June 21, 1909.]
point out to him who had complained ?--It was not necessary for me to point out anything to him. I knew who had complained.
Do you suggest that that was your reason for suspending Mr. Dixon-One of my reasons, There is another given in the letter if you read it.
What other reason? That the situation was becoming too strained. I could not have the inan in my office. I was content to have him for a short time if the matter was disposed of quickly. But he or his solicitor were causing such delays over the matter that I did not want him any longer. If the arbitration had taken place quickly I was prepared to keep him until it was finished. But it was delayed until I got perfectly sick of it.
You say the delay was due to Mr. Harston ?- To Mr. Harston or his client, I don't know which. I only know they delayed the matter all they possibly could.
The Chief Justice--You don't mean to make a charge of deliberate delay against a solicitor? Witness-No. I only know there was delay,
but I have no idea whose fault it was.
Mr. Calthrop-You say it was fault ?—I do.
not your
Now I will read you a letter written by Mr. Wilkinson only four days previously. On pril 26th Mr. Wilkinson, on your behalf, wrote to Mr. Harston-"I send you herewith for con- sideration and approval of yourself, Gedge and Dixon, draft agreement to refer to arbitration." That is to say, Mr. Wilkinson, acting on your behalf, did not send the draft agreement until April 26th, and yet you complained on April 30th of delay. Have you any explanation ?— There was no delay on our part.
You charge Mr. Harston or Mr. Dixon with delay? The delay was after April 30th.
How long were you preparing that draft agreement?The delay was caused by the absence of Wan Hi in the country, and we could not go on with the arbitration until his
return.
Did you say you wrote that letter in conge- quence of delay caused by my clients I have said nothing of the kind.
You charge us with delay. You said you were tired of the delay, and therefore wrote that letter. Now, when did we delay-After April 30th
Is it true, then, that the reason of the delay was because you had not your witnesses hat was why the agreement was not sent to them more promptly in the first instance.
When the money was paid to Wong Hiu Tung about the middle of April didn't you see him with Mr. Dixon?—I have seen him.
may
Did you make a note your diary-I may have done.
Did you at that time produce the accounts P—— The accounts were made up by Mr. Dixon.
Mr. Calthrop said he wished to ask whether Messrs. Hastings and Hastings had had time to procura him particulars of the third charge.
The Chief Justice-Let that stand over until to-morrow morning.
The Chief Justice later remarked that he did not think that the charge with regard to the $1,000 should be gone on with. It was very vague indeed.
Mr. Potter agreed, and the charge was struck out.
THIRD DAY.
Mr. John Hastings, recalled, was further cross-examined. He produced the receipt for the cheque in the Reuter, Brockelmann case. This was the receipt given by Wong Hin Tung for $10,000 paid him on April 5th. He made an entry in his diary of an interview with Wong on April 14th and 15th. These entries were reproduced in his bill of costs. He saw Mr. Wong on the 14th once, and once on the 15th. When witness saw Wong on the 14th the question arose as to amount of detailed
account of costs.
The Chief Justice-I suppose your contention is that the balance due to the Kwong Hing Cheung firm would have been $10,800 if this $500 alleged to be paid to Mr. Dixon had been
ncluded P-Yes.
The Chief Justice-That means that on the credit side there should have been another item of $500 ?—Yes.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The Chief Justice-What was the date of, this alleged payment to Mr. Dixon ?-July
23rd.
The Chief Justice-Have all those payments on the credit side been received by Mr. Dixon ? Mr. Calthrop-Mr. Wong Hin Tung has made an affidavit with regard to this matter, Mr. Hastings was away at the time.
Mr. Hastings I cannot speak from my own knowledge.
The Puisne Judge-In the ordinary course who received payments?
Witness-The solicitor in charge.
Mr. Calthrop-On April 15th when you saw Wong Hin Tung did he complain of this $500
-Not to me.
But he did complain about the amount of the solicitor and client cost?-What happened on that occasion was that Wong came in and asked for a detailed account to be made out. Witness spoke to Mr. Dixon and told him that if Wong wanted a detailed account he must have it.
In your interview of March 26th did you not refer to the fact that Mr. Dixon was living with a European woman? --- I did.
Did make any complaint to Mr. Dixon
you before March 26th—I did not, but I wrote to my brother and asked him to complain most strongly to Mr. Dixon.
The hief Justice-That does not prove that the complaint was made to Mr. Dixou.
You are head of the firm ?--Yes.
As head of the firm, if you objected why didn't you communicate direct with Mr. Dixop ?—I wrote to my brother and requested him to point out very strongly to Mr. Dixon that I objected to him leading this mode of life, and that if he continued to do so we should have to reconsider our arrangements as to leaving him in charge of the business.
What arrangements about leaving him in charge?-It
case was possible in
of my
should have to leave Mr. Dixon in charge. brother and myself both being absent that we
Then there were not any arrangements?-No.
You arrived here in October last?—Yes.
