&
250
the standard of living which appears to be taking place, it may reasonably be anti- cipated that the trade In this particular article will before long assume considerable proportions.
LI HUNG-CHANG'S VISIT TO
HONGKONG.
H.E. Li Hung-chang will pass through Hongkong next week on his way to Europe. His stay in Hongkong will be short, but he will probably have a clear day in which he would be at liberty to see such sights as the colony has to offer or to accept any entertainment to which he might be invited. We hotice a suggestion in the Hongkong Telegraph that the com munity of this colony, the first foreign port he will touch at, should give him a hearty "welcome and prove to him that he is "known and respected qut of China as well
" as
F4
within its limits, and that foreigners "have nothing for him but the best wishes "and the kindest feelings." His Excellency represents his sovereign he is going to Eu- rope on an important mission, and while passing through this colony every possible courtesy should be observed towards him from an official point of view. To attempt anything in the way of a public demonstra- tion in his honour, however, would be a hollow mockery. l'ersonally His Excellency in unknown to the community and his political career has not been such as to excite universal admiration; but the present would be an inappropriate time to go into details on that subject. His Excellency is a man of strong character and extraordinary ability and like all men of marked indi- viduality he cannot fail to inspire interest. The community of Hongkong, however, will, it is to be hoped, not feign to entertain sentiments towards hin that do not generally exist.
SUPREME COURT.
17th March.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
CHEW SON KWONG r. CHEUNG KAM TIN, $200,
:
Judgment was given in this case, in which the plaintiff sued to recover money lent to the wife of the defendant.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C.. instructed by Mr. Ho Wysou, angered for the plaintiff. and Mr. E. Robinson, instructed by Mr. C. Ewens, for the defendant.
|
His Lordship said-This is an action against a husband to recover money lent to his wife living apart from him. In this case the husband and wife had separated under circumstances to which I will refer later on. The wife got in arrear with her rent and the landlord distrained, and the furniture, which belonged to the husband, was seized. The wife thereupon borrowed $200 from the plaintiff. the landlord was paid off, and the furniture released. The question therefore is whether under the circumstances of the case the husband is liable to repay the loan. At the hearing the first point raised was whether there ever had been a loan. As to this I simply say that the evidence entirely establishes the plain- tiff's story and that the suggestion of collusion in this and previous cases against the defendant was not supported by a tittle of evidence, and I imagine was not seriously relied on by counsel. It was then alleged that after the separation, which took place on or about January 29th, 1892, an agreement was come to between the husband and wife that he should pay and she should accept $40 a Chinese month, and that he should be relieved from all further liability in respect of her. The wife absolutely denies that there was such an arrangement. It was admitted by
:
Mr. Francis, who appeared for the plaintiff, that if such an arrangement had been come to, the plaintiff could not succeed in this action, It appears that in November, 1893, the wife sued her husband for maintenance money, and during the course of the suit, at the suggestion of Mr. Justice Ackroyd, the parties met in his Chambers for the purpose of arranging matters, but according to the minute in the book no settlement was arrived at. Again, in January, 1894, the defendant was sued before the same Judge for money lent to the wife for the purchase of necessaries, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. The minute in the Judge's note book is as follows:- Mr. Phillippo (who appeared for the defendant) says he is willing to pay $720 for back allowance, and from the 6th of February $40) a moon,' This is practically what the de- fendaut relies on as evidence of the alleged agree- ment, but it must be remarked that there is no-
|
thing in the Judge's notes to show that the offer was accepted, and I cannot help thinking that the learned Judge, having had in his mind, as he must have had, his previous attempt at a settle- ment, would not have omitted to record the ac- ceptance of the offer, seeing that such acceptance would have put an end to all future litigation. I am therefore of opinion that the defendant has not proved the existence of any such agree. ment. The next question to be considered is whether the defendant is bound to make an allowance to his
other wife; in
words, whether the separation was owing to the misconduct of the husband or of the wife. The defendant alleges that his wife was a woman of violent disposition, that she was addicted to drink, that she assaulted a servant girl, that she quarrelled with his concubines, and that as a climax she struck him on the head with a piece of wood in the presence of one of his fokis on January 29th, 1892, and that it was in conse- quence of this last-mentioned assault that he finally made up his mind to live with her no longer. The wife admits the quarrel with the concubines. but I cannot see that any such quarrel would justify the defendant in aban- doning his wife and depriving her of the benefit of his society. The wife totally denies the assault on the defendant and states that the separation arose from the fact that she com plained to her husband of his devoting his time and money to certain concubines whom he had set up in a separate establishment without her knowledge and consent, and this has been her defence all'along. With reference to this last point the defendant states that he has had these concubines for many years and that his wife was well aware of their existence, and on the evidence I am of opinion that such was the case. I may mention that according to the Judge's notes in a case that was heard in July, 1892, the wife stated that she had known of the existence of these concubines for fivo years, a statement which she repeated in another case in December, I have already said that the quarrel with the concubines did not justify the defen- dant in leaving his wife as he did, and I am further of opinion that his conduct would be equally unjustifiable if it was the result of ordinary irritation displayed by his wife aris. ing from jealousy of these women. It re- mains therefore to be considered whether the wife did assault her husband on January 29th, 1892, as alleged, and whether the assault was of such a serious nature as to justify him in leaving her as he did. sider this question properly it will be necessary | to look at the married history of this couple as it appears from the evidquce in this case. These two were married some twenty-seven years ago and lived together at Foochow, Shami, and in various houses in Hongkong, down to the end of January, 1892 (i.e., the end of the 17th Chinese year), in peace and harmony. It is true that some general evidence was given to the effect that the wife was bad- tempered, but there is no evidence that before the last-mentioned date the defendant had ever shown any desire to separate from his wife, Now we come to the date of the alleged assault. The defendant's version is that at the end of the 17th Chinese year his wife came to 19, Wellington Street, where he was with some fokis, and demanded $100 to enable her to go to Canton; that on his refusal to give it an altercation took place, and that she pushed him and then struck him on the head with a
1883.
