January 28, 1899.]
that the total cost will be at least £5,000, to- wards which the Royal Society will contribute £600, leaving £4,400 to be contributed by the colonies interested. The total amount which these colonies are required to contribute towards the two schemes is therefore as follows:- School for Tropical Medicine £1,775; Malaria Investigation Commission £4,400; total £6,175, In view of possible unforeseen contingencies it is considered advisable to increase this sum to at least £7,000. The Government of Hong- kong is requested to contribute the sum of at least £500, to be spread over two years.
THE FURNITURE AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE.
A sum of $5,000 in aid of the vote "Repairs to furniture at Government House."
The ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY-I sim- ply have to say in explanation of this that the furniture at Government House is in such a state as I feel sure no person in this colony would like it to remain in.
THE ROAD FROM VICTORIA GAP TO MOUNT
A sum
KELLETT ROAD.
of $2,438.67 in aid of the vote
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
afterwards sent to defendant which he also refused.
Mr. Ewens admitted that this statement was substantially correct, adding, however, that he had never heard before that a man could stay away because an apology was not forth- coming.
་་
#1
Arnold Walter Meugens said-On 12th December, the English mail having come in, was at work on certain invoices. There were several orders of a similar character and it was a somewhat difficult matter to ascertain which was which, the counterfoils of the orders having been executed in a slovenly manner. Having arranged these to the best of my ability, I called the attention of Mr. Hutchison, and said 'Ithink I have these correct, sir." Mr. Hutchi- son rose from his seat and came over beside me. Taking up the invoices and counterfoils he glanced through them, and addressing me in a very curt tone of voice said—“You have done it. quite wrong. It is a d
piece of impertinence doing your work like that. A China coolie could do it better He then took the papers "Road from Victoria Gap to Mount Kellett off my desk, took them away and occupied him
self about twenty minutes trying to sort these invoices out. He then rose and went out to tifflu. Immediately he had gone out I rose and let the office, locking the door and taking the key with me. I went to my room in Thomas's court. I received no reply to that letter. I Grill-rooms and wrote him the letter now in
week hoping to hear from Mr. Hutchison but did not go back to the office. I waited for a
no apology was forthcoming. I addressed him again on the 20th, and received no reply. On the 4th January, I wrote him a letter and sent it by the hand of my personal servant, asking him to make out a cheque for my salary. My boy brought back the chit and said he refused to receive it. I then wrote him a registered letter.
Road."
was
The ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY BI- plained-The estimated cost of the road was $26,000. The actual expenditure $25,318.54, or $681-46 within the estimate. In 1897 $10,000 was voted and in 1898 $12,900 -making a total of $22,900—but of these sums only $22,879-87 was expended, leaving a balance due to the cost of $2,438-67.
of
EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC WORKS,” The following sums being unexpended balances of the votes for 1898 under the heading "Extraordinary Public Works"-Water Sup ply, Kowloon $3,251; Extension of Station Street, North, Kowloon $3,902; City of Victoria and Hill District Waterworks $2,046; Forming and kerbing streets to provide for extension of the City and Villages $429; Waterworks, Mis- cellaneous $3,873; Gaol Extension $2,507; total, $16,058.
The Committee then adjourned.
SUPREME COURT.
23rd January.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
MEUGENS V. HUTCHISON.
A. W. Mengens sought to recover from J. D. Hutchison, merchant, $150 as wages due for
the month of December. Mr. Manuk appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Ewens for defendant.
Mr. Manak, in opening the case for plaintiff, said defendant was a merchant carrying on business in Hongkong. On 1st November, 1898, be engaged plaintiff at a salary of $150 a month as assistant for two months, after
.
In answer to Mr. Ewens, plaintiff said he did not think there was ever any serious complaint about his work. Defendant had occasionally reproved him for being slightly careless in
small matters.
J. D. Hutobison said-I engaged defendant on November 1st for two months. He did his work very carelessly and inaccurately, and there were complaints almost every day. On the Friday or Saturday before the 12th Decem- ber, I said to him that unless he threw himself more into the work and was more careful there would be no necessity to discuss his retention after the expiration of the two months' agree- ment. On the 12th, he had to sort out the orders for the indentors. It was a very simple matter. He was continually troubling me with idle questions. I told him I could place more reliance on the Chinese godown man.
Probably half-a-dozen invoices were placed be- fore Mengens that day. I did not consider bis feelings when I used the expression towards him. With the exception of the word “d- I do not think there was anything wrong in the expression. I certainly should not have kept him in my office on a premium at the expiration of his two months' engagement. I was only too glad to be quit of the man.
