306
also suggested that the merchants of Hong- kong should endeavour, in order to protect their own interests, to take steps similar to those taken by the inerchants of Shanghai -to combine and refuse to sell to the monopolist. The British Minister at Peking called upon the Waiwupu, pending a diplomatic settlement, to stop the provincial authorities from taking upon themselves to devise such measures as must restrict a legal trade guaranteed by treaty. The Waiwupu sent telegrams to suspend the monopoly, and issued a proclamation.
SUPREME COURT,
Monday, November 4tb.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING
PUISNE JUDGE).
MONEY LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.
Action was brought by Hung Sham to recover from Lau Kwong the sum of $105 dus from the defendant as
Mr. R. guarantor. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing for the defendant.
Mr. Harding informed his Lordship that the plaintiff was a subscriber to two money loan associations, and the defendant was guarantor of those associations. The claim from him was as such guarantor nader his acknowledgment in writing.
Plaintiff, in her evidence, stated that the amount of the claim was still due, and that defendant, as head of the associations, had given her a written acknowledgment of it.
Cross-examined-Why were these associa- tions not carried through? - My eyes are bad. Is it not a fact that the head of these two associations was Cheung Lam, the defendant's wife ?-I handed the money to the defendant.
The constituents of these associations were women only, were they not?-Men too.
Can you give me a name?-If you look at the book you will see them. How do I know?
Argument followed as to whether the docu- ment on which the suit was brought was au acknowledgment or a guarantee and Mr. Kong Sing asked for his Lordship's ruling on the matter.
His Lordship said he was not prepared to an- swer the question off hand, but he would con- sider the point.
Mr. Kong Sing stated that he would call witnesses for the defence to prove that the defendant's name was not Cheung Lam.
But before advancing that defence he submitted that having regard to the books exhibited, the first association was an illegal company under section 4 of the Companies Act, as it contained more than 20 names. His other defence, a technical оде, was that the paper put in was not a guarantee within the meaning of the Statute of Fraude, therefore the plaintiff could not succeed upon it.
After hearing further evidence his Lordship gave judgement for defendant with costs.
Tuesday, November 5th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOMFERTZ (ÅCTING PUISNE JUDGE).
A CLAIM FOR PEARS.
The Man Sang Loong firm sued the Kwong Cheung Sang shop to recover $185.90, being as to $114.40 the price of 22 baskets of Tientsin pears, delivery of which was illegally taken by the defendants on September 18th, and as to the remaining sum of $71.50, amount of the loss sustained by the plaintiffs. Mr. Otto Kong Sing represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the defendants.
His Lordship (to Mr. Kong Sing) --Are you suing for the conversion of these pears?
on the steamer Waichow a number of pears
A
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
them, but did not get possession. They were taken from our possession illegally. Proceeding Mr. Kong Sing stated that both plaintiffs and defendants in this action were fruit dealers. On September 18th both purchased from a steward brought from Tientsio. Forty-five baskets of pears were sold to the defendants, 25 to the plaintiffs and ten baskets to a third party. All the pears were brought ashore on cargo boat engaged by the defendants, and the boatwoman was instructed to deliver the pears to their respective owners by the person who sold them. The defendants' lot was delivered at Wing Woh Street, also the other ten baskets. Then the boatwoman ran the boat alongside a wharf opposite the Central Market for delivery of the plaintiffs' 20 cases. The plaintiffs were asked to take delivery, fokis were sent down, and while they were taking delivery the defendant came along and had the plaintiff arrested, alleging that the 25 baskets of pears were his and that the plaintiff was stealing them. The plaintiff was taken to the Central Police Station, where the Inspector on duty discharged him on hearing his story. Action
W19
[November 11, 1907.
11
in and had a drink previous witness came
She sat near him and sitting down at a table. a conversation was commenced, during which he referred to an old argument and accused the barmaid of having given him away to the patrol when he WAS
uniform. wearing soldier's Witness denied having doue so, and the stoker said "Why didn't you marry the Sergeant in Plaintiff re- the Middlesex Regiment ? plied: "I am married to an engineer." The stoker then abused her and accused her of being immoral, using language that plaintiff would not repeat. She struck him with her hand and screamed out that she would not be insalted by sailors. She then picked up a stick which was lying handy and rushed at him again, but a Corporal in the Artillery who was standing near prevented her, and Mrs. Sternberg came up and said:
Plaintiff Marie, go home."
went behind the bar and Mrs. Sternberg followed, saying "I am sorry, but you cannot work here any more." Plaintiff went to the font of he staircase and told the proprietor's wife that, she did not intend to leave until she got a month's money in lieu of notice. The corporal came up to her and said :-" Why don't you go home? Plaintiff replied :-"I won't go until
[1
then brought against the defendant for false imprisonment, and although judgment was I get my wages." Then the corporal turned to given for the defendant in that action, His Mrs. Steraberg and asked her why she would Honour Mr. Justice Wise refused cost, ld. not pay
plaintiff. She told him it was none of his business. Finally Mrs. ing, as Mr. Harding would procably bring out in cross-examination, that a certain bill of Sternberg told the plaintiff to bring her husband down. Plaintiff went away and retura. lading for the whole of the pears bad been given to the defendant by the person who solded, but as the bir was then full Mrs. Sternberg them, and therefore he had a certain amount of asked them to call next morning, when she
would settl right in holding the
On the following day Mrs. pears.
