Angust 1, 1903.]
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 27th July.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIE WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Chang Kang was charged with having, o 23rd May, killed one U Pak Cai by pushing him into the harbour
He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. M. W. Blade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. C. E. H. Beavis of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, solicitors) The Hon. Attorney General Sir Henry 8 Berkeley (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor) con- duoted the prosecation,
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. and I noticed that at the head of that trial paper there were three actions which, it appears to me, ought to have been disposed of long ago, The first of thea was the case No. 85 of 1899 (Hung Wad Yak and another against Ng Lee Hing) and that was set down in the trial paper on the 30th of July, 1900, that is, praċ- Lically three years ago. Yet neither of the parti's brought that case ou, and so here was an old case with which nothing was being done and in which no steps had been taken for three years. I called attention to that and peremptorily fixed this day, the 29th of July, having given the parties full notice, for the hearing of that causa. The result was that the parties withdrew the cause, showing that it had no business to encumber the list; and if they did not wish the cause brought on on either side they ought to have communicated with the Registry and have had it struck out of the list. That was a claim to a trade-mark and goodwill. Well, then I took the same steps in the present case of Li Yu Nam and others against Kwong Hau Shau, whi h had been set down for trial in the trial paper on the 17th of November, 1901. Now it appears that neither party is prepared to go ou with the cause or wishes it gone on with, and some piper has been filed by the defendants themselves from which wan U Pak Chi and another man called Uthey seem to have settled the matter by some Kwan were carrying a bale of goods from the Praya to the Macao steamer Hangsum lying on the west side of the wharf. Prisoner and the other two men referred to appeared W have been standing
the wharf and to have been in the way of U Pak Chi and U Kwau, who were carrying the bale. The bale-carriers shouted to them to get out of the way, but they refused to more and the result was a collision. A quarrel and a fight ousued, and evidence would be called to say that in the course of the disturbance the prisoner with toth hands pushed U Pak Ch over the side of the wharf into the water, auf he was drowned.
The following jury was empanelled:-Messrs. J. D. Osmund, E. H. Summers, J. S. Douglas, C. Perkins, H. T. Bubje, F. G. Chunnett, and J. A. Stopani.
The Attorney-General in opening the case for the Crown, stated that on the day in question about six o'clock the prisoner with two others was working on the s.8. Namking lying on the east side of the Macao wharf. The deceased
оп
After evidence had been given for the Crown, two witnesses were called for the defence and deposed that the accused was on board the Namking when the deceased was said to have been pushed over the side of the wharf.
The jury by a majority of six to one found the accused not guilty, and he was accordingly discharged.
The Court ros).
Wednesday, 29th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
DELAY IN BRINGING ON ACTIONS STATEMENT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
The case was called of Li Yu Nam and others against Kwong Han Shaụ -No. 91 of 1899,
The Registrar (Mr. A. Soth) stated that the solicitors in the case were Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist and Messrs. Deacon & Hastings.
Nei her party was represented. His Lordship said understand that the defendants contend that the case was settled by some arrangement some time ago, and the defendants do not come here to dispute that settlement, I think I must deal with this case nder Section 296 of the CitilCode, and that Section says that whon a cause is called on for trial, if neither party sppears, the Court may, if it thinks fit, strike the cause out of the trial paper. I strike this cause out of the trial paper under Section 296 of the Code. I should like to make joe or two observations with regard to delay on the part of the parties in bringing on causes for trial which have been set down for trial a long time ago and have been transferred in due course from the general trial list to the paper. A cause is set down for trial in the general paper when the parties apply to the Court to have it set down. When in due course it is transferred from that general trial list to what is called in the Code the trial paper, due notice of that is given to the parties, and they ought to be ready for the cause to be heard when it is reached in consecutive order. Some time ago I looked care- fully through the trial paper, the paper, that is, of cases which are ripe for hearing and are only awaiting the hearing by the Court when the Court has an opportunity of hearing them;
|
1
reference in China, much of the subject-matter of the action having taken place in China. It is but right to say that the defendant's solicitors grave notice of that to the Registry, but I shou'd like to point out that the proper party to give that notice is the solicitor for the plaintiff. Section 317 of the Code says that if an action is settled by mutual agreement or compromise the agreement is to be recorded and the action disposed of in accordance there- with. And then, too, Sub-section 2 of the same Section No. 317 says that notice of such compromise is to be given by the plaintiff or, if a solicitor is employed, by his solicitor to the Registry, together with such parti culars as may be required of him, within one week after the same has been made, and in default there f plaintiff or his solicitor, as the case may be, shall be deemed guilty of a Contempt of Court and shall be liable to be procceded against and punished acco`ding'y, Well, it appears now that neither party wishes to go on with this case and it has been settled, and if I had not taken the peremptory step of fixing this day it would have gone on year after year encumbering the list and making it appear as if there was considerable delay in this Court in hearing causes which are on the list. Well, there was a third cause which I had fixed for to-day, a cause which was begun earlier than any of the others.
