Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1891

North China Herald, 9 January, 1891
THE LOSS OF THE SHANGHAI.
  A Naval Court of Inquiry into the circumstances attending the burning of the Shanghai was opened at H.B.M.'s Consulate Monday, .  .  .    Mr. Tsai, Mixed Court magistrate, was also present.
[Not transcribed.]
In the opinion of the Court the attention of the Chinese authorities should be called to the inhuman conduct of the natives in the neighbourhood whether on shore or in boats, On the occasion of the fire.
  No blame being attributable to the master and officers, their certificates are handed back to them.

 

North China Herald, 9 January, 1891.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 5th January.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
SE CHE v. MORGAN.
  The plaintiff in this case, a steward formerly employed on the Newchwang, claimed $59 from Captain Robert Morgan of that vessel, for balance of wages, and price of provisions supplied in the first part of June, 1890.
  Defendant denied his indebtedness, saying he had already paid plaintiff all he owed him, namely $156 odd. When defendant joined the Newchwang plaintiff was on board, but left the day after defendant came. Captain Sloan, whom defendant succeeded in command of the Newchwang, had had complainant 19 days of that month on board, during which time complainant supplied the captain and officers with provisions; and the officers telling defendant the money was due for this to plaintiff, defendant paid it. When he paid plaintiff, Captain Sloan, and Mr. Rivero of the Shipping Office, H.B.M.'s Consulate-General, were present, and plaintiff, after first refusing the money, came back to the cabin and accepted the $156 ion full.
  Plaintiff said he only received $92 from Captain Morgan, and had not agreed to settle the claim for that amount.
  Captain Sloan deposed that he saw money handed to plaintiff, but he could not say how much it was.
  As the defendant was leaving that afternoon, the case was adjourned till his return in about three weeks' time.

 

North China Herald, 30 January, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th January.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. ANTHONY.
  Thomas M. Anthony, until lately chief officer of the Haeting, was summoned for assaulting a Chinese carpenter in the employ of a contractor.
  Complainant stated that on Wednesday afternoon he went on board the Haeting and was told by defendant to look in the saloon for some glass which was to be fixed. Being unable to find the glass complainant asked defendant to come with him and look for the glass, and also to write down on the order the size and thickness of the glass required. Defendant told him to go away, and, complainant not going, defendant threw a glass of wine over him. Complainant still waited, and, on defendant coming out of his cabin, complainant again asked him to fill out the order, whereupon defendant set upon him, struck him four or five times in the face and as many times on the body. Complainant produced a certificate from Dr. Henderson, to the effect that he had examined a carpenter from the Haeting, who had slight ecchymoses of the eyelids and a small superficial abrasion on the cheek.  The injuries, in Dr. Henderson's opinion, were trivial.
  Defendant produced a written statement of what had taken place, from which it appeared that complainant had been following him about the ship for some time, although defendant had told him to go away, and gave him a slight push, whereupon complainant said "Me no fear you," and made a rush at him, whereupon defendant struck him in self-defence.  Defendant was unable to say how many times he struck complainant. Defendant had been dismissed from the Company's service on account of the affair.
  Capt. Patterson, of the Haeting, gave defendant a good character, and expressed an opinion that he must have received considerable provocation to act in the manner described.
  His Worship said that after the severe punishment the defendant had suffered by the loss of his situation, the utmost His Worship should do would be to order the defendant to pay the costs, but on consideration he would not even do that. The complainant forced himself upon the defendant and persisted in remaining half an hour, according to his own account, although he had been told to go on shore. The case would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 27 February, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th February, 1891.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. O'NEIL.
  Cornelius O'Neil, fireman on board the Nestor, was summoned for assaulting John English, cook on board the same vessel.
  Complainant, who appeared in Court with a bad black eye, said that at 11.30 on Tuesday night defendant and another came into the galley. Defendant was drunk, and when complainant told him to go away, defendant abused him and struck him in the eye.
  Defendant admitted that he was drunk, but argued that complainant must have given him some provocation.
  Complainant stating that he did not wish to press the charge, his Worship ordered defendant to pay the cost of the summons, remarking that had it not been for complainant not wishing to press the charge the court would have inflicted a severe fine on defendant.

