5
March 21, 1904.j
IN SUMMARy JurisdictTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
THE ELVINS LIBEL CASE.
His Lordship gave judgment in the case in which T. Elvins, late head watchman in the Kowloon Docks, sued fifteen Indian watchman for $500 damages for libel alleged to have been contained in a letter dated 25th November last, in which defendants, writing to Mr. W. Wilson, the manager of the Docks, accused plaintiff of extorting “ squeezes," etc., from them. Hoa. H. E. Pollock, K.C., barrister-at- law (instructed by Mr. E. J. Grist, of Messr.. Wilkinson and Grist), was the counsel for p'aiu- tiff, and Mr. M. W. Slade, barristec-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings, solicitor), re- presented the defendants,
In delivering judgment his Lordship remarked that in the matter of law this was a case of qualified privilege, in his opinion. Plaintiff had failed to prove that the writing of the letter was an act of malice. He found that defendants had shown reasonable grounds for making some allegatious, and with regard to other allegations they had shown reasonable grounds for believing them. His Lordship accordingly gave judgment for defendants and costs.
Wednesday, 16th March.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISS
(PUISNE JUDGE).
SEQUEL TO THE RACES.
one
Mr. J. E. Sinclair, of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., sued Mr. D. Macdonald (Messrs. Butterfield & Swire) for $100 dam ages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff's bicycle by defendant's pony It appeared that Mr. Sinclair was riding on his bicycle on the Happy Valley early morning before the Races. Mr. Macdonald's pony was being brought back from training on the Racecourse by a mifoo. It was alleged to have shied at plaintiffs machine and to have kicked out, hitting the saddle of the bicycle with its hind hoofs, throwing Mr. Sinclair off and breaking the machine in two. Mr. H. W. Looker, of Messrs. Deacon, Looker, & Deacon, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. John Hays, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, & Master, solicitors, represented the defendant.
After hearing evidence,
His Lordship held that it had not been prov- ed to his satisfaction that the pony that kicked the bicycle was the property of the defendant, and he accordingly gave judgment for the defendant with costs.
Thursday, 17th March.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
i
Broв HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAṀ M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
A GINGER FIRM BANKRUPT,
Mr. John lastings, solicitor, appeared in support of a petition by Joo Tak Seng for a receiving order on the Chi Loong ginger firm, He stated that the firm's act of bankruptcy was that the partners had left the Colony shortly before the China New Year, leaving the busi- ness entirely unprotected. The assets amount. ed to about $5,000.
His Lordship asked if this was the well-known
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
including outstanding debts, and the liabilities to, roughly, $80,000.
In evidence the petitioning creditors stated that they would be able to collect possibly about $13,000 of the assets.
His Lordship granted a receiving order, Mr. Bruce Shepherd to be Receiver.
MORE ABSCONDING CREDITORS.
The Joo Tak Seng firm and two other firms applied for a receiving order on the estate of the Ching Hang firm, merchants.
Mr. John Hastings, solicitor. who appeared for the petitioning creditors, stated that the partners of the firm had left the Colony shortly before the China New Year, leaving in charge of the business a manager who had also since departed. Assets were estimated at about $2,000.
His Lordship made a receiving order and appointed Mr. Bruce Shepherd to act Recaiver.
Friday, 18th March.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (Chief JusTICE),
CHARGE OF ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE.
88
Chan Hing and Ng Ting Cheung were charged with having on 18th February assaulted Yi Yan between Yaumati a woman named and Loluagham and robbed her of her purse containing about $39.
|
229
His Lordship in sentencing Wong Chan to three months' imprisonment with hard labour said he did not believe the police had prompted him, for the 'reason that they would not have prompted him to say one thing and his brother another; his Lordship believed that the fact of the matter was that these two witnesses, who admitted that they were friends of the prisoners, had been got at and influenced to deny their previous story in an attempt to get the prisoners off.
ARMED ROBBERY,
Cheung Chiu Kwong was charged with hav. ing been concerned in an armed raid on a farmer' house near Shataukok, in the New Territory, on 11th March.
He pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled :-Messrs. E. Sullivan (foreman) J. L. Stuart, W. A. Stopani, A. Rymond, C. Klinck. B. E. Hast- ings, and J. C. Ritchie.
The Attorney-General in opening the case said that prisoner was charged with being con- cerned in this armed robbery. The case for the
that prosecution was
on the day in ques- tion. a out 6 p.m., a gang of eight or nine armed men, of whom prisoner was one, entered the house of the complainant, a farm named Chu Tim, near Shataukok. They set upon the farmer, his two sons and his wives overawed them, and stole a quantity of money and clothes. They drove the farmer out of the house and one of the robbers struck him on the head, grazing his scalp.
