THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
เ
for
1
[July 10, 1909.
was
it
on
It
He
the term a partnership in the business. It is is one which might have considerable signi- 850 should be paid for costs with a proviso for quite clear that the firm found Mr Dixon a ficance and I cannot help wishing that we had further payments in the event of the hearing valuable man and the relations between them had a fuller explanation of it. However, this lasting over one day. The sum of 30 was paid appeared to have been such 88 might is a matter of detail which I may or may not at once, and entered in the rough cash book have been expected between an enlightened have to go into later on. Now the charges are by Mr. Dixon as a payment on account. The employer and an able and trustworthy of course very serious ones: borrowing money case never came to a hearing, the charge even. asststant. On the 2nd of February of under the circumstances alleged with no sub- tually after one adjournment being withdrawn this year Tam Wing Kwong, a clerk in the sequent repayment, is serious misconduct in a by the police. Mr. Dixon says that the balance
costs the agreed
of $20 was петег office of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings, being managing clerk - misappropriating money paid of on a visit to Hung Kam Ning, an interpreter for costs is simply embezzlement.
Is there any
demanded by him or paid by Wong Hi. who had recently quitted the service of the firm, corroboration of Wong Hai Tung's evidenc? appears that Mr. Dixon had full anthority to received from him certain information whiche The only other person alleged to have been pre- make arrangements as to costs, and, if he thought communicated to Mr. John Hastings. Mr. sent at these transactions is the interpreter fit. to remit the balance due of a sum agreed to Hastings saw Hung in his office on the next day, Hung Tam Hing, who has not been called. The be paid. Now Wong Hi states that having and on successive occasions, when the latter witness Tam Wing Kwong stated that he agreed for a sum of $50 he paid $30 immediate- informed him that Mr Dixon had been in the believed Hung to have left the Colony. Canton ly and then when the case was over he paid the balance of $20 to r. Dixon in the presence of habit of paying into the office part only of and Macao seems to be the natural refuge of monies paid by clients on account of costs, | Chinese in longkong who have reasons of their Tam Wing Kwong on the 13th or 14th of retaining the balance himself and giving to him, own for not wishing to appear before a court, and January at between three or four p.. He Hung, part of the money. Though Mr. Has- I suppose that Hung who, if he had appeared, says that Mr. Dixon put the money into a tings pressed him for instances, he gave none, would have been asked if and why he made state drawer and then went out. Wong Hi ask.
result saying he was unable to do so. As a
ments to Mr. Hastings which he afterwards ed
a receipt, but
told that it
WUR unnecessary. of what he heard Mr. Hastings instituted denied to Mr. Dixon, and if it was true or
Nothing turns the of
for a receipt, inquiries which resulted in certain persous being untrue that he had participated with Mr. absence
is admit- discovered who have given evidence before us on Dixon in embezzling the money of the firm, ted that no receipt was given for the $30.* which the present charges are based. n the had excellent motives for keeping out of the way. Apparently it frequently happened that no 25th of March Mr. Hastings called Mr. Dixon I do not know that his evidence would have been receipt was given on the payment of these small into his room in the afternoon and told him of much use to either party had he actually come amounts Wong Hi's evidence is corroborated what Mr. Hung Kam Ning had reported and before us, but it is certainly very regrettable that by that of Tam Wing Kwong, an interpreter that there was evidence on which a criminal the Court has not had an opportunity of seeing of essrs. Hastings and Hastings' office. prosecution might be brought, and that he did him in the box. I come next to the alleged says that he was present when the 830 and again not wish to prosecute, and advising Mr. Dixon confession. Can this be treated as corroboration, when the $20 was paid, and his account of what in effect to slip away quietly and without scaudal. of Wong Hui Tung's evidence? In my opinion took place corresponds substantially with that
of Wong it cannot. Without going any further into Mr. astings says that Mr. Dixon confessed to
i Now Wong Hi had been called having taken money, but in small sums only. that confession at present, it is clear that a up by the police in the first instance and had and asked to be given another chance. This confession of having misappropriated money apparently been kept under surveillance up to It was Mr. Dixon denies, and says that he admitted is no corroboration of a charge of improperly the time he went into the witness-box. having taken presents, but entirely denied any borrowing from a client. On the other hand an suggested, not unnaturally, that he must have misappropriation. On March 31st Mr Has admission of mis-appropriating small sums thought in the beginning that he was being tings wrote to Mr. Dixon stating that he only is an implicit denial of a charge of called to account for the $20 as for money he must leave the office, as it was impossible for the misappropriating $50 which is a much had failed to pay and his natural impulse in that firm to keep him any longer, and enclosing for larger amount. The other matter sug- event would be to adhere to the statement that signature an agreement cancelling the agree.gested as corroboration of the charge of mis, he had actually paid it, whether he had in fact ment for service. Receiving no reply Mr. appropriation. was the evidence of Mr. Keut, done so or not. That is, that he would be afraid Hastings wrote a further note on the 2nd of cashier in Messrs. Hastings and Hastings. This to contradict in the witness box the former I April requesting that the cancellation agreement witness stated that when the interim account statements he had made in the charge room. might be signed and returned to him. On was asked for he gave the client a copy of the am anxions to give the suggestion its proper But we have to consider it along with the same, day Messrs. Ewens and Harston ledger account upon the, express orders of Mr. weight. wrote a letter on behalf of Mr. Dixon denying | Dixon. Now the ledger account was obviously the whole of the facts. The suggestion was to mind disposed of by the maoners that Mr. Dixon admitted having taken money quite useless to Wong Hui Tung and he could my and insisting his rights under the learn nothing from it. It was suggested that of the witness's reply to a question from the
service, agreement of
He answered in a perfectly and finally sup.
