Angust 3, 1908.]
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 24th July,
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(SIR F. PIGGOT).
THE BANK NOTE CASE.
The trial of the two men for attering a forged bank note was concluded yesterday.
The second defendant said under cross- examination that he would not have passed the note in question, and if any one attempted to piss a forged note to him he would detect it at once. There was a difference in colour between the note produced and a genuine $100 bill.
Assuming that note passed into your hands you would have been bound to have discovered the forgery-Yes.
The manager of the shop in which defendants were employed declared they were honest, reliable men.
His Lordship is summing up said that be very rarely criticized the police but it was his daty to point out to the jury that the police had made a mistake in that case. Inspector Ritchie had to do his duty, as all the inspectors had to do, and he thought that the inspector had made a mistake. In such a case where there was undoubtedly conflict and a cross- charge Inspector Ritohis ought not to have soted by himself, but ought to have sent down to the Crown Solicitor for advice. The jury must not weigh in their minds whether In- spector Ritchie was right. That was not the question which was before them, but they had to decide whether the prisoners were guilty or not. He bad had very grave doubts as to whether there was any evidence to go before the jury bat he had yielded to the presuasive eloqu-nce of the learned Attorney-General that the case had better go before a jury which would be more satisfactory to all parties concerned,
The case which had been submitted to them was one of assumption only and they were asked to assume the prisoners guilty.
The jury without retiring returned a verdict of not guilty, and his Lordship discharged the prisoners,
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.
RUSSO-CHINESE BANK V. LI YAU SAM.
Judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice (Sir F. Piggott) and his Honour the Acting Puisne Judge (Mr. H. H. J. Gompertz) in the appeal by the Russo-Chinese Bank against the decision in the action Li Yau Sam v Russo- Chinese Bank on the ground that his Lordship the Chief Justice had misdirected the jury. It will be remembered that the plaintiff gave a. large sum of money to the compradore of the defendant bank for telegraphic transfer to Shanghai, and the compradore, instead of handing the money to the bank converted it to his own псе. Plaintiff sought to recover from the bank but the latter denied that it had any knowledge of the claim and contend d that the trans- action was between the plaintiff and the com pradore,
Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K. C., instructed by Mr. Gedge of Messrs Johnson, Stokes, and Master, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. M. Slade, instructed by Mr. Beavis, appeared for the respondents
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
on
bank but instead of handing it over to the bank he retained it for his own nae. Why this should be called fraud on the customer his Lordship could not understand: it was much more rightly frand the bank His Lordship said there Was no Case of fraud reported on all fours with this for simplicity, and after a consideration of the law applicable to fraud, be had to decide against the appellants. In conclusion he referred to counsel submitting a series of questions to be the practice which was becoming a custom of
put to the jury. He believed this to be wrong, and where questions were put by the judge suggestions might be made to include in these some points omitted. The questions must be framed on the scheme of law on which the summing up was based.
The Paisne Judge delivered judgment at length. In his opinion the judgment should stand with costs.
Mr. Pollock applied for a stay of execution pending an appeal to the Privy Council and suggesting that a sum of money should be deposited as security in some local bank.
Mr. Slade opposed, contending there was no ground for keeping the plaintiff out of his money for the year, two years or whatever period was required to bring the appeal to the ultimate court of appeal.
After discussion it was decided to leave the subject until the motion for leave to appeal came before the Court.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR F. PIGGOTT).
A QUESION OF COSTS.
In the jury action Leung Lai Wan and others v. Reuter, Brockelmann and Co, counsel were invited to attend to briefly discuss the question of costs. Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. C. F. Dixon of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, appeared for the plaintiffs, defendants being represented by the Hon. Mr. H. E. P. llock, K.C., and Sir Houry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. E. P. Lang of Messrs; Deacon, Looker and Deacon.
When the case was called, an interval elapsed without any attempt on the part of counsel to address the court.
His Lordship-Well, is anybody going to move?
Mr. Slade-It is for them.
Sir Heory Berkeley-No, it is for them, Mr. Slade-I have moved for judgment. Sir Henry-I am going to move that costs be given to us on those issues on which we have been successful,
Bis Lordship-l'hat motion was made. reserved it for consideration.
I
Sir Henry - You will hear me now, my Lord, His Lordship thought the judgment for trespass carried with it costs, and he did not
think any subdivision was necessary.
Sir Henry said there was good cause for depriving the plaintiffs of their costs even on the issue of trespass.
His Lordship disagreed.
