396
Springford back into the colony and was ready and willing to pay his passage back or was not. The question was whether Mr. Robinson was an active party to the despatch of the telegram by which Springford was brought back. Of the two he submitted to his worship that Kliene had really shown himself far more hostile and antagonistic to Springford, and far more anxious to get him back than Robin son. There was evidence that Kliene was most active from the very moment Springford disap- peared in trying to find out what had become of him. He made enquiries, and he wont to the Piano Warehouse for the purpose of see- ing Ruchwaldy with regard to Springford. Buchwaldy was not in. Mr. Stokes happened to be standing by, and he introdued him to Mr. Robinson. The conversation naturally turned on Springford, by whom both had suffered. Mr. Robinson had taken no steps up to that time to get this man back. It was only after Kliene came and saw him and spoke to him on the subject that Mr. Robinson saw his solicitors and ascertained that any legal proceedings to get Springford back from Japan by sending a warrant would be very troublesome and very expensive and Mr. Kliene on being told that went away. His worship would have seen what
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the nature of their defence was from the cross- examination of Kliene. Kliene came back on Monday with a number of drafts in his pocket. He had several forms of telegrams written out on pieces of paper. He suggested this as an admirable scheme for the purpose of getting Springford back as it was too expensive to get him back by legal means, and his worship would remember what Mr. Gedge injudici- ously called his worship's special attention to, and that was to one or two little slips on this subject which Kliene made. It was quite by accident that Kliene let out the fact that the message was written on paper taken out of his own pocket. It was quite acci- dental also that he made use of the word "drafts" when he asked him if a certain phrase had been used in connection with the telegram- -“ Lin- portant news awaiting you here." Kliene ad. mitted that this phrase formed a portion of one of the drafts. That was exactly what be was endeavouring to obtain from him by cross-ex- amination-a clear issue that he had certain drafts and that he had gone and shown these drafts to Mr. Robinson. Kliene admitted that a discussion arose between them as to whether it was right or proper to send such a telegram, and Mr. Robinson turned up a book, Every man his own lawyer," which showed clearly that to send such a tele- gram was a criminal offence. Accordingly Mr. Robinson declined to have anything to do with it and advised Mr. Kliene to drop it. Mr. Kliene, as he admitted, went and saw Mr. Grist on the subject of something or another-he would not tell them what-in connection with the despatch of such a telegram.
Mr. Gedge-He went after the telegram had
been despatched to Mr. Springford.
Mr. Francis, continuing, said Kliene went and saw Mr. Grist in reference to this telegram. Then his worship would bear in mind Kliene's very contradictory statements, as to when and how and as to the times he saw Mr. Robinson and as to when he was at the Nippon Yusen Kaisha office. He thought it was perfectly clear to his worship that when Kliene went to Mr. Robin- son as he said on the Monday he must have already made all the enquiries which were possible, and found out not merely that Springford had gone to Japan and the name of the steamer he had gone by, but also the name he had gone by, and he came with the information to Mr. Robinson. It was only reasonable to suppose that when he came to Mr. Robinson to give him this infor- mation and to propose this suggestion to him he brought with him drafts of telegrams prepared. The next important portion of Kliene's evid- ence was that on that very day and at that very time he got $40 from Mr. Robinson. With reference to that $40 there were two witnesses Kliene and Mr. Stokes. Undoubtedly Mr. Robinson did give Kliene this $40, and this $40 was given to him to repay him the money he had paid for Springford's passage back; but it was given to him, as Stokes in the first part of his evidence clearly stated, either on Friday or Saturday, the 14th or 15th of October, and not on the 11th.
:
|
[November 12, 1899,
THE BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN AND THE STRAITS, LIMITED, AND HIS CHINESE SHARI- HOLDERS.
