54.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
be must say that his friend had been attempting | tion I of Inland Lot 202. Now, when one looks that morning to do what he said on Thursday at the deed of the 24th October, 1898. it is clear he would not do, and, that was to say, he was that the document is a frandulent conveyance. really attempting to put forward that there was It recites, inter aito, that the first prisoner is no wicked or criminal intention on the part of trustee to assign the property to Pang Sui the defendants in what they did. It seemed to Cheung on his attaining manhood. The first him that that was an exact contradiction of the prisoner, therefore, knew he was a trustee. Is charge to which they had pleaded guilty, be- further recites that Pong Su Cheung had at- cause they were distinctly charged in the third tained the age of twenty-one years and had count that they unlawfully did amongst them-requested the first prisoner to assign to him. ́selves conspire, combine, confederate, and agree As a matter of fact, this was a falsehood, for the together feloniously and fraudulently to cheat little boy is now only seven or eight years and defraud," eto.
of age, but to carry through tho fraud the On passing sentence. his Lordship said-second prisoner personated the boy and be. There are circumstances in this case to which I came a party to the deed, as if he had been think it my duty to call attention. On 14th the boy grown up to manhood. Of course, November, 1899, a writ was issued in the after registration at the Land Office, which was Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme duly effected, the deed being daly drawn up at Court on behalf of a little boy named Pang the solicitor's office, there was nothing to pre- Sui Cheung by his next friend against the two vent the second prisoner from assigning the prisoners as defendants, praying that a deed of property to a purchaser and going off with assignment, dated 24th October, 1898. purport the money. Fortunately, however, this has not ing to be an assignm nt by the first prisoner of been done. I adjourned the case yesterday to allow of affi avits in mitigation of sentence an undivided mciety of Section 1 of Inland
being filed. The prisoners have. respect.vely. Lot No. 202, should be declared fraudulent on the ground that the assignee, who purported to filed an affidavit each accordingly. The first be the little boy plaintiff, was personated by the prisoner alleges that he had no fraudulent second prisoner, and that the deed should he intent, but execute the deed at the request cancelled and the registration thereof at the of Pang Kong, the father of the little Land Office should be vanated and the interest boy. Pang Keng died last May, and I am of the first prisoner in the property as trustee not aware of any evidence which I believe for the little boy should be assigned and in. in support of this charge against his memory. vested in some other
for him. The second prisoner alleges in his affidavit that trustee In other words, it was suggested that the he was only eighteen years old on 24th October, first prisoner had, in reality, assigned to the 1898, and that he executed the deed urude the in sec nd prisoner the property of the little boy finence of his mother and uncle (since decreas. with a view to cheat the child out of the land; ed) and in eutire iguorauce of what he was to which he was entitled as beneficiary. On the really doing. But the deed recites that the boy 6th December, 1899. Mr. Reece. the solicitor whom he personated had arrived at mauhoot, and for plaintiff, applied to me for a decree in the though I am willing to make some allowance i civil sait, by consent of defeudnuts, practically cousideration of the second prisoner's age. I be. in terms of the writ, and filed the following lieve he knew perfectly well he was a party to a document as an exbibit:-
wicked and fraudulent proceeding. I will dea! with the case under Ordinance 14 of 189%, and of course, sentence the prisoners only on the count to which they have pleaded guilty. The seutence on the first prisoner is two years imprisonment with hard labour; and on the second prisoner as he is young) the sentence will be one year's imprisonment, with hard lacour,
64
{
We the undersigued Pang Hing Yau, of No. 7 Puttinger Street, Victoria. Hongkoug, shroff. and Pang Tak Ying, of No. 177 Holly. wood Road, Victoria, aforesaid, trader, hereby consent to the in enture of assignment bearing date the 24th day ‹ f October, 1898, aud expressed to be made between Pang Hing Yan of the one part and Padg Sai Cheung (in fact per- sonated by Pang Tak Ying, of the other part, of one undivided hair part or share of and in. Section 1. of Inlaud Lot No. 202 being set aside and cancelled and to the registration thereof at the Land Office being vacated, and to all the estate and interests of Paug Hing Yau in the said balf part or share being assigned to or rested in Pang Tam Shi, or some other trustee or trustees for the benefit of her son, Pang Sui Cheung
+
with.
|
|
Mr. Francis-Until your Lorlship meu. tioned it, I had not the slightest idea of what had taken place.
24th January.
|
|
11
[January 27, 1900,
about the 6th June, 1891, was relieved of his office of consul for Hongkong and was succeeded by Mr E. Volpicelli, a member of the regular Italian interpreter service" Paragraph 5 said, During the time in which the plaintiff was acting as Itahau consul as aforesaid the plaintiff carried ou and still carries on his business as a merchant dealing in coals and general merchan- dise, and trading largely with Chinese customers in Cautou and in Wuchow and other ports on
"On th the West River." Paragraph 6 said, 9th day of June, 1899, the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published of the plaintiff, in respect to the plaintiff in his said business as a merchant, in the said newspaper called the Tsan Wan Yat Po, which has a wide circulation in Hongkong and Canton and adjacent ports and in the ports and districts adjacent to the West River, the following words in the Chinese language." Then followed the words com. plained of. Paragraph 7 said, The following is a trauslation of the said words :
4
We learn that a certain merchant who has once acted as Italian Consul at Canton bas in consequence of certain affairs been reprimanded and dismissed. Recently the said merchant bas. conspired with the Chinese to work a certain coal mine, and relying on the protection of a foreign flag resisted and refused to ray lekin. This the high authorities have found out from enquiries made, and decided to thoroughly in- vestigate the matter. It is not known what may happen afterwards."
