502
Tuesday, 23rd December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. C. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
»
A CHINESE COPYRIGHT CASE.
Lo Sing Lau sued the Man Yu Tong firm. stationers and printers, for damages of $1,090 for infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in a book outilled English Self-tauglit, and costs,
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Mr. E. A. Bonner of Messrs. Deunys & Bowley, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants were not represented.
Plaintiff in his statement of claim declared that in 1894-95 h composed and wrote a book entitled English Self taught for Chinese t.e first edition of which was caused by him to be printed and published in Hongkong in 1896. Second and third edit ons were put out by him, in 1898 and 1901. All were registered in the Registrar-General's ffice in tha nama of the plaintiff who was and is sole proprietor of the copyright. The defendant firm had infringel the plaintiff's copyright in the book by printing and publishing without consent of the plaintiff a certain book with the title English and Chinese Self taught, which latter book causisted substantially of a copy of the plaintiff's book with the exception of certain tone marks. The defendant firm in 1902 also sold capes of the book entitled English and Chinese Self-taught.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[December 29, 1902.
I reference the Registrarto b empowered to award "quite possible, at the same time, that if the plan. damages of the sum of $70, which sum tho, showing theso dimensions had been spcially plaintiff stated that he had agreed with the brought to his attention at the time, he would defendants to acept. It was further ordered have pas ed it. The deviation from the origiqal that the defendants should deliver up to the plan was a serions oue, undoubtedly. Since the plaintiff all copies of the back infringing the plaintiff's copyright which may be in their ; possession or power by 31st December. 1902.
The Court adjourned.
I
:
I
¦
·
ENQUIRIES INTO COLLAPSES OF BUILDINGS.
PRAYA EAST--C MMITTAL FOR TR AL..
Ou tue 22nd just.. before Mr. F. A. Haze land and a common jury, the official enquiry was resumed into the circumstances attend ng the fatal collapse of house No. 5. Praya East, on. 2nd August last. Mr. F. B. L. Bowl y. Crown Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Government. Mr. H. W. Looker on behalf of the architects, Messrs Ligh aud Orange, and Mr. C. D. Wilkinson on behalf of the contractor. Man Wo, Mr. A. S. Hooper watched the cise on behalf of the Land Investment Company, of
which he is secretary.
the
Leung Tung, who occupied a room on first floor at 45. Praya East when the collapse occurred, sid he male an inspection of il house first he fore the accident and fann) all the wi: dows shul, He was partly buried in the débits of the collapse, aul was rescued by a European constable,
Esidone Michael Xavier, assistant engineer in the Public Works Department, sail he made several personal inspections of the houses he
tween June and Novermbr. 19.0, but thought he did not go into No. 45, Praya East. He know nothing about the houses, however, and as far as he could recollect had never examined into the condition of the collapse I side walt of
No. 45.
plans out, and he had never be i told to do so, Ho cut no holes in the walls to ase rtain their condition; that was a practice ho followed only after the Cochrang Street collapso,
|
lapse he had examined the remains of the honse and formed the opinion that the bouding was somewhat defective. Hal the bonding be good it might have tended to prevent the collipse.
In answer to Mr. Looker, witness said the alterations in the plan in no way infringed the provisions of the Building Ordinance. The granting of the certificate must be held, he by the Public Works Department. thought, to be an approval of the devia ion
F
Frank Browno, Government Aualyst, gare the eults of his analysis of th mortar used in the building of the houses. Ono sample, con- sidering its age and hardness, was good; the other was powdery, and there ore bad.
The examination of Fr detick Thomas Baines Royal Engineers here, who attributed the Hewitt, building curveyor attached to the collapse to the weakness of the back wall, concluded the évidence, and the hearing was adjourued.
There being no further evidene, Mr. W lkin son addressed the jury. He said the law did not require more than ordinary, reasonable precautions to be observed in such cases, and therefore the jury had uot to easider whether it was possible to have designed and constructed these lions s so that they could not poss ́bly have Defendants in their statement of defence
collapsed, Imt simply whether reascuable pro claimed that this book which they published and
e.utions had been used by the parties con sold was first published and sold by them many
cerned, and whether the evidenco justified them years ago, prior to 1895 at least, and that from
(the jury) in saying that some person had been then down to the present time it had been sold,
guilty of criminal negligatce which resulted in by them. In 185, defendants stated, they
the collapse and the deaths of the unfortunate employed plaintiff to revise their book at 850
people who were killed thereby. The Crown per month and $1 per page for new mat.
