November 30, 1907.1
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
zinolation was because it was brought to me motice the other day that somebody-either a vnitary inspector or someone from the. Regis
General's department--was calling at these Hon. Mr. HaWETT.-The house being sup- taking back certißostes and isningplied with a meter there does not appear to be which allowed less persons to reside in any necessity for this tank.
The MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH thought | a meter might be supplied. The tank was not kept clean.
en That I maintain, is illegal, and ink all applications for eating house licences bad-botter, come before the Board. I don't Think an officer of this department should revoke any rertificates, which we have granted. ·
The PRESIDENT —-You are practically raising another fawns. What is before us just now is the reason why this procedure has been carried
out.
- Hon. Mr. HoWETT.—With regard to what Mr. Hooper mys, it appears to me that rection 288 is absolutely clear. Festion 3 of the byelaws egally clear and existing applications cannot apparently be dealt with, but fresh applicationS
MORTALITY STATISTICS,
Barel on a death rate per 1000 per annum, the death rate of the whole Colony for the week ended November 2nd was 19.9 and for the week ended November 9th, 21.9 as against 22.6 for the corresponding week last year.
RAT RETURN.
During the week ended November 16th, 880 rats were caught, but none were plagae infected, Only one of the 957 caught during the following week was found to be infected.
be made to the Registrar-General for the tristration of a house as a common lodging house That does not touch existing licences, Apparently what has been done has been done by the officers of the department without the sanction of the Board, and there is no question BEFORE that it is absolutely illegal. If there is any question about it we should have it referred to the Law Adviser of the Government,
The PRESIDENT,—I don't think it is illegal because the officers are practically under the heads of, the department,
Hon. Mr. HawETT.—AD officer of the sanitary department may, as an officer of that depar ment, come under the heading of a Government official, But it is distinctly stated that inspec. tion can only be made by an offer of the Board. It is illegal to have it done in any other way.
Mr. HOOPER.-Taking the case on its merits, and without any technicalities for a moment: sapt osing an officer of the Board went to a place and said, only 16 people can live here. That should be reported to us, and if from inspection of all the surrounding circumstances, I thought 20 ought to be allowed, I would move sdo that. effect. It is interfering with our prerogative and jurisdiction to lay down definitely that an officer of the Board shall decide...
The Registrar-GENERAL-ID the common lodging house byelaws is there anything about the number of persons w o shall occupy a house?!
The MEDICAl Officer of HEALTH.-No, that is simply dealt with by the Ordinance.
Mr. Hoop-Have we power to permit a grenier number of people to occupy a floor than is laid down in the Ordinance ?
The MEDICAL ( FFICER OF HEALTH.-ÁS fax, as I am aware, no.
Mr.. HOOPER—Then I would ask why we -commifted such an illégal sot the other day. We allowed double the number provided to -rašide in-houses at Tai Hang.
The MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH.-ID that Instance we said no prosecutions would take place at present,
Mr. HOOPER.-There a point arises. In some villages outside Victoria I would allow more to nscupy floors.
least
The REGISTRAR-GENERAL.—I would like to ask spplicants whether they would prefer the prosedure to be continued, or whether they ¿mond, prefer a procedure which would cause
delay of a forṭaight at the
quite mare applicants would be pleased if the old procedure were wihered to I application bajog The only question that has arisen
of measuring in which, apparently
of ag
gation. We bare bere unofficial ears strong advocates of red tape.
KIT—If it is laid down dis- la to be settled, by the Board, it Ged by Government Officials behind the Board.
Ites composed of Mr. Lan Chu-pak, Shelton Hooper and the Medical Officer was appointed to deal with applics-
THE TANI QUESTION,
¿plication was made to the Board for per-
|
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, November 25th
IN SUMARY JURISDICTION.
MR. H. H. J. GoMPERTZ (ACTING
CHIEF JUSTICE).
DISPUTED OWNERSHIP.
Tsoi Heung-po brought action against the Tang Yu firm to recover $788.40 das for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. O. D. Thornson, who appeared for the plaintiff, said the defendant firm carried on business at Tungsha village in the Fakien Province. On November 2nd a junk arrived here from that village with a quantity of cargo consigned to the plaintiff. In the course of a conversation with the junk owner tha plaintiff learned that there were goods on board consigned by the defendant firm, who sent a man in charge of them. The name of that man was the same as the present claimant, As the defendants owed the plaintiff money he issued a writ of foreign attachment, and notice of the claim was not given until twelve days after the writ had been delivered.
His Lordship delivered judgment for plain tiff on the writ, and then an issue was tried to decide who was the owner of the property seized, Mr. H. K. Holmes appearing for the claimant who, he said, was a trader in Hongkong and had his goods shipped to this port by the same junk as the plaintiff.
After hearing the evidence. His Lordship gave judgment for the claimant, with costs.
Wednesday, November 27th.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.
