298
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
by ordering his discharge. This man has been in prison much longer than has been necessary if the court had not been in vacation. Directly the decision of the Law Officers had been obtained, I think he should have been released. I certainly could not take any action with regard to ordering a prosecution or expressing any opinion on that subject. If the creditors think it desirable to raise the question of whether they have the power to prosecute now, I think there are means whereby that question can be raised. I don't think I am justified in keeping the bankrupt in prison any longer and he will be discharged. The question of costs was reserved pending any further steps the Official Receiver may decide to take.
Wednesday, 25th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES,
purchase money. The defendant said he could not accept it on the Sabbath day; he was going to church. Witness pressed him, but he was put off till the afternoon. When witness saw him then he told the defendant he had better accept the money before the expiration of the appoint- ed time for payment, but the defendant replied that he intented to keep the Sabbath day, and refused to accept the money.
Cross-examined-He was a director and, at one time, the editor of this paper. It was decided to sell the business because the financi:l position of the company was not a good one. They owed $9,00 odd and there was no money to pay. Witness's was the only tender that exceeded the amount of the debts. At the time of tendering he had $500 to pay the deposit, and could have raised the whole of the purchase money that day.
The evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim having concluded, the case was adjourned antil Monday.
Thursday, 26th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
ANOTHER PROMISSORY NOTE ACTION,
[October 30, 1905.
Defendant submitted his book which showed that the total wages to which plaintiff was entitled was $69,35 of which 856.58 had been paid, leaving a balance of $12-90.
His Lordship (to plaintiff)—You Lad better take that. You have apparently told the man who prepared the book for you a different story to what you told me.
Judgment for the amount indicated.
AN ALLEGED CHINESE MARRIAGE.
оп
At the Magistracy on the 21st inst., Mr. F. A. Hazeland, the senior magistrate gave his deci-ion in the case in which Oldorico Neeves, a signalman Green Island, was charged with unlawfully and know. Kwai, married to Cheung Pong, according to ingly harbouring a Chinese woman Mun Mi the laws or customs of Chins, and who had left the protection of her husband. His Worship said -The defendant was charged before me with unlawfully, knowingly and without reasonable excase harbouring a Chinese woman named Mun Mi Kwai, married to the complainant, Cheung Pong, according to the laws
Tam Man Sam, of No. 19 Jervois Street, sued Tam Yan and Cheung San Pang, liquida- tors of the Sai Kai Kung Yick Po Company, BEFORE MR. A. G. W186 (PUISNE JUDGE). customs of China, and who had left the protec Ld., for $1,000, bing as to $500 for the return of money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendants on the 2nd June, 1905, in part payment of the purchase mouey of the business, property and effects of the Sai Kai Kung Yick Po C., Ld., and as to the bilincs of 8500 for damages for breach by the defendants of the said contract.
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Megers. Wilkinson and Grist) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker aud Deacon) appeared for the defendants
Mr. Beavis stated that pleadings were ordered end had been filed in this case. It would appear on these that the whole point at issue was whether the plaintiff did or did not tender the deposit portion of the purchase money as alleged by him and denied by the defendants? Did the plaintiff by his acts repudiate the contract? If he did not he was entitled to the return of his deposit, and also to damages. Supposing the defendants were able to prove that they had failed to comply with the stipula tion regarding portion of the purchase money, they won'd prove that they made every effort to pay the whole of the purchase money.
His Lordship -The case has worked itself down to a question of fact.
Mr. Looker-It is a question of fact. The
Woo Yue Shing Tong sued Wong Ping Lun for $1,019.40, being money advanced to defendant on a promissory note. Mr. C T. Dix on appeared for plaintiff, but defendant was not represented. On a previous occasion Mr. Dixon had informed his Lordship that defendant was dead and his Lordship had asked Mr. Howell (bailiff to make inquiries at the shop in which defen. dant was said to be a partner. Mr. Eowell now informed bis Lordship that he has made inquiries regarding the defendant. Hel arned that the man had been a partner in the bakery mentioned but that he had overdrawn his share
to the extent of $3 000, and that, so far as the people in the shop knew, he was dead.
Mr. Dixon called plaintiff to prove the debt and the receipt of the promissory note.
His Lordship-You are suing the man aud not the bakery?
Mr. Dixon-I am suing the man as partner of the Ching Wo bakery
His Lordship-You cannot get judgment against the Ching Wo.
Mr. Dixon--I am asking for judgmeut against the Cuing Wo, where defendant is a partner.
His Lordship I will give you judgment plaintiff refused to pay the deposit and repu- against defendant but not against the Ching
diated the contract.
Tam Man Sam, declared, said he was present at the meeting of the company in question when his tender for the purchase was accepted. His Lordship-Are you a shareholder in this paper?
