January 27, 1900.]
and the plaintiff has lost the profits which he would otherwise have made thereby, and Chinese merchants and traders in Canton and the West River ports are afraid to deal with the plaitiff, and the plaintiff has been seriously injured in his credit and reputation and in his said business as a merchant, and claims 812,00 damages. The plaintiff, therefore, prays (1) that the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff $18.970; (2) that the plaintiff may have such further and other relief as to this honourable court may seem fit." In their auswar the defendants said they had no personal knowle ge of and did not admit the facts alleged in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the petition. Paragraph 4 of the answer said, "The defend- ant Ng Sai Yung admits haring printed and published in the Teun Wan Yat Po newspaper the Chinese words set out in paragraph 6 of the petition, but he has no knowledge and does not admit that they refer to the plaintiff. and further says that if such words do refer to the plaintiff that they are not libellous in their natural signification, and denies that they bear the defamatory meaning alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition. He does not admit the correctness of the translation into English_contained in paragraph 7 of the peti- tion." Paragraph 5 of the answer said. The defendant Wong Shu Tong denie haring printed or published the Chinese words set out in paragraph 6 of the petition, and save 18 aforesaid for further answer relies on the allegations contained in paragraph 4 bereof." Puragraph 6 said, "The defendants deny the fact alleged in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the petition." Continuing. Mr. Slade mentioned the various points which it would be for the jary to coasi ter, viz, as to whether the extract from the Chinese newspaper in question had been cor ectly translated or not, the trauslation having been made by the court translator; Whether or not the words were libellous; aud next the amount of the damages.
The plaintiff gave eridence bearing out the allegations in the petition, and was cross-ux- amined at considerable length.
The hearing had not concluded when the court rose.
25th January.
|
|
|
|
ÚRINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
龋
Francis, who appeared for the second defendant. | language and libellous matters made through satis ed the jury that there was no libel at all inadvertency (they) shall be attended to by Ng then the proprietor could not be liable. If the Yang himself. and Mr. Wong Sha Tong and printer or publisher had not published a libel | all the other proprietors shall not be concerned. theu no responsibility could be attached to the Fearing that word of mouth is no evidence, proprietor. But there was another point this writing is purposely made saproof.” which applied to the first defendant only. The first defendant was the proprietor of the paper. That was admitted. He said he was the lessee-the proprietor having possession, Nothing could be plainer than the general proposition that the proprietor of a newspaper | was liable for a libel which might appear in that ewspaper.
A man who owned a news- paper might be on the other side of the earth when the libel appeared.
His Lordship said a person on the other side of the globe might be the owner of a carriage. His servant might run over someone, yet not. withstanding the fact that the owner might be on the other side of the globe at the time of the accident, he w uld still be liable. In the same way if the owner of a newspaper lived on the other side of the globe he would still he respon- sible for any libels published in his newspaper and would have to pay np like a man.
Hung Han Ching said he was the editor of the Tsun Wa Yat Pu, and occupied that posi- tion in June or July, 189). He remembered the letter produced being inserted in the paper. He received it from the newly-appointed Italian Consul. Mr. Volpicelli, through his interpreter. It was written in Chinese and was published as received.
|
Mr. Robinson, ia summing up for the first defendant, said bis client had parted with hia entire ability to control the second defendant, and he submitted that as his client could not prevent the publication of any paragraph in this newspaper, it would be absolutely absurd to hold that be should be held responsible for any libellous paragraph which might appear in the newspaper, because a man could only be liable for is own acts, including the nots of his ser- vants, and if his client had no right of control over the paper. be should not be held responsible for what appeared in it.
Mr. Francis, in summing up for the second defendant, aid that nndoubtedly his client was responsible for anything which appeared in this Chinese newspaper. Undoubtedly on the face of it the paragraph published with reference to Mr Nervegna was a defamatory statement, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled Mr. Robinson admitted the poiut as to the to a verdict as against his client. The only ques- owner of a coach, because the man was the tion which emained for the consideration of proprietor in po-session of an article by bis the jury-the important question in the c888- agents or servants. In the same way if a person was what amount of damages was the plaiutiff owned paper and his servant inserted a libelin | entitled to The amount of damages which the it the owner would be resp›usible as publisher. jury would award to the plaintiff would be sub- But the true case was quite different bere, initted, and depend upon two or three considers. The proprietors had leased their paper to Ng tious, namely, the circumstances surrounding Sai Jung. They had part d with possession. the publication of the paragraph objected 10; Ng Sai Jung was not their servant or their the nature of the publication in itself as it agent. Therefore he contended that the pro-stood, aud thirdly the cousequences. Mr. prietor was not liable. It was a material poiut Francis proceeded to deal with these points. whether Ng Sai Juug was the lessee or not, aud whether before him the proprietor leased it to another man. Supposing that ou the death of the proprietor of a paper iu Hongkong his widow went to reside in bugland, and lense the paper to somsous in Hongkoug, it would be an absurdity if she, not being in possession of the paper kither by her servant or agent, was held liable for libels appearing in that paper.
In reply to Mr. Slade, witness said the news- paper was published at 51. Gough Street. The printing presses, etc., were leased to Ng Sui Jung between tea and thirteen years ago. The lease was in writing. He remembered a letter coming to Ng Sai Jung from Messrs. Moun- Ray and Bruttou. The Rev. T. Pierce wrote tue reply produced and witness signed it,
By Mr. Francis-The old number of the premises was 39.
