July 2, 1898.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
M. Goodman (instructed by Messrs. Deacon | Mr. Franeis also asked for a declaration as to and Hastings) for respondent (Inspector whether the money in the safe was or was not Hanson).
used for the purpose or gambling.
The Attorney-General said this was an appeal from the decision of the Police Magistrate, which decision was delivered on the 11th May, and by which decision he found five Chinamen keepers of a Weising lottery agency and sent enced them each to three months' imprisonment and fined each $1,000, with the alternative if they could not pay the fine of imprisonment for a further period of six months, and he found that the date of the alleged offence was the 19th of April of this year. Defendants were dissatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, and his learned friend Mr. Francis appeared some time ago and obtained a rule from the court for the rehearing of the case. The evidence to be used at the rehearing would be confined to the depositions, and the grounds of that appeal were that there was not sufficient evidence adduced to justify the finding of the Magistrate that the whole of defendants were keepers of a common gaming house at No. 110, Jervois street, and that there was no evidence before the Magistrate that the money ordered to be confiscated was in actual use for the purpose of gambling or was found on the persons or keepers of such house. He had made it his duty to go carefully through the depositions, and he had satisfied him- self that as regarded the fifth defendant it appeared he was the cook of the estab. lishment, and although it was quite pos- sible for a cook to cook part of the day and do some small subsidiary work in assisting the keepers of the Weising lottery agency, he did not think the evidence justified his asking that the conviction against the fifth defendant should stand. As regarded the third and fourth defendents, he had to say there appeared to him to be a suspicion against them. The third defendant was a student and had been living in the room for two years, and there were two lottery tickets in connection with the Canton branch found on his desk. There fore he must have bought Weisang lottery tickets and bad a full knowledge of what was going on in the place. At the same time he was a student most of the time at Queen's College, and although he thought the matter very suspicious, as far as he was concerned he did not propose to press the case against the third defendant, and he might say the same as regarded the fourth. Therefore the question was whether the decision of the Magistrate should be upheld as regarded the first and second defendants, and also as regarded the confisca- tion of the money.
The Chief Justice said there was no doubt a great deal of difference between the case of the first defendant and that of the second defendant.
Mr. Justice Wise said that this was his opinion too.
The Attorney-General combatted Mr. Fran- cis's suggestion.
His Lordship gave judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs, with interest at the rate of per cent. from the date of the decree.
1 GRI
30th June,
IN BANKRUPTCY.
JUSTICE.)
RE AGA MAHOMED ALLY SHIRAZEE,
DEBTOR.
A SMALL DIVIDEND.
He was adjudicated bankrupt on January 6th, The above debtor applied for his discharge, 1898, his public examination was concluded on the 25th November, 1897, and the receiving order was made on the 24th April, 1897. At the date of the receiving order the debtor was a Persian opium agent, and had then been carrying on his merchant and general commission business in Hongkong for about eight years. He was 11 years previously in a Persian opium merchant's firm in Hongkong, and started business on his own account with an uniù. cumbered capital of about $8,000. The debtor's statement of affairs showed total assets $14,206.8 and total liabilities $21,675 45. The assets shown by the statement of affairs consisted chiefly of one book debt due from the debtor's brother Amin at Shiraz amounting to $13,348 11, which asset is considered by the Imperial Bank of Persia at Ispahan to be a bad one. There are in addition the assets considered doubtful by the debtor, which consist of (quoting from the Official Receiver's report ):~
The Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that with regard to the third, fourth, and fifth appellants the Attorney-General felt he could not support the conviction in the court below. Therefore the result with regard to them BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (Chier was that the decision of the Magistrate was re- versed and the information against them dismis- sed, With regard to the first defendant, Mr. Francis said he was not able to show cause against the conviction and the result was that the con- viction stood subject to the consideration of the question whether the amount of punishment awarded by the Magistrate was not excessive. The Magistrate bad apparently given the maximum punishment. That was to say he had imposed a fine of $1,000, which carried impri- sonment in default of payment for six months and then in order to make up the full term of nine months, he had also awarded a term of im- prisonment for three mouths with hard labour. No doubt the penalty was an excessive one and possibly if he were sitting in the first instance he might not have gone so far in the case of a first offence. But considering all the circumstances he thought there was no reason to disturb the decision of the Magistrate in regard to the first defendant. In regard to the second defeudant, it appeared he lived in Macao, being the manager of a pawn shop there. There was nothing to connect him with the branch of the Weising lottery at Macao. He was the father of the first appellant and also of the fourth appellant. It appeared that the father wrote a letter to his two sons--one of whom lived in this house-to say he was coming over to Hongkong and they must make arrange- ments to fetch his boxes. In accordance with that letter he was found at this gaming house when the police made a raid on the promises. He was sitting at the table on which there were some bundles of money and implements used no doubt in connection with the Weising business. He had in his hand a piece of paper on which two large sums of money were mentioned, and these two sums correspond with two bundles of money in the room. The num- bers were written in pencil, and he had in his hand a pencil which would undoubtedly make marks of that kind. He thought this was not sufficient to enable them to say that the man was assisting in conducting the business of the Weising lottery at that place. The facts, though suspicions, were quite consistent with his innocence. He thought therefore that the conviction so far as he was concerned must be quashed. With regard to the money found in the safe, the court could not see its way to alter the decision of the Magistrate in regard to it.
