246-
repeatedly seen workmen engaged on Sundays on Church buildings in Hongkong.
BANYAN.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 10th April.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR H, S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
APPEAL AGAINST A MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.
An appeal against a decision of Mr. F. A. Hazeland (First Police Magistrate) in the case of Li Kok, Chung Un Ho, Li Wu, Leung Luk, Li Yik and Li Hon (Appellants) and Mok Shui (Respondent), a common assault case, came before the Full Court.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K C., instructed by Mr. G.K.H. Brutton, appeared for the appellants, and the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. E. H. G. E. Sharp, K.C.) instructed by Mr.
Solicitor's office). Morrell (of the Crown opposed the appeal on behalf of Crown.
Mr. Pollock-This motion made by the appellants, six in number, is for a re-hearing before the Full Court of a charge of common assault which was heard and determined by the Police Magistrate on the 22nd February. In the first place we are asking for a re-hearing on the facts of the case, and secondly, I submit to the Court that there ought to be a re-hearing on the ground that the sentence passed on the defendants was excessive. With regard to the general question of the sentence being excessive,
think the evidence given before the Police Magistrate scarcely weighs evenly upon the defendants one to the other, and I submit the general principle, like in the case when six men set out armed to commit a robbery each of the six being responsible for the acts of the others, does not apply. This is the case of someone appearing in the presence of these see the different people, and the Court can amount of blame to each, and sentence them accordingly, and not have them all lumped together for six hours in the stocks and six months' hard labour.
Counsel went on to say that the evidence of Mok Shui being tied up head downwards con- sisted only of the boy's evidence himself.
It was pointed out by His Lordship (the Chief Justice) that another witness who saw the boy tied up might very well have explained to the Court with gesticulations, in what manner the boy was tied up, and the evidence of a policeman went to show that the boy's neck
was afterwards found to be swollen, which might have very well been caused by blood rushing to his head.
His Lordship-I think it dangerous to permit further evidence, evidence brought with a definite object. It is easy to manufacture evidence. You should have asked the Magistrate
for an adjournment.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND Mr. Pollock finally submitted that, as regards the fifth defendant, who was only a very young man, a student on a visit to Hongkong, the evidence did not justify a conviction. Whereas specific statements had been made with regard to the other five, this man was only spoken of in a general way.
His Honour (the Puisne Judge)—You ex- cuse him thus:--He was there not doing any thing to prevent the assault, but was not aiding and abetting.
Mr Pollock-Because he had not the moral courage to do anything to prevent it, that does not
say
he was aiding and abetting. His Lordship-I do not doubt the evidence against him is smaller than that against the others, but I am impressed with the probability that most likely this young scholar Li took part in giving punishment to a man who brought trouble to his friend, perhaps clansman. He was just about the age to take part (Laughter). I do not think we can npset the Magistrale's decision. The appeal must be dismissed with costst
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
Hon. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.(., appeared on behalf of Lo Tui Chan (formerly compradore to Messrs. Lemaire and Company) who claim- ed $19,6 plus interest from Tsoi Chung Lee (of 16, Wyndham Street), money due on two promissory notes.
The defendant was absent Judgment was given against him for 319,600 and interest at the rate agreed upon (1 per cent per month) up to that day, and from then onward at the Court rate.
Tuesday, 11th April.
}
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH
(PUISNE JUDGE),
R. FREIWALD VOLJACEK AND E. PILLIS V. WILLY YON UFFEL.
The bearing of these claims for $400 and $250 Mr. H. W. Looker, respectively was continued. (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) ap. peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) for the defendant
Evidence for the plaintiffs having been con- gluded, Mr. Pollock, before calling witnesses for the defence, s:id that the $100 drawn by Mr. Voljacek was not part payment for over time money, but money which really should have been handed to the other plaintiff, Mr. Pillis, for work he had done. As Mr. Voljacek was to have got two months' salary from the defen- dant's partners in Europe it might readily be taken that he bad been doing overtime work
for these European partners. Mr. Voljacek hal got the defendant to put certain books helonging to the firm in a safe of which he (Mr. Voljacek) kept the key, and he might
have made good use of these in the even. Mr. Pollock-The defendant had no legal assistance before the Magistrate, and Mr. Lookerings. Mr. Voljacek had communicated with was afterwards refused a re-hearing.
His Lordship-It is quite clear you cannot call any effective witnesses, because no one was present except themselves.
Mr. Pollock-It appears from the evidence; that there were ten men present. I propose to
call one of them.
His Lordship-It is too late. He knows what he has got to say, and will say it He should have been called at the time before the Magistrate. These men are of the superior class, not common people, and must have known that they had a right to call witnesses,
Mr. Pollock said that Section 104 to 106 of the Magistrate's Ordinance was really intended to give a wider view than His Lordship was prepared to take, particularly in the case of Chinese.
