July 1, 1905.]
ANITARY DEPARTMENT. Financial Minute-No. 19. The Governor recommanded the Council to vote a sum of $19,363 in aid of the vote, sanitary department, other charges, for scavenging city, villages and hill district.
Hon. COLONIAL SECRETARY-The vote for this year is not sufficient owing to new and extended contracts, which were dearer than last year. They were considered necessary in order to cope with the proper extermination of vermin. Hon Mr. GERSHOM STEWART-The guar- antee was $87,000, was it not?
HOD. COLONIAL Secretary-I do not re- member the exact figuros. It was somewhere about that.
Hon. Mr. GERSHOM STEWART-Pretty high. The COLONEL SECRETARY — More stringent contracts have been sutered into, and we have more control over the contractor.
The recommendation was agreed to.
HONGKONG SANITARY
BOARD.
A meeting of the Sanitary Board was held yesterday afternoon in the Board Room. Dr. F. Clark (President) presided, and there were also present Ho Mr. W. Chatham (Vice President), Major Josling, Dr. Pearse, Hon. Mr. A. W. Brewin, Mr. F. J. Badeley, Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C.. Mr. Fung Wa Chun, Mr. Lan Chu Pak, Mr H. W. Slade, Mr. A. Rum jahn, and Mr. W. Bowen-Rowlands (Secretary).
A TAINTED WELL.
Mr. Frank Browns, the Government Analyst, reported on a sample of water taken from a well situated at 6a, Queen's Rad Central. He found the water so tainted with impurities as to be unfit for potable purposes and likely to prove injurious to health. The well was ordered to be filled in by the owner.
MORTALITY STATISTICS.
The mortality statistics for the week ended 3rd inst. death rate per thousand per annum, showed the following figures:-British and foreign civil population, 9.9; previous week, 24.9; corresponding week last year, 5.1. Chin- nese population, 213; previous week, 23.6 cor- responding week last year, 18.5.
LIMEWASHING RETURN.
During the fortnight ended 20th July 3,534 houses were limewashed in the Central District, and 3,772 in the Western District.
RAT RETURN.
During the week ended 24th instant 411 rats including 35 infected were caught in the City of Victoria, and 218 including 17 infected in
Kowloon.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 26th June.
IN PROBATE JURISDICTION.
A DISPUTED WILL.
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
ters. The deceased was a man of great wealth. as his estate in the Colony was estimated by the sworn affidavit at about 81,000,0 10, on application for probate.
5
-Judgment was given for the defendants, respectively, with costs.
From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff made a measurement which the second defendant would not, ågros to, and a French surveyor was called upon This man's Mr. F. B. Deacon, the solicitor for the plain-measurement was not satisfactory to the plain- tiffs, gave evidence that Messrs. Deacon, Looker tiff, who made a third measurement as he alleged and Deacon were the solicitors for the plaintiffs with the Mandarin. and had conducted the matter. Due notice of trial had been sent to Messrs. Ewens, Harston and Harding, who appeared on record as the defendant's solicitors. Witness knew the deceased for about ten years before his death, and attended to nearly all his business matters which their firm did for the deceased. Witness was a witness to both will and codicil, nd con. sidered deceased at the time they were executed to be of sound mind.
After further evidence His Lordship decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered that the defendant should pay the costs of the action.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
THE TAI WING V. CHEUNG TAU PO,
'The plaintiff claim d from the defendant $329 20 for coal supplied. Mr. R. Harding appeared for the plaintiff aal Mr. Master for the defendant.
The defence was that whereas the plaintiffs were suing the defendant for the balance of coal delivered to several steam launches. The money paid by the defendant on various dates was paid through him, as the real contractor had left Hongkong to go to the country on account of illness. This man came to the defendant and asked him while he was away, if he would kindly receive certain sums of money. The defendant had nothing to do with the steam launches. and Leung Kin-shan, the real charterer, had died.
After hearing the case His Honour gave judgment for the defendant with costs.
Wednesday, 28th June.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
NGAI SAM P. LI WAI TONG AND ANOTHER.
This was a claim for $841.38, balance due for work done by a sub-contractor working on the Yunnan Railway Mr. P. W. Goldring appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. G. Hastings, for the defendant.
