Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor Cases, China, 1876

The North China Herald, 13 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 10th.
Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul General
Drunkenness and Assault. 
  JOHN EDWARDS, a seaman of the U.S. war steamer Palos, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and also with assaulting a Chinaman, in an ironmonger's shop in the Broadway, Hongkew, on Sunday afternoon.  Police-sergeant Lloyd stated that he was called by a Chinese, and on going to the shop, found the prisoner there, held by several Chinese.  He was drunk and trying to get away.  When he went in, he asked for cigars, and on being told he had come to the wrong place, he became violent, broke two bowls standing on the counter, and struck a coolie on the nose, drawing blood.  When the sergeant took him in custody, he became noisy, and wanted to fight everybody in the shop.  Sentenced to five days' imprisonment on bread and water, and ordered to pay for the damage he had done.

The North China Herald, 13 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 10th.
Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul General
Drunkenness and Wilful Damage
  NARCISSUS N. BRADLEY was charges with being drunk and wilfully breaking 2 panes of glass in the window of a shop in the Tiendong Road, Hongkew, on Sunday last.  The prisoner formerly belonged to the U.S. msn-of-war Yantic, but was discharged from her in Japan, at his own request, in order, as he informed the Court, to better his condition in Shanghai. - The constable who had him in custody, said prisons told him he broke the panes in order to get locked up.  Mr. Bradford sentenced him to ten days' imprisonment on bread and water.
North China Herald, 27 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 11th.
[As above]
  NARCISSUS BRADLEY, who was recently before the Court on a charge of wilfully breaking panes of glass, for which he was sentenced to five days' imprisonment on bread and water, was to-day brought up charged with stealing a coat belonging to W. Shippick, of the British barque Conqueror, on Thursday night.  It was also alleged against him that he behaved violently at the Hongkew Police Station, when apprehended. - Prisoner is the man who voluntarily left the U.S. ma-of-war Yantic, in Japan, and  came to Shanghai to better his condition; but he appears to have gone from bad to worse since his arrival here, and latterly, being without a home, has been permitted to sleep in an unused  cell at the Hongkew Police Station. - The charges were proved against him, and he was sentenced to twenty days' hard labour on bread and water.

The North China Herald, 20 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan 14th.
Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.
  This was a claim for $23.25, for goods sold and  delivered. - Defendant did not appear, but the Usher proved personal service of summons.
  A. B. SEEL, plaintiff's book-keeper, produced the account, dated June last.  Application had been made several times for payment, but unsuccessfully.
  Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

The North China Herald, 27 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 19th
Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.
AH DOO and others v. H. POYNTON
  Defendant appeared in answer to a judgment summons issued on the 20th November last.
  Plaintiff with six others claimed $37, being balance of wages due them as Mafoos.
  In answer to His HONOUR, defendant said that he had followed the advice given him at the last hearing, to give all his accounts to Mr. Smith for collection, but had heard northing further about them.  As there was a great deal more owing to him than the amount required to pay the plaintiffs, and such a long time having elapsed, he concluded they had been paid.
  His HONOUR said it was defendant's duty to have made enquiries.  The fact of his having given up the accounts to another person to collect, did not release him from the debt.
  Defendant  said he was now in employment at a salary of Tls. 55 per month, but previous to August last he had been a long time out of work and had incurred many debts, which he was now paying by instalments.
  His HONOUR   said that the plaintiffs were entitled to first payment, they having gone to trouble and expense to obtain a judgment; therefore he should order him to pay into Court, $21 on the 3rd Feb. And $16 on the 3rd March.
Jan. 20th.
  Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $40.00, being two  months' wages at $12 per month, and $16 market expenses.
  Defendant admitted owing $32, which amount he had paid into Court.  He  said plaintiff demanded $12 per month, when his wages were only $8, but the coolie was  formerly paid $4 per month, through him (plaintiff).  When the defendant's family went to Japan, in August last, the coolie was discharged and plaintiff had never perceived authority to engage another since.
  Plaintiff denied this last statement, and said that, when he first entered defendant's employ, he received $8 per month, and shortly afterwards $10, for doing all the work by himself.  He then became sick, and went away for a month, and on resuming his duties was given $12 per month, which was to cover his own wages at $8 and a coolie at $4.  He had found he could not do all the work himself, and complained about it.  It was then he was told to get a coolie at wages amounting in all to $12 a month.  That was about ten months ago, and he had had a coolie helping him ever since.  Now for the last two months, his master refused to pay him the coolie's share.
  His HONOUR said that the only point in dispute, as to whether the plaintiff had received authority to engage the last coolie, there was statement against statement.  He was therefore driven to look at the previous terms in which the plaintiff had been engaged, in order to ascertain whether of the two statements was the more probable.
  Now it appeared that previous to the plaintiff's illness he was doing all the work by himself at $10 a month, and that subsequently he was authorized to get assistance at an increased rate of 42 a month.  The defendant admitted this, but alleged in effect that he had withdrawn this authority, and not only so but reduced plaintiff's wages to $8 - that is, actually placing him in a worse position than he was in when he was by himself doing all the work at $10 a month.  His Honour thought it extremely unlikely that this was the fact, or that plaintiff would have consented to it.  At all events plaintiff had not made it appear to plaintiff as clear as he should that such was to be the new arrangement, for he had actually (ass he admitted) seen one coolie or another about the house during all of the two months, and he had permitted this, all the while not intending to pay for them.  There would be judgment, with costs, for the full amount claimed.
  Defendant asked that the plaintiff should pay the costs of the Court, on the ground that he did not come to receive payment when told, but had taken out a summons at once.
  His HONOUR refused the application - two months' wages were at that time due.
Jan 24th.
  Plaintiff, a butcher, sued to recover $10, for goods supplied to defendant in October, November, and December, 1874.
  Defendant did not appear, but the Usher having proved personal service of the summons,
  His HONOUR gave h=judgment for plaintiff with costs.

The North China Herald, 27 January 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 22nd.
Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul General
Breach of Pilotage Regulations
  A case of breach of pilotage regulations came up for hearing.  About the middle of December, the Harbour Master, Captain Bisbee, reported to the U.S. Consulate-General, that Clause 3 of Article 4 of the above regulations had been contravened by Captain Blanchard, one of the Yangtsze pilots, by his having piloted the Russian man-of-war Sobol from Shanghai to Woosung, on the voyage to Hankow, he holding no license for the Hwang-poo and lower Yangtsze. - The complainant, W. Van Corbach, appeared, and made a formal deposition.  Captain Blanchard was at the time up the river, but on his return he was summoned to show cause why the penalty for such violation of the regulations should not be imposed.  He, however, admitted the allegation, but pleaded an exemption, through a verbal permission obtained several months ago, from Mr. Viguier, the then Harbour Master, to pilot a certain vessel from this anchorage to Hankow.  He did not show that such verbal license had been confirmed by Captain Bisbee; but further pleaded that the pilotage of the Sobol from Shanghai to Woosung, was done in ignorance of the full meaning of the regulations.
  The COURT considered the meaning of the regulations was clear, and the defendant had admitted an infringement of them.  The ends of justice would, however, he met by fining him a sum equivalent to the pilotage of the Sobol from Shanghai to Woosung, which was found to be Tls. 15,. being for 10 feet, at Tls. 1.50 per foot.

The North China Herald, 3 February 1876
Shanghai, Jan. 25th
Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul-General.
JOSEPH ROWSE, S. D. WEBB, Associates.
Jan. 31st.
  WILLIAM BIRCH, able seaman of the Golden Gate, was charged by the Police with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, Hongkew, at 6.30 on Sunday evening.  Sentenced to five days' hard labour, on bread and water.
Offences by Men-of-war's men.
  JOSEPH SUMMERS, a petty officer of the Kearsage, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a native constable, in Hongkew, on Saturday evening.  It was stated that the constable found defendant lying  drunk in a public thoroughfare, and was putting him in a jinrikisha when he struck the constable twice in the face, and also tore the number off the breast of his coat. - Defendant said in answer to the charge, that he was too drunk to remember anything about it, adding that he had been confined to the ship for eight months.
  JOHN L. KING ands JOSEPH McLAY, able seamen of the Kearsage, were found drunk in jinrikishas.  A bottle of brandy found in King's possession was confiscated.
  JOSEPH McGRATH, also an able seaman of the Kearsage, was next charged with being drunk and disorderly.  It was stated that defendant went while drunk into the house of a respectable Chinaman near the Soochow Creek, and chased his wife around the room.  The husband put him out, when he began throwing stones at the door, in which act he was caught by a constable and taken to the Police Station.  The Chinaman, however, declined to prosecute, on the ground that it would be inconvenient for him to leave his business.  Defendant was therefore only charged with bring drunk and disorderly. - Mr. BRADFORD said he regretted the Chinaman had not appeared to prefecture, as upon the allegations being proved, he would have dealt severely with the prisoner.
  All the defendants were sent to prison, to await communication with Captain Harmony.
February 1st.
  C. CONNOLLY, petty officer, and JOHN CAINE, seaman, of the Kearsage, were brought up on a charge of being drunk and incapable.  Remitted to prison to await communication with captain Harmony.
  THOMAS KELLY and F.  FLEMING, seamen of the  Golden Gate, were similarly charged.  It being  said to be their first offence, defendants were warned and dismissed.

The North China Herald,   10 February 1876
Shanghai, Feb. 5th
Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.
  Plaintiff sought to recover Tls. 5, for damage to a trap. - Defendant did not appear.
  Plaintiff said, - I have a stand opposite the Nucleus Hotel, Canton Road.  On the 13th December, Mr. Flagg wrote to me for a trap and pony, but he did not say for whom.  I have an arrangement with him to let my carriages to people who apply to him for them.  On this occasion, I presume there were none on the stand, and therefore he sent to me.  I sent a trap and pony.  The trap was brought back with the dashboard broken, and it cost Tls. 5 to repair it.  I ascertained from Mr. Flagg for whom the trap was hired.  It was for the defendant, who is chief officer of the Ariel. I applied to defendant for payment, and he refused.
  ASA E FLAGG, of the Nucleus Hotel, said, - I remember, sometime in December, sending to the plaintiff for a pony and trap, hired by the defendant, who paid for it.  Some time later on the same day, defendant told me there had been a little damage done to the trap.  The plaintiff also informed me that the carriage had been broken, and that the repairs would cost Tls. 5.
  His HONOUR gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.
Feb. 8th.
  Plaintiff claimed $20, two months' wages as wet-nurse, from the 7th December to February.
  Defendant said no claim for payment had been made to him by the plaintiff.
  Plaintiff (through Heding, interpreter), said - I was engaged as wet nurse at $10 per month.  On Friday, the 4th inst., my mistress told me I might leave, if I wanted to.  I had said I was sick and wanted to go.  There was another nurse provided, who was brought by the mafoo at the desire of my mistress.  I asked the boy to ask my mistress for the two months' wages, less three days, due to me.  He told me he had asked for the money, but had not got it.  (Some difficulty was experienced in getting plaintiff to fix the date on which she alleged this took place.  It was not clear whether it was on Friday or Monday, and it appeared she left her service on Thursday evening.)
  By defendant - I was paid my wages regularly.  There was an agreement that one month's wages were to be kept in hand.  That was to or event my leaving without giving proper notice.
  Defendant denied that plaintiff gave notice of her intention to leave, and detailed sundry inconveniences his household had been subjected to by the interference of four women and a man, said to be plaintiff's husband, who came there on Thursday and insisted on her going away then.  They made a great disturbance in the house, and ultimately the defendant left the same evening.  On Monday, he summoned her in the Mixed Court for leaving without notice, the decision being that she was ordered to forfeit the $10, but to be paid the balance of her wages.  She made no application to him for payment at any time, but took out the summons.
  His HONOUR, after a patient investigation, said he found that plaintiff left her mistress's service without giving notice, and that she had taken out the summons before applying for her wages.  The effect of that would be that she would have to pay the cost of the summons, that being the rule in cases where a summons was taken out before application was made for payment.  As to the extent of forfeiture of wages she ought to suffer, he agreed with the view taken by the Mixed Court; she would therefore recover $9, and pay $3 cost of the summons.

