November 30, 1903.j.
+
|
to appeal from any decision to the Full Court whether the Crows was or was not repre- sented before the Land Court. Referring to the statement that the solicitors for the applicants had not read the affidavit which had been made at the time the order was made, his Lordship said it seemed to him a very strange thing that where some $188,000 were being claimed as compensation by their clients they should not have taken the trouble to refer to what must have been open to them on the files of the Court and which was referred to in the order allowing leave to appeal. He thought they would have listened very intently to that appli- cation for leave to appen', although it was ez parte, if they knew it was coming off, and if they had read the affidavit they would have found there was a suggestion of forgery against one of the documents so long ago as August and one would have thought they would have applied without undue de'ay to be made respondents. He accepted the statement (though it was not upon affidavit) that the firm of solicitors did not know what was in this affidavit but with his experience of the world he could only say it was a very strange thing they should not have tak n the trouble to read it when such an enormous sum of money was involved. He was inclined to think they ought to have applied before and and were too late now; he thought they were out of time. There had been a great deal of delay in making this application. But he did not decide the matter on that line. What the Court had to decide was whether the decision of the Land Court was proper and correct or no', Supposing the
who had got the recommendation of the allowance of their olsim by the Land Court made an assignment and the assignees were willing to go and make another oue to-morrow the fact of a number of things happening some years afterwards could not affect the propriety or impropriety of the decision at the time it was given; and that was which they had to decide, whether that decision should have been given and whether it would have been given if the Court had been in pos- session of all the facts and had not been deceived by some forged document. If the document was found not to be a forgery, and the claim was held to be valid, that was an end of the matter. Supposing the Court held that there a forgery, could what was done two yea s afterwards entitle the party put- ting forward a forged document to bare his claim allowed. He dil not wish to preclude any claims they might have upon the Government, but whatever happened in this case would not prevent them from taking action against the Government or anyone else they thought fit, and he declined at this stage to complicate the question they hal to try as to whether the decision of the Land Court was a proper decision, by admitting the applicants as respondents.
the
men
inatter
Was
a year or
The Paisue Judge thought the application ought to be refused. It appeared to him that to admit these applicants as respondents would amplify the difficulty of coming to a decision on the question as to whether the Land Court was right or wrong when they allowed this claim. At the time the Land Court gave their decision these applicants so far as this case was con. cerned were non-existent. opinion that the application was made really to try to get a title out of that Conri. which he was not inclined to do.
He was of the
The application was dismissed with costs. Mr. Slade afterwards applied for an adjouru- ment of the case of Ho Lap Hun so that he might get the alleged forged title of the land in question examined by experts.
Their Lordships granted an adjournment for six weeks and ordered that the document when it left the Court should be kept in charge of an officer of the Court,
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 25th November.
IN SUMMARY Jurisdiction.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
CLAIM AGAINST THE OPIUM FARM¿18.
Lan Cheung sued the Chin Wa Hong Company and Ho Luk, excise officer No. 196, for $1,000
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
uctul bma
401
without
damages for malicious arrest, false imprison- dants
fide and ment, and malicious pro-ecution on the 29th and 30th September. Mr. M. W. Slate, ba rister-in pesferring and prosecuting the said charge. malice and with reasonable and probable cause at-law (instructed by Mr F. X. d'Almada e❘ (9) Sive in so far as this statement of defence Castro, solicitor), appeared for the plaintiff, and mains admissions of the allegations which are Mr. (instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker of Messrs. defondants deny the truth of each and every E. H. Sharp, K.C., barrister-at-law coutained in the statement of claim the
defendants. Deacon & Hastings, solicitors), was for the of such allegations.
as follow:-
The statement of claim was
this Colony.
(1) The plaintiff is a gentleman residing at 3. Wa Yin Fang, Victoria, in (2) The defendast Chin Wa Hong is the opium farmer an the defendant Ho Luk is an exoise officer in the employ of the said opium farmer. the defendant Ho Luk in the exercise of 3) On 29th Septem' er, 1903, his dut es as excise officer, together with other excise officers and an European police Wellington Street, in the occupation of ou• constable lawfully entered the premises, No. 26 Wong Kam Chee, for the purpose of searching for opium. (4) At the time the defardant Ho Lak so entered the premises, the plaintiff was Chee. (5) Certain opium not covered by va'id on the said premiser on a visit to Wong Kam certificates issued by the opium farmer was found on the premises in possession of Wong Kam Chee. (6) Notwithstanding that the opium was maliciously caused the plaintiff to by arrested not in the plaintiff's possession, the defendants
by the constabla ои being in possession of the opium. (7) Plaintiff false charge of
by being given into custody of the constable on was wrongfully imprisoned by the defend-uts
this false charge for 14 hours until plaintiff pro- cared bail. (8) Defendants maliciously, and with out reasonable and probable cause, on the 29th in possession of opium against the plaintiff, and September preferred a charge of being illeg ly
on the 30th September prosecuted the charge before the Magistrate in the Police Court, when plaintiff was acquitted. He claimed $1,000 damages.
kn w.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Slade iu opening the case said that the who appeared to have a taste for opinm not plaintiff was a young man of independent means
January of last year he was arrested in bis own mzuufactured by the opiam farmer. In
hous, hy nexeise officer and taken be ore the Magis rate who fine him $300 for being in possession of opium without a valid certificate fr. m the opium farmer. On the 22nd July last tao opium farmer caused a raid to be made on his premises and he was again found in illegal then he had given up smoking opium. possession of opium and was fined $750
Is Lordship - Does he not smoke now? Mr. Slade - I believe not. Mr. Looker-Perhaps (Laughter.)
