Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases, 1890

The North China Herald, 3 January, 1890
  A foreign sailor is under arrest for having wounded a Chinaman at Birt's Wharf. It appears that while under the influence of liquor, the sailor fired a revolver at a native who is a jinricksha coolie, because the man followed him to get paid his fare. The sailor had nearly made his escape when he was pounced upon by a Sikh policeman who took him to the Hongkew Station. The coolie, who was shot in the leg, is now in St. Luke's Hospital, but the bullet has been extracted and the wound is not dangerous.

 

North China Herald, 3 January, 1890
 Mr. Hannen gave judgment in Yokohama on the 29th in the great case of Dabbs v. Bunting, his decision being in favour of the defendant, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 January 1890
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 7th January
Before the Assistant Judge.
ZUN YU KWIE v. BURJORJEE.
  Mr. D. Burjorjee, an elderly Parsee, was sued by his late compradore, Zun Yu Kwie, for Tls. 67.25., money lent.  It transpired that the plaintiff had acted as defendant's compradore for twelve days, and during that time had advanced the money in question for the payment of rent.  The defendant admitted his liability, but said he had no money.  A verdict was given for the amount claimed.

 

North China Herald, 10 January 1890
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
9th January.
Before the Assistant Judge.
ARTURO VITA v. G. H. SWALES
  An action was brought against G. H. Swales by Arturo Vita, professor of music, to recover Tls. 20, balance of the price of a piano.  A suit was brought against the same defendant by three Chinamen, styling themselves jointly Yak-kee, who had acted as his compradores and shroffs, for $75, money advanced.  The defendant did not appear, and in each case a verdict was entered for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 January 1890
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.
Shanghai, 7th January, 1890
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, U.S. Consul, acting judicially.
LUEN YEE v. G. A. WOODS.
Judgment was given in this action, brought by Yuen lee against G. A. Woods, to recover $80.38 for repairs to machinery executed on board several steamers.  The case was heard on the 24th ult.  Judgment was given for the plaintiff for $53.29 Mex., and $27.20 gold, costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 January 1890
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th January 1890
Before the Assistant Judge.
MISTAKEN IDENTITY.
  Harry Christy, a foreign engineer, was charged with assaulting a jinricksha coolie on the night of the 6th instant in the Nanking Rad.  The complainant's version of the affair was that as he was standing outside the Engineers' Institute on the night in question a foreigner came out and asked him for a light. Complainant handed him his lantern which the man walked off with, and when complainant ran after him he was struck in the face with the lantern, the wooden part of which cut him under the eye.  The defendant stated that when he came out of the Institute he saw the complainant and a Sikh policeman, the latter holding a foreigner, whom complainant accused of assaulting him.  They all went to the station, where the complainant swore that he (defendant) was the man who had assaulted him. - In answer to his Worship, complainant now admitted that he had made a mistake, and the case was dismissed.
9th January.
Before the Assistant Judge.
ALLEGED ATTEMPTED FRAUD AT A STORE.
  A half-caste youth named Alexander Urquhart, aged 20, was charged with obtaining by false pretences from the Hall & Holtz Co-operative Co. goods valued at $9.75.
  Hector Kirby said - I am an assistant in the employ of the Hall & Holtz Co-operative Co. The accused came to the premises on the 6th instant and asked to be supplied with half a dozen collars, three shirts, one hat and two neckties.  Prisoner, before asking for goods, had told me that he had been to the office and made arrangements as to paying his previous account, which he said he would pay next Saturday.  Before giving him the goods I asked him where he was in business.  He said he was with the Osaka Cotton Co.,  and gave me the card produced, bearing the words "A. Urquhart, care of Osaka Cotton Company, Foochow Road." I then asked if I should send the goods, to which he replied that he would prefer to take them; and he took them.  I allowed him to have the goods on the strength of his statement that he was in the employ of the Osaka Cotton Company.
  Accused, when asked if he had any questions to put, said the witness's evidence was perfectly correct.
   Inspector ward, in answer to his Worship, said the goods had all been recovered.
  An interval here took place in the proceedings, pending the arrival of a representative of the Osaka Cotton Company, but after a short delay his Worship decided to adjourn the case for a week.

 

North China Herald, 17 January 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 14th January.
Before the Assistant Judge.
BREWER v. COATS.
  The plaintiff, who carries on business at Hongkong and Shanghai as a bookseller and fancy goods dealer, sought to recover from E. J. Coats the sum of $82.66 for goods sold and delivered, work done, and materials provided, on account of the Committee of the Mercantile Marine Officers' Ball which took place in February, 1888, and of which committee the defendant was Secretary.  The items were not disputed, but the defendant denied his liability.
  Mr. Edny Page, an assistant in the employ of the plaintiff, explained the circumstances under which the goods were supplied, and said the accounts were rendered to the defendant, whose reply was that there were no funds.  Having no doubt that the defendant was at the time responsible, the plaintiff had at length been compelled to take these proceedings.
  His Honour - Have you any personal knowledge of the affair?
  Mr. Page - No, except what the books tell me.
  His Honour - Then I cannot take your evidence.  I think this case ought not to have come into court at all.
  Defendant - Yes, I ought not to have appeared in the case at all.  I cannot say that I individually ordered these things they were ordered by different people acting on the committee.
  His Honour - I cannot understand why this should have been allowed to drag on for so long, the committee would surely have discharged a just claim.  I shall adjourn the case for a week, and if it is gone on with, someone who knows something about the matter must be here. I hope the claim will be gone into by the committee and that, if they find it correct, they will discharge it.

 

North China Herald, 31 January 1890
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 25th Jan., 1890
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  Emily McArthur and Charlotte Constance Poignand appeared to answer summonses charging them with having feloniously broken and entered the dwelling house of Willoughby Poignand (husband of the last-named defendant) and stolen therefrom, a roll of silk and a photograph belonging to Violet Ada Poignand (his daughter) and divers goods and chattels of Willougby Poignand, the particulars of which were to him unknown. .  .  .   Hs Worship then adjourned the case for a week.

North China Herald, 7 February 1890
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
February 4th, 1890
Before the Assistant Judge.
R. v. McARTHUR AND POIGNAND.
  The summonses against Emily Ada McArthur and Charlotte Constance Poignand for breaking into, and feloniously stealing various articles from the house of Willougby Poignand, husband of the defendant of that name, came before the Court on remand from the 28th ult.  As on the previous occasion Mrs. Poignand did not appear.
  His Worship, upon taking his sear, said - My information is that the accused is still ill and will not be able to attend for some time.
  Mr. Wainewright (for the prosecution) - I presume your Worship will adjourn the case.
  His Worship (to the defendant McArthur) - When do you suppose Mrs. Poignand will be well enough to come?
  Defendant - I don't know; she is still very sick and unable to get out of bed.
  Mr. Wainewright - I understood from Dr. Little yesterday that it may be a week or two.
  His Worship then adjourned the case for a fortnight.

 

North China Herald, 7 February 1890
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 5th February.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
MOW CHING v. MANN.
  This was a claim by a Chinese cook for $16.40, wages alleged to be due by his employer, at the rate of $11 per month from November 3rd.  The plaintiff produced a form of agreement on which the date of his commencement of service was put down as November 3rdm but this the defendant said, was a clerical error, he having written the word "November" in mistake for "December," The plaintiff, he alleged was taking advantage of this mistake, in suing for payment from the earlier date.  In proof of this contention, defendant called his boy, who said that the plain tiff and himself entered Mr. Mann's service on 3rd December, and that his (witness's) claim for wages only began on that day. A sampan man, who had "introduced" both boy and cook, corroborated this statement.
  Plaintiff, who admitted that he and the boy began work at the same time, when asked what he had to say to this evidence, charged he witnesses with lying, in expectation of payment by the defendant for so doing.  His Worship, however, said he did not think it at all likely that the boy would come forward and give away a claim of his own for $8, which he had done by saying he entered the defendant's service on Dec. 3rd instead of Nov. 3rd; and he (the Assistant Judge) must decide for the defendant on this point.  As to the remainder of the money in question, $5.40, the defendant objected to pay, on the ground that plaintiff had left him without notice.  Plaintiff said he left because he was afraid of being struck by the defendant; but the latter denied having used or threatened any violence, and his Worship, saying that the plaintiff had already stated what was not true, dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 14 February 1890
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
12th February
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  Robert Mitchell, chief engineer of the s.s. Wuchang, appeared to answer a summons charging him with assaulting a Chinese coal trimmer named Yi-pah-tung.  The complainant stated that on the 10th he was in the steamer's coke-hole engaged in scaling a plate when defendant came down and, without saying anything, kicked him eight times and struck him on the head.  Defendant said that when he went below he found complainant sitting on a fire-brick with a scaling-hammer in his hand, idling.  Defendant kicked the brick away with his foot, and on complainant "going for" him with the hammer. Struck him with his open hand in self-defence, causing him to fall against a plate and cutting his face.  He denied kicking complainant.  In the course of some further evidence complainant stated that defendant had also assaulted him two days before.
  His Worship said he had little doubt that defendant's statement was true and that complainant Had exaggerated what had occurred; but the defendant had, according to his own showing, brought about what happened, nor did he (the assistant judge) did see there was any ground for supposing that complainant was going to attack defendant with the hammer, which was already in his hand.  He must impose a fine of five dollars and costs.

 

North China Herald, 14 February 1890
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th February 1890
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  Leang Gee Chih, a young Chinaman, a British subject was charged with being concerned with two other men in custody in stealing Tls. 2,315,0.8, the money of Dufour Bros, & Co.
  Captain McEuen, who prosecuted, stated that the accused and two others had been arrested at Hongkong and sent to Shanghai in charge of a member of the Hongkong police force.
  Long Chun-mow, compradore to the prosecutors, said - My master Mr. Schroers gave me the cheque produced on 3th November.  It is drawn for Tls. 2,315.0.8, on the Chartered Bank of Australia, India and China, in favour of Chun Kee or bearer, and signed by Mr. Schoers on behalf of the firm.  Chun Kee is a dealer in pongee silk, and I was to give the cheque to him.  I handed the cheque to my son, Chai Chu Yw, to take to Chun Kee.  My son wen away with the cheque, but did not return, having absconded to Hongkong.  I do not know the accused.
  By Capt. McEuen - I learned the same day that the money had not been paid, from Chin Kee coming and asking why I had not sent it.
  Chang Ping Fu, a Shroff employed at the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China said - The cheque produced was brought to our bank on the 8th day, 11th moon (30th Nov.) by a man similar to the accused.  He came to the compradore's office, and spoke first to a man named Way, belonging to the compradore's staff.  I handed him the money in bank notes - one note for Tls. 100, two for Tls. 50 each, a number of notes for Tls. 10 and Tls. 5, and 108 cash.  I did not take the numbers of any of the notes.
  Way Yun Chong said - I am head shroff in the employ of the Chartered Bank.  I have seen the cheque produced, but I do not know on what day.  When a Chinaman brings a cheque to be cashed, I sent it to a foreign accountant and if he finds it correct he cancers it and gives instructions for the money to be paid.  The payee endorses the cheque.  I told another shroff to pay the money for the cheque produced.  I wrote on the back, "Saturday, 11th month, 30th day, paid Sun Chee Tls. 2.315.0.8." I wrote "Sun Chee" because that was what the payee had written on the cheque.  He is not in court.  (The two other men were here brought into court, handcuffed.) I now identify the man whose name is given as Quong Kai as the man who brought the cherque, endorsed it, and received the money.  I have not seen him since Nov. 30th until now.
  By Captain McEuen - I know the accused.  He sometimes comes to the Bank. No one came with Quong Kai.
  In reply to the court, Captain McEuen said he had heard from Hongkong that some of the money had been found on the accused, but he had no actual evidence to show this.
  His Worship said that as here was no evidence against the accused he must be discharged.  If there was any evidence forthcoming later on in support of the charge, fresh proceedings could be taken. The witnesses had not proved what Captain McEuen supposed they would, namely, that the accused was the person who cashed the cheque.
  The prisoner was then discharged. The two men in custody were taken to the Mixed Court.

 

North China Herald, 21 February, 1890
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
  Early on Wednesday morning, a gang of seven marauders who were armed with loaded guns and spears attacked a boat at Fogg's jetty. They pretended they were runners attached to the District Magistrate's yamen, and that they were searching for salt. The boatman who was attacked said he was not a salt smuggler whereupon one of the marauders inflicted a wound on him with a spear. The boatman raised the alarm, and the other boatmen going to his assistance, the robbers made off, but were afterwards caught. They had in their possession four loaded guns, six spears, a lantern setting forth that they were the District Magistrate's runners, and some powder and shot. The guns were loaded with good-sized bullets.  The wounded man was sent to the Shanghai Road Hospital, and the seven men were eventually sent to the Mixed Court and remanded till the wounded boatman can appear against them.

US Court
North China Herald, 21 February, 1890
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
At the United States Consulate General on Monday, before Dr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General, and Messrs. C. McCaslin and J. F. Seaman, Laurenz Mang sued Mr. D. C. Jansen for $425 for wrongful dismissal and for $240 for board and lodging till the 16th September next. Mr. B. Browett appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own defence. After hearing the evidence which occupied most of the day, judgment was reserved.

Police Court
North China Herald, 21 February, 1890
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
At H.B.M.'s Police Court in Saturday, George W. Stiles was brought before Mr. Mowat on a warrant charging him that he "feloniously did offer utter and put off knowing the same to be forged a certain forged undertaking for the payment of money, to wit, an agreement for the deposit of title deeds as security for a sum of Tls. 3,000 with intent thereby to defraud, contrary to the Statute 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, sec. 23." Mr. Browett, who appeared for the prosecution, asked for an adjournment until Wednesday, to which Mr. Drummond for the defence assented, and the case was accordingly remanded until the 19th inst., at ten o'clock.

