September 8, 1906.j
recent discussion has shown up a faulty and therefore practically useless method of examination, which is now to be supplemented by additional bacteriological tests. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
FRANK BROWNE.
The minute was as under-At the last meeting of the Sanitary Board there seemed to be a little misapprehension on the part of some members as to the conelusions which might be drawn from a chemical examination of waters. Applying this method of testing (1) to the systematic examination of water such as the monthly examinations of the public supplies, in such, numerous tests are performed so that it is easily possible to see whether a water deviates in any particular from month month. Should a water become polluted so as to be dangerous, the comtamination would be at once discovered. The chemical method in such systematic analyses, is in itself sufficient for ensuring the safety of the water supplies, but for many years & bacteriological test (the sugar test for the detection of sewage) has been appliel to all waters so as to have an additional” means of
to
85
the
detecting impurity. Speaking as one practi cally familiar with modern chemical and baoteriological methods of testing water, I am satisfied that no one in this Colony need have the slightest anxiety as to the water supplies, after they have been certified to answer the usual tests. The subject of chemical v. bacterio. logical methods of analysis as applied to water is somewhat controversial so that I do not wish to extol one method at the expense of the other. It might be well, perhaps, to state that I do not wish in any way to underestimate the usefulness of a bacteriological examination, as an additional check on the purity of water, and on the efficiency of filtration. (2) With regard to occasional chemical examinations, such of shallow wells, in most € 1888 chemical analysis affords clear and conclu- sive evidence, but sometimes a well is submitted, which although not at the time of analysis showing any dangerous pollution, has displayed certain characters that at once pointed to possible future contamination. Such a well is usually examined and reported upon again after six u ontus, and several such wells have been subjected to such extra scrutiny, Difficulty with such well is not experienced only in the chemical examinations. The Chinese are not very particular as to the cleanliness of the vessels used for drawing water. Moreover, impurities are continually dropping in from the surface so that I doubt if bardly a well would in this Colony pass the customary bacteriological tests unless such accidental impurity be allowed for. Even in England the same difficulty is experienced with shallow wells. Attention is drawn to the almost complete immunity during many years of this Colony from water-borne disease, a fact, which in itself speaks volumes for the efficacy of the methods employed in the laboratory. It was unfortunate that two opposing reports on
well were recently submitted to the Board. The samples were taken at different times; the draw vessel in the one case may not have been scrupulously clean, or a searching inquiry might have shown some quite accidental circumstance which might cause two workers to arrive at different conclusions. It would have been quite easy for the bacteriologist and myself after further experiment to have arrived at an agreement as to the potability or otherwise of the water in question.
Mr. LAU CHU-PAK minuted that there was nothing to fear, notwithstanding the fact the experts differed.
The papers were laid on the table.
The centenary of missionary effort in China is approaching. The arrival of Dr. Morrison (not of Peking fame) took place in 1807 and it is proposed to erect a memorial at Can- ton, the scene of his earliest labours. Halls and classes of inter-denominational character are the general form the memorial will take, and they were approved at a meeting held at Kaling a week ago. There is a sort of understanding besides that the Y. M. C. A. shall have some prominent part in the management of the memorial.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, September 3rd.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. Wiss (PUISME JUDGE).
AN UNFORTUNATE KIT FAT.
151
His Lordsbip-Knowing she was a married woman, and knowing her husband, why did you take a promissory note from her?
Witness-Because she was willing to giva it and wanted the money.
Li Ling-po, the son of the defendants, was the next witness. He said he lived with his mother. His father had promised to pay the promissory notes, but subsequently refused.
His Lorship-This is the man who got the
Witness No.
Hung Yung sued Li Yui-man and Li Tam-money. shi, his wife, to recover the sum of $18250 being principal and interest under two promissory notes dated March 21st and April 5th, or in the alternative the claim was for money lent and
interest thereon,
Mr. F. C. Barlow (of Messrs. Goldring and Barlow) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Daniels (of Messrs Johnson, Stokes and Master) for defendant.
Mr. Barlow The defendants are husband and wife, and the wife admits the claim.
His Lordship-Where is the wife? Mr. Barlow-She's a witness.
keep her out of Court?
His Lordship-What right have you to
She's a defendant. Mr. Barlow-I have no right. I have just put her out as a precaution.
His Lordship Bring her into Court. She can't be kept out as a witness.
Defendant was brought into Court.
Mr. Barlow The claim is on two promissory notes which 8PH marked by the secu defendant. It is for maintenance, and the best way is for me to call Li Tam-shi.
His Lordship-You are plaintiff and wish to call defendant.
