16 1896.1
|
215*
The
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE ME. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE, JUDGE) AND A COMMON JUÈY,
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT, he 3rd September last. It will and that he alone continued to have any know them; probably he had seen their faces, o deal in the first place with the interest in it, but they do not agree as to but he did not speak to them In support of fancy set up by Wat Sam Kun. the way in which this settlement came about. the statements of these witnesses there is also that during a portion at any rate Wat Kai Hee says that. Wat Kai Him the evidence to the same general effect of Chan period above; mentioned he was under advanced $1,000 for the funeral expenses Fat, who had dealings with the defendant, firm He himself, his brother Wat Kai Hee, of his father, and that he sold all the goods of on behalf of his employers, the Fan Lung, Iki mother Wat U Shi united in declaring the business for this purpose. He implies that of Shanghai. Two of the former fokis of the is at the present time 20 years of age. it was for this reason that Wat Kai Him was shop were called as witnesses on behalf of ild have been inclined to think that the allowed to have the business for himself, or the plaintiffs, but their evidence did not throw
an to his non-age were somewhat indeed perhaps that he re-started it with his much light on the question at issue
and that he is now, perhaps some- own money derived from the sale of his share
same remark may be made of Wat Wong, ler than he is said to be. But then it in the paddy fields and land. On the other former foki called on behalf of the defendants in, remembered that the judgment debt hand, the widow says nothing about this pay. the issue. Wat Kai Hee did not deny that he which he is sought to be ment of funeral expenses, but she makes the was often at the shop, but he maintained that made liable was contracted in and before following statement:-" After the death of he only went there to visit his brother a December, 1894, more than 18 months ago. Wat Fuk Wai, Wat Kai Hee and Wat Kai Kai Him. He also said that after his father's Under these circumstances, Mr. Francis, the Him wanted to carry on the business and I death he remained at the village until five years. plaintiffs' counsel; admitted that, even assum- wanted to close it, but in the end Wat Kai ago, when he came down to Hongkong and ng him to have come of full age at any Him carried it on. 1 prevented Wat Kai Hee obtained employment as a coolie at the Wing Ime during the period above-mentioned, he was from going on with the business because he had Ching Li shop in Chinese Street, where he is nable to offer any evidence to fix the precise no experience. Wat Kai Him did not pay any still employed. This statement is borne out by ate at which that event took place. It must thing for the business, because I did not like to that of Hu Shing, the manager of the shop.“ bề taken, then, that the defence of infancy is be hard on my children." But however this It is difficult to reconcile these statements with made out on the part of Wat Sam Kun, and may have been, it is clear that Wat Kai Him those of the witnesses for the plaintiffs to the "it is therefore unnecessary to determine the did assume the management of the business and effect that he was every day at the Wing question whether he was a partner in the carried it on from the latter part of 1886 until Cheong shop and taking part in its manage défendant, firm, since, if that question were an- the early part of 1895, and that it was during ment. I am inclined to think that it is swered in the affirmative, he would not be liable this period that the debt now due on judgment possible that he may have been employed at for their debta" and engagements. The result to the plaintiffs was contracted. Wat Kai Hee the Wing Ching Lis shop as alleged, and is that my finding on the issue, so far as regards does not admit that during this period he re- yet have been a good deal at the Wing Wat Sam Kun, must be, in substance if not in ceived any benefit or profit from the business. Cheong shop and giving some assistance in form, & finding in his favour. I have felt some The widow admits that Wat Kai Him used to its management, but, if this is not a permissible - dificulty in dealing with the question of his send her from $3.00 to $10.00 in a year and explanation of the discrepancy, then I elect to couts, because I am not altogether satisfied with also “sometimes a salt fish and other things," to believe the witnesses for the plaintiffs. his conduct in the case, but on the whole I but she says that these were gifts and that in The conclusion then at which I arrive, after think that the plaintiffs could very well have sending them he was only performing his filial carefully considering all the evidence and cir adcurtained that they could not rebut his plea of duty. I confess that these accounts of the way cumstances of the case, is that the plaintiffs have infancy, and therefore I think he must have his of dealing with the business do not in them-sustained the onus which lay on them to show - costs. "I now proceed to determine the issue selves carry conviction to my mind, but in the that Wat Kai Hes was a partner of the defend. with regard to Wat Kai Hee.. It does not absence of any countervailing evidence on the int firm during the years 1888 to 1894 – both appear to be necessary in doing so to refer fur- part of the plaintiffs it would be my duty to inclusive, and therefore that the issue must be ther to Wat Sam Kun. The evidence on the give effect to them. There is, however, such found in their favour. They will also have one side and on the other is very conflicting, countervailing evidence, and I proceed to con- their costs of its trial. and in coming to a decision I have been guided sider its purport and weight. It appears that to considerable extent by what appear to me the dealings between the plaintiff firm and the obabilities of the case. The facts defendant firm began about 1888. U Shun not in disputa are that the business Cheong states that he has been money collector 1, vis, that of selling mutton, between Shanghai and Hongkong for the Wat Fuk Wai; that