North China Herald, 21 February, 1890
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
At the Police Court on Tuesday morning the case of Poignand v. Macarthur was proceeded with before Mr. Mowat. While Mrs. Poignand was giving her evidence in favour of Mrs. Macarthur, the latter suddenly went into hysterics, and it was decided to withdraw the case.


North China Herald, 21 February, 1890
SUMMARY OF NEWS.
At the Mixed Court on Friday a petty thief who stole some old iron from the Old Dock was sentenced to two days' imprisonment.  
For stealing wood, three thieves were punished, two with fifty blows each, and the third with one hundred blows.
  A shopkeeper who gambled with a thief and won $200 from him, the proceeds of a theft, was sent into the city to be dealt with by the District Magistrate.
  At the Mixed Court on Saturday, a gambler was sentenced to one weeks' cangue, while some men engaged in counterfeit coins were punished; one was sentenced to six months; one to three months, one to two months, and the fourth to 14 days' imprisonment.
  A heavy sentence, namely two years' imprisonment, was passed on an old offender for attempting to extort money and violently assaulting another man.
 Two men were charged with being concerned in the robbery of Tls. 2,315.5.0 belonging to Messrs. Dufour's compradore, but the case was again remanded.
  At the Mixed Court yesterday, a mafoo was charged with ill-treating a pony. The animal was sent to a native livery stable to be kept there at the expense of the owner till it is cured.
  Some time ago a coolie stole a watch and chain, the property of a person now deceased. The thief appeared to have handed the articles to a friend in payment of a debt. The friend pawned the articles. At the Mixed Court yesterday the thief was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and the friend was ordered to pay the pawnbroker $5.
  A case was before the Court yesterday in which four persons were concerned in the theft of seven Waterworks shares valued at$1,500. Two of the parties were a boy and an Assistant, and they stole the shares from their master's safe. A third party received five shares from them and another two. The case was remanded till Tuesday.
  For causing a disturbance in a house and causing the loss of 1,000 cash, prisoner was sentenced to one week's cangue, while a native who was suspected of stealing from a house was ordered to find security for his good behaviour.

 

North China Herald, 28 February, 1890
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 21st February.
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General.
MANG v. JANSEN.
  Judgment was given in this case, which was tried on the 17th instant. The action was brought by Laurenz Mang, a cook, against Mr. D. C. Jansen to recover $425 for wrongful dismissal and $240 for board and lodging till 16th September next. At the trial, in which the Consul-General was assisted by Messrs. C. McCaslin and J. F. Seaman as assessors, Mr. H. Browett appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case.
  The Consul-General gave judgment in the following terms: "The judgment of this court, in which both the assessors concur, is that we adjudge the defendant to pay $21.67, without costs.

 

North China Herald, 14 March, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13th March, 1890
Before R.A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  Johann Gehrk, master of the British barque Charley, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with failing to carry a log-book, contrary to Section 280 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854.
  Mr. G. Brown, Vice Consul, prosecuted.
  Defendant admitted his default, and in reply to questions from his Worship, said he left Amoy on Dec. 15th without a log. He reached Nagasaki after a voyage of 62 days and then came to Shanghai. He did not ask for a log at Nagasaki, because he "had no trouble."
  His Worship observed that defendant did not seem to have been anxious to get a log.
  Mr. Brown stated that defendant had been at Shanghai for nearly three weeks and during that time had not asked for a log.
  His Worship said the defendant had ample time to obtain a log, and his not having done so showed an indifference to the law, to say the least of it. He would be fined £5, or say $30, and costs.

 

North China Herald, 9 May, 1890
CHARGE OF FRAUD AT SHANGHAI.
  At the Mixed Court yesterday afternoon, before the Magistrate Tsai and Mr. Geo. Brown (British Assessor), a Chinaman named Chang Ping-wha was charged with obtaining and fraudulently or without payment converting to his own use four cases of velvets, the property of W. Birt & Co. The accused was one of the plaintiffs in the action which was brought some time ago at the Supreme Court to recover Tls. 8,000 from Messrs. Birt & Co.
[Not transcribed.]

 

North China Herald, 9 May, 1890
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMRY COURT.
Shanghai, 8th May.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LEMON v. GREGORY.
  This was a claim by an auctioneer and commission agent, carrying on business at Shanghai under the style of Geo. Lemon & Co., to recover from John H. Gregory, in the employment of the I. M. Customs, $24.55, balance of account for goods sold and delivered in February last.
  Mr. Browett, who appeared for the defendant, admitted the claim but asked that an order should be made for the retention of the amount, which he proposed to pay into court. The defendant had a claim against the plaintiff, but, being an American citizen, could not take out a cross-summons. Proceedings were being taken in the United States Court for the recovery of the amount owed by the present plaintiff, which was larger than the sum now sued for.
  Plaintiff said he had not taken proceedings earlier because defendant asked for time. When he last presented his bill, defendant wanted to fight.
  His Worship said he did not think the case was one in which to make the order asked for. The plaintiff appeared to be in business, and if a judgment was obtained against him no doubt he would pay. There was no reason why plaintiff should be delayed in recovering the money that was admitted to be due.
  Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North Chinas Herald, 16 May, 1890
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
SHANGHAI MARINE ENGINEERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY v. STYLES.
  This was an application by the Acting General Agent of the Shanghai Marine Engineers' Mutual Insurance Society for judgment for Tls. 1,500 and Tls. 172.20, interest on the same, against George W. Styles, a prisoner in H.M.'s gaol.
  Mr. Browett appeared for the plaintiffs and produced a letter from the defendant, admitting his liability and stating that he did not wish to appear.
  His Lordship said he would give judgment after he had heard the evidence of the officer who served the notice of hearing on the defendant, as the latter might have changed his mind on the subject of not appearing at the Court.

 

North China Herald, 16 May, 1890
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 13th May.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LEMON v. GREGORY.
  The was an action to recover $99.99 or the return of certain goods borrowed by the defendant from plaintiff in January last, and including a tool chest, a Duplex lamp, a revolver, a banjo, a ruby and diamond scarf-pin, a fowling piece, and a pair of patent-leather shoes.
  Mr. Browett, who appeared for the defendant, said the articles in question had been sent to his office, and on May 10th he wrote to plaintiff telling him he could have the things on calling for them and giving a receipt. The summons, it appeared, was served on the evening of the 9th, after Mr. Browett's conversation with his client which resulted in the letter being written.
  Plaintiff, when asked by his Worship why he had taken no notice of the letter, said he thought that having already taken out the summons, he must go on with it.
  His Honour said the defendant was entitled to have a proper receipt, and moreover the plaintiff must not write abusive letters such as the one which had been produced. There would be an order for the return of the articles, and the usher of the Court would be sent to see that this was performed.
  Order accordingly, plaintiff to bear the costs of the summons.

 

Source: North China Herald, 6 June, 1890
2nd June.
Before G. M. Playfair, Esq., Acting Magistrate.
  Henry Blaine, an able seaman belonging to the British ship Helga, was charged with absenting himself from the ship since May 22nd. Evidence having been given in support of the charge, the accused said he left the ship because he did not like her and was not much of a seaman. He was ordered to be detained in custody until the departure of the ship, his Worship pointing out that, in case a sailor thought himself badly used by any of the officers of his ship, he should make his complaint to the Consulate, and not abscond.
.  .  .
3rd June.
  John Lewis, a Malay seaman, was charged with absenting himself without leave from the Charles S. Whitney since the 7th ult. There was no defence, and he was ordered to be detained in custody for a week and to be put on board the ship if she leaves earlier.
.  .  .  
4th June.
Before Sir R. T. Rennie
  William Arthur Shaw was charged with being drunk and disorderly on board the Fukuo and using threatening language towards the chief officer of the vessel, Mr. E. Keats. It appeared that the defendant, who is second officer of the Ella, had missed his ship and had gone on board the Fukuo where he committed the offences complained of. Mr. Keats did not press the charge of using threatening language, and the defendant, who had nothing to say, was fined $2 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 4 July, 1890
PICKING FLOWERS IN THE PUBLIC GARDEN.
   Bezini Fernando, a native of Bombay, a steward on board the Rome, was charged with picking flowers in the Public Garden.
  A Coolie employed at the garden gave evidence to the effect that he saw accused pick a geranium in the garden. Witness took hold of him, whereupon accused struck him. Witness then called a policeman, and accused was then take to the police station.
  His Worship, taking into consideration the fact that accused had been locked up for two hours and a half at the station, inflicted a fine of $1.

 

North China Herald, 11 July, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 5th July.
Before R. A. Mowat. Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
SHANGHAI GAS CO. v. MACMORRAN.
  This was a claim for $30.16. Defendant admitted his liability, and offered to pay in three instalments, which offer was accepted by Mr. Scheppelmann on behalf of the Gas Company.  Defendant said he had been unable to collect any of the debts owing to the Criterion Hotel.
7th July.
[As above.]
LAUNAY v. GODMENT.
  This was a claim by a French storekeeper to recover $6.10, of which an amount of $5.50 was for goods supplied and $0.60 interest for 9 months at 12 per cent.  Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff, in his answer to his Worship, said there had been no agreement with respect to charging interest.  His Worship gave judgment for $5.50 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 18 July, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 11th July.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
YUNG MA-KEE v. GODMENT.
  This was a claim brought by a Chinaman against an officer lately in the employ of Customs, to recover $46, being seven week's rent of a house in Boone Road less $3 paid. Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff said he had been told that the defendant had left his house at four o'clock on the morning of the 9th instant and had not been seen since. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs, and told the plaintiff he would have done much better to take proceedings earlier, seeing that the tenant was in receipt of a regular salary.
.  .  .  
12th July.
HENDERSON v. MURPHY.
  This was a claim brought by Mr. D. M.
Henderson, as owner pf No. 7, Leekie Terrace, to recover from the defendant, a sergeant in the Municipal Police, the sum of $14, being one month's rent of the house in question in lieu of notice.
  Plaintiff stated that the defendant took the house on a lease which expired on Oct. 31st, 1889. There was a clause in the lease providing that in the event of the tenant remaining in possession of the house after the expiry of the lease, the tenancy should be considered a monthly one, and that the tenant should give a month's notice before leaving. Defendant left the house on the 2nd or 3rd of May, having  given notice only on April 29th.
  In cross examination plaintiff said he went to defendant's house in November last and asked him what was to be done about the tenancy, as the lease had expired. He denied having told the person he saw, and who he believed was the defendant's wife, that defendant must either pay a month's rent on leaving, or find a new tenant. Defendant had not found the tenant now in the house. He did not know if the present tenant had paid rent for any part of the month of May.
  Defendant - Did you tell your Shroff that if the case came to court he was not to talk too much or you would discharge him?
  Plaintiff - No.
  Defendant addressing the Court urged that he should not be compelled to pay the month's rent, as he had found the present tenant of the house, in accordance with the arrangement between his wife and plaintiff. The present tenant had paid half a month's rent for May. He had also made repairs for which he contended something ought to be allowed. He left the house in consequence of receiving orders to take up his quarters at the new Louza police station.
  His Honour said defendant was liable under the agreement; and if he had intended to prove the existence of some subsequent verbal agreement between his wife and plaintiff, the wife should have appeared as a witness. Even then it would only be a question of oath against oath.
  Plaintiff's Shroff, questioned by His Honour, said he had not received any money in respect of rent for the house for May.
  Defendant asked for some reduction to be made in the claim, as he was a married man with a large family. This, however, plaintiff declined to do, on the ground that defendant had been insolent to him, and he also declined to waive the costs.
  Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.
.  .  .  
14th July.
  This was an action brought against Mr. D. W. Crawford, as representing the committee of the Shanghai Recreation Club, to recover $14.62 for supplying and erecting bamboo railings on the occasion of the late Shanghai Athletic Sports at the Recreation Club ground.
  Defendant, who paid $9 into Court, said he had never seen plaintiff before, but had instructed one Ah Kew to have the railings put up in the same way as last year. They were now charged for at the rate of 25 cents per chatty, but the Committee of the Club, finding that they could get similar work done by another man for $9, did not feel justified in paying more than that amount. The railings were made of thin bamboo, tied and not nailed, and were taken away on the day after the sports. Last year the committee only paid Ah Kew's charge of $14.62 for railings in consideration of the fact that Ah Kew had given a prize for the sports.
  Ah Kew was called, and said defendant instructed him to have railings put up as before, and he (witness) gave the work to plaintiff.
  His Honour observed that it seemed hardly worth while to come into Court over such a small sum as $5.
  Mr. H. J. Sharp (hon. Secretary of the Recreation Club) said the committee had felt bound to defend the case, in the interest of the members. They had already paid $123 on account of the expense of the sports, and this was the first amount they had disputed. The committee, too, had found that Ah Kew had been charging them 50 per cent more than the proper value of other things he had supplied.
  His Honour asked plaintiff if he would take $12 in settlement, but plaintiff declined to do so. His Honour then said he must go into the question whether the charge was a proper one or not.
  Mr. Hart Buck was called for the defend case, and said that about a month ago he had a bamboo fence put up in a paddock. It was about the same height as the fence erected for the sports, but was stronger, deeper in the ground, had a door in it, and was a permanency. He made no agreement as to price, but had paid for it at the rate of 25 cents per chatty.
  Defendant produced a contract for the erection of temporary railings for the next sports for $9, which would be at the rate of less than 15 cents per chatty.
  His Honour said the plaintiff's charge was not a reasonable one, and he could not be allowed more than the amount paid into court; but as only $5 had been offered in the first instance, the costs would be divided.
.  .  .  
AH SEE v. SWALES.
  This was a claim for $99.99 against G. H. Swales, auctioneer, and commission agent, by his cook, for wages due and money expended at his master's request. The defendant did not appear, and His Honour gave judgment for $81.10.
..  .  .   
16th July.
YUE TAH v. GIBSON.
  This was a claim for $99.99 for goods supplied to Miss Gibson, who did not appear. The amount was originally $115, but plaintiff sued for the smaller amount in order to be able to proceed on the lower scale of costs. His Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed, payment to be made in four instalments.
AH SEE v. SWALES.
  This was a judgment summons arising out of a judgment which had been given against G. H. Swales, at the suit of his late cook, for $81,10 and costs.
  Defendant was sworn and examined as to his ability to pay. He said he had no means whatever and was living entirely on the charity of friends. The balance of the proceeds of the sale of his furniture after paying the landlord had been paid away in part satisfaction of a previous judgment, given against him at the suit of the Agra Bank, on a promissory note.
  His Honour said he was surprized that the plaintiff should have kept three servants - a cook, coolie, and mafoo - for so long when he was unable to pay their wages.
  Defendant said it was only since China New Year that he had been unable to pay.  Before that time he had done much more business; now he had no employment at all.
  Ultimately his Honour decided to make no order, expressing himself satisfied that there were no means. Defendant promised to discharge the debt as soon as he was able.

