June 21, 1909.]
Wong Hiu Tung will prove that on July 23rd, 1908, he paid the sum of $500 to Mr. Dixon for costs, that that sum was never credited to the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, and that, in fact, they never received that sum. Mr. Wong Hiu Tung will also prove-
Mr. Calthrop-Mr. Dixon is fighting for his professional existence. We want the charges formulated.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
519
The Chief Justice-You must make the most ; also borrowed monies and made the requests of the point you can. We will note the objection.
The Puisne Judge -We are not going to allow you to be prejudiced in any way by the charge being brought later. If you want au adjournment you can have it.
The Chief Justice- I am bound to say that I think the charges ought to be definitely formu-
Mr. Pottor--They will be formulated. Ilated before coming to Court. want to help you in every way I can. Another charge is that during the continuance of an action Mr. Dixon borrowed various sum of money from Wong Hiu Tung amounting in all to $750
The Chief Justice-Was that man a client of the firm's?
Mr. Poster-He was a client of Messrs. Hastings and Hasting, and Mr. Dixon had the conduct of his action. The name of the action is Kwong Hing Cheung against Re uter. Brockel- mann and Co. At the conclusion of that action there was a sum of $10.800 odd,due to Mr. Wong Hiu Tang's firm from the defendants as costs. and Mr. Dixon suggested that if he handed over this amount in full to Mr. Wong, that he. Mr. Wong, should give Mr. Dixon $1,000 for his own use.
Mr. Calthrop-This point has never been raised before, and there is no evidence of it. Mr. Wong Hiu Tung made an affidavit, and the only charge he put in it was the embezzle ment of $500. If he is going to make another charge he should make a further affidavit.
The Puisue Judge-What is the procedure in the Solicitors' Act of 1888 before the Com- mittee of the Law Society?
Mr. Calthrop-The regulations, I think, were passed in May 1898, and they appear in the last number of the Law Times. They set out that an affidavit should contain specifically the charges.
The Chief Justice-The procedure, to my mind, should follow as nearly as possible the procedure adopted in dismissing civil servants before the Executive Council. I don't think it is necessary to include everything in the affidavit, but I think the charges should be definitely formulated.
Mr. Potter-There is no suggestion here at all that in a proceeding before a committee of the Law Society that all these charges should be specifically set out in the affidavit. In fact, one of the rules says that it is only in a case where a solicitor does not appear, and the com. mittee decide to go on in his absence, that they shall insist on all the charges being set out on affidavit. There is no suggestion that every specific charge be set out.
The Chief Justice-We don't say they should be set out on affidavit, but the charges must be formulated. Affidavits were only required to get the rule nisi. Now we come to the trial we *must have definite charges.
Mr. Potter-We have a definite charge. I am formulating it now.
The Chief Justice - You were mentioning a charge which does not appear on the affidavits, and of course Mr. Clathrop takes the point that he wants it formulated.
Mr. Potter - I am formulating it. This charge is that when this action had been finished there was due to Mr. Wong's firm a sum of $10,800, costs from the defend ants, and that Mr. Dixon suggested that if hes paid over that amount in full to Mr. Wong firm, Mr. Wong should give him $1,000 for himself.
The Puisne Judge-As to the second charge you have formulated about various sums being borrowed, are those sums alleged to be repaid or not?
Mr. Potter-The defendant has not alleged that they have ever been repaid.
Mr. Calthrop He denies that he ever borrow- ed them. I have got a reference to the latest rules-
Mr. Potter-Is this the Law Times news- paper you are quoting?
The Chief Justice-He is not quoting it for decided cases, but for published rules.
Mr. Cafthrop--Here are the rules set out. If my learned friend does not trust me I will hand them up to your Lordships. They show that the affidavit making the charge must set out the definite charges with particulars. When this motion was filed the affidavits filed in support ought to have set out those charges with material proofs at the time. Now other charges are brought against the defendant.
Mr. Potter I shall bow to any suggestions of your Lordship and like that point immediately. I do not want to do anything that might be con. strued into unfairness. Proceeding. Mr. Pottar said the next charge was that on January 8th of this year one, Wan Hi, .engaged Messrs. Hastings and Hastings to act on behalf of a friend of his in a Police Court case, and Wan Hi agreed to pay $50 for costs. He first paid 830 to wr. Dixon, who was instructed in the matter, and this was duly credited as being a pay- ment on account. On the 13th or 14th January Wan Hi paid to Mr. Dixon the remaining $20. This was never credited by Mr. Dixon, and was never received by the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings. The next charge was that in January Mr. Dixon was engaged by one, Gulab, in a case, and on 27th January Gulab paid to the defendant on account of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings' costs the sum of $40. Only $30 of this amount was credited. These were the charges Counsel now wished to revert back and tell their Lordships how Mr. Dixon came to join the firm of Messrs Hastings. Mr Dixon came out to this Colony in October of 1904, and joined the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Has- tings as assistant solicitor. He showed con- siderable ability in the conduct of cases with which he was entrusted, and as far as Mr. Has- tings could see he was a capable and trustworthy man. And to show their Lordships that Mr. Dixon's merit was fully recognised by the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, and that they looked upon him as a valuable man, he would call the Court's attention to an agreement made on the 15th day of April 1907 between the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings and Mr. Dixon. By that agreement the said firm engaged to keep Mr. Dixon for an additional period of five years from 19.7 as managing clerk, and at the end of that time they promised that they would give him a partnership.
