!
128
Mr. Francis--No, because those Courts have full power to punish.
The Acting Chief Justice-You ask us to find that in the presence of the Magistrale” means "in the hearing of the Magistrale "Y
Mr. Francis-In this particular case, because the matter did not come directly to the notice of the Magistrate himself.
The Puisne Judge-It did come to his notice; they went and told him.
Mr. Francis-I think I said directly to his notice; the Magistrate did not bear what was said. The expression was used sotto core and was only heard by two men. It was not in tended to insult the Court or to degrade the ad- ministration of justice.
1
The Acting Chief Justice pointed out that the expression was used in open Court and could be heard by two police officers. Was not that degrading the administration of justice Would it not be intimidating the Court?
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY, PRESS AND
sion
i
'You -- --son of a - intending that expression for the witness Stanton. That was no doubt because Stanton had given evidence which tended to the conviction of appellant's friend. The learned counsel for the appellant, who has urged everything that could be urged on behalf of his client, has very straightforwardly and in a mauner I should have expected of him admitted that his client had used the expression, that he had alleged that the police trumped up the case to shield themselves, and he also admits that that charge against the police was false,a nd that he did use the expression. Under these circumstances all the learned counsel could do was to argue that the words " in the presence of the Magistrate "must mean in the hearing of the Magistrate, so that the Magis trate might have dealt with them from his own knowledge there and then, and without calling for the production of any evidence at all. I cannot agree with that. As I said, it does not follow that because a Magistrate is deaf persons in the court can use all sorts of insulting expressions and turn the court into a sort of pandemonium. Therefore I um inclined to hold that in the presence of the Magistrate" means nothing but what it says; I not inclined to hold that these words are synonymous with the words in the bearing of the Magistrate." I cannot help thinking that the use of such an expression in such an. audible tone that it can be heard by an in- spector of police and by a constable is a gross insult to the Court. It was not intended to apply personally to the Magistrate; that I admit, but it is a gross insult to use such an expression to a witness who was there in the discharge of his duty. Under all the circum. stances of the case, therefore, it seems that the charge was made out before the Magistrate, and that the defence set up was an aggravation of the original wrong doing; and although he may have been hurried into making that After further argument Mr. Francis said the defence and setting up that false charge appellant was willing to apologise to the Mag- by a sudden impulse to shield himself, I istrate, to Mr. Stanton, and to the Court. cannot forget that the depositions disclose the The Acting Chief Justice strongly com.fact that some evidence in the case was taken mented upon the fact that in his defence the appellant had not hesitated to suggested con- spiracy on the part of the officers, and said this was a wicked and atrocious thing to do.
Mr. Francis replied that it would if the expression had been used to a person who was about to give evidence or in such a way as would interfere with the administration of justice. The appellant was really speaking to himself. If he had wanted to insult the Court and to misbehave himself deliberately he would have spoken out in Chinese loud enough to be heard by his countrymen or to someone in particular to show he did intend to offer an insult.
The Acting Puisne Judge-Can you tell us why he was there at all?
Mr. Francis said the appellant was looking after the business the master of which was summoned as the master was away at the time.
The Acting Chief Justice-He went there as a sort of friend and supporter and expressed his indignation against the man who procured
the conviction.
The Puisne Judge-It was a gratuitous in- sult.
Mr. Francis concluded by strongly pleading for a reduction of the sentence.
The Acting Chief Justice, in delivering judg. ment, said-This is an appeat from the decision of the Magistrate who inflicted a sentence of seven days imprisonment upon the appellant for having used an insulting expression in the presence of the Magistrate when acting in the discharge of any Magisterial duty." The Or- dinance it is section (8) which I am reading deals with three offences. If any person be. haves in an insulting manner or uses apy threatening or insulting expression in the pre- sence of a Magistrate, when acting in the dis. charge of any Magisterial duty, such Magistrate may, "That is a special power which has been in force in this colony for over. twenty years, because I see that this section was taken from Ordinance 16 of 1875. I cannot help thinking that it is partly on account' of the ex- istence of that Ordinance in this colony that the Police Magistrate has þebu able to maintain a proper dignity in his court, which is often crowded by Chinese and others, some of whom occasionally might incline to be disorderly. As regards the facts of the case there appears to be no dispute at all. Inspector Stanton had been giving evidence in a case where a man was charged with having used false weights and neasures. The appellant had apparently noth- ing to do with that case. He seems to have gone up to the court as a sort of friend and supporter of the man who was charged and who was, as I nuderstand from the learned counsel, fined for having these false weights and measures, and the appellant's presence in court was in uo way necessary. Ho was there apparently for the purpose of keeping in conutenance his friend, the man who had the false weights and measures. Inspector Stanton having given his evidence, as he was bound to do in the discharge of his duty--not always a pleasant duty was about to leave the box, when the appellant, who seems to have learnt English, having had the advantage of living in Hong- kong a long time, comes out with the expres-
am
on the 14th January. The evidence of McEwen was taken and the evidence of Goddard, the other constable, bore out the truth of the statement. Both these witnesses were cross-examined, and yet, although the Magis trate did not act hastily and decide the case there and then, but adjourned the hearing for two days, and at the end of those two days. having had plenty of time to think of the gross impropriety of what he had said, instead of apologising to the Magistrate and throwing himself on the mercy of the Court, in which case he might have been leni-ntly dealt with, he reiterated the charge and instructs his solicitor to say that this was entirely a trumped up charge. and that it was invented by the police to shield themselves. That is a gross aggravation of the offence, and I do not think the sentence of seven days imprisonment under these circumstances at all exeossire. therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.
