September 4, 1909.]
!
You innocently took the ladies to Macao and did not pay for their lunch They paid by the day.
Do you expect us to believe that you took a party of ladies to Macao and made them pay their hotel expenses ?-I did not pay.
I
You paid their fares P-Yes, the same as would any other lady.
Any other lady ?-Yes, any lady I know. Mr. Marques says you paid the chits ?--I paid my own chits.
You paid her chits ?-She gave me the
money.
I put it to you that you signed the chits "John Lemmert"? I never signed a chit in any other name but my own.
The hearing was adjourned.
Thursday, September 2nd.
Sir Henry Berkeley I understand you to say that you had paid Mrs. Mitchell's servants at Eranee Villa $2 a month -I gave all the
servants. *.
These servants of Mrs. Mitchell's in 1905 - I paid every servant up to the time I went
away.
In 1905-She must have had half a dozen
servants.
Each of them you gave $2 a month? I gave the head boy $2 a month.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
that
209
The Chief Justice, in summing up, said it had been stated that the case had been discussed in If that the clubs and throughout the Colony. were so it was the duty of the jury to put an end to the rumours and find the fact one way or another. That was the privilege of jurymen
There was an
to end so far as gossip was concerned what had been admitted to be a scandal for a long time. He had hoped that they had not formed an opinion, and he hoped that what he said would not lead them to form an opinion. He had to dwell on certain points and to assist them as a brother juryman. Proceeding, he explained the necessity for that question, which had been debated in the Scotch courts, having to be debated again. As Captain Mitchell was a domiciled Scotsman the only place in which he could go for divorce was Scotland, Was SO difficult that and the procedure Mr. Lemm could not have been made co-respon- dent to these proceedings. The question before the Scotch Court was whether Mrs. Mitchell had committed adultery with Mr. Lemm and three others, and none of these people were sub- ject to the jurisdiction of that court. Mr. Lemm was entitled to a fair trial at their hands, and only on the facts presented must they draw their conclusions. advantage in their having to try the case, inasmuch as it might be he did not wish to be disrespectful to those people in Scotland who came to a conclusion on this question-that
rather jury took that Scotch view of people going to Macao on Sunday. A Hongkong jury would better appreciate the value of the facts put before them His Lordship directed the jury to leave the question was rather of special damages, because he puzzled on the law at present, but if plaintiff was entitled to them by law he would get them. As to general damages they must give, him the loss of the fair compensation for
and solace of a wife. They comfort must dismiss from their minds the idea of giving him any damages which would set him up for life or which would include costs to which he had been put by the Scotch proceed- ings. If he were entitled to those damages he, would get them.
ย severe
Lemm visited the house that night he contem. 1 danger in propinquity. Given attraction, given plated a clandestine visit that he would not have propinquity, given opportunity, there was the gone there had he known Captain Mitchell was danger. at home. Captain Mitchell was supposed to have returned two days earlier than expected from a trip to Java, but it was shown from the records he was not making long trips to Java. He could not very well be two days early on a trip from Hongay. Proceeding, counsel said Captain Mitchell's memory had failed him. He was labouring under what he conceived to be a wrong. He believed the tittle-tattle which had gone round the Colony, and he believed that Lemm and his wife were guilty of misconduct. The fact that he believed that should not weigh with the jury. It was perfectly obvious that Captain Mitchell was mad with jealousy of Lemm. The tittle-tattle of the old cats of the neighbourhood was no doubt drummed into His Lordship asked defendantWhen, if his ears. His memory had been stimulat- ever, during the period of which we were talked and his imagination had caused him to ing, did you live on the Hongkong side ?--I believe what he imagined to be the truth. have never lived on the Hongkong side since Dealing. with Major's evidence, he said February, 1899, L
his memory had been fortified by his imagination. It was extremely unlikely, had he known in 1900 the events which he related later, that he would have concealed them from the wife of his bosom, and it was extremely unlikely that the wife of his bosom
have would
concealed them from her dearest friend, more especially if the dearest friend had been bound to the utmost secrecy. A choice bit of scandal against Mr. So and So's dearest friend! Why, that was too good to be kept to herself, and round it would go, gathering strength at every repetition. Think what a lovely story it would make-Mr. Lemm daily passing the house whistling amor- ous tunes to the lady indoors and she replying. It would have made a lovely story! Who could have refrained from telling the story? Then they would have told how Mr. Lemm crept round there late at night and was never seen coming out again, although watch was kept until early. hours. Couple the two together and they had a fine bit of scandal. People in this Colony were not open-minded and uncensorious enough to continue the acquaintance of a lady whom they believed to have been guilty of such flagrant acts of foolishness and indecorum. The evidence of both Captain Mitchell and Captain Major was discredited. Counsel said he would ask his Londship to put specific questions to the jury as to the allegations against those two people-questions as to each group of dates. adultery with Mrs. Mitchell in the presence of her daughter was disgusting, and he argued that the jury could not find on the evidence that Lemm and Mrs. Mitchell were guilty of misconduct. If the jury convicted in such a case, then there was no safety for anybody. On the question of damages-if they came to con- sider it they should not inflict punishment upon Lemm, but should seek to compensate Captain Mitchell for the loss he had sustained owing to the acts of Lemm. Neither should they pay any regard to the divorce proceedings, All they knew was that a divorce had been granted, but whether on account of Lenim or others they were not aware.
