Page
July 10, 1905.]
be said “He told me the package contained bank notes."
It seems to me quite clear that if the story is true, Lam Tung's notes never left the red і silk handkerchief in which they
were wrapped up; and that when Chow Kwan was searched they should have been found in that handkerchief. There is nothing in Segeant Wildin's evidence to show that any of the notes were wrapped up: it would have been the duty of that officer to have recorded the fact if they had been. He is away on leave. I, however, called the Chinese detective who was present at the search: he said thatthe cetes were shaken out of Chow Kwan girdle, and that they were not wrapped up in anything. It appeared that he said "as soon as the cloth was taken out there were the notes" But when asked to explain what he meant, be said that he meant "the pocket" when he said the cloth." He bad previously said that the wan's girdle was sown up in the form of a pocket. It is very nearly a year ago since the occurrence: and the witness was asked to remember what took place on the spur of the moment. But what he said corresponded with the legitimate inference from Sergeant Wildin's evidence; and I come to the conclusion that the story of the notes being wrapped up in a red silk handkerchief has no foundation in fact. This is a serious discrepancy in the plaintiff's
08.10.
To this must be added that the story told by Lan Tso, as to the reason why his brother Limon sent him the 8280, for the benefit of ore. ditors, stretches oredence to its utmost limits. There is no evidence at all tosupport the plain. tiff's story as to the 500 zaidto have accompanied
letter No 2.
I will now endeavour to sum up the improba- bilities and probabilities of the plaintiff's case. The following tell more or less against it: -That the plaintiff should have been entrusted with so large a sum of money; That the man, who it is alleged, sent the largest amount should not have known more about Saigon than he did,due weight being given to the fact that the man is illiterate; That there should have been given so large a kum as $800 in silver; T'hat the red silk hand. kerchief in which the plaintiff handed his notes to Chow Kwong should have disappeared; That there is no evidence with regard 10 letter No. 2 --$500; That the story given as to letter No. 4 does not fit in at all with the letter.
M
!
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Kwan
I on the steamer.
mean that the admission that the $20 with its letter were
handed to the plaintiff, must go to the extent of an admission that those $20 form part of the $2,600 in Court; in other words, as I said at first it is an admission that judgment must go for plaintiff for $2 But if it does this, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that it sheds a glamour of reality over the story in so Har as the remainder of the money is concerned
There is, indeed, much in the detai s and in the te'ling of this story, which resembles the other stories: there was a covering letter-this has. it is true, disappeared. (iu a mauner which is not explained. but the envelope remains, and it is couched in sim lar language to that used on the othe envelopes. And there was a similar passivity, so to speak, on the part of he witness with regard to the non-execution if the com- mission entrusted to the plai .tiff, as in the cas of the witnesses to the other stories.
The escape from this difficulty suggested by the defendant's counsel was, flat the stories were concocted by the plaintiff and the prisoner for the purposes of the extradition proceedings in order to save him; and that after the proceedings were over, the letters were written. the plaintiff hoping to ob'ain the money for himself and his confederates. The discrepancies in the evidence, not bly that given in connection with letter No. 4, were explained by the suggestiou that the confederates had forgotten the cont-nts of the letters when they came into the witness box. To this there is the obvious conut r suggestion: why should the plaintiff and the pris ner have limited themselves to the 20 $10) notes for the story, even if proved to the hilt. could not have saved the prisoner, who had still If it be said that 8600 were over 3600 on him.
-
left so that that sum might appear to have been Chow Kwan's legitimate savings, as it was, iu fast, allege that merely added a further com- plication to the defend for the Court would have had to believe two stories instead of one. But the suggestion of concoction caunot be so easily dismissed for the inherent improba- bilitis of the stories suggest of themselves the possibility of encoction. It must. however, be considered together with the admission as to the $20 story Starting with the hypothesis that this story is true, the possibility of fraud seems to work out in this way-That the plain- tiff, at the Police Court, while he
Was
The following tell more or less in favour of it: endeavouring to obtain possession of the $20. -That what appears at first hearing to be a fanci- to which, on the hypothosis he was entitled. fal story, is admitted not to be wholly improbable; learned of the existence of the 26 8100 notes. and that one small part of the story is adauitted Then, work ng on his slender basis of truth. hs to be true; That the apparently irrelevant silver proceeded to concoct four similar stories, work- story, when tested, seems to be true; That thereing out the figures so as exactly to make up is a certain amount of evidence in support of four out of the five bailors or intended recipients of the money being the persons alleged and again, that this evidence in the case of one of them is admittel to be trns; That, for a plot, it is as clumsily put together as can well be imagined; That there is no direct evidence produced by the defendant to rebut the plaiutiff's case, but only criticism and hypothesis.
I find it difficult accurately to determine the relative values of these different considerations; some of them are undoubtedly very: erious; but having regard to all the circumstances the of case, I doubt if any one of them is sufficiently strong, as stated, to carry a verdict because it is at once met by something on the other side. There is one of them which requires still further analysis: the admitted truth of one part of the plaintiff's story.
$20 story.
