116
:
-
consequence of a conversation he had with defendant the previous day he gave the inspector 810. As I told your Worship, on 1st August last year the defendant was transferred to No. 9 District, where there were several latrines managed by the same man. The witness will tell you that on 10th August he gave the inspector $10. A few days later he received a message, in consequence of which he went to see the inspector. He was told the inspector want ed $15. He went back to his house and got the money and gave it to the inspector. That is the subject of the fourth charge. About Christmas last year witness will tell you that he asked the inspector what he would like for a Christmas present. The inspector said-"Don't give me wine give me money." So on the 24th Decem. ber witness took $20 to the inspector's house. Witness will tell your Worship that during this period he had hardly any trouble with regard to the latrines. Witness keeps rough cash books in which he enters all payments that he makes. On 22nd June last year the Sanitary Commission issued a subpoens directing Chan Pui to attend before the Commission and bring all his books with him. When the subpoena was served by P. S. Watt he took possession of the books. The books were submitted to the Commission and examined. Five days after his appearance before the Commission, Chan Tsun will tell your Worship that he received a message and in consequence went to the branch office of the Sanitary Board in Pok- fulam Road and there he saw defendant, who requested him to go away to the country until all this trouble had blown over. The defendant used threats towards him of what he would do if be did not leave the Colony, and the father will tell you that defendant came to his house cn two or three occasions after the seizure of the books and requested him to send his son away to the country that he might not give evidence before the Commission. That is the outline of the evidence I propose to call in this case.
Evidence was then taken. Hon. Dr. Clark, Principal Civil Medical Officer, said-Defendant is a sanitary inspector. He was appointed on the 1st March 1904, by the Governor as a district inspector. I am acquainted with the byelaws under the Ordinance of 1903. His duty is primarily to see that these latrine byelaws are observed. Standing orders are issued for the guidance of sanitary inspectors. This (produced) is a copy of the orders.
Mr. Bowley-I would refer your Worship to the extract that each inspector is to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the detailed duties. (Reads).
Witness-The immediate superior of the dis- trict inspector is the senior inspector, who is in charge of two health districts. The latrine, No. 2, Gough Street, is in No. 5 district. Latrine, No 29, First Street, is in No 9 district No 3, Sam Po Lane is in No 10 district.
Cross-examined by Mr. Grist-These standing orders don't seem to specify that a senior inspector is in charge of two districts ?--I state it as a fact. The orders may notspecify. it.
Then senior inspectors are in charge of such districts as may be allotted to them? Yes.
Are they as a matter of fact all in charge of two districts ?-Do you mean generally?
Mr. Grist-Yes. Witness-Ob, yes.
Lo district inspectors report direct to you or to the senior inspectors -To the senior sanitary inspectors,
Nobody is prosecuted except with the consent of the senior ?-That is 80.
Would it be the duty of the senior or the junior to communicate in respect of any nuisance at a latrine? Should he report to the senior or call upon the man ?-That is provided for in the orders.
If the notice were not complied with he would report to the senior ?—Yes.
His Worship-What is done?
Mr. Grist-His duty is provided for. Witness-As a matter of fact nobody would be prosecuted without the knowledge of the senior inspector. 1 would prefer the word 'knowledge” to “consent”.
C#
J. P Conolly, senior sanitary inspector, said -I have been in charge of health districts 9 and 10 since 21st January, 1902. I know the
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
defendant, who was district inspector under me at the time of his arrest. He joined No 9 district on 1st August, 1905, and was transferred on 2rd May, 1906, to No 10 district. He con- tinned to be district inspector of No 10 up to the time of his arrest.
|
|
Sergeant Detective Watt said-I served the subpoena issued by the Sanitary Commission and directed to Chan Pui at 11.3) a.m. on 22nd June at No 2, Water Street. I accom- panied Chan Pui and his Chinese servant to the detective office. The subpoena directed that Chan Pui was to take all his business books with him. This he did.
Cross-examined-when was this subpoena returnable ?—He was to appear at 2.15 befors the Commission.
Why was he taken to the detective office? Were you ordered to arrest him ?-No.
Why did you take him there ?-In order to find out where the Commission was sitting. From whom did you get your instructions §- From Inspector Hanson.
|
|
1906
[August 25,
want it," and after sitting down for a moment I left.
Mr. Bowley-Why did you give money to the defendant ?
Mr. Grist-I must object. His reasons for anything can be only a matter of deduction by a jury. Because he likes to give money away or throw it in the gutter it is not evidence against the defendant.
His Worship-I think any fact explaining a motive is evidence.
Mr. Grist-Any fact explaining a motive for receiving, but not any fact explaining a motive for offering.
His Worship-I don't know that there is any difference between offering and receiving. In th's case I must either commit the defendant for trial or discharge him, and I am of opinion that the evidence is admissible.
Continuing, witness said-It has been the custom for me to give the inspectors presents every year. I was afraid they would give us trouble if I did not. The defendant could give Re-examined-I have served the other sub-me trouble by saying I did not do my work poenas issued by the Commission.
Mr. Bowley-I would ask your Worship to adjourn till to-morrow.