 

North China Herald, 25 July, 1890
LAWE REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th July.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. BANNERMAN.
  Andrew Bannerman was charged on remand with assaulting a jinricksha coolie named Siau Ah-kew. The case was adjourned on the previous occasion in order that the prosecutor's injuries might be examined.
  From Dr. Henderson's examination it appears that the injuries in the lower part of the body were not acute and there were traces of old-standing disease in that part.
  The Sikh constable who arrested the accused was called and stated that he saw the accused strike the prosecutor but did not see any kick. Prosecutor complained at the time of having been kicked. Accused was drunk.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $6 and ordered defendant to pay 60 cents compensation to the prosecutor, or in default to be imprisoned for two weeks with hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. FITZMORRIS.
  John Fitzmorris, a fireman on board the Palamed, was charged with being drunk at half past eleven on the morning of the 18th.
  Detective Jones stated that accused had been twice locked up for similar offences and had in fact only been released a few hours before being brought in on the present charge.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $1 and recommended the defendant to go back on board his ship.
.  .  .  
R. v. CRAWFORD.
  Peter Crawford, donkeyman on board the steamer Malabar, was charged with assaulting Janes Forsyth, the second engineer, on the 17th.
  Complainant stated that when steam was being got up, he found the defendant had allowed too much pressure on the valve of the donkey boiler. Complainant "got on to him" about it, and defendant struck him in the eye. Complainant them took defendant by the beard (as he had nothing else on which would afford a good hold) in order to protect himself, but received two or three more blows.
  Defendant denied that he struck complainant at all until taken by the beard, which he considered was more than flesh and blood could stand. He asserted that the injury to complainant's head was caused by his falling against one of the smoke-box doors. Complainant had begun the row by pushing him on one side and calling him stupid.
  James Gray, fireman, was called by complainant, but corroborated defendant's version of the story, and his Worship dismissed the case, observing that the prosecutor seemed to have commenced the disturbance, and that it was not seemly for officers and men to come to blows.
.  .  .  
21st July.
  John Fitzmorris, fireman on board the Palamed, was again charged with being drunk. Accused had come under the notice of the police four times during the week on account of drunkenness, on the 16th, 17th, and 18th, and now. On the third occasion he was brought before the court and fined $1, being at the same time told that if he were again charged with drunkenness her would be sent to prison.
  His Worship said it would be the kindest thing to keep the accused away from drink.
  Accused asked not to be imprisoned, urging that he had never been before a magistrate until he came to Shanghai.
  His Worship said the prisoner was evidently making up for lost time in this respect.  He would be imprisoned for seven days, but would be put on board his ship if she sailed before the end of that period.

 

North China Herald, 1 August, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 26th July.
Before R. A. Mowat,. Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
WEEKS v. BANNERMAN.
  This was a claim for $21.13 for goods supplied by Messrs. Weeks 7 Co., against Andrew Bannerman, engineer.
  Defendant did not appear, and judgment for the amount claimed was given, with costs.
.  .  .  
WEEKS v. WOODFORD .
  The plaintiffs in the preceding case sued J. F. Woodford, Chapoo Road, for $21,.05, for goods supplied.
  Defendant asked for time, and, plaintiff's representative agreeing to accept payment in instalments, his Honour made no order beyond entering up judgment.
.  .  .  
30th July.
YUN CHONG v. GODMENT.
   This was an action by a Chinese butcher to recover $21.10 for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear, and, service of the summons having been proved, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 1 August, 1890
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 30th July.
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General.
SAY ZOONG v. JENKINS.
  Plaintiff, a native livery stable keeper, sought to recover Tls. 30, balance unpaid of the price of a pony sold to defendant for Tls. 60.
  Plaintiff stated - On the 14th of last month defendant's mafoo came to my stable and said his master wanted to buy a pony. I sent a good pony to defendant, and a week afterwards I went to defendant's office and asked how the pony was. Defendant said it was all right. He asked me how much I wanted for the pony, and I told him Tls. 65. He said Tls. 609 would be quite enough, and I agreed to let him have it at that price, the money to be paid in two instalments. I got Tls. 30, and the balance was to be paid this month. We agreed that if anything went wrong with the pony after, it was not to be my "pidgin."
  By the Court - Defendant bought the pony on May 14th, the first payment was made on June 1st, and on the 24th of June he sent back the pony. When I went to defendant about it, he kicked me out of the office. Afterwards I sent a shroff with a chit. Defendant read the chit, threw it away, and turned the shroff out of the house.
  A bill sent by plaintiff to defendant was produced, some of the items of which were disputed. One of these was a charge of $6 for the hire of a pony and trap six times. Plaintiff explained that defendant had hired a pony and trap that number of times, for which plaintiff had said he would make no charge on account of defendant having purchased a pony; but since the defendant would not pay for the pony, that item had been put in the account. Another of the disputed items was for the stabling of a pony.
  A mafoo, called by plaintiff, stated that he drove the pony sold to Mr. Jenkins, in April last. The pony was then in good condition, and a fast goer.
  Defendant was then called, and with reference to the purchase of the pony he deposed - I sent my mafoo to plaintiff to know if he had a carriage pony for sale. Plaintiff sent me three or four, but I did not like them. About the 14th of last month, this pony was sent to me as a very good one. My mafoo told me that the price would be Tls. 80. My communication with the plaintiff was then through the mafoo. I told my mafoo I would not listen to such a price, but after a short while he told me that Tls. 60 or Tls. 65 would buy the pony. I went on using the pony for about a week, when Say Zoong called on me, and wished to know whether I would keep the pony or not. Towards the end of the week the pony began to hold up his leg in a queer way after being used, though he was not overworked. When the plaintiff called at my office he said I must decide to take the pony or return him, for someone else wanted him. I said I thought there was something the matter with the pony, but he assured me it was only Imagination and that the pony was all right. I then agreed to buy the pony for Tls. 60 in two instalments, and I paid the plaintiff the first. As soon as he had possessed himself of the Tls. 30 he said the pony was to be at my own risk. I told him I would not agree to that, but nothing further was said on the subject and plaintiff went away.
  Then the pony got a lump on the shoulder, and the mafoo said it was from a fly-bite, and that it would be a bad shoulder if the pony did not have a rest. I sent the pony to Say Zoong's stable, and he let me have the use of another pony in the mean time.  The pony was not long in recovering and coming back, but on driving him again he went badly.  I used him a couple of times and then he got so bad that I sent him back by my boy, and said I would not accept him. The pony seemed to be lame. The plaintiff told my houseboy that I could not return the pony unless I bought another.  I said I had had enough of the plaintiff and would not buy any more ponies from him. I Would not receive the money back. A few days after, my houseboy voluntarily informed me that I was quite right in sending back the pony, which had what the Chinese call "the old complaint."  Plaintiff called for his money afterwards but I refused to pay him anything more, and told him that the pony was no good. He talked a great deal and I could not get him out of my office, so I pushed him out, but not violently. I have not heard from him since.
  In reply to the Court defendant said that it was only two or three days after he got the pony that it began to show signs of weakness.
  Judgment was reserved.

 

North China Herald, 1 August, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 25th July.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
TROUBLE ON BOARD AN OCEAN STEAMER
  Twelve Cantonese firemen employed on board the steamer Moray were charged by the captain with refusing duty on the 24th inst.
  The head fireman, in reply to the Court, admitted that his men and himself had refused duty, and said the reason was that they had been refused an advance of wages. This, however, the captain denied, stating that he had not been asked to advance any money to them. They had received a month's wages about a fortnight ago at Yokohama. They had been on the ship about five months and had received four months' wages. It was the custom to keep a month's wages in hand, otherwise the men would be certain to leave him (the captain) in the lurch.
  His Worship explained to the men that according to English custom the wages were not due till the end of the voyage.
  The head fireman also complained that they had not been allowed to have their food cooked.
  Captain Duncan said that when the men refused duty he gave orders that their cook was not to go into the galley, but afterwards they were allowed to have their food.
   His Worship said that if men would not work they could not expect to be fed.   Questions were then put to all the defendants as to whether they were willing to return to duty. They declined to go back on board the ship, alleging that some of their number had been struck by the officers.
  His Worship then proceeded to hear summonses for assault, taken out by three of the firemen against the captain, chief officer and chief engineer.
  The first summons heard was by Tao Ti against Captain Duncan.  The captain admitted an assault, but said the chief officer had prevented complainant and another fireman from continuing to heave ashes overboard with shovels (instead of using the shoot, as they had been told to do), and they had then attempted to strike him with the shovels, whereupon he (the captain) gave each of them a blow with his open hand and sent them forward.
  A second summons was brought against Capt. Duncan by Cheong Wha, the other fireman; and these two also summonsed the chief officer, William Ward, for assaulting them at the same time and place.
  After hearing the evidence relating to these four summonses his Worship said that in the case of the chief officer there was reason for him to think that he was attacked, and the two summonses against him would be dismissed.  The captain's case was different, the affair being over when he came on the scene; and proper means should be used to punish men who misbehaved themselves. It was a mistake for officers to strike their men, such conduct being destructive of all discipline on board. The captain must pay the costs of the two summonses against him.
  His Worship then proceeded to hear a summons against Joseph Henderson, the chief engineer, for assaulting Chao Yau. Defendant stated that he blamed complainant for not doing his work properly whereupon the fireman hit him in the back with a shovel.
   His Worship thought complainant had begun the row, and the case would be dismissed.
  Returning to the charge of refusing duty, his Worship said he thought the men had no sufficient ground for their refusal.
  Captain Duncan said that if the defendants were sent to prison he would be unable to get others to fill their places in time, as the ship was to leave next morning.
  The head fireman, in answer to the Court, repeated that he and the others would not go on board the ship again, as they were afraid of being struck.
  His Worship pointed out that they would lose their wages if they were sent to prison.
  The head fireman replied that they would rather go to gaol than go on board the ship.
  His Worship said the defendants (with the exception of one man, who appeared to be serving as a substitute, and was not on the articles) must pay the costs of the summons and would be taken back on board the ship. If they then refused to work and were brought before the Court next morning, they would be sent to prison for a month and their wages would be forfeited and applied to cover the cost of obtaining substitutes.
.  .  .  
26th July.
THE TROUBLE ON BOARD AN OCEAN STEAMER.
  Captain Duncan of the s.s. Moray, appeared before the court to state that the eleven firemen who were charged on the previous day with refusing duty, and who had been sent back to the ship, had absconded. Captain Duncan stated that he could get substitutes, but that he had already lost a tide (the steamer being due to start that day) through the delay caused.
 His Worship advised the captain to report the men as deserters and to go to sea with substitutes.