he carried plaintiff firm 12 or 13 years; that he used to ible number of years before his come down to Hongkong for this purpose two l'in the Central Market in Vic-or three times in a year, remaining a month or ria ::: it hë also had a godown at Wanchai at two on each occasion; that during those visits which the sheep required for the business were he often went to the Wing Cheong shop; that kept, while he and his family lived on the on tach occasion of a visit to the colony apper floors; that the business was of not in- he received from the firm a few hun- considerably dimensions, some 100 to 120 sheep dred dollars; that he transacted business with being slaughtered in a month and at Christmas Wat Kai Hee and Wat Kai Him, the former time about 200, while there were about 30 to 80 keeping the accounts and the latter receiving. shoop usually kept in stock at the godown; and paying money; that these two told him and that- some seven or eight fokis, and in that the business belonged to three brothers; winter about-ten; were employed in the shop. that they said to him, Do not be afraid, the He had also acquired some paddy fields and land money due to your firm will be paid in full;" at the village of San Tong, in the province of that during the seven years he did not see any Kwangtung, of the value of about $1,700. He one else than the three brothers managing the had three sons, Wat Kai Hee, Wat Kai Him, business nor was anyone else ɛo pointed out to and Wat Sam Kun. Of these, Wat Kai Him Him; that he sometimes received money from appears to have been employed under his father Wat Kai Hee and sometimes from Wat Kai in the shop from the time of his leaving school. Him; and that the two elder brothers managed In this condition of affairs Wat Fuk Wai was the business between them. This evidence of taken ill in the month of August, 1886, and he U Shun Cheong is corroborated, so far as the convored from- Wanchai by his wife period of time spoken to by the latter admits, nephew named Wat Wong to the by the evidence of U. Pang Yung. This per- village, where he died some nine or ten days after-son assists in the general management of "the Keds. He left no will. It is important to plaintiff firm and also in keeping their accounts. bear in mind that, according to the evidence of In December, 1894, he came down with U the members of his family, the business of the Shun Cheong to Hongkong with a view of Wing Cheong firm was being carried on as pressing the defendant firm for payment of the usual; that it was not failing in any way; and debt due by them to his firm, which then that he was not indebted in respect of it. In amounted to over $6,000. He says 1 at during these circumstances it would have been reason-his stay of about a month in Hongkong he used blo to amppose that the; business was the to visit the Wing Cheong shop every day, and rincipal asset of his estate, and that his wife he always saw there Wat Kai Hee and Wat Kai d sons would have made arrangements either for Him; that they answered his inquiries about carrying it on for their common benefit or else the partners in the firm and informed him that for selling it and dividing the proceeds. But, the business was handed down from their Lam to believe the evidence of the widow and father Wat Fuk Wai; that Wat Kai Hee told this is not what took place. According him that he was one of the three brothers, fter Wat Fuk Wai's death, the family owners of the shop; that he and Wat. Kai Him lage, the business was allowed appeared to be more active in the general veral weeks; and then a division management of the shop; and that he received felda and the land was made, each $450 on account of the debt ere to his firm, tion of the value of $400 and the viz.. $50 paid to him here by Wat Kai Hee and left for the widow. Then it | $400) sent afterwards to Shanghai. The state- Wei Kai Him (reslised his portionments of these two witnesses are precise and ́it down to Hongkong to start or positive in their character, and I was satisfied es business with iti †. They i all agres;|{with the manner in which they gave their Kai Him took over the business testimony. When Wat Kai Hes was asked if
thing them for it,' he knew these witnesses, he said that he did not”
without:
|
|
|
|
CHEUNG NANG KAI AND LU À SEE v. CHEUNG FAT.
:
The hearing of this action, in which the plaintiffs sought to recover $1,000 damages for libel alleged to have been published by the defendant, was resumed.
Mr. Master appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Mounsey), represented the defendant.
The jurymen were Messrs. W. B. Walker, 8. J. Moses, and C. 8. Gubbay.
Additional evidence was called and Mr. Francis then addressed the jury for the defence, referring to the statements contained in the alleged libellous document. It stated that the girl (the daughter of the plaintiffs) was dis- respectful and unfeeling, that she disregarded her husband and his parents, and that her bearing was improper, this boing due, the document... stated, to the bad training she received from her...... parents, the plaintiffs. It was for the jury to place a common-sense interpretation upon the meaning of the words by the context of the statement.
Mr. Master then briefly addressed the jury for the plaintiffs.
In summing up, his Lordship said there were only two points which the jury had to consider, viz., whether the statement that had been used concerning the plaintiff was defama tory, and if so, was it false or true. He warned the jury not to be guided in the interpretation they put upon the words by any statement made by the defendants as to the meaning they intended to convey in publishing them. It did not matter what they intended. The jury had to consider what construction would be placed upon the words by any reasonable person who read them. His Lordship then explained to the jury the law of libel and conclnded saking them to decide whether the statem were defamatory; if defamatory, wheth were false or not; and what amount of damage. had been sustained, age
The jury then retired and of about ten minutes ret for the plaintifle,“ extent of $250.
damages
judgment
His Lordship accordingly enter for the plaintiffs with costs.
Page
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.