Page
November 5, 1808.]
point out that section 20 of the Ordinance said, The business of every licensed publican or adjunct licensee shall be carried on subject to the following regulations," and regulation 6 said, "The licensee shall not abandon the occupation of his house, or permit any other person to become virtually the keeper thereof. This man was not the keeper of the house, but was a clerk employed in Douglas Lapraik and Co.'s offices
፡
The CHAIRMAN (to applicant)-What are your hours P
APPLICANT-From 9.30 to 5.
The CHAIRMAN-And where do you live? APPLICANT—At East Point,
Mr. CRAWFOED proposed and Dr. LOWSON seconded that the application be refused.
Mr. MURRAY BAIN-It is rather a serious thing to take away a man's license.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Mr. CRAWFORD-There is no objection to the sureties, but there is to the applicant.
Dr. LOWSON-I propose that the license be granted.
Mr. MURRAY BAIN seconded and the pro- position was carried.
OTHER LICENSES,
1
The other applications, to which there waS no objection on the part of the police, granted were: Joachim Gomes, The Man at the Wheel; Isydor Silberman, Globe Hotel; Moritz Frei. mann, The Land We Live In Hotel; Henry Oliver, Travellers' Hotel; Joseph H. Donneu- berg, Colonial Hotel; Haus Jertrum, German Tavern; Cawasjee Byramjee, Hung Hom Hotel; Ismail Pillay Madar, New Victoria | Hotel; James Dodd, Western Hotel; John A. Drewes, Praya East Hotel; Frederick Mel- buish, Criterion Hotel; George John Casanova,
371
delayed a post letter, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of a misdemeanour and in Scotland of a crime and offence and being convicted thereof, &c.";
In Sec. 28 of Ord. 1 of 1887, under which this charge is laid, the expression "post; letter is not used the word " correspondence. defined by the Ordinace as "Any letter, newspa- used throughout, and ** correspondence"
per,book, pamphlet, document, parcel or package, &c.
shall be deemed to be corres- pondence from the time of its arrival within the limits of the colony, if brought to the colony by post, or from the time of its delivery to the Post Office if not so brought,' and in either case shall continue to be deemed correspondence to the time of its delivery from the Post Office." Again, "Post-Master (Heneral" is defined by the local Ordinance as the "Post-Master General of
correspondence "without lawful authority or dinance makes it a misdemeanour to delay
excuse."
Dr. Lowson-From when does this refusal Peak Hotel; Arthur Henry Harper, Sports- the colony." Section 28 of the colonial On
take place?
The CHAIRMAN-From the 1st of December. Dr. LowsON-Well, there is plenty of time to make arrangements.
Mr. CRAWFORD-If he applies again the house need not be shut.
The CHAIRMAN-The applicant must reside on the premises and must be a suitable man.
Mr. CRAWFORD-And he can make the ap- plication as soon as he likes,
The application was refused, applicant being informed that it had been refused not on as- count of his character but because he did not reside on the premises.
THE METROPOLE AND BAY VIEW HOTELS.
On the Metropole Hotel and the Bay. View Hotel being mentioned,
Mr. CRAWFORD said he did not wish the applications to be refused, but he would like to ask the Captain Superintendent of Police whe- ther he had found any increase of disorderliness on the road between them. It had always struck him that one public-house on that road was enough. He rather understood at the last meeting of the Justices that it was in view of the Bay View Hotel being given up that the license of the Metropole was granted. He re- membered that they had a vote on it, and the license was only granted by a small majority.
The Hon. F. H. MAY.-There has been no trouble with the new hotel so far.
The applications were granted, Charles Dalton holding the license for the Metropole and Peter Hayes that for the Bay View.
THE HONGKONG HOTEL. She Po Sam applied for a license for the Hongkong Hotel.
Mr. WILCOX said the applicant was the com- prodore. He had been for a number of years employed by the company. He was a man they could thoroughly trust. The appointment would only be temporary and until they got the
new manager out.
Mr. CRAWFORD-Would not the secretary do ?
Mr. WILCOX-No; the secretary is not re- sident on the premises and Mr. She Po Sam is
Mr. HOOPER-On a previous occasion when a Chinaman applied for a license the Justices refused to grant it because of his being a China- man. They thought it inadvisable to grant a license to a Chinaman for a European house, and the application was refused on that ground.
Mr. WILCOX-But this man is not a China
man.
Mr. HOOPER-What is he P Mr. WILCOX-A Eurasian. He speaks Eng- lish perfectly and is a very intelligent man.
Dr. Lowson-He is the compradore, is he? Mr. WILCOX-We call him the compradore. Really he is the manager of the Chinese staff, eto.
Dr. Lowson-What is his banking account? Mr. WILCOX-I cannot say.
Dr. LOWSON-Is he a man of straw or is he not P
James Wm. Osborne, Kowloon Hotel; Charles man's Arms; Moose Mahomed, Stag Hotel; Dalton, Metropole Hotel; Peter Hayes, Bay View Hotel; She Po Sham, Hongkong Hotel; W. Krater, Rose, Shamrock and Thistle Hotel; J. C. Goodchild, Thomas' Grill Room; Percy Hardman, Sailors' Home; P. Bohm, Windsor Hotel.
THE CHARGES AGAINST LETTER CARRIERS.
THE SENTENCES CONFIRMED.