Sir Henry Berkeley-Here every single cause of action left to the jury has been found in favour of the defendants.
His Lorship-The view which I take of the attitude of both parties-
Sir Henry Berkeley-For your Lordship's own protection I put it to you that you are not entitled in this case to take any adverse view of defendants' case.
His Lordship-That is on the finding. I have thought it over for three or four days, and I consider on the whole facts that it is not a case in which I should deprive the plaintiffs of costs.
The Chief Justice set out the details with grost particularity, and in his examination of the relation between the parties, said that everything teaded to the fact that Ng San Fook noted throughout as the bank's compradore. Usually the compradore only saw the Chinese customer. There were elaborate Sir Henry Berkeley-It is impossible we precautions to safeguard the bank, but he might should be satisfied, having won all along the remark in passing that there seemed an extra-line, to be called upon to pay dosts to the men ordinary hiatus which left an opening for fraud who failed all along the line. between the notification of the European staff by the compradore and the receipt of the money. Having dealt with the facts at length, his Lordship said that it seemed impossible to contend that the bank was not liable. The bank put the man there as its agent, it put him in a position to carry out such transactions. Money was handed to him to receive on behalf of the
His Lordship That is a question of tactics, and tactics sometimes lose a general his whole army.
other party admits, and the fact of the existenos of a warrant was admitted by the plaintiffs in their own pleadings.
His Lordship-I won't say you could argue till midnight-
Sir Henry Berkeley—I don't mean to do that. Will you make it short by taking down the three points I submit?
His Lordship-I know them well.
Sir Henry Berkeley-The first point is this: The defendants in this action cannot be made to pay any costs on issues on which they have succeeded. Secondly: The defendants cannot be deprived of receiving those cosis, and that such should be paid by plaia tiff. Thirdly : That the plaintiffs, though successful on the claim of trespass must in the circumstances pay the costs of the whole sotion 88 such was vexatious, and unsupported by evidence accord. ing to the finding of the jury, Sir Henry then referred to the typewritten copy of his Lordship's summing up. aud remarked that the slip of paper handed in by the jury regarding "tong" names
was not a rider.
His Lordship-I think there is some mia- conception with regard to the judgment I gave on the question of trespass. I do not look on it as technical at all, but as an important question of law, and as carrying the costs of the whole action. There cannot be any doubt as to the course subsequently pursued. The defendants cannot quite realise it at present, but I think if the case should ever go to the Privy Council the course pursued will be found most convenient. With regard to the question of good cause for depriving the plaintiffs of costs. I consider I am bound to look at the whole proceedings, not merely at the plaintiffs' adtion. And for the present, I may be wrong, but for the present I cannot shut my eyes to the fact but there may be some question of law turning of what the jury said. I won't call it a rider,
the action. I don't regard the various issues. on that. I give judgment for the plaintiffs in
Mr. Pollock-We only want to get quite olear what your Lordship means. Assuming your Lordship to have taken an erroneous view with regard to the issues, your Lordship does not propose to deprive the defendants of the costs of the issues ?
ing I was upset on the question of trespass His Lordsbip-My first view is this: Sappos-
then it is merely a question of giving you judgment on the whole action. That is clear, I am not quite sure whether any other qu stion arises 1 don't see how any other question could arise. Either I am rigut on the trespass, or I am wrong, in which case you are entitled to judgment.
Mr. Pollock-I want to know clearly whether your Lordship deprives us of costs on the issues ?
His Lordship-I don't deprive you because the question does not arise. There wil be judgmeut for plaintiffs with costs, and the application of defendants for costs on the issues
is refused,
Monday, July 27th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR F. PIGGOTT).
A DISPUTED CONTRACT,
Messrs. George Fenwick and Co. were sued by Ng Wah to recover the sum of $9,700.72 said to be dae under a contract. Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. O. D. Thomson, sp- peared for plaintiff, while defendants were represented by the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., who was instructed by Mr, R. D. Atkinson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon).
The statement of claim showed that on lat September the defendants entered into a contract in writing with one Ah Ming, alias Tan Ming, to supply all the material and labour for completing the whole of the carpenter work of two steel stern wheel steamers
accordance with plans and specifics- tions for the sum of $6,000 each. On October 26th the defendants entered into a contract with Ah Ming to construct and launch complete, according to specificatious and drawing,
in Sir Henry Berkeley-There is a game called German tactics, I believe, but this is by no means that game. My Lord, I will disabuse your mind in one word. It is not necessary for a party to prove in evidence that which the
i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.