The plaintiff's case was that a certain Polish gentleman came to the Colony and entered into a contract that the two defendants should This construct certain seotions of the line. contract was signed at the office of Messrs. Palmer & Turner and at that of Messrs. Leigh & Orange Next, the two defendants entered BEFORE MR. F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE). into a sub-contract with the plaintiff, that time being at the end of October or the beginning of November last year. The plaintiff employed 50 men and went to Yunnan to carry out this contract. The rates were originally verbal, and then set out in a little book. The men left by steamer on the 7th November, and arrived at Yunnan and commenced work on the 27th November. The work went on till the 24th February, a considerable amount being executed Two sums of money were paid to the plaintiff, $1,000 on the 2nd February, and $800 on the 3rd February. There was a balance due, however, and it was for this that the plaintiff was suing.. The second defendant was applied to, but refused to pay any more. A petition
Probate action No. 2 of 1904 came up for decision. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. F. B. Deacon, appeared for the plaintiffs and the defendant did not appear. In this action Choy Ho-shi, Choy Kan-shi and Choy Shing were plaintiffs, and Choy Chong defendant. It was an action brought by the plaintiffs who claimed to be the exatresses and executor of the last will and codicil, made respectively on the 16th September, 1902, and the 25th July, 1903, of Choy Chan, deceased, who died on the 10th March, 1904; and to establish such will and codicil in solemn form. The plaintiffs were two of the wires and one of the sons of the deceased. The defendant, who was another of the sons of the deceased, opposed the grant of probate of the will and codicil on two grounds-First because the deceased was of unsound mind when he executed the codicil, and secondly that the execution thereof was obtained by the exercise of undue influence by the plaintiff Choy Ho-shi and one Tong Lai Chnen, who, the defendant alleged, frequently represented to the deceased that he, the defen- dant, and his two brothers, Choy Yan and Choy Yoo, who were all disinherited by the codicil, were spendthrifts, and worthless charac-
was made to the Mandarin down there, and he had the work measured. An account payable by the first defendant at Hongkong, in the name of the second defendant, in favour of the plaintiff was then made out. On arriving at Hongkong the plaintiff failed to obtain the money, and legal proceedings were commenced. Mr. Pollock's "defence was that the first defendant had nothing to do with the matter, except that he stood guarantee to the Polish gentleman for the second defendant and another in the sum of $50,000. He, furthermore, put forward that the second defendant had paid the plaintiff more than was due to him.
|
Thursday, 29th June.
IN ORIGINAL Jurisdiction.
BEFORE MR. F. T. PIGGOTT (Chief JUSTICE) AND MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGB).
AN EXTRADITION CASE.
The Full Court sat yesterday morning to hear further argument respecting the case of Wong Ka Cheung, whose extradition is applied for by the Chinese Government. The Attorney General (Hon. Sir H. S. Berkeley, K.C.) and Mr.-H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. F. B. L. Bowley), repre- sented the Crown, and Mr. H. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, appeared on behalf of the prisoner.
The Attorney General stated that he appeared in support of a motion which the Crown was making for the discharge of a rule absolute for the writ of habeas corpus. At the last hearing the Chief Justice reserved three points. Mr. Ferrers had put forward that the requisition for the prisoner's surrender, though nominally for an extradition crima, was in fact made with a view to punish him for an offence which was not an extradition crime. This was a bare assertion. The prisoner had given no evidence to show that the extradition was applied for in order to punish him for a non-extradition crime. The next point reserved was that the prisoner had not been proved guilty as required by Article 21 of the Treaty of Tientsin. It raised a very serious question with respect to the validity, if not of the whole of the Extradition Ordinance, at all events, of certain sections of it, and that question must be settled by the Court. That question was the ultra vires of the legislature. What the words "on proof of their guilt meant was no more and no less than on produc- tion of evidence of guilt. The expression used in the Treaty was not on conclusive proof, but on proof of guilt; that is to say, on evidence of guilt, sufficient to justify a committal for trial, that is to say on prima facie evidence of guilt.
"
the
Proof meant judicial proof, which was defined as evidence (which word includes prima facie as well as other evidence) conveyed in a judicial manner by judicial methods, e.g., by the testimony of a witness. The answer to the second subsidiary question: supposing the Magistrate to find the prisoner guilty is he entitled to his discharge because the Magistrate would have acted with- out authority from Legislature and therefore beyond his jurisdiction," mustalo be answered in the negative, because the Legislature plainly authorises the Magistrate to commit on prima facie proof and there must have been prima facie proof if there was proof to find the prisoner guilty. It main- tained that the Treaty and the Ordinance are in harmony but if there be a conflict the express declaration of the Ordinance of a Legislature acting within its jurisdiction must prevail. The treaty was it may be conceded the raison d'etre of the Ordinance, but it did not create the jurisdiction to pass an Ordinance. That rests in the Colonial Legislature, altogether independent of the Treaty. Hongkong was not a foreign country. It was an integral part of the British empire and could not require a Treaty with a foreign country to give the Legislturs jurisdiction
over persons ia the Colony. The next point reserved was that the evidence given before the Magistrate did not amount to prima facie evidence of the prisoner's guilt
sufficient to warrant his committal for trial as required by Section 10. Hon. Attorney-General quoted authority to show that the Court had no power to review the decision of a Magistinte on the question of fact where the Magistrate has" committed the person to extradition. He asked that the rule for habeas corpus be discharged.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.