 

North China Herald. 8 August, 1890
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General.
U.S. v. MORRISON.
  James Morrison, carpenter on the U.S. man-of-war Monocacy, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a jinricksha coolie on the 3rd instant.
  Without hearing any evidence, his Honour remanded the accused till today at 2.30 p.m.
BEADLE v. OLSEN.
  W. Olsen, second mate of the American ship Pactolus, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship, the Captain sad that if the defendant would promise to go back to his duty, he would withdraw the charge. The promise having been given, the defendant was allowed to leave the Court.
.  .  .  
5th August.
SAY ZOONG v. JENKINS.
 The following judgment in the above case (which was a claim by a native livery stable keeper to recover Tls. 30, balance of the price of a pony, from the defendant, who made a counter-claim for Tls. 30, the amount of an instrument already paid) was recorded:-
  Having heard and tried the foregoing action, I adjudge that Say Zoong pay to Thomas O. S. Jenkins$26.22 Mex., equivalent to $19.87 U.S. currency, with costs amounting to $24.20.
J. A. LEONARD,
Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

 

North China Herald, 8 August, 1890
LAW REPIORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th August.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. ROLLESTON.
  William Rolleston, seaman on board the British ship Lansdowne, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting the police, and attempting to rescue a prisoner from custody.
  P.C. Strudwick stated that on Sunday evening at half past six he had occasion to arrest a drunken American sailor in Broadway.  Accused, who was drunk, interfered and said he intended to rescue the other man. He followed witness and his prisoner for about 200 yards, and then attacked witness, whom he struck and kicked several times, and whose thumb he seized and wrenched, spraining it, and causing witness considerable pain. Witness had to obtain the assistance of two man-of-war's men to take accused and the other drunken man to the station.
  Prisoner, who expressed his regret for what had occurred, and said he had no remembrance of it, was fined $3 and costs.
.  .  .  
6th August.
R. v. McGINTY.
  Francis McGinty, a fireman on board the Priam, was charged with being drunk and assaulting two jinricksha coolies.
  Samuel Davies, chief engineer of the Priam, said he saw the accused on the wharf on the previous day at about half past one, drunk. Accused at first seemed to be "larking" with the prosecutors, but then witness saw him pick up a stick, run after them, and strike both of them with the stick. Witness saw one fall when struck.
  Arthur Proffitt, surgeon of the Priam, said he examined the prosecutors, and dressed their wounds. One of them had a rather severe lacerated wound on the top of the head, and had also a bruised hip.  The other man had a slight cut on the forehead. The first man ought to have a week's rest in bed, on account of the injury to the hip, which was probably caused by a fall.
  Yu Sha-mu, wharf coolie, one of the prosecutors, stated that accused came off the ship, attacked him with a piece of firewood, struck him with it, and kicked him on the hip, causing him to fall.
   The other prosecutor, a peddler of scissors, said the accused wanted to buy a pair on credit, and when prosecutor would not let him have them, accused struck him, cutting his forehead. Some nights afterwards he began to feel pain in his shoulder. When he was struck and fell down, his bag of money, containing about 80 cents, fell over the side of the wharf and was lost.
  Prisoner, who said he had no recollection of what had occurred, and was very sorry for what he had done, was remanded in custody till Saturday, his Worship observing that the remand would be taken into account when sentence was passed.
.  .  .  
7th August.
R. v. BATCHIE.
  A Malay named Batchie, a quartermaster employed on board the Pechili, was charged on remand with unlawfully entering the house of Si Ah-kai and stabbing her.
  Si Ah-kai, a half-caste Cantonese woman married to a Malay, said she lived at 117, Wuchang Road, Hongkew, and had known the accused about two years. On the night in question accused came to the house, knocked at her door, and asked her to let him in. She refused, whereupon he forced the door open and made improper overtures to her. She resisted, and screamed for help. He then seized her by the hair and attempted to stab her with a pocket knife (produced). She evaded the blow, and he then dragged her downstairs by the hair into the street, where he stabbed her in the shoulder, near the collar-bone. Her father and mother then came up and tried to get her away from the accused, who still kept hold of her and did not release her until a policeman came up. The wound was no longer painful, but she was still suffering from bruises on various parts of the body. Her husband had left Shanghai that morning with the steamship Shanghai, on which he was employed as quartermaster.
  Accused, when asked what he had to say, gave a version of the affair very different from that put forward by the prosecutrix. He said that before he went on the last voyage but one, prosecutrix - who was his friend's wife and his old sweetheart - asked him to buy some things for her. On the day in question he saw prosecutrix at another Malay house, and she asked him to come to her house to show her what he had bought. When he went to her room to speak to her in this subject, he found her lying on the bed with a Chinaman. Being incensed at this, he tried to eject the Chinaman, but she screamed and took hold of him (prisoner). Several more Chinamen, hearing the noise, came in and attacked accused, and they all went down stairs fighting, prosecutrix still holding him. In self-defence he took out his knife and aimed a blow at one of the Chinamen, but accidentally stabbed prosecutrix instead.  He denied having forced the door of the room; the door was open.
  Prosecutrix, recalled, denied having asked accused to go to her house, or having seen him at the house of another Malay.
  The knife having been identified as the property of another Malay employed on board the Pechili,
  A Chinese policeman, No. 296, said that on the night in question he was called by a woman to the Wuchang Road, where he found the prosecutrix and accused and several other people. Another Malay was tryng to take the knife away from the accused; and when witness also tried to get possession of the knife, accused attempted to stab him with it. Finally accused threw the knife away. Blood was running from prosecutrix's shoulder.  Witness received a blow on the ankle in the struggle which took place, and had ever since been laid up.
  His Worship stated that according to Dr. McLeod's certificate no damage to health would ensue from the wound, so that prosecutrix had practically recovered.
  Prisoner called his Malay comrade, who stated that prosecutrix had been at his house, he supposed to see his wife, two or three weeks ago.
  His Worship said he did not think that this event had anything to do with the case. He was unable to believe the prisoner's story. It was very unlikely that prosecutrix should ask accused to come to this house and at the same time have a Chinaman there. The story about the woman holding on to him and his being dragged downstairs his Worship was also unable to believe; and accused must go to prison for four months with hard labour.
  After the prisoner had been removed, prosecutrix said she was afraid he would kill her when he came out of gaol.
  His Worship said he could not go into that at present.

 

North China Herald, 15 August, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th August.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. McGINTY.
  Frank McGinty, fireman on board the Priam, was charged on remand from the 6th, with being drunk and assaulting two Chinamen.
  A certificate from Dr. Jamieson was produced, stating that the coolie, the more seriously injured of the two complainants, was only suffering from a triangular skin wound on the scalp. Beyond this cut, which was three-quarters of an inch long, the man had sustained no injury, the soreness on the lip being probably assumed. Complainant was naturally delicate.
  Inspector Kluth produced the tray of cutlery lost by the other complainant.
  In reply to a question by his Worship, Mr. White, the foreigner in charge of the wharf, stated that the coolies' wages were $14 ½ per month, and that he was not paid when he was absent from work.
  His Worship said that in consideration of prisoner's previous good character and of his having already been three or four days imprisoned, he would not be sent to gaol and would be allowed to go back to his ship. Accused would have to pay the costs of the proceeding and $5 compensation to the coolie, to make up for loss of wages during the time he was sick, and $2 to the other man.
.  . .  
11th August.
R. v. GERDES AND WILLEMS.
  John Gerdes and Andreas Willems, seamen on board the British ship Lansdowne, were charged with absenting themselves from duty since the 8th inst.
  The defendants, who had taken out summonses against the captain for assault, admitted the desertion, and said they went on shore because they wanted to see the Consul and the captain would not give them leave to go.
  Willems, when questioned with reference to the assaults, said the second mate had struck him and had told him that if he (Willems) complained to the captain, the latter would "lick" him too.
  His Worship said the summons by Willems was evidently taken out against the captain under a misapprehension, and would be dismissed; but a summons would be granted against the second mate, returnable on the 13th. The charge by Gerdes against the captain would be heard on the 12th, and in the meantime the charge of desertion would be remanded.
.  .  .  
12th August.
R. v. NEWTON
R. v. GERDES AND WILLEMS .
  Judson Newton, master of the British ship Lansdowne, was summoned for assaulting John Gerdes, a German sailor. Gerdes and another seaman, Willems, were also before the Court on a charge of desertion; first heard on the previous day.
  Gerdes stated that about fourteen days ago, while the ship was lying in the river, he had painted his oil-skins and hung them over the water-tank to dry. Th captain came on top of the tank to see if it had been properly cleaned, and some paint stuck to his clothes. The captain and second mate then pulled complainant down on the deck, and the captain kicked him two or three times in the back while the mate held him. The captain then ordered him to go down into the water tank, and kicked him as he was doing so. On the 7th the Captain kicked complainant in the forecastle when he was changing his clothes.
  With regard to the first charge defendant said that when he came down on to the deck after being on the tank, he found his clothes were covered with paint. Complainant had been told not to hang his clothes over the tank, and when defendant asked him why he had done so, complainant began to laugh at him. This so exasperated defendant that he pulled complainant off the tank and cuffed his ear, but did not kick him.
  A witness named Doyle, called by complainant, said that Gerdes laughed in the captain's face, whereupon the captain boxed his ears. There was no kicking.
  A seaman named Bryan said that on the 7th he heard the captain tell complainant to go into the forecastle and put on his working clothes. Complainant was a long time in the forecastle without changing his clothes, and the captain then went into the forecastle and half dragged him out, but did not kick him.
  William John Shaw deposed that when the captain came aft with his clothes covered with paint, witness told him that complainant had hung his oilskins over the tank, and the witness had told him not to do so. Witness and the other men on board had been treated very well.
  His Worship said he thought complainant had made a great deal more out of this grievance than there really was in it. On the 7th he certainly acted very badly in going ashore, in defiance of the captain's orders, after having been on shore the whole day before. After Bryan's evidence, his Worship could not believe that the captain kicked complainant on that date. As to the other assault, if it had been a serious one complaint would have been made about it sooner. The captain admitted striking complainant, but his Worship did not think there was any kicking. The captain must pay the costs of the summons.
  On the charge of desertion, Gerdes, who had declined to return to the ship, would go to prison for two weeks.
  The hearing of the charge against Willems, and of a summons taken out by him against the second mate, was fixed for next day.
.  .  .  
13th August.
R. v. WILLEMS.  R. v. EHLERS.
  Karl Ehlers, second mate of the British ship Lansdowne, was summoned for assaulting Andreas Willems, a Belgian sailor. The latter was charged on remand with being absent from the ship without leave.
  Willems stated that one day, about a month after the ship left New York, he was steering. The second mate came up and, finding the ship was half a point off her course, struck complainant in the shoulder with his fist. Some time afterwards, when rounding the Cape of Good Hope, complainant was once more steering, and defendant struck him. Complainant said he would leave the ship if he were struck again. Defendant sent for another man to take the wheel, and told complainant to go on the main deck.  Complainant went, but defendant followed, seized him by the throat, threw him down and knelt on him. Defendant said the captain would give complainant a licking if he did speak to him about it; and complainant accordingly was afraid to mention the occurrence to the captain.
  Defendant stated that on the first occasion he had only taken complainant by the coat and pulled him away from the wheel because he was steering badly. On the other occasion complainant had been swearing at him, and defendant took him by the coat and shook him, to show that he could manage him. The ship was rolling at the time, and they both fell down, complainant underneath. Defendant denied striking complainant at all.
 A witness named Doyle corroborated defendant's version of both occurrences, and another seaman, named Liddell, also said there were no blows struck. On the second occasion the struggle took place on the main deck, the second mate having followed complainant off the poop.
  His Worship thought defendant had begun the affair by following the man to the main deck. There was some wrestling, but there did not seem to have been more than that. Defendant would be fined £1 and costs.
  Willems, in answer to his Worship, said he was willing to go back to the ship but not in the second mate's watch.
  His Worship, on the charge of desertion, ordered Willems to pay the costs of the summons, to forfeit four days' pay, to return to duty, and to be placed in the chief mate's watch.

 

North China Herald, 22 August, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, Aug. 20.
Before R.A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
KU CHIN CHEE v. POIGNAND.
  This was a claim for $19.25 by a tailor against Mrs. Poignand.  Defendant admitted the debt, but said she had no money and would have none till October; and His Honour said plaintiff must wait till then.
.  .  .  
21 August.
KLAMPERMEYER v. ROBERTS.
  William Roberts, pilot, was summoned for $3 for three months' subscription to a hairdressing saloon kept by plaintiff. The liability was incurred so far back as September, October, and November, 1886. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 22 August, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th August.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. DESTER.
  Frederick William Dester, second officer of the s.s. Feima, was charged with being absent without leave since 10 a.m. on the 15th.
  Captain Tisdall stated that accused was to have been discharged on the 15th, and had leave to come ashore to the Consulate. Defendant went on shore, but did not go to the Consulate. He was afterwards arrested at the Sailors' Home.
  Defendant said he did not know anything about being expected to attend at the Consulate and his Worship made no order.
.  .  .  
19th August.
R. v. BARCLAY.
  George Barclay, fourth engineer of the Glenavon, was summoned for assaulting Police Constable Watts.
  Chief Inspector Cameron watched the case on behalf of the police.
  James Watt, Police Constable No. 42, said - I was on duty at the Lyceum Theatre on Saturday night, and was taking tickets from people who entered and giving passes to those who came out. I saw defendant coming into the theatre just before second interval. I asked him for his pass, and he said he had no pass. I said he could have had one from me if he had asked for one when he went out.  He said, "Then you mean to say I have not paid." I replied that I could not say so, but that I had not seen his face before. I then left him and began to issue passes to people who were coming out. While I was doing so he came up to me and again asked if I meant to say he had not paid. I gave him a push and told him to come back and settle it when I was not busy. I then felt a blow on my mouth. He aimed another blow at me, which I warded off. I reported the matter to Sergt. Culshaw, and he took the defendant's name. Afterwards defendant came back and invited me to go to the Siccawei with him next day and have it out. I said I could not go. Later on I was regulating traffic outside the theatre, when he came up and called me a loafer.  He had been drinking.
  Defendant stated that when he attempted to return into the theatre to fetch a muffler which he had left inside, the complainant took hold of him and pushed him away, without saying anything. Defendant then took hold of him in return, and complainant struck him in the face, knocking him down. Defendant's nose bled, and his hands were hurt in the fall. Defendant returned the blow when he got up, but he had no recollection of inviting complainant to fight it out at Siccawei.
  Thomas Culshaw, police sergeant, said - I was on duty at the dress circle of the theatre on Saturday night. During one of the intervals P.C. Watts reported to me that he had been assaulted. I went downstairs and spoke to defendant, who was using very bad language.  There was blood on complainant's lip, but none on defendant's. Afterwards defendant came to me and said that he had had a few drinks and had "got over the mark" and was sorry for what he had done.
  In reply to his Worship, complainant said he admitted defendant to the theatre after the assault.
  His Worship thought it was a pity the constable pushed defendant. There was no doubt the latter was somewhat the worse for drink, and was quarrelsome; and with a man in that state more than usual forbearance should be exercised. On the other hand, defendant was not justified in using violence. His conduct altogether had been very discreditable, and his Worship must fine him $5 with costs.
  Defendant - Is there any alternative?
  His Worship - You can go to prison if you wish.
  Defendant -  I won't pay any fine.   
  His Worship - You are fined $5 and costs, or a week's imprisonment.
  The fine was subsequently paid.

