THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
orockery-ware shops, and had also supplied was that when she was examined at the Govern- further capital to the extent of $1,500, which ment Civil Hospital she was found to be suffer belonged to his clansman. He was also a share-ing from a loathsome disease. The prisoner holder, in the cigar shop to the extent of $500. was also suffering and the medical evidence was His father, who formerly had the business, died consistent with the theory that the disease was
communicated by the prisoner to the girl. at the end of last year, and the business was
Evidence was then called. In cross-examina- handed over to three others. He (prisoner) had no experience of Manila cigars and he was asked the girl admitted that she had told lies to to look after the cash. In the day time he the Registrar-General and on the conclusion looked after the crockery-ware shops and in the, of the re-examination the Attorney-General evening went to the cigar shop. Wong Yuk intimated that he had grave doubts whether Ping a witness] said he had a conversation he could obtain a conviction, seeing that the with him on the 18th April about setting fire girl had told lies and that the witnesses for the to the shop. That statement was false. He prosecution contradicted her evidence.
His Lordship thought the Attorney-General also said he retired from the business on the
would pursue a proper discretion by electing to go no further with the case.
The Attorney-General therefore intimated that he would not call fürther evidence.
His Lordship then directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty,
1st May, but that was also false. Wong Yuk Ping, prisoner had reason to believe, set fire to the place because he sold most of the stock and wished to hide his defalcations.
The Attorney-General then addressed the jury and drew attention to the fact that the prisoner called no witnesses and made no state- ment at the Police Court. Prisoner might have made a most elaborate statement at the Magistracy and that would have been put in before his Lordship.
His Lordship summed up the case and ex- plained to the jury that he thought they could not safely find that the prisoner's own hand set fire to the shop, but, if they be- lieved the evidence, they could find him guilty of being an accessory before the fact and he would be just as guilty as the man who actually kindled the fire.
The jury retired to consider their verdict and after an absence of three minutes returned into Court with a unanimous verdict of guilty on
both counts.
Prisoner, when asked if he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed, said he did not commit the crime. He had plenty of money and he knew nothing about the fire.
His Worship, in passing sentence, said-The jury have unanimously found you guilty and I cannot see how they could have done anything else on the evidence. In my opinion yon rather aggravate the offence by stating that you are a man in fairly good position. Arson is an offence which is always very difficult to prove and an example must always he made when an offender is caught. You will be sent to gaol for five years with hard labour on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
26th July.
BEFORE SIR John Carrington (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHARGE OF RAPE. John Ross, late overseer of the Kowloon Waterworks, was charged with committing a rape upon a young girl.
Hon. W. M. Goodman (Attorney-General) prosecuted (instruoted by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Crown Solicitor), and Mr. J. J. Francis. Q.C., (instructed by Mr. Master) defended the pri- soner, who pleaded not guilty,
The following special jury tried the case:- Messrs. J. S. Van Buren, H. N. Mody, C. C. Inchbald, A. O’D. Gourdin, Liao Tsze San, E. Osborne, and P. E. H. Melbye.
|
The jury unanimously returned this verdict and the prisoner was discharged.
27th July.
[July 29, 1897.
The gentlemen composing the special jury were-Messrs. D. E. Brown, D. Gillies, E. 8. Whealler, W. R. Loxley, C. S. Sharp, A. G. Morris, and A. G. Stokes.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.) the time the charter party was entered into the
CHARGE OF PERJURY.
Hera Singh, a gunner in the Asiatic Artillery, was charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury during the hearing of a case at the last Criminal Sessions in which three Asiatic Artillerymen were charged with an abominable assault upon a comrade.
Hon. W. M. Goodman (Attorney-General) prosecuted, being instructed by Mr. H. I. Dennys (Crown Solicitor). The prisoner was undefended.
The jurors were Messrs. H. Hyndman, Jr.. C. E. Pierco, G. W. G. Harling, Á. H. Botten- heim, C. J. Gonsalves, P. M. A. de Graca, and W. F. Muat.