In order to con-
[March 26, 1896.
piece of wood so severely that the scar is visible at the present day. In support of this story he produced a witness who stated that he was present and saw the assault and that he went for a doctor. Another witness also stated that, hearing a disturbance, he went in and saw the wife with a piece of wood in her hand and the defendant holding his hand to his head. The wife totally denies the assault. Now this assault is alleged to have taken place in January, 1892, but it is not until July, 1895, in the course of an action brought against him by one Wong Yik Wan, that he seems
to have recollected this serious assault. It is not even then set up as a de- fence, although the defendant was represented by counsel, but seems to have slipped out by The defence was chance on re-examination. based in that case on allegations of general violence and intemperance. This is all the more curions as the defendant had several opportunities, between January, 1892, and July, 1895, of referring to the assault. In June, 1892, the defendant and his wife were sued for money lent to the wife, but the defendant never alluded to the assault, although it had taken place only four or five months before. In May, 1893, the defendant and his wife were sued before Mr. Justice Ackroyd for necessaries supplied to the wife, but not a word did he say about the assault. This decision was appealed from, and in the course of his judgment affirm- ing the decision the Chief Justice is reported in the China Mail of August 9th, 1893, to have said, That the defendant left his wife, for apparently no fault, in January, 1892, and had not supplied her with a cent; "and again “that defendant had clearly made no offer (of
29
'maintenance'), and that defendant is stated to have said that he would only give an allow- ance if his wife agreed to certain terms as to Mr. his conduct with regard to other women.' Justice Ackroyd said that $30 a month was not enough, and at that time it must be remembered that the defendant was paying $16 a month for rent as well. Again, in January, 1894, de- fendant was sued for money lent to his wife to
An unsuc
procure necessaries, and counsel on his behalf apparently consented to a judgment against his client-again there is no mention of the assault. We then come to suit No. 1,099, of 1895, in which the assault is first mentioned, and that, as I have said, only in re-examination. I find in the Judge's notes that the defendant in his examination in chief distinctly states that he left his wife because she sued him and the learned Judge in his written judgment says that it was not alleged that the separation, was by mutual consent and that "in consequence of a law suit the husband left his wife against her will and that the living apart was caused by the husband's misconduct alone and that $40 a mouth was not enongh." The learned Judge apparently was not much impressed by the evidence given as to the assault. cessful attempt was made to get a rehearing and in support of that attempt an affidavit was filed setting forth for the first time the defence as set forth in the present case.
Of course the various dicta above quoted do not bind me, inasmuch as they were founded on the evidence given in each particular case, but they go to show that the defendant's lines of defence have extended with time and it would be curious to note how far they will have ex- tended in another five years. For the above reasons I hold that the defendant has not con- vinced me that the alleged assault ever took place, and even supposing that it did it would appear that the defendant himself treated it as a trivial matter and never thought of it until at his wits' end for a defence. That being so it is perfectly clear that the defendant abandoned his wife without any reasonable cause and that he is bound to provide her with an allowance suf- ficient to maintain her in a style suitable to the wife of a man in his position of life. Now it is admitted that since January, 1892, the defendant for almost two years paid (whether under compulsion or not) $30 a month to his wife and $16 a month for rent and that after- that he has paid her at the rate of $40 without rent a month up to the present time; and the question now is whether that allowance is a suf- ficient one, and in order to decide that it will be necessary to look at the defendant's position and resources. It will, however, be convenient to dis.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.