November 12, 18981
full pay but I cannot say whether anything was deducted at the end of July. At the beginning of October I received $45 and then $45 on account of my September salary. I got the whole of my wages less
?
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
reply. Some days afterwards Mr. Robinson called | on me. He referred to this letter being sent to his office, said Mr. Kliene had no authority to use his name, and that he would see Kliene
I got $100 asing of the money I borrowed. about it.
a loan at the end of September, I think I owe Mr. Robinson $145. I left Mr. Robinson's employment for several reasons. One was that he said he purposed deducting my passage money out of my salary at the rate of $15 a month. I owe Mr Kliene $54 and Mr. Bremner $10. I don't know how much I owe the Grill Room, No Chinaman has any claim against me for furniture. I have remitted money home to my wife. Since I came back I have been living with Mr. Stokes in Shelley Street. I had no employment to go to in Japan when I left
here.
A. 8. Mihara said—I am in the employ of the Nippon Yusen Kaisha in Hongkong. I know a man of the name of Kliene. He paid a visit to the general office between the 7th and 10th of October. The first time he saw me was on the 10th some time in the afternoon. He asked me to telegraph to our office in Kobe that Clayton's return passage to Hongkong had been paid. I asked for a deposit. As he was to telegraph to Mr. Clayton in Kobe I suggested he should put in the telegram a direction to apply at the office. The words I suggested were Apply Yusen ticket." Kliene paid me $40 and I gave him a deposit receipt. The receipt bears the date, and I have got a counterfoil of the receipt with the date. The receipt was written by my cashier. On looking at the counterfuil I see that it is dated the 11th and it must have been on the 11th that I gave the receipt to Mr. Kliene. It was returned on the 24th October. I have not got the receipt now. It has since been loaned to Mr. Robinson some time after the 30th Oct., when Mr.Clayton had arrived here. The receipt produced is the one in question and is signed by me. (Receipt, made out in the name of defendant, handed in.) I wired to our office at Kobe on the 11th Octo- ber. I asked Mr. Kliene in what name I should make out the receipt. I did not know Mr. Kliene's name at that time-and he told me to make it out in the name of the Robinson Piano Company. On the 24th October I wrote to the Robinson Piano Company and it was re- turned with a pencil mark on the cover "Not for us. Try Kliene." The letter announced that Clayton was returning by the Hiroshima Maru. I wrote to Kliene the same day.
|
|
....
In answer to the Magistrate witness said- When Kliene saw me on the 10th he did not make any enquiry as to the name a certain passenger had gone under.”
Mr. Gedge-That is the case for the prosecu- tion,
|
Mr. Franois-I have no witnesses to call. Mr. Gedge said the charges upon which de- fendant was before his worship were that he forged this telegram which had been put in evidence, that he uttered the telegram knowing the same to be forged, and that he unlawfully and without due authority transmitted by tele- graph such telegram, and that he unlawfully and without due authority attered as a telegram a message or communication which he knew to be not a telegram. That shortly was the charge upon which defendant was before his worship. He submitted that there was ample evidence, and that a prima facie case bad been made out for defendant to take his trial at the Supreme Court at the sessions. He submitted that the evidence was too strong for defendant to be acquitted by his worship; that it was so strong that his worship was bound in the inter- ests of public justice to send defendant for trial at the Supreme Court. His worship was told by the learned counsel for the defence that Kliene's evidence from the commencement to the end was a tissus of lies. He submitted that it was not so at all. Kliene had been most severely cross-examined, and the cross-examina- tion failed to break down his evidence in the smallest detail. He contradicted himself at times, but immediately afterwards he put the matter right in which he had contradicted himself. He would admit that Kliene was as bad, or near- ly as bad, as Robinson, but it was Robinson who originated the telegram, who conceived the idea, who used Kliene as his tool and as his cats. paw, who got Kliene to do his dirty work. Learned counsel laid great stress on Kliene's antecedents, on his relations with Springford, as to the way he treated Springford and as to his general conduct in his office, and such like. Also he laid great stress on his part in forging and manufacturing this telegram. He painted Kliene in the dirtiest of colours, but that did not in any way release Robinson from his part in the affair. Learned counsel would tell his worship that Kliene ought to stand side by side with Robinson in the dock. That might be so, but it was better in the interests of justice to catch one of the criminals by using the other's evidence to catch him than to allow both to go free. The evidence of Kliene, he would point out, was supported and corroborated in many small details, some of which were very important ones. The first detail, and be thought one of the strongest bits Mr. Mihara, manager of the Nippon Yusen of evidence against Robinson, was what defen- Kaisha, in answer to Mr. Francis-After dant said to the Inspector of Police when thinking it over last night I have concluded arrested. That detail had not been contradicted. that it was on the 10th October I first saw The Inspector of Police was not cross-examined. Kliene. I also saw him on the 11th Octo- The Inspector said:-" Defendant said, 'It's ber, when I received the money from him. damned annoying; it's toó absurd. Must I go On the 10th Kliene was making enquiries now? I replied, as soon as possible; you can in the general office about a prepaid passage, finish your letter and put things a bit straight. and he was shown in to me. On the Monday He then asked if he could see his solicitor. I he did not say from whom he had come or for said I could not wait until he had had a con- whom he was making enquiries. I know who sultation with his solicitor, and defendant then Kliene was from my clerks and did not enquire began writing a note. After he had written a his name. I think it was on the afternoon of few words he scored one word out and remarked, the 10th that I saw him. I don't remember I suppose that damned Chinaman gave it away."," what time it was on the Tuesday that I saw Gave what away? Gave the telegram away; him, but I distinctly remember his paying me