By Mr. Siade-Two of the owuers of the paper lived on the premises, including W ng Chi, who was chief editor. Witness was part owner of the paper.
His Lordship-If she does not want the re sponsibility she should sell it, then.
Mr. Robinson continued to argue further on this point, quoting cases in support of his con- tention.
His Lordship suggested that the lease should be produced. What the jury and he wanted to
known was. what wis th - contract?
|
|
Mr. Robinson submitted that the evidence as it stood was conclusive in faveur of the first defendant, Ng Sai Jung having admitted that he wasole proprietor as lessee," aud Haug Hau Ching, editor and part proprietor, having depose that the presses, etc., were leased to Ng sai Jung, who took them over on the death of l'au Lang, this witness adding, That lea e is in writing. I have not got it with me. cannot produes it.”
I
The register of newspapers was produced, and Mr. Robinson read au entry made by Ng Sai Jung in 1887 to the effect that he was the sole proprietor as lessee of the newspaper in question.
་་
Mr. Francis continued his address after tiffia. He said that they now came to the wes tion with reference to the special damage as alleged in the pleadings by the plaiutiff. In the first ins'ance the plaintiff alleged :—
-Wong Shn Tong, the first defendant, said he had been compradore for the P. and O. Com pany for 35 years. He was one of the proprie tors of the Tsun Wan Yat Po, having been part By Mr. Francis-He was paid a salary by proprietor for over 20 years. A to his present Ng Sai Jang for acting as editor.
This closed the case for the second defend · ant.
Mr. Robinson opened the case for the first defendant. He asked for permission to put in a copy of the paper published in 1887 to show that the paper was leased to Ng sai Jung in that year.
His Lordship said libels could not be inserted in a paper without the owner being liable.
Mr. Robinson contended that the person who merely received rent for the newspaper was not liable for libels which appeared in it. The lessve was liable and he only. For instance, there might be a paper published in Hongkong owned by a lady in England he would not be liable for any libels which might appear in that newspaper.
His Lordship said he differel from Mr. Ro- binson on this point.
Mr. Robinson said the great issue of course was libel or no libel. If his learned friend Mr.
·
"
"On the date of the publication of the de- famatory words by the defendants, one Au Lap Sam had given to the plaintiff orders for 5,000 rifles, but in consequence of the said pub. lication the said Au Lap Sam refused to com. plete the said order, whereby the plaintiff bas suffered damage to the amount of $5,000,"
Mr. Francis contende I that there was absolutely no evidence that there was any connection between the two transactions at all except that one was subsequent in point of date to the other. As to the plaintiffs allegation that he hid lost his business in Wnshow and Cantoti in consequence of the publication of the de-. famatory paragraph in question. Mr. Francis asked what evidence was there to connect this loss of business with this paragraph? There was none except Mr. Nerve.na's own opinion; but was there sufficient reason shown on the very facts of the case to suggest abundant reasons for bis loss of business independent of the publication of this paragraph? It was perfectly plain that to a greater of lesser ex ent Mr. Nervegna was not in favour with the gentry and officials in Wacow. As to the plaintiff's allegation that in consequence of the publics- tion of this pa agraph he had lost business with the Kwong Tuug Sua Tai firm, Mr. Fraucis contended that there was not sufficient satisfao- tory evidence before the jury to show that the business transactions alluded to with this firm evr existed. In conclusion Mr. Francis sub. mitted that this case ought never to have been brought into that court. The Summary Court would have been quite good enough, and $100 or $150 would have been quite anfficient damages to Mr. Nervegaa for anything he had suffered from the publication of this insignificant par- agraph in an insignificant Chinese paper.
connection with the paper, he had nothing whatever to do with its publication, it having been leased to Ng Sai Jung. The lease was in writing. Ng Sai Jung had been lessee of the paper 12 or 18 years The agreement produced was the one entered into by him and Ng Sai Jung.
The following is a translation of the agree-
ment:-
44
|
1
Mr. Slade, saimning up for the plaintiff, said that with regard to the point raised by his friend Mr. itubinson, Le would refer bis one or two cas s. In the case The person making this contract for taking Lordship 10 over a business is Ng Yang, who is indebted to R. V. Gotch the argument was practically
he Mr. Wong Shu Tong and all the other pro-
argument a ed by his learned -- friend prietors for willingly leasing to (him) Ng Yung thee that day, and the opinion was learly the signboard of the Tsun Wan Yat Po office expressed that a newspaper proprietor who and all the b .siness, furniture, plant, and ma-
afford d a...oth r man the means of publish chinery, ou the expressed agreement that $2.00ing a libel, e en though he knew absolutely shall be paid for rant every year, including no hing about it and never autho ined it in intere dary mouths without deinction, payable | any p ssib e way, was not only simply liable but in full within the first mouth of every year criminally liable. Mr. Slade quoted two more without delay. In the event of the business
cases in support of his contention. being prosperens or declining, or if any chargp by the authorities for the publication of obscene
His Lordship-Do you urge that both parties are liable to pay the same" damages!
Et"LObho
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.