Did you make any complaint when you saw Mr. Dixon I did not. I thought the matter was finished because my brother had informed that mode of life. me that Mr. Dixon promised him to give up
conduct on his part would entitle you to put an Did you ever suggest to Mr. Dixon that such and to the agreement of 1907-I never spoke to him about it before March 26th.
to
Do you suggest that it would entitle you put an end to that agreement? That is a matter of law which I am not prepared to give an opinion upon at the present time.
Have you ever contended that it would entitle you to put an end to that agreement? What do you mean by contended?
-
Pat it forward as a right which you had-It was put forward in the letter in which we discharged him as one of the grounds of the discharge, but only oue.
Was this matter set out as a ground in the matters for arbitration? - It was proposed to be but the other side refused to agree to it.
The agreement recited charges of embezzle- ment as well?-Charges of misappropriation of monies.
Did
you think that if you could not substan- tiate the charges of misappropriation you might be able to put an end to the agreement on the ground of his misconduct with this woman P-I propose to bring evidence on all those matters.
put it to you that you did that so that if the charges of misappropriation failed the other charge might succeed: you might get rid of him that way?—I did not do it for that purpose.
Then why did you put it in ?-Because I wished to put the whole of the evidence before the arbitrator and let him be in possession of
the facts of the matter.
Do you suggest that the fact of a clerk keep ing a woman is a ground for an employer to dismiss him?--I have already stated that that is a question of law.
Do you
think it is a doubtful point of law ? The hief Justice-The questions you have put now are fair, and you have laid the founda tions for what you have got to say hereafter.
Mr. Potter-I was afraid they were attempt- ing to lay the foundations for something else.
Mr. Calthrop-Have you known any instance in this Colony of anyone on a three years
521
agreement being dismissed before the time on such grounds ?-Not to my knowledge.
Do you look upon it as a stigma on a man? The Chief Justice - I don't want to interrupt you, but the introduction of this question info * the proposed arbitration agreement is, I suppose, based on the fact as Mr. Hastings has already put it before us, the breach of promise.
M Calthrop-Then it ought to have been incorporated in the agreement.
The Chief Justice-You don't follow me. I understand if this matter had come before the arbitration it would have been brought as a breach of promise.
The Puisne Judge. When this letter was sent by you to Mr. George Hastings had the agreement promising an eventual partners hip been signed?
Witness-It was signed before I went home. You said Mr. Dixon asked you to allow him to practise, and you refused?—I did.
Why did you refuse?—I had a right to re fuse. Were you afraid of competition with him if he practised against you? here were clauses in his agreement forbidding him to practise.
But only if he refused a partnership ?-No.
I put it to you that under the clauses of the agreement you could only prevent Mr. Dixon from practising if he refused a partner- ship, or having got it, dissolved it?-The first clause that has a bearing on it is clause 3, com- mencing During the term of the agreement." The next clause referring to the matter is clause C, reading After the expiration of the term of five years, etc.," and the next clause is clause 7.
**
If that agreement came to an end, and no partnership was entered into; although Mr. Dixon did not refuse, he could practise on his own account?-No.
Did you object to any competition ?—I had a right to stop Mr. Dixon preetising under the
agreement.
Were you afraid of competition anywhere else?
Mr. Potter-I object. They seem to me to be fishing for information for other proceedings.
The Chief Justice did not see any reason why. the witness should not answer.
Witness-No, I am not afraid of competition. The Luisne Judge- You are stauding on what you consider your legal rights?
Witness-That is so. He asked me to allow him to practise, so he must have thought he required my permission.
Mr. Calthrop Did you send a circular round to the other solicitors in the Colony about managing clerks practising here after the October, I think. termination of their agreements?—I did in
And you were urging the solicitors not under any circumstances to allow a clerk, after the termination of his agreement, to practise in the Colony-It was proposed that there should be an agreement among the solicitors.
Did you propose it-Yes, after consultation with some of the other solicitors.
•
Then you were anxious to prevent any com- petition by managing clerks We all thought it desirable. All the solicitors agreed except one. Who was that one ?-Mr. Dennys, I think. Do you know as a fact that Mr. Harston did not agree?-Mr. Harston said it depended on the circumstances of the case.
The Chief Justice-We are both very anxious not to check you in any way in cross-examina- tion. We must leave it entirely to your discretion.
Mr. Calthrop - Is it not a fact that the circu- lar was sent only three or four months ago— I am prepared to swear it was in October or November, and not this year.
Why are you taking these proceedings ?- Because I do not consider air. Dixon a proper
Are you taking these proceedings in the person to remain on the rolls of this Court. interests of the profession?-In the interests of the profession, and in my own interests.
Why, if it is in the interests of the profession, did you suggest that he should go and practise somewhat else ?-As long as he left this Colony I did not care where he practised.
Why were you so desirous that Mr. Dizon should go away? Because I did not think he was a desirable person to have in the Colony.
But you did not mind keeping him où for two or three months?—I did not mind keeping him on for a short time to give him time to↑ arrange his affairs.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.