 

North China Herald, 27 February, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th February, 1891.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. JONES.
  W. J. Jones, second mate of the Nanchang, was summoned for assaulting a Chinese quartermaster.
  Complainant stated that he was on watch at the gangway at 2 p.m., the ship then lying alongside the wharf. A friend of his came along and spoke to him. Defendant thereupon told him to attend to his duty, and kicked him, afterwards telling him to go ashore.
  Defendant admitted kicking complainant slightly, but said it was on account of complainant having disobeyed the order to keep watch at the gangway. Complainant went away from the gangway to the other side of the ship to speak to someone on a steamer lying outside of the Nanchang, after having been told by the chief officer to keep by the gangway. Defendant thereupon took him by the arm, gave him a slight kick and told him to attend to his work.
  His Worship dismissed the case, considering that complainant had been neglecting his duty and had made a great deal too much of the affair.

 

North China Herald, 6 March, 18091
MIXED COURT.
March 4th, 1891.
  The action brought by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank against the Yun Yuen-chang firm and the Yun Kai and Ting Ho Chinese banks came on for further hearing before Mr. Tsai, Magistrate, and Mr. Mansfield, British Assessor.  It will be remembered that the Yun Yuen-chang firm drew a bill of exchange on their own firm at Kobe for $15,000, which bill was endorsed by the two Chinese banks.  Security notes given by the Chinese banks to the Hongkong Bank were delivered up by the latter on receipt of a code telegram from their agent at Kobe stating that the bill had been paid. This, however, was not the case, the wrong code word having been telegraphed; and the Hongkong Bank having paid out $15,000 in cash to the Chinese banks, sought to recover that amount.
  Mr. C. Dowdall appeared for the Hongkong Bank, the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. S. Wilkinson for the Yun Yuen-chang firm and the Yun Kai bank. The Ting Ho bank was not represented by counsel.
  The compradore of the Hongkong Bank was now called, and gave evidence with regard to the treatment of the bill.  He said that on the day of sending it back to Kobe he warned the managers of the two Chinese banks that they would be responsible if anything went wrong. They admitted their responsibility and said they would instruct their assistants accordingly.
  Counsel for both sides having addressed the Court, judgment was deferred till Thursday next.

 

North China Herald, 13 March, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 7th March.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LINDAU.
  Frederick Lindau, seaman on board the Caldera, was charged on remand with being absent without leave.
  Accused still refusing to work on board ship, he was sentenced to ten days' hard labour and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.
R. v. IVESON.
  Lindau, the defendant in the above case, summoned Ferdinand Iverson, chief officer of the Caldera, for threatening to assault him.
  Complainant stated that on the 26th ult., he was unable to work. The chief officer came into the forecastle and threatened to knock complainant down if he would not turn to. Complainant then told the chief officer to do so, whereupon the chief officer then left the forecastle.
  William McQueen and Charles Ulrich, called by complainant, both testified that they heard the mate saying he would knock complainant down.
  The defendant called Pedro Mendores, who said he heard Lindau refuse duty but heard nothing else.
  His Worship dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 20 March, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th March.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. SARSFIELD.
  Israel Sarsfield, an able seaman belonging to the Teucer, was charged with assaulting Joseph Ferro, a member of the French Municipal Police Force.
  According to complainant's evidence, he was called to the International Tavern in the Quai du Yang-king-pang at half-past eleven o'clock on Saturday night. He there saw a fight going on between two sailors. When he tried to separate them, accused interfered and struck him in the eye.
  Another French policeman, named Hilarion Courbon, corroborated complainant's story.
  Michael Haimovitch, a Russian, keeper of the International, deposed that on Saturday night there were a number of P. and O. stewards. Russian man-of-war's men and petty officers, and Blue Funnel sailors in his house. Some men from a Nova Scotia barque  came in, and one of them began a disturbance, by quarrelling with and striking a Russian sailor, who then knocked him down. The Canadian then struck the Russian in the face with a bottle, cutting him severely. Accused joined in the fray, but he and the Canadian were turned out. When outside, the Canadian threw a glass through the window and broke it. Accused subsequently struck witness, and then complainant.
  Accused denied striking complainant until after the latter had struck at him. Accused also complained of having been hit on the head with a bamboo by Haimovitch.
  His Worship adjourned the case till next morning.
.  .  .  
17th March.
R. v. SARSFIELD.
  Israel Sarsfield was charged on remand with assaulting Joseph Ferro.
  Complainant produced a medical certificate to the effect that he would be unable to do duty for eight days owing to the injury to his eye.
  Accused expressed regret at what had occurred, and asked his Worship to let him return on board his ship.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $10 and ordered accused to return on board forthwith, remarking that whatever injuries accused had sustained in the fight were cased through his own interference.

