150
You have been wandering away from Tennessee to South Africa and Hongkong, and "a rolling stone," you know. You, too, Burke, tell us you have been in charge of liners. It is your own fault that you got down to where you are too fond of the bottle? If you were any good we would not find yon loafing about in opiam dens. That is not the place for men down on their luck to be. There is no more serious offence both in this country and your own country than robbery with violence. Had you done this I should have sentenced you to be flogged, but I do not think that. I am going to give you a long term of imprisonment so that you will have time to consider what you have done. Hard labour for three years. You might have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and might have got flogged, but I am not going to do that. A medical man will see to you Dalton; you will have what your physical condition wants.
The Court adjourned sine die.
Tuesday, 28th February.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
A. RITCHIE v. A, SCHROEDER.
This was a claim for $65.75 for articles of furniture destroyed or lost at Holyrood, Des Voeux Road, Kowloon. A. Schroeder counter- claimed for $75, damages for breach of agreement.
The defendant in the original action paid into, Court $48.75.
Mr. M. J. D. St-phens appeared for A. Ritchie, and Mr. E. J. Grist for A. Shroeder.
The plaintiff, sworn, stated that he let the premises to the defendant from the Is April. 1904 to the end of the year, as he, the plaintiff, was temporarily leaving the Colony. The house
furnished, and the defendaut
went
Was
:
through an inventory with him. A table- cloth which he had had for two or three years but had not a hole in it, was now torn to strips. Three Japanese flower-pots were in the house when defendant took it over, but two of these were now missing. One chair seat would have to be renewed; the chair had been in use for one year when he let the house. A looking-glass in the bath room had been broken. A zinc bailer in the bath room had its handle broken off; and two feather pi lows were missing. A long lounge chair was Broken; he understood that it had been flung over the verandah at burglars.
Cross-examined, witness thought a table-cloth should last 20 years. Mr. Grist-You person!
are a somewhat expectan
The defendant submitted that there was a clause in the lease relating to ordinary wear and tear, and that the dainage referred to came under this heading. A flower pot and the chair had been broken during a typhoon.
His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.⠀
The cross-action was a claim for damages on account of breach of agreement. inasmuch as the lease provided for a tennis court, and this was not ready till October instead of by July The tenant claimed $25 per month for the three months, $75 in all.
His Honour, after hearing the evidence, said that when the plaintiff took over the house he knew that the court had not been turfed, and knew that it was to be a grass court. The court could not possibly he ready by the 1st July for a person critical about the ground, and if this was expected then the plaintiff and defendant agreed on a thing utterly impossible. From the evidence he had come to the conclusion that the court could have been used. He thought the plaintiff was quite in error, and even suppos- ing that he had not come to that conclusion he would have given merely nominal damages and thus deprived the plaintiff of his costs. "Judg. ment for the defendant with costs.
In view of the " gone to the dogs" reports of Mr. Chamberlain and friends,, it is a little amusing to find th. t a German trade-journalist has been lecturing his countrymen on their c.mmercial slowness as compared with their English competitors.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Wednesday, 1st March.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
ELLIE COUTTS v. EDITH DREW.
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover $200, being rent said to be owing by the defend- ant in respect of No. 52, Hollywood Road for the month of January in this year.
Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens and Harston) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Mr. G. R. Hall-Brutton's office) for the d-fendant.
Mr. Harding I submit that the special defence set up should not be allowed; as full notice was not given.
Mr. Goldring-Twenty-three hours' notice instead of twenty-four hours' notice was given, and I told my friend on Saturday morning that I was going to plead this.
The special defence was allowed. The property in question belongs to Ellie Coutts, who had given power of attorney to an agent, who had let the house to Miss Drew. On the 1st December, instead of 30th November, he gave Miss Drew notice to quit. On the 16th, Miss Drew's solicitor wrote that the notice was bad. Fresh notice was given on 31st December, and the tenant left before the end of January, paying the taxes, but not the rent now claimed.
The present tenant was namel Cora Richards. It was admitted in cross examination that plaintiff was a prostitute and that the house had been used as a brothel for a number of years.
Mr. Harding submitted that by protesting the notie on the 16th. and refusing to quit, the defendant had asserted a legal right to remain, and cou'd not now set up the defence that the claim being in respect of a brothel could not be recovered.
Mr. Goldring submitted that the landlord had permitted the house to be so used, and that the Court could not therefore assist him to recover rent for it.