The said words were so understood by those to whom they were published, and mean that the plaintiff in his business and as Italian con- sul has been guilty of dishonourable and dis- houest practices, and has on account of such practices been dismissed in disgrace from his office of consul; that the plaintiff and the Chinese with whom he had business relations had been guilty of a conspiracy to defraud, and in fact defranding the revenue of the Imperial Chinese Government; that the high authorities of the provinces of Kwangtung and Kwangsi-meaning thereby the Viceroy of Canton and his ministers-found this out, and in consequence caused the plaintiff to be dis missed from bis office of consul; that enquiries were still being prosecuted into the action of the plaintiff and his Chinese associates; and that it was not yet known what punishment would be inflicted on the Chinese who should be found to have had business relations with the plaintiff, and the whole paragraph purports to be and was understood by the readers thereof to be issued or inspired by the said high au- thorities as a notice and as a warning to per sous intending to deal with the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the persons dealing with him had incurred their displeasure; and that the plaintiff had been in consequence degraded from bis official rank at their instance; that persons who had dealt with the plaintiff had rendered themselv a liable to punishment; that the plaintiff in consequenos of bis degradation was bow a person of no account, and could no lo ger ob ain any protection from the Italian flag and that any person having business rela- tions with the plaintiff would be liable to be suspected of illegal proceedings, and to incur the displeasure of the said high authorities." Para- graph 8 said, 'On the date of the publication of the aforesaid defamatory words by the defend. Rots one An Lap Sam had given to the plaintiff orders for 5,0-0'rifles, but in consequence of the said publication the said An Læpè am refused to Mr Slade (iustructed by Messrs. Mouusey complete the said order, whereby the plaintiff and Brutton) appeased for the plaintiff, and bas suffered damage to the amount of $5,000.” At the date of the pub Mr. Robinson and Mr. Francis, Q.Ü. (justructed | Paragraph 9 said. inves-
by Mr. C. Eweus), appared fo. tue defendants.lication of the aforesaid defamatory words by the Mr. Robinsou for the first defendant and Mr. | defendants, the Kwong Tun San Tai firm had Francis for the second.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR W. Meigh GooDMAN (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
ALLEGED LIBEL BY A CHINESE NEWSPAPER.
lu this case U. Nervegna, of Wyndham Street. merchaut, claimed from Wong Shu Tong, of 14. Priya Central, as proprietor of the Tsun Wan Yat Po, aud Ag Sai Jung, of 39 Gough Street, as printer and publisher of the said uowspaper, damag s for libel.
It was agreed that the jurors should be remunerated at the rate of $10 a day each.
Dated this 3 d day of November. 1899." Witness, J. F. Reece. Signed in Chinese by
Solicitor, Hongkong. Ping Hirg Yau Interpreted, etc., etc. and Paug Fat Ying. I found. however, that criminal proceedings against the two prisoners were proceeding at the time at the Magistracy, and I had my suspicions that, when my decree, had been obtained the oriminal proceedings would be dropped and that the charges of forgery and conspiracy might not ba proceeded
I could not understand otherwise, The following composed the jur. :-Moss FA why, pending a remand at the Magistracy, J. Orauge (foremanj, F. D. Goddard. D. W. Mr. Reece, the solicitor for the prosecution, | Craddock. V. A. Caosar-Hawkins, Johu Thur. should have interviewed the prisoners with | burn, A. Turuer, and E. Osborne. his interpreter and obtained from them a
chance document so fatal to their
of de. fending themselves, especially as the pri- sopera were defended by a solicitor; at all events from 6th November. The tigation of the charge at the Magistracy was commenced on 25th Oct.. 1899, and there were a great many remauds. The prosecution was a private one, and I deemed it my duty to call the attention of the Attorney-Geueral to the matter so that any attempt to hash ap the criminal aspect of the case, if a crime had really had been committed. in consideration of the cancellation of the deed, should not succeed without the consent of some responsible officers. In the event the case was committed for trial and the two prisoners pleaded guilty yesterday to the third conat, which alleges that they con spired and agreed together ou 24th October, 1898, falsely and fraudulently to cheat and de- frand, the little boy, Pang Bai Cheung, out of his undivided moiety of the land known as Sec.
|
|
The evidence for the defence was given. Mr. Slade read the pleadings in the case. Paragraph 3 of the petition said, "The plaintiff on or about the 24th March, 1897, was appoint- ed merchant consul for Italy without salary for Hongkong, and in the beginning of July 1896, was further appointed merchant consul for Italy without salary for the two provinces of Kwangtung and k wangai, in the empire of China." Taragraph 4 said. “In the beginning of August, 1898, the plaintiff at his own request was relieved of his office of consul for the said provinces of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, and was succeeded by Lieutenant Ginda, and on or
|
|
given to the plaintiff orders for 2,000 barrels of, cement, 3,000 revolvers, and 400 casks of nails, - but in consequence of the said publication the said firm ha refused t› complete the maid orders, whereby t. e pla utiff bas suffered damage to the amount of $1,970,” Paragraph 10 said, “Prior to the publication of the aforesaid defamatory words by the defendants, the plaintiff had consid rable ba·iness transactions with the said Kwong Tung Suo T'ai firm, from which he had derived large profite, and the said firm would have continued to deal with the plaintiff and the plaintiff to derive large profits, but owing to the said publication the mid firm refused to have any further transaction with the plaintiff,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.