At the Magistracy on 28th Oct. Commander Hastings read his decisions in the Post Office cases as follows:-
REGINA V. CHENG TSANG.
any
The onus of proving lawful authority or ex- cuse is therefore thrown on the defence. Care- lessness, gross and continued carelessness, is ad- vanced as an "excuse." It is admitted that the letters were in an improper plače, to wit, a draw- er in the defendant's quarters. It is alleged there was no concealment. They were found in a drawer with tea basins-basins that were clean" and wet, apparently in daily use. The letters were beside the basins-the first things Police Sergeant Collett saw on opening the drawer.
The letters, five in number, and a postcard, bear different dates. The first, A, bears the Foochow post mark of the 3rd March, 1898, On the 21st September last, the case of Cheng but no Hongkong post mark. The Post-Master Tsang, a postman, came before this court, he
General states that the presumption is it was being charged under the 28th section of Ordin-received in the Hongkong Post Office because ance 1 of 1887 that he on the 18th day of the Chinese Imperial Post Office send all their September, 1898, at Victoria, in this colony, letters in sealed bags or covers to the Hong- then being a person employed in the Post Office kong Post Office, and the absence of the date of this colony, unlawfully, wilfully, and without stamp on A leads him to suppose it had been lawful authority or excuse, did detain post let- missed when the office coolie was date-stamping ters the property of the Post-Master General. the letters. The chief clerk states that if A On that date the defendant admitted the charge had been received it would probably have been and was summarily dealt with, being sentenced about the 6th March last. to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
On the 26th ultimo, Mr. Brutton made an defendant did not know he was pleading guilty application for rehearing on the ground that to a charge of detaining letters, but merely to a neglect of duty. This assertion (the rehearing having been granted on the 27th September) seems to be borne out, it subsequently transpir- ing in evidence that on the 19th September, the day after the letters had been found in a drawer in defendant's room, the Post-Master General had investigated the case and had fined the defendant $1 under Ordinance 19 of 1896, which fine had been cancelled prior to the police prosecution being instituted on the 21st though not by the Post-Master's instructions, as, though he hold the possession of letters for months in his (the defendant's) quarters to be technically a breach of Section 28 of Ordinance of 1887, he (the Post-Master) did not think it was done with criminal intent, and he had dealt with a similar case in December last year that had been brought to his notice as negligence under Or- dinance 19 of 1896..
Evidence was heard on the 4th instant and subsequent dates, defendant being committed for trial at the Criminal Sessions on the 11th instant. On the 18th the depositions were re- turned by the Registrar, with a letter stating that in the opinion of Le Acting Attorney General the case should be determined in a sum- mary manner by the committing Magistrate. The defence set up is twofold:
1st. That Sec. XXV. of 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. Chap. 36-the detaining or delaying of a post letter returned for want of a true dires. tion or by reason that the person to whom the same shall be directed is dead or cannot be found, or shall have refused the same, or shall have refused or neglected to pay the postage thereof, shall not be deemed an offence if any of the aforesaid defences can be sustained.
The second, B, bears the Shanghai post mark of the 25th March, and the Hongkong date
chin-Chine, 7 Mars. 98," the Hongkong date stamp of March 29th, 1898.
The third, C, is post marked "Cholon, Co- being March 15, 1898.
The fourth, D, unstamped, has the Foochow post mark of 30th April, 1898, date stamped in Hongkong May 4, 1898.
The fifth, the open letter not produced in Court, alleged to have been forwarded to Canton between the 19th_ultimo and the 4th instant, Police Sergeant Collett testified bore the Singa- pore post mark of July 15th, 1898. Hongkong post mark.
No
The post-card to Herm. Hugo Rehguate, 2nd officer of the Hai Ping, bore date, Kiel, 26.11.97; Nagasaki, 13th February, 1898, and Hongkong, February 21st, 1898. These letters and post cards kept in an improper place, ie., not the Post Office, appear, therefore, to have been deposited in that drawer in defendant's room at various dates between the 27th or 28th February last and the 20th July, 1898, a period of nearly five months, and could not have failed to have been seen when the tea basins, clean and wet, on the 18th September were used. Care. lessness continued of this nature becomes oriminal.
The law does not require that the value of any letter "embezzled, secreted or destroyed be proved, recognizing that what may be per- fectly valueless of no intorest to the many be of inestimable worth to a few, and also to foster and secure absolute faith in the inviolability and trustworthiness of the Post Office, as is shown by turning again to the Imperial Act relied on by the defence, Section XXVI., where the embezzling, secreting or destroying a post letter is in England and Ireland made a felony and in Scotland a high crime and offence punishable at the discretion of the Court by transportation for seven years or any term of imprisonment not exceeding three years, That Sec. XXV. of the above-named Act "and if any such post letter so stolen or does not apply is clear, as the first para- embezzled, secreted or destroyed shall contain graph of the section defining the mis any chattel or money whatsover or any valuable demeanour before setting forth the ex-security, overy such offender shall be transported Mr WILCOX-Thera hag, been no objectionceptions run shall wilfully detain or beyond the seas for life. to the sureties being also guarantors before. delay or procure or suffer to be detained or The maximum penalty in the local Ordinance
Mr. WILCOX-No, he is not. He gets a very good salary.
Mr. CRAWFORD pointed out that the directors and the Secretary were both sureties and guar- antors. There was no reason why they should be both.
చె
Mr. Lewis—I don't suppose the directors would put forward a man they could not depend
проц
+
2nd. Contributory negligence and want of direction on the part of the postal authorities.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.