The North China Herald, 24 February 1876
Shanghai, Deb. 21st.
Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul-General
Drunk, Assaulting the Police, etc.
  TIMOTHY O'REGAN, a seaman of the U.S. man-of-war Ashuelot, was charged with being drunk and assaulting P.C. Smith (36) while in the execution of his duty, and also with tearing the coat of a man named Goldfinch, who assisted to take him into custody.
  Complainant deposed - On Sunday, the prisoner and five others were quarrelling in the street.  I went to them and told them not to make such a noise.  Prisoner replied that I had nothing to do with him or his companions, and said he was living in a house in the Woosung road.  I then told him to go into the house, and not make a noise in the street.  He said he would not go in, and that he had a right to be in the street and make as much noise as he liked.  After these two warnings, he kept on making a noise, and I  went to take him into custody.  His companions tried to rescue him, and I had to call the assistance of Goldfinch, a seaman standing near.  Defendant fell down, and as I was trying to get him up, he jumped up and struck me,  saying he was "a good American, and cared for no one and would not be taken by any police officer."  He then hit me in the face with his hand.  I succeeded in getting  him to the police-station, but he gave a great deal of trouble on the way.  He tore Goldfinch's coat, but has since given  an order of the Paymaster of his ship for $5 to replace it.
  Sentenced to five days' imprisonment on bread and  water, with hard labour.
Drunk and Incapable.
  DANIEL GANNON, of the Monocacy,; and FRANK CONROY, of the Tennessee, were charged with being drunk and incapable, and remitted to orison to await communication with their respective commanding officers.
Feb. 22nd.
  RICHARD FINEGAN, a marine belonging to the U.S. frigate Tennessee, was charged with being  drunk and incapable, at 1.30 p.m.., on Monday, on the premises of Messrs. Siemssen and Co.
  Remitted to prison, to await communication with his commanding officer.


The North China Herald, 16 March 1876


Shanghai, March 10th.

Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., U.S. Vice-Consul General.
Drunkenness and Violence

ROBERT HUGHES, a seamen of the Tennessee, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a jinrikisha coolie. Complainant said defendant had occupied his vehicle two hours, and did not pay him; and when asked for the money he picked up a stone and struck him with it, and also knocked him down.

   Defendant stated that he had been drinking a little, and when he took the jinrikisha, thought he had got ten cents in his pocket to pay the hire; but after having ridden some distance he found he had got no money, and therefore left the vehicle.  The coolie then took his (defendant's) hat off.

   P.C. WILSON said he heard a disturbance near the Yang-king-pang end of the Szechuen road, and on going there, saw the defendant strike the coolie, who fell to the ground.  On witness's interposing, defendant threatened to serve him the same way.

   Sentenced to five days' hard labour on bread and water.


The North China Herald, 16 March 1876



Shanghai, March 8th

Before SIR EDMUND HORNBY, Chief Judge.


   This was an action to recover $163.98 for goods sold and delivered, the account having commenced in August, 1874.

   Defendant did not appear, but the service of summons having been proved by the Usher, and the sale of the goods and presentation of the account to the plaintiff (who had admitted the debt) by Mr. Spring, one of the partners in plaintiffs' firm.

   His LORDSHIP gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs.


The North China Herald, 23 March 1876



March 18th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff claimed $22.00 for board and lodging supplied to defendant some 18 months ago.

   Plaintiff stated that he was a watchman, at that time employed at the Old Dock.  Defendant being out of employ and sick, he took him in and kept him for 4 months.  Defendant then got employment, but although frequently asked had never paid anything for his board and lodging.

   Defendant denied his indebtedness, and said that he had kept the plaintiff at an earlier time - which plaintiff in turn denied.

   His WORSHIP after a patent investigation, dismissed the case, both parties being unable to bring forward any satisfactory evidence.


The North China Herald, 30 March 1876


Shanghai, March 29th.

Before Senor DE GARAY, Consul.

Unlawfully Wounding

   MANUEL LAURENTE, a Manila Man, having no occupation, but who states that he came over from Japan  about eight months ago, and has since spent and lost in gambling about $800, was brought up by the police, charged with unlawfully wounding a Chinaman, on Tuesday night.  It appears a party of gamblers were assembled in a house in Hongkew, the prisoner and prosecutor being among them.  The prisoner challenged the prosecutor to play for half-a-dollar, which he declined to do, saying he only played for cash.  This exasperated the prisoner, who took up a piece of wood, having a nail at one end, and used as a candlestick, and struck the prosecutor a heavy blow on the head with it.  The nail caught the man's forehead, just above the right eye, and inflected a severe punctured wound, causing much loss of blood.  The other people in the house detained the prisoner and sent for the police. - sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and then to be deported to Manila.


The North China Herald, 6 April 1876



Shanghai, April 3rd.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


Claim for $48.58, Wages

   Plaintiff had been employed as Tea-boy by the defendant, who is Tea Inspector to Messrs. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co.

   It appeared that the allowance made by the house for theTea-boy was Tls. 10.  But when plaintiff was taken on he, not being a skilled tea-boy, was told that he would not get the full amount, but should not have less than $9. $2 our of the $10 were to go towards the house-boy's salary, certain petty expenses connected with the tea room were also to be deducted, and if any balance then remained over and above the $9, plaintiff was to have it.  He left in February, and defendant alleged that a full settlement had been come to on the 1st March, when he paid plaintiff a balance of $8 shown to owe him by his own account.

   Plaintiff denied that this was a complete settlement, and sought to recover a further sum of $48.58.

   After patiently attempting for nearly three quarters of an hour to arrive at a compromise of the case, the Magistrate adjourned it, for the production of accounts and of the memorandum of account which defendant said had been taken down by him from plaintiff's statement at the time of the alleged settlement.

April 5th.


   This case was resumed, and after a prolonged investigation, His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for $35.16, the amount to be paid into Court, to await the result of a case to be brought by the defendant in the Mixed Court within one week. 


The North China Herald, 13 April 1876


Shanghai, April 8th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an action to recover $90 on two promissory notes.

   Defendant admitted his indebtedness, and explained that already he was paying $10 a month under a judgment of the Court, and was quite willing and anxious to pay the present plaintiff, who had behaved well to him.

   His HONOUR ordered the defendant to pay $10 a month for May and June; the previous judgment against him would then have run out, and he as then to pay $20 a month until the debt was liquidated.


The North China Herald, 29 April 1876



Shanghai, April 24th

Before R.A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an action to recover $92.50 for five and a half months' rent, at $15 per month, with $10 for the balance of an account.

   Defendant did not appear, and the service of the summons having been proved, and the debt proved, his HONOUR entered a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs.

The North China Herald, 29 April 1876



Shanghai, April 25th h

Before R.A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an action to recover $7.48, alleged to be due to the plaintiff for wages.

   There was a conflict of evidence as to the amount of wages per month, and ultimately His HONOUR gave a verdict for $2.40, and $3 costs.


The North China Herald, 13 May 1876


Shanghai, May 8th.

Before E. SHINAGAWA, Esq., Consul General.

Cutting and Wounding.

   HATZO, a seaman of the M.B. mail steamer Genkai Maru, was charged with cutting and wounding two Chinese, in the Yuhpoo road, on the night of Sunday last.

   It appeared that there had been a general row among a number of Japanese sailors, and that for some unexplained reason the prisoner attacked the complainants with a knife, inflicting severe injuries on one of them.

   It being thought others were implicated in the attack, the prisoner was remanded.

May 11th.

   GENBE, who formerly gave the name of HATZO, a seaman of the M.B. str. Genkai Maru, was again brought up, charged with cutting and wounding two Chinese in the Yuhpoo road, on Sunday night last.

   Prisoner had been remanded in consequence of its having been thought there were others connected with the affair, the Chinese not being able to speak positively to him, as the man who wounded them, although they identified him as having taken part in the disturbance, and also as having gone into a native house and damaged the furniture.

   The CONSUL-GENERAL sentenced him to forty days' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of $1.50.


The North China Herald, 13 May 1876


Shanghai, May 6th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff was an amah in the service of a foreign lady, and sued to recover $23.50, for goods supplied to the defendant.  She also summoned the defendant for assaulting her on the 1st instant.  Plaintiff was led in to Court and appeared to be still, suffering badly. There were bruises on her arms and body, which she stated, through Wing, who acted as interpreter, were occasioned by the defendant pushing her down a flight of stairs on the day named.

   His HONOUR said he would hear the statements on both sides, with regard to each case, at the same time.

   Defendant, who also seemed very ill, and  said she was only just recovering from fever, denied that the owed the plaintiff any money, or that she assaulted her, unless pushing her out of her bedroom when she refused to go, was an assault.  She then went on to say that she received from the plaintiff a bundle containing some articles, which the plaintiff gave her the option of selecting from for purchase.  She kept a small quantity of lace, for which she sent the plaintiff $2.50, as being about its value.  Plaintiff, however, wanted more money for it, and afterwards camera to the house and demanded $23.  Being ill, she (defendant) bad given strict orders top her boy to allow no one top come upstairs to her bedroom; but on the 1st instant, plaintiff came, and getting past the boy, rushed up to the room.  Defendant was lying asleep on the sofa, and was awoke by the plaintiff coming into the room and standing near her.  She wanted to take the bundle away, on defendant refusing to pay the $23, and became abusive.  Defendant retained Poe session of the bundle, in order to get the $2.50 returned to her, whereupon the plaintiff became more abusive, and wads told by defendant to leave the room.  She reused to go, and defendant then got up from the sofa, and pushed her out onto the landing at the top of the stairs.  Plaintiff walked leisurely down the stairs, until she got to the last but one or two, when she fell, and lay on the floor, moaning and crying, but defendant believed she got up without help, and walked away, and she saw nothing more of her, but next day received the summonses.

   Plaintiff repeated her statement that defendant pushed her violently down the whole of the stairs, hurting her badly, and she had been under a Chinese doctor ever since.  The reason she went to the defendant's house on the 1st instant, was that she had a letter to give to defendant from her mistress.  The boy made no objection to her going up stairs, and defendant opened the bedroom door to admit her.  It was not true that the defendant was lying asleep on the sofa.  She then asked defendant for payment for the things in the bundle, as she thought she intended keeping them, not having returned them.  They were worth $23, as there were some articles of jewellery, as well as the lace among them.  Defendant refused to pay her, but began to push her about, and she pushed back, but was ultimately pushed down stairs.
   The case lasted some time longer, but no other material facts except that defendant said she did not want the things in the bundle, nor the lace, were elicited; and ultimately

   His HONOUR disposed of the Civil Summary case by telling defendant to give back the bundle, and the plaintiff to return the $2.50.  With reference to the charge of assaulting, as complainant appeared to be suffering so much, it was necessary that she should be examined by a foreign doctor, in order that the Court might be satisfied as to the extent of her alleged in juries.  The assault case would, therefore, be adjourned until Monday morning at ten o'clock, when defendant's boy must be in attendance to give evidence as to under what circumstances plaintiff got into the house.  If she forced her way in, she was in the wrong.

   The parties then left the Court.


   This was a judgment summons, the decision in which had been adjourned from the previous day, to enable defendant to pay $100, upon the expiration of the charter of a vessel, in September next.  The charter and commission amounted in the whole to $225, and the order for $100 was intended as security for the payment of the plaintiff's claim.

