November 10, 1897.)
the Commissioner of Kowloon, &c., whose office is in Queen's Road, and considerable loss and inconvenience have been caused there by. It is well known for a fact that Yang. taze steamers have towed many ocean sailing vessels up to load tea in Hankow, but it is not known that they were for doing so prohibited from calling in at the wayside ports for landing and picking up passengers, &c. It is hoped that this regulation will be rescinded and public | notice to that effect given in regard to the West River.
Rule 5 of section 1 provides that all vessels entering by the Wang Moon must take the Kerr and Junction Channels, while a glance at the ahart would show one that Sailum Channel is by far the shorter and safer.
Although not mentioned in the regulatious under review, a port rule has been made in Wuchow that all vessels. arriving there with kerosine on board must anchor half-a-mile be- low the limits of the harbour and discharge the oil before they are allowed to come into port, and after such cargo is discharged they must again shift berths into the harbour before they are allowed to land or take in any general cargo. The idea of sending kerosine ships to discharge below the harbour is undoubtedly to keep shipping safe in case of fire, but as the cur- rent is always running down-water doesn't run up hill-they should be allowed to come into the harbour-it is larger than is ever likely to be required and anchor immediately below the shipping in shallow water and escape the expense I have pointed out, also the danger of auchoring in 16 fathoms with an eight knot current running in the summer time.
Hongkong, 3rd November, 1897.
J. A.
In reference to the above article and the res- triction of calling and trading at the four places of call to steamers only, as distinguished from nonsteam vessels, it should be mentioned that the restriction is in the Treaty which opened the river and is not a new restriction imposed by the Regulations. It is the Treaty also which lays down the principle that the Yangtze Regulations have to be followed on the West River. The regulations are, however, provisional for a year. The old Yangtze Regulations were revised more than once and no doubt the West River Regulations will also be revised, when the requirements of the trade are fully nuder. stood, and, we hope, in a liberal spirit. There is nothing to prevent China enlarging the privileges accorded by the Treaty and allowing non-steam vessels to call and trade at the ports of call.
THE CHARGE OF CHAMPERTY.
On 4th Nov. Hon. H. E. Wodehouse resunied the hearing of the charge of champerty brought against Wong Chuk Lam, a clerk in Mr. K. W. Mounsey's office, and Pang Kon Chi. Mr. H, L. Dennys (Crown Solicitor) prosecuted, Mr. J. Hastings defended Wong Chuk Lam, and Mr. C. D. Wilkinson defended Pang Kun Chi.
The case was opened on Monday, when the facts were explained. A junk belonging to Kwok Hin Tai was run down by the P. & O. steamer Rosetta and some of the boat people were drowned. The owner of the junk saw Pang Kun Chi, who promised, it was alleged by the prosecution, to obtain compensation from the P. & O. Company. He also under- took to pay costs on the understanding that the owner paid Pang Kun Chi 60 per cent. of the amount recovered for damages and 30 per cent. of the amount recovered for the loss of life. These terms were agreed to and the parties went to Mr. Mounsey's office, where Wong Chuk Lam took down the junk owner's statement. Two actions were brought against the P. & O. Company, who paid altogether $2,000 as compensation. Of this amount Mr. Mounsey, as solicitor for the plaintiff, received only $150, while Kwok Hin Tai received $900, and Wes Chuk Lam $950.
The junk owner was further examined by Mr. Dennys. In cross-examination by Mr. Hastings witness said he never had any intention of claiming from Wong Chuk Lam the $950 deducted by him, but merely pressed him to collect the $300 promised by the com-
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
pradore of the P. & O. Company. Up to August he used to call on Wong Chuk Lam about once a week concerning this matter, but finding all attempts futile, he instructed Mr. Dennys to claim from Wong Chuk Lam $200. Asked whether he was quite certain it was $200 and not $900 he had instructed Mr. Dennys to claim, he replied he was quite certain. A letter from Mr. Dennys to Wong Chuk Lam, dated the 8th August, demanding the return of $900 on behalf of his client, Kwok Hing, Tai, was then read by Mr. Hastings, but the witness still protested there must have been a misunderstanding, for he had merely asked Mr. Dennys to get back $200. He did not see Wong Chuk Lam pay Mr. K. W. Mounsey $50 on the 8th April, bat saw him take this amount from a drawer in his desk. He was told it was to be given to Mr. Mounsey as pay- ment for services in the case. He was certain no shares had been handed to Mr. Mouusey to secure the payment of the costs of the suit, nor had any promissory note been given for this purpose.
The cross-examination lasted till 4.30 p.m. and the case was then adjourned.
5th November. Cross-examined by Mr. C. D: Wilkinson, Kwok Hin Tai, the owner of the junk, declared he had never seen Pang Kun Chi before the 7th April. Pang Kun Chi did not ask him for any money to carry on the suit, as he had already stated he had none, and it was on that account that Pang Kan Chi undertook to defray all expenses. After he had seen Mr. Mouusey, he was told by Pang Kun Chi that the matter was in the hands of Wong Chuk Lam, and he was to apply to him for any in- formation he might want.
man to
363
Mr. Dennys and instructed that gentle- the return of $900. Some, days afterwards he claim from Wong Chuk Lam
him to fetch Kwok Hin Tai. He did so, and was sent for by Wong Chuk Lam, who asked
Kwok Hin Tai $200. Kwok Hin Tai agreed Wong Chuk Lam only acknowledged owing
$25 being for Mr. Dennys's costs, was then to accept that a mount. A note for $225, signed by Wong Chuk Lam and given to Kwok Hin Tai.
