March 26, 1896.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
General), instructed by Mr. A. B. Johnson (Crown Solicitor), prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended.
The prisoner took the clothes out of a box belonging to a man named Chan Sai and pawned them. The defence of the prisoner was that the clothes were lent to him. The jury found him guilty, and he was sent to gaol for twelve months on the first count, six months on the second count, the two sentences to run con- currently, and six months on the third count eighteen months altogether.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Lo Hun and Chun Hin were charged with the manslaughter of a boy named Wong Hing. Prisoners pleaded not guilty and they were tried by the jury who were sworn in the first
case.
Hon. H. E. Pollock (Acting Attorney. General) prosecuted, being instructed by Mr. A. B. Johnson (Crown Solicitor).
The Acting Attorney-General explained that on the evening of the 9th March the prisoners were engaged to drag a two-wheeled truck loaded with pork from a warehouse at West Point to the Western Market. As there was a fire in Queen's Road the prisoners could not go through part of that thoroughfare and they went round and came down East Street. Owing to the steepness of the incline and the weight of the pork the truck went down East Street with considerable momentum and the accused lost all control over it. They and a constable shouted, but unfortunately Wong Hing, who was standing in Queen's Road, could not get out of the way in time. The truck knocked him down and he was killed on the spot, his spleen and liver having been ruptured and his spine broken against a cross bar of some bamboo scaffolding,
pose of a small point raised by the defendant's counsel. After the separation the wife con- tinued to live at 46, Hollywood Road (the de- fendant paying the rent), until December, 1893, at which date she removed to No. 50, Hollywood Road, in consequence, as she said, of the bad state of repairs in No. 46. The defendant alleges that this was without his consent and against his wishes and that therefore he is not legally bound to maintain her at all. However, the original fault was on his side and as (al- though he was aware of the change about the end of 1893) he never in any way notified to her his disapproval of the move. I do not consider that he is absolved from his liability to suitably maintain her. In considering the amount of the allowance Mr. Robinson argued that 840 a month was suf ficient, and in support of that argument he went into the various items of the defendant's annual expenditure, showing that there was very little margin left and that therefore the defendant could not afford to pay a larger sum. Mr. Francis, on the other side, said that it was not correct to look at what a man saved a year, but that you ought to look at his gross receipts, less the cost of earning them, and this seems to me to be the proper course. If Mr. Robin- son's argument is comect, it seems to me that a man might spend all his income in extravagant living and then say that he could not afford to allow his wife, who was living apart from him through no misconduct on her part, any allowance at all. Itja man chooses to live so close up to his income as to be unable to make his wife an adequate allowance, he must simply reduce his other expenditure. It is admitted that the defendant allowed his wife $30 a month and paid the rent, $16, whilst she lived at No. 46, Hollywood Road. After that he only paid her at the rate of $40 and gave no rent, so that in fact he has reduced her allow- ance. The defendant is compradore to Messrs. Meyer & Co. and apart from what he makes as such compradore, which he states never exceeded $2,000 a year, he has house property worth about $87,000 and his liabilities amount to $48,500. I am of opinion that he has under estimated his profits from the compradore's In passing sentence his Lordship said I business, and I find that one of his witnesses entirely concur with the verdict of the jury. who was in an inferior position to him in the You (prisoners) said you knew there was a fire same firm has managed to amass from one in Queen's Road near East Street and you source or the other about $60/000. I have care. might have known that such a thoroughfare fully gone through the defendant's evidence was the more likely to have many people in it. relating to his property and income, and taking Yet you do not hesitate to run that heavily into consideration the fact that he abandoned laden truck down a steep road like East Street, his wife without any reasonable cause I am of considering that having called out it was every- opinion that $40 a month is not a sufficient body's business to get out of your way. But allowance, but it is not necessary for me to fix other people had as much right to be in Queen's what in my opinion would be a proper dne. Road as yourselves and your truck, and among I may mention also that the amount claimed them was the poor boy whose sudden and ter- in this case was advanced prevent the derible death you caused. Of course you did not fendant's own furniture from being sold under a distraint. A number of cases were cited on both sides and I have looked into them. They were chiefly on the point as to whether the defendant was justified in leaving his wife or not, but in the face of the conclusion I have come to on this point I do not think it is neces- sary to touch on them in detail. I may mention the case of Wilson and others v. Ford and another (L. R. 3 Ex. 63) with reference to the distraint and the case of Forth v. Forth (36 I. J. Prob. 122) with reference to the alleged assault. In that case there were frequent acts of cruelty. It only remains for me to repeat what I said before and which has been said on several previous occasions in this court, viz., that it is a great pity that the defendant and his wife cannot come to some mutual agreement and so put a stop to all this trouble I do not suppose these remarks will have any effect, as I fancy that both husband and wife are somewhat obstinate, The defendant has had to pay a large fine for his legal experience. There will be judgment for plaintiff with costs.
LARCENY.