   The Chinaman was in Court, and on being asked if he could not pay the money now, or at least the portion of it now due, so that plaintiff might not have to wait so long as four months for her money, said he could not pay anything before the expiration of the charter.  The order was further "secured" by a compradore's chop.

   His HONOUR directed the Usher to ascertain of the comprador had "secured" the order; and it was understood the case was settled in this way.


The North China Herald, 27 May 1876


Shanghai, May 19th

Before RF. A. MOWAT, Esq.


      Plaintiff, who was formerly landlord of the "Welcome" Tavern, Hongkew, sued defendaant, a pilot, to recover $60.75, balance of account for goods supplied.

   Defendant did not appear, but personal service of the summons was proved b y the usher.

   It further appeared that the account had been running from 1871 to 1875, and that defendant had paid $[50], but had neglected to pay the balance sued for, although it had been applied for several times.

   His HONOUR entered judgment for plaintiff, for amulet claimed.


The North China Herald, 3 June 1876


Shanghai, May 29th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was a claim to recover Tls. 20, for services rendered and money expended; with $3.50 additional, for material supplied. - Defendant paid Tls. 10, and the $3.50 into Court, stating that that was the amount he considered himself indebted.

   Plaintiff said he was not satisfied with the amount paid into court.  He was then sworn, and deposed - Defendant engaged the Masonic Hall, to give concerts.  The cause of my bringing this summons into Court, is because I could not get an answer from defendant with respect to the payment of my bill, which I had sent in to him.  I sent it by my boy, and he brought it back, opened, saying defendant told him he knew nothing about it.  That was on the 25th instant.  I sent it in again on the 26th, my chit-book being brought back initialled "C.P."  I sent the bill in the third time, late, the same evening, asking about having the chairs, which I had borrowed from the Club Concordia, returned.  I received for answer that Mr. Plumpton would call some time that same day.  He did not come.  I sent twice more, the last time on Saturday afternoon, saying, if there was anything the matter with the bill, and he would call upon me, I would see what could be done.     He did not call, and I went the same say to the Central Hotel, and sent up my card.  The boy came down, and said Mr. Plumpton could not see me, as he had a gentleman with him.  I waited, and soon afterwards saw defendant and a lady come down stairs, and before I could get to the door they got into a carriage and drove off.  I then procured the summons.

   The services I rendered were arranging the hall for the two concerts; telling Mr. Plumpton where to procure chairs for the hall, and going with my own boys personally to the Club Concordia to obtain them; and cleaning the hall before and after the concerts.  I showed defendant by my book that the expenses would be about Tls. 15 per concert, in addition to the rent of the hall, but that as no fires were wanted, it would be Tls. 10.  Defendant took the hall for two concerts, but it was thought three would be given.  I charge Tls. 1 for removing chairs from the Club Concordia to the Masonic Hall; cleaning before and after the first convert, Tls. 4; for myself, superintending, fixing up room, and doping all that was necessary, Tls. 5.  Those charges are for the first convert; and for the second concert they were exactly the same.  As to the charges being for each convert, separately, Mr. Kingsmill was present at the conversation between myself and Mr. Plumpton on the subject; and I have sent for him to come here, but he has not arrived yet.

   His HONOUR - Was there any necessity for charging for cleaning the hall after the first, and also (that is, a second timer) before the second con cert?

   Plaintiff said yes; because the chairs had been used at the Flower Show, and were made wet and dirty by the rain.  Consequently, they all required cleaning for the second concert; and it was, besides, a usual thing to do, - to clean the hall properly after being used.

   His HONOUR then asked the defendant what his account of the matter was?

   Defendant said he was led to understand that Tls. 10 were to cover the work done for the concerts intended to be given.  He had no idea that he was to be charged in that way for each concert.  He produced a memorandum from Mr. Gundry, one of the Executive committee of the hall, to the effect that he considered the charge excessive.

   His HONOUR - That is merely an expression of opinion.

   Defendant, examined b y plaintiff, said - You showed me an entry in your book, Tls. 15.25,  which you said was the charge for one night; but in my case, I understood the Tls. 10 were to cover all three concerts, if there had been given.

   Defendant then went on to say that he had to provide his own ticket collectors, and to build a platform in the hall at his own cost.  He did not so much object to the extra Tls. 10, as that he wanted to know what plaintiff had done for the money.

   Mr. KINGSMILL, who here came into Court, said, in reply to His HONOUR - I was present at the time plaintiff sowed the defendant the list of charges usually made when the Hall is engaged.  Plaintiff said he deceived Tls. 5 from each of the Masonic bodies whenever they held a meeting, which I can testify to as correct.  In addition, plaintiff said he usually charged for putting the chairs, &c., in order; and, so far as I can remember, he said the charge would be $13 per night.  I clearly understood that the charge was to be for each night.  A Masonic meeting usually lasts about the same time as a concert.

   His HONOUR said he had no doubt that the defendant has misunderstood the plaintiff as to the charges being for each night; and he thought it unlikely that plaintiff could have made the bargain defendant seemed to imagine he had - that Tls. 10 were to cover all the concerts.  Did Mr. Kingsmill think Tls. 10 per night too much for the services rendered?

   Mr. KINGSMILL, sealing as one of the Executive committee, would be glad if some arrangement could be made whereby the charges could be reduced, for it was an important matter as affecting the letting of the hall.  Mr. Endicott, the secretary, had usually attended to these matters, but as he was absent, Mr. Gundry and himself (Mr. Kingsmill) had since attended to them bogymen them.  It would be better, if the plaintiff could see his way clear to reduce the charges, because it would be better, as he had said, for the letting of the hall.

   His HONOUR said it was fortunate that Mr. Kingsmill was present at the interview between the parties, and that he was now in Court to testify that he understood the arrangement was for each concert, and that the charges were the same as were usually made.  That being so, there was no necessity to go into the question as to whether the charges were reasonable or unreasonable.  Plaintiff had also produced his book at the time of the contract to show that they were the usual charges, and His Honour therefore thought defendant was liable for the sum claimed.  It was a pity he did not go and see plaintiff on the subject, in order to try and make such an arrangement as would have prevented the case coming into Court.  Plaintiff seemed to have brought the case into Court more because his bill had been ignored altogether and no notice taken of his application, than as a question of account.

   Defendant explained that his time had been so much occupied that he could not do so; and that he did not receive the summons until 6.30 on Saturday evening, when it was too late to do anything with regard to it.

   His HONOUR - But the bill was sent t in to you on the 25th instant.

   Defendant admitted this to have been the case.

   His HONOUR again said it was a pity that between the 25th instant and the issue of the summons, defendant had not taken an opportunity of seeing or writing to the plaintiff, to endeavour to come to some arrangement.  Had he done so, it would perhaps have prevented the case going so far.  Under the circumstances, His Honour had no alternative but to enter judgment for plaintiff for full amount claimed - that was, for the remaining Tls. 10, with costs, $3.

   The money was at once paid.


The North China Herald, 3 June 1876


Shanghai, May 31st

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff, formerly boatswain of the steamer Taku, sued defendant, the present master of the vessel, to recover $30.90, made up with the following items: - $17.50, balance of seamen's cook's wages; $6, wages of substitute "for man who broke his leg;" $2.50, for damage to skylight of vessel; an d $4.90, wages for one day of eleven coolies employed to work on board.

   Defendant denied owing the plaintiff any money.  The latter, as boatswain, engaged the ship's company, he (defendant) settling with him every month.  All moneys due plaintiff had been paid, as far as defendant was concerned.  Plaintiff was engaged by Captain McClure, formerly master of the Taku, but now commanding the Conquest. It was understood between them, that the sailors were to provide their own cook.  Defendant joined the vessel in February last.  The articles were to run for four months, #and expired on the 17th of Mat.  Defendant joined a month after the articled began. 

   Plaintiff did not ask for cook's wages to be paid, till after the articles expired.  He was not authorised to engage a substitute for the man who broke his leg, as it was thought the ship did not require another man in his place - there being a large crew on board for a small vessel.  Defendant did not know anything about the damage to the skylight, and had never charged plaintiff for broken glass.  As to the engagement of the eleven coolies, it was required to swing the ship one day, and it was found there were none of the crew on board to do it, so plaintiff had to engage the coolies, for which the ship ought not to pay, as it was plaintiff's duty to keep a crew on board.

   LEONG C. WING, assistant in the Shipping Office, said he remembered the plaintiff and Caption McClure being in the office together.  Plaintiff asked Captain McClure to pay for the services of a seamen's cook, and he refused to do so.  It was not entered in the articles.  In most coasting vessels, a seamen's cook, was not provided at all.  Defendant, however, had paid $2.50, for half a month's service of a seamen's cook, ending the 17th of May.

   Plaintiff here said, Captain McClure promised him $5 per month as wages for a seamen's cook.  That was after the articles were signed.  He therefore engaged a cook, but he did not sign the articles.

   Defendant, in reply to the Court, said he paid the $2.50, rather than have any trouble with the plaintiff on that matter.  Wing said plaintiff was asking for money for cook's wages, which was why he paid it.  Plain tiff was always paid from $110 to $115 per month, out of which he paid himself and all the crew.  He had never before said anything about seamen's cook's wages.

   Plaintiff said, with respect to the engagement of a substitute for the man who broke his leg, that Mr. Young, the chief officer, said the ship would engage him.

   Mr. YOUNG, WHO WAS IN Court, stated that the question put to him by the plaintiff was - Who would pay the wages of the man who had broken his leg?  I went to ask the captain, and he said the ship would.  I did not know that plaintiff had engaged a substitute, until the ship got out to sea.  If he had asked about engaging another man, I should have told him the ship did not want one.

   Defendant further said the ship had been running for three months, without a man in the place of the one who had broken his leg.  He had discharged the substitute as soon as he knew of his being on board.

   His HONOUR next enquired what was meant by the item, damage to skylight?

   Plaintiff said he broke the glass of the skylight accidentally; and Captain McClure made him pay for it out of his own pocket.  He now wanted the money returned to him.  He also admitted that the engagement of the eleven coolies was in captain McClure's time.

   His HONOUR explained to the plaintiff, that that being so, he could not recover from Captain Paynter.  He must wait until Captain McClure returned from his voyage, and then ask him to pay the money.  It had nothing at all to do with the defendant.  With respect to the other matters, it appeared that no promises in the one case, or authority in the other, had been given, and defendant, therefore, was not liable.

   Judgment for defendant.


The North China Herald, 16 June 1876



Shanghai, June 5th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff sued on behalf of the Gas Company, to recover $3.33 for gas supplied, and 53 cents for work done in respect of fittings.'

   His HONOUR stated that he was a shareholder in the Gas Company, and could only hear the case by consent of both parties.

   The required consent was given.

   Defendant, in reply to questions, said he did not owe the 53 cents; and with respect to the gas bill, an excess of 200 feet had been charged for.  He admitted owing for 600 feet, which would amount to $2.10, and had expressed his willingness to pay that amount.  He defended the case as a matter of principle.

   Plaintiff said he was not satisfied with $2.10, and then stated that he was officiating engineer and secretary of the Shanghai Gas Company.  With respect to the charge of 53 cents for gas fittings and labour, he produced a written order from defendant, for a fitter to be sent to his house.  It was dated the 31st of March, 1875.  The date on the order corresponded with the date in the fitter's book.  The work done was lowering brackets in the house, and doing something else in the stable.  The work was done by the European foreman fitter and two native fitters, the time charged being half an hour for each.  The entry in the fitter's book was dated the 1st April, 1875; the order was probably sent in late on the 31st March, the work being done on the following day.

