April 13, 1901.]
CHINA ÖVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
authority from the defendant to accept the He went to the spot a few days later, ac- terms of purchase mentioned in it. The defend-companied by a friend, and there and then ant is consequently not bound by their action entered into negotiations for the purchase in making the contract for the enforcement of the junk. Come conversation took place as of which this suit is brought; and judgment to the price, and eventually the craft was sold must be entered for hit, with his costs of snit. to him for $225. The negotiations for the sale were entered into before the action was commenced, and after the transaction was effected a stampel document was produced to him confirming the sale.
Thursday, 4th April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE the distraint under the judgment, and that
JUDGE.)
JUDICIAL REMARKS ON A PLAINTIFF'S
RESPONSIBILITIES.
The suit of A. Abdoola & Co. v. Miss Mary Jane was disposed of.
It was brought by the plaintiffs who carry on business in Wellington Street, as ladies' drapers and outfitters, to recover from Miss Mary Jane, of Canal Road, Wanchai, the sum of $16.60 for goods supplied.
The defendant admitted her indebtedness, and said she had been sick and out of employment. She had offered the plaintiff $10 that morning but he had refused to take it. It was hard for her, more especially as she had dealt with the plaintiff for the past ten years, and had always paid her bills when due.
The plaintiff said the reason he had sued the defendant was because he had sold his business to one, Cooper.
His Lordship-Did you sell the book debts as well?
Plaintiff-No!
His Lordship-Have you got the agree ment for sale with you?
Plaintiff No!
Mr. Powell, the court bailiff deposed as to
the watchman who was on board at the time said that Tsang Ping, the claimant, had purchased the junk, a statement subsequently confirmed by Tsang Ping himself.
Mr. Hays (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the execution creditor.
His Lordship entered judgment for the claimant, with costs.
Thursday, 11th April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNC JUD E).
recover
BHOLA BINGH V. ALA SI GH. This was an action brought to damages for malicious prosecution.
Mr. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Reece repre- sented the defendant.
The plaintiff, a watchman in Government employ, and residing in Kowloon City, com- His Lordship-Of course you'll say that now.plained that on 18th February last the defend- Probably you've sold the whole business. ant (described in the pleadings as unemployed) without reasonable and Plaintiff I only sold my paper business, not maliciously, and the drapery.
probable cause, preferred a false charge of larceny from the person avainst him (the plaintiff) and caused him to be arrested at Yaumati, and detained in custody till the morning of the t 20th February, when he was released on bail. On surrendering the next day the charge was heard by Mr. Kemp and dismissed. By reason of the arrest and im- prisonment, he (the plaintiff) alleged that he had suffered damage to his credit and reputation, and besides had suffered special damage to the amount of $50, being the costs of his solicitors (Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) incurred in respect of the prosecution. He (the plaintiff) prayed that the defendant might be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $500, as and by way of damages.
His Lordship-Well! I must give judgment for the plaintiff, and yon (defendant) must ar- rauge with him as to payment. If he is not entitled to the judgment, the responsibility rests with him.
Tuesday, 9th April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A WAGES DISPUTE.
His Lordship had before him the suit of Ng Sing Chi v. The Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company, Limited, and the cross action thereto.
Mr. Reece was solicitor for the plaintiff, and Mr. Looker (Messrs, Deacon and Hastings) re- presented the Company.
It was an action brought by the plaintiff, a captain of a lighter to recover 890 alleged to be due for wages from 1st January to 15th February, and the cross action by the Company was to recover the same amount, as and by way of damages for breach of contract
Wednesday, 10th April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
|
The defendant admitted that be caused the arrest of the plaintiff, but that he had sufficient reasonable and probable cause. At the magis. terial hearing, however, the plaintiff was bound over in a personal bond of $50, to keep the peace for six months, and had not, it was sub- mitted, suffered any special or other damage.
He did so, and a short time afterwards returned, and gave the plaintiff into custody on a chargo of stealing $115 from his person during the scrimmage. No money was, however, found upon his person, and he was defended by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist at the police court and discharged.