In reply to Mr. Ewens, defendant said—
Mr. Ewens observed that if a servant left before the expiration of his engagement he forfeited all right to the wages then due.
|
which an arrangement might be made whereby plaintiff would continue in defendant's employ ment at the same rate of salary. Everything seemed to have gone smoothly until 12th December, when it seemed the plaintiff was given some invoices to work up, and owing to a slight mistake in one of them defendant used the following words towards plaintiff, "It's a piece of d-impertinence your doing your work like that. A China coolie would do it better," or something to that effect. Plaintiff continued his work till one o'clock, when de- fendant went out, Plaintiff went out shortly taking afterwards, locking the office door the key with him. He went homewroteja letter to defendant, enclosing the key. The letter read:-" After the very insulting remarks you addressed to me this morning, I cannot continue to work in your office. I enclose your key herewith, and my address at present is as above." Defendant took no notice of that letter, and a week afterwards, on 20th Decem-fied in calling his man a fool. ber, plaintiff wrote another letter, in which he stated that owing to the insulting language used towards him by defendant he had abstained from attending his desk until an apology was forthcoming. This letter also received no answer. At the end of the month plaintiff called upon defendant to pay his salary by a letter delivered by his boy, Defendant refused to accept the letter. A registered letter w
Mr. Manuk admitted that this was so unless there was a special and particular reason, as he contended there was in this case. He added that there were implied duties of employers to em- ployed, and said that when a gentleman of education was united in service with a gentle man of education it was an implied duty that the one should behave to the other with the ordinary courtesy due to their respective posi- tions. A servant might be dismissed for insol. ence and rudeness, and it was only a fair presumption that a clerk had justifiable cause for leaving when grossly insulting language
was used towards him.
His Lordship-I take it an employer is justi-
Mr. Manuk-But he would not be justified in comparing him to a coolie.
His Lordship-I think you will find that your contention is not carried out here. Em ployers use very unlimited language occa- sionally.
Mr. Manuk observed that when the friction was over the employers generally apologised for their heated language.
|
His Lordship Your client did not give a chance for the friction passing over; he went
sway,
Mr. Nanuk-No; he sat there. He used every control of himself. He did not even an- swer bim.
His Lordship-If he had answered him be might have been turned out then and there.
Mr. Manuk The English common law does not allow a master to abuse Lis servant or to use expressions of abuse and insult towards him,
His Lordship-Then every employer of la bour has broken that law.
Mr. Manuk-Then he is entitled to the con- sequences, whether these consequences always. follow or not.
His Lordship-I do not say Mr. Hutchison was justified in using that particular word, but he was perfectly justified in telling him what he thought of his work. The evidence before me is that the man was not worth his salary, and I am not surprised he was talked to. The only possible word you can object to is "d--," and that is only a figure of speech. If he is confident the Chinese godown coolie could do the work, I do not see why he should not say so. It may be unpleasant, but he is quite justified in correcting a servant for incapability or ignorance of his work. If he had been an apprentice he was entitled to correct him with
a stick.
Mr. Manuk The whole expression is most insulting.
His Lordship-If a man cannot do his work better than a coolie his master is quite entitled to tell him so.
servant was quite justified when grieviously Mr. Manak quoted cases to prove that a insulted by his master to dispute his master's commands.
His Lordship, without hearing Mr. Ewens, said he was of opinion the man dismissed him- self, and, therefore, under the general common law he was not entitled to his salary. Judgment for defendant.
Mr. Ewens did not ask for costs.
THE CHINESE WILL CASE.
A SETTLEMENT,
After having been before the Court on nine different days-January 5th, 6th, 7th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, and 24th-a settlement has been arrived at in the case of Leung Hing Sung v. Leung Ngan Pan, the Chinese will case. Plaintiffs' case was concluded at 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning, and Mr. Robinson opened for defendant. At one o'clock the court adjourned with the intention of resuming at two o'clock. In the meantime, however, counsel held a confer- ence with a view to arriving at a settlement. The
conference lasted an hour and a half, at the end of which time it was announced that a settle- ment had been arrived at in the following
terms:-
1-Plaintiff's will to be withdrawn. 2.-Defendant to renounce probate of his
will.
3.-Letters of administration with defend- ant's will annexed to be issued to Bruce Shepherd by consent of all parties, and at the conclusion of administration, estate to vest in Bruce Shepherd as trustee of the trusts of the will.
4.-Costs of all parties to be taxed as between solicitor and client and to be raised and paid out of the estate, including the costs of proceed. ings in common form.
5.-This settlement to be without prejudice to any proceedings that plaintiff may be advised to take with reference to the Mee Kee business,
6. In the administration of the estate Bruce Shepherd's decision as to the amount of main- tenance and marriage portions to be allowed to the widows and daughters to be final and with- out appeal.
7.Bruce Shepherd to have full powers to sell or mortgage for any necessary purpose.
8.-Bruce Shepherd to be allowed 5 per cent. on the full income of the estate by way of remuneration.
The settlement is signed by the counsel -. Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., and the Hon. H、E. Pollock for plaintiff, the testator's widow; Mr. E. Robinson and Hon. Dr. Ho Kai for defend- ant, the testator's brother; and Mr. Slade, for the interveners, the testator's grandmother, mother, stepmother, and concubine.
This settlement was approved by the court.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.