Mr. Barlow I wish to call the second defendant to prove the notes.
Li Tam-sbi, declared, said she was the first. wife of the first defendant, but had not lived with him for 19 years as he had a concubine iu the house.
on with this?
His Lordship-How are you going to get and everything else.
You've got to prove the wedding
Mr. Daniels-We admit she is the legal wife of the defendant. my Lord.
Witness, continuing, said her husband turned her out of the house, threw her things into the street and assaulted ber. Since then he
His Lordship-Oh Ye There will be judgment and costs against the second
defendant.
+
Tuesday September 4th.
IN ORIGINAL URISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS Piggott (Chief JUSTICE)
WONG RIU-CHAI AND OTHERS V. TSOI KWAI-NG,
This was a summons by the defendant. to have the because it was rexatious in that the cause action mentioned dismissed
of action which was to recover certain monies duo on promissory notes, which the defendant had subsequently dishonoured,-
law would arise, wherefore it would be more arose in Canton, and that questions of Chinese
convenient to try the action in Canton.
Plaintiffs submitted that defendant was British subject, and that it was right to have the action tried in Hongkong.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. G. K Hall Brutton (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett) lthrop, instructed by Mr. A. Holborow (of appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. G.
Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) for the defendant.
Mr. Calthrop applied for an adjournment, stating that he had been instructed only on the previous day, and had not had time to look over the papers, which were rather voluminous.
Mr. Slade opposed an adjournment as by defendant's own affidavits he admitted owing plaintiffs about $17,000,
His Lordship suggested an adjournment until two o'clock, as he felt sure Mr. Calthrop was familiar with the authorities quoted in the with the facts to proceed. case, and would then be sufficiently acquainted
hat only paid her $2 or $3 now and then. During the 19 years they had lived apart, the amount she received from her husband annually varied from $20 to $30. She had supported her four children, paid for their education, audandavits it would be necessary for him to Mr. Calthrop again referred to the numerous defrayed half the cost of her son's wedding examine, and pressed for a longer postponement. She raised this money by borrowing from
His Lordship adjourned the hearing until friends.
2.3 p.m.
His Lordship-I want some particulars on the question of necessities.
Mr. Barlow-I am going to prove that support her. the money she received was not sufficient to
His Lordship-You cannot get anything after three years from me, and you cannot get anything out of the son's wedding.
Mr. Barlow-I am going to prove that she borrowed the money to pa off other creditors. and the notes on which I am proceeding were made during the last three months.
Mr. Daniels raised the point, from Fisher's Common Law Digest, that the husband was not liable for money lent to his wife.
His Lordship-The money expended on her son's marriage was really not a necessity. (To witness)-Who is paying for your necessaries now?
Witness I borrow money from friends, and earn a little by making matting.
Continuing, witness said she borrowed the money to pay for medical attendance, to redeem clothing and to pay off old debts. Her husband did not tell her she could borrow it.
The first defendant was called and said the witness was his "kit fat," but be would not pay the amount claimed because his wife had told him nothing about the loan.
Mr. Daniels said he was prepared to prove that the husband made his wife liberal allowance.
Plaintiff was then called and said he did not want judgment against the woman.
a
His Lordship-You knew there Was husband, why didn't you go and ask him before making the loan?
Witness-I met him and told him about it and he promised to pay on the following month.
At 2.45 o'clock, as the defendant's counsel
sud solicitor failed to appear, his Lordship dismissed the summons.
Wednesday, September 5th.
BEFORE Mr. A. G. W18E (PUISNE JUDGE).
A SILK TRANSACTION.
Ng Sze-kong and Ng Ym-hui, partners in the Kwan Wo silk firm of Canton, sued the Tai Wo firm of this Colony to recover the sum of $1,000 due for goods sold and delivered,
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hasting's office) appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomsɔa's office) for defendants.
Mr. Dixon said the Kwan Wo firm were wholesale silk merchants in Canton, while the defendant firm were silk merchants in Hong. kong. The plaintiffs claimed $1.000, balance due for goods sold and delivered. The amount of the debt was $1,028.98, but the $28.98 had been abandoned to bring the claim within summary jurisdiction. The defendants sent their managing partner to Canton to order these goods because goods had been previously or lered in exactly the same way and sent to Hongkong Prices were arranged in Canton at the time the goods were ordered, which the witness who took the order would tell his Lordship, sud he would also say that he wrote down the goods ordered, together with the prices charged therefor in his rough order book. The goods were subsequently sent to defend- ant firm together with a letter and a bill containing the list of goods and the prices. No exception was then taken, but later the
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.