I must now examine with more particularity the effect of the defendant's admission as to the Twenty dollars were sent by Kwong Fu, in the Saigon. to Wo Cheong Firm in Hongkong. The envelope bore the correspondence chop of the Kwong Nam Wo Firm in Saigo... Indepen- dently of the admission, there was the evidence of Kwong Kam Cheung, the mau ger of the Wo Cheong Firm.
The effect of this admission, and I must say that I do not see how it could have been avoided, must be carefully considere I. I do not see how it can be limited to the mere fact that the plaintiff received the $20 from Kwong Fu to deliver to the Wo Cheong Firm. It seems to me that it must let in, so far as this $20 is concerned, the whole of the plaintiffs story. including the most intrinsically improbable part of it, the handing over the money to Chow
82.600. But the concoction of the stories, on this hypothesis. must have ben by the plaintiff and his confed-ates, but without the assistance of the prisoner. How, then, ar we to account for th similarity of the stories told by the plaintiff and the prisoner, who gave evidence in this case de hese co-e! The answer may be that he heard Lam Tung's evidence in the Police; Cour. I do not think that this accounts satisfact rily for the identity, except with reference to one minute detail (the exact time at which Chow Kwau is alleged to have offered to return the money to the plaintiff) of the evidence of these two witnesses, and I think that this idea of the concoction must be rejected. The only hypothesis that I can see which would account for everything. is that there was a previous con- spiracy between Lam Tung and Chow Kwan. The circumstance of the
if for, undoubtedly. 1.iters
were
I
་
;
21
$20, seems to show that this hypothesis osunot be adopted. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money in Court as hailee; and judgment must be entered for the plaintiff, with costs.
Mr. Ferrers applied for a stay of execution for eight days, to consider whether to appeal, and this was granted.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGB).
KING ON TONG . THE HING LEE FIRM. This case was concluded. Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. O. D. Thomson for the defendants. The claim was` for $500, being the amount of share money repayable by the defendants to the plaintiff on the 7th June, 1905, under an agreement signed by the defendant on the 26th March, 1905.
He
Mr. Harding called the managing partner of the Wo Sun Chin firm, oil dealers, carrying on business at 8. Connaught Road West. stated that his firm employed twelve or thir teen men, whereas the Hing Lee firm, judging from appearances, did a very small business. The plaintiff was in witness' employ, and took his rice, etc. at the shop. He was not, however, after wages, as he also had his own business. Witness had seen Leung Lai Chuen, the manag- ing partner of the defendant firm, about the return of this $500 to the plaintiff, and Leung Lai Chuen did not deny owing the money.
! was
E
¡
This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. O. D. Thomson submitted that on the evidence for the plaintiff the defendants were
that Wong Fai Ting, formerly entitled to judgment. What really happened accountant in the defen lant shop, was a partner in that shop. having contributed $500 as glare money Then this man went and used the firm's correspondence chop on a bill to the extent of $123.4, which he had no right to do, and was now putting the plaintiff forward as the partner so that he, Wong Fai Ting. would not have to pay the $123.4. but get the who e 8500. In his evidence the plaintiff at first gave a wrong address, and there were several other irregularities. This share money was not in his own name, but in an assumed oue. The plaintiff, indeed, had, he said, added a Tong to his "milk name." though why he wanted to found a Tong, Mr. Thomson could not see. He said his father's estate had not been divided.
His Honour-I do not know what happened in China; he might have stolen the money.
money handed
over.
Mr. Thomson pointed out that the evidence was contradictory as to where the initial interview took place. and also as to the Bature The plaintiff of the admitted that he did not remember much about the transaction, and said he did not get a receipt for some time. The latter was a very curious omission for a Chinaman to make. Mr. Thomson did not know if His Honour desired him to call the manager of the defendant firm.
His Honour-Yes, the statement has not. been contradicted. Chinese evidence is so very unsatisfactory.
Witness - Yes, but I have not the money
NOW
His Honour-Wall, why not give it to this man. Wong Fai Ting will go to gaol if he sues you.
Mr. l'homson We admit we got $500, but wealler having | want to hand it to the right man.
Leung Lai Chuen said he was the managing been very rough precludes the possibility of this having taken place ou the steamer: partner of the defendant firm. The real partoer
there was
conspiracy, in question was Wong Fai Ting. writtan at thu time. His Honour-Are you willing to bay him the The alternative is that they were written out? before the voyage began: and this is only consistent with the fact that the plaintiff was an accomplies with Chow Kwan in the robbery, sither before or after the fact. This, so far as am rapable of analysing the case, is the log`cal result of the coutention that the case was concocted and I lave not sufficient evidence by for me to warrant my coming to such a conclusion. Under these circumstances, if I were to give judgment for the defendants, although there could be no prosecution here for a robbery committed in Saivon, yet I should be bound to order the perjury. the plaintiff for prosecution of But the admission that part of the story is true. and that there was no conspiracy as to the
Mr. Thomson-He is willing to pay $500 to Wong Fai Ting after deducting $123.4.
His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, staying execution till Friday.
Mr. Thomson-I ask you, my Lord, not to give costs.
His Honour-—You have lost, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Harding-Will you adjudge Leung Lai. Chuen a pa tner in the Hing Lee firm ?
His Honour-He has «aid so. I have it down.
▼
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.