-Lung Ting was charged on three counts with stealing $20, $5, and six pieces of clothing on the 7th January. He admitted stealing the money, but denied stealing the clothing, and this last charge was tried by the following jury: Messrs. C. A. Rocha, Choy Chan, C. H. Thiel, W. H. Gaskell, C. A. H. Westerburger, J. Thomas, P. Graht.
His Lordship explained the law to the jury and asked them to find whether negligence of the prisoners was such as to make them guilty of manslaughter, or whether the case was one of accidental or excusable homicide.
The jury by a majority of six to one found the two prisoners guilty.
mean to kill him; if you had done so your case might have been one of murder, but you killed him by your carelessness and negligent disre gard of the safety of people in a public thorough. fare. Although I am sorry to have to sentence you, I must pass such a sentence as may act as a warning to others. The sentence is that each of you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for four months.
19th March,
EXTRAORDINARY FORTUNE TELLING CASE.
Chan Kin Yau was charged with conspiring with two other men to defraud Chan Hak Tan of $9,000, and also with obtaining four sums of money by false pretences with intent defraud. The charges were also preferred in the first instance against two other meu-not the con- spirators-but they were discharged by pro- clamation, as no information had been filed against them.
Mr. J. J. Francis Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Dennys), appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Mounsey) repre- sented the defendant.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and the following jury tried the case.-Messrs. C. A. Faber, E. F. Rozario, A. N. Rowe, J. M. Remedios, J. S. Watte, A. M. Barradas, and C. M. de Rozario.
The facts, as carefully explained to the jury by Mr. Francis, revealed a most extraordinary swindle. The defendant was charged on five Hon. H. E. Pollock (Acting Attorney-counts. The first accused him of having, in
|
251-
concert with two other men not in custody and who are supposed to be out of the colony, de franded the complainant of $9,000, and the second, third, fourth, and fifth counts charged him with having individually obtained four separate sums of money at different times from the complainant by means of false pretences with intent to defraud. Of course these four sums were included in the amount men- sioned in the first count. Mr. Francis said the facts were a little complicated and therefore he would have to go into them in detail in order that the jury might fully understand the case. The complainant was a trader and carried on business as Chi Shin Ho in the Ynen Pak Hong in Bonham Strand. On the 16th December last he was passing up Wellington Street when his attention was called to a fortune teller's shop at 138 by a man who was standing outside. He went to the first floor, where be found a man named Ng Ping Sam, who was surrounded by all the paraphernalia of a fortune teller. The complainant paid ten cents to have his fortune told in one form and eighty cents to have it told in another form. He was told that he was des- tined to die between that day and the incoming Chinese New Year in February. He went again on the 17th December to see the fortune teller, who had requested him to call and who said that something might be done towards prolong- ing his life beyond the Chinese New Year. Complainant gave $3 to Ng Ping Sam for the purpose of purchasing incense and papers to be burnt at prayers in the temple. These things were purchased and made use of in the temple in Queen's Road, Wanchai, where certain cere- monies were gone through and prayers offered by the complainant and Ng Ping Sam. They then returned to 138, Wellington Street, where he was directed to apply the ashes of the burnt papers to the surface of a couple of sheets of red paper on which, before going to the temple, Ng Ping Sam had written certain characters. As soon as the ashes were rubbed over the papers a lot of Chinese characters appeared which contained suggestions that the complainant should do some good works, one particular good work being that he should cause certain books to be purchased and distributed amongst the people about the Laufa mountains in the adjoining province. Ng Ping Sam asked for the sum of $200 from the complainant for the purpose of purchasing these books. On 19th December complainant handed $200 to Ng Ping Sam, who stated that he was going to to the Laufu mountains and that he would be back about 24th December. While he was away he would make certain arrangements with the priests to distribute the books broadcast. But Test the complainant should speak to anyone in the meantime Ng Ping Sam gave him a book to read carefully and instructions to keep him- self entirely indoors. Ng Ping Sam came back to Hongkong on the 25th December, and told complainant that he had bought 3,800 books, which the priests were employed in distributing as desired.. He instructed the complainant to go to the second seat beyond the tramway station in Bowen Road and offer up certain prayers. On the 26th December they went together to the seat and complainant was given a piece of paper which apparently contained no writing. He was directed to put it on the ground and look steadily at it for half an hour. During that time a number of Chinese characters made their appearance on the paper, and the characters contained in- structions for another good act to be performed with a view to the prolongation of his life. Complainant was to expend $300 in the purchase
as
of birds and animals which were to be set free --an act considered amongst certain sections of Chinese to be one of great charity. He was also to give $50 to get himself enrolled in the That paper temple on the Laufu mountains. as well as the others, which were described 'spiritual papers," were returned to Ng Ping Sam, who reduced them to ashes. He was paid the $350 and he then represented that he was going to. Canton to purchase the animals and set them free, and to enroll the complain- ant's name on the Laufu mountains, which wera not
far from the north of Canton. On the very 2nd January Ng Ping Sam came back and re- presented that complainant was extremely lucky and fortunate, as he would have given to him "the gift of Heaven and the jewel of the earth.,'
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.