November 21, 1895.]
His Lordship-When and by whom was it submitted.
Witness-It was brought to me by their broker, Ho Tim:
His Lordship He is Mr. Ho Wyson's 'brother, is he not?
pas-
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Witness-No, I should have been at a loss. Mr. Robinson-When the passengers were counted were there any precautions omitted that you can suggest?
T
Witness-No, I do not think so.
Arthur Raviner was called on behalf of the defendant. On 17th July he was mate on the Propontis, and he spoke to the counting of the passengers and the collection of the tickets, when about fifteen persons were found to be without tickets.
Witness-I have been told he is. I came back from Hoihow, where I had been arranging about getting coolies, on the 9th or 10th July. When I went to Mr. Ho Wyson's office to sign the agreement I noticed the alteration on reading the document over again. The words " The defendants' case baving been concluded senger licence had been crossed out, and witnesses for the plaintiff company were called. 'grand chop" substituted. I called attention Leung Tu Po. the secretary, said when to it, and asked for an explanation. Leung Tun Hopkins asked him what grand chop" was Po, the Secretary to the plaintiff Company, witness told him all about it and said he would said “* It's the same thing; it is a Customs have to pay for it. Witness had these con- term." Mr. Ho Wyson was in the room at the|ditions, written in Chinese, with him at the
44
time.
yy
His Lordship-Could Mr. Ho Wyson hear what was said ?
Witness-I cannot say for certain whether he overheard the remark or not.
His Lordship-He was there as the lawyer. Witness-He was paying no particular atten. tion to what was being said. Chun Yut Po (Cumming) was also there.
His Lordship--You did not ask Mr. Wysou what" grand chop" meant, although he was there as a lawyer and the drawer of the agreement?
Witness-No.
His Lordship-You asked for an explanation. and you received none whatever. You were told it was the same thing. Passenger licence ' is much more intelligible than "grand chop,” and you were satisfied with the answer given.
Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson -I was to receive $5.80 per head of the 750 passengers from the coolie bongs.
His Lordship-Was the 8 cents the whole of your profit?
Witness-Yes, but after paying the tonnage dues I made a dead loss.
His Lordship-That is all the profit you con- templated-80 cents a head?
Witness-Yes.
His Lordship-Excuse me asking the ques- tion, but was there anything in the shape of commission or anything of that sort ?
Witness-No. Out of the profit had to come at any rate the
We also bud licence. passenger to provide food for the passengers. I expected the steamship company would provide food for passengers, but I had to find that myself.
His Lordship--Out of your own pocket? Witness- Yes.
His Lordship-How much? Witness-40 cents a head.
His Lordship-40 cents a head for 750? Witness-Yes.
the cook.
I made an agreement to pay
Mr. Robinson-You knew you had to pay for the food before you signed the agreement?
Witness-Yes.
Mr. Robinson-The cook obtained judgment against you for payment of the food?
Witness-Yes. Purt of it is satisfied; I have paid $225.
His Lordship--Perhaps in this case that has some bearing. As far as this gentleman's evidence goes it seems to me that it was a very unprofitable contract for him, looking at the payment for food and the payment of the "grand chop."
Witness-I reckoned upon a profit of $300. His Lordship-With the payment of the "grand chop" it was absolutely certain that there must be a loss on the contract.
་
Witness-If I had known that grand chop" meant tonnage dues I should not have entered on the contract.
Mr. Robinson-Your object in getting this clause in the agreement providing for a penalty of $20 was to secure the full carrying passenger. space of the ship ?
Witness-Yes. They might otherwise have shipped passengers of their own, and left no room for my passengers.
Mr. Robinson-You inspected the Propontis and told the secretary to the plaintiff company that you thought the Consul at Hoihow would allow over a thousand passengers?
Witness-Yes, I thought she could carry mose than 750.
Mr. Robinson-If over a thousand passengers had been carried you would have made a profit even after paying the "grand chop "?
|
time.
13th November.
Young Tum Po, the secretary to the plain- tiff company.resumed his evidence, and said Hopkins, a day or two before the agreement was signed, said the ship was a very good one for passengers, and he wished to have an agree- ment in English. I said I would arrange that. Mr. Robinson Suppose you had not had this agreement for the employment of the Propontis. what occupation would the ship have had instead?
His Lordship-That is not material. Mr. Robinson I think it is, my Lord. His Lordship Why?
Mr. Robinson I want to show the nature of the agreement, and that the plaintiffs would not have gained anything by paying the grand chop." just as the defendants say they did not gain anything. The boat would otherwise have run between Hongkong and Singapore carrying passengers as well as cargo. To witness.) What is the rate from Hongkong to Singapore: His Lordship Unless you are going into the whole of the accounts--
Mr. Robinson-If your Lordship thinks it is not material I bow at ouce.
His Lordship-I will take his general state. ment that it would not have been worth their while to send the ship down to Huihow if they had to pay the “grand chop.”
|
|
how I took 400 to 500 passengers. I too these passengers on the strength of the tonnage dues paid by Hopkins on the previous trip. I was asked to produce the tonnage dues certificate. I said I did not know where it was.