   Defendant said he had been absent in England since September, 1875, and in August paid all the money he believed he owed to the Gas Company.  Why was he not then charged for work done on the 1st April preciously?  He produced a cheque on the Hong-kong & Shanghai Bank in confirmation of his statement of having paid the gas company's account.

   Plaintiff admitted that he did not know the date on which the defendant had paid his bill.

   His HONOUR said the accounts rendered to the defendant carried the charges for work done, down to the 30th March; but it appeared he had had something for the fitter to do on the 31st March.

   Defendant said, yes; there might have been something very trivial.

   His HONOUR said the charge made was trivial - 53 cents.  Did defendant wish to have the fitter called as a witness?

   Defendant replied that he did, and was proceeding to question to plain tiff as to the work alleged to have been done.

   His HONOUR said plaintiff only knew what was entered ion the fitter's book, therefore it was of no use asking him about it.  If the fitter was to be called in Court, better wait and ask him.

   Defendant said the account was never presented to him till after he returned from England, although he was in Shanghai from April till September, 1875.

   His HONOUR - Because, probably, it was overlooked, and they could not present it until you returned.  With respect to the other item, what objection is there?

   Defendant said he considered he was overcharged.  He left his house on the 20th September last, and another tenant took possession.  He found the consumption of gas for the 20 days had been estimated, not upon his previous average consumption, but upon the consumption of the new tenant for the remaining ten days of the month.

   His HONOUR (to plaintiff) - was the meter taken on the 20th September.

   Plaintiff - The meter must have been taken on that day; but I cannot be sure.  I did not take it myself.

   By defendant - If we did not receive an application from a person to take the meter on the 15th or 20th of the month, we should not do so, unless we knew the tenant was going away.  We should then take it.

   Defendant - But they did not know I was going away.

   His HONOUR - The question is, was the meter taken on the 20th September.

   Plaintiff - I believe it was taken then.

   Defendant produced a bill sent to him in the usual way, and asked who made it out, and how the particulars were obtained.

   Plaintiff said it was made out by the accountant, who, in order nary cases, obtained the particulars from the meter book.

   His HONOUR (to plain tiff) - You will have to produce the fitter and meter-man.  You knew defendant objected to the amount as being too much, and you ought to have come to Court provided with evidence to prove that your charge is correct.  You cannot give evidence yourself, because you did not take the meter.

   (To the defendant) - As to the 53 cents, there is not doubt you have some work to be done, and that you have never paid for it.  Would the fitter enter in his book, "lowering gas bracket," and something else, if he had not done the work?  And yet you put the plaintiff to the inconvenience of bringing the European fitter here, when he might be required elsewhere, and all he can say will be, "I did the work."

   Defendant - He could not have done anything in the stable, but I cannot say if he did any work in the house, it is so long ago.  I have asked several times for some detailed account of the work done for those 53 cents, and was never able to get it till Saturday.  I will forego the 53 cents, if the Gas Company will forego the 200 feet of gas charges in excess, and settle the case out of Court.  I will not abandon the 53 cents otherwise.

   This arrangement could not be made, and ultimately the case was adjourned till eleven o'clock next morning, for the production of the witnesses above mentioned.

June 6th.

On this adjourned case being called on, the plaintiff said the summons was withdrawn.


   Plaintiff again sued, on behalf of the gas Company, to recover $30.70, for gas supplied.

   Both parties consented to his Honour hearing the case.

   Defendant admitted owing $11.68, which he paid into Court, and produced bills to show that he had paid the sum sued for.  One of these, however, contained no receipt, and he explained this, by saying it was the first bill he paid for gas after he had taken over the Shanghai Hotel, and he did not notice there was a loose receipt appended to it.  He kept those he received afterwards, and produced them in Court.  He distinctly remembered paying the shroff the May bill sued for, in dollars, and asked him several times afterwards for a receipt, but he would not give it him, but flourished it in his face.

   His HONOUR asked defendant if he had told the Gas Company that he had paid the money, and that their servant was keeping the receipt back?

   Defendant said he did not take the trouble to do so, because he thought the company's books would show that he had paid it.

   His HONOUR, on looking through the bills produced b y the defendant, found that $15 due for May had been carried forward to the June account, $16.05, credit being given for the latter only; the $15 not appearing in the July account, but reappearing in that for August.

  He asked plaintiff why it had not been carried all through?

   Plaintiff said he supposed it was a clerical error.

   Defendant also produced a book containing entries of various payments, with the dates on which the money had been paid.  Among them appeared the $15, for gas for May, under date May 31st.  He did not take the Hotel over till the 1st of June, and the money was paid about the 2nd June.

   His HONOUR discovered that from the sum sued for there should have been deducted $3.72, allowed for gas fittings returned.

   Plaintiff admitted that that amount should have been deducted.  The claim was consequently reduced to $26.98, of which defendant admitted and paid into Court $11.68, leaving the $15.30 still in dispute.

   His HONOUR said the shroff who collected the May bill must be called, and the books containing the defendant's account produced.

   The case was therefore adjourned till 11.30 next morning.

June 6th.

   This case had also been adjourned for the evidence of the gas Company's shroff as to the payment by defendant of $15, for gas supplied to the Shanghai Hotel in May, 1875.

   The shroff deposed that he called upon defendant in the usual way, in June for the May account, bur he did not pay it, so he (witness) kept the receipt.  If defendant had paid, the receipt would have been handed over to him.  Payment of this account had been applied for several times both by himself and Mr. Hassel, the late collector, but without effect.

   Plaintiff also produced the company's books, in which the amount was regularity carried for ward every month as due.

   Defendant, at the previous hearing, stated that the money was paid on the 2nd June, and produced his book containing what purported to be an entry to that effect.  The date, June 2nd, however, only appeared at the head of the list, and there was no other date.  The payments for gas consumed in other months were seen to have been made after the middle of each succeeding month to their becoming due.

   Plaintiff, in reply to a question, said it would have been unusual to have collected for one month so early as the 2nd of the next.

   His HONOUR, in summing up the case, said the conclusion he had come to was, that the money had not been paid.  First of all, defendant ought to have got a receipt for the money, if he had paid it, but he could not produce one.  If he had paid the money, and believed the shroff had attempted to defraud him of it, by not handing over the receipt, he should have gone at one to the Gas Company and informed them of it.  Again, why did he not, when he saw the item carried forward in the June bill, go at once, and say it was a mistake?  If defendant did pay the money, he would have to pay it again, because he had neglected the ordinary precaution of taking a receipt.  His Honour did not think it possible that, after he had been in the Hotel with his partner for two years, paying gas bills monthly, defendant did not know the use and importance of the tag receipt at the bottom of the gas Company's bills.  Neither did his Honour think it likely that the shroff kept back the tag in the manner stated by the defendant.  The shroff could make nothing by it.  It was a gratuitous inference that defendant wished the Court to draw, that the shroff wanted to take advantage of the payment having been made without a receipt being given, and so cheat him.  The fact was, the entry in defendant's book was one of several sums that were to be paid, and he may have thought it had been paid.

   Judgment for plaintiff, for $26.98, and cost of summons.


   Defendant was sued to recover $8.75 for gas supplied, but not being present to give consent to the case being heard, it was also adjourned till next morning.

June 6th.

   Redundant was sued for $8.75, for gas supplied.  He did not appear, but had given consent for the case to be heard by His Honour.

   Plaintiff in answer to a question said he believed the defendant disputed the account on the ground of its being an overcharge.  Plaintiff believed the gas had been supplied - the meter registered it.

   His HONOUR said if defendant did not choose to come into Court and state his reasons for objecting to pay, judgment must be given against him.

   Judgment for plaintiff, with costs of summons.

June 6th.


This w as a disputed account, with reference to the sale of a number of articles of second-hand furniture, the balance sued for being $16.50.  The defendant is a boarding-house keeper in Hongkew.  The case occupied upwards of an hour in hearing, being more than usually complicated by the defendant's confused statements as to her transactions with the plaintiff.  Heding interpreted for the plaintiff, on behalf of the Court.

   According to the defendant's statement, she commenced dealing with the plaintiff on the 6th of October last, on which date she bought sundry articles for which she paid cash.  On the 12th of the same month, with the understanding that she was to retain  either article, on payment of Tls. 10, the other to be loaned at a nominal rent per month, and to be returned when the use for it ceased.  On the afternoon of the 12th, she paid the Chinaman (a partner of Ching-kee) who brought the two articles to her house, the Tls. 10 in two Tls. 5 notes.  On the 19th, she purchased curtains to the value of $12.25, and gave the plaintiff Tls. 10, the balance to be applied in part liquidation of a small debt incurred for other articles purchased on the same day.  On the 26th, she purchased three mirrors, for $6, $4, and $2 respectively.  The several sums she had paid to the plaintiff were Tls. 10, then Tls. 10 again, then $13 (for which she had sold the sofa to another person, because she did not want it, and plaintiff would not fetch it away), and finally $10.  She considered she diode not owe the plaintiff anything.

   Plaintiff said his partner's statement agreed with the defendant's as to the various articles supplied, and also as to the c ash payment on the 6th October.  With reference to the alleged loan of some of the articles delivered subsequently, plaintiff made no arrangement of the kin d - the goods were sold.  In the transaction for the sofa and sideboard, defendant only paid Tls. 10, but gave a paper, on which she had written something in English, with the figures, Tls. 10, twice over.  Both articles were sold to her for Tls. 20.  Four or five days ago, she got that paper back again, and now refused to give it up. Defendant wrote the paper herself, in pencil, in the shop, before the sofa and sideboard were sent to her house.  She did not pay any money for them in the afternoon.  She did not pay two Tls. 5 notes.  The paper was to the effect that she owed plaintiff Tls. 20.

   His HONOUR asked defendant to produce the paper alluded to.

   After searching in her pockets for some time, she said she must have left it at home.  It contained only her name, and the price of the two articles.  She was positive the arrangement was for one of them to be returned, and that she paid the two Tls. 5 notes at the time she had stated.  She made no memorandum on the paper of having paid that sum.  There were other articles charged for which she was allowed to take on approval, but which plaintiff now refused to take back.

   Plaintiff in reply to a question said he did sometimes lend furniture, but nothing was lent to the defendant.

   His HONOUR said he thought the plaintiff's account was more reasonable than defendant's.  He kept proper books.  He could not understand why defendant should have put down the sofa and sideboard on then paper she wrote, unless she meant to keep both.  If she did not mean to keep both, she must have known which of the two articles she wanted - they were quote different articles.  The Court was not s satisfied that an arrangement had been made to lend any of the articles, and the conclusion it had come to was that the plaintiff's account was the only satisfactory one of the transactions.  Defendant had got things mixed up in confusion, and had nearly succeeded in confusing the Court.

   Defendant - I have paid the money, and do not mean to pay it again, understand.

   His HONOUR - We will not discuss that now.  He could not understand that defendant was to take the things away, and have the use of them as long as she pleased, without an arrangement being made to that effect.  It would be a very unusual transaction.  Defendant must pay the balance sued for, and the cost of the summons; and when people came to her again with such a paper as that in question, she must give it back instantly - not keep it a minute.  It was wrong to retain possession of papers of the kind, which were in the nature of vouchers of the plaintiffs'; and defendant's retaining it was one of the features of the case which had led the Court to its decision.

   Defendant - I shall decline to pay the money over again, and must have it postponed to consult my legal adviser.  The Chinaman behaved very insolently.  He came in to my house in my absence and went all over it, and when I asked him for my account, he would not bring it, so I kept the paper instead.  He threatened to summon me, and make me ashamed to hold my head up in Court, and I told him he might do so.

   His HONOUR - You ought to have returned the paper at once.