 

North China Herald, 3 April, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th March.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. EBDON AND TURNER.
  Sidney Turner, fifth engineer of the Oriental, and Charles Ebdon, sixth engineer of the same vessel, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting a coolie in the employ of the Municipality and damaging his bucket to the extent of 50 cents.
  Chief Inspector Cameron found the prisoners at a quarter past three on Wednesday afternoon on a cargo boat at the Hankow Road jetty. They were both drunk, and Ebdon was flourishing a bamboo about. All the cargo boat coolies had been driven off the boat.
  Prisoners admitted the offence, but urged that they had been sufficiently punished by being locked up all night in such a hole as the Central Police Station.
  After hearing the evidence of the Municipal coolie, his Worship commented on the disgraceful conduct of the accused, fined Ebdon $5 and Turner $2, and told them to return on board their ship.

 

North China Herald, 10 April, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 8th April, 1891
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
TAH SHIEN-SHE v. HAMILTON.
  This was a claim by a Chinese "boy" who had also acted as cook, to recover $7.50 wages from his late employer.
  Plaintiff stated that on March 14th he went away on account of being sick, and sent a friend to take his place. On the 15th defendant discharged the friend, plaintiff returning on the 16th. On the 20th defendant accused plaintiff of breaking a saucepan, and as defendant "all the time makee bobbery," and there was "Too muchee pidgin" in the house, plaintiff said he would replace the saucepan and leave. Defendant told him that he must stay to the end of the month or forfeit his wages, but plaintiff preferred to leave.
  Defendant said that plaintiff asked for leave to go away for two days, on the 12th. Permission was refused, but he nevertheless went away and did not return till the 16th. On the afternoon of the 20th, when defendant told him he would have to pay for the cracked saucepan, the boy packed up his bed at once and went away, leaving defendant and his family to get their dinner as best they might. Defendant told him three times that he would not get his wages unless he stayed till the end of the month, but the boy said he did not care, and that he would go to the consul if defendant did not pay his wages. On the 28th the boy appeared with a new saucepan and demanded the cracked one in exchange for it. Defendant refused to take it and referred him to the consul. Defendant was subsequently charged for the new saucepan by a storekeeper, who had been told by the boy to charge it to defendant.
  One of the storekeeper's men deposed that plaintiff ordered the saucepan on the 26th and said but was to be charged to his master.
  His Honour said that as plaintiff had gone away without giving notice he was not entitled to his wages. Judgment for defendant.

 

North China Herald, 17 April, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 10th April.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
JACKSON v. WILSON.
  This was a claim by J. A. Jackson, (on behalf of James Grimmer, late proprietor of the Mercantile and Family Hotel) against an artist, for $44, board and lodging during 1890.
   Plaintiff stated that some months ago defendant sent for some boxes which he had left at the hotel. Plaintiff refused to give them up before the account owing was paid.  Since then plaintiff had written several times but could not obtain payment. He understood that defendant was still in Shanghai.
  Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.
.  .  .  
1th April, 1891
TONG MOW-YUNG v. J. W. ALLEN.
  This was a claim for $19.40 for goods supplied in October last to a schoolmaster.
  Defendant admitted the claim, and said he was at present unable to pay, owing to the slackness of business during the past four or five months. The bill would have been paid in November last, when business was good, but plaintiff at that time went off to Chinkiang and sent a small boy, ten years old, to collect the money.  Defendant did not think he was justified in taking a receipt from such a child, and accordingly did not pay.
  His Honour - Why did you not go to the shop and pay?
  Defendant - There were only a lot of small boys there.
  Plaintiff agreeing to accept payment in four monthly instalments, His Honour made an order accordingly.

 

North China Herald, 24 April, 19891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th April.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. MINNIE.
  John Minnie, sailor, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Saturday shortly after 5 p.m.
  Accused, who admitted the charge, said he had been discharged from his ship on the 9th and had since been living at the Sailors' Home.
  One week's hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 24 April, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 20th April.
Before J. A. Leonard, Esq., Consul-General.
U.S. v. HOLM, MORLEY, PETERSEN AND BUSSE.
  Edward Holm, seaman belonging to the American ship St. James, was charged with being absent without leave since the 15th. Three other sailors attached to the same vessel, named James Morley, Peter Petersen and William Busse were charged with refusal of duty and absence without leave. The charges were admitted.
  Holm was discharged on promising to return on board; the others were each fined $5 and ordered to be out on board the ship.