Steruberg was out when plaintiff called, but later on plaintiff saw her and was again pat off, this time till Sunday. On that occasion Mrs. Sternberg remarked, “ If your husband says I'm wrong I will pay. On Sunday Mrs. Sternberg offered $10 but it was refused by plaintiff.
After hearing evidence his Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
Wednesday, November 6th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. II. H J. Gompertz (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
A BARMAID'S CLAIM.
Action was brought by Mrs. A. M. Rodgers against M. Sternberg of the faternational Hotel to recover the sum of $55, balance of wages for the month of October, or $55, one month's wages, less $5 received on account, in lieu of notica. Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plain- e Castro (of tiff, and Mr. F. X. d' Almada Messrs. Almada and Smith) for the defendant.
Mr. Almada stated that this case was fourth on the list, but as he had a witness from H.M.S. Astract, which was proceeding to Saigon in search of the steamer Taiwan, be would ask bis Lordship to take the evidence of that witness.
His Lorship agreed and,
Witness
Stoker William Ancliffe was called. He said he visited the International Hotel On the evening of October 5th, called for a port wine and lemon and sat down at a table. All of a sudden a barmaid called Marie approached him and "started to argue the point." told her to go away. Instead of doing so she jumped off the stool and hit him on the eye with her right hand. He turned round and laughed at her. Then she picked up a soldier's stick and struck him across the right eye with it, cuting the eye. A stoker and a soldier then pulled her away, and Mrs. Sternberg told her to go home. Witness drank his drink and went
out.
Cross-examined -Who was the soldier with her?-One of the Middlesex men.
any barmaids except
Do you know him ?—I don't know his name. Did you have any conversation with him?— No, I always come ashore by myself.
Are you quarrelsome then ?-No. That was your first drink you had at the International?—Yes.
Did you s08
the plaintiff -Two.
Can you account for her striking you?—Yes. Why-She came over and started arguing the point, and said she did not want to talk to low stokers and sailors in the Navy. I said— If you don't want to talk go away.
Dyou mean to tell me she went over to your table deliberately to quarrel with you?-Yes, air. I do,
Mr. Kong Sing-No, I am suing for the recovery of the price. These pears are perish- Plaintiff stated that on October 5th, while she able goods, and my clients made demand for 'was attending to her duties at the hotel the
In cross-examination plaintiff said she joined the International Hotel in July.
Did you assault anyons during that month ? No I was assaulted by a German when taking the part of Mrs. Sternberg's little girl, and when hy s ruck me I struck him back.
Ia August?- was again insulted by a foreigner who called me a vile name, and I can call witnesses in the police force to prove it. He also threw a glass at my head, knocked me on the floor and kicked me.
Do you quarrel with either of the other barmaids? Well, when girls are working together there are quarrels.
Did you strike the bar boy? -No. When he was working for me I struck him because he was unfit for work.
Continuing, plaintiff said she secured employ- ment at the riterion Hotel on October 6th at 860 per month, and commission on wins gold.
In reply to his Lordship plaintiff said the stoker was put out of the Traveller's Hotel for insulting her.
Mr. Almada submitted that on plaintiff's own evidence she could not succeed as she had secured employment on the following day at similar wages. She could not claim for payment in lieu of notice.
Mr. Grist-We are not claiming that; we are claiming wages for the month of October. She worked five days and is entitled to her salary for the month.
Mr. Almada contended that by her conduct plaintiff was debarred from succeeding.
His Lordship-Do you say it is improper conduct for a Womin to strike a man who grossly insults her?
No answer.
Mre. Sternberg told the Court she had to warn plaintiff during the three months she was in her employ about quarrelling. On October 5:h she did not discharge plaintiff; she told her to go home because she was insulting the customers. Witness fainted when plaintiff struck the stoker, and when she recovered she the plaintiff behind the bar insulting everyone.
Myrtle Hatley, another barmaid, deposed to hearing Mrs. Sternberg tell the plaintiff tổ gọ home.
Was Stoker Ancliff,
a very quiet fellow-sang and laughed only.
Cross-examined-Witness had heard Mrs Sternberg threaten to discharge Mrs. Rodgers on a previous occasion.
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.