 

North China Herald, 29 August, 1890
MR. CARLES' REPORT ON THE MIXED COURT.
29th Aug.
No one who knows anything about the records and working of the Mixed Court in Shanghai will be disposed to question for a moment the justice of the last sentence in Mr. Hughes' report on the Trade of Shanghai in 1889: "I may be allowed to add that Mr. Carles' own services during the many years of his assessorship materially contributed to increase the usefulness and enhance the reputation of the Court."
  There is probably no one who has sat of late years as an assessor in the Mixed Court who knows more about its working, has devoted more time and patience to his duties there, and is more competent to report on it, than Mr. Carles; and his appendix to Mr. Hughes' report will therefore be read with special interest.
  Beginning with the civil cases that came before the Court in 1889, Mr. Carles mentions the suit brought by the representatives of a Parsee merchant for the recovery of monies alleged to be owing to the estate of the merchant's father. The suit was involved in hopeless difficulties, and the doubts as to the Chinese law in such cases were only a part of them. After three days' hearing the case was withdrawn, to the relief, no doubt, of the judges, but to the loss of those students of Chinese law who might have gained much enlightenment, had the case been fought out.
  In these days when a share market hardly exists, the men who now gamble in shares used opium as the material of their speculation, until they found too often that they had to pay when they lost, and they did not receive when they won. We find from Mr. Carles' report that the nature of the Chinese opium speculator had not changed. Opium importers have been in the habit, it seems, of selling the drug on time, without fixing the time, with the result of finding "that many of the men, to whom these advantageous terms have been granted, were men of straw, who were only able to pay for the goods  if a profit was made on their resale to other Chinese."
  Mr. Carles gives some good advice to house-owners and mortgagees; that the former when letting houses should get a month's rent in advance, should never allow arrears to run on for more than three months, and when finally selling up their tenants, should get an order from the court authorizing the sale. Mortgagees are reminded that Chinese law, or custom, holds that the sale of mortgaged property or its foreclosure is satisfaction in full of the mortgage debt, unless a special stipulation to the contrary is incorporated in the deed.  Mr. Carles mentions the desirability of security chops being in a certain form prescribed by the Tsungli Yamen, and the habit the Chinese have of signing any name but their own to a deed, without necessarily intending any fraud; and we have all of us known cases in which the same Chinaman has been commonly known to different foreigners under entirely different names.
  These points noticed by Mr. Carles are very useful ones, and we come next to his remarks on the criminal business for the year, the total number of cases, many of them of course, of the most trivial nature, being over five thousand. At least two thousand cases came under Mr. Carles' notice as assessor, and we join him in admiring the tact exercised by the Chinese magistrate, Mr. Tsai, in his most difficult position. He has no code of law to guide him, for no foreign assessor would consent to the enforcement of the punishments provided by the Chinese penal code, and different assessors have different views as to the length of the terms of imprisonment that are to be substituted for the Chinese punishments. Many if the offences against the Municipal bye-laws for which culprits are brought before the Court are not punishable offences at all in the eyes of a Chinaman, and the magistrate therefore has no precedent for dealing with them. And if he is an obstinate man, who stands upon his country's ancient ways, he will constantly thwart instead of facilitating the efforts of the police. Mr. Tsai, however, has never failed, as far as we remember, to assist the police and the foreign assessors in their efforts to enforce the bye-laws, when the object and necessity have been explained to him. The usual and reasonable course adopted by him has been first to issue proclamations, bringing the matter in question to the notice of the Chinese public, and warning them that disregard of the terms of the proclamation will be punished, which is subsequently carried out by fine or imprisonment, according to the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. Carles goes on to point out that Mr. Tsai is so much superior in intelligence, ability, and good-will to the generality of the officers of his rank in China, and to most of his predecessors in the Maloo, that the necessity that the position should be filled by an officer of higher rank - which has been so often dealt with in previous reports - has not been felt during his incumbency. The Mixed Court magistrate has almost plenary jurisdiction over a Chinese population of some 150,000, and is decidedly over-worked, and should have a coadjutor to hear civil suits, to which both parties are Chinese, and to replace him when temporarily absent. It would give general satisfaction if the post were raised to the rank of a district magistracy, and Mr. Tsai promoted to its occupancy.
  Mr. Carles concludes his report by a repetition of his claim that the Municipal Council should establish a proper prison for Chinese; and Mr. Hughes adds copies of his letter of last March to the Council on the subject, and of the Chairman's reply.
  The recent escape of nearly all the prisoners who were supposed to be confined in the cells at Hongkew directs fresh attention to this claim, but we are still disposed to stand to the adverse opinions which we expressed on April 18th last, when this correspondence appeared in the Municipal minutes. This difference of opinion with Mr. Carles, however, does not lessen our respect for his report, and out thankfulness that he and his successors in the assessorship  have had and have as their colleague so good a magistrate as Mr.Tsai.

 

North China Herald, 29 August, 1890.
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd August.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. KERRE SINGH.
  Kere Singh, Indian Constable No. 80, appeared to answer a summons charging him with assaulting George Washington Freeman, a man of colour.
  Complainant stated - I keep the Star restaurant in Broadway. On Tuesday afternoon there was a funeral procession of five carriages outside the door. The funeral was that of my brother-in-law. I was standing at the door, when defendant came up and said that the carriages must not stop there. I said they would go away in a few minutes. He then struck me twice on the chest with his fist and dragged me violently to the station, tearing the buttons off my waistcoat and damaging my clothes generally. At the station I told the sergeant that the policeman had dragged me away from the funeral.
  Defendant stated that when he first saw the carriages standing outside the Star, he told the mafoos that they must not stop there long. He went away to the Garden Bridge, and came back again, and found the carriages still there. He then told complainant the carriages must not stay so long. Complainant swore at him, seized defendant by the coat and struck him on the chest, whereupon defendant took him to the station.
  Complainant, when asked what he had to say, said he was a little excited and did not deny putting his fist under complainant's nose, but did not seize him by the coat or strike him.
  Otto Olsen started - I was the undertaker for the funeral in question.  I arrived at the Star at ten minutes to three, and saw the constable talking to the complainant, to whom he said the carriages would have to go away. I did not see any blows struck, but I heard defendant accusing complainant of abusing him, and saw him seize complainant by the collar and drag him away. I had not heard Freeman swearing at defendant. Complainant fell down twice when dragged off. A third man interfered and defendant blew his whistle, whereupon another Sikh came up. I had previously pointed out to defendant, the hearse, which was coming along in the distance, to show him that it was a funeral. When the two constables took the complainant to the station, I went there first in a jinricksha, reported what I had seen, and then came back to the house. The carriages remained in the street all that time.
  John Charles Hoch, a lodger in complainant's house, said - I was in my room, a front one, at five minutes to three on Tuesday afternoon. I heard complainant say, "You can't drive those carriages away." I looked out of the window and saw the Sikh strike complainant. I ran downstairs and saw the constable dragging complainant away, shaking him all the time. I told defendant to let him go, whereupon defendant seized me and the other Sikh dragged me to the station, kicking me three or four times on the way. Both Freeman and myself told them we would go quietly, but they continued to use great violence until we got to the station. I struck defendant after he seized me.
  George Lemon, auctioneer and commission agent, said - I saw the last witness run down stairs, and I followed him. I saw defendant with complainant, "in a deadly grip." Afterwards complainant fell in the gutter, and I picked him up. The Sikh, who was very much excited, blew his whistle, and another Sikh came up, who seized Hoch. When Hoch was held by the second Sikh, defendant struck him.
   Walter Ernest Robinson, a Customs tide-waiter om leave from Foochow, who said he saw the whole occurrence, deposed that complainant had merely remonstrated with the constable when the latter seized him.
  A witness called for the defence, George Hensler, who described himself as a buyer for a London house, said - I saw complainant and the constable having "a little difference," and I saw complainant strike defendant, who then seized him and dragged him away. The constable used complainant rather roughly. All the party seemed excited, more as if they had been at a wake than a funeral. Some of them appeared to have been drinking.
  His Worship, at the conclusion of the evidence, said there was no doubt that the defendant had acted in an intemperate way.  Instead of removing the obstruction to traffic, the result of his interference had simply been to leave things in statu quo.  It should be explained to these constables how they should act in such cases.
  Chief Inspector Cameron said the constables had repeatedly been told what to do in order to prevent any obstruction of the traffic. At the place in question, with five carriages in a row on one side and another carriage on the other, there would not be room for a vehicle to pass between.
  His Worship replied that the only result of defendant's interference had been to do harm rather than good, the dragging of two foreigners through the streets being, probably, a greater obstruction to traffic than the carriages.  It should be explained to the defendant through the interpreter that he ought to exercise more discretion at such times. It was an extraordinary proceeding to seize a foreigner, who did not appear to be doing anything, and drag him through the streets to the station. It was probably the colour of the prosecutor which had suggested to defendant that he could do such a thing. Defendant would be fined $5 and costs.
.  .  .  
26th August.
R. PERMOYER.
  Oliver Permoyer, aged 66, was charged with being absent without leave from the British ship Rosa Mary since the 21st inst.
  Permoyer, who had nothing to say, was told by the court that he was old enough to know better, and was ordered to be sent back on board ship, to pay the cost of the summons, and to forfeit ten days' pay.
.  .  .  
R. v. WALSH.
  John L. Walsh, Captain of the British barque Contest, was summoned for assaulting Benjamin Phillips, formerly cook and steward on board that vessel.
  Complainant said - Between six and seven o'clock on the night of the 21st., the captain was in the after cabin and called for a lamp. I brought one, but forgot to take my cap off as I was bringing it into the cabin. Without saying anything he struck me twice on the head with his open hand and kicked me twice.
  Defendant admitted having given complainant a slight push because he had been a long time in bringing the lamp, and because he was impertinent. Defendant denied that he kicked complainant.
  His Worship said he could not take complainant's word as to the kicking, but he appeared to have made out some case with regard to the slapping. Defendant must pay the costs of the summons.

 

North China Herald,12 September, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th Sept.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. PRICE AND DAVIS.
  Richard Price and George Davis, firemen on board the s.s. Port Philip, were charged with refusing duty on several occasions in the voyage between Yokohama and Shanghai.
  According to the evidence of the captain, both men joined the steamer at Singapore on July 23. Price worked three watches and Davis one, after which they both refused to do any more duty, on the ground that they were physically unable. At Yokohama they were taken before the British Consul, who sent them to prison for a month. After serving twelve days of their sentences, they were put on board the ship again. Between Yokohama and Kobe they did not work and the captain had again to take them before the Consul, at Kobe, with the result that they were again sentenced to a month's imprisonment. They were then examined by a medical man, who found that Price was quite able to do duty in the stokehole and that Davis was able to do light work in the engine room. After serving four days' imprisonment at Kobe, they were once more put on board the ship and once more they remained idle.
  Both men now asserted that they were unable to stand the heat and hard work in the stokehole, Price on account of rheumatism and Davis on account of a previous injury to his ribs.  Davis also complained that he had been locked up in a small cabin over the boilers and given  nothing to eat but dry biscuits and tea without sugar.
  Capt. Gray said the Consul had told him that he was justified in locking the men up. When in port they had liberty to walk about the ship. Witness added that he hoped  the Court would not send the men back on board the steamer, as they had caused him a great deal of trouble, and their refusal of duty had thrown  extra work on the other ten firemen, who had to do the work of twelve.
  His Worship said he had no doubt both men were able but not willing to work. They would each go to prison for a month, and no order would be made as to their being sent back on board the ship.

 

North China Herald, 19th September, 1890.
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 15th August.
MIAO CHU-LIN - WINTLE.
  This was a claim by a servant to recover $98 from his late master, Mr. V. D'O wintle.
  Plaintiff stated that he entered defendant's service as a boy on the 6th September. On the 9th he went out at 10.30 p.m. and returned at 12. The back door was locked and he could not get in. The cook spoke to him from the house and told him that the master had thrown out plaintiff's bed and box, and locked the door. Next morning plaintiff went to his room and found that his box and bed were not there. The coolie from next door brought them subsequently. The lock of the box was broken and several things missing from inside - 14 pieces silk clothing, $16.80 in money, etc., etc. He valued the clothing at $81 at second-hand. The next-door coolie told him that he had found the box about midnight with the lock broken and several things scattered about which he placed in the box.
  Defendant's coolie deposed to his master having opened the boy's room door with the key of another door and dropped the bed and box out of the window into the yard, which was a thoroughfare for the servants employed at E-wu Terrace, in which defendant's house was. After throwing the things out defendant locked the door, witness being inside at the time.
  Defendant stated that he engaged plaintiff on the distinct understanding that he was to remain in the house every night. It was explained to plaintiff when he was engaged that if he absented himself at night he would be sent away, bag and baggage, without notice. Defendant had acted in this case with a view to showing his servants that they must not leave the house unprotected; and he had preferred the risk of the boy's things being stolen to that of his own house being robbed.
  His Honour observed that the boy had given no excuse for not asking leave, and had clearly broken the contract; but defendant's proper course was to wait  till the boy came back in the morning and then  discharge him at once. If the defendant chose to put the boy's things outside he did so at his own risk, it being certainly no part of the coolie's duty (as the defendant had suggested) to sit on the property and take care of it till the owner came back.  He (the Acting Chief Justice) thought the defendant had acted under the influence of anger.
  Defendant - I was not angry at all; I simply did it on account of all of us, to show the servants that they must   not leave the house unprotected.
  His Honour - He broke his agreement and the result was that you were entitled to dismiss him, but not to turn his things out in to the street in this way. I think you were clearly wrong, and you acted rather as a man would do who was irritated.  The only question now is one of value.
  Defendant - I am quite willing to pay the value of what the boy has lost, but I don't think the value is true.
  His Honour suggested that the amount to be paid should be decided by a compradore, who would know what property a boy in plaintiff's position would be likely to have.
  Plaintiff declined to agree to this, and asked His Honour to decide.
  His Honour, after putting some questions as to the contents of the box, gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.  The amount to be fixed by the Court hereafter. His Honour further observed that as the defendant by his own wrongful act had made it impossible to assess, with any certainty, the value of the contents of the box, he could not complain if he should have to pay more than he might think the things were worth. The presumption in these cases was always against the wrongdoer.
  Later in the day, judgment was entered for $66.80 and costs, - i.e., $50 for the clothing and $16.80- for the money.

