356
Evidence was called.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
Wong U Kai, the plaintiff, said the contractor with whom he bargained was Fung Yung, of the Sing Kee shop. He left the agreement about the defendant paying half the cost of rebuilding the party wall to Wong Lai Shan, of Mr. Hazeland's office. When the work was com His Lordship said that in this case pleadings pleted he paid the contractor in full. Later a had been ordered. With regar to these plead letter was written to the defendant asking forings he understood in a case ather more com payment of half the cost, and an answer was re- ceived that the defendant's proportion had been paid to No. 71, Jervois Street. Witness was the owner of No. 71, Jervois Street, and neither he nor anyone on his bedalf there had received this money.
plicated than usual they were of some assistance to the Court in arriving at the fao 8. With regard to the writ plaintiff claimed $1.000 for malicious prosecution but it gave no information whatever. In the statement of claim tuere was rather less. There was no pleading at all The pleadings said who was plaintiff and who defendant, and gave their relative positions and so forth and how the case arose. They only give him the bare fact that the case was taken up. These were not pleadings. The statement of defence was all right; it followed on the same lines as the statement of claim. Really, said his Lordship, when he ordered pleadings and got anything like these again, and should the plaintiff win his claim, he shoult certainly have to consider the advisability of allowing him his costs of and incidental to the pleadings.
[November 16, 1903.
charge before Thomas Bercombe Smith. Police | possibly of being implicated in the trouble. Mr. E. M. Hazeland deposed that he was the Magistrate, when the plaintiff was remanded to Defendant on finding this out on his. architect in connection with the pulling down Victoria Gaol until 24th August, 1903; (2) on return immediately or shortly after gave and rebuilding of 71, Jervois Street. The wall the 24th August the plaintiff was farther information against Yue Kwai Ting, the between 69 and 71, was a party wall. The total remanded till the 26th, and asterwada further salesman, and got a warrant for his arrest on cost according to his estimate was $1,993,44. | remanded till the 27th; and (3) on that date a charge of stealing particular goods and He did not know personally of any agreement the charge was heard and dismissed.
perhaps some others which were the subject- being come to between plaintiff (his client) and Defendant, in reply to paragraph (1) of matter of the present charge. Yue Kwai the defendant with regard to the payment of the statement of claim, denied that the charge Ting, ei her before or immediately after the the cost of the work.
therein mentioned was preferred maliciously information was filed, departed from the Colony and without reasonable and probable cause, or
and the defendant in order to obtain some that the same was a false charge or was pro- evidence against him for having stolen these secuted before T. Sercombe Smith. Defendant goods asked the plaintiff to give evidence- admitted the statements contained in paragraphs against him, but this the plaintiff refused to (2) and (3).
do. The day on which this request was made was the 12th of August. On the 15th a letter arrived from Yae Kwai Ting from where he was staying in the country saying that a letter written to the plaintiff informing plaintiff that the charge made against him (Yus Kwai Ting) was false, that he knew in whose possession the goods belonging to the defendant were, and that if the defendant would withdraw the charge against him he would let him know where the goods were so that he might take possession. This letter was written to the plaintiff himself: he believed plaintiff and Yue Kwai Ting were some sort of relations; and it was left at the defendant's dwelling-house and the defendant himself was informed by the plaintiff of what was written in the letter and agreed to withdraw the charge, or at any rate the understanding was that it would be withdrawn and that letter should be written to Yue Kwai Ting asking where the goods A letter was written and in reply there came a delivery order, or something that nature, to the person who had possession of the goods to give them up. Un receipt of this order, which came on the 19th, the plaintiff informed defendant of the fact that he had received it, and that he would go and get the goods. Defendant himself en- gaged a coolie for the purpose of obtaining these goods from the house in which they were in Hollywood Road. They were obtained from this house, and the defendant was asked by the Defendant made plaintiff to pay the coolie. no reply, but about the same time some detec- tives came to the house and made some enquiries about the goods-where he got them and so on. Plaintiff refused to ay anything at the time, and was taken to the station. A charge was then made against him, and the case came on betore the magistrate and plaintiff was dis- missed.
Cross-examined-The house No. 71, Jervois Street was burned down and was rebuilt by the insurance company.
It was insured for $3,000 ¦ and was rebuilt for $5,000. After he gave instructions to Ir Hageland for the rebuild- ing of the house is met defendant and told him he had to pay half the cost of the party wall, but defendant said plaintiff would have to pay for the whole length. Later on the wall was blown down by a typhoon and defendant then agreed to pay half.
Wong Lai Shan stated that in the beginning of August, after the wall had been blown down, defendant agreed with him to pay half the cost of rebuilding.
Cross-examined-In the work of rebuilding he recognised that he was dealing with the contracting firm of Sing Kee, but Fung Yung was the only man of the firm who attended to the work.
Mr. d'Almada in opening the case for defend- ant said there had been no agreement entered into between the parties Fang Yang came to the defendant and asked to ge the contract for the work of rebuilding his part of the wall, The price agreed upon was $600. When the work had been completed his client aid the money to the two partners of the Sing Kee firm, Li Chan and Li Chau Lap.