 

North China Herald, 1 May, 1891
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
Shanghai, 24th April, 1891
TONG ZUNG-SING v. BOWMAN.
  This was a claim by as cook against his late employer, A. R. Bowman, to recover $9.08, being $6.93 for wages and $2.15 money advanced.
  Plaintiff at first said he left the house because defendant struck him in the eye, but afterwards said defendant struck him first and turned him out afterwards.
  Defendant said that one evening his wife and he came home at 7.30 p.m. expecting to find the dinner ready. Defendant's wife went into the cook-house and found plaintiff there with two other men, one of whom was a coolie who had been forbidden the house on account of his having sore eyes. Plaintiff had made no preparations for dinner and was insolent to defendant's wife. Defendant then went into the cook-house and pushed all the Chinese out.  He denied striking plaintiff. The latter came to the house next morning, and when offered his wages, less $5 which had been advanced from time to time, he threw the money in Mrs. Bowman's face. Defendant suggested that the present proceedings were taken because plaintiff had been locked up, on suspicion of being concerned in a robbery of fowls which took place at defendant's house a few nights after plaintiff left.
  Plaintiff distinctly denied that any money had been advanced during the month, and said he never received less than a month's wages at the end of the month.
  Defendant said the cook had been constantly receiving advances.
  The case was ultimately adjourned till next morning for the defendant to obtain corroborative evidence.
25th April.
TONG ZUNG-SING v. BOWMAN.
  The hearing of this case was resumed.
  Defendant's boy was called, and said the cook had an advance of $1 in February, and in March he saw the cook receive money from Mrs. Bowman.
  The amah was also called, and stated that several times she borrowed money from Mrs. Bowman for the cook at the latter's request. This, however, was last year.
   Mrs. Bowman stated that she lent the cook, on three different occasions between March 10th and April 4th, sums amounting to $5. When the cook came for his money, he denied having received more than $4, and when offered $2 in settlement of his claim he threw the money on the table.
  His Honour thought it was conclusively proved that plaintiff had told lies about the advance, which he had received. There would be judgment for the balance  of wages due, $4.08, and for the amount of money advanced, $2.15, but plaintiff must bear the costs himself.

 

North China Herald, 1 May, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 25th April.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq.
HOP-FUNG v. FERRIS.
  Mr. F. F. Ferris was charged on a summons with assaulting a man named Chia, trading as a butcher under the style of Hop Fung.
  Complainant said he went to defendant's office to collect some money owing to him.  Defendant put him off, as he had done several times before. Plaintiff reproached defendant with not being a man of his word, and defendant slapped his face.
  Defendant, in addition to denying the charge of assault, said he merely told complainant to come later in the day, as the compradore was out. Complainant then made some impertinent remarks in Chinese and defendant told him to get out of the office, but did not assault him.
  Mr. Barnes Dallas, called by defendant, said he was writing in the office and heard complainant talking to defendant. There was no noise suggestive of any assault having taken place.  When witness looked up from his writing he saw complainant standing outside the door, talking to the defendant, who was sitting at his desk.
  His Honour said the assault, if there was one, must have been very trivial, and dismissed the summons.

 

North China Herald, 8 May, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 1st May.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. MINNY, COLLINS, BROWN, FERNS, TAYLOR AND CARLSON.
  John Minny, charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway at 2.30 on the previous afternoon, pleaded guilty and, it appearing that he had only come out of prison four days before where he had been incarcerated for a similar offence, a fine of $6.
  Walter Collins, sailor unemployed, was charged with being drunk in the charge-room at the Hongkew Police Station. Accused followed the prisoner Minny to the station and refused to go away. He was fined $1 or two days' imprisonment.
  Charles Brown, sailor, belonging to the British ship John McLeod, charged with being absent without leave, pleaded guilty and was ordered to forfeit four days' wages and pay a fine of $1.
  Charles Brown, the defendant in the last tmentioned case, and Joseph Ferns were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway at 3.30 on the afternoon of the 30th, assaulting a Chinese police constable, creating a disturbance in a Chinese store and breaking two bottles of whisky valued at $2. Prisoners pleaded guilty, and his Worship inflicted fines amounting to $4 or in default 8 days' imprisonment, besides ordering prisoners to pay the damage.
  John Taylor. A.B. belonging to the John McLeod was charged with being absent without leave since 5.30 a.m. on the 28th ult., and with being drunk and assaulting a Chinese policeman in Broadway.  He was ordered to forfeit 4 days' wages and pay a fine of $3, or in default a week's imprisonment.
  Conrad Carlson, sailor, unemployed, was fined $2 for being drunk and creating a disturbance at the Sailors' Home.
.  .  .  
4th May.
R. v. MOREZ.
  Alfred Morez, 19, seaman of the John McLeod, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a sampan-man on the E-wo jetty, Yangtzepoo Road, at 2.30 p.m. on the 3rd instant.
  Complainant stated that accused got into complainant's sampan at the jetty and tried to throw him overboard. When complainant followed him on to the wharf, defendant struck him in the face and kicked him.
  Accused said he acted in self-defence. He admitted being the worse for liquor, which he obtained at the "shanties" near the wharf at which the ship was lying, but he was not "properly drunk."
  His Worship fined accused $5, and ordered $2 of this amount to be paid to complainant, who said he would not be able to work for a fortnight on account of his eye being swollen and his thumb sprained through defendant's violence.

