So wh
154
21st August,
THE PROTECTION OF YOUNG GIRLS.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
A woman was charged on five counts with offences against the provisions of the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance, 1890.
Hon. H. E. Pollock (Acting Attorney General) prosecuted, and Mr. E. Robinson
defended.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to the first count and the Acting Attorney-General said that under the circumstances he applied for a nolle prosequi to be entered upon the other counts.
24th August.
In
Lo Cheuk Lam surrendered to his bail and pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him on six counts with offences against the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance of 1890. Hon. H. E. Pollock, Acting Attorney-General (instructed by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. A. B. Johnson). represented the Crown and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings), defended.
The following gentlemen constituted the jury-Messrs. J. B. Cousins, 8. W. Hayward, C. J. Schmeisser, N. J. Ruchwaldy, C. H. W. Kew, H. J. M. de Figueiredo, and S. F. F. -Pereira.
This being the last case of the sessions the Acting Attorney-General asked his Lordship to release the jurors who had not been drawn and they were accordingly dismissed.
The Acting Attorney-General opened the case for the prosecution and explained to the jury the nature of the charges. Evidence was then called in support of counsel's statement.
At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Francis submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, as the evidence as to the girl's age was not clear and distinct as required by law.
|
a reasonable time for his discharge, the trustee obtained an order, under section 27 (2) of the bankrupt to come up for his discharge on a Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1891, calling upon the specified day. On that day the bankrupt, al- though duly served with notice of the order and of the day fixed for consideration of the matter referred to therein, did not appear. The Court is therefore fully empowered, under the above mentioned section, to deal in such manner as it thinks fit with the question of the discharge of the bankrupt. In order to determine this question it is necessary to have regard His Lordship consented to this course.
to the facts proved with reference to sentencing the prisoner to nine months' im. the conduct and course of dealing of the prisonment with hard labour his Lordship said bankrupt while carrying on his business. that the offence to which she had pleaded guilty From his statement of affairs, filed on the 20th was a very serions one and she was liable to two
October, 1895, it appears that the assets of the years' imprisonment with hard labour. She estate were estimated at $6,594.45 and its liabi- bad lived in the colony a long time and must|lities at $31,725.50. In the report of the trus- have known that she was doing wrong.
tee, which was filed on the 22nd July, 1896, it is stated that the assets realized only $2.864,15, while the debts proved amounted to $26,368,18. It is clear, therefore, that | there гав an enormous difference between the assets and the liabilities of the estate. On the days above mentioned the bankrupt was examined at considerable length as to his con- duct, dealings, and property. In the course of his examination on the 21st November, 1895, he said: "I owe $31,000. I last borrowed money in the sixth month from Chan Tsiu-im. I borrowed money when I could not pay it back. I lost the money on every voyage of salt. For the last three years I have always lost money. The statement of affairs is true. It is all for borrowed money, except $700, Speaking generally, the remainder of the examination is of the same tenour. In his report the trustee finds as facts ' (a.) that the bankrupt continued to trade after knowing himself to be insolvent, and (b.) that the bankrupt contracted debts prov- able in the bankruptcy without having, at the time of contracting the same, any rea sonable or probable ground of expectation of being able to pay them." I am of opinion that these findings correctly set forth the facts of the case. The trustee further states that "he is of opinion that a dividend of 50 per centum will not be payable on the debts proved." Now. it is provided by section 27 (3) of the Bank. ruptcy Ordinance, 1891, that "the Court shall, on proof of any of the facts hereinafter mentioned, either refuse the order of discharge, or suspend the operation of the order for a specified time, or grant an order of discharge subject to any such conditions as aforesaid." Amongst these "fucts" are the following :~~" (6.) That the bankrupt has continued to trade after knowing himself to be insolvent; “(d.) that the bankrupt has contracted any debt provable in the bankruptcy without having, at the time of contracting it, any reasonable or probable ground of expectation (proof whereof shall lie on him) of being able to pay it," and "(e.) that a dividend of 50 per centum has not been paid, or will not, in the opinion of the trustee, be payable, on the debts proved." As I have already stated, all these three facts are proved in this case as against the bankrupt The Court, therefore, has no power to grant his discharge absolutely, but can only either suspend the operation of the order for a specified time or grant an order of discharge subject to certain conditions. I think the merits of the case will be satisfied by suspending the opera- tion of the order for the bankrupt's discharge for a period of twelve months from this date, and accordingly I make an order to that effect. It remains to consider whether or not the penal provisions of the bankruptcy law shall be set in force against the bankrupt. By section 27 (5) of the Bankruptcy Őr- dinance, 1891, amended by section 10 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1892, it is enacted as follows: The Court, on proof to its satis- faction of the facts mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) respectively of the next pre- ceding sub-section, may summarily sentence the bankrupt to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding one year." As has been already mentioned, of these facts," two, namely, (c) and (d), have been proved to the satisfaction of the Court, and, having regard to the character of the bankrupt's dealings under these heads and to the fact that
The Acting Attorney-General argued that the case ought to go before the jury. The girl had herself stated that her age was under 16 and the connecting link was her grandmother's evidence on the point.
