218, 1908.
be empanelled; and
ind standing of the they will appreciate thank you, Mr. this matter before me, jury was empanelled: Harling, W. II. Wickham, Hewett, W. 8. Harrison, H. W. Bird, F. Pávies and G. L. Tomlin. - Foreman
jurymen called was Mr. J. N. Goomaum, whị
his Lordship that as seting
of the Steamboat Company, and the plaintiff, Mr. Gomes, was his director, he did not know that he should sit on th-jury.
Mr. Blade--I have no objecti ɔm.-- His Logiship (to Mr. Goosmann)-I think you had bester mot.
†
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REFORT.
connected with the billined tables – Into the 4 conversation the defendant broke, ; There was¦ Modira. a quarrel upon the point about the tables and afterward nothing was said during that quarrel about the subject slander at all. At the end of the quarrel plain-:
|
Cross-nxamined... Defendant was employ The Court adjourned from one-till the. Hongkong and Shanghai Bánk, @H not know at what':miary:* Defendant had a and child. At the time of the quarrel d was nót, in his judgment, exbited Witness did not call him a “r
看身
'nigger."|||Wilnèis was quite nobe about defendant's shares in thò Chb. course of the quarrel witness were separated by the people int That was because defendant came at b his fists. Witness did not remember shoved out of the room, bat he wen used no insulting remarks to the defen
tiff's son went away and heard no more of the night of 17th Soy
J. M. Gomes, BOIL the matter; he was not present when the | went to || slander was uttered. About 10 o'clock Mr. went to the reading r
*| the * Chaban Gutierrez entered the billiard-room and saw | billiard-room about 9.15, - defendant with four or five other people.ing pool There were abou | Gutierres sat down next defendant and the playing. Withem had a conve latter told him about the quarrel which had ember, Bir. Guimerien, about occurred. Defendant did not appear to be preference to other game Defe excited, but while speaking he became so to ́some slight extent, and in the course of this the table on which he sat
up and asked whether they were reference to the quarrel with the plaintiff's playing. Witness asked what a very loud voice and was presumably heard by elenched fat in front ofe son the slander was uttered. It was uttered in to ask the question,^« | Defé Mr. Bharp, K., opened his case by reading would tell them that he understood the reference, minutos. | Witness afterwards i
everybody in the room. Mr. Gutierres who strike him. The quaṛral lasted the statement of claim in which it was stated that". {plaintiff was a gentleman defendant repeated it. In bringing this motion not hear the slander spoken 7" he
told him to be careful of what he said, whereapon | bar, Defendant was sober. residing at No, 43, Caine Rood. Defendant plaintiff had hoped to thresh out the whole it next day. was a mercantile clerk residing at Woodlands matter but the course the defendant had adopted Terrace. On 17th September, 1992, at the Club | prevented this. He admitted the slander and Lusitano the defendant falsely and maliciously the falsehood and therefore the sole material in the hearing of several bystanders spoke and question was the defendant's intention in saying published
wing words: “He (meaning these words. In the statement of defence it The plaintif
Maria Gomes) is the son was stated that the defendant proposed to give of thief, and I toan prove that his father evidence with a view to mitigation of the robbed my father of $110,000." In consequenos damages. Defendant uttered the words com- of the said slander the plaintiff had suffered | plained of when he was drunk and in the course damage and had been injured in his credit and of a violent quarrel with the plaintiff's son, reputation and claimed $20,000 damages. The Jose Maria Gomes, who in the course of the case, Mr. Sharp went on to say, was a very quarrel made use of offensive expressions in simple, one. 'l'he question which the jury regard to the defendant, and amongst other would ultimately be obliged to consider was things called him a beachcomber and made also the defendant's intention in uttering these words. some offensive allusion to the defendant's father, His Lordship said the question would be Defendant replied that "it was better to be a not so much the intention as how the words beachcomber than the son of a thief." Defen- were received and understood by the bystanders. dant's recollection of what was said was very || Mr. Sharp-Certainly. And in aggravation vagus and he had no recollection of having of damages the question of intention and malice uttered the words complained of, but it was not was important. "Plaintif might press his claim disputed that he did so. That the defendant | for a very large sum. The slander was most serious and he would prove, he thought, that it to everyone present. Everyone who heard what was drank and in a violent passion was obvious had a very serious reference indeed." Plaintiff's the defendant said was fully aware that he was desire was really only to stop this slander not speaking deliberately and that he did not which had been much repeated no doubt. He seriously mean to make any charge against the would nof, ask for full and still less for vindic-plaintiff but was talking wildly and in conse- tire damages but for damages enough to attain this end. He did not want to put money in his own pocket put of this thing at all, and whatever, damages the jury gave him would be handed over to some charity. The slander bad injured him very seriously in his busi- moss, had affected his reputation amongst his relatives even, and of course amongst those who were ignorant of his private affairs and did not know the real truth of the matter; and it had caused him the greatest possible distrom. Speaking in quite a loose manner he should think $5,000 would broadly meet the damages or certainly not less than $3,000 or $4,000.