 

North China Herald, 15 May, 1891
EXCITING SCENE AT THE POLICE COURT.
  An unusual and exciting sequel to a case occurred at the British Consulate on Friday morning. Eight seamen belonging to the British ship John McLeod were charged by the captain before Mr. Mansfield, Acting Assistant Judge, with refusal of duty, which they admitted; and as they all refused to return to the ship, his Worship ordered them to be imprisoned till the ship sailed, when they were to be put on board. When the decision had been given, Mr. Mansfield and Capt. Stuart left the court by one door and the eight men, under the charge of an assistant gaoler, by another.  The men were unfortunately led into the main corridor just behind Mr. Mansfield and the captain.  This opportunity for revenge was too good to be lost; the men made a rush at the captain, forced him into an angle of the wall and began to belabour him with their fists. The captain, a tall, powerful man, soon shook himself free, and dashing into the shipping office, close by, returned with a thick stick with which he administered a couple of heavy blows before some of the Consular staff, aroused by the disturbance, separated him from his assailants. In the meantime three or four of them had run down a side passage with a view of escaping, and were met by the Crown Advocate, Mr. H. S. Wilkinson, who tried to stop them. He, however, was unceremoniously knocked down, sustaining two or three bad bruises, and the ruffians made their escape.  The others, (except one, who was secured by the assistant gaoler) ran out by another door and got away. Warrants were immediately issued for their arrest.
  With the exception of some bruises, and injury to his clothes, the captain was none the worse for the scuffle. Most of the men had knives in their possession, and one of them was flourishing a knife just before making his escape, but no such weapons were used in the struggle. It certainly speaks well for the British authorities' faith in human nature that they should have expected eight discontented merchant sailors to walk to gaol like so many sheep to the slaughter.
  The warrants issued in the case of the sailors were executed by Inspector Keeling and three police officers at 1.15 p.m. Four of the men were found sitting down outside   the Cleveland public house, while two or three were drinking inside. The seventh man was captured elsewhere. All went quietly to the Hongkew Police Station and were locked up in the cells. They frequently declared that they would not go back to the ship.

 

