the expense of Hongkong trade, and unless | the Government heeds the emphatic ad- vice of the leading representatives of the shipping interest in the Colony, we may rely on hearing more of the development of Manila and other neighbouring ports, and of the consequent loss of trade to Hongkong.
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 3rd July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR
•
.F. PIGGOTT).
▲ JURY ACTION.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
wharf was not sufficient to prove that defen- dant was incapable of performing his duties. As to the Assaults, he expressed the mental to the interests of the Chinese employees, conviction that such conduct was detri He thought the captain in accepting such a position should have acquainted himself with the terms of the agreement. His Honour found that the third ples held good and gave judgment for the defendants with costs.
SUED FOR 80 CENTS.
E. A. L. da Silva was summo:ed by J. Bryanjee for 80 cents. When the case was called, the plaintiff said the money had been paid to him out of court and the case was dismissed.
Monday, 6th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIRP JUSTICE (Sir Francis PIGGOTT).
A JURY ACTION.
The action Leung Lai Wan and others v. Renter Brockelman & Co., was resumed. The plaintiffs claimed damages from defendanta for having illegally procured the Chinese author- The action Leung Lai Wan and others v. ties to issue a warrant for the arrest of. Reuter, Brockelmann & Co., was resumed. The plaintiffs and wrongful seizure of premises plaintiffs claimed damages from defendants for Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. C. Fbaying illegally procured the Chinese author. Dixon of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings appeared for the plaintiffs, defendants being represented by the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., and Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. E. P. Lang of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon. The special jury was composed of Messrs. B. Shewan (foreman), Richard Martin, T. F. Hongh, J. A. Jupp, A. W. A. Becker, A. S. D. Cousland, and G. W. C. Pemberton.
Mr. Dixon, of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, gave evidence as to plaintiffs' partnership book.
Mr. Pollock said that if the evidence were admitted it would give him the right to cross- examine the witness on his instructions. opened up the question of privilege.
It
His Lordship-It is not altogether a question of privilege.
Mr. Pollock-Will your Lordship allow me to argue the point? Your Lordship can be against me or not.
His Lordship-I may te against you or be for you. I very much object to that suggestion.
Mr. Pollock-1 can only speak from ex- perience.
k
His Lordship-Your experience is absolutely wrong, and I shall address the jury on that
point.
Mr. Pollock-I don't see what it has to do with the jury.
His Lordship-These remarks are merely ingg-stions thrown out to the jury-very improper suggestions with regard to a judge in the presence of the jury,
Mr. Pollock-I don't wish to further argue, but I must have an opinion on this matter. Mr. Pollock then continued his argument, and said the admission of the evidence raised the question of privilege and he would have to cross-examine
on the instructions received.
His Lordship-You can go into all the instructions, I think the objection is a
proper one.
Mr. Slade waived his objection.
The incident then ended.
Sir Henry Berkeley opened the case for the defendants. He submitted that the action ought to be dismissed. His chief argument was that the tort was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction.
The hearing was adjourned.
+ IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
ities to issue a warrant for the a-rest of plaintiffs and wrongful seizure of premises Mr. M. W. Blade, instructed by Mr. Č. F. Dizon of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, appeared for the plaintiffs, defendants being represented by the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K Č., instructed by Mr. E. P. Lang of Messrs. Deacon. Looker and Dea. oon. The special jury was composed of Mesars. R. Shewan (foreman), Richard, Martin, T. F. Hough, J. A. Jupp, A. W. A. Becker, A. 8. D. Cousland, and G. W. C. Pemberton.
Sir Henry Barkeley said it was his pleasant ask to state to the jurors the defence of Messrs, Reuter, Brockelmann and Co. to a charge made against them by Chinese subjects in Canton on account of their having exercised, as they were fully entitled to, the privileges accorded to German subjects, wheresoever they might be, by the Emperor of Chios, under treaty with the Emperor of Germany, to seek the assistance of their consul in Chias to obtain through the Chinese authorities the payment of just debts. That was the offence, with a capital O, with which this respectable German firm was charged. The complaint was that the defendants without justification pursued persons in China who had nothing to do with the Chung Loong firm, in order to squeeze from them monies due to the defendants by the said firm. His Imperial German Majesty's Consul in China was accused of illegally procuring the Chinese Authorities to act in an arbitrary, high-handed and un- justidable way against this Chinese firm. The allegation was that they told the Consul that Li Lai-san and two other men absconded from Hongkong and were hiding in China, meaning thereby that they were fraudu lently endeavouring to avoid payment of their just debts. Counsel put it to the jury strongly that even if they could have gone against the plaintiffs in Hongkong they were entitled to go against them in Canton; they were entitled to sue them in the country in which they lived rather than waste time by following up a useless bankrupt firm in Hongkong. No verdict could be given for libel unless the words laid in the statement of claim had been proved.
had
His Lordship-I must remind you, Sir Henry, that the onus is on you,
Sir Henry Berkeley-The onus is on us for what, my Lord?