Mr. Slade contended that it was a rule of the Bar that counsel in addressing the jury in such cases should not specify any sum.
His Lordship did not think a sum had been specified.
|
quence of drink sud passion. There was no foundation for any such statement. Defendant exceedingly regretted that he ever uttered any such words. He unreservedly withdrew all im- putations on the plaintiff's character and apolo- gised for the abusive language which he uttered without reason and while under the influence of liquor and of anger against pla'ntiff s son.
melancholy action; two cousins had a quarrel His Lordship remarked that it was a most in a Club Bad now it came before a jury.
partner in Brandao & Co.
A. J. Gomes, brother of thes p had incapacitated his brother from witness had seen it. For hardly hold a pen in his band: much depressed inspirīts/and- | suffered accordingly.
wilb gont
Cross-examined—His brothe
¦
Brandao & Co. - 42 years
F. A. Gomes, the plaintiff, director of the Steamboat Cer power of attorney for over 20 had been trouble - between «Dr♪ Ge himself with regard to money did not hear this slander persodaliyy suffered a great deal from the slander of mind, and could not attend to kis for about eight months and had inffered business. His friends appeared to mis had suffered in consequence *** him, his reputation had been affectell,
Cross-examined -- Lefendant› was
of age. He came to Hongkong ir1859. and about 28 years of age.--Witness was di slander had done him injury. Whenka father and son. The son offered to signs slander was made he asked an apology fr apology that he drew up. Bu he wished it want any money that he might get as damages. public that he was an honest man. Hà diễ gibt
having no witnesses to call, lie
This concluded the evidence;kand- Mr. Blade
the first witness. He said he had been in the Jose M. Gutierres, Magistrate's Clerk, was Government service about 22 years. He knew the Club Lusitano. On 17th September last he plaintiff and defendant and was a member of went to the Club about 10 p.m. and entered the bench talking to four or five others Plaintiffs billiard room. Defendant was sitting on a
Mr. Sharp said it was only in quite a loose five yards away. There were about a dozen son was present sitting on another bench about manner, hat he had referred to the matter. He people in the room altogether. went on to state that plaintiff was defendant's down next to the defendent.
Witness sat uncle. Plaintiff was senior partner in Brandao discussing a quarrel which had taken place. They were & Co, and was also a director of the Steam- Witness asked defendant what was the matter boat Co. and was connected with several and the latter told him what had happened, hers. No doubt he was well and favour-saying in load voice that he (meaning the bly known to the jury His standing was plaintiff's son, as he understood) was the son amongst the Portuguese community and of a thief. Witness stopped him, saying that ally in Hongkong, He occupied positions | he should not say such things unless he could|ment of defence was to be taken as admitte prove them. Defendant repeated the words and added "I can prove his father has robbed my father of $120,000." Witness understood these words referred to an old allegation that plaintiff had robbed Dr. Gomes of some abarets Defendant was quite sober, Witness did not see any quarral between plaintiff's son and defen. dant. - Witness had been in about 15 minutes before the slander was uttered. During that time defendant was quiet in his conversation. Witness heard nothing mid about, “beachoo bar.” He did not hear plaintiff's son anything.
**
trust and had held power of attorney for
30 parties, His Lordship said he did not know whether seould allow that evidence, Mr. Sharp contended that the injury done to plaintif depended most primarily upon position he held in respects. He went refer to the connection which the defen- her had with Brandao & Co., în which bad had Sital invested
ordshi
plaintif must confine words attered and the
to the bearers. with his address, said rening of the day in Into the billiard- had a conversation trifing atter
Mr. Sharp. prooseded to address the jury-on absolutely no defence in the case. The slander behalf of the plaintiff. He raid there was was a malicious one, and there was nothing in the statement of defence denying anything that had been charged by the "plaintiff, đã his Lordship would doubtles point out to the july everything which, was not denied in the st that being so it was perfectly clear that ev | the statement of claim was adm slander was no mere vituperation terms; it was a definite charge defendant admitted to be báselem, grentis affoted the reputation and plaintiff. The plaintiff, did no money bringing the action-in pursuit-
for ↑ #personal- enrichmen
Mr. Sharp was proceeding to ex money awarded damages of, when,}}
His Lordship -Defendant told him thestory what the did not my that plaintiff's son - If
son of a
or.
hit his cousin on the face. talking loudly but not angrily.
the money.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.