July 25, 1908.j.
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 17th July,
BEFORE THE CHIRY JUSTICE AND A SPECIAL Jury.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
for the plaintiffs on the question of trespass estimating the damage socording to the prin- ciples he had laid down. Then he provided the following points for their consideration *--- Were the nine persons mentioned in the ouse partners in the Kwong Hing Cheong? Were the other three men partners in the Chung Loong? Did the defendants act with reasonable and probable cause in alleging that they were 21st! Does this constitute a libel! partners when they wrote the letter of February |
On the ground of trespass they returned s nanimous verdict for plaintiffs, and awarded $1 damages.
partners in the Kwong Hing Cheong by a They agreed that the nine persons were not majority of five to two.
They agreed that the three, Wong Hing-tong Cheong, were partners in the Chung Loong on and two others, partners in the Kwong Hing February 21st, by a majority of six to one.
They agreed, by a majority of four to three, that the defendants acted with reasonable and probable cause in alleging on February 21st that these three men Chang Loong.
were partners in the
did not constitute a libel, and that there should They were unanimous in adding that this
be no damages.
After argument as to costa bis Lordship reserved judgment. He exempted the jury for for their attendance. two years from civil duties and thanked them
THE ACTION FOR ALLEGED WRONGFUL SHIZURE, The
Case in which Leung Lai Nam sued Reater, Brockelmann and Co. claiming damages for wrongful seizure of premises, was continued.
At 2.15 p.m. the jury went into the jary room to consider their verdict, returning 55 minutes His Lordship, after explaining to the jurors later when the foreman, Mr. R. Shewan, an- the functions of a judge in summing up,nounced that they had agreed upon their verdict, remarked that their function was to bring to their decision all their ability and their com-
but that there were different majorities on different points. mercial knowledge. They were to take most scrupulous care in banishing all personal pre-dilections or preconceived ideas. It was impossible in the eye of the law to separate the branches of the defe: dant firm, Messrs, Reuter, Brockelmann and Co. were liable for the acts of their branches whether in Hongkong or Canton. The jurors would wonder why such an action as this should be brought in a British Court at all, and why a British jury should be troubled with what people have chosen to do in Canton. The principle of British justice was that practically all actions were triable in a British Court. The plaintiff might be in Saigon, the defendant in Nova Scotia and the cause of action in Vladivostock, but if certain condi- tions were fulfilled that action might be brought in this Court. There were to this rule some three or four exceptions, and the first points with which he had to deal were on questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Court. These points were taken by Sir Henry Berkeley, and if Sir Henry would pardon him for paying a compliment, they were taken with that admir- able courtesy which always distinguished him, and if the same gentleman would still further pardon him, they displayed learning of some of the most intricate points of English law. If he had fot himself devoted a considerable amount of time to this subject it would have taken him much longer to have dealt with the points. When an action was brought in England for what was called tort, for wrong committed in a foreign country, it should be unlawful by the laws of both countries. In the present instance Chinese law was not applicable, but German law. Even assuming this notion to be only foreign, he thought damages could be recovered for the wrongful shutting up of premises. There was also involved in this action the seizure of per sonal property. The legal process by which the seizure had been effected must be produced in order that the Court might see whether it was right or wrong. If not produced, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict and nominal damages. He did not think it could be said that the seizure of the goods was merely conse- quential on the seizure of the house. From a practical point of view he would say that the house was seized in order to get the goods. For some reason or other the warrant had not been produced, and they had no means of judg. ing whether it was right or wrong.
On that ground the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment, but that would only carry nominal damages, His Lordship then proceeded to explain what he thought happened in connection with the action of the German Consul, concluding by remarking that consuls were made to be abused by one party or the other. He did not think there was any better abused officer in the wide
world than a consul.
Proceeding to deal with the books of the firm, his Lordship remarked that he did not like the suggestion thrown out that they were fabricated. Fraud must be proved up to the bilt, and he did not think it had been proved Sir Henry Berkeley appealed to a learned per son who was not exactly a legal authority. He quoted Mrs. Gamp and Mrs Betsy Prig, and although it was very pertinent it was not serious argument.
Dealing with "tong" names, bis Lordship said that if a man bad five of these names, tha would not destroy his right of partnership. It was perfectly true that "tong names were sometimes u-ed for purposes of secrecy as re- garded creditors of a firm, because Chinese law of partnership did not correspond with ours.
His Lordship, after an address of two hours and a half, directed the jury to find a verdict
draw the attention of your Lordship to the very Mr. Shewan-The jury feel it their duty to objectionable system pursued by Chinese firms of concealing the identity of their partners in their accounts by the use of fictitious desig. nations or "tong" names, and are of opinion that firms that keep their books in this manner should not be allowed the benefit of the Courts of this Colony.