In the matter of In Kai-shing alias In Chan,
and in the matter of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance, 1889.
by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, and who appeared for Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., who was instructed
the prisoner, said he understood his Lordship proposed to fix the hearing of the motion he intended to move at some later date. The motion did not state on its face the grounds upon which it was made, but it was an appeal generally against his Lordship's decision. It intended to move practically on the same grounds was not usual to state the grounds, but he
to ask the Fall Court to consider one further as he moved for habeas corpus. He proposed
ground, which was a sub-ground of the second ground, and that was that the evidence went to to punish an offence other than an extradition show that the requisition was made with a view
orima.
The hearing of the motion was adjourned sine
die.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
SEQUEL TO A PIRACY.
His Lordship delivered judgment in the cas8 to retain a water tank at 134, Queen's in which Ip Tsung-nin olsimed from Kwong Central. The premises were used as an | Toe-king the deliver up of a junk now lying homes and the tank referred to way anat. Shankiwan, or in the alternative, $1000 mscomity for storing water to meet the | damages. Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (of Messrs, requirements of the trade.
Dennys and Bowley) appeared for the plaintiff,
|
956
and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Mesara Wilkinson and Grist) for the defendant.
The Acting Paisne Judge said—I thought it better to give a written judgment in this OSHO because it is a question that has never been decided before, and it might be useful in the Summary Court to have the reasons on record on which I base my judgment.
to
The facts as I find them in this case aro se follows:-The plaintiff, Tp Tsung-nin, is a salt fish dealer carrying on business at Chak Po village, Yueng Kong district province of Kwangtung. He was the owner of two fish- ing junks which went out as usual to fish in company on the 9th of the 7th moon (August 17, this year). (ne of these junks in respect of which this claim is brought had a crow of eight men, including the master-Kong Luk. When at sea at about 3 a.m. next morn- ing (18th August) the vessel was boarded by armed pirates who overpowered the crew and forced them into the hold taking posses- sion of her and navigating her to Ko Lan-an uninhabited spot on the Chinese coast. Here the crew were put on shore at about 3 p.m. on the 12th day of the 7th moon (August 20th) The pirates then sailed off with the vessel and the boat in which they had come aboard. The crew made their way home by land, arriving at Chak Po on the 20th of the moon (August 28th) where they reported to the owner. The plaintiff had in fact received the news of the piracy of this vessel on the 11th of the moon (August 19th) from the junk which had been bar consort. On August 20th he reported to the local authori. ties. On September 9th be went in company with the master to Kong Moon, thence Macao and thence 080 to Hong. kong where on September 24th, he found the missing vessel at anchor at Shankiwan, and reported to the Harbour police. The delivery up of the junk was demanded by plaintiff's solicitor, but defendant was only willing to comply on being satisfied by the plaintiff's solicitor and on receiving from plaintiff the amount of the purchase money with interest and all his expenses. This action was then com. menced. The defendant, Kwong Tee king, is a Taoist priest living at thaukiwan. He ha there a paper business and he also deals in junks which he buys for resale. On the 2nd of September Le saw the vessel, in respect of which he is now sued, at anchor at Shaukiwan twenty or thirty cheung from the shore, with a bamboo cross conspicuously exhibited on the port side. This is the cus- tomary manner at Shaukiwan of giving nòtice that a junk is for sale. aving inspected the ressel he entered into negotiations for her por. chase with one Kwan Shing, alias ✪ Kwan, the apparent owner, who produced to him her Hongkong licence as a fishing junk which was ing been agreed as the date for the completion regular and in order. The 9th September hav- of the purchase, the defendant put su advertise-
those papers from the 4th to the 9th day of ment, in the form of Exhibit 2, in three Chinese newspapers, and this advertisement remained in September. Finally, the purchase was com pleted on September 9th, in the office of de- fendant's solicitors-Messrs. Wilkinson 'nod Grists bill of sale being executed and the ɛum of 8950 being paid over as purchase
is the vessel of the possession of which he was tablished that the junk, the subject of this claim, In my opinion the plaintiff has es-
forcibly deprived by an act of piracy on the morning of the 18th August, It cannot be maintained that he has in any way so conducted himself as to make it inequitable for him to Mr. Grist that had the plaintiff come at once to assert his claim of ownership It was urged by
stolen junk can be disposed of, he would have been Hongkong and Macao, the only places where a
money.
able to forestall the sale to the defendant. I nos no reason however, why the plaintiff should not bave waited – as, in fact, he did wait—for a res- sonable time to get direct tidings of the vessel from his crew. In any case it is not contended that the facts are such as would support # pl of estoppel. The plaintiff's claim then is” founded upon the general rule of law that no one can transfer a better title than h、 him«elf pous«sses and asks for the possessin of the junk, or, in default, for her fall value 'n money,
The defence is shortly “ Market Overt" that is to say, defendant claims the benefit of the doctrine that where the goods are sold opsaly
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.