 

North China Herald, 26 September, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23 September, 1890
Before R. A. Mowat,. Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. WILSON.
  Robert Wilson, master of the British steamer Queen Margaret, was charged for that he "on or about the 7th July last did contrary to the 150th section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 three seamen named L. Neumann, R. Horn and Patrick Brannagan, without having first taken them before a Marine Superintendent, and having their engagement attested in the agreement by the initials of a witness;" and also  that he "did on or about August 1st last,  contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, engaged and carry away from Port Said three seamen named Hassen Ahmed, Hassen Hussein, and Mesoud Rahoman, without first having obtained the  sanction of the British consular officer at that port.
  Defendant admitted the charges, and said he had not noticed the omissions.  In regard to the men taken from the Mersey, he said that having been three men short when his ship left the dock, he had shipped three men at the pier head. They were brought on board by a clerk from the agent's office, who left the ship in a hurry and forgot to write his initials in the column appointed for that purpose. The clerk, however, read the agreement over to the three men.  At Port Said three extra Arab seamen were taken on board. The chief officer read the agreement to them, but omitted to witness it.
  Mr. G. M. H. Playfair (Vice Consul) who appeared for the prosecution, said he believed the defendant had acted in good faith, and therefore he (Mr. Playfair) did not press for a heavy penalty; but at the same time it was just as well that masters should be reminded of their duties.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $5 in each case, being $10 in all, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 3 October, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 29 September, 1890
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
R. v. NELSON AND RUSSELL.
  John Nelson and Henry Russell, able seamen belonging to the British ship Stamboul, were charged with being drunk and incapable, Nelson in the Woosung Road at 3 p.m., and Russell in the Tiendong Road at 5.35 p.m., on the 27th. They were also summoned for refusing duty on board the Stamboul on the 26th.
  Prisoners admitted both charges. Nelson said he refused duty because the captain began to "bullying" them and said he would knock their -------  heads off.
  The captain with regard to this statement admitted having said that the men ought to have their heads knocked off; but the men had already refused to work, before he (the captain) said anything.  Their grievance was that they could not obtain liberty or money. The defendants went on shore without leave the next morning, and had done no work since. They had been more or less drunk ever since the ship reached port on the 17th.
  His Honour fined each of the men $1 for drunkenness, and on the charge of refusing duty ordered them to pay the costs of the summons and to be imprisoned for ten days, but to be put on board the ship in the event of her sailing before the end of that period.
.  .  .  
R. v. JENKINS.
  Charles Jenkins, 24, described as unemployed and of no fixed place of abode, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tiendong Road at 8.15 a.m. on Sunday.
  Defendant admitted the charge and asked to be let off on consideration of his leaving Shanghai within a week.
  His Honour directed the defendant to appear at the Court next Monday if he was then in Shanghai.
.  .  .  
30th September
R. v. LEE.
  John Lee, able seaman, belonging to the Stamboul, was charged with disorderly conduct in Broadway at 11.15 p.m. on the 29th, and also with being absent from his ship without leave since 11 a.m. on the 24th.
  Prisoner, whose conduct appeared to have been the result of heavy drinking, had been found naked in a Chinese shop, the inmates of which had apparently been driven away. He was very disorderly and, refusing to be dressed, had to be taken into custody.
  His Worship sentenced accused to a week's imprisonment on the first charge, that of being absent without leave being allowed to stand over for the attendance of the captain of the ship.
.  .  .  
1st October.
R. v. BUCK.
  Frederick Buck, a seaman belonging to the Ellen A. Read, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway 2.30 p.m. on the previous day.
  Accused, who had been locked up for two days for a similar offence, had nothing to say and was sentenced to seven day's imprisonment, but to be put on board his ship if she sailed before the expiry of the sentence.

 

North China Herald, 10 October, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 4th October.
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General.
U.S. v. RIXSON.
  William Alexander Rixson, a man of colour, who had been employed since the 25th September as bar-tender at the Globe Hotel, Woosung Road, was charged with assaulting Henry Scovell, a stoker on board H.M.S. Linnet.
  Complainant, it appeared, had been drinking with some other sailors at about eleven o'clock on the night of the 3rd at a tavern in the Yang-king-pang, and had there some words with the defendant. Complainant and his companions afterwards went into another tavern, into which the defendant then came and asked complainant to give him a drink. Before Scovell could reply, defendant took out a small pocket knife and ran at him with it. Scovell took up a chair and knocked defendant down with it, and defendant then ran out through the back door. Complainant ran after him and caught him, and brought him back to the front of the house, where Police Constable Young, who had been called, took the knife away. It was found in the defendant's pocket with the blade open.
  Defendant denied that he had attempted to stab complainant, and said the sailors insulted him directly he went into the house.
  A companion of the complainant, however, corroborated his version of the affair, and his Honour, finding accused guilty, sentenced him to three days' imprisonment and to pay the costs of the prosecution.

 

North China Herald, 17 October, 1890
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 15th October.
Before Mr. J. A. Leonard, Consul-General, and Messrs. C. H. Hutchings and D. C. Jansen (Assessors.)
U.S. v. LAXELL.
  Johann Laxell, second mate of the American barque Georgetta, was charged with having on the 12th inst., on board the Georgetta when on the river Yangtze near Woosung, unlawfully wounded John Roach, first mate, with intent to murder him.
  Prisoner, who appeared in the dock with his head bandaged, pleaded guilty, saying - My intention was not to wound him, but to have a good fight with him. I happened to have a knife in my hand and I stabbed him.
  The Court having ordered a plea of guilty to be entered, Pedro Arones, a Manila seaman, was called, and stated that on the afternoon of the day in question he heard the first mate tell the second mate to go aft. Prisoner replied that it was not his business, and he then took up a chain-hook and struck prosecutor with it. Roach then knocked prisoner down. Witness saw no more, as he was ordered on to the forecastle.
  The captain said he was called at about half-past four by the steward, who said the two mates were fighting. Witness went on deck and saw prisoner bleeding at the face. Witness told them to leave off fighting and to do their work. About an hour and a half afterwards, prosecutor had just stepped out of the cabin after having his supper when he ran back to witness and, indicating his shoulder, cried out that prisoner had stabbed him. After dressing the wound as well as he could witness put prisoner in irons. The first fight between the mates only lasted a few minutes.  Prisoner's injuries were not specially severe, being only what is usual in scrimmages of the kind. Prisoner had no business where he was at the time he stabbed the mate.
  Prosecutor testified that when he came out of the cabin at ten minutes past six he saw prisoner standing on the left-hand side. Witness stepped forward without taking any notice of prisoner, and immediately felt that he had been stabbed. Prisoner then ran forward.
  The captain, in reply to the Court, said the knife had not been found.
  Prisoner, when asked what he had to say, stated that he was at work near the cabin door when the mate came out. He had not gone there with the intention of stabbing the prosecutor, but was desirous of "having it out" with him; and having already a knife in his hand prisoner stabbed him.
  After a consultation in private with the assessors, the Consul-General gave judgment as follows -
  Johann Laxell, it is the sentence of the Court that you pay a fine of $1,000 and be imprisoned with hard labour in the Consular gaol for two years.

 

North China Herald, 17 October, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 11th October
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
HOFFMAN v. LISTERMANN.
  This was a claim by a commission agent and general broker to recover $50 for commission and services as per account rendered.
  Plaintiff, a Jew, said the defendant, a co-religionist, engaged him to negotiate the purchase of the furniture of the Hotel de l'Europe on the Yang-king-pang as well as the occupancy of the place with the owners, Messrs. D. Sassoon, Sons & Co. Defendant offered to pay plaintiff $10 if he could get the price of the furniture reduced from $228 to $150, and the rent from Tls. 42 to Tls. 35. Plaintiff succeeded in this, and defendant paid for the furniture and a month's rent at Messrs. Sassoon's office. Plaintiff had previously written out the cheque for defendant, who could hardly write but who signed it. The cheque was handed over to Messrs. Sassoon but the negotiations subsequently fell through and the money was returned. Subsequently plaintiff wrote a letter in French to the French Municipal Council asking for a licence for defendant for the Hotel de l'Europe, and attended at the Council offices three or four time about it, sometimes with defendant and sometimes without. Defendant did not take the Hotel de l'Europe, because the Council would not grant him a licence. Defendant sent plaintiff to other hotels to make offers for them.
  Defendant's version of the affair was that as he was a stranger to Shanghai, plaintiff had offered to show him the way to various offices. They both went to Messrs. Sassoon's, but defendant alone made the purchase, plaintiff saying he had nothing to do with it. With regard to writing the letter to the French Municipal Council, plaintiff volunteered to do that if defendant would stand him a glass. They both went to a public house, where plaintiff wrote the letter and had a glass of vermouth for which defendant paid. Plaintiff had constantly followed defendant about and had never asked or been promised any payment.
  Defendant called as a witness Mrs. Horwitz, keeper of the Travellers Inn, Hongkew, where defendant and his family stayed. She said she had offered, when defendant first came to Shanghai, to show him where Messrs. Sassoon's office was.  Afterwards defendant came in with plaintiff and said the young man (plaintiff) had offered to show him the office. Witness warned defendant that plaintiff might charge him for his services. Plaintiff then said he would do it for friendship's sake; and he and defendant went away together.
  Plaintiff, in regard to the evidence, denied that any such conversation took place in his presence, or that he used the words imputed to him.
  His Honour said that even without Mrs. Horwitz's evidence he was inclined to think plaintiff had not made out his case. That, however, made it clear that plaintiff had been rather forcing himself upon defendant than otherwise, and judgment must be for the defendant.
.  .  .
16th October.
Ah SING v. MAITLAND.
     This was an action brought by a washerman against William Maitland, to recover $14.14 for work done.
  Plaintiff stated that the amount had been owing since the end of 1887, when he ceased to wash for defendant. The latter had constantly put him off with promises to pay.
  Defendant admitted owing $8.80, less $1 which had been paid to plaintiff by a third person by defendant's orders.  Defendant refused to pay any more, because plaintiff had lost several articles of clothing and had not replaced them.
  His Honour said plaintiff must take the consequences of not bringing his action sooner, as it was absolutely impossible to ascertain now what was the correct amount, and could not recover the full amount claimed. Judgment for $7.80 with costs.

 

