in $3,000 and the rent the same. The meaning of the words "Rent," 'Annual Rent," and "Rateable Value" often been considered in England. I will cite but one case, viz., Smith v The Corporation of Birmingham, L.R. zi. Q.B.D., p. 195. It was provided, in a Water Act, that the charge made for the supply of water should be at a rate varying according to the annual rent, and Smith, the owner, contended that in fixing the annual rent, in addition to certain deductions which had been allowed him, he was entitled to a further dédüetion for the average annual cost of repairs. insurance, and other expenses, necessary to main tain the premises in a state to command the rents then received. Several cases were cited by the Judges in the course of their judgment, amongst them that of R. v. Tomlinson, 9 B. & C. p. 163, in which Bayley. J., said, “ Annual rent is not asausl profit or value.” And the expression net
|
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESSRAND
yearly rent is there held to be equivalent to the rent paid by the tenant after dedusting taxes and charges of collection, and not the clear annual rent after every deduction includ- ing the part to be set aside for repairs. And the Court, after citing other decisions, says, at p. 205, Having regard to these expressions as to the true meaning of annual value and to the words Annual Rent in section 83 of the Act of 1885 and to the construction put upon the very similar words in Shefeld Waterworks Company v. Bennett, we think it would be running counter to the cases cited and laying down a rule in- consistent with them, if we were to hold the words ' annual rent” are equivalent to 'rateable value ascertained in the manner provided by 5 & 7 W. IV. c. 96.” Besides, the question is moreover finally decided by what the assessor here has always done in fixing the assessed value. He takes the rent paid by the tenants. and from that deducts or not the taxes, accord ing as they are paid by the terant or not, and then, in cases where the premises are let in floors, in order to make provision for any of the floors that might be untenanted daring any assessment year, the assessor, period of the upon the representation of the owner, allows a deduction from the net rental, and the rating value is finally fixed after such deduction.
{January 17 1895.
incon-
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Sharp then asked to have the case adjourned until to-day in order to have time to go into the great mass of evi- dence more fully, but his Lordship and the Attorney-General said it would be very venient as they had other cases. On the matter being referred to the jury, they said they pre- ferred to go on and finish now if possible. It was then decided to adjourn for one hour for dinner and finish the case.
Mr. Robinson called the attention of the jury to the fact that he was defending several men whose case, as he contended, should really be separated. He hoped the jury would bear this in mind and not allow acts that might be charged against one prisoner to prejudice the position of another, who might be innocent thereof. He differed from the learned counsel for the Crown in his interpretation of the law and cited Roscoe, p. 752, to show that if several go out with an intention to commit a felony and inurder ensues by one of them the others are not necessarily guilty of murder. He divided his argument on the theory of the Crown into four subdivisions. each of which he discussed in detail. The first was the charge of murder by all of the prisoners of the Sikh constable; the second, the murder, by all of them, of the Chinaman; the third, that all fired at the district watchman with intent to murder him; and the fourth, that all fired at Lam On, the head district watobman, with He also cited cases to intent to murder him. Claim 6, lot 701 (a), amount claimed $15,000, show the danger of convicting upon circam. amount offered by Government $10,890. The stantial evidence, and even should a death occur Board awarded the exact sum offered by the Go-in manner similar to that in this case, he said it must be shown that it was intentional, and vernment.
man to be found guilty must be that a proved to have "aided and abetted the killing. After a long analysis of the main points of the evidence submitted on each side, he concluded that there was practical- ly nothing that could be called conclusive and satisfactory proof connecting these men singly as a body with the commission of these or
The identification of the prisoners murders. was utterly inadequate. The learned counsel also called attention to the fact that none of the neighbours had been called into testify, nor had the other two fokis who were in the shop been. called. He claimed that from the evidence it was clear that all the circumstances that occurred out-
The Board then proceeded to the considera tion of other claims and the following were disposed of :—
Claim 30, inland lot 244 (a). This was settled by agreement at $1,650, the amount claimed being $1.900, and the amount offered at first be- ing $1,500.
.Claim 34 inland lot 241, amount claimed $5,600. This was settled by agreement at $5,350.
Claim 18, inland lot 244 In this case the Government offer of $3,000 was accepted by claimant.
Claim 21, inland lot 406 (sect. a). In this case the Government offer of $2,000 was also accepted.
Claim 12, inland lot 291 (a) remaining portion was settled by agreement at $10,050.
On Monday Claim No. 19, referring to inland lot No. 407 sect. A and inland lot No. 600 sect. A, was settled, the award being $8,000, the The claim amount of the Government's offer. was for $8,750.
SUPREME COURT.
9th January.
IN CRIMINAL Sessions.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR A. G. WISE, ACTING Puisné JUDGE.
THE WING LOK STREET CASE. The trial of the men charged with murder in connection with the Wing Lok treet raid was continued.
The Attorney-General (Hon. W. M. Goodman), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. A. B. Johnson) prosecuted, and the prisoners were de fended by Mr. E. Robinson and Mr. E, H. Sharp, instructed by Mr. H. L Dennys.
|
in
side the premises were of no value and that there- fore it became simply a question of identification inside and that the construction of the house and the dimly lighted room made a certainty or even probability of identification impossible. The prisoners were also strangers and a person seeing them in such a dim light for so short a time and ander intimidation · could not possibly Furthermore, be sure of remembering them. the men in the shop were tied by their queues. in a kind of a bunch and could not have been in a favourable position for observing with accuracy. He also called attention to the discrepancies in identification by different witnesses. He then cited several other cases and closed by urging apon the jury that if they were in any doubt of the guilt of one or more they should not jeopardise the liberty or life of the others and that the law permitted them to return a verdict of not guilty, which did not imply innocence, but a lack of evidence to prove certain guilt.
Mr. Sharp, who represented prisoners four and five, then said that his task was a simpler one than that of Mr. Robinson, because he sup- The jurors were Messrs. F. D. Gomes, H, posed all he had to face was the question of iden- Stolterfoht, E. Burnie, H. Crawford, J. D. Hut-tification. He did not think any one claimed that his clients took any active part in the shoot- chison, E. H. Melbye, and A. O'D. Gourdin.
Inspector Kemp gave evidence as to the ordering. They were simply on guard and had no- in which the prisoners arrived at the Central | thing to do with the shooting. He did not im- ply conspiracy on the part of the shopkeepers or Station.
Mr. W. Schmid, gunmaker, identified the police, but they night be over-sealous in the de- ballets as corresponding in size to the calibre ofsire to make an exemplary conviction. He wished the revolver produced in Court and found at the his Lordship and the gentlemen of the jury would place of the crime and said that with an inferior also keep in mind the many hours that elapsed pistol like that one it was possible to blacken between the commission of the crime and the identification of some of the prisoners. His task the index finger in firing.
was, then, to consider, first, the law, and, second, the evidence relating to identification." | Mr. Sharp thereupon discussed these two points at length, analysing the evidence and citing authorities to support bus views and those of Mr. Robinson, He also showed how from of the place it was impossible the plan
to fire through the house. He said there had been talk of so many shots fired, but only five bullets had been found and they were apparently all from the one revolver that now had the smpty shells. : There might have been
Inspector Quincey testified as to certain of the prisoners being the same who were arrested in Wing Lok Street.
For the defence Mr. C. Ewens and Mr. H. McCallum testified as to prisoner No. 3, he having been in the employ of each. They said he was an average chair coolis except somewhat forgetful and careless.
Ip Kong, brother of prisoner No. 3, and his mother Mak Akai were called to prove that he was at their home, where he lived, on the night in question and at the time of the shooting.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.