   Defendant - he would not wait for it.

   His HONOUR - I don't believe that; go away.


The North China Herald, 17 June 1876


Shanghai, June 9th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff sued to recover $16.63, for goods sold and delivered in February and march last.

   Defendant admitted the debt, and said in excuse of non-payment that he had been away in Tientsin for two months, and had only just returned.  He would not, however, now pay, except by instalments of $3 per month.  He was an engineer, and his wages were only $50 per month.

   Judgment for plaintiff, for amount claimed, with $3 cost of summons; to be paid in three monthly instalments, commencing in July, of $6, $7, and $6.63.

June 13th


   Plaintiff claimed $33, for refreshment supplied during his proprietorship of the Shanghai Hotel.

   Defendant admitted owing the money, and said he had offered to pay it by allowing the plaintiff to deduct the amount from a debt he (plaintiff) owed to another person, the latter having consented to the arrangement.

   Plaintiff declined to ac cede, and

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the amount claimed, with $3 costs, - $20 to be paid on 5th July, and the balance on 5th August.


   In this case, plaintiff claimed $46.91, for twenty-two days' board, and refreshments supplied.

   Defendant did not appear, and service of the summons having been proved, judgment was entered against him, for the amount claimed, with $3 costs.


   Plaintiff sued to recover $9, for refreshments supplied.

   Defendant, who belongs to the telegraph ship H. C. Oersted, appeared and admitted the debt, but said he could not pay it except by two monthly instalments, as he had other debts to meet. - In answer to questions, he said his wages were $88 per month, out of which he had to pay $24 for his mess.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for plain tiff, with costs, - $3 for summons, $1 for stamping with the seal of Danish Consulate, to enable it to be served on board ship; and $2 expenses of private messenger to Woosung, to serve the summons.  If the Court Usher had served it, the costs would have amounted to $4 more.  The amount to be paid into Court in the beginning of July.


The North China Herald, 24 June 1876



Shanghai, June 16th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff claimed $85, for champagne alleged to have been supplied to defendant.

   Defendant said he disputed the claim altogether.

   Plaintiff was then s worn, and deposed that on several occasions she became responsible for champagne on the defendant's account.  The number of bottles was seventeen, for which $85 were charged.  The wine was supplied at eight or nine different times, and plaintiff had since paid for it out of her own pocket.

   Defendant said that he never bought a bottle of champagne from the plaintiff at all.  If he had anything to pay for champagne, it was to another person.

   Plaintiff - Then, may I ask, what is the meaning of these two papers he sent to me? (Papers handed in.)

   His HONOUR having read the papers, said the first (which was addressed to another person, not the plaintiff) was, "If you will send in your account for wine, I will pay the bill;" and the second, "I have been advised by a friend to pay this bill, without any further bother.  Will pay it tomorrow." (To defendant) - What is your account of the matter?

   Defendant - My account is, that I have been robbed at that house of a watch, chain, and other articles.  You understand, I want to get my things back, and I have taken counter-action against the plaintiff in the United States Court this afternoon.  The watch is worth 30 guineas, and the chain 10 guineas; and there is other property.

   His HONOUR, having  ascertained from the defendant the character of the house where the debt was stated to have been contracted, said - If the fact is as he has stated, the Court cannot assist the plaintiff to recover this money.  The law considers that the mode of life and conduct carried on in suit places is so wrong, that it cannot assist any person belonging to them to recover money in respect of transactions of the kind.

   Plaintiff - The the case is lost?

   His HONOUR - Yes.


The North China Herald, 1 July 1876



Shanghai, June 24th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Mr. BROUGHAM MILLER appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case.

   Defendant, who is the second engineer on board of the C.N. Co.'s steamer Foochow, was sued by the plaintiff, a livery stable keeper in the French Concession, for $60 for damages to a carriage alleged to have been caused by his (defendant's) negligence in April last.

   Mr. MILLER explained that the action arose out of a collision between two carriages on the Bubbling Well Road, on Sunday, the 9th of April, and that the reason it had not been brought sooner, was because the defendant being engaged on a steamer was only in Shanghai occasionally.

   Defendant said he participated in the collision, but denied his liability to pay for the damage to the plaintiff's carriage.

   Mr. MILLER said under his advice the plaintiff wished to lower his claim to Tls. 10 for the damage to the carriage, and $25 for the loss during the six days it was rendered useless.

   A Mafoo, formerly in the employ of the plaintiff, but now engaged at the horse Bazaar, deposed - I remember the collision taking place on Sunday, the 9th of April.  I was driving a two-pony four wheeled carriage, with three foreign gentlemen in it at the time it occurred.  One of them was Mr. Allen, who came to the plaintiff's stables along with one of the other gentlemen, and said he wanted to go to Sickaway.  That was about one o'clock in the afternoon.  The carriage was got ready, and I drove the two gentlemen first to the Makalee, where we took up the third gentleman.  It would be about a quarter to two o'clock when we started from the Makalee, and the collision took place about an hour afterwards.  We had not got as far as Sickaway.  It occurred about 100 paces on this side of the silk manufactory, close to a small shrine there is by the road side.    I saw the carriage coming towards me.  There were two foreigners in it, and one of them was driving; the mafoo was sitting behind.  I called to the foreigner to stop, because he was coming too fast, but he did not stop and ran into us.  The right wheel of his carriage locked with the front wheel of ours, breaking the springs.  Neither of the carriages capsized.  We were going very slowly at the time.  I was on the left hand side of the road, and the other carriage was on the right hand side, but the foreigner was driving too much in the middle.  The road was wide enough for both carriages to pass.  I could not go more to my left because the creek was on my side. The foreigner was galloping.

   Bedsides the breaking of the springs some damage was done to the harness.  After the collision we were unable to proceed further with the carriage, and the gentlemen walked to Sickaway.  The other carriage drove away.  I told the foreigner he would have to pay for the damage, and he shook his fist in my face.  Mr. Allen gave me a chit for my master.  The carriage was all right when it went out in the morning.  I was driving at the time of the collision, and not one of the foreigners.

   Defendant differed from the witness as to the place where the accident happened.

   The plaintiff deposed - I recollect this accident.  I saw my carriage the day after it occurred.  The two principal leaves of each of the two front springs were broken, the two arms were bent, and the cross bar and the dashboard were split.  I sent the carriage to be repaired on the Tuesday, and it was away six or seven days.  The cost of repairing it was Tls. 10.  All the repairs were necessary, and I think the work was cheaply done.  I claim $4 per day, also, for the loss of hire during the six days the carriage was away repairing.  I cannot say whether I should have let this particular carriage out every day or not, but as a general rule it goes out every day.  I am willing to take off two days.

   The defendant was then called.  He said - I was d riving when the collision occurred.  It happened at an angle of the road where there is not sufficient room for two carriages to pass.  There are some native houses at the place.  The other carriage was not driven by a mafoo, but by a European, and it was coming pretty fast.  We were not more than a dozen yards off each other when I first saw it.  I immediately "hauled" the pony up, with its head against one of the houses.  When the wheels came in contract both carriage were almost at a standstill, but my pony gave "a start" and took the carriage over the axletree of the other one, throwing me and my friend out.  We were shaken and the skin grazed off our knees.  Our carriage was slightly injured, apparently more than the other one appeared to be, and I paid a dollar for the repairs.  There were only two gentlemen in the other carriage.  One of them was driving.  I will not swear that Mafoo was not sitting in the d riving box.  The European who was driving was not sitting there, but in the body of the carriage on the right hand side.

   This was all the evidence that could be given at present.  A note was produced from Mr. Allen but it was not admitted as evidence, and the defendant said he should like to call the friend who was with him, and the mafoo.
   Mr. MILLER said if His Honour thought it requisite, he would try to get Mr. Allen to come and give his version of the affair.

   His HONOUR replied that at present there was nothing to prove the defendant had been guilty of negligence; it was merely the evidence of the mafoo against the evidence of the defendant, and there were material discrepancies between them.

   Defendant said the friend who was with him was the second engineer of the steamer Europe, and would be here in the course of a week.  His vessel, he understood, would leave any daybreak the next morning, and would not return for a month.

   In answer to His HONOUR, defendant said he had no objection to the case being decided in his absence.

   The further hearing of the case was then adjourned until the arrival of the Europe, when further evidence on both sides will be called.

15 July 1876


   This action, for the recovery of the cost of repair and loss of hire of a four wheel carriage, damaged in a collision, at Sicawei, in the month of April last, was part heard on June 24th, and was adjourned for the production of further evidence on both sides.

   Mr. H. BROUGHAM MILLER appeared for the plaintiff.  Defendant was not represented by Counsel.

   Mr. JAMES C. ALLEN, witness for plaintiff, now deposed - I remember the day of the collision.  There were three foreigners in plaintiff's carriage, of whom I was one.  The mafoo was on the box, d riving.  When the collision occurred, we were not exactly at a standstill, but knowing the road near the village was an awkward place, I told the mafoo to go slowly and poll well over to the left.  He did so.  I saw the defendant's trap coming not very fast, but faster than we were going, and bearing right down on us.  We were pulled close to the left side of the road - the defendant had at least three parts of the road, and although the road was narrow, there was ample room for them to pass safely by careful driving.  I consider the collision was caused by the defendant's negligence.  Our carriage was so damaged that we could go no further with it, so we tied up the springs the best way we could, and sent it home.  Mr. Charrier sent out another vehicle for us.  I gave the mafoo a chit, to the effect that the accident was not caused by his fault.

   Mr. MILLER said he thought that was all the evidence he need call.

   His HONOUR put several questions to the witness, the replied to which were confirmatory of the evidence just given by himself, and also of that adduced on the plaintiff's behalf at the former hearing.

   Mr. EASTLACK, another of the party in plaintiff's carriage. On being questioned by the court, confirmed the preceding testimony in every particular.

   Mr NESBITT, second engineer of the steamer Europe, was called on behalf of the defendant, in whose company he was at the time of the collision.  He said that just before the collision, they had passed two or three China wheelbarrows, which caused them to drive out into the road, at a greater curve than they otherwise, would have done.  The road was very narrow and curved at the place, and it was impossible to see many yards in front.  There was not much more than 15 inches or a foot and a half or room to clear the other carriage.  They were going rather faster than the plaintiff's carriage, but not more than five miles an hour.  He did not believe the other carriage was so close to the left hand side of the road as was said.

   Mr. ALLEN and Mr. EASTLACK both said there was much more room than that described by the witness - in fact, nearly enough for three carriages.
   Some other minor facts were also elicited, but they did not affect the material points of the case.

   His HONOUR said the evidence of the defendant's witness had not satisfied him, and he considered the collision was due to the negligence of Robinson's driving.  The witness had said they were going at not more than five miles an hour, but that was not prudent at such an awkward apart in the road, where it was impossible to see for a dozen yards what was in front.  It was clear from the account of the plaintiff's witnesses that there was ample room to pass, and the defendant must, therefore, be held responsible.

   The sum claimed by defendant for repairs, Tls. 10, seemed reasonable, and would be allowed; but the charge for six days hire , $24, was, His Honour thought, too much.  The collision took place ion  a Sun day, and the carriage was not sent to be repainted till the following Tuesday.  Plaintiff, therefore, could not claim for the rime the carriage was lying idle on his premises.  Besides, a week seemed a great deal too long a time in which to effect repairs which only  came to Tls. 10, and defendant could not be  called upon to pay for the dilatoriness of workmen.  His Honour would, therefore, allow two days for loss of time, at $4 each., $8.  Judgment would be for plaintiff,, for Tls. 10 for repairs. $8 for loss of time; and $3 costs.