Percy Thomas Crisp, inspector of buildings. Solicitor, in his opening statement, was quite in ter. In breach of his duty and without
Public Works Department, said he only arrived error in saying that no man could rid himself of the defendants' couscut plaintiff published the
in the Colony on 9th November, 190, and knew responsibility by delegating his duties to soms. said book in his own name as having been
no hing of the house that had collapsed. He other person, but would be liable for the crim- written and compiled by him. Ou learning of inspected them when complet d in connection inal negligenc of that other. Such was not this publication defendants threatened legal with the application for a cert ficato authorith case. A master was frequently held liable proceedings and in consequence plaintiff agreed, ing their occupation, but made no entry in his in damages for the negligence of his servants, in settlement to pay them 819) and allow them diary in relation to that visit, the result but not criminally liable for his servants' acts of to use his corrections or new matter in any
of the visit in question was that he recoin. criminal negligence unless he expressly author- future editions. In view of that settlement.
mended the houses to be passed. When he ised such acts or had himself been criminally defendants caused a new edition to be printed made it he did not take with him the negligent in employing that servant or servants, in Japan in 1911 and malo uo of plaintiff's plans deposited in the Public Works Depart as, for instance, if an engine driver employed an work in revising the original. This 11 W ment. 1t was not the ul. then ta take inexperienced youth to drive his engine, und an edition was not substantially a copy of the
accident result:d. In support of his contention, plaintiff's all-god book--very little if any
Mr. Wilkinson q ́oted Justice Stevens's History matter written or composed by the plaintiff
of Criminal Law and Digest of Criminal Law. was contained in the now edition.
Continuing, ho said the duty of the contractor in Henry Ernest Yorke Haggard, a-sis'ant the present case was to put up the buildings in engineer in the Public Works Department, ace rdance with the plans and specificatipus deposed that on 3rd August he made an inspee-given to him. Mr. Leigh had been asked the tion of the collapsed house in Praya East to question, Was the work done in accordance discover whether there was anything dangerous with the specifications?" and his answer was, to the public safety, and again on 27th Yes." There was positive evidence, the only August with the view of learning the general positive evidence the jury had got, that the condition of the walls and the quailty of the contractor had dove his duty, and consequently materials. The bricks were all of fair quality whatever happened afterwards was not the of good quality, he might say, for this Colouy: result of any urglect of duty on his part. Mr. the mortar also was fair. In some cases, how. Wilkinson further submitted that even if the ever, the mortar joints in the portion of wall evidence had been to the effect that the contrac- left standing were not properly file up, and tor had not put up these buildings in actor- the bonding was bad at the junction of the front dance with the plans and specific tious, or and western walls; the bonding of the collapsed that he had used bad materials in the construc- side wall itself was fair. In his opinion the tion of thes houses, even then the jury could immediate cause of the collipse was the typhoon, not find him guilty of criminal negligence but the side wall might not have been sufficient. unless emply satisfied that it was his personal ly thick. Again, the wind might have got in duty to superintend the laying of every brick and overy piec, of mortar. It was absolutely impossible for the jury to find the contractor guilty of neglect. The only evidence that the materials used by him were not perfectly good was that of Mr. Browne, the Government Analyst, who examined the mortar taken from a brick said to have been taken out from the William Chatham, Diretor of Public Works, ruins. But what proof was there that the brick was next cilled. Ile stated that when the was one of those actually used in the construction permit for the houses in Praya East was issuol of the houses? There was no possible proof the practies with regard to walls excding 35 whatever. As to the collapse, it occurred at a feet in length was to deal with them as ordinary quarter-past ten o'clock at night, when the walls. In his opinion, however, that was not a typhoon was at its height. Was it not probable proper practice, and he also thought that the that one of the windows on the top floor had dimensions prescribed by the Building Ordinace been blown in and that one of the heavy gusts for walls n't exceeding 35 feet in length blew out the top story, which brought down the were not sufficient for a wall 1 flut 11 rest of the bailling? If the jury were satisfied inches in length; the dimensions in the latter case, which were those of the sido wall at 45, Praya East, ought to be increased.
The plaintiff in Lis evidenco deposed that he was a clerk in the Marine Surveyor's offi c. Some years ago he obtained from his mother in law a book written in the Ningpo dialect which enabled a Ningpo speaking Chinese to learn: English. His mother-in-law frot the book from Wong Fuk Chan, a common friend. From that. book he took the English characters and pro- diced a Cantoues; tutor. It took him ten months to do but the book turned out profitable In May, 1896, the first edition of 1,5 ( copies was issued and registered. These were all sold, some cloth-bouud copies at 75 cents. In 1898 a, second edition of 2,000 w s printed and sold at $1.25 and $1. In 1901 a third editi nat similar prices appeared co sisting of 2,000 copies, of which 1,900 had already been sold. All the editions were registere 1. Ho had given Wong Fuk Chan $4 for the use of h's book Witnes denied the defendants statement that he was employed at $50 a month to revi o the book. The book was his own venture. Some time ago a book entitled English and Chinese Self-taught was shown to him. Tlal book, which was the book produced by the defendants, was a copy of his work with one or two minor omissions and alterations.
Mr. Pollock pointed out to his Lordship that several typographical blunders were even copied. Wong Fuk Wan for the plaintiff deposed that he was a student at a private school in Cochrane Street and that he had bought one of the pirated books (produced in Cart) from the defendants for $1.
His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs, the amount of damages to be assessed by the Registrar on the 5th January, after due notice of said reference to the defen- dants; if defendants did not appear on the said
'
at the back window on the top floor aud blown the wall out the window night have been forced open by the storm. His opinion was that the wall which collapsed was not strong eu: ugh to withstand a typoon.
By Mr. Lo ker-The wall was of the thickness prescribed by the Building Ordinance.
It was
|
i
es to that, or if they had any ro. sonable doubt that it was not the case, the only possibly verdict they could bring in was that the death,
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.