>
July 20, 1901.]
Mr. Pollock-I think there would be some difficulty in arranging for that. This is a Special Sessions, and a jury has already been summoned for it.
His Lordship-You can easily get over that difficulty by closing these Sessions and dis- charging the jury. If you like I will grant you another Sessions for the 6th of August.
Mr Francis-There is no difficulty in the way, my Lord. It is simply a matter of dis- charging one jury and summoning another.
His Lordship-You might consider the point meanwhile, Mr. Pollock, and let me know your decision.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. ately devolve. If, on the other hand, the will letters of administration of the properly would was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, be vested in the widow, who would in the absence of a will under English law, take one- third, the other two-thirds probably going to the daughter, the estate and effects in Hong- kong, whatever the amount, to be their own absolute property. would get nothing. In this state of affairs, The brother, Lo Fook, about 17th April last Lo Fook and the prisoner interviewed the widow in Hongkong, and made certain proposals to her, with a view to the settlement of the differencs between them Mr. Pollock-My inclination is against sum- without resort to further litigation. The pro- moning special jurors, my Lord. As you per-posal was that the widow should adopt the son haps are aware, they are hard worked in this of Lo Fook as her sou, and thereby enable him colony.
to be a person entitled to a share in the interest His Lordship-Yes, they have discovered of the property. that fact lately, I know.
Of course, explained Mr. Francis, that was the Chinese idea, not neces- Mr. Pollock-However, I will consider thesarily the English. matter, my Lord.
In addition to adopting this son, the widow was to pay Lo Fook 850 in satisfaction of the expenses he had incurred so far, in return for all of which Lo Fook would consent to her taking out letters of ad. ministration of the estate and effects of her deceased husband. The widow agreed to the proposal, and it was arranged between them that the parties should go to the office of
The case stands adjourned until Tuesday, 6th August, at ten o'clock.
Wednesday, 24th May.
IN CRIMINAL Jurisdiction.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING | Mr. Ewens, who was tho solicitor for the widow,
CHIEF JUSTICE).
UTTERING A FORGED WILL.
Lo Yew Hoi, alias Tai Li, was charged with uttering a forged will. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. E. Robinson, barrister- at-law (instructed by Mr. Grist). Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C. (instructed by Mr. Harston), prosecuted.
The jury was made up as follows:-Messrs. B. J. Barlow, G. F. William, O. M. D. Bell, A. Bain, C. Partington, H. Haynes and C. Pemberton.
¦
93
make a finger mark; he was then able to writs put before the jury an agreement Entered into and to sign his name. The prosecution would by the deceased on that very day, by which he made arrangements with a Chinese gentleman here in Hongkong to act jointly with him in taking over the lease of a certain house. On that day the deceased was capable of writing documents necessary to the agreement. It was and signing his name, and he did sign the true that just before his death he had to use a finger-mark in signing documents regarding the sale of certain portions of his property, but it was only just before his death, and that was where the forger made the mistake that hai caused him to be put on his trial.
The examination and cross-examination of witnesses occupied the entire day, and at four o'clock the Court adjourned until next day, when the charge against Lo Yew Hoi wAS dismissed.
Friday, 26th July.
IN ORIGINAl JurisdictION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. W18E (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
COLLINS V. GIBSON. The hearing of this action for $2,000 damages for breach of contract was resumed. Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C. (instructed by Mr. Wilkinson), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Robinson, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. Hursthouse) for the defendant,
A. F. Ramsay, chief engineer of the s.8. Haimun, for whose evidence the hearing had been adjourned sine die, was called. He stated, in reply to Mr. Robinson, that Gibson had no pecuniary interest in the firm of A. F. Ramsay & Co., and never had from the very beginning. Further, he had at no time received remunera tion for services rendered.