His Lordship directed the Deputy-Registrar to note the representation, and the Court adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE MR. H. H, J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING
POISNE JUDGE).
DISPUTE ABOUT GRANITE.
In the case in which Sang Lee sued Li Ping to recover $500 for damages for the conversion of a quantity of broken granite belonging to the plaintiff and stored on Crown land, his Lordship delivered judgment for Sang Lee for $159.54.
Monday, 20th July.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ
(ACTING PUSIne Judge),
JEALOUSY AND REVENGE,
intent to murder; intent to maim, and intent to Wong Muk was indicted on three obarges do bodily harm. The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Rees Davies), instructed by Mr. Denays, from the Crown Solicitor's office conducted the prosecution, prisoner being undefended,
The jury
as empanelled as under: Messrs Geo, Moffat (foreman), James Punchon, Olaf Stoltz, W. Waterhouse, Mr. A. A. Souz, J.
E, Gibson, H. 8. Holmes,
May pros cator, who
offence was the is ent with which it was done, The Attorney General said the gist of this and it was onstomary to frame the indictment with several counts so as to get at the real intent. The circumstances were as follows:-On the 30th two friends visited a brothel in Kennedytown, a carpenter, along with
where they remained for two hours. On leaving the place they arood outaid, talking for a little the street crying while when a band of men came running down Prosecutor, who was standing with his back to them, did not se4 the back from behind. On looking round he saw them approach. Suddenly he was stabbed in
ta.
14
the prisoner attempting to conceal himself un- der the verandah. There were others with him whom the prosecutor did not identify. One of his friends corrcborates the stɔry and apsaka distinctly to seeing the stab inficted by the prisoner with a knife. Prosecutor's comrades ran off and the men.
were pursued by some of One of the women of the house where the three men had been also saw the occurrenc2, saw the prisoner stab the prosecutor in the back and saw the two men run away pursued by te others. As regards the motive of the crime, the jury would probably come to jealousy or revenge. the opinion after hearing the evidence that it was Apparently one of the other men had saked a girl in the house to go with him but she declined and went instand with one of the trio. taken to the Government Civil Hospital where The wounded man was was not expected he would recover, the wound being an inch and half long and just between the ninth and tenth ribs.
it
Evidence was called at length, and at the close of the case for the Crown, prisoner pat in a statement to the effect that in the struggle the prosecutor received the stab from one of his own friends, which was meant for him (the prisoner).
The jury unanimously found prisoner guilty on the third count, intent to do grevious bodily harm.
serious one and it is fortunate that the pro- finding of the jary. The wounding was a very His Lordship-I entirely concur with the
secutor is alive. I sentence prisoner to seven years' hard labour.
|
Tuesday, 21st July.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR F. PIGGOTT.)
ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER. Lau Keung and Un Wai Tak were charged with murder. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Rees Davies), instructed by Mr. Dennys, from the Crown Solicitor's office, prosecuted, and the Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, instructed by Mr. H. K. Holmes, defended,
The jury, was empanelled as under: Messrs. P. Tester (forema), E. Humphreys, F. G. Berlinger. Carroll, G. Beck, H. Rapp, D. Silas, A. A. C.
The Attorney-General said the two prisoners were before the jary on a charge of wilful murder, but he proposed in the exercise of his discretion and having considered the evidence which he would submit to them to invite the jury to return a verdict upon the charge of manslaughter only. On the 15th Jane the deceased man came from Canton and next morning went to the house of a friend, a clansman, where he had his morning meal. Deceased asked his clansmaa to fetch the first defendant who owed him money. Lo Nam, his clansman, went out and returned with the first defendant. A conversation took place as to some loan and the two men went out together. About an hour later the decessed returned alone and made a communication to Lo Nam as to what had taken place and intimating that the first defendant was to come back in the course document in expectation of the return of of the afternoon. Deceased then prepared some
No. 1, but as promised the deceased and his friend went the latter did not return out to look for him after the evening meal. Ultimately they met him in Des Voeux Bond 'entral and the three returned to the shop of Lo Nam. A conversation between the deceased and No. 1 as to the loan which the latter owed the former took place, and finally the first de- in Des Voeux Road West. Thither they went, fendant said he would borrow money at a place Lo Nam remaining outside while the other two went upstairs. After an interval of half an bour the first defendant and another man oame down and made a communication to Lo Nam as to whether he really owed the money to the devga ed or not, to which Lo Nam replied that he knew nothing about it.
What took place
As
in the house was rather important. A woman who resides on the third floor would tell them that she saw the deceased and the first accused enter the room together followed. a little later by the second accused.
The
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.