Mr. Byron Brenan, the British Assessor and H.M.'s Consul-General at Shanghai, has now made the following protest against the judg. ment of the Shanghai Taotai in the suit brought by the above Bank against Wai Poo-kee and Woo Chee-dong-
I dissent from the judgment given by Tsai Taotai in the case of the Bank of China, Japan, and the Straits versus Wai Poo-kee and Woo Chee-dong for the following reasons :-
Kliene had himself arranged a message and despatched and paid for it before he came to Mr. Robinson and asked him for this contri- bution towards the common expense of bringing Springford back, His worship, in considering Stokes' evidence, would bear in mind that Springford had been living with him ever since he came back, and that undoubtedly Stokes and Springford and Emsley were all hand and glove. His worship would remember this matter would have been the subject of discussion between them. Both Springford and Emsley had admittedly promised Kliene that no pro- ceedings whatever would be taken against him, either civil or criminal, in respect of his action in this matter. All three either were or had been in the employ of Mr. Robinson and
The Taotai states în his judgment that “
"the apparently had grievances against him. J'n most important principle involved in this case considering Stokes' evidence he asked his is as to what law should be applied in giving worship to look at it closely. To begin with judgment thereon, and whether the special he was perfectly clear in his answer that on the agreement should be binding on the 17th October this money was entered in the defendants." I complain that in giving book and debited to Kliene, an. he also said he his judgment the Taotai has not followed had seen it paid over three or four days before the only law applicable in the case that the day on which he made the entry. Then is, Chinese law. By Chinese law a Chinese he (Mr. Francis) endeavoured to bring him subject is held bound by any contract he may a little closer. He asked him if at the time enter into of his own free will. In this case the money was paid over the safe was not open tion of their being allowed to take shares, con- Wai Poo-kee and Woo Chee-dong, in considera- and the money being handled for the purpose of being paid into the bank, and he said that tracted to pay certain sums of money when it certainly was. He was perfectly clear on the called upon, and in the event of any question point that the money was being taken out of arising between them and the Bank, to have the safe, that he had just got it from such questions decided according to English Mr. Robinson to put into the bank, and law. Wai Poo-kee, that is, agreed that his that he was standing at his desk liabilities would be the same as those of any filling up the memorandum for paying in. English shareholder. It was perfectly lawful When he asked him the question then as to what day it was that they paid money into the bank he said it was either Friday or Saturday. He was perfectly certain and repeated it in two or three forms that the money was paid by Mr. Robinson on the Friday or Saturday and on the date and at the time they were about to pay money into the bank. Questioned again, he said that if there was more than one payment into the bank during that week it was on the date nearest the eighth. On the bank paying-in book being brought he found that there was a payment on the 7th. He said that could not be the date. There was also a payment into the bank on the 18th, which also could not be the date. There fore it must have been on the 13th, when there was another payment made into the bank.
own
But in the meantime he had seen how that date would not fit in with Kliene's evidence and in
the most barefaced manner he insisted on saying that it was some day between the 8th and 13th that the money was paid to Kliene. He asked his worshisp to consider that Springford had and to consider the relations existing between been living with Stokes since he came back, Emsley, the prosecutor in the case, and Spring ford. They were late employés of Robinson and were apparently thoroughly dissatisfied with him, and he asked his worship to consider whether or not they had not agreed among themselves to get Mr. Robinson into a hole if they possibly could, and depending upon Kliene, to whom they had promised complete immunity from all proceedings for his undoubtedly cri minal conduct, they had induced him to come forward and give this evidence against Mr. Robinson. Mr. Francis touched on other points which arose in the evidence. Alluding to the civil proceedings which are pending, he asked his worship to consider what effect it would have on them if a conviction were secured in this case. Emsley and Springford hoped to succeed in their civil proceedings by getting Robinson convicted in this case. They could not get any damages from Kliene if they sued him for 50 years. Kliene was not worth powder and shot. Mr. Robinson was, and Kliene was promised immunity from any proceedings, civil or criminal. to come there and give evidence against Mr. Robinson. In conclusion Mr. Francis again asked his worship to dispose of the case summarily.
On being formally asked if he had anything to say,
Defendant said he reserved his defence. Defendant was then committed to take his trial at the criminal sessions, which open on the 18th instant. Bail-$1,000 was allowed as before.
for him to make such a contract, and it was the
duty of the Chinese Court to ascertain what an English shareholder's liabilities would have
been under similar circumstances, and, then decide that Wai Pco-kee was equally liable.
The Taotai argues that Chinese subjects are to be governed by the laws of their own country. This I admit; and the Taotai will also doubtless admit that in England, France, Germany, and the United States, the laws of these countries are applicable when their respective subjects are concerned. And yet it is a matter of com- mon occurrence in these countries, especially in cases of marine insurance and average, that contracts are made in which it is stipulated that in certain given circumstances a claim shall be coded according to the law of some other country; and then, when a claim arises, the Court before which it is brought ascertains what that other country's law is on the subject, and gives judgment in accordance therewith.
The Taotai has apparently failed to grasp the meaning of Art. II of the Chefoo Convention. Its meaning is simply that in China British sub- jects are under British jurisdiction, and Chi- There had heretofore been some confusion on nese subjects are under Chinese jurisdiction. this point in the minds of Chinese officials, and they occasionally maintained that the word hui tung (jointly) used in Art. XVI and XVII of the Tientsin Treaty indicated that in cases of dispute between British and Chinese subjects, a joint tribunal should be held in which the Bri- tish and Chinese officials should have equal powers.. The Convention disposed of this er-
roneous idea.
Although it has no bearing on the present case I must demur to another statement made by the Taotai, for if it is allowed to pass un- challenged, it would have serious consequences in all commercial transactions. The Taotai states that by Chinese law a man may not be forced to pay extra money on his shares against his will." This is not correct. If a business in which several partners have each put in a certain sum of money becomes bankrupt, the partners are responsible to the oreditors for the full amount of their debts; and Chinese law will require them to pay extra money on their shares.
I have also to complain of the unnecessary length to which these proceedings were allowed by the Court to be protracted. The Taotai in his judgment states that the most important principle involved is whether the special agree made between the plaintiffs and the defendants should be binding on the defendants. This is the question which on the 9th of September I requested the Court to decide; and the decision could have been given as well on the 9th of September as on the 24th of October. Although the Taotai must have already made up his mind
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.