His Houour-In this action, the plaintiff, Ellie Coutts, seeks to recover from Edith Drew the sum of $200 on account of No. 52, Hollywood Road, being rent for one month from the lat January, 1905. Notice to quit was given on the 1st December, but that notice was palpably invalid. On the 31st Dec-mber valid notice was given. Acting on that notice the defendant left the premises. She paid taxes for the month but refused to pay the rent; and one of the grounds for the defence is that the premises were det, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, to be used for immoral purposes. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance the defendant's solicitor ought to have given 24 hours' notice of the objection. He has not given full notice, but the solicitor Was informed orally of this defence as far back as last Saturday; and I shall use my power to allow this defence to be set up. The plaintiff's agent said that he kuew that these premises were being used for immoral purposes. There- fore, one point necessary for the defence has been established. The question arises whether as a fact these premises were used by the defendant for immoral purposes, and I have no doubt they were. Mr. Harding sets up on behalf of the plaintiff as op which I cannot understand. The law is very clearly laid down:-" An action is not maintainable to recover the rent of lodgings knowingly let for the purpose of prostitution (Smith v. White). And where the landlord at the time of the letting was not aware of the tenant's mede of life and her
object in taking the lodgings, but allowed her to remain in them after he had become acquainted with her character, and the use to which her apartments were put, it was held that he could not recover from her the rent which accrued fter this came to his knowledge (Jenn- So where in an action ings v. Throgmorton). against a woman of the town for board and. lodging it appeared that the plaintiff, the keeper of a house of ill fame, received a portion of the gains of the women in her house, as well as payment for their board and lodging, Lord Kenyon refused to sanction such a demand (Howard v. Hodges). And where the defendant, a prostitute, was sued by the plaintiffs for the hire of a brougham, and the jury found that the
|
[Match 6 1905 plaintiffs knew her to be a prostitute, and had lent the brougham with a knowledge that it would be, as in fact it was, used by her as a part of her display to attract men, it was held that they could not recover (Pearce v Brooks). But although the tenant of apartments be anl immodest woman, and the landlord be aware of her character, he may recover his rent if she receives her visitors elsewhere, and does not use his premises for immoral purpo es (Appleton 7. Campbell); and a contract to sell clothes to a prostitute (Bowley v. Bennett), or to wash for her (Lloyd v. Johnson) is of course good." Miss Drew has proved that she used the pre- mises for immoral purposes. It seems to me quite clear that this defence prevails, though I must stigmatize it as very shabby.
Mr. Harding-I would ask that costs be disallowed.
His Honour-Justice Ridley disallowed costs in the case of Granville and Company . Firth in which a shabby defence succeeded; and when that decision was appealed against, it was held that no matter how shabby the defence, if lawful, a person must get his costs. Otherwise I should be inclined to accede to your request. Judgment for the defendant with costs.
Thursday, 2nd March.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR H. 8. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
In the case of the Hang Seng Cheong firm exparte the Hamburg Amerika Linie, Mr. John Hastings appeared for the creditor. It was an adjourned application for adjudication. This was granted, Mr. G. H. Wakeman, the Official Receiver, being appointed trustee.
In the case of the Wing Chan Yang Kee firm exparte Leung Tseung, an adjourned Castro public examination, Mr. Almada e appeared for the petitioning creditor, and Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Mr. G. K. Hall Bratton's office) for the debtor.
The managing partner of the insolvent He stated that the firm was examined. insolvent firm had carried on a compradore's business at No. 10, Pottinger Street. The present partners, all of whom had left Hong- kong excepting himself, took over the business three or four year ago, paying $4.000 for same. Witness was the largest shareholder, having three shares representing $1,200. The partners were all out of work and had no money; while the firm's debts amounted to $19,237. One of the firm's debtors owed them over $11,000 which they
were unable to recover.
The
firm gave credit to this person, who supplied provisions to men-o'-war, but Indians now kept grocery-shops on board the ships and this took away all the business; and a younger brother of this debtor had absconded to Shanghai with three or four thousand dollars of his brother's money. Witness thought that three or four thousand dollars owing to the insolvent firm could be realized.
The firm owed the Wing Chen $1,000 and the Wing Chiu $2,400. These firms had nothing to do with the Wing Chan Yang Kee.
Mr. Almada e Castro rose to cross-examine the witness.
His Lordship-You have no right to cross- examine; this is an examination by the Official Receiver.
Mr. Almada e Castro quoted section 17 sub- section 2 of the local Bankruptcy Ordinance,
His Lordship Wel', go on. Cross-examined, witness stated that Li Nam Chun was not his brother but a olansman. This man, who was a partner in the insolvent firm, some years ago owned steam launches and other property, but he had lost everything in business. The insolvent firm had had with Messrs. W. G. frequent dealings Humphreys and Company, and had been sued by them. To meet this claim they had transferred a debt owing to them by Messrs. Douglas and Company. That debt was not settled by Li Nam Chun.
His Lordship said that Mr. Almada e Castro had no right to oross examine, though in- England a solicitor authorised by a creditor could do so. Under the Hongkong Ordinance
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.