Then the gang decamped. The prisoner, who was masked, had a struggle with the youngest son, and his mask
Ho torn from his face.
was then recognised by the people in the house, He managed to get away, bnt one of the sons followed the retreating gaug and saw the prisoner going into his house. They The Hon. Attorney-General Sir. Henry S.
charged him with having taken part in the Berkeley, who conducted the prosecution (in-robbery. Prisoner denied the charge. On structed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown reporting the matter to the police, Sergeant Solicitor), stated that about 7 o'clock in the
Lamont and a constable set out for the village evening in question the complainant, an elderly where the affair had taken place. On the road woman, was returning from her son's house at they met prisoner, who told them that he was Yaumati to her own house at Lolnngham when
on bis way to the police station to report the she was set upon by two men, assaulted and robbery. After making enquiries, Sergeant robbed. The robbers decamped, but were after-
Lamont took the prisoner inte custody. wards arrested on information received.
Eridence was given.
They pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled:-Messrs. E. H. Summers (foreman), A. Stucken, A. Abraham, F. MacRabie, T. Skinner, H. O. Siebler, and J. Landolt.
After hearing evidence the jury found the charges not proven. The accused were dis- charged
"NOTORIOUS LYING,"
In the foregoing case one of the witnesses by name Wong Sam, a bean-curd dealer in Yaumati, stated in evidence that the two accused came to his shop about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the day on which the robbery occurred and stayed there all night. At the Magistracy when examined he had stated that the two prisoners came to his place about a quarter past 5 o'clock, stayed for about a quarter of an hour and returned about 8 o'clock. When askel by the Attorney-General to explain the discrepancy in his two statements witness said that Chinese police constable 164 told him to make the statement which he made at the Magistracy.
Chinese P.C. 164, sworn, deposed that he did not tell Wong Sam what to say. The evidence he gave at Yaumati was given in presence of Inspector Macdonald.
Inspector Macdonald was also called. He stated that Wong Sam
gave his evidence without making any complaint that he had been prompted what to say..
His Lordship said he must commit Wong Sam
stated that for perjury. He
he the Magi- had committed perjury before strate (Mr. Gompertz) because he had been asked to do so by a policeman.
He must
|
Was
The jury found the prisoner guilty and he was sentenced to 3 years' hard labour and to receive 20 strokes of the birch.
The Court rose.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDES),
TROUBLE WITH HOUSE ShevaNTS.
Mr. A. H. Ough, architect, was sued by Li Wong, his late cook, for $9 in respect of balance of wages alleged to be due for February.
The plaintiff stated that his wages were $18 A month. He had received $9 and now claimed the balance. He left the defendant's service on 29th February. He gave notice verbally that he wished to leave and afterwards wrote a register- ed letter to defendan: giving formal notice.
His Lordship-What did you want to leave for ?
Plaintiff Because the master was always rowing" me.
His Lordship-Well, I have to talk to my servants pretty frely sometimes,
Plaintiff-Yes; but there should be a princi- ple about the " rowing."
His Lordship-Yes, of course. But if you are wrong you must expect to be talked to.
For the plai tiff there also gave evidence Mr.
firm of Chai Loong or Chy Loong, ginge understand that, whether he was instigated or Ough's late butler, who had to do with the
9
merchants ?
Mr Hastings said it was not. His Lordship remarked that he supposed this was a case where a firm was using a name as nearly as possible alike to that of the Chai Loong nd trading upon the latter's business.
A BIG DA FICIT.
vants.
not, he could not commit perjury with impunity.engagement and payment of all the house ser- If he was prompted to do so he should have told the Magistrate about it and he would have beeu protected. As it was he would go to pris n for three months with hard labour for contempt of Court by most notorious lying, on his own confession.
was Wong
Mr. Hastings-I believe that is so, my Lord His Lordship made a receiving order, and appointed Mr. Bruce Shepherd as Receiver.
The next witness in the case Chau, a brother of Wong Sam. He also gave In re Lan Yak Lam, ex parte Chung Iu evidence directly coutrary to that which he Kwong, Mr. John Hays, of Messrs. Johuson,. gave at the Magistracy, making the plea that Stokes, and Master, solicitors, appeared in the police had prompted him. His revised ver- support of an application for a receiving order,sion, however, differed considerably from his He stated that the assets amounted to $53,000, 'brother's.
Mr. Ongh in examination deposed that the $18-he paid through the butler every month to the cook included the wages of the market-coolie. The butler wanted to give notice in the middle of January that he wished to leave at the end of that month. He did not accept that notice. Then the butler wrote saying he wanted to leave at the end of February; defendant accepted that notice. Two or three days before the end of the mont. the butler asked him if he wanted the other serviuts to stay. Defendant replied that as they were the butler's servants
1.5**
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.