I
His Worship--I don't suppose we can finish to-morrow?
Mr. Bowley-No.
properly in connection with No. 2, Gough Street latrine. I paid defendant money and made an entry in my book,
I
Mr. Grist-I don't know whether the witness himself kept the books.
Witness-The books are kept by me, and are
His Worship-I propose to go on on Friday, in my own handwriting. Remanded.
INSPECTOR WARD'S CASE.
W88
The hearing of the charges of bribery and intimidation preferred against Inspector Francis Ward, of the Sanitary Department, continued before Mr. F. A. Hazeland (Second Police Magistrate) at the Polics Court o0 August 23rd.
The Crown Solicitor, Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, prosecuted, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) represented the defendant.
The next witness called was
Chan Chik, P. 8. 290. He said-I went with Sergeant Watt to serve a subpoena on Chau Pui on June 22nd. I accompanied Chan Pai to the Detective Office. He took some books with him. I then accompanied him to the Government Office, where Chan Pui handed his books to the Chief Clerk. I cannot identify the books.
Cross-examined-Chan Pui carried his books to the Detective Office with the assistance of P. C331. When we went to Chao Pai's house Ifremained down below. Chan Pai told me he did not know the way to the Sanitary Board Office.
Chan Tsun, called and sworn-I reside at No. 2, Water Street, where my father, Chan Pui, also lives. My father manages several latrines; one at No. 2, Gough Street, one at 29, First Street and one at No. 3, San Po Lane. He has other latrines in other parts of the town. I look after them. Each visitor pays a small sum of money, which the fokis take care of, and hand over to me. I pay the wages and other expenses.connected with these latrines. My father has no partners in the business. I visit these latrines once a day or once in two days, generally every day. I know the rules about cleansing, disinfecting, lime. washing and tarring of latrines. Sauitary Board inspectors see that this work is done. The latrine in No. 2, Gough Street is in No. 5 health district, I know the defendant, and first made his acquaintance in 1901, when I met him in the Gough Street latrine. He was then in charge of No. 5 health district. I have paid the defendant money, and keep account books of my payments. When I paid money to the defendant, I made an entry in my books. On December 13th, 1904, I paid him $30 at No. 27, Pohingfong, third floor. This was about 11 am. I paid him three ten dollar notes, which were enclosed in Chinese envelope not sealed. When I entered his house defendant was sitting at a desk, on which I placed the notes. He took the envelops and put it in a drawer, No other person was then in the room, but defen- dant's "boy" was in the kitchen. He was in the kitchen when I first went upstairs. When I handed defendant the money I said in Chinese ---“I give you a present for Christmas day." Defendant said "Thank you", and something more in English which I did not understand. He then spoke in Chinese, asking me if I wished to drink wine. I said "No, I don't
|
|
"
Witness continued-On April 19th, 1905, I made another payment of $10 to defendant at his house, Pohingfong. On the previous day my foki, who is in charge of No. 2, Gough Street, spoke to me, and I went to defendant's house, where I saw defendant. His interpreter was present. I asked defendant why he sent for me. He said to me through the inter- preter-" Lend me $10 to buy wine to drink." Next day I went to defendant's house with a ten dollar note, which I placed in his hand. When I first went into the house the boy was there, but defendant told him to go into the kitchen. No one was present when I gave him the note. At that time defendant was in charge of No. 5 district. Afterwards he changed districts. He went on No. 9 distriot some time in July, 1905. After he went on that district I paid him money, and made an entry in my book.
Mr. Grist-I think the entries should be marked. They are being put in.
Mr. Bowley-Not unless my friend wants them.
His Worship-They are not to be put in. They are simply produced for the purpose of refreshing witness' memory.
Mr. Bowley-I have no objection to the entries being marked.
Mr Grist-I think they should be marked and put in. We don't know what is in these books, and we don't know whether defendant's name is used.
Mr. Bowley agreel that the entries should be marked, and that Mr. Grist should be supplied with translations of them.
Witness continued-This (produced) is the entry. It raads-"Present to No. 9 distriot inspector, $10." I paid him the money at house No. 54, Elgin Street. A Chinese friend was present with him. About 8 am, on August 10 defendant told my Gough Street foki he wanted to see me, and when I went there about 10 a.m. his Chinese friend told me the inspector wanted to borrow $10. At that time defendant was in charge of No. 9 district. I have a latrine at No. 29. First Street, which is in the same dis. triot. On August 25th, 1905, I again paid defendant $15 at his house at the corner of Third Street and Pokfulam Road. Defendant's cook came to see me, and in consequence I went to the inspector's house about noon. When I arrived at the house I found defendant had a Chinese friend present who could speak English. He asked the Chinese friend to interpret, and through him asked me for the loan of 815-At first I did not agree to lend him the money, bat defendant said he would return it to me when he got his pay. Then I went to my house, got $15 and returned to defendant's house. When I entered defendant asked me to go out on the verandah, where I paid him one tan dollar and one five dollar note. Neither the sum of ten nor that of fifteen dollars was paid back to me by defendant. About Christmas last year I made another payment to defendant. On December 24th I paid him $20. I saw him before the 24th, but nothing was said about
()
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.