Page
June 27, 1908]
SUPREME COURT.
Saturday, 20th June.
In Summary JurisdictiON.
BEFORE ME. H. H. J. GoMPERTZ (ACTING PUSINE JUEGU).
THE PURCHASE OF A JUNK.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
REPAIRING A STEAMER,
407
hostile criticism, but only as a guide for the future. It can be but an error of judgment.
Wan Wong, trading as Ah Wong sued Thomas Schjervig for $325.85 for materials | At the same time I am bound to my that my
supplied and work done on board the steamer
Progress."
露露
Mr. Olto Kong Bing appeared for the Johnson Stokes and Master defended. plaintiff, and Mr. A. G. Jackson of Messrs.
Mr. Otto Kong Sing said the defendant had gone to the plaintiff who was a contractor with
Mr. Thomson said plaintiff was formerly the the owner of a junk and on November 14th of last year he agreed to sell it to the defendant for $1,500, although at the defendant's request the purchase price was put in at $2,500. On that date an agreement was entered into and defendant paid $100 on account and the plaintiff signed the agreement of sale and acknowledged baving received $1,000 being the extra $1,000 refresenting the difference between the $2,500 and $1,500. Defendant on various dates paid in- stalments and on January 18th a balance of $700 was due, At the request of the defendant, plaintiff signed two documents, one for $500 and the other a simple acknowledgement of indebtedness for $200, the reason being that the stamp on the promissory note would only cover $500. The $200 was paid in due course as well as instalments amounting to $315, leaving $185 still owing. On June 8th defendant's account ant came to the plaintiff and said defendant was ready to pay the money, but plaintiff did not go until a day or two afterwards. On arrival defendant produced some bags contain. ing coins and asked plaintiff to produce the promissory note and receipt it. This the plaintiff did, acknowledging the receipt of the money in full, whereupon defendant took both the receipt and the bags to a cubicle and then told plaintiff to wait until his father returned. Eventually the police were called and they advised plaintiff that it was a matter for the Summary Court.
Evidence was called, and His Honour entered judgment for the plaintiff for $185 and costs.
Man Shi Sam, alias Man Chi, a trader of 94gard to some work to be done to the s.a. "Progress." Plaintiff went to the steamer Connaught Road, sued Chan Tin Ting alias and the captain pointed out certain work Chan Yam Ting for $207.94, being balance due which plaintiff subsequently executed. He was under a promissory note. Mr. O. D. Thomson told to go to Cheung Hing with his bill and appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Otto Kong they referred him to the Captain, who again Sing represented the defendant.
satisfaction, hence the action. sent him to the Cheung Hing. He could get no
Monday, 22nd June.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT).
A BANKING TRANSACTION,
Choy Ho Shi alias Choy Sap Sze Pai sued the Wa Wing Hong Bank and Chan Tan Po. Mr. Slade, instructed by Mr. Steavenson of Messrs. Looker and Deacon appeared for the plaintiff bat the defendants did not enter an appearance. Mr. S'ade read a letter from Mesre. Hast. ings and Hastings in which they said that de- fendants were not in Hongkong for the purpose of attending the trial and they did not propose to proceed further. The amount claimed was $10,00 for money lent to the bank by plaintiff Mr. Slade said that it was an ordinary deposit with the bank, and as regarded the partnership of Chan Tun Po he would formally prove that he was a partner and t! at it had been so decided in two other cases.
The plaintiff, who was the fourteenth wife of Choy Shang, said she deposited the $10,000 in the bank on the 6th January, 1906, and neither the money nor interest thereon had been paid to
her.
After hearing other evidence, his Lordship entered judgment for plaintiff.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING PUISne Judge),
A PECULIAR ARRANGEMENT.
In the action Chan Shan U against Mak Man Hing for $350 money due on a promissory note or in the alternative money lent, defendant admitted the promissory note but said he did not know the plaintiff.e got the money from another man. Plaintiff said he gave the money -to another man to hand to defendant.
Verdict was given for the amount claimed.
The defence contended that the Captain was not liable.
reserved judgment.
His Lordship, after hearing
Tuesday, 23rd June.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL Court.
THE MURDER TRIAL.