The Puisne Judge-That is in the agreement, is it ?
|
|
r.
Mr. Potter said it was, and remarked that their Lordships would readily see that Mr. Dixon was a man whom Mr. Hastings could have had no desire to get rid of. And the Court would more readily recognise that fact when Counsel told their Lordships that it was r. John Has. tings intention to leave this Colony at the end of this year, at any rate for sometime, and that he hoped, and that in fact he relied upon Mr. Dixon to at any rate partly step into his posi- tion, and to be of every assistance to the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings when the senior partner had left the Colony, Their Lord- ships would see, from what he had said, that Dixon was a valuable man to the firm. Counsel proceeded to tell the Court of the precedure in the office of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings with regard to money received and business done. It was a rule, a rigid rule, but it might have been broken at times that when money was paid to any person in the office a receipt should be given to the client for that amount, and an entry should be made by the solicitor who received the money in the rough cash book. The solicitor should also make entries in his diary of every trransaction. And when au entry of money received was made in the rough cash book, the money was handed over to the cashier, who paid it into the bank. The reason why a solicitor should be scrupulously exact about entries in his diary was that these entries would after- wards go to make up the bill of costs to be sent to the client. That brought him to February 2nd of this year, the day on which Mr. John Hastings had a conversation with his present interpreter, and with an interpreter who had lately been in his employment. As a result of these conversations Mr Hastings discovered that so for from Mr. Dixon being a good and faithful servant to the firm, and so far from being an absolutely trustworthy person, he had on the occasions mentioned taken these sums of money which were paid by clients to the firm, and had
|
an
mentioned. While on this point he wished to say that all this evidence had been obtained absolutely indepenndently of any employee of the firm of Messrs. Hustings and Hastings. Only in only one case did Mr. Hastings invoke outside aid, and in that case one of the inspector, of the Hongkong Police brought him in touch with Wan Hi. The charges to be supported by the evidence of Wong Hiu Tung were of a very serious character, and Mr. Wong was independent person and an independent witness who resided in Canton and was the managing partner of a wealthy and influential firm of silk merchants. Apparently there Was no reason why he should have any motive to come to the Court and swear that which Was false in order to ruin Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon had just conducted for him, and conducted most successfully, an important action, so that, rather than owe Mr. Dixon a grudge, he owed him a debt of gratitude. And yet he was prepared to depose to the facts placed before their Lordships. Wan Hi was the manager of a frait store in Hongkong, while Gulab was an ex-Gemidar of the Hongkong Police. Their Lordships would see that there was no possibility of any collusion between these witnessos. That brought him to the 26th March this year, when Mr. John Hastings had an inter- view with Mr. Dixon on this matter. At the time he had this inverview, Mr. Hastings was not aware of the charges that would be made by Wong Hin Tung, the gentleman from Cantou. At the interview mentioned Mr. Hastings said to Mr. Dixon that it had been reported to him by Hung Kam Ning, the late interpreter of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, that Mr. Dixon had been in the habit of receiving monies from clients for costs, of paying portion to the office and of keeping portion for himself. This was done usually in Police
•
"
Court cases, or in cases in which the client paid the money direct in cash. Mr. Hastings also said he had made independent inquiries, and that he had obtained evidence which satisfied him that the charges were true. Mr. Dixon replied, and the speaker was giving his exact words. It is not true." Mr. Dixon then left the room, and he had not been gone for more than a minute when Mr. Hastings called him back and said in effect, “I have sufficient evidence to prosecute you, but I have no wish to do so, and I want you to go away, for I cannot keep you in my office. Mr. Dixon said,-I am giving his exact words,-"I admit having taken money from the office, but they were only small amounts and there were not many occasions Ou which I did it. Mr. Hastings said in substance it was not a ques- tion of the amount, it was a matter of principle Mr. Dixon was in a position of trust and responsibility, and that he could not keep him in his employment after this. Mr. Hastings fur- ther stated that he attributed the whole affair to Mr. Dixon's keeking bad company, and to living with a European woman who had run him into greater expense than he could afford. He further stated that Mr. Dixon had promised to give up this mode of life, but that he had not done so. Mr. Dixon said, and these were his exact words, "I might have taken thousands if I had wanted to. Mr. Hastings then had a further con- versation with Mr. Dixon, in which he sug gested that the latter should go away to Japan, ostensibly on a holiday, and that he should not return in the alternative, he suggested that Mr. Dixon should go to some other place where he would practise. Mr. Dixon answered, and these were again his exact words," I have now- here to go; I cannot go back home as my father has already got two sons in the business.” Mr. Dixon also begged Mr. Hastings to recou sider the matter, and to let him stay on, as what had occurred would be a lesson to him. That concluded the first interview. Then on March 31st Mr. Hasting wrote a letter to Mr. Dixon from which the following extracts are taken
Referring tour interview of the 26th instant, during which you admitted to me that you had taken office monies on various occasions, though you said the amounts were small, I have con. sidered the matter very carefully, being most anxious to do what is right both as regards yourself, and as regards this firm, and I can come to no conclusion but that you must leave this office. You are in a position of great trust
"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.