448
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, June 15th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE)
CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT.
Susan Singh sued A. Samad to recover the sum of $81.40, money lent.
Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring and Barlow) stated that plaintiff had agreed to accept $63 in payment of the debt.
Plaintiff was called, and stated that defendant owed him altogether $200.
His Lordship-You won't take $63 then ? Plaintiff If your Lordship pleases. His Lordship-It is not what I please; it is what you please.
Plaintiff refused to accept the amount offered, and the case was set for Tuesday morning.
RENT IN ARREAR.
Cheng Chee-yuea v. Yeong Kam-shing was B claim for $12 on account of a month's rent.
Chow Ah-sing, who appeared, said the defen. dant was her mother-in-law.
His Lordship-What have you got to do with the case?
Witness-My mother-in-law fell ill, and I took her to the country. She is now dead.
His Lordship--How do you know she is dead. Witness-She died on April 16th; then I same back to Hongkong.
His Lordship-Where do you live? Witness-At First Street.
His Lordship Why don't you pay your rent? Witness--I don't mean to say I refuse to pay. but in consequence of the death of my mother in-law I have got no money.
On his Lordship's instructions the writ was amonded and served on the witness, and plain- tiff got into the witness box and proved his claim.
Defendant said she only owed rent for 26 days. His Lordship-Well, why don't you pay Defendant-I don't mean to say I don't wish to pay it.
His Lordship-Well, why don't you pay it? Defendant-Because several people died in the house, and my daughter died there too.
His Lordship You had better pay up. There will be judgment and costs for the plaintiff.
Defendant-Am I to pay at once, or when shall I pay?
His Lordship-Arrange with the ` |laintiff.
ANOTHER CLAIM FOR RENT. Kwok Nam sued Lin Chu-yan;to recover $29 due for rent.
Defendant admitted owing the amount. His Lordship-Well, why don't you pay Defendant-Many boarders on the same floor took ill and went away, and I am unable to pay for the lot. Besides, a number of dead ints
were found in the house.
Hi Lordship-I am sorry for it. Judgment for plaintiff and c.sts
Monday, June 18th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE),
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.
Cheung Yau was arraigned on a charge of receiving stolen property.
·
The Attorney General (Sir Henry Berkeley) instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of the Crown Solicitor's office), pros cuted, and the accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty.
The following jurors were sworn :-Messrs. A. Jenkins, J. Gittings, E. O. R. Vollbrecht, J. A. Young, S. M. Thorne, U. Staeger and C. J. F. Neitel.
stated that the The Attorney-General prisoner had been committed for trial on a charge of armed robbery from a junk but that he (the Attorney-General, bad reduced that charge to one of receiving stolen property. Unles prisoner could satisfactorily explain how he came into possession of the goods found on board his junk a few days after they had been stolen by a gang of armed robbers from another junk, the jury would be justified in finding him guilty.
|
!
44
t
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
After bearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and his Lordship sentenced | the prisoner to three years' hard labour.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Li Sam was charged with manslaughter. The Attorney-General (Sir Henry Berkeley) prosecuted, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. R. D. Atkinson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon), appeared for the accused who pleaded not guilty.
The following jurors were called :-Messrs. W. T. Stebbing, J. E. Meyer, O. P. Hechtl, A. R. Kinross, J. D. Kinnaird, J. Johnston
1 and A. C. Diss.
་་
་་
that
·
the
The Attorney-General stated
clan and prisoner was a member of the “Li
clau. the deceased belonged to the “ Chan
A ! fight took place. between the two clans in the Pingshan district, New Territory, on April 16th, owing to some of the women folk of the "Chanclan cutting grass on land which the "Li" clan considered they had no right to. During the fight the members of the "Li“ clan attended in so great a force that the "Chan" clan executed a great movement--they ran. The “Li" clan followed in pursuit, among! them being the prisoner, who was carrying a joss pole", a tapering piece of wood four or five inches in diameter at the butt, ten or twelve feet long and surmounted by a square piece of wood at the top, the latter being about eighteen inches square, and half an inch thick. During the pursuit the prisouer struck one of can on the head with this joss pole". breaking the pole, and also the man's head. The matter was reported to the police, who visitel tho district and arrested twenty- three men, among whom was the deceased, then alive. On May 3rd the wounded man died from the effects of the blow delivered by the prisoner Evidence was led, and the case adjourned.
the "Chan
Before MR. A. G. Wise (PUISNE JUDGF).
UNPAID EMPLOYEES.
J. F. Saavedra sued the Dr. McLaughlin Company to recover the sum of 834030, salary dus from the 21st February to April 3rd; and C. B. Perkins claimed from the said company $801.03, being as to 350 damages for wrongfal dismissal, and $101.03 for balance of amount due by the defendant firm.
In the first case Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and (iris) appeared for the plaintiff; in the second Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) appeared for the plaintiff, while in both actions Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings office) represented the defendants.