North China Herald, 15 May, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th May.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. BROWN AND OTHERS.
  Charles Brown, J. Reed, B. Ottermann, T. Bird, S. Cilley, C. Sheraford, J. Lynch, and G. Burke, seamen of the British ship John McLeod, were charged with refusal of duty since the night of the 6th.
  Captain Stuart said the men refused duty at dinner time on Wednesday. He told them that he would allow two of them to come on shore next morning and make their complaint at the Consulate, but they still refused to work, and accordingly he put them on rations of biscuit and water. In addition to refusing to work they used very bad language and threatened to kill the steward for not supplying them with the usual food.
  Defendants all admitted refusing duty, and declined to return to the ship. Their principal grievance appeared to be that after lying at the wharf for some time the ship had been moved out into the river, so that they could no longer go on shore. They also alleged that the steward, a man of colour, had threatened them with a revolver. Two of them accused the captain and mate of assaulting them in the early part of the voyage, about five months ago.
  His Worship said that the ship had been 20 days in port, and yet it was only the day before yesterday that defendants found they could not stay on board. Several of the men had had leave and had ample opportunities to make their complaints.  They must all go to prison for a week or until such time as the ship sailed, and then be put on board of her, and they must also forfeit 5 days' pay.
[At the conclusion of the case an assault was committed on the captain by the eight seamen, as described in another column.]
.  .  .  
9th May.
R. v. BROWN AND OTHERS.
  C. Brown, J. Reed, B. Oltmann, T. Bird, S. CiIley, C. Staniford, J. Lynch, and C. Burke, seamen of the British ship John McLeod, were charged with assaulting James B. Stuart, master of that vessel, within the precincts of the Court, and also with escaping from custody.
  All the prisoners pleaded guilty to both charges.
  The charge of assault was first taken.
  John Frederick Bannerman deposed - I was taking the prisoners to the gaol along the main corridor of this building. The captain was standing at the foot of the steps, and the two men in front, Burke and Staniford, made a rush at him.  The others followed, and I saw then striking the captain with their fists. I saw some knives, but cannot say in whose hands they were. I saw no attempt to stab the captain with a knife.
  James B. Stuart, master of the John McLeod, stated - I cannot say who attacked me, but I think it was Burke. My back was turned, and I heard his voice first. I heard Staniford's voice about the same time. Prisoners attacked me with their fists. I saw no knives drawn. I escaped from them after a few moments, and took from the Superintendent of the Sailors' Home a stick with which I gave one of them two or three blows.
  Hiram Shaw Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, deposed - Yesterday morning I was coming out of the Vice-Consul's office. I saw the last witness in the corridor, and behind him were several men, who rushed at him and made what I consider a very savage attack on him. I saw Lynch in particular striking the captain. The latter shook them off almost immediately, before there was time to intervene, and rushed into the shipping office. Lynch attempted to follow, and I stopped him. He used no violence towards me, but turned round. I had my hand on him and told him I arrested him. He rushed down the passage towards the compradore's office, and I followed him. There he doubled, to come back into the main corridor, and I turned also. Several of the men were then coming from the corridor into the passage.  Burke knocked me down, and struck me twice with his fist when I was down. The others seemed to be assaulting him, but I do not think that any of them struck me. They ran away, but Burke was detained by Bannerman. I saw no knives.
  By Burke - I did not strike you first, I was trying to hold on to Lynch.
  His Worship said the prisoners had all been guilty of a very serious breach of the peace, aggravated by the fact that it was committed in the precincts of the Supreme Court, and Staniford would be sent to prison for two months with hard labour, Lynch for 7 weeks, and the others for 6 weeks.
  Staniford here came forward and denied that he was the first to attack the captain, but his Worship said that, having seen the affair himself, he knew that there was little difference between any of the men as regards the assault. They all seemed to make a rush on the captain together, but the evidence was that Staniford was one of the foremost.
  The charge of escaping from custody was then gone into.
  R. A. de Villard deposed - I heard someone calling for the police, and told a boy to go for the police. He was at the door when several men came rushing toward it. Lynch had a knife in his hand, and one of the others also had a knife. I saw one of the men threaten the boy with a knife. They all ran out of the door and escaped.
  George Alfred Raper, sub-editor of the North-China Daily News, stated - I was standing inside the corridor, between the shipping office and the staircase. Two or three of the prisoners ran past me towards the door. Oltman was the last of them. As he passed me I saw an open knife in his hand. When he reached the door a China boy tried to stop him. Oltman lifted his hand, in which was the knife, and threatened the boy with it. The boy then drew back and Oltman escaped. I identify the knife (produced) as being the one which I saw in Oltman's hand.
  Detective Inspector Keeling deposed - When I was about to arrest Oltman I saw him take the knife (produced) from his pocket and pass it to another man.
  A coolie deposed that he saw Oltman with a knife in his hand, running out of the Consulate. Witness did not see him threaten anyone.
  E. F. Bennett said he heard Burke threatening Mr. Wilkinson. Burke then made a rush to get away, but was stopped by Bannerman. Burke then began to struggle, and Mr. Wilkinson went to Bannerman's assistance.
  The witness Bannerman started that Burke attempted to escape. Witness and Mr. Wilkinson held him.
  His Worship said the charge was one with which he was unable to deal, and all the accused must be committed for trial.
.  .  .  
11th May.
R. v. SMITH.
  Patrick Smith, seaman on board the Annie E. Wright, was charged with being absent without leave since the 5th instant.
  Accused admitted being absent part of the time, though not the whole of it, and he was ordered to forfeit six days' pay.
R. v. ANDERSEN AND CARLSEN.
  Frank Andersen and Edward Carlsen were charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance at Hsing Dah's Stables in Astor Road at 4.15. on Sunday afternoon.
  Prisoners had nothing to say, and the case being proved, they were each fine $3.
R. v. ANDERSEN.
  Henry Andersen pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and asleep in a Chinese shop in Broadway at 10 a.m. on Sunday. He had been locked up the night before on a similar charge, and was released on condition that he would return on board his ship. Prisoner, a seaman on the John McLeod, said he would rather go to prison than go on board the ship.
  A fine of $1, or in default two days' imprisonment, was inflicted.
.  .  .  
14th May.
MARTIN v. ROSS.
  The defendant in this case, Martin Ross, boatswain of the ship Canara, was charged by a seaman named Lewis Martin with assault alleged to have been committed at sea on a voyage from New York to Shanghai about three months ago.