North China Herald, 17 October, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13th October.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BUCHAN.
  William Wallace Buchan, a quartermaster on board the P. and O. s.s. Rohilla, was charged with stealing nine pieces of wood carvings, a silk shawl, a blanket and a pound of tobacco, worth $15 in all, the property of John Lewis, able seaman of the American barque Margaret.
  According to the evidence for the prosecution, it appeared that on Saturday night prosecutor met the accused, who said he belonged to a Blue Funnel steamer.  After drinking together they went on board prosecutor's ship, where prosecutor, being the worse for drink, went to sleep on a bench in the cabin where the articles in question were. Upon waking at 5 o'clock next morning he found that his property and the accused had disappeared. Prosecutor went on board both the Blue Funnel steamers in harbour, but could not find accused. After making his complaint at the police station, prosecutor happened to meet in Broadway a man whom he had seen in prisoner's company before, and who told him that the prisoner had gone on board the Rohilla, the night before with a blanket full of curios, without knowing where he had obtained them. Prosecutor, accompanied by Detective Jones, accordingly went on board the Rohilla, and found prisoner in the quartermaster's cabin. The stolen articles were lying in a berth in the same place, and prisoner said they were his. When told he would be charged with stealing them, he said that rather than go to prison he would settle the matter with Lewis. The detective brought him out of the cabin to the gangway, where prisoner said to Lewis that he would get his things back and that he (prisoner) would give him a couple of dollars. The prisoner also asserted that prosecutor had sold him the things for $4.50, but at the police station said this statement was a "bluff" on his part. Prosecutor pointed out that he had bought the shawl and carvings on purpose to take them home to friends, and that it was hardly likely that he would have sold them, especially for less than he paid for them.
  Prisoner urged that, if he had stolen the things, he would not have placed them openly in a berth where other men could see them; but his Worship pointed out that, prisoner having evidently told prosecutor he belonged to a Blue Funnel steamer, there was no motive for concealing the articles.
  Eventually his Worship, who said he had already a strong opinion on the case, remanded the accused till next day.
.  .  .  
R. v. GARDNER.   
  David Gardner, an engineer out of employment, was summoned for assaulting D. Yoshishima, keeper of a Japanese hotel on North Soochow Road.
  Complainant stated that defendant came into the hotel at a quarter to twelve on Friday night. As he had created a disturbance there before, complainant told him to go away, whereupon defendant struck him on the head with a cane which he was carrying.
  Defendant said that when he went to the house complainant took the cane out of his (defendant's) hand and struck at him with it. Defendant also alleged that after being taken to the police station he went back to the hotel to beg complainant's pardon. Complainant denied that defendant had come back, and his Worship said defendant evidently did not know what he was doing. Complainant's version was much the more probable of the two, and defendant would be fined $1 and costs ($1.50). Three days were allowed for payment.
.  .  .  
14th October.
R. v. BUCHAN.
  William Wallace Buchan was charged on remand from the previous day with stealing various articles belonging to John Lewis.
  Inspector Kluth stated that the witness for whose attendance the case was adjourned was not present.
  His Worship thought further evidence was really not required.
  Prisoner, on being asked if he wished the case to be disposed of now, said he did, and urged that when he committed the offence he was the worse for liquor and did not know what he was doing. He asked to be leniently dealt with, on the ground of previous good character and having a widowed mother dependent upon him.
  His Worship said he would take into consideration what had been put forward, and would deal with prisoner more leniently than he otherwise would, on hearing accused had a widowed mother whom he was supporting; but it was too late for prisoner to say that he did not know what he had been doing, as he had previously set up the defence that prosecutor had sold him the things. The case was a very bad one; prosecutor had gone to seep and prisoner had taken advantage of the opportunity to steal the property. Accused must go to prison for six weeks with hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. MANN.
 F. Mann, manager of the Kuangsu Acid Works, was summoned for assaulting Chu Ah-ping, a carpenter, on the 9th inst.
  Pending the arrival of the interpreter, his Worship asked defendant to give his version of the matter.
  Defendant said the affair was a pure accident. He, the complainant, and some others were at work, transferring some soap from a large box to a machine by means of a small box, which complainant passed to another man who handed it to defendant, who passed it to another man who emptied the soap into the machine and handed the box to defendant who threw it back to complainant. After they had been at work some time, just when defendant was throwing the small box back complainant put up his head and the box accidentally struck it. Defendant offered to put something on the bruise, but complainant said "maskee" and went on with his work.
  Defendant had been very much surprised to receive a summons, and had no doubt complainant had been "put up to" taking these proceedings by some other men who had been in defendant's employ and who, having been prosecuted at the Mixed Court for stealing platinum, had a grudge against defendant.
  Complainant, through the interpreter, gave a very different version. He said that when he was putting soap into the machine some fell on the floor and defendant stepped on it. He immediately struck complainant in the face, giving him a black eye, and then kicked him in the side because he did not go on with his work. Complainant worked till the other men left off. He was not hit by the box. Complainant had been standing on a box in order to put the soap into the machine; and defendant pulled him down on to the floor before striking him.
  A coolie, called as a witness, deposed that he, and not complainant, had been putting soap into the machine.
  Complainant said he had been working before witness came.
  Witness, in further examination, said that when he arrived he saw no marks on complainant's face, and complainant said nothing about having been assaulted.
  Another witness who was present at the timer of the occurrence deposed that he saw no assault.
  His Worship said he could only come to the conclusion that complainant's story was untrue and that the charge was a trumped-up one. The case would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 31 October, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 30th October.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MOORE.
  Alfred Moore, a stoker on board H.M.S. Rambler, was charged with assaulting a jinricksha coolie and refusing to pay his fare, and also with assaulting a police constable whilst in the execution of his duty.
  After hearing the evidence His Worship inflicted a fine of $5 and costs.
.  .  .  
R. v. BURNETT.
  A sailor named Burnett, belonging to the Glenearn, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship since the 27th instant. Accused admitted the offence and was ordered to be locked up for a week or such shorter time as the vessel remained in port. He was also ordered to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 31 October, 1890
MIXED COURT.
  In the Mixed Court on Friday at 2 p.m. Mr. C. Dowdall appeared on behalf of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in the following case:
  Last winter Mr. Su Kan-t'ing, of the Yuan Yuan Ch'ang firm, obtained from the Bank an advance of $15,000, on the understanding that when Cotton which was to be sent to Kobe arrived there to the consignment of the Yuan Yuan Ch'ang firm at that port, the draft on Kobe which he gave the Bank should be paid with interest. The draft was guaranteed by the Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo, two native banks. When the draft reached Kobe, it was not paid on the ground that no goods had come forward; and the Hongkong Bank at Shanghai had recourse to the two native banks, and succeeded in obtaining from them promissory notes promising that if the draft were not cashed at Kobe, they would make it good.
  The H & S Bank misreading a telegraphic message, returned to the native banks these promissory notes, supposing that the draft had been cashed at Kobe; but on discovering the mistake, again applied to the native banks, but they now denied responsibility.
  Su Kan-t'ing having arrived in Shanghai, the hearing of the case, which had already been commenced, was resumed, Mr. Wilkinson appearing on behalf of the two native banks. Mr. Dzau Kit-fooh again acted as Interpreter for Mr. Dowdall and Mr. Ferris for Mr. Wilkinson.
  An English representative of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, its compradore, Mr. Sih Cheng-fu, and the managers of the Chinese banks Yuen K'ai and Ting Hwo were also present.
  Mr. Chu, Acting Mixed Court Magistrate, and Mr. Ayrton, British Assessor, having taken seats on the Bench, Mr. Wilkinson rose and said he would if allowed bring evidence which would show that the two native banks were not liable. Mr. Dowdall next spoke, and observed that the H & S Bank's claim was now, counting interest up to present date at 7 per cent., Tls. 11,363.95, and that as it had been understood at the former hearing that when the case came up again payment would be enforced, it was unnecessary to hear defendant's counsel,    amg a nd Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo and any case between Yuan Yuan Ch'ang and Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo might be heard separately.
  Mr. Wilkinson said that according to British law in a case like this the plaintiff would not only have no claim on the two Chinese banks, but even no right to recover from the drawer, Yuan Yuan Ch'ang, as, if the bill is accepted and a British merchant telegraphs to that effect, drawer and securer are thereby released from responsibility, and if not accepted, the bill is returned and the amount recovered from the security. As a telegram had arrived from Kobe that Yuan Yuan Ch'ang there had accepted the bill drawn on them, and as the securities' promissory notes had been in consequence returned to them, they have plainly no farther liability in the matter, whatever may be the liability of Yuan Yuan Ch'ang.
  Mr. Dowdall objected that the defendant's Counsel was speaking of English law, whereas this was a Chinese court, and not bound to follow western law.
  Mr. Wilkinson said the plaintiffs were British subjects, and according to English law would have no case. The defendants were Chinese, and he could call the evidence of Chinese merchants as to the custom in the case of drafts, showing that the plaintiffs had no right to put forward such a claim as they had done. In the 3rd Clause of the plaintiff's petition, it was stated that the Chinese Consul at Kobe had elicited from Mr. Pao Tzu-king, manager of the Yuan Yuan Ch'ang there, evidence that no goods of the Shanghai Yuan Yuan Ch'ang had arrived at Kobe, and that therefore it was impossible for him to pay at Kobe. The Chinese Consul agreed, and the bill was returned to Shanghai to be recovered from Yuan Yuan Ch'ang here. Su Kan-t'ing was not at Kobe, and it was impossible for the Chinese Consul therefore to apply to him to pay, but he merely recommended the claimants to take any proceedings before the proper authorities in Shanghai. Copy of his judgment was extant in the English language, therefore it was improper to state that the Chinese Consul had said that in Shanghai the money could certainly be recovered. As the draft had reached Kobe, been seen and stamped there by the Yuan Yuan Ch'ang when shown to them by the H & S Bank at Kobe, the responsibility of the Shanghai Yuan Yuan Ch'ang and the two banks Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo had long ceased.
  Mr. Chu observed that at the first hearing it was decided that the hearing should be resumed when Su Kan-t'ing could appear, and that judgment had not yet been delivered.  He then asked if Su was present.  Mr. Su presented himself, and was asked whence and when he had arrived at Shanghai.  He replied from Canton, and had arrived last Saturday per English mail.
  Mr. Dowdall said according to law the money might be recovered from the two securities alone, but as the defendant's counsel said he had evidence to produce, he requested that it might be produced at once, and the case might be concluded today. Mr. Wilkinson applied that the case might be resumed on another day, when he would bring other evidence. After some further remarks from him and Mr. Dowdall, the case was adjourned till next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Condensed from Shen Pao.
.  .  .  
The case of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation which is now being heard at the Mixed Court was reported in the Shen Pao of Saturday, 28th September, and the following is an abridged translation of what was then published by the native newspaper:
  Yesterday (27th Sept.) at 2 p.m., Mr. T'sai being absent owing to indisposition, Mr. Chu and Mr. George Brown took their places on the Bench, and Mr. Dowdall, counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Lu Cheng-fu, the Bank's compradore, were first heard. The Bank's case was stated, and the draft in question was produced, and examined. Mr. Dzau Kit-fuh, interpreting for Mr. Dowdall, was understood to say that the bank consented to advance Yuan Yuan Ch'ang the $15,000 in consequence of Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo acting as securities in the way they did. That when, at Kobe, the Yuan Yuan Ch'angs manager Pao Tsu-k'ing was applied to to pay the draft, he replied that there was no money wherewithal to do so, as the Shanghai Yuan Yuan Ch'ang had sent no goods to Kobe. The case was brought before the Chinese Consul at Kobe, and he stated from the Bench that if the Shanghai Yuan Yuan Ch'ang had sent no goods to Kobe, it was not surprising that the firm there had not the money wherewith the draft should be met; and that the amount should therefore properly be recovered from the Shanghai Yuan Yuan Ch'ang and the two native banks Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo.
  (Letters to the British Consul at Kobe and to the H & S Bank at Kobe were here put in.)
  That the H & S Bank were being kept out of a sum, principal and interest together amounting to over $15,000, of their own money on the ground of the misreading of a coded telegram. That therefore they now applied to Su Kan-t'ing who had borrowed the money; Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo being also responsible for its being repaid.
  The representatives of the two last named Chinese banks said that their guarantee was only that the bill should be paid ten days after sight, and that by it they engaged to make it good, if not paid within that limit of time; but that beyond that limit of time they had no liability. That, moreover, having received from Sih Cheng-fu a letter saying the bill had been paid, (letter produced) and returning the promissory notes they had given the Bank, (on first hearing that the bill had not been paid in Kobe), they then considered they had heard the last of the matter.
  Yuan Yuan Ch'ang's employee, Tseng Shu-shan, here asked for an adjournment till his superior returned to Shanghai, the latter now being away at Canton.
  Mr. Brown said - The Hongkong Bank not having been paid the draft given to them by Su Kan-t'ing, of the Yuan Yuan Ch'ang, when he obtained from them the $15.000 are entitled to recover it from the two securities Yuan K'ai and Ting Hwo, who cannot evade their responsibility on the pretext of a telegram having been misinterpreted.
  Mr. Chu, after perusal of the various documents, said - "The H & S Bank's being kept out of their $15,000 and interest is all owing to their having lent it on the strength of the security given by your two banks. It is impossible for you to ignore It." He then asked when Su Kan-t'ing would be back; and Yuan Ch'ang's representative said he would return at the end of the month. The two native bankers here observed that as he had al00ready been written to come to Shanghai, they expected that they need not be troubled again. Mr. Chu said: "You must, as you are the securities, expect to be troubled until the money is paid, as until that time your responsibility exists. You cannot be held free from it now."
  After conferring with Vice-Consul Brown, Mr. Chu ordered Yuan Yuan Ch'ang's representative, and the two native bankers, to give a written undertaking that Su should appear when the case came before the court again. The two bankers objected that Yuan Yuan Ch'ang's representative's guarantee might alone be sufficient, and on this objection being over-ruled, asked that the guarantee given should be to the end of the month. Mr. Chu, who at first purposed to make it 14 days, agreed at Tseng Shu-shan's urgent request to extend the period to 21 days and insisted on such guarantees being given by all three persons.
  Mr. Dowdall applied for an order to the two Chinese bankers to deposit the money in court, pending the delivery of judgment when Su Kan-t'ing arrived.  Mr. Chu after conferring with Mr. Brown declined to give such an order, reserving final judgment till after Mr. Su's arrival.

 

North China Herald, 31 October, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 30th October.
SITTING IN ADMIRALTY.
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
THE "FUHLEE."
  This was an action by the owners of the P. and O. steam tender Gutzlaff against the owners of the steam-tug Fuhlee.
.  .  .  
The hearing was adjourned till Saturday.

North China Herald, 7 November, 1890
.  .  .  This being the close of the case as regards the Gutzlaff, the Court adjourned until Tuesday next.

North China Herald, 14 November, 1890.
.  .  .   At the conclusion of the learned counsel's address, his Lordship reserved judgment.

North China Herald, 21 November, 1890.
.  .  .  I pronounce the Fuhlee wholly to blame for the collision and there will be the usual decree.
[Also: Introduction to the Bar of Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, with brief biography.]