With reference to the sixth defendant (& man previously punished for possession of illicit opium, on, supposedly, the boy's information), His Lordship, in reply to Mr. Pollock, said that this man had disdainfully declared that he had not soiled his hands on the boy, but his five fokis had.
the defendant's partners, who were making things generally unworkable for Mr. Von Uffel. The private code being prepared was for new agents, for Mr. Von Uffel considered new agents necessary
for the successful carrying on of the firm of Shewer, Uffel & Co. Mr. Von Uffel had won his lawsuit in Hamburg against his The
partners.
Evidence was called for the defence. case was further adjourned.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
Wednesday, 12th April.
BEFORE SIE H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
BE THE WEI YUEN CO. EXPARTE THE DEBTOR. Mr. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office,) said that at a meeting of creditors it was re- solved that the firm be made bankrupt. He petitioned for this on behalf of the debtors.
Kwok Kwai Pok, was then examined by the Official Receiver (Mr. Wakeman)-I carry
(April 17, 1905.
I am the
on business at No. 114, Des Voeux Road, unders | the style of the Wei Yuen My pa-tuer is So Wai Chiu. The business is coal and ship- chandlery. We commenced in July or August- 1903 with a capital of $15.000. Í subscribed $1,001 and So Wai Chin $14,000. managing partner. Our dealings were chiefly with the office of reorganization at Canton and with the railway. We dealt largely in coal. We also bought a business called the Cheap Jack, on the 6th January 1905. I bought it from Leung Ho Tin for $16,000. It is ran in connection with the Wei Yuen. I have not paid the $16,0 0, but $9,750. Since the beginning of January, 1905, we have bought great quantities of coal in connection with the Wei Yuen, and 300 tons for the Cheap Jack business. The Cheap Jack has separate books.
At Canton, So Wai Chiu collected: $60,000 mentioned in my affidavit. The money was handed to him at the office of the reorgani- sation. It has never been brought down from: Canton. The Wei Yuen have an office at Can, ton, in which I am a partner. The $60,000 has bren used in Canton to pay accounts. Lo Sam; 1⁄2 Chuen managed the Canton business, which now belongs to the creditors. I have a steam launch called the Competitor. I bought it in. Hongkong about July to October 1904 for $8,800. It is used for going off to vessels. · to get business. I have never sold the launch. I signed a paper stating that I had sold the launch to Mr. E. H. Murray for 85,000. I signed it because he said someone. wanted to seize the launch and he would protect me. It was not done with a view t defraud my creditors. I signed it on the 27th January 1905. Mr. Murray said "Hand the launch over I have had I can preserve it.' business with Mr. Murray. He knew I was in to me. difficulties. What be did was to help me with this launch in case it would be seized. Mr. Murray read the document to me. It states- that I have received $5,000 for the launch, This is not true.
By the Court-Mr. Murray paid no money or other consideration. The transaction was a bogus one.
So Wei Chui was examined. He said he had not taken an active part in the business. He never collected He had no property. $60,000 at Canton. He did not know whether. the accountant collected it. The $60,000 ran
over the whole year. He had no property in Can- ton, but had a house in the country worth $300. This had been attached by Messrs. Melchers and Company. He was security, they seized the house. In his statement of aff+irs he
was security for $10,000. The E. Shum firm, dealing with Bombay, where he was employed required this security. He was assistant manager there. If he was called upon to pay $100,000 he could not pay it.
His Lordship-Who is Wr. Murray. Mr. P. W. Goldring-I appear for him. Ho is an American doing business here.
His Lordship-He will have to take pro- ceedings against the Official Receiver for the launch or it will be sold.
Mr. Goldring-I shall see to that, My Lord. His Lordship-Both of these men's certi- ficates should be suspended for at least two years.
To the partners-Be careful and try and recollect what you have done with the $60,000, in because
matter we might put the the hands of the police, and you would be dealt criminally with.
Both men had better be put in custody till the further examination, three weeks hence. It
is a debtors petition. The Official Receiver had bitter pay the costs, and we will rescind the whole proceedings, and let the creditors take action.
Again addressing the debtors-I think there are grounds for believing you are concealing the $60,000, so I am going to direct that you be kept in custody until the further order of the Court.
Mr. Dixon -I am here to apply for the dis- charge of the first partner who has been in oustody in consequence of proceedings against
His Lordship-There is this mysterious disappearance of $60,000. You can make an application to me in chambers, but must give satisfactory information of the $60,000!
His Lordship further impressed upon the debtors that bankruptcy proceedings were fo-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.