He had no further connection with the matter.
6th November. Evidence was taken of the arrest and the case for the prosecution then closed.
4.
*
+4
Mr. Dennys was about to address the Court, when Mr. Hastings asked His Worship to dis- miss the case at once. He contended the offence of champerty with which his client was charged was an obsolete one and unknown to the courts of the present day. Not only had there been no case of the kind in this colony, but there had been none in England for several centuries. Archbold's Criminal Pleadings," the leading book of the day on criminal cases, contained no reference to the offence. "Roscoe's Evidence in Criminal Cases" did contain a short notice of it, but only quoted from the old authorities, "Hawkins' Fleas of the Crown" and "Bicon's Abridgement." Champerty was to divide the matter sued for between them, between a plaintiff or defendant in a cause a bargain
if they prevail at law, whereupon the cham- pertor is to carry on the party's suit or action at his
own expense. perty implied maintenance, but every maiuten- Every cham- ance was not champerty. To prove that the offence of champerty had been committed it had first to be proved that there was mainten- Re-examined by Mr. Dennys witness stated ance. In support of his contention he then quoted that the settlement of $200 was come to between from Roscoe's Evidence in Criminal Cases him and Woug Cunk Lam without any con- and "Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown." In the sultation with his solicitor, Mr. H. L. Dennys. latter, it was stated: "Anyone may lawfully give Mr. K. W. Mounsey was then called. He money to a poor man to enable him to carry on said that he had been consulted by Pang his suit." He challenged Mr. Dennys, to Kun Chi about the collision on the 6th April, quote any case of this kind that had occurred in but, did not receive defiuite instructions to a criminal court. There were a few modern proceed with the matter until the 7th April. cases in the civil court, such as when $50 was paid to him by Pang Kun Chi Newdigate" and
Bradlaugh v. Harness v. The Electrical on account of the costs of the suit. On the Battery Company." The P. & O. Company, at 9th April two snits were commenced by him whose instigation the present case
behalf On
of Kwok Hiu
Tai against stituted, might have brought an action for the P. O. Company. The preliminary damages against the defendunts acts of the P. and
in 0. Company were
civil court, but in a criminal filed but he was
court not certain whether bischarge could not be sustained.
the His client, were. On April 17th he received a notice that Wong Chuk Lam, was employed in a solicitor's the case had been settled. He thereupon went
office, and it was his duty to aid his employer to Messrs. Johnson. Stokes, and Master's office ja procuring him cases and to assist the clients to receive the $2,000, but was told the P. and O. to win their suits, but not to aid them with Company had given instructions that the money money. To prove that Wong Chuk Lam had should be paid to the party direct. Ho been guilty of champerty, it must first be proved then sent Kwok Hin Tai to Mr. Master that he had aided Kwok Hin Tai with money, with a letter in which was enclosed a statu- and that an agreement had been made between tory declaration and two receipts, one for them. The prosecution had entirely failed to $1,850, and the other for $150, being what he substantiate the facts, and he asked His Wor- wished to be deducted for bis own costs. ship to dismiss the case. Since then he had not seen Kwok Hin Tai and up to the 10th August, when he received Mr. Dennys's letter, he was not aware the full amount had not been received by Kwok Hin Tai. After the receipt of that letter, he had an interview with Mr. Dennys and told that gentleman if he had any complaint to make against Wong Chuk Lam, he should apply to him personally. On the 1st September he received a letter from the Attorney-tieneral stating that a complaint b been made to the Government by the Superintendent of the P. & O. Company, concerning this affair and be sent as answer Mr. Dennys's letter and his own reply to that.
Ho Kit, master of the Wing Cheong On boarding house in Jubilee Street, said that Kwok Hin Tar went to see him on the morning after the collision, 6th April, and, having related the incidents, asked him if he knew of anybody who could help to obtain compon- sation from the P. & O. Company. He recommended
Pang un Chi. He knew nothing about the arrangements made between Kwok Hin Tai and Pang Kun Chi. The first time he took any active part in the matter was when he accompanied Kwok Hin Tai to Mr. Mounsey's office to demand of Wong Chuk Lam the balance of the money due. Wong Chuk Lam replied that was all they bad to receive. He then took Kwok Hin Tai to
|
|
was
ip-
His Worship said he had decided to hear the witnesses for the defence.
Leung Chi Cheong was called. He said he the 7th April, at about 9.30 a.m., Pang Kun was an interpeter in Mr. Mounsey's office. On Chi, Sho Chin Chêng, Kwok Hin Tai, and a man named Sam went into the office and spoke to Wong Chuk Lam about a collision case. From his desk he could see and hear all that passed. Pang Kun Chi asked Wong Chuk the case Lam whether Mr. Mounsey would undertake on crelit. Wong Chuk Lam said Mr. Mounsey never did anything of the sort. They then went together to see Mr. Mounsey and the four left shortly afterwards. At eleven o'clock they returned with a man named Chan Chi Kong. Sho Chin Chêng told Wong Chuk Lam that bis friend, Chan Chi Kong, wished to borrow $200 on the security of two Man On insurance Shares then worth $120 each. Wong Chuk Lam promised to see into the matter all they left. At noon Pang Kan Chi, Sho Chin Chêng, and Chan Chi Kong returned and asked about the money, Wong Chuk Lam said he had found one Pan Yan Po, who washing to advance the amount, bat on condition at the whole should be repaid within two months. for and terms were come to. The interest The money lender was then sent
charged was 2 per cent. per month. Pun Yan Po drafted the promissory note, which wAS
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.