Since
he takes pills.
was
Sep ́ember plaintiff went on a visit to his friend Mr. Slade, coutinuing, said that on the 29th
Wong Kau Chee, who manager of a paw.shop at 26, Wellington Streat. On the part was a sitting-room. Outside the room was first floor was a large cn' icle and the front
grating so that anyone on the first floor could a verandah. The floor was composed of iron
see what was going on below. On the day in question Lan Chen g went to the shop in the Afternoon and stayed for the evening meal. Several others were present and afterwards plaintiff fit drowsy aud lay down and slept. Abou 7 p.m. au ›xcise officer and a constablo eutered the premises under a warrant. room when the officers came up, the others Plaintiff was the only person in the
being on the verandah. The excise officer pre.cated those on the verandah from coming The statement of defence was as follows:- (1) The defendants have no knowledge as to
in and made a search for opium on the plain- tiff's person. Fubs quently Wong Kam Chee the statement of claim are true or not and they the excise officer into his cubicle and found whether the allegations contained in par. 1 of was called in and asked for his keys. He took therefore do not a Imit the truth of such allega cert in opium that was not covered by cer- tions. (2) The defendants admit the truth of tificate. There was in the house other opium the allegations which are contained in par. 2 covered by certificate. Wong Kam Ches was of the statement of claim. (3) The defendunts then asked to open some cupboards in the admit that on the 29th September, 1903, the sitting-room, upon which he said they were not defendant Ho Lak in the exercise of his duties his cupboards, but they belonged to the shop. as an exciss officer together with other excise Oue of the exois offers pointed out the officers and an European police constable law- plaintiff to the constable as owner of the shop Street for the purpose of searching for opium fully entered the premises No. 26, Wellington and the defendant Ho Luk told the constable to The defendants, however, do not admit that
arrest him. laintiff was thereupon arrested aud taken away. The win who pointed out of the said premises, as they have no one Wong Kam Chee was in occupation the plaintiff as being the master of the shop ledge whether he was
was one of the excise officers whọ had been con- so or not (4) The cerned in the arrest of the plaintiff in bis dwa defendants admit that at the time when the house on the Yuu Salyaul he cons queatly kaew defendant lio Luk 60 entered the said perfectly well who he was. Wong Kam Chee premises, the plaintiff was on the premises, was well known to the opium farmers; he was a ledge on the subject, that he was on the pre- but they do not admit, as they have no know personal friend of one of the managers and was frequently down there himself. Ho defendants admit that certain opinm not mises on a visit to Wong Kam Chee. (5) The | said ho k ew every excise officer by
covered by the opium farmer was found on the premises, but they deny that it was found in possession of Wong Kam bee. (6) In answer to par. 6 of the statement of claim the defendants say as follows:-The said opium and the said coustable arrested him under a was apparently in the plaintiff's possession
proper warrant which he held for the purpose. The defendants did not nor did any of them constable cause the plaintiff to be arrested by the said maliciously or otherwise or at all. (7) Tis any charge whatever oiller plaintiff was not imprisoned either wrongfully The defendants did not nor did any of the or at all by the defendants or any of thea. give the plaintiff into the custody of the said од BOY charge whatever. The plaintiff was detained by virtue of the said warrant by the police at the charge-room for 30 minutes only and not for 1 hours whilst bail was being procured. Such detainer was not wrongful and did not amount to imprisonment. (8) On the 29th September the defendent Ho Lak preferred a charge of being illegally in possession of opium against the plaintiff and on the 30th September, 1903, he prosecuted the said charge before a Magis. trate in the Central Police Court when the plaintiff was discharged. The defen-
constable
Од
|
|
sight and presumably they knew him. As soon as plaintiff was arrested, in spite of a protest by the manager of the shop, he was tak-n off to the polisi station Woog Kam Chee promptly followed him and said to the inspector in charge or to the interpreter in the hearing of the excise officer who had preferred the charge against the onstable that the de- fendant was not the man at all and that he The himself was the owner of the opium. interpreter told him to come back next day and plaintiff was dischar red, tell the Magistrate that. He did so sad the
of the case.
These were the facts He thought he would be able to show a want of reasonable and probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff.
Evidence was then led for the plaintiff, Mr. Sharp in opeuing the case for the de- fene said the search was a lawful one, as van admitted by the plain iff, and contraband opium was found on the premises. Plaintiff was present and apparently had been or Was preparing to smoke opíam. The opinma-lamp was alight and opium was on the tiny. Bo submitted that from the evidence he would bring his Lordship would see that there was reasonable and probable cause for suppo ing that the opium was the plaintiff's. The plaintiff had visited this house on the two con- secutive days prior to his arrest and it seemed
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.