Wong Choi Lam, the defeudant, said he did not know the plaintiff and had never agreed with him to pay half the cost of rebuilding this wall. The wall of his house No. 69 was never blown down. Fung Youg was master of the Sing Kee firm; he bargained with him to do his share of the rebuilding of the wall for $600. The money was paid into another firm ou behalf of the Sing Kee firm, as the Sing Kee was closed at the end of the year. Li Chan and Li Chau Lap of the Sing Kee were present when this took place.
After hearing further evidence of a somewhat conflicting nature,
His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
The Court adjourneq.
Wednesday, 11th November.
IN
SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ACTION FOR DAMAG B FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
Mr. Beavis asked leave to make a correction in
the first paragraph of the statement of claim, substituting the name of Mr. Kemp for Mr. Sercombe Smith.
His Lordship granted the leave craved. Mr. Beavis then called Mr..D. Melbourne, Clerk of the Magistracy, who produced the original depositions taken in th case, before Mr. Kemp, of Cheung Wan Chow against ou Hin Sheng.
Mr. Beavis proceeded to state that this was an action brought by the plaintiff against defendant for malicious prosecution. It would be necessary for him to go somewhat far buck He regret into the circumstances of the case. ted very much that the pleadings were not so full as they might be.
8
His Lordship-They do not tell me anything; I do not call them pleadings at all.
Mr. Bearis went on to state the circum- stances of the case. It appeared, he said,
owner of Kin was the that Ng Chi certain birds' nest shop in Jervois Street, where the defendant and plaintiff both lived. Defeudant was partner or manager of this shop. Plaintiff was a broker by trade, and rented a room in the shop. This Ng Chi Kin, who was the erson who supplied the means for carrying on this shop, was also manager of a Chinese bank in Hongkong and therefore was unable to attend to the business of the shop, so the defen- dent curried on the business subsidised by Ng Chi Kin, he not having any monetary interest in the shop at all. Plaintiff was a fried of Ng Chi Kin's, and lived in one of the rooms above the shop. About the months of July and Angust (in the 6th moon) the shop got into difficulties, and the defendant who, although he was not a partner, always re- presented himself to be got frightened and went to Canton. On the 14th day of that moon, shortly afterwards, Ng Chi Kin was arrested on a charge of embezzlement and was convicted.
His Lordship-Chat is the capitalist ? This was a case in which a Hin Sheng, broker, Mr. Beavis Yes. He was not present, added 200, Queen's Road, sted Cheung Wan Chow, Mr. Beavis. On hearing that Ng Chi Kin, trader, 178, Reclamation Stree, Yaumali, for
whom he had represented as his partner, hd $1.000 damages for malicious pro-ecution. been arrested and proved to be sole master of M. C. E. . Boavis of Messrs Wilkinson & the shop, he returned to Hongkong on the 12th Grist, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff and
August, presumably with the intention of Mr. O. . Thomson, solicitor, for the defeu-taking possession of he shop and getting what dant.
he could from the goods of the shop. He found on his arrival that the salesman of the shop had cleared up affairs as far as he could and had returned the goods in the shop to the merchants who supplied them and the creditors who had not been paid, and had taken away from the shop some private goods belonging to the present defendant in two boxes, and had deposited them in custody of a certain per-on and left the Colony, being afraid
The statement of claim was to the following effect:-(1) n or about the 19th day of Angust, 1903, the defendant ma iciously and without any reasonable and probable cause pre ferred a false charge of the larceny of promis- sory notes to the va de of $4,300 and goods to the value of $2,300 against the plaintiff and caused him to be arrested thereon and on the 30th day of August, 1903, prosecuted the same
were.
of
8
His Lordship-When the po‘ice came he was in possession of the goods ?
Mr. Beavis He was in the house with the goods
His Lordship (pointing to a Chinese under the charge of a prison warder)-Is this the defen- dant ?
Mr. Beavis-Yes, your Lordship.
Ris Lordship-What is he imprisoned for ? Mr. Thomson-For debt.
His Lordsbip-How do they expect to get $1,000 out of him?
Mr. Thomson-I don't know. He went to gaol in this action because he could not find security, but he is also in prison in connec- tion with another action.
His Lordship-Well, he does not appear to be a gold mine any way.
Evidence was then given for the plaintiff. Mr. Thomson, in opening the case for the defence, said there was absolutely no proof of The defendant was master of this malice. shop, though he was assisted in his business by the bank of which Ng Chi Kin was manager. While in Canton defendant got news that the creditors had been rather pressing, and when he came down he found that all the goods in the shop-ven his personal property- had been cleared out. On making enquiries he iscovered that those had been taken by Yne Kwai Ting. He ob ained a warrant for his arrest, whereupon Su Hin Sheng, the plaintiff, approached him with the proposal that if the prosecution was withdrawn the goods Defendant naturally would be returned. supposed that plaintiff was mixed up in the affair with this other man, and laid information against him with the police. There was no malice in what he did
His Lordship-I am inclined to agree with you. If you went to the police with a story like that the police would have you at once.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.