The North China Herald, 29 July 1876


Shanghai, July 26th

Before A.  H. DE CARVALHO, Esq., Acting Consul General.

   ALBINO GORDO, a compositor out of employ, was brought up by Mr. Fowler, Inspector of Municipal Police, charged with assaulting a foreigner on the Bund.

   The Inspector said that the assaulted gentleman (name given) did not wish to press the charge, and that the defendant was arrested for being in a state of intoxication when he committed the assault.

   Defendant confessed to his having been drunk, and said that he came to Shanghai two months ago, in search of employment.  He failed to get any, had no fixed abode nor means of livelihood, and that he wanted a situation as a compositor or a passage to Macao.

   The ACTING CONSUL-GENERAL did not think that the defendant, by his appearance, was fit to work, nor was he likely to get any employment in Shanghai, and, considering his distressed condition, decided to place him under police surveillance e until a passage could be procured for him.


The North China Herald, 19 August 1876



Shanghai, August 11th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff deposed that, seventeen months ago he entered the defendant's service as bookkeeper.  His wages were to be $25 per month, with board and lodging.  There was no agreement as to any notice being given if he wished to leave the defendant.  On the evening of the 2nd inst., he told him he was going to leave, and defendant said he should not pay him the wages due for July without he received a month's notice.  Plaintiff left the next morning, and had since asked defendant for his wages, but he refused to pay him.

   Cross-examined by Defendant - You have paid $7 for me, for which you were security.

   Defendant said that, at the plaintiff's request, he agreed to give him a month's notice.  When plaintiff first told him he wanted to leave, he said he should not pay him unless he received a month's notice.

   G. BAILEY said he was present when the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant.  He remembered nothing being said about notice, but he believed the defendant expressed his willingness to have a written agreement.

   His HONOUR said if there had been a written agreement on the subject of notice, there would have been no difficulty.  He inclined to believe that there was an arrangement as to a month's notice on either side; and indeed in all cases where there was no special agreement and the wages were paid monthly, it was the ordinary course for a month's notice to be given.  In the absence of any agreement in such cases, he therefore, imported a month's notice into the contract.  All the plaintiff accordingly seemed entitled to, was his wages for the two days he worked in August, and against that was the $7 which defendant had paid for plain tiff.  The latter amount, however, did not enter into the present case, but defendant was clearly entitled to recover it.  The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the $25, and judgment would be for $1.66, without costs, being the amount of wages due for August.


The North China Herald, 19 August 1876


   This was a claim for $41, balance of account for work done.

   Defendant admitted the debt, and an order was made for him to liquidate it at the rate of $15 per month, and to pay the costs of the court.


The North China Herald, 19 August 1876



Shanghai, August 14th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff was formerly Captain of the British barque Charley, and he sued the defendant as the agent of the vessel, to recover $85.68, money expended at Shanghai on behalf of the barque during August and September, 1875, and January and February, 1876.

   Defendant did not appear.

   On answer to his Honour, plaintiff said defendant was a Swede. The Charley was a British barque, and the action was for money spent on her.

   His HONOUR said he had no jurisdiction over the defendant, and he should have been astonished if he had appeared.  He could only deal with British subjects, and the proper course for the plaintiff to adopt was to seek relief at the Swedish consulate, or if necessary arrest the vessel.

   Plaintiff replied that, as the vessel carried the British flag, he thought he was right in instituting the proceedings in the British Court.

   His HONOUR repeated that he had no authority whatever over persons who were not of British nationality.  He could not do anything in the case, but he would order the hearing fee to be returned to the plaintiff.

   The same plaintiff had another action against the same defendant for Tls. 76.22, balance of wages kept back on account of damage done to the jib-boom of the William von Name, by the charley, while the latter was in charge of a licensed pilot.  This action, in consequence of his Honour having no jurisdiction, was of course not called on.


The North China Herald, 2 September 1876


Shanghai, August 24th.

Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul-General.

Refusal of Duty.

   THOMAS WILLIAMS, WILLIAM ROBINSON, CHARLES H. KORELL, THOMAS SULLIVAN, and CHRISTIAN LARSSEN, members of the crew of the shop P. J. Carleton, were charged by Captain Amesbury with refusing to do any more work on board.  They also said they wanted to state their grievances to the Consul-General. - On being questioned, they all made some trifling complaint, one or two having nothing more to say than they had been spoken to sharply at times, - the upshot, however, being that they wanted to leave the ship. - In reply to questions, they all refused to return on board, and were accordingly committed to prison, to be fed on bread and water until they could make up their minds to resume duty, or to be put on board if the ship was ready for sea before they decided to do so.  Larssen immediately said he would return to the ship, and was therefore liberated, the other four being taken to the cells.


   THOMAS MACDONALD, a pilot, was brought up by the police, having been found running about the streets, at 6 a.m., crazy from the effects of drink.  He was evidently suffering greatly, and was detained in custody, to be placed under medical care.


The North China Herald, 9 September 1876


Shanghai, Sept. 5th.

Before J. C. MYERS, Esq., Consul-General.

Assaulting a Wife.

   CHARLES MILLS, of the Shanghai Hotel, was charged by his wife, Annie M. Mills, with assaulting her. - Complainant stated that she had been married to defendant eighteen years, within a few months.  The ceremony took place in Valparaiso, South America.  They came to Shanghai a few years ago, where complainant bought a house and commenced business.  They had not been long in Shanghai, before defendant began to treat her roughly, and had continued to do so at intervals ever since.  On Sunday last, he made a blow at her, which she evaded; and on Monday night, between eleven and twelve o'clock, he threw some lemonade bottles at her, one of them striking her.  In return she threw one at him.  A few days previously, he struck her with a billiard ball, and hurt her arm.  He had also turned her out of the house, late at night; and his bad treatment of her latterly became so frequent that she believed her life was in danger, and was therefore obliged to apply to the Consular authority for protection. - Defendant was ordered to find bail in the sum of $2,000, with two sureties, to keep the peace for one year towards the complainant and all other persons in Shanghai.  In default, he was committed to prison.


The North China Herald, 16 September 1876


Shanghai, Sept. 7th.

Before JOHN C. MYERS, Esq., U.S. Consul-General.

FRAZAR & Co., Consignees v. The barque P.J. Carlton and Owners.


   In this case it appears in evidence that a cargo of coal was consigned to the firm of Frazar and Co., upon a bill of lading which called for the delivery of 553 tons of coal, to their possession at Shanghai.  Of this amount, there was a deficiency of 6 ½ tons, which it is claimed are still remaining on board the vessel, and in possession of the master, who had left the lighter or wharf whereon he discharged the coal and is now anchored in the stream outside the harbour limits, and did not deliver, and does not now intend delivering, the shortage in the quantity required by the bill of lading, claiming that the coals remaining on board are ship's stores.  I cannot concur in that view of the matter.  The master, Amesbury, admits that the weight of coals on hand and retained on board is from ten to fifteen tons.  The bill of lading requires the master to deliver five hundred and fifty three tons, "or all on board."  He has not complied with the full demands of the contract, although able to do so.  It may with propriety be remarked that the quantity of coals detained for use as ship's stores, is in excess of the necessities of the voyage to any port where coals can be obtained.  It is further in evidence, by admission of the master, that he received payment of freight for the full weight of coals required to be delivered by the bill of lading.  The full amount of coals being in the possession of the master, and he failing to fill the bill of lading, which he confesses he was able to do, and being 6 ½ tons short, at Tls. 10 per ton, Tls. 65, in dollars 84 30/100, jusgment is awarded in favor of complainants, with costs of suit.

(Signed) JOHN C. MYERS, Consul General acting Judicially.

Sept. 12th.

Assault by a Ship's Captain.

   C. WATERHOUSE, Captain of the American ship Moonlight, was charged with assaulting Adolphus Gronner on board that ship, as she was on the point of sailing.  Complainant deposed that he went on board the Moonlight to collect some money, and asked the captain to change a dollar, which he tendered him, for two half dollars.  Defendant took the dollar, put it in his pocket, and said he had changed it.  Complainant asked him to return the dollar, which he refused to do, and then, without provocation, struck complainant on the breast and threatened to throw him down the main hatch. Ultimately defendant returned the dollar, and complainant left the shop.

   The CONSUL-GENERAL ordered defendant to pay the costs of the case.


The North China Herald, 16 September 1876



Shanghai, Sept. 7th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff, a lowdah, formerly in the employ of defendant, a pilot, sued to recover $36, balance of wages he alleged to be due to him.  Heding interpreted.

   Defendant disputed the claim, and stated that he had paid plaintiff all the money due him, through Mr. England.  In support of this statement, he produced a receipt in full of all demands, signed by the plaintiff.

   Mr. England was called, and proved paying plaintiff the money through his comoradore, and the latter testified that the Chinese characters on the receipt were written by the plaintiff, and represented his name.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the defendant.


   Plaintiff sued to recover $99.50 for wages alleged to be due to him by the defendant on the 3rd July, on his dismissal on the 3rd June, without notice, from the steam-tug Fairy.

   Mr. H. BROUGHAM-MILLER appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case.

   Mr. MILLER, in opening the case, said it came before the Court more in the way of an arbitration than anything else.  It was only s dry question of notice or no notice. Plaintiff had been an engineer on board the Fairy, of which the defendant was captain.  The agreement with plaintiff was that he should receive $140 per month, out of which he was to find people to work in the engine-room, and to pay them $25 per month, leaving $115 for himself.  He was discharged without notice, and now brought his claim for a month's wages; but he preferred to out the amount under $1090, so as to being it under the Civil Summary Jurisdiction. The sum really due him was $140, and up to the time of his dismissal he had been paid that sum monthly.  These were all the facts of the case, and he (Mr. Miller) would now call the plaintiff.

   Plaintiff, sworn, deposed - I was seven or eight months in the defendant's employ, as chief engineer of the fairy.  My wages were to be $140 per month, and I was to find and pay two firemen - one at $15 and the other at $10 per month, but the latter after some tome received $12.  I always received $140 per month after the first payment, which was only for the few days to the end of November.  The first payment I received was on the 3rd of December.  After that date I received the 4140 - on the 3rd of each month.  There were no articles signed.  I was not discharged in Mr. Tapp's office, but by the Captain on board the tug.  I claim $99.50, but the amount due me is more.  My wages were paid up to the 3rd June, the day I was discharged.

   By defendant - I never asked you to get another engineer, nor did I ever tell you that I was disgusted with the boat.  I told you that I was disgusted with the food, and that I wished to provide my own mess.  On the 17th May, you gave me orders to come on board at 3.30 a.m., to take the Formosa down the river.  I came on board at 4.40, being one hour late.  We had a few words then.  I said I was late, having overslept myself. [Defendant here alleged that plaintiff used a very bad expression towards him, and also told him to get another engineer.] Plaintiff denied that he used the exact words attributed to him, but admitted that he might have said something like them. And then went on to say, in answer to further questions - I was generally an hour early in going on board, than  an hour late, and told you that I thought it very hard that you should complain because I was one hour late.  I cannot say if I used some such expression to you that you mention; but I did not tell you to get another engineer.

   By His HONOUR - I took the Formosa down the river that morning all the same.

   Defendant here stated that, on the 11th of May, he had a vessel to fetch up from Woosung, but the tide being very strong, he thought it advisable to anchor for the night.  He told plaintiff to be ready to start again at 3.30 a.m., so as to carry the tide up the river with them.  He was afterwards told that plaintiff had gone ashore in the captain of the vessel's boat, and saw n o more of him until eight o'clock in the morning, instead of at 3.30.