evidence,
arrest of judgment moved by Hon. Dr. Ho Kai Judgment was delivered in the motion for the in his defence of the three prisoners who were Chinese in December 1906 by the Chief Justice found guilty by a jury of having murdered three (Sir Francis Piggott) and the Acting Paisne Judge (Mr. H. H. J. Gomperta). The Hon. Mr. Rees Davies (Attorney General), instructed by Mr. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. M. Slade and the Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton, appeared for the respondents. said—
The Chief Justice in delivering judgment
first experience in a murder case in the Colony in 1905 revealed that there had existed in the past a very wrong custom of allowing prisoners when they were brought up to the Central Polios Station to be promiscuously interrogated by the detectives. This seems to have been done away with some time before my arrival, but a vestige of it cropped up in the case I was then trying. There seems to be some misapprehension as to how the question now before the Court came to be raised and in some respects, as will presently appear, the action of the Court itself was challenged by the Attorney-General. Sergeant Wilden was called, and deposed that he went with the widow of Luk Sang, one of murdered men, to the house of No. 1 prisoner at 5.30 am. with other Chinese policemen. The prisoner was in bed. He said, that is, in answer to questions put by Wilden, that his name was Wong Fak and Yum Sing. The learned Counsel for the defence was about to rise to object to the evidence being received, when I asked the witness whether the prisoner knew be was a courtable; he answered, “ Yes : st least I feel pretty sure that he did.” I thereupon rejected the evidence, The Attorney-General continued the examination, and obtained the wood box, and I searched it and found a watch following statement" He opened a camphor
and chain." Counsel for the defence again being evidence. The Attorney-General referred to about to rise to object, I thereupon rejected this Russell on Crimes Vol. III. p. 510, and con- tended that although what was said by the pri- soner might not be receivable, yet the finding of the watch was receivable as an independent foot. I felt considerable doubt on the subject. and after the recess delivered a short judgment giving my reasons for rejecting the evidence. But I intimated that the question being obviously a very important one to the prosecu- tion to prove, 1 should admit it and, leave the defence to move before judgment, if the verdict was against the prisoners, and I would reserve the point for the consideration of the Full Court under Section 78 of Ordinance 9 of 1855. The Attorney-General then said he would not put the evidence forward: I intimated that I thought he was right in the circumstances. Wilden then deposed that he took the prisoner from the house, and meeting the widow, he arrested him in the road and took him to the Police Station. On the following morning the Attorney General stated that there had been some misconception as to my ruling, though I do not know what it could have been; that the finding of the watch was a point of great importance to the prosecution, and that he therefore proposed to re-call Sergeant Wilden. To this assented. Wilden then gave the following evidence: "I saw a camphor wood was lying on. box in No. 1's house by the side of the bed he The box was opened by No.), and I found a watch and obain inside.”. Ha
At the close of his long argument in this cas", the learned Attorney General for some occult reason, which have been unable to fathom, treated the Court to a solemn recital of certain
court to do its duty, reminding us that the case commonplaces. He particularly enjoined the
an important one; and warned us how serious a matter it would be if we tampered with trial by jury in this Colony by acceding to the motion made on behalf of the prisoners. The Court has 10 need of such reminders; and so far as trial by jury is concerned the remarks were singularly inopportune, for this is not a motion to set aside the verdict of the jury, but to quash a conviction on the ground that evi dence had been improperly admitted, on which evidence the verdict of the jury depended: the possibility of these subsequent proceedings being thoroughly understood by the jury when they gave their verdict. I have farther to state that I very mush the ad hominem argument in reference to the object to judgments of learned Judges at home: Such arguments as this "surely you will not overrule so learned a Judge as Mr. Justice Jones" and so on. All the Judges at home must be treated by us as learned Judges, as indeed they are; and so also I may remark are the Judges of this Court. The question we may have unfor- tunately to decide in case of conflict of opinion between Judges at home is, which in our opinion is the sounder view to take of the point raised before us: the question we certainly have to decide in this case is whether the learned Attorney General's inter- pretation of the judgments quoted to us is sound. I wish, before dealing with the case, to say one word with reference to the Police. The Court is engaged on an enquiry whether the sction of a certain member of the force was legal, and not a little criticism has been en dulged in. But it is not hostile criticism, A question of great delicacy and difficulty has been raised, and I trust that what has been said during the argument, and what may be said in the course of this judgment will not in any way discourge the police in the con. tinued salous performance of their arduous duties. Those duties are very important, and being zealously performed. The fact that a the Colony is dependent for its peace upon their
somewhat abstruse point of law may not have been rigorously complied with, supposing we' should so hold, must not be taken as-say as
I
identified a watch and chain, which had previously been identified as belonging to one of the deceased by his widow. In answer to to questions by me, Sergeant Wildan then said. "He opened the box in consequence of something I said. I had asked his name. saw the box by the bed. I said, who does this box belong to? He said it belongs to me. I said open it, and he opened it." I then repeated what I had said on the previous day with regard to reserving the point for the Fall Court. There is therefore not strictly speaking a motion in arrest of judgment, but a point reserved under s. 78 of Ürdinance 9 of 1855. The Attorney General during his argu- ment contended that although the Court had the right to put these questions the evidence was inadmissible, and that it ought not to have been put before the jury. It will be as well to deal with this point first. It will subsequently appear that this is really_the_crucial point in the case. I am of opinion that I had clearly the right to put these questions; and that if they had been elicited in cross-examination by the defence I could not have expluded the evidence. The reason for the Attorney General's action and for the limitel nature of his questions to the witness was clear. He was anxious to get the isot of the finding of the watch in evidenos independently of the means by which the finding had been arrived at. The doubts I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.