  Complainant stated that one day about three months ago he was suffering from rheumatism and could not go aloft when ordered by the boatswain, who thereupon struck complainant, knocked him down and kicked him.
  Dedrick Heraman deposed - I am an able seaman on board the Canara. About two or three months ago I saw the boatswain strike Martin because he would not do something he was told. The boatswain then struck him on the head and on the body with his fist. This happened on the main deck near the main mast. The boatswain then went away and Martin remained lying on the deck, one of his ears being badly swelled up. He had been ill some days before and had medicine from the captain.
  Martin Nielsen, A.B. - Some time about three months ago while I was down below I heard a noise on deck and came up. I saw the boatswain and Lewis Martin standing at the galley door. The boatswain struck Martin who fell and while he lay on the deck the boatswain kicked him on the head. The boatswain kicked him along the deck as far as the after part of the fore house. Lewis Martin was so badly hurt about the head that some time after, on the same day, he could not wear his woollen cap when he went to the wheel, his head was badly swollen. For some time before this occasion Martin was unable to work on account of rheumatism in his shoulders, and when he applied for medicines to the captain, the latter told him there was nothing the matter with him and sent him back to work.
  The boatswain stated - One day about three months ago when we were washing the paintwork forward I ordered Lewis Martin to go aloft and do some work. He refused and I struck him, caught him by the collar and rushed him aft. He fell on the deck and when he was down I kicked him in the ribs, not on the head. He told me before this that he was sick.  He made no attempt to resist me when I struck him, or strike me back.
  The captain stated that Martin had come to him some time before complaining of the rheumatism. Witness gave him some medicine but it did him no good.
  His Worship said there seemed to be no doubt accused did assault complainant and he certainly had no right to do so. If complainant refused to do what he was told, defendant should have complained to the captain, who would take the man's illness no doubt into consideration if he were ill.  He would fine defendant $5.
.  .  .  
EBEL AND OTHERS v. SIMPSON.
  David Simpson was charged by Bernard Ebel, Martin Nielsen, Ernest Brown and Henry Shepherd, all sailors belonging to the Canara, with assault. The case of Ebel was taken first. Accused pleaded guilty to this charge.
  Complainant deposed - the second mate struck me several times. On one occasion he called me foul names and struck me because I fastened up the poop ladder in the wrong way, when replacing it after having holystoned it. He has also assaulted me frequently for not understanding the orders he gave me quickly enough.
  Defendant pleaded guilty to striking complainant with his open hand on the cheek, because he was no sailor at all, and did not know how to do anything on a ship.
  His Worship said that although defendant was not allowed to strike any one by law, it seemed, by what complainant had himself admitted, that he was not a very competent seaman, and he would merely fine the defendant 50 cents.
  Martin Nielsen then charged the boatswain with assault.
  Accused pleaded not guilty.
  Complainant stated - About two months and a half ago defendant wanted me to go over the bow and paint the bob-stay. He gave me a rope to go over with, but it was too short and I asked him for a boatswain's chair, and I went to get one. By the time I got the chair over the side, about four or five minutes, accused came up to me again and asked me why I had not yet started. I explained to him
upon which he struck me with his fist. I warded off his blows and shoved him away from me in order to get clear, and when I shoved him,  his foot caught in the ladder and he fell from the forecastle head to the main deck. I followed him on to the deck and when he got up he tried to strike me several times, but I prevented him. The captain then came forward, and I went to report the occurrence to him, but when I began to speak he said "that will do; that will do," and would not listen to me. A few days before this row I was sitting and smoking with some of the others of the watch, the weather being fine and there being nothing to do, when the second mate came up to us and kicked me in the stomach, saying "get up and work." He then took off his coat and wanted to fight me. The second mate has frequently threatened to murder me and the others in my watch.
  William Langley stated - I saw the second mate striking Martin Nielsen just as the latter was getting over the rail to paint the port chains. I was standing at the forecastle door at the time. Martin got back over the rail and the second mate again attempted to strike him, but Martin warded off the blows, and in the scrimmage the second mate fell from the forecastle head on to the main deck. The mate afterwards tried to strike Martin on the main deck until the captain came along and said "that will do."
  By defendant - It was my watch below but I was standing outside the forecastle and I could see the
scuffle. Martin did not strike you at all or shove you over the rail.
  Captain Israel James Dexter of the Canara said he heard a row forward. Witness ran forward and saw complainant and defendant fighting, Nielsen appearing to be having the best of it, for the mate's nose was bleeding.  Witness went up and stopped the fight.
  Defendant stated that complainant objected to go over the side without a boatswain's chair, and delayed about his work for over an hour, in consequence of which defendant spoke to him, upon which complainant knocked him down, picked him up again and threw him from the forecastle head to the main deck, a distance of about eight feet.
  His Worship - The evidence does not seem to be very clear about the beginning of the assault. We have only the evidence of Langley and I do not attach much importance to it. The mate seems to have got the worst of the fight at all events and I will dismiss this charge.
  Henry Shepherd. A.B. then charged the second mate with assault.
  Accused pleaded not guilty.
  Complainant said that not understanding an order given him by the second mate, the latter got angry with him and struck him with his fist in the face. This happened about five months ago. Complainant did not report the occurrence to the captain. Defendant assaulted him in a similar manner on other occasions, and once a couple of months ago he tried to throw complainant down from the rigging by knocking his foot out of the ratling lines.
  A seaman named Christiansen corroborated complainant's story about the assault committed four or five months ago.
  Witness in reply to his worship said he shipped as A.B. but had never been at sea before.
  His Worship - All the trouble in these cases seems to be due to the incompetency of the crew, some of whom shipped as able seamen and like this man turned out to know nothing about their duty. The mate was possibly not as careful as he should have been about not using his hands, but there was a good deal of provocation. The ship had got to be navigated and the work had to be done somehow or other, and by somebody, and if the men shipped as able seamen and turned out to be landsmen they should only expect this treatment. I shall dismiss this case also, but I caution the second mate against using his hands in future.