   Plaintiff, questioned by His HONOUR upon this statement, said - I had orders from defendant to take up the vessel, a lorcha, but I wanted to go home on some particular business, and asked defendant to give me leave, and he did so.  I left another engineer in charge in my place.  I did not expect to have to go down to the lorcha again, but I went down to the American Wharf, and took a boat to meet her coming up the river.  I had left her at Point.  The business I had to transact was at Shanghai, and I walked up from Point.  The engineer I left in charge had been with me nearly a month. We had been running to Gutzlaff, and it was necessary to have two engineers, as we were working day and night.

   Defendant stated that at the latter end of April and beginning of May the Fairy was undergoing thorough repair at Messrs. Boyd's dock, and plaintiff did not put in an appearance nearly all that time.

   Mr. MILLER objected to defendant being permitted to introduce matters of an earlier date than those already mentioned.

   His HONOUR said he thought defendant should confine himself to the incidents of the last month.  He evidently did not consider defendant's previous conduct justified his dismissal earlier, or he would have discharged him then.

   Defendant t said he should have done so, but could not find another engineer to suit him at the time.

   His HONOUR said defendant had better be sworn, and he would hear his evidence.

   Defendant was accordingly sworn, and deposed - I was master of the Fairy.  I engaged plaintiff at $100 per month, with $40 more to find two firemen.  There was no agreement in writing between us.  When he joined in November, I told him he could leave the boat at any moment, if he could get a better situation.  He asked about this, or I should not have told him.  I also told him that me agreement with my former engineer was for one month only, and that we should all be discharged at any moment, on the boat being sold.  The boat has not been sold.

   Mr. TAPP informed the Court that the boat had been sold, but it was possible Mr. Sellar might not know of it.

   Defendant resumed by saying - Plaintiff had asked me several times to get another engineer, and I told him that as soon as I could get one, I would let him go. On the 3rd June, I told him I should discharge him, and he made no objection, but took away his things and went ashore.  I met him several times afterwards, but he said nothing about his discharge, and I heard nothing further until I received a letter from Mr. Miller, on the 26th of August last - two and a half months afterwards.  On the 17th May, I gave him orders to be on board at 3.30 a.m., and he did not come till 6.30.  Through his absence, I ran a great risk of doing damage, and if that had happened, who would have paid for it? When he did come, I was just in the act of getting into s sampan to go and get another tug, as the ebb tide had set in.  The Formosa was then lying at Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's Wharf, and it is against the Harbour Regulations to run through the shipping on an ebb tide.  On the other occasion, on the 11th May, I also told him to be ready to start at 3.30 a.m., but he went a shore in the lorcha captain's boat, without leave, and did not come back until eight o'clock.  When he came, he had his gun on his shoulder, to shoot curlew as he said.  I spoke to him about his absence, and he then used a very bad expression towards me.  I could not stay to bandy words with him, or I should have lost more time.

   By Mr. MILLER - I called his conduct very serious on both the 11th and 17th of May, but I did not discharge him because I could not get another engineer just then.  The Fairy is a high pressure boat, and carried a good head of steam.

   Plaintiff recalled, said - I was discharged on the 3rd June.  I asked defendant what for, and he said it was for my little games in the middle of the month.  I said I thought that was all forgotten and that I should sue him for a month's wages.  After leaving the Fairy, I had a little business at Kongwan, and that took up all my time to attend to.

   Defendant - If plaintiff had requested payment of a month's wages I should have told him to go on till the end of the month; but he did not ask anything of the kind.  On the 17th May, Mr. Schmidt was on board the fairy, and heard what took place between plaintiff and myself.

   Mr. SCHMIDT was called, and deposed that he formerly was employed at the Pootung lumber yard.  On the 17th May, he was on board the Fairy, and saw plaintiff come on boat.  It was between six and seven in the morning.  Defendant said to him it was a nice time to come on board, when he knew the tug ought to have been alongside the Formosa at four o'clock.  Plaintiff used a very bad expression to defendant, but witness did not hear him tell defendant to get another engineer.

   Another witness, named LAMBERT, called by defendant, deposed that on the 11th May, he was going down the river in his boat, and called alongside the Fairy, which was then near Collier's Dock.  The Captain said he was waiting for his engineer, and had lost the tide through his absence.  Soon afterwards, he (witness) saw plaintiff coming along in a European boat, not in a sampan.

   His HONOUR asked plaintiff, when he went into business at Kongwan?

   Plaintiff could not give the exact date, but said it was about a fortnight before the opening of the line.

    Defendant said he had another witness, if it was necessary to call him.

   His HONOUR said it was unnecessary, and then remarked that if a servant used such language towards his master as plaintiff had been proved to have used, the master was justified in dismissing him on the spot and paying him nothing; but instead of doing that, he had kept plaintiff on till the end of the month, and then paid him his full wages up to that time.  Plaintiff had thus seemed to have got, to say the least, as much as he was entitled to.  That plaintiff accepted his dismissal without demur (as His Honour believed he did), and did not bring his action for over two months and a half, showed  that in his own opinion he expected to be discharged for his misconduct, and that the understanding between them was that there was to be no notice.  Judgment for defendant.


The North China Herald, 23 September 1876


Hankow, August 29th

Before P. J. HUGHES, Esq., H.B.M.'s Consul.


   This was a claim for $78.15, amount of goods sold and delivered,

   Defendants were represented by Captain McLeod, who presented the authority enabling him to act on their behalf.

   YUET CHONG, head partner of the firm of Yuet Cong & Co., deposed that he supplied the goods as per accounts which he produced to Mr. West, for Silverthorne & Co.  He saw Silverthorne three times, and he promised to pay bye-and-bye, or after he had seen West.  Not being able to obtain a settlement, he went to the Supreme Court, and was told by Mr. Mowat to bring the case before the Consul at Hankow.  Produced affidavit signed by Mr. West.

   JOHN WEST, being duly sworn, deposed that the goods were supplied to him when he was employed by Silverthorne & Co.  Their business as conducted by him here was that of Tailor and Outfitters.  The goods in question were chiefly flannels and shirtings.  There were none in stock at the time, and the goods had to be brought from Yuet Chong & Co. for the purpose of carrying on the business of the defendants.  Some of the goods were handed to Silverthorne, who took them to Shanghai.

   Cross-examined - relied on general instructions which he received when he left Shanghai to carry on the business - not on any written agreement.  The business premises were taken in his own name, but were rented by him to Silverthorne.

   The defence was that the goods had not been ordered by Silverthorne & Co., and that by an agreement between Silverthorne and West, no goods were to be ordered by the latter, without Silverthorne's written consent.

   The COURT held that as the goods were supplied to the agent of the defendants for the purpose of carrying on their business, they were responsible for payment, even if the transaction had not been virtually ratified by Silverthorne's taking possession of some of the goods as West had sworn.

   Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.


The North China Herald, 23 September 1876



Shanghai, Sept. 19th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an action to recover $73.25, for work done and goods stated to have been sold and delivered.

   Plaintiff is a tailor, and had worked for defendant and his family since May, 1875.  The total account amounted to $129.50, against which he credited payments by defendant to the amount of $40.75, the balance being still owing.

   Defendant admitted owing plaintiff $29.65, which he paid into Court.  He also produced three papers, one a copy of a bill sent to him by plaintiff; the second, and account for materials; and the third showing what he (defendant) considered the true and correct charges, and also where plaintiff had greatly overcharged him.  Plaintiff had also charged for material which had been supplied him.  Defendant considered his total indebtedness to the plaintiff was only $76.40, of which he had previously paid $46.75, and the balance, $29.65, now into Court.

   The case was very complicated, and necessitated, among many other things, the measurement of braid and lace for mosquito curtains, and the supply of buttons, &c., to eleven suits of little boys' clothing.  This could not be very well done in Court, and His HONOUR therefore directed the Usher to go with plaintiff and defendant to the house of the former, near east gate, and view what articles could be produced, measure what was necessary, and obtain all the information he could regarding the points in dispute.

   Defendant expressed his willingness to pay the expenses incident to that course.

   His HONOUR said it seemed to him that these cases could be prevented by paying up at the end of each month.  If then it was found that the charges were too high, the tradesman could be laid off, and no more business done with him, or, if payment was resisted, the case would take little time in the hearing.  To go on in the way defendant had, since May, 1875, was very foolish.

   Defendant said plaintiff did not come to him for money for four months, and when he did come, he (defendant) did not know who he was.  Plaintiff had been employed during his absence from home, and he therefore had not seen him before.  Plaintiff then brought bills written in Chinese, and was told to being an English bill, and it was not until he brought one in that language, that the overcharges were discovered.


The North china Herald, 30 September 1876


Shanghai, Sept. 22nd.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an adjourned hearing, defendant having alleged that he had not only been overcharged in some items, but that plaintiff had charged in his bill for materials supplied to him to make up.  The amount sued for was $73.50.  The case was referred to the Usher, with instructions to go to the defendant's house with the plain tiff, and measure the quantity of material used, investigate the amount of work done, &c.  This has been accomplished, and

   His HONOUR, who had also gone over the numerous items, now gave judgment for plaintiff for $50.60, with 6 costs.

Sept. 25th.

Before W.  D. SPENCE, Esq.


   This was a claim of Tls. 75 for work done to the lorcha Soochow, of which the defendant is part owner.

   Defendant admitted his indebtedness but pleaded that he had no money.  He had tried to prevail upon the plaintiff not to bring the case into Court.

   Plaintiff explained that he contracted to do certain work on the lorcha Soochow for Tls. 175.  Tls. 75 of that amount was due, and the other Tls. 100 was to be paid when the lorcha had been to Hankow.

   His HONOUR said he had no alternative but to make an order for the amount claimed, with costs.  Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff with costs.


The North China Herald, 19 October 1876



Shanghai, Oct. 16th

Before W. D. SPENCE, Esq.


   This was a claim for $57,90 for work done.

   The plaintiff could not speak English, and the interpreter was unable to attend on account of illness.

   Defendant explained that probably the summons would have to be amended as the plaintiff had been his servant, in the receipt of monthly ages, and the work done was while he was in that position.  He admitted his indebtedness and had paid the full amount claimed into Court, subject to the decision of a case pending in the Mixed Court, and of a set off he intended now to raise.  Some time ago he engaged the plaintiff as his head carriage painter, and it was arranged that he would work Sundays when required.  Once or twice he did work on Sunday, but on Sunday, the 8th instant, he objected to work, and he (defendant) told him that if he did not work on that day, he was not to work at all.  Plaintiff refused to work, and defendant took out a summons against him in the Mixed Court for breach of contract.  On that ground defendant  contended that plaintiff had sacrificed the wages due him.  The as to the set off, plaintiff had painted a carriage and spoilt it, for which defendant claimed 416, and $5 for wilful damage to a piece of patent leather on the rumble of a carriage.

   His HONOUR said he could not decide the case without hearing the plaintiff, and therefore he should adjourn it for a week for the attendance of the interpreter.


The North China Herald, 26 October 1876



Shanghai, Oct. 20th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was a claim for $14. 12 ½ for refreshments supplied.

   Plaintiff stated that he was the compradore at the Central Hotel, and that the claim was  for refreshments supplied in the ordinary course of business.

   Defendant denied his indebtedness.

   In reply to questions asked by his Worship, at the suggestion of the defendant, plaintiff said he had taken out the summons without any authority to do so from the proprietors of the hotel.  He (plaintiff) was responsible for all accounts, and had taken the proceedings because defendant refused to pay.

   After some conversation as to the propriety of the plaintiff taking the proceedings, and not the proprietors of the hotel, his Worship said he should substitute the manager's name for that of the plaintiff's.