29th June.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
(a) $7,000 due from Haji Mahomed Carrim, lately a merchant of Ispahan. This amount was paid to Carrim by the Imperial Bank of Persia on a bill drawn by Carrim upon and accepted by the Bankrupt for the purchase of opium to be forwarded to the bankrupt. Carrim did not purchase the opium, and from enquiries I have made I find that he has disappeared from Ispahan, and no one now knows where he is.
(b) A sum of $1,921-21 due from H. M. Sadeeck Nomazee, lately a merchant of Bombay, but whose affairs are now in bankruptcy, and it is unlikely that anything can be recovered from his estate.
(e) A claim for $2,565-75 against the Mer- cantile Bank of India, Limited, in respect of damage to opium. I have investigated this claim, and find there is no prospect of success- fully proving the damage, and I have therefore abandoned it. This bank has proved against the bankrupt's estate for $1,323-80, being differ- ence between the amount advanced by the bank upon the security of the opium and the amount realised by the sale. The bank is willing to modify this claim in the event of a dividend being declared.
Mr. Grist appeared for the debtor. He said this was an application made by the debtor for his discharge. His lordship had a report by the
Mr. Francis admitted that there was a case on which the magistrate could convict with re- ference to the first defendant, but with refer- ence to the second, though there might be the gravest suspicion against him, it was very BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF Official Receiver from section 7 of which his difficult to say that there was any evidence against him.
The Chief Justice I have a pretty fair notion of what he came from Macao for; at the same time there is no clear proof. I think you will find it very difficult to support the con- viction in his case.
鼗
The Attorney-General said the second de- fendant, who was father of the first and fourth defendants, was sitting at a round wooden table in the middle of the room, and on that table were an abacus and some money. Ho had in his hand a pencil and two pieces of paper. On one of these piece of paper was memorandum on which were written the words, "Bank notes $53.” There was a bundle of bank notes-$53—lying beside the desk on the table where he was sitting, and in that bundle of $53 was one of the identical notes marked by the police and used for the purchase of lottery tickets.
Mr. Francis said he abandoned the appeal so far as the first defendant was concerned. He submitted, however, that for a first offence the punishment was too heavy, the maximun penalty having been inflicted, and he suggested that the punishment be reduced to a fine, with six months' imprisonment in default of payment.
JUSTICE.)
THE KWONG SIK LUNG FIRM V.
TSUK U AND YEUNG SHÁN U.
YEUNG
lordship would see that there were $7,000 due to bankrupt from a man named Carrim; $1,921-21 due from a late merchant in Bombay; and there was also a claim for $2,565-21, which was even- tually abandoned, against the Mercantile Bank, Mr. Melbourne, barrister, who appeared for in respect of some opium which was damaged. plaintiffs, said the claim was for $2,779.34 for That action was a very unfortunate affair for the goods cold and delivered. To suit was unde- debtor. There being no market in Hongkong fended. On Friday, 15th October, 1897, the he sent these goods up the coast for the purpose application of plaintiffs for liberty to proceed of getting them sold through the bank, and with the suit ex parte was granted. Mr. Mel while in the custody of the bank they were bourne read the petition, which was dated No damaged, presumably he thought by being put vemb.r 11th, 1897. It recited that plaintiffs too near the boilers. It was found eventually were a firm of fruit dealers carrying on business that the debtor could not look to the bank to in the Central Market, Victoria. The first make good that money, and consequently he defendant lately resided at 70, Wellington had to lose it. He would call his lordship's Street, and was now in Victoria Gaol. The particular attention to section 19 of the report, second defendant lately resided at 22, Wing in which Mr. Shepherd said, "The bankrupt has Wo Street, but now carried on business in given the Official Receiver every assistance he Tientsin. In 1896 and 1897 defendants, who could in the bankruptcy proceedings, and partis were then in Hongkong, purchased from plain-cularly by his knowledge and exertions enabled tiffs some sugar cane and other goods. Plain- tiffs paid certains sums for packing and for freight on behalf of defendants.
Plaintiffs' managing partner was called. He proved the order and delivery of the goods, adding that defendants paid something on ac- connt.
the Official Receiver to realise the goods in the hands of the secured creditors with a profit of $151.13, notwithstanding the great uncertainty of the rate of exchange between Hongkong and India, when the neglect of a day would have resulted in a further loss instead of a profit.' He would also call his lordship's attention
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.