Hopkins--The captain said there was a copy of the certificate at the Customs?
Witness-Yes
Hopkins Did you hear the captain say that the original tonnage dues certificate had been lost?
Witness-Yes!
Hopkins-You therefore obtained a duplicate copy by misrepresentation?
Witness-That is the captain's affair. Hopkins-How long did it take the Propontis to go from Hoihow to Singapore?
Witness Six days.
Hopkins-The ship was three days in Hoihow, making nine days altogether. You thought you would get $5,000 for the passengers carried from Hoihow to Singapore?
Witness-Yes.
Hopkins-Do you reckon if the ship earns $5,000 in nine days that it does not pay?
Witness-$5,000 is not enough without cargo; we had cargo as well.
Hopkins-You knew you were obtaining a great benefit by misleading us into paying the tonnage dues?
Witness-If you had not paid the dues I should not have gone.
Hopkins-Did you not know that if we had to pay the tonnage dues out of the $5 a head we should be losing ?
Witness I did not know whether you would lose or not. I told you at first to be careful and see whether you would lose or not, and that you had better reckon it up clearly. You said you had settled that at Hoihow; if the vessel was not there on the 18th July you would lose $3,000.
loss
་་
44
Hopkins--When you told Ho Wyson to alter the words "passenger licence to grand chop you knew you were forcing us into a
Witness-I did not know whether
you would make a profit or loss. You said you would receive $6.80 to $7 a head from the coolie hongs.
Witness continuing-The ordinary pas Hopkins In the Chinese agreement you use senger rate between Hongkong and Singapore the words "shun-kow-kum." What is the in the month of July is $6 to 7. From Hong-literal translation of those words? kong to Hoihow I had to go with the Ween Witness-Ship's dues. decks empty of passengers. If I had been going to Singapore I should have taken cargo and passengers.
expected to make about 81.000 profit, but if I had had to pay the "grand chop the profit would have been only $100 to 8200.
44
Mr. Robinson-The agreement was taken to Mr. Ho Wyson, and it was altered before it was signed. Explain why and how the altera-
tion was made.
14
Witness+Mr. Ho Wyson showed me the agree. ment when I went to his office. I told Mr. Ho Wyson that passenger license." was only the payment to the Consul, and that the words should be grand chop," which was the term used in Chinese courts. In Western courts it is called tonnage dues." Mr. Ho Wyson said, "I have only written it wrong," and I asked him to change the words to "grand chop," as it would make a difference of $900. Mr. Ho Wysou made the alteration. When the agree- ment, was signed Mr. Ho Wyson, Ho Tun, Hopkins, Chu Fat Po (Cumming), and I were present. Hopkins wanted the penalty clause inserted and I agreed.
Mr. Robinson-Was anything said about the alteration from "passenger licence" to "grand chop "?
Witness No.
His Lordship--You had explained previously to Mr. Ho Wyson that it made a difference of $900 and no explanation was made to the defen- dant of that fact in Mr. Ho Wyson's office.
Witness Hopkins asked Mr. Ho Wyson why the agreement had been altered. Mr. Ho Wy. sou said, "I have put my initials there and there is no fear." Mr. Ho Wyson said that Hopkins could have a clean copy. When the ship com pleted the voyage I sent in the bill to Hopkins, who refused to pay.
Cross-examined by Hopkins- I said yester- day that Ho Tim was defendants' broker. I gave him a commission. When I went back to Hoi-
Hopkins It means ship's head gold or shipping dues Why did you cause Mr. Ho Wyson to translate it into the words "grand chop"?.
Witness -All Chinese call it that. Hopkins-The "grand chop" are words used on all Customs documents to mean the grand seal of the Commissioner.
Is not the name given to the grand chop" "hung pai"? :
Witness-I do not know.
*
"
Hopkins-You say that shun-kow-kum means shipping dues. Why did'nt you use the words shipping dues" instead of “ grand chop "?
6+
11
Witness-I did not translate the words. Grand chop is usually used..
Hopkins-You told Ho Wyson to alter the words
passenger licence" to " grand chop' when you meant shipping dues; did'nt you use the words "grand chop" with the idea of misleading me?
Witness-No, I did not wish to misload you.. Hopkins-And yet you say that Ho Wyeon told me he had initialled it and it was all right and I had nothing to fear?
Witness-Yes.
His Lordship-I cannot understand why Ho Wyson told Hopkins he had nothing to fear. Why did he tell Mr. Hopkins that ?.
Witness-He said it to me.
His Lordship You said he told Mr. Hopkins. Did Mr. Ho Wyson tell Mr. Hopkins that he (Hopkins) hall nothing to fear?
Witness-Hopkins was there and heard it. Ho Wyson told me I need not fear; he did not say that to Hopkins.
Mr Ho. Wyson, solicitor, said-I remember receiving instructions to draw up the agree ment. On dr about 12th July last Ho Tim came to me, aud-
His Lordship You say on or about the 12th. The date might be very important. Don't you Į know for certain
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.