Counsel in support of his contention that is client was arrested without reasonable and probable cause, cited the case of Taylor jv. Willans. 2 Barnewell's Reports p. 857, where it was laid down that slight evidence of the defendants' knowledge of the insufficicy of the charge, was all that was required. The de- fendant had to prove a negative, and the only case he would cite was that of Buset v. (ribbona, reported in the Law Journal Reports, 18 (New Series) v.30, where the defendant in an adjou for maliciously, and without reasonable or probabile cause, procuring the plaintiff to be apprefended on a charge of felony, could not rely on cir- cumstances of mere suspicion as evidence of reasonable or probable cause, for a detence to the action, and he was not justified in making the charge. Baron Pollock made this clear, and in discharging the rule in the cited action said that the rule was obtained on the ground that the learned judge who tried the case was wrong in telling the jury there is no reasonable or probable cause to justify the defendant in charging the plaintiff with felony. That learned judge had stated that he did not know whether any satis ctory definition of "reasonable or probable dinsd** could be found, and it would be very difficult in giving a definition applicable to all the Farious cases in which the question might arise, belich of course, must depend on their own drcum- stances. In the cited case there certain circumstances which might have allow ed the defendant to make enquiries about the plaintiff, but they amounted to nothing like reasonable or probable cause; if given in evi- dence on the prosecution of the plaintiff they ought not in the slightest degree to hate con- duced to a verdict of guilty. He (counsel) submitted that upon the evidence which he would adduce he was entitled to a judgment, with costs.
•
were
The plaintiff was sworn, and generally bore counsel in his examination- out the statement in-chi f. In cross-examination he said he had only been six months' in his present position. Prior to that he was at Lai-chi-kok, where he spent sixteen months. Before taking up that position, however, he had been thirteen years in employ at the reservoir, and prior to that even ho was in the police for five years. He left the police because he had completed his agreement. He was never charged with felony, but he was placed before his Lordship (Mr. on the Wise) when that gentleman was Magisterial Bench.
Mr. Robinson asked the reason for faking that line of cross-examination.
Mr. Reece-To-break down his credit of course. It is only a question of reputation.
His Lordship-I know all about it. I le member the mat very well, and it is well that it is brought out in this way.
Mr. C. A. D. Melbourne produced the pro- ceedings of the police court in the prosecution, which were admitted in the usual way.
Further evidence was tendered in support of the plaintiff's case, and at the close Mr. Reece addressed the Court. He subunitted that in an action for malicious prosecution the onus proy ing malice, or that the arrest was made rithönt reasonable or probable cause, was upon the plain- tiff. In the present case that had not been done, and the plaint ff hal not made out his
Upon counsel opening the proceedings. His Lordship took occasion to remark upon the state of the pleadings. He had nothing to say with regard to the petition as it stood, but he did not think the answer had been drawn pro- perly, or that it was a good pleading. In the claim it was stated that there had been larceny Evidence having been tendered, that of the from the person, and inasmuch as the answer plaintiff in support of his case, and by Mr. Han-stated that the plaintiff was bound over to keep mond, an overseer, on behalf of the Company, the peace, he (His Lordship) thought the p'ain- His Lordship gave judgment for the amount tiff should have applied to have struck out that claimed in both suits, with costs.
paragraph from the answer as being irrelevant. If they were going to have pleadings in those cases let them have them properly or not at all. Mr. Robinson for the plaintiff said that on 18th February his client was paying a visit to some of the non-commissioned officers of the Siege Train at Kowloon, and was seated in one of the tents when
He was surprised that evidence which the defendant came along Knowing one or two had been tendered for the defence in the police of the men in the tent the defendant told them court had not been produce! in that court. that he would not go near them as the plaintiff The onus of proof was fully laid down in Roscoe. was a bad man. The latter took umbrage at The depositions of the lower court had been part the assertion, and there was the usual rough in, and from that his Lordship would see exactly and tumble. The plaintiff was seized by the what took place when the charge way heard. hair of the head, and the defendant was held by It would be no'ed that there had been enmity of the beard during the scrimmage, and in the feeling between the parties, which the plaintiff course of which it was alleged that the had admitted had been in existence for many The years. He (Mr. Reeco) submitted the action plaintiff had rabbed the defendant. plaintiff was, however, eventually taken into should be dismissed. a tent by one of the sergeant majors, who thought it was not fit for that sort of thing to The defendant was go on outside the camp. similarly treated by another non-commissioned officer, and eventually told to leave the camp.
LAI SUN AND WONG TONG V. LEUNG KWAN SING.
The Court was engaged all the morning in hearing an interpleader summons taken out by one Tsang Ping, of the Hop Lee shop at Tai Kok Sui, to recover a junk distrained upon by the bailiff in the course of enforcing a judg- ment obtained in the above saît. The action was originally brought to recover $122 and costs due on a promissory note, and Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, (Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) who appeared for the claimant in the issue, said that some time in the early part of February his client saw a notice posted up on the side of the junk offering it for sale.
case.
His Lordship in delivering judgment remark. ed that the pleadings in the action had been ordered, and were filed in the usual word He had referred at the opening by counsel to tho defect in them, and he hoped that in future any
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.