Witness-Yes,
Mr. Looker-And a director too, my Lord. Continuing, witness said the document before
the court stated that the stock-in-trade of the
an
Wo.
The same plaintiff sued the Ching Wo Bakery for $600, money advanced on the 9th May under a promissory note.
Judgment with costs was entered for plaintiff,
Friday, 27th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
WAT TAI 1. JAPANESE LAUNDRY CO.
paper was worth $18,734; the books of the BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE), company represented about $8,000. When his tender was accepted a noto was made in the minute book of the company, and advertisement inserted in the paper. Like- wise a minute of sale was made by the defendants, which witness signed. More writing had been added to the conditions of sale since he signed the book; one page had been taken out and another substituted.
His Lordship Why do the defendants want to get out of the contract? Have they sold the paper to somebody else?
Witness-I don't know what their object is, but I believe they want tɔ run the paper them- selves.
Witness, c.ntinuing, said the minute he signed was as follows:-" A meeting was held in the Company's office on the afternoon of 2nd June, 1905, when all the assets, stock-in-trade, goodwill and other things as specified were sold to me for the sum of $9,270, as I was the highest bidder. On and after the 3rd June all fle expenses in connection with the company were to be borne by me, and within 48 hours one-fourth of the purchase money was to be paid." On the following day, Sunday, he went to the company's office, where he saw Cheung San Pang, and tendered an amount of the
The plaintiff sued for $170. He said he had been employed by the defendant company for six and a half months, and he supplied them with provisions for which he had not beeu paid, Both parties submitted books and his Lordship. sent them to the shroff, who would report to him when the case was called next Friday.
FUNG ON v. IP YING.
Plaintiff claimed $22.11, the balance of wages due to bim.
His Lordship-You have entered the amount for $23 81.
Plaintiff—Yes, that includes costs (laughter). His Lordship-You have not done that right (laughter).
Plaintiff stated he was a painter employed by defendant, but left his service on 26th Septem. ber. The total amount owing him for wages was $75.16, of which defendant had paid $53 5, leaving a balance of $22-11.
His Lordship-Your dates and figures are all wrong.
Plaintiff-I got another man to prepare the book for me.
His Lordabip-Well, you must have told him wrong.
ΟΙ
tion of her husband contrary to section 2 of Ordinance 19 of 1903. The first question which I have to decide is whether there was a valid Chinese marriage between the complainant and the said Man Mi Kwai, alleged to have been celebrated on the 10th January, 1898. On the evidence adduced on this point the following facts have been proved to my satisfaction: That there was a marriage contract between the parties known as the Lai Shu (E)
and which was handed to the mother of the complainant. That at the same time there was given a further document known as the Sam Toi (ft) "thre generations.”
This sets out the names of the bride's father,
grandfather, and great-grandfather, and also the surnames of the bride's mother, grand- mother, and great grandmother. It was also proved that presents were sent to the family of plainant's house in the usual bridal chair. Both the bride, and also that she came to the com-
and in von Mollendorff's Family Law of the in Parker's "Comparative Chinese Family Law,"
steps to a valid Chinese marriage, but there is Chinese," are set out the different preliminary
|
no statement to the effect if all or which of these stepsare absolutely indispensable. Evidence was called by the prosecution, and it was proved
to my satisfaction that the two documents the Lai Shi (), and the Sam Toi (=),
are sufficient to constitute a valid Chinese marriage. It was contended by the defence that these two documents were forgeries. On the evidence adduced I find as a fact that these documents are genuine. With respect to the question of barbouring the wi'e of the com- plainant, evidence was called and it was proved to my salienction that on the 27th June, 1905, the defendant and the wife of the complainant, Mun Mi Kwai, were married in a Roman Catholic Church in Nam Tau. The following defences were &t up by defendant; (a) absence of a mens rea; (b) that the Chinese marriage was not a valid marriage according to the laws or customs of China; and (c) that the said Mun Mi Kwai left the complainant because of his cruelty to her and because of his failure properly to maintain her. As to the question of mens rea, there is the evidence of Sergeant Wait who was sent out to flud the said Man Mi Kwai, reported missing by her mother. Sergeant Watt saw the defendant on or about the 19th March, 1905, and told him that the woman was married, and that it would be a rerions offence if he was found with her. I am, moreover, of opinion that in the pr. sent Ordinance, a mens rea is not of the essence of the offence created: The obj, ot of the Ordinance being to prevent an invasion of marital rights it must be supposed that the Legislature intended that the wrong doer should act at his peril. With respect to the defence that the Chinese marriage was not a valid marriage according to the laws or customs of China it was contended that the complainant had another wife at the time he married the said Mun Mi Kwai. I find as a fact on the evidence on this point that the complainant was not already
}Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.