gave the $40 away that this man Springford money. I asked him what name to put in the might be brought back from Japan. His wor- receipt. He was looking in his pocket for his ship would remember that before he said these card and he did not have one. Then he said, words to the Inspector he had Mr. Dennys' letter "You can put it in the name of the Robinson before him accusing him of sending this tele- Piano Company." He did not give any reason. gram and claiming damages. What was his reply I did not at that time ask him what his own name to that letter? It was that he knew nothing was. It was on Saturday afternoon, October about the matter. If he had been a perfectly 22nd, that I received a telegram saying Clayton innocent man and had known nothing about it (Springford) was coming back. It was on the would he not rather have said to the Inspector, Monday following I wrote Mr. Robinson. The "I know nothing whatever about this, who has letter was brought back by our coolie with the been putting me in for this ?" or some words to words "Not for us. Try Klione" written on: I that effect. The words he used were the words then sent a chit to Kliene asking him to
come of a guilty man off his guard. He sub- round to see me. Kliene came and settled the mitted that that bit of evidence of itself v
was account. I told Kliene that Robinson had re- sufficient to cause his worship to send this turned the letter I had sent him. I do not gentleman to the Supreme Court. Mr. Gedge remember that Kliene said anything special in pointed out the corroborative evidence given by
10th November.
On taking his seat on the bench the Magis. trate remarked-There has been some reference to civil proceedings since this criminal case has been instituted. Therefore I will hand over to you gentlemen a summons taken out by Kliene. The summons was thereupon handed down to the solicitor's table. It had been taken out by Kliene against Springford.
395
Stokes as to the date on which the $40 was paid to Kliene, and called attention to the fact that when Stokes said he had seen the $40 passed on the 11th October Robinson remarked, "You should not have seen that." Why, asked Mr. Gedge, should an innocent man say that? If Robinson had been merely loaning the money there would have been no harm whatever in anyone seeing it. Mr. Gedge contended that Kliene stood the whole cross-examination very well. No doubt, as his worship could see, he was extremely nervous, The learned Queen's Counsel in his able-he might say splendid -way did his best to break him down. Nobody in this colony, or perhaps in the whole of England, could cross-examine. like the learned Queen's Counsel. He did his best to break Kliene down, but he did not succeed. The only slip in the whole cross-ex amination was when Kliene used the word drafts one time instead of draft, but what did it matter if Robinson's desk were covered with papers if Robinson had a hand in dictating what was on them? In conclusion he again submitted that the evidence in this case was too strong for his worship to deal with the matter summarily and that he was bound in the interests of justice to send defendant to take his trial at the Supreme Court.
Mr. Francis then addressed the court for the defence. In the first place he submitted that this was not a case for the Supreme Court at all. His worship under the provisions of section 6 of Ordinance 14 of 1894 had full power to deal with it. It might be dealt with summarily, though undoubtedly it might be, on the other hand, committed to the Supreme Court; but it was a case of very far less im- portance than many with which his worship habitually dealt in the exercise of his summary jurisdiction. Therefore he asked his worship to deal with the case summarily. With re- ference to the merits of the case, he would ask his worship, in considering it, to distinguish between two things: first the simple getting and secondly the means which were alleged back of Mr. Springford into the colony,
to have
doubtedly were, for the purpose of bringing
been made use of, and un
him back. It was only in so far as those means were criminal that his worship had in the least to be concerned with them. His worship would very easily conceive that however, from one point of view, undesirable it might be or re. prehensible that any trick should be played upon any man, still there was nothing in itself criminal in having by any means which were not fraudulent or criminal in themselves get- ting Mr. Springford back into the colony. Undoubtedly an offence had been committed. Undoubtedly that offence was committed by Kliene, taking the definition of the word telegram given in the Ordinance. The document which Kliene handed in to the Telegraph Office to be despatched to Japan was undoubtedly, s forged telegram for the purposes of section 6 of the Ordinance. In defining a tele- gram a sub-section of section 6 said: “ For the purposes of this section the expression tele- gram means a written or printed message or communication sent to or delivered at a post office, or the office of a telegraph company, for transmission by telegraph, or delivered by the post office or a telegraph company as a message or communication transmitted by telegraph." Kliene did undoubtedly hand in for transmission by telegraph to Springford in Japan a message. or communication which was undoubtedly a false document, and in so far as it was a false document a forgery. But the making of a false document was not in itself a forgery, For it to be a forgery it must be a false docu- ment made with the intention to defraud. That was the definition in common law. The only question for his worship was, was he satis- fied on the evidence-because it was perfectly clear that Kliene committed the offence—that in sending the message Kliene was Mr. Robin- son's agent and servant, and that the sending of that telegram in that form was anthorised and directed by Robinson. It was not a ques- tion as to whether Mr. Robinson knew or did not know of what was going on. A man might have knowledge of thing like that sort going on without necessarily having an
any participation in it or being responsible for
e for what was being done by other people. It was not a question whether Mr. Robinson was anxious or, desirous to get this
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.