Dixon purposely had this misleading : Chief Justice. gesting £1. meeting between Mr. Harston statement supplied the client in order straightforward manner that he was not afraid, and Mr Hastings. It was proposed that the to prevent the latter from seeing that he and did not believe he was being required to pay matter should be the subject of an arbitration had not been credited with the $50.1. Now again. He said that he knew he had pail the before the Chief Justice, and negotiations con- Mr. Kent gave his evidence in a perfectly money and understood that the question was what someone else had done with it. i do not tinued for some time, but eventually failing straightforward manner, and he is probably an the present proceedings were brought. I will extremely competent cashier, but his knowledge expect such frankness of demeanour from a man deal shortly with the specific charges which are of English did not seem to be very great and who knows that he is telling lies. It was further before us. The first two are based ou the he struck me in the witness-box as some rhat suggested that the witness had been got at by evidence of Wong Hiu Tung. that he leut puzzle-headed." Mr. Dixon denies that he Taui betore the police saw him, but there is to Mr. Dixon at the latter's request dur- ever told Keur to give a copy of the ledger no evidence of this, and it was absolutely ing the process of a suit which Mr. Dixon was account, and I am not at all clear myself that denied by Wong Hi, with whose demeanour I conducting on behalf of the firm $75 in various though Mr. Kent believed himself to be speak. was, as I have said, very favourably impressed. sums on four different dates. The second is to ing the truth, the mistake was not really his As regards Tam Wong Kwong himself, he the effect that he on the 18th or 19th of July own. In that event of course the suggested admitted that he would have liked to get Hung paid Mr. Dixon $500 for costs to the firm, which corroboration fails. Lastly, there is the date, Inly back into the office and that he had spoken to
Mr. 23. 1908, when the $500 was alleged to have
astings on the subject. money Mr Dixon has retained in his own
Ho further hands. I will say at once that Wong Hiu Tung been paid to Mr. Dixou. About that time it admitted that he knew that r. Dixon wished to bring in another mau, Lo, as interpreter, gave his evidence in a clear and apparently appeared from Mr. Dixon's statement in cross. straightforward manner. He expressed his examination that he had to find money for the and that if Lo had come into the office he, Tam, regret at having to testify against Mr. Dixon. payment of a passage, and the inference suggests would have resigned. It was suggested that whom he said he regarded with feelings of ed is that he would be therefore short of funds this admission showed that Tam was an unreli- gratitude for the able manner in which he had and less likely to be able to resist temptation.able witness. The suggestion in fact comes to was so anxious to keep Lo conducted his case. It was suggested that the But I do not think the corroboration to be this, that Tam witness was not to be believed, as he had reasons sufficiently direct it does not go far enough, out of the office that he has concocted a criminal for wishing to oblige Mr. Hastings, inasmuch Whether Mr Dixon was not "hard up in the conspiracy, supported by his own and other as he hoped for a remission of part of his bill ordinary meaning of these words in 1908 people's perjury to rain Mr. Dixon, a trusted
from the appears of costs, and as there was still a balance of about sufficiently
fact that assistant who was shortly to become a partner in he had then $4,000 ont
The motive assigned seems to me 8300 due to him outstanding in the hands of
กท mortgage. the firm. the firm. Now the witness was a man in a
If he had to find
The game was in July inadequate for such a course. mouer then he was uot driven to dishonesty, He really not worth the candle. The witness was of good position, the managing partner of an
I watched his important silk business in Canton, and though had merely to call in the money out on nort- course severely cross-examined. the suggestion must, of course. he given its gage. All the suggested grounds of corrobora. demeanour closely throughout and I must say proper weight, a rague expectation of this sort tion therefore fail. I must then reject the that he seemed to me to be telling the truth. int of course alleged to be based on any charges based on Wong Hui Tung's evidence. | there any other evidence that can be treated as This brings promise explicit or implicit on the part of Mr. I do not for a moment suggest that he has corroborative of this charge ?
me to
have committed perjury. ut charges of this sort
the confession alleged to astings, seems hardly a sufficient reason
been made to Mr. Hastings, and here I why he should be willing to come down from must be fully substantiated, and if this cannot be done they must be dismissed. I come Canton and commit the grossest and most cold-
need add very little to the remarks of the I now
rests to the third charge, which
learned Chief Justice, with which I entirely blooded perjury against an innocent man. must say that I felt extremely puzzled by Wong the evidence of Wong Hi that he paid | agree. At an interview of this sort both Mr. Dixon $20 for balance of costs, It is Hai Tung's statement that the loans to Mr.
firm Was Dixon were not entered in the books of the admitted that the
never credit- this amount. Mr. Dixon firm but only in his own memorandum book, ed with
states and that the payments of them fell not
that on the 5th of January of this year he was on all the partners but on three men only. | retained by Wong Hi to defend a friend of the of whom he Was one. This admission latter's in the Police Court. It was agreed that
011'
Mr
to
on
Is
parties would naturally be somewhat' agitated, and the most scrupulous man might easily, after the lapse of some weeks, be mistaken as to the precise words used. But it is quite clear that Mr. astings when he wrote to his brother on the following day had no doubt at all that Mr.
L
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.