His Lordship said that on reading the deposi- tions taken at the Police Court he thought that the point raised by Mr. Francis would be brought forward and he had therefore looked up the cases and carefully considered the subject. He was quite aware that difficulties might arise, in regard to the proof of the age of girls, par- ticularly in this country, but he felt bound. reluctantly however, as it was an unsatisfactory way of ending such a case as this, to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Perhaps the Attorney-General would consider it proper to embody in the local statute an English enactment by which in certain cases a child who appeared to the Court to be under 16 was de- clared to be under that age unless the contrary was proved.
The jury, therefore, returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.
The concluded the business of the sessions.
1
20th August.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR Dr. CarriNGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
Re CHAN YAT SHUN alias TAK WO TONG, OF YAUMATI, JUNK OWNER, DBTOR Ex parte
SEE TO NAM, A CREDITOR.
His Lordship gave judgment as follows:- In this case a receiving order was made against the debtor, carrying on business as a junk owner, on the 4th October, 1895, and the Official Receiver was appointed receiver of his estate. The public examination was held on the 21st, 25th, and 28th days of November, 1895, and the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt on the 23rd January, 1896. The Official Receiver was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy. The bankrupt not having applied to the Court within
+4
**
[August 27, 1898
he has not appeared on the he application and shown any mitigation of his fault. I think must be held to have brought hi the scope of the penal provisions of it ance. I therefore order that ho for a form of four months, and I warrant be issued for his appre commitment.
20th August.
IN SUMMARY
JURISDICTION.
ned:
BEFORE MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING:
PUISNE JUDGE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
WING LI YUEN FIRM V. HON. F. A. COOPER AND OTHERS.. Plaintiffs sought to recover $1,000 damages caused by the wrongful acts of the defendants Hon. F. A. Cooper, Dr. J. M. Atkinson, Mr. H. B. H. Lethbridge, Dr. F. W. Clark, Mr. N. J. Ede, and Inspector J. Reidie
Mr. J. Hastings (of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. A.B.; Jolinson (Crown Solicitor) represented the defendants.
The following gentlemen constituted the special jury Messrs. C. Inchbald, J. B. Dod- well, and E. Osborne.
Mr. Hastings, in addressing the jury, said the plaintiffs' petition was as follows
1- The plaintiffs are a firm of merchants and dealers in Chinese drugs and medicines carrying on business at No. 88, Bonham Strand, Victoria, in the colony of Hongkong.
2. The defendants, the Honourable Francis Alfred Cooper, John Mitford Atkinson, Henry Bridgman Henderson Lethbridge, Francis William Clark, and Nathaniel Joseph Ede were on or about the 9th May, 1896, members of the Sanitary Board as constituted by Ordinance No. 24 of 1887. The defendant John Reidië is one of the officers of the said Board.
3.—The plaintiffs are the tenants and occupiers of No. 88, Bonham Strand aforesaid and also of portion of the top floor of No. 90, Bonham Stand, and were the owners of certain mezzanii floors and shelves erected therein.·
4.--On or about the 9th May, 1896, the de fendants or their servants or agents wrongfully and illegally entered upon the plaintiffs pre- mises aforesaid and caused great damage, bys pulling down the said mezzanine floors and shelves therein and by taking away and wholly removing the materials of the said mezzanine floors and shelves.
5.The defendants or their servants or agents also caused great damage to divers valuable goods of the plaintiffs stored within the said premises, and by their acts as aforesaid caused great annoyance and loss to the plaintiffs and materially interfered with and prevented the carrying on of the plaintiffs' business upon the said premises,
6.- On account of the illegal and wrongful aots of the defendants as aforesaid the plainting have suffered damage to the amount of $1,000,4 The plaintiffs therefore humbly pray. (1) that: the defendants may be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the said sum of $1,000 and the plain tiffs' costs of the suit; (2) that the plaintiff may have such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require."
Dated the 29th day of July, 1896, The answer of the defendants was as follows 1-The defendants admit, the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of, the pition.
2.The defendants do not admit the allegations contained in paragrap petition."
}}
tion
3. In answer to paragraph 4 of the the defendants admit that their serva illegally in removing certain mezzanin and shelves from the premises of the plaintiff
bring and in not returning the same, and the sum of $100 into Court and same is sufficient to replace the mezza and shelves in the condition in which when removed by the defendan Save as aforesaid the defendant every of the allegations containe 4 of the petition.
t
4. The defendants deny that they servants or agents caused great or any
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.