with the view, presumably, of having the matter re-discussed and, if finally agreed upon, reduced to writing and given practical effect to. On 18th April they called at the office of Mr. Ewens, but Mr. Sin Tak Fan, the principal Chinese clerk, was absent, and nothing was done. The prisoner and Lo Fook's son returned on the following day, and saw in the office, during the forenoon, Mr. Sin Tak Fan. There her married daughter, and the dead man's con. were also present the widow of the deceased, cubine, also a man describing himself as a broker. In the course of conversation between❘ the prisoner, the widow, and Mr. Sin Tak Fan in connection with the proposals for a settle. ment, the prisoner stated to Mr. Sin Tak Fan, in the hearing of the others, that he was the Lo Yew Hoi whose name appeared as one of the witnesses to the will, and that he was going to the Supreme Court to swear he had witnessed the execution of the will. He stated to Sin Tak Fan that he had in fact signed the will as a witness, and that the will was actually written out and made a considerable time after the death of Lo Tsun The result of that communication was that Lo Yow Hoi was charged at the Police Court, and had been committed for trial. In effect, the charge against him was that he had feloniously uttered, disposed of, and put off a certain false will purporting to be the last will and testament of Lo Tsun, with intent to defraud. That the prisoner had so uttered, disposed of, and put off that will as a true will it would be the task of the prosecution to prove to the reasonable! satisfaction of the jury. The records of the Probate Court would be. produced, besides the declaration of the prisoner that he was a witness to the will, and the evidence would also be taken of the officer of the Court who took the declaration. There was no direct proof that the will had been forged, and the dead man, of course, could not be produced to give evidence that the will was not his will. The evidence of that portion of the charge
in support a large extent necessarily circumstantial, bat not the less strong for that reason. The evidence for the prosecution would be, first, that Lo Tsun was confined to his bed for a period long anterior to the date on which the will purported to be executed by him. Secondly, there would be the evidence of the widow, of the married daughter, and of the concubine that during that time—each speaking of her own knowledge Lo Tsun did not execute or sign any will, and that neither Lo Fook nor the prisoner, nor the other person who professed to have attested the will, ever 88w Lo Tsun, or ever were in his house in Canton. The will was dated 1st January, 1900, nearly twelve months before Lɔ Tsun's death. The only signature to it was the deceased's finger-mark. finger-mark, or what purported to be his It would be shown clearly that at that time, the 1st of January. 1900, the testator was not in a state of health which rendered it necessary for him to
Mr. Francis, who stated the case at oon- siderable length, said there recently died at Canton a man named Lo Tsun, a bird-fancier who rented premises here, in Cochrane Street and at 116, Queen's Road. He was in possession of household property in Hongkong (some of it his own and some held in lease by him to other persons) to the value of $80,000 or over. After marrying his first wife, by whom he had & daughter, Lo Tsun married again, according to Chinese custom. For the last two or three years of his life he was very ill from dropsy, and, with his family, removed from Hongkong to Canton. He continued seriously ill, so that for the greater part of the time he was confined to the house, and was unable to attend to any business. Lo Tsun died on 4th November, 1900, in Canton, and on 18th December, in the same year, his younger brother, Lo Fook by name, produced a will in Chinese purporting to be. the will of his elder brother, Lo Tsun, and filed a petition in the Supreme Court in probate jurisdiction for the granting of the probate of that will to him. On the same day, 18th December, there came before the officer of the Supreme Court here two men, one of them the prisoner, who made a declaration that the Chinese document then shown to them was the last will and testament of Lo Tsun, that they had seen hint affix his finger-mark to that will, and that they themselves had signed as witnesses to the will in the presence of Lo Tsun and in the presence of each other. The widow of the deceased asserted that the will was a forgery, and in vindication of her own rights made application in the Supreme Court for administration to be granted her of the estate and effects of her deceased husband in Hongkong. Ordinary pro- ceedings were taken as between two parties, and finally a writ was issued and a suit com- menced by Lo Fook for the purpose of establishing the bona-fides of the will he had produced. The date of the issuing of that writ was 6th February, 1901, and pro- ceedings were taken in the Supreme Court here to test the validity or otherwise of the will. If Lo Fook succeeded in establish ing the will, under its terms the whole of the property of the deceased man would be vested in Lo Fook, who would have the administra- tion and control of it. Possibly even the interpretation might have been put on the will that Lo Fook's son, would be the person on whom the whole of the property would ultim.
Was to
examine, witness showed an inclination to fence When Mr. Francis proceeded to cross with the questions, whereon Mr. Francis told him that he would not make his case any better by his quibbling. The cross-examination then proceeded.
bicycles about 1899. He opened a banking Witness said ho first commenced to deal in account in the same year.
|
Mr. Francis-What month? Witness - I don't know unless I refer to my bank-book.
Mr. Francis-Well, refer to your bank-book,
then.
On 13th February, 1899,
Witness (after turning up the pass-book)—
Mr. Francis-Is that your first banking account in Hongkong ?
Witness-With the Chartered Bank, yes. Chartered Bank, Mr. Ramsay. Listen to what Mr. Francis-I am not asking about the say and answer the question, please. Is that your first banking account?
I
Witness-No, my first banking account was thirteen years ago.
Mr. Francis-When you first commenced to account? buy and sell bicycles, did you have a banking
Witness-I had no banking account then. Mr. Francis-On what date did you first open any place of business in Hongkong? Witness-I started first in Wanchai. Mr. Francis-When? I didn't ask you where. Witness-In June or July, 1899.
did somebody else for you?
Mr. Francis-Did you start that business, or
Witness-My wife and myself started it. you or your wife?
Mr. Francis-I am not asking that. Was it
the time.
Witness-My wife started it. I hadn't got
#
start business?
Mr. Francis-Under what name did you first Witness A. F. Ramsay & Company. Mr. Francis-Will you tell me why you had your bill-heads printed “A. F. Ramssy simply?
Witness-I had a contract to supply the timber for the building of a Japanese Consulate, and I got these bills printed and used them for the purpose of collecting my accounts.
Mr. Francis-In what year was it you had this contract?
*:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.