 

North China Herald, 22 May, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th May, 12891.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. SCARBOROUGH
  Samuel Scarborough, A.B. belonging to the Annie E. Wright, was charged with being absent without leave since the 6th instant.  Accused pleaded guilty.
  Detective Inspector Keeling said - Accused took his clothes on shore on the 6th and has since been living with Chinese at Pootung, where, after considerable difficulty, he was found and arrested yesterday.
  Accused promised to go back to his ship and do his work, and was sentenced to forfeit 14 days' pay.
.  .  .  
20th May.
R. v. A. FREYBERGER.
  The defendant, an ordinary seaman on the articles of the John McLeod, which has left here for Ilo Ilo, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship since the 6th instant. He pleaded guilty and excused his desertion by stating that he had been ill-used by the second mate.
   Inspector Kluth stated that the defendant gave himself up on Monday afternoon.
  His Worship sentenced Freyberger to three weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.
.  .  .  
21st May.
CARLSEN v. P. SMITH.
  Patrick Smith, an ordinary seaman on the Annie E. Wright, was charged by complainant with stealing a number of articles of clothing from his bag in his bunk between the 12th and 16th instant, during which time complainant was in prison for drunkenness. Defendant admitted the theft of some of the things but denied all knowledge of the rest.
  Carlsen said - I missed the things and afterwards a Chinaman brought back some of the articles. He had been working on board, and another sailor told me that accused had sold them to this Chinaman. Before this, the accused had voluntarily told me he had stolen some of the things. I do not know if he took the other things.
  Chun Kung-tai said he purchased two shirts and a singlet for $1 from the accused, but did not buy anything else.
  Inspector Kluth stated that the other missing articles had not been found.
  His Worship (to prisoner) - You own that you stole these things?
Prisoner - Yes, Sir.  I stole nothing else.
  His Worship - Are you in the habit of steading?
  Prisoner - No, Sir. I suppose it was a drop of drink.
  His Worship - It is always 'a drop of drink,' I suppose.
  Prisoner was then sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, and his wages were ordered to be stopped during that time.

 

North China Herald, 29 MAY,1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd May.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
A DESERTER.
  Joseph Ferns was charged with deserting from the ship John McLeod on or about the 8th instant.
  Accused pleaded guilty.
    Inspector Kluth stated that accused was charged last month with being drunk and disorderly, and was sentenced to eight days; imprisonment. He had not been on board the ship since. Yesterday afternoon he came to the Police Station and gave himself up. The ship has been gone from Shanghai for some time now. Accused said he deserted because he was badly treated on board.
  He was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment.

26th May.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Acting Police Magistrate.
THOMPSON AND OTHERS v. FOSTER.
  Four seamen named Thompson, Atkins, Grace and Lawrence charged James Foster, the chief officer of the ship Cyprus, with assault.
  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the defendant.
  Thompson stated that the chief officer knocked him down and kicked him on the night the ship left New York.
  Atkins stated that the chief officer knocked him down and kicked him on the night the vessel left New York.
  By Mr. Wilkinson - The chief officer assaulted every sailor on board. The morning after leaving New York there was not a man on board who had the same face on him as he had when he joined the ship. The only bad treatment witness received from the second officer was due to his own impertinence, but he never was impertinent to the first officer. He only saw the chief officer strike Thompson once.
  Defendant denied the charge and