 

North China Herald, 14 November, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 10th November.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MOORES.
  Robert Moores, police constable No, 21 in the employ of the Municipal Council, was summoned for assaulting Wong Ah-sin, a mafoo in the employ of the Shanghai Horse Bazaar, by striking him, in the Maloo on the 6th instant.
  Complainant stated - I was going to my house at 6.30 p.m., and when on the bridge near the Horse Bazaar I saw a crowd of thirty or forty people at the creek. Defendant ran at me and struck me three or four times in the face.  I do not know why he did it. Defendant then ran away to the Louza police station and I followed him.
  Defendant's story was to the effect that as he was standing against some buildings near the creek, some stones were thrown at him, one of which struck him on the breast. He saw complainant in the Horse Bazaar compound throwing stones. Defendant ran up to him and took hold of him, at which time complainant had a stone in his hand. Defendant said he was a policeman and that he would take complainant to the station. When he tried to do so, they were surrounded by a number of mafoos and others, and defendant had to strike complainant in order to get away.
  Defendant called as a witness Sergeant Bourke, who said he was at the station when the parties came there. Defendant told witness that he had seen complainant with some other mafoos in the Horse Bazaar compound, throwing stones at him. Defendant had caught complainant but the others surrounded him and he had to hit out to get away from them, in doing which he struck complainant.  Finally defendant had to run, and the Chinamen followed him.  When they got to the station, defendant has seized complainant and pushed him into the station. He had to bar the gates to keep the others out. Witness asked defendant if he wished to prosecute complainant, but defendant said he did not wish to do so as he had struck complainant. Defendant had two marks on his coat, as if he had been struck with stones. Complainant was bleeding from the mouth.
  After putting a number of questions to the complainant, his Worship adjourned the case for two days for the production of further evidence.
.  .  .  
12th November.
  The hearing of this charge of assault, brought against a foreign policeman by a mafoo, was resumed.
  Sia Ah-ai, a mafoo in the employ of the Horse Bazaar, deposed that about half-past six on the evening in question he was crossing the bridge near the Horse Bazaar when he saw a foreigner striking prosecutor, on the bridge. A number of Chinese were there. They were not mafoos, and witness did not know who they were, it being dark at the time. The foreigner struck prosecutor because the latter had, so the defendant said, thrown a stone at him. Witness saw no stone in prosecutor's hand. Witness heard five or six men on the bridge saying that the foreigner had been in company with a native woman, and some of them were calling to others to throw stones at him. Defendant ran away towards the station and the Chinaman ran after him. When prosecutor returned from the station, witness saw blood on his coat.
  After hearing this evidence, his Worship further adjourned the case till the next day.
.  .  .  
13th November.
  This charge of assault, brought by a mafoo against a police constable, was again before the Court.
  His Worship convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay a fine of $5 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 21 November. 1890
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th Nov.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
TUNG SA-YU v. THORNLEY.
  This was an action by a countryman to recover from Mrs. B. Wilson Thornley $30, damage done to a porcupine.
  Plaintiff's story was to the effect that defendant's boy recommended him to take two porcupines which he had to defendant's house, as he wanted to dispose of them. Plaintiff did so, and asked Tls. 200 for them. They were not bought, but defendant suggested that he should lend her the animals to exhibit at the Dog Show which took place on the following day, she paying him $1 as a "cumshaw" for the loan of them. He agreed to this, and they were taken to the Show by defendant's watchman, but when they were returned one of them was badly hurt, having had a number of its quills pulled out, (The porcupines were brought to Court in a box but had to be left outside, on account of the powerful effluvia emanating from them.) He accordingly claimed compensation.
  Defendant said that when she was asked to pay Tls. 200 for the porcupines she at once refused, as she would not give ten cents for a hundred of them. Plaintiff then took them away, but brought them back next day, when it was suggested that if they were sent to the Show some one might buy them.  She told plaintiff she would take no responsibility for them.  After the animals were brought back from the Show, she sent her watchman with a dollar to plaintiff, who refused to take the money and detained the watchman. The latter eventually got away and brought back the money. Next day plaintiff came, and took away the dollar and the porcupines.
  Defendant's boy stated that plaintiff came about noon on the day of the Show and asked to be allowed to place on their cage a paper stating that they were for sale. Defendant said he could not do so, as it was too late.
  His Honour said defendant could not be held responsible for what happened to the unfortunate creature at the Show. The boy, who probably hoped to make something out of the sale of the porcupines, seemed to have more to do with it than his mistress.
  Judgment for defendant.

 

North China Herald, 21 November, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th November.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. HUTCHINSON.
  John Hutchinson, 37, was charged with being in Broadway at 7.30 p.m. on the 17th, and having no visible means of subsistence.
  Prisoner, who appeared in Court in the most wretched condition, was sentenced to fourteen day's hard labour. He was formerly master of a ship, and had been reduced to beggary through drinking.

 

North China Herald, 28 November, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th November
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. McKAY.
  Thomas McKay, late boatswain of the sailing ship Omega, was charged with drunkenness.
  Accused was first brought to the Court about three weeks before. He had been drinking heavily, and after being remanded in custody he was taken to the Hospital, where he remained for twelve days. In the meantime his ship left Shanghai. After leaving the Hospital he was admitted to the Sailors' Home, but after three or four day's stay, he was turned out in consequence of his drunken habits. On the 21st he was found drunk, was locked up all night and released next morning. On the 23rd he was again drunk, and was accordingly brought before the Court. It appeared that in order to procure drink he had sold for 40 cents an overcoat which had been given to him at the Hospital.
  His Worship sentenced accused to one month's imprisonment, and ordered that, in the event of an opportunity offering, he should be put on board a sailing ship before the expiry of the sentence.

 

North China Herald, 12 December, 1890
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 6th December.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judger.
SLOAN v. JESTER.
  The plaintiff, a doctor of medicine practising at Shanghai, sought to recover from the proprietor of the Glove tavern, Woosung Road, the sum of $37.50, balance of an account for medical attendance in 1888.
  Plaintiff said he agreed to attend defendant, his wife, and four children for the amount of $75 a year. He attended at various times, the last date of doing so being on July 30th, but he had not been able to obtain payment of more than half the year's bill.
  Defendant here produced receipts for $25 and $20 which the plaintiff, after examining, admitted to be correct, the claim being thus reduced to $30.
  Defendant went on to make a number of allegations against the plaintiff of having treated defendant's family improperly. He produced some medicine which he said Dr. Sloan had given his (defendant's) wife after her confinement and which had the effect of making her ill for a fortnight. He also said that when he called upon Dr. Sloan to tell him his services were no longer required, Dr. Sloan asked him to have a game of billiards and filled his pockets with cigars. In the course of this story defendant indulged in various comments which called forth from His Honour the remark that defendant was not doing his case any good by such observations.
 Plaintiff having produced a transcript from his writing book, showing that he paid visits to defendant's children, who were suffering from smallpox, in July, defendant asserted on oath that this illness was in April and that the plaintiff came and looked at the children and went away without even writing a prescription for them.
  Plaintiff replied that he wrote prescriptions which were made up by Messrs. Mactavish and Lehmann in July.
  His Honour said the case would be decided for him by evidence on this point - whether Dr. Sloan did or did not write prescriptions for the defendant in the month of July. If the parties could satisfy themselves on this point by reference to the chemists, there would be no necessity to come before the Court again; but if not, the case would come on again on Wednesday next.
.  .  .
10th December.
  This case, which had been adjourned from the 6th inst., for the production of evidence showing whether the plaintiff, Dr. Sloan, had or had not written a prescription for the defendant's children in July, 1888, came on for hearing   A witness from Messrs. Mactavish and Lehmann, Ltd., corroborated plaintiff's version by producing a prescription written by plaintiff and made up in July.
  His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for $30, observing that defendant had told him what was not true.
  Defendant asked for time in which to make payment, and His Honour ordered the money to be paid at the rate of $6 per month, the first instalment to be paid at once.

 

North China Herald, 19 December, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 12th Dec.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WYNBURG AND HOHENDORF.
  Charles von Wynburg and Emil Hohendorf, the former an A.B. and the latter a fireman on board the City of Belfast, were charged on a warrant with absenting themselves from duty since the 9th instant.
  Detective Jones stated that the prisoners were arrested two hours after the steamer left.
  Von Wynburg, who stated that he had a second mate's certificate, said he was tired of going to sea, and the other prisoner made a similar excuse.
  Two Weeks' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
15th December.
R. v. WARBURTON.
  Edward Warburton, unemployed, was charged with being drunk, and pleaded guilty thereto. Accused was before the Court on the 11th, when he was charged on remand from the previous day with unlawfully entering a dwelling house and doing damage to the extent of $3. He was then ordered to pay a fine of $5 and the damage, being $8 in all, but his Worship did not impose any term of imprisonment in default of payment, as imprisonment would interfere with defendant's chance of getting employment; defendant, however, was to pay the money when he could.
  It now transpired that $3 was found on the accused when taken into custody on the present charge, and his Worship ordered that this amount should be handed to the prosecutrix in the previous case, she being present. His Worship also passed sentence of two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, remarking that he could not pass over a second offence.
.  .  .  
16th December
R. v. PRICE.
  An able seaman named Price, employed on the Bellerophon, was charged with assaulting the boatswain and refusing to do duty.
  The prosecutor stated that when he went into the forecastle in the morning to call accused to his work, Price refused to do duty, threw a bucket of water over witness, struck him with the bucket and then with a bottle, cutting witness's face.
  Captain Guthrie gave evidence as to the occurrences having been reported to him by the boatswain, who was then bleeding from a cut on the nose. Witness sent for accused, who said the other men had all been "down on him" during the voyage, and refused to do any work before breakfast.  After breakfast, as accused still refused to do duty, he was charged.
  His Worship considered the charge of refusing duty had been fully made out, but the hearing of the charge of assault would be adjourned till next day, for the attendance of a witness whom accused wished to call.
.  .  .  
17th December.
  Frederick Price, able seamen in the Bellerophon, was charged on remand from the previous day with assaulting the boatswain John Rose, and refusing duty.
  Accused now called a witness named Parry, a sailor on the Bellerophon, who stated that when the boatswain told prisoner to "turn to", prisoner muttered something and the boatswain told him to come out of the forecastle and say what he had to say. Prisoner made one step out of the door and used abusive language to the boatswain, who then struck him in the face. Price then threw a bottle at the boatswain, which he went into the forecastle to fetch.
  In reply to questions by his Worship, witness admitted that he was not quite certain whether the boatswain actually struck prisoner or merely put out his hand to push prisoner away.
  John May, ship's carpenter, deposed to seeing accused first throw the contents of a bucket and then the bucket itself over the boatswain. Witness afterwards saw a bottle, which hit the boatswain, thrown from the forecastle.
  Prisoner here made a statement to the effect that Rose had been picked out of the crew to act as boatswain, the other boatswain having been left behind.
  His Worship thought that accused might have had a grudge against Rose on this account. Accused's conduct had been altogether insubordinate, and his own witness had spoken of the shocking language accused had used. His Worship could only suppose that the accused was suffering from the effects of drink.
  The captain, interrogated as to the accused's conduct during the voyage, said there had been no great complaint except that, after passing the Canal, and when there were forty tons of coal on deck which had to be put down into the bunkers, Price had a pain in his side, which lasted till the coal was all in the bunkers. The doctor had examined Price but could find nothing the matter with him.
  His Worship ordered accused to pay the costs of both summonses, and for the assault to be imprisoned for one month with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 24 December, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 21st December
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
GAILLARD JEUNE v. MACKENZIE
  Plaintiff in this case claimed $32 from Messrs. Mackenzie and Co. Foochow Road, for goofs supplied. £25 were lodged in Court by defendant, who alleged a counter claim of $7 against plaintiff for goods which had been purchased by a former employee of Mr. Gaillard's named Massard, who it is said, has absconded from Shanghai.
  According to Mr. Mackenzie, Massard had been in the habit from time to time of coming into his store and getting various articles for the plaintiff, which were put down in plaintiff's account, Massard having no account of his own at defendant's store. The bills for these articles were always sent to the plaintiff at the end of the month, and they were all promptly paid, except the two items in the account procured in this way by Massard in November last, which articles plaintiff now denied having received or having authorised Massard to procure.
  Plaintiff said he always sent a chit for what goods he ever got from defendant's store, but he gave no chit for the two items challenged, and knew nothing about them.
  Mr. Taylor, an employee in defendant's store, said he did not remember that Massard always brought chits for the goods he got for Mr. Gaillard, and there is now a young Portuguese clerk in Mr. Gailliard's employ who sometimes gets goods on plaintiff's account without a written order.
  After considerable argument His Worship said he did not think there was sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff had received the goods in dispute or that he had authorised Massard to get them for him. Mr. Mackenzie would have to pay the balance and the costs of the case.

 

North China Herald, 26 December, 1890
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th December.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. CORLEY.
  Thomas Corley, a quartermaster on board the steamer Ghazee, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on board that vessel at about 5 p.m. on the previous day, and attempting to stab William King, the chief officer, with a knife.
  Complainant stated that in the early part of the afternoon prisoner had been behaving badly, quarrelling with and getting in the way of the other men. At about five o'clock, when witness was tallying at one of the hatches, he saw prisoner standing at the forecastle door, about twelve feet away. He had a clasp-knife in his hand, which was hanging down by his side. Accused called witness to him, and witness not answering, prisoner made a rush at him with the knife and a struggle ensued, prisoner being ultimately secured.
  Prisoner asserted that he had been suing the knife for cutting tobacco, and had no intention of stabbing complainant.
  Hs Worship sad the use of knives must be discouraged, and accused must go to prison for one month with hard labour.
.  .  .   
22nd December.
R. v. BECK AND JOHANSEN.
  Carl Beck and Carl Johansen, able seamen on board the Port Fairy, were summoned for assaulting Carl Gustaf, another seaman on the same vessel.
  Both defendants admitted striking Gustaf, and Beck said they did it because complainant drew a knife in the course of a quarrel in the forecastle.
  Complainant stated that he was roughly aroused from sleep in his bunk at two o'clock on Wednesday morning, by Johansen. He took up a knife and told Johansen to keep off. He then put the knife away, whereupon defendant took it, knocked him down in a corner, and kicked and punched him. Next morning, he was bruised all over and had been unable to work since.
  His Worship adjourned the case till next morning for the attendance of the captain.
.  .  .  
On the following day, prosecutor attended with the captain, and having said that he did not wish to press the charge, His Worship ordered the defendants to pay the costs merely.

 

North China Herald, 26 December, 1890
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 19th December.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CRUIKSHANK v. WEBBE.
  The plaintiff, Cruikshank and Co., chemists, of Hongkong, sued through their agents. J. Llewellyn and Co., to recover $10.20 from J. Webbe, a member of the Gracie Plaisted theatrical company, for goods supplied.
  Defendant did not appear, and it was stated that he was leaving that forenoon for Hongong.
  His Honour said plaintiff would practically not be able to enforce a judgment, if given, as defendant was going away so soon; but the case could be heard if desired.
  Mr. G. A. Watkins, manager of Llewellyn and Co., having then proved the case and that defendant had promised him to pay the amount, his Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

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