It was begun in 1897 and it was down in the trial paper to come on for trial in February of 1901. Neither party took auy s'eps to bring it ou It was a claim for an injunction and damages. The result of my fixing to-day was that yesterday a summons was heard on behalf of the defendants, asking for further security for costs as the plaintif was a person resident without the jurisdiction of the Court, and I granted au order requiring $3,000 more to be given as security for costs within three weeks, and if that was not done the action shoult stand dismissed with costs. I only make these remarks because I see there аго хошо other actions which have been put down for hearing, none, I think, in an earlier stage than last year; and I want to point out that if there is delay in settling these matters the delay is the fault of the parties them selves and not of the Court. of the Court there is a strong desire that justice should be administered as promptly as possible. I trust that those solicitors who have cases that have been down for a long time will bring them on for trial or have some valid reason why they thould not actually be tried. Recently I have been asked to deal with various cases which have been set down for only three or four weeks while there are others that have been set down for a year and a half that have never been brought on by the parties at all. I naturally wish to take the cases, as far as I can, at such time as is most convenient to the parties, but I do not want to be trying cases that have only been set down for a few weeks when there are others untried that have been set down in some instances for more than a year. However, as far as the present cause
On the part
goes, I strike the cause out of the trial paper and so clear the paper of some old causes that should have been brought on for bearing some time ago by the parties or else should have been withdrawn.
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 30th July.
IN BANERUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS Honour Sir William M.
GOODMAN (Chief Justice).*.
AN UNFORTUNATE GUARANTOR.
Francis Heary Barnes, clerk, lately residing at No. 5, Moeque Junction, was examined in bankruptcy-Case No. 10 of 1897.
In reply to questions by Mr. Bruce Shepherd, Official Receiver, the bankrupt stated that when the receiving order was granted against him he was a clerk in the Ordnance Store Department. Another employee in the same Department, Allensou, approached him one day, weeping, and informed him that h was in financial difficulties and was threatened with immediate arrest. Being a friend of Allenson, be along with another man named Baptista, beosme his guarantor for ($1,200. As a result Allenson was not put into prison. Allenson afterwards failed to pay up the instalments of the loan to his creditors and when a suit was bing brought for recovery of it he absconded to Canton and from there went to Shanghai. The bankrupt said he was informed that Allenson was dead; since he became guarantor be bad not heard from him.
|
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-He has run away and let you in?
Bankrupt➡ Yes. Continuing, he said that when the Indian creditors commenced proceed iugs he was afraid to go into Court, but as his co-guarantor, Baptista. filed a bankruptcy petition he took the same step. The creditors got judgment against him on the guarantee and not on any private debt. He filed the potition to avoid arrest. He had no money to meet the guarantee and never had had any money
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-Why did you give the guarantee?
Bankrupt-Well, Allenson was a friend of miure and I was then only about 21 years of aga and did not know very well the responsibility I was incurring, and, having confidence that Allenson would pay this money I sigued the guarantee.
In further evidence bankrupt stated that he had to keep himself out of his salary, and out of $40 a month he was paying $10 for the mainten anco of his sister in the convent. After the bankruptcy he could not pay that and had to stop it altogether. He offered his creditors 50 per cent., to be paid out of his salary. Baptista, be understood, did the sime.
-*
were your
Mr. Bruce Shepbord What private debts at this time?
Bankrupt-1 ha i no private debts. Mr. Bruce Shepherd -Then you had no other reason for going into bankruptcy?
Bankrupt--No.
His Lordship-What is your present salary ♬ Bankrupt-I am getting $15'),
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-You are not in the Ordnance Department now?
Bankrupt-No; I am with the Singer Company; I left the Ordnance in 1899 and went down to Manila.
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-Your sister is now wealthy, I believe?
Bankrupt-I was told she had something, Mr. Bruce Shepherd-Will she not help you? Bankrupt-I do not think she will.
Mr. Bruce Shepherd--Aný balance of the 50 per cent. dus you are now willing to pay?
Bankrupt Yes.
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-Can you pay more? Bankrupt-No; I am married and have family.
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-That is all, I think, my Lord.
His Lordship, addressing the bankrupt, said be hoped this would be a lesson_to him.” All that could be said for him was that he young man at the time. Nothing was ridiculous than to become security for $1,200 when he had not $100 of his own, and to
go and gratuitously put his neck into a noose for the rest of his life was an extremely föohsh thing
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.