the
were
Mr. Francis said the question which the jury would have to try were practically two. . The first was whether the defendant was the person who entered into the charter party, and, secondly, whether the party was broken by the plaintiffs so as to disentitle then to receive the balance due on freight charges. The vessel concerned was the Norwegian steamer Skarpsno, of which the master was Lauritz Tollesfen, and the owners Thomas Fearnley and Engelhardt Eger, all three of whom were the plaintiffs. The defendant was a Spanish gentleman named J. Tobias y Tuason merchant, of Kobe. The charter party in dispute was closed on the 4th October, 1896. It was for three months and for the sum of $6,000 a month less 14 per cent. for the charterers and 1 per cent. for brokerage, and it was specifically stipulated in the charter party that the freight was payable fortnightly in advance. The party contained a special clause that in default of payment the owners were at liberty to cancel the party. At vessel was at Kobe in Japanese waters. The party was signed in Hongkong by Wieler and Co. for the owners, in Shanghai by Olsen and Co. for Sennett and Co., and for Tuason by telegraphic anthority. The plain- tiffs alleged that the defendant was charterer and that Sennett and Co. simply his agents authorised by him to close and enter into that charter party, while the defendant insisted that he was not the charterer, that Sennett and Co. charterered the vessel on their own account, and that after the charter party had been closed and entered into the vessel was to be worked on the joint account of Sennett and Co. and Wieler and Co. and as their special property. The vessel went into employment and was engaged on three voy- age during the three months, during which time it was sub-chartered. The instalments due up to the 19th November were paid no trouble until the 5th and there was
Plaintiffs' position was that the December. instalments due on the 5th and 22nd December had not been paid. Payments, however, were made to the captain in small sums which, if they had been properly adjusted, would have left a balance due of about $3,000. The balance of that fortnightly payment had never been paid and plaintiffs were suing specifically for the amount due in respect of the instalment that ought to have been paid on the 5th December and for the whole of the instalment that ought to have been paid on the 19th December. They were also claiming $1,000 damages. On the 5th October, the day after the charter party was His Lordship, in passing sentence, said-You signed, Captain Tollesfen reported himself at have been found guilty of committing perjury, the office of Sennett and Co. and placed his your object being to divert the true course of, vessel at their disposal. There he saw the de.. justice, but fortuna ely for justice you failed.fendant who, at the request of Sennett and Co., For money or some other base motive yon came signed a letter confirming the chaiter party for to this court and wilfully perjured yourself in three months commencing the 5th October. the hope of rescuing a comrade from the That letter was in dispute. The defendant did results of his crime. I am not going to dilate not deny that he signed it, but he states that he the gravity of your offence because understood the contents to be something different in my experience I am sorry to say that and he signed it not really knowing what with you and your class the line between the contents were, as his knowledge of Eng- truth and falsehood has yet to be defined; but lish was imperfect. Plaintiffs relied upon the I can effectively point ont to you the abhorrence letter as one proof that defendant was the char- with which the laws of this colony look at your terer. By his statement he practically charged crime by sentencing you to three years' im- Sennett and Co. with having deliberately de- frauded him into signing the letter and with hav prisonment with hard labour.
ing misrepresented the contents. On the 30th November the vessel commenced to load for two ports, in the Inland Sea, this being her third voyage, When she left
Kobe she was sub-chartered, and a Japanese com- pradore or merchant left in the vessel manage the affairs of the sub-charterer. All went well until Nagasaki was reached on the 15th December. On the 16th December some 150- tons of coal were put on board by the charterer under the provisions of the charter party for conveyance to Kelung, Formosa, but unfor tunately the charterers or sub-charterers for- got to pay for the coal and the plaintiffs had to pay for it. On the 17th Sennett and Co's. compradore vanished after having collected a considerable sum of money from passengers and for freight in respect of small quantities of cargo which had been put on board. On the 18th
The Attorney-General said the facts were very simple. At the last Criminal Sessions three gunners in the Asiatic Artillery were convicted of committing an assault upon a comrade. The prisoner was a witness for the defence and he swore that one of the prisoners, Gundah Singh, could not have been one of the men who committed the offence because he was not at the place at the particular time. The prisoner swore that Gandah Singh went with him to the Lyeemoon Fort at seven o'clock and remained with him until roll call, which was at ten o'clock. As a matter of fact prisoner was with one of his officers on a launch and did not reach Lyeemoon until 8.30 p.m., so that he could not have been in the fort with Gundah Singh at seven o'clock.
The jury, after hearing the evidence; found the prisoner guilty.
on
BEFORE
21st July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
The Attorney-General explained the facts of the case and said the girl was sold to a sorceress who lives at No. 9, Station Street, Yaumati, about 110 yards away from the prisoner's house, she having been taken away from the district of Cantou in 1895. On the 8th June a man who formerly employed the girl in bis house in Cantón saw her standing at the window of the honse in Station Street and he told the police that she was the girl who had been taken away from his house. The police took the girl and the sorceress to the station, and afterwards the girl was taken to the Registrar-General's Office. She made a statement to the Registrar-General, who sent her to the Po Leung Kuk, where, on the 8th of 9th June, she made the charge against Ross. She would tell the jury that about nine o'clock on the evening of the 23rd May, the prisoner went to No. 9, Station Street, and took her away to his house after having a conversation with the sorceress, to whom he paid $10. Ar-October, 1996. riving at the house the prisoner criminally Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., (instructed by Mr. assaulted her and then took her back to the J. Hastings) appeared for the plaintiffs and sorceress's house. The Attorney-General said Mr. H. E. Pollock (instructed by Mr. C. D. a melancholy corroboration, of the girl's story Wilkinson) for the defendant,
TOLLESFEN AND OTHERS V. TUASON.
Plaintiffs claimed from the defendant, charterer of the steamship Skarpsno, the sum of $6,221.90, being the amount due from the defendant under a charter party dated 4th
to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.