The solicitors in the cases consenting, the
actions were heard to ether
J. F. Saavedra said he was engaged by Mr. Perkins on behalf of the defeudant Company as acting manager, sud produced his appointment. He continued to manage the business until he got his discharge on April 3rd. The manager of the Company was in Hongkong, and witness applied for us salary, amunting to $340.30, which amount had not been paid. While acting manager he had correspondence with the head office of the Company at Shanghai, and they sent him a draft to be used on behalf of the Company.
|
[June 25, 1906. And you'll swear that woman is not your wife ?—I will.
You are living on the proceeds of what that woman makes, aren't you ?—No, sir.
How long have you been out of employ- ment ?-Since April 3rd.
C. B. Perkins was next called by Mr. Gardiner. He said he was first engaged by the defendant company in Se tember, 1904, at $225 a month and 5 per cent, on the gross takings. j
His Lordship-Who engaged you ? Witness-Mr. J. F. Burns, manager
of the Company for the East, at Shanghai.
Continuing, witness said he had been employed by the Company for seventeen days, during which time he had exclusive power as manager. Then his wife became ill and he had to take her to
tun
America. Before leaving he appointed another manager who was recoguised by the Company. Wituess wired the Company in Shanghai to appoint a manager, but as be got no reply he He returned” from appointed Mr. Tompsitt. America on March 18th, 1975, and renewed bis engagement, taking up his duties on April 1st. He had control of the firm's Canton branch, and sub-equently of the branches at Saigon Singapore und Bangkok. On August 28th it was arranged that witness was to receive 10 per cent. on the gross takings of all outside offices, Mr. bat he only received three per cent. Fitzgerald, who represented the Company arrived here from Shanghai on August 1.th, Witness told him he wished to resign if he could not get more pay. The arrangement was that he was to receive $25 per mon h and five per cent. The $25 by which his salary was increased was to be shown each month #8 office expenses. Witness had never had a full month's sa'ary since July, 1905. His accounts would show that there had been a déficiency of from $300 to over $1,000 due to him. He had wired and written letters asking for his money, but as he did not receive it he left for Shanghai, appoi ting Mr. Saavedra manager duri: g his ab eucs. On arrival at Shanghai he met Mr. Wong Po-isz, the general manager of the Company for the East, and after telling bin the condition of the business, asked for the $1,000 due to him. Wong gave him $100, saying that he had lost about $18,000 and was not in a position to pay in full. Wong then wil he would make a settlement on April 1s', and granted witness leave to go and see his wife. The appointment of Mr. Saavedra as manager was mentioned, and no objection was raised. Witness returned to Hongkong on April 1st, and on the 3rd he dismissed Saavedra and told him he would be paid when Mr. Wong At Shanghai Mr. Wong gave arrived here. him to understand that he could keep this office open two months longer; then" if it did not pay he was to go to Singapore. Mr. Wong arrived here on April 8th, and wired $500 to settle accounts in connection with the Bangkok business. Oh the 9th he asked for the accounts of this Franoh, which he said he would settle. When he saw them he old the amount was too much, as he bad brought only $1,500.
Witness furnished Wong with an account showing sa amount of over $1,100 due to him. Of this amount $744 was paid. Wit- ness spoke about Mr. Esavedra's salary to Mr. By Mr. Dixon-The letters were addressed to Wong, but he said he would not pay it. the manager of the Company. When the Nothing was said at this interview about dis. general manager came to Hongkong witness missing witness; on the 10th he asked if his services were concluded, and Wong said...“ Oh, applied for his salary, but the manager had no
I can't very well discharge you until you Roney to pay. He did not ask for employment | DO.
are paid off." On the 9th stock was taken ; with the Company at a small salary and 20 per cent. commission. The Company had no com.everything was found satisfactory and Wong pradore when he joined, neither did they have one while he acted sa manager.
His Lordship-What is to be the result of this? Supposing I give judgment against the Company there are no assets.
Mr. Dixon-Yes, my Lord. The assets have been attached.
Continuing, witness said he did not remember having a conversation with the firm's com pradore outside Tak Cheong's shop in Queen's Road.
Mr. Dixon-Are you a married man ?—I am. Where is your wife?—In the United States. Are you married to a woman residing in Hollywood Road?-No.
Do you know a woman who goes by the name of Della Huard ?—Yes,
85
gave a receipt that the stock was correct. On the 10th witness received a further sum of $250, and gave a rec.ipt for it as April's salary, when Mr. Wong left Hongkong he told witness he would cable the money dus, but it did not arrive witness wrote stating that if he did not receive it by May 1st he would take action. On the 3rd the manager of the Inter- national Bank informed him that he had · received 8344 58, but that he was not to deliver the amount unless a receipt was signed in payment of all claims.
Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon--At present witness was engaged with the Great Northern Steamship Co. He was engaged for ́a`time in the sale of certain watches.. -
Mr. Dixon-Are these the coupons P—Yes.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.