His Lordship-There are three allegations: the first is that they are partners the second is BEFORE ME. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING that they absconded; and the third is that they
PUISNE JUDGE).
A CAPTAIN'S DISMISSAL. His Honour delivered judgment in the action in which Captain Bergwitz sued the Shui On Steamship Company for $835 for wrongful
dismissal. He said that the defendants an- deavoured to justify the dismissal on three counts, namely (a) habitual drunkenness, (8) incompetency in his duties as captain, (c) alleged assault of the pilot and alleged assault of other members of the orew. The evidence before him did not prove the first count, and on the second there was no evidence to show that he was incompetent. The ship was a new one and the "collision which occurred on leaving the
|
are in hiding.
Mr. Slade There are four.
Sir Henry Berkeley-I would like to hear the fourth.
His Lordship I am not going to deal with it. The point is this: I am not going further than the first allegation, that of partnership. You justify the truth, and therefore the onus is on you. I shall have to put it to the jury like that.
Sir Henry Berkeley-That is so, and I agree with it. So far the onus is on us. Counsel then asked the jurors to consider the facts, and advised them not to mix them. It was a bad plan to mix anything, he said, and informed the jurors that if they did not mix their facts they
(July 11, 1908.
would be sober in the head when they came to give judgment. The capital of the sugaf Arm, Bir Henry told the jurors, was $14,000.
mixed in the facts. The capital of the sugar Mr. Blade- hope my friend won't get
importance.
was $11,000. Accuracy is of some
firm
Sir Henry Berkeley– Accuracy is all-import- ant. Counsel then addressed the jurors with reference to a witness who went into the Chung Loong shop and was testing_sugar.”
His Lordship-Tasting it.
46
Sir Henery Berkeley-Tasting by testing, and testing by tasting.
He stated that
After tiffin Sir Henry Berkeley continued his address for the defenos when execution was issued the plaintifs return ed from the country, and Ahen they terrorised defendants by a boycott.
Mr Blade-Who said that? Sir Henry Berkeley-You did. Mr Blade I did not.
His Lordship-The question was raised in cross-examination, and then I thought it was understood to be correct.
Sir Henry Berkeley (to Mr Sladə)—You must not make mistakes here.
Mr Blade-I absolutely deny that. What I said was, there was an allegation that you were threatened with a boycott.” To assert positively what I have already twice denied, I don't think proper. If you are going to prove it you must
state iti
Sir Henry Berkeley-It has been asserted, I contend, in the opening.
Mr Slade-My friend is asserting again and again about the boycott. I ask him if he is going to prove it, and he will not.
Sir Henry Berkeley-I don't want to prove what you admit.
Mr Blade- don't admit it. It has been persistently denied.
His Lordship-The witness denied it. Sir Henry Berkeley-The witness did not deny it.
Mr Blade-He did.
Sir Henry Berkeley-Well, we'll pass. I don't want to make the issue any wider than it need be. You shouldn't state what you don't want me to say.
Mr. 'Slade To assert to the jury what I have not stated, and then to go on sta ing it as a fact is, I venture to submit, exceedingly improper.
Sir Henry Berkeley-The conduct of the plaintiffs was such as to lead Reuter, Brookel. mann and Co, and the German Consul to believe they were partners, and they did believe themselves liable for the money due to the Ching Loong. Is that an unfair inference to draw?:
Mr. Blade-Yes,
Sir Henry Berkeley-I think not, because the excuse of business in the country was a blind.
His Lordship-Supposing the Kwong Hing Loong is composed of twelve persons, and the jury believes that these men are partners, how will you escape judgment against you, even if you allege AB and C are the partners?
Sir Henry Berkeley-No such judgment could be given.
His Lordship-I am indicating possibilities you should meet.
Sir Henry Berkeley - If the three men referred to should be found by the jury to be partners in the Ching Loong, and if they are have seized the Kwong Hing Cheong's premises. partners in the Kwong Hing Cheong and we
are not partners in the Ching Long and although they allege that the nine others they prove it, they would not be entitled to judgment even then, because they were a foreign firm and were bound to put all the names of the twelve in the writ.
His Lordship-If you have a writ against A, B and C, whether in Canton or Kamschatka, you cannot exercise it against A to/L.
on one undivided right, and you can prove that Sir Henry Berkeley-If twelve' persons sne
three of them are not qatitled to recover against you, the whole of the twelve are barred by that particular writ to recover,
seriously consider the point till to-morrow, as His Lordship-I think you had better the whole action depends upon it.
names. He said they were "Chinens Sir Heary Berkeley then referred to “.
[
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.