The man whom you did not recognise said in his evidence that you paid him $2 a month. Have you any reason to believe that he was one of the servants ? I don't recognise him.
Re-examined-My friend asked you as to whether or not there were rumours and stories being told generally in the Colony with regard to Mrs. Mitchell in and about 1905, and asked you whether in the circumstances you were not indiscreet in being so often in her company
Yes.
And her friends had deserted her —Yes. When did these rumours start? After the divorce proceedings were initiated.
When did her friends begin to desert her? I should say while she was still in Rose Terrace. I think it was sometime in 1904 when her friends began to desert her.
Before or after the divorce proceedings ?- After the publication of the divorce proceedings in the papers.
stop calling they began to snub her and The suggestion that Lemm had committed |
especially after the charge
against Ledbury for perjury.
You say your second wife was addicted to drink Yes. She went to hospital in January, 1904, and remained there for a month, leaving on March 4th for Australia.
The jury wished to know if defendant could produce rent receipts for the time he lived in Granville Road,
..
Defendant said he could not do that, as Mr. Watkins had leased the house, but he could produce messing accounts for that period.
The jury expressed a desire to have Mr. Watkins called.
Mr. Slade said he had been approached by both sides and was extremely unwilling to come forward.
Defendant said it would affect Mr. Watkins' business to be mixed up in such a case.
juror-Did the ricsha incident occur in A June or July?
Sir Henry Berkeley-In June. Mr. Slade-No, that is disputed. The Chief Justice said Mr. Watkins should be called.
A clerk from the Harbour Office produced a ledger showing the entry and departure of vessels, but after certain questions had been asked it was discovered that the book was for 1901 instead of 190.
Sir Henry Berkeley, addressing the jury, said it was for them to consider not merely the acts of the parties but their entire conduct. Referring to the messing arrangements, he admitted that if a woman were pressed for money it might be allowable for her to take in boarders, or even a single man into a room, but no married woman acting innocently would take a man into her house to sleep there and conceal the fact from her husband. That was the crux of the question. Any husband in Kowloon or Hongkong, who if he had known what Lemm admitted he did, that he frequently visited this lady, would have stopped it. Sir Henry contended that what Lemm admitted he did would have been stopped Mr. Slade said they had tried to put all the had it not been that her legal protector was at sea, evidence they could before the jury. Mr. Wat- and he submitted that the jury would come to the kins could not be found, but the time spent in conclusion that advantage was taken of the ab- clearing up the question when the Fausang sence of her husband to reduce the affection of arrived had been well spent, because it enabled the woman until he obtained such a control over them to arrive with practical certainty at the her that she would do almost anything he asked Sunday on which Captain Mitchell had arrived her. It had been ungallantly suggested that and on which the ricsha incident took place. the woman did not wear well, that she was not Captain Mitchell's memory was singularly as good looking as she once was, but there must unfortunate, as on that day he did not return have been an "attraction, otherwis Lemm would from Java, and indeed never made a trip to Java not have visited her as he did. When two virile that year. It has been suggested that when Mr. persons threw themselves together there was
The jury retired at four o'clock to answer the five questions, based on the five heads in the particulars, set by his Lordship.
After an absence of half an hour the jury returned. They unanimously found the defen- dant guilty of the charges specified at 4 and 8, Granville Avenue, at 4, Granville Avenue, at 6, Rose Terrace, at the Boa Vista Hotel on both occasions, and at Eranee Bungalow. They as sessed damages against defendant at $7,500.
Mr. Slade asked for a stay of execution in order to consider the question of the prelimin ary point on which his Lordship had given. judgment.
1
His Lordship asked how long a stay was wanted.
Mr. Slade replied three months, as they wished to consult opinion at home.
His Lordship-There is the point of special damages, which I shall take in chambers.
Mr. Slade said the jury had found against defendant on a point on which no evidence had been offered..
ir Henry Berkeley thought a fortnight was long enough to allow them. There was plenty of counsel in Hongkong who could advise them. Mr. Slade replied that it was a very abstruse point.
Eventually his Lordship allowed a fortnight's stay of execution.
Mr. Bolles asked that the jury be exempt for several years..
His Lordship said he was afraid other parties would like their services.
"I told him to wait until pay-day, and he wouldn't," a defendant told Mr. J. R. Wood at the Magistracy on Sept. 2 when charged with assaulting a rent collector. The defendant, it appears, owed five months rent, and when the collector called as he was having his mid-day meal, and demanded an immediate settlement, the tenant threw a basin of rice at his head. His Worship imposed a fine of $25, the alterna- tive being one month's imprisonment.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.