   Mr. F. R. REILLY, the manager of the hotel, who had been sent for by the plaintiff, deposed that he made out the monthly bills for the refreshments supplied, and handed them to the compradore for collection.  He recollected the defendant being indebted to the hotel in the months of February and March last.  About the end of March, or the beginning of April, the compradore told him defendant had not paid the February and March chits and her (the compradore) gave him a private note from defendant, asking for the payment to stand over.  He knew the defendant, and thought it was all right.  Not attaching any importance to the note, he threw it away, and defendant kept the chits.  When he came to balance up the books, he found defendant had not paid his chits for February and March, and the compradore told him that he and his shroffs had asked the defendant for the money, but he refused to pay.  Defendant had alleged he had paid the money, and the compradore and the shroffs denied that he had, and to protect themselves they had taken these proceedings.

   In answer to the defendant, plaintiff said he had received a note from him, pointing out an error of 50 cents in his April account.  That was not the note he had referred to in his evidence.  They were separate transactions.

   The plaintiff and his shroff also gave evidence, and denied that they had received the money from the defendant.

   Defendant was sworn and asserted that he had paid his chits for February and March.  He denied that he wrote to Mr. Reilly asking for his chits for those two months to stand over.  He could not give the dates when he paid the chits, but if they were presented the first week in the month they would then be paid.  He did not pay his chits for January on the 10th of April.  They would be paid the first week in February, if presented at that time.

   The evidence between the plaintiff and his shroff and the defendant was contradictory as regards dates of other payments, and his Worship decided to adjourn the case until Tuesday for the plaintiff to produce his books, and for the defendant to produce a China boy to give evidence.


The North China Herald, 9 November 1876


Shanghai, Nov. 3rd.

Before O. B. BRADFORD, Esq., Vice Consul-General.

A Dangerous Drunkard.

   EDWARD T. SMITH, a coal heaver, on board the American war-vessel Alert, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Canton Road.

   Sergeant WRIGHT deposed that on the previous night he found the prisoner in Canton Road, in a state of drunkenness, and brandishing a large jack knife, threatening Chinese.  Then knife was taken from him before he did any mischief.

   Sentenced to five days' imprisonment.


The North China Herald, 9 November 1876


   The Peking Gazette of the 8th October contains a curious admission of the principles of extradition in the case of Corea, under circumstances which are related.  A man travelling in the suite of the Corean Envoy, caused the death of a Chinaman.  It is admitted that the death was purely accidental, inasmuch as there was no intention to commit murder; still, "by the laws of China, the sentence should be that of strangulation."  That, however, is immaterial; for, "since the prisoner is a Corean subject, the proper course to be pursued is to remove him to his own Government, to be dealt with of its own authority."  He had accordingly been sent to Mukden, from whence he will be forwarded to Corea.  The principle is recognised among civilised nations, of giving up to his own authorities a man who had sought refuge abroad in consequence of a crime committed at home. European Governments even claim, in China and Japan, that foreign wrongdoers shall be tried by their own Consuls instead of by the native Courts.  But the principle recognised in the present case goes further than either, and is an extreme concession that one would not have expected of the Chinese.  It shows that the principle of extra-territorial jurisdiction is not new to them.


The North China Herald, 23 November 1876


Shanghai, Nov. 20th.

Before J. C. MYERS, Esq., Consul-General.

Drunk and Resisting the Police.

   EDWARD LINCOLN, a seaman of the man-of-war Ashuelot, was charged with being drunk and resisting the police, and also with doing damage to a uniform coat to the amount of $4.  Prisoner was found drunk and disorderly, in Hongkew, at eleven o'clock on Friday night, and on being taken into custody resisted so violently that it required the efforts of six Policemen to take him to the Station.  In the struggle, Sergeant Skinner received a blow on the mouth, which loosened several of his teeth and cut his lip; and P.C. Taylor's uniform coat was damaged to the extent above-mentioned.  Prisoner, who has been convicted of petty larceny, &c., three times previously in Shanghai, was sentenced to one month's hard labour, to pay costs, and also $4 for repairing the coat.


The North China Herald, 23 November 1876



Shanghai, Nov. 15th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

WATSON & Co. v. Mrs. KING.

   This was a suit to recover $99.75, balance of a debt incurred in 1872, 1873, and 1874.  The total debt was $138.20, which had been reduced by return of goods and one money payment to $101.32, but the amount sued for was entered in the summons in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the lower Court.

   Defendant did not appear, and personal service of the summons having been proved by the Usher,

   His HONOUR entered judgment for plaintiff, for the amount claimed.

Nov. 18th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

                T. G.  SMITH v. W. AP WEALE.

   Plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the late John Swinhoe, sued to recover $18.30, for plants supplied to defendant in March, April, and June last.

   Defendant did not appear, but personal service of the summons was proved by the usher; and defendant had acknowledged to the administrator that he owed the money, but said he could not pay now.

   His HONOUR entered judgment for plaintiff.


   In this case, the plaintiff, a storekeeper in the French Concession, sued the same defendant to recover $21.55, for goods recently sold and delivered.  The articles included bottles of beer, brandy, and champagne, with a clock, &c., and plaintiff said they were supplied on defendant's promise to pay for them the following day.

   Defendant did not appear, but personal service of the summons having also been proved by the Usher,

   His HONOUR entered judgment for the plaintiff.


The North China Herald, 1 December 1876



Shanghai, Nov. 22nd

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was a judgment summons.  Defendant had been ordered by the Court to pay $25 per month to the plaintiff, on a debt of $100, but had not paid the first instalment.

   HIS HONOUR said if the first instalment, which was due on the 15th instant, was not paid by eleven o'clock next morning, he would be bound, on the plaintiff's application, to commit defendant to prison.



The North China Herald, 7 December 1876


Chefoo, - Dec., 1876.

   A Naval Court was held at Chefoo, to inquire into the cause of the wreck and abandonment of the British barque Salacia, of Melbourne, official number 53,964, which happened on the 18th Nov.  The vessel having grounded in crossing the bar at Newchwang, on her way to Swatow with a cargo of beancake, a heavy sea got up and so injured her that she had to be run aground to save her from sinking.  The captain and crew were taken up to Newchwang in a pilot boat, just in time to get across here by the last vessel of the season.

   The decision of the Court is as follows:-

   The COURT is of opinion that the wreck of the British barque Salacia was due to the following causes:-

  1. - Her grounding on the bar at Newchwang as she was pursuing her voyage thence to Swatow, which was caused by the sudden falling of the wind.
  2. - The heavy gale that set in from the N.E., while she lay aground, causing the vessel to strike heavily before the tide had risen sufficiently to float her.
  3. - The injury she sustained in being driven over the bar, a measure which the Master was justified in adopting, considering the situation the vessel was lying in.

   We think that these causes were unavoidable and could not have been foreseen, and that no blame is due to the captain or officers, who seem to have done all they could to save the ship.  Under the circumstances, we think they acted with discretion in beaching the vessel.

   The COURT declares the costs of the proceedings to be fifteen dollars, payable by teamster, and hereby ordered to be paid to the Clerk of the Court.

(Signed) G. JAMIESON, H.B.M. Acting Consul, President.

H. WARREN, Lieut., H.M.S. Charybdis.

HENRY WILLIAMS, Master, Flying Cloud.

S. W. WRIGHT, Clerk of the Court.


The North China Herald, 14 December 1876



Shanghai, Dec. 11th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq., Deputy Judge.


   This was an action to recover $165.26, the balance of account for goods sold and delivered.

   Defendant did not appear, and the Usher proved personal service of the summons.

   Plaintiff had filed a petition, setting forth the particulars of the goods supplied, which were principally of flour and beer, and he having deposed to its correctness, and that the defendant had been applied to for the money,

   His LORDSHIP entered a verdict for the amount claimed with costs.


The North China Herald, 14 December 1876


Shanghai, Dec. 11th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Defendant is chief engineer of the China Merchants' Company's steamer Leeyuen, and the plaintiff, who was his second assistant, sued him for $34.83, for wages from the 1st to the 11th of November.

   Defendant denied his liability.

   Plaintiff deposed that in September he was engaged by the defendant to go on one trip with the steamer, and then he was to leave to make room for an engineer, who had been telegraphed for, from Japan.  He was to be paid at the rate of $95 per month.  When the steamer returned to port after the first trip, the engineer from Japan had not arrived, and defendant asked him to go on another trip.  He consented to do so, and without anything further being did he went four trips in the steamer altogether.  On the 11th November he went ashore to take his wages for the month of October home, and overslept himself in the morning and missed the steamer.  Another engineer was taken in his place.  He had applied for his wages from the 1st to the 11th, and defendant had refused to pay him, consequently he had instituted the present proceedings.

   Defendant urged that he was not the person who paid the wages.  Captain Tisdall, the master of the steamer, was the man who paid the wages, and plaintiff signed Captain Tisdall's books.

   His HONOUR pointed out that Captain Tisdall was the person who should have been summoned, and the Captain being present he consented to his name being substituted for that of the chief engineer.

   Defendant did not deny the correctness of the plaintiff's statement, but contended that as he was paid monthly he was a monthly servant and had to give a month's notice or sacrifice his salary.  He had never been applied to by plaintiff for wages.

   His HONOUR was of opinion that the plaintiff could not be considered a monthly servant.  If it had been intended to put him on the regular staff, he should have been informed of that, and then all the advantages and all the liabilities of monthly servants would have attached.  It was admitted that at the outset, and indeed for the first two voyages, he was engaged by the trip only, and there was nothing to show that he did not continue to be so engaged.  That being so, he was liable to be discharged at the end of any trip; but, on the other hand, he having performed his work satisfactorily during the time for which he claimed his wages, he was entitled to them; but there would be no costs, as the wrong person had been originally summoned.

   A verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, without costs.

Dec. 13thy.


   This was an action to recover Tls. 45 money lent, and Tls. 10 interest.

   Defendant did not appear.

   Plaintiff, having been cautioned, stated that he was a linguist in the service of the Municipal council, and the defendant, when the money was lent, was a sergeant in the Police Force. Originally he lent defendant Tls. 60, which was to be repaid by monthly instalments of Tls. 20.  The money was lent in April last, and defendant had only paid Tls. 15.  Various letters had passed between him and the defendant, and the latter in one of them promised to pay Tls. 10 as interest for the money.  Defendant, who had left the Police Force, was entitled to a gratuity which witness expected would be paid in a few days, and then, he believed, he (defendant) was going away.

   His WORSHIP said he should enter a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs, and plaintiff might have a copy of it to take to the Municipal Council with the view of having the amount deducted from defendant's gratuity, if the authorities there thought fit to do so.



The North China Herald, 21 December 1876



Shanghai, Dec. 18th,

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff sued to recover $78, balance of account on a sale of ducks.  Since the transaction, defendant has signed articles on board H.B.M.'s gunboat Swinger, as a fireman, hence his being sued in the Court.  It appeared that plaintiff had 150 dead ducks for sale, and entrusted then to defendant to dispose of; he was at the time living with a friend in Hongkew, and the ducks were taken to his house.  Defendant sold a number of the ducks, and although plaintiff gave him $1 and four ducks for w reek's work, he retained $7 of the money he received for them, on the plea that plaintiff had not paid him anything for storage at his friend's house, and that what he had received was not sufficient remuneration.

   His HONOUR said he thought defendant had been paid enough, and was liable to the plaintiff in the amount claimed.  It would, however, first be necessary to know if he had signed articles and was regularly entered on the articles of the Swinger, and in order to ascertain if that were so, his Honour would himself write to the captain to enquire.


The North China Herald, 28 December 1876



Shanghai, Dec. 22nd.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was a claim for $9.20, balance of account form goods sold and delivered.

   Defendant admitted his indebtedness, and said he would pay the amount in two instalments, one on the 31st inst., and the other on the 15th proximo.

   His HONOUR entered a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School