The Puisue Judge-I concur. I can only .say that the insult was a gratuitous one.
The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.
6th February.
IN BANKRUPTCY
BEFORE HON. W. M. GOODMAN (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.)
PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF EDWARD FRANK BIRCHAL.
I
Edward Frank Birchal, formerly trading in Hongkong under the name of Villa. Lopez & Co., debtor, attended for his public ex- amination. In his statement of affairs the debtor estimated his total assets at $3,193.67 and his debts at $16,215.47
Mr. A. Seth was present as Official Receiver. Mr. Grist I am appearing on behalf of the debtor, but of course under the Code I can- not take any part in the examination.
!
[February 13, 1806.
some years in Spain. The firm of Villa, Lopez & Co. suggested my coming out East. Some of the goods consigned to me were sold here, but the bulk were sold in Manila. I realised about $9,000 here and some $7,000 or $8,000-
Examined by the Official Receiver the debtor said I commenced business in July with goods to the value of $10,000, which were sent to me by Villa, Lopez & Co., of Barcelona. The goods consisted of piece goods, linen, blankets, and wines. I am of English domicile, but have been
in Manila.
His Lordship-What business had you been in in England before you went to Spain?
Debtor-I was employed by a manufacturing firm in Manchester as sub-manager.
Continuing, debtor said-The proceeds of the goods sold in Manila were remitted to me. I was a partner in the firm in Barcelona and came out as such.
His Lordship-Were you legally a partner? Debtor-There was no partnership agree ment; it was arranged verbally that I should be a partner and receive 25 per cent. I have witnesses to that arrangement.
His Lordship What was your share in the business?
Debtor-Twenty five per cent.
His Lordship Have you been credited with
that?
Debtor-I have, in my account.
His Lordship-For how long?
Debtor-For 1893 and 1894. For 1895
I have no accounts.
eh
His Lordship-Your share in the business,
Debtor-Yes.
His Lordship-What was your salary? Debtor-I had no salary.
His Lordship-The account shows a balance against you of $29,000 odd.
Debtor Yes; but the accounts are not correct. His Lordship-There is no one appearing to represent the creditors.
The Official Receiver-Several proofs have been filed.
His Lordship (to debtor)-Looking at the statement of affairs I see you put your total debts besides that that you know of ? debts at $16,215.47. Now, are there any other ·
Debtor-One or two have been filed since that I did not know of at the time-small ones.
His Lordship-Is there a claim by Villa, Lopez & Co. for $40,000.
Debtor said this amount was due from a man' named Aboytiz in Manila, to whom he recom. mended the firm of Villa, Lopez & Co.
His Lordship-You did it in good faith, I suppose ?
|
Debtor Certainly. I do not believe the money is lost.
His Lordship What happened; has he gone away?
Debtor-Oh, no. The custom there is to give credit and unless you keep on supplying goods you cannot get any money.
His Lordship-The firm complained to you about his account, I suppose
Debtor-They complained generally about all the business they have done through me. suppose they imagined. there had been some bad faith, which there has not.
His Lordship-Do I understand that you know your debts amount to $16,000 odd in addition to some small items of which you, are
not aware
Debtor-Yes.
His Lordship-But why were you not aware of them; you kept proper books?
Debtor-Accounts have been presented since of which I had no knowledge at all.
His Lordship-Take Kelly and Walsh's account. You seem to have gone in very ex- tensively for magazines and that sort of thing from England. I notice amongst many other things The Queen," "The Graphic," "Man- chester Times," "Ladies' Pictorial," "Temple
Bar," &c. They run up to £12 or £13. ↑
Debtor-That extends over a number of years. His Lordship-Now as to your assets. You put them down as 53,493.67. That consists of $700 stock-in-trade sold and realised. Has money been received for that, Mr. Seth?
The Official Receiver-I believe so; perhaps that forms part of the $1.500 that I received from the Government auctioneer.
His Lordship--Household furniture sold and realised, $900. The other item is book debts. I understand from the Official Receiver that there is very little possibility of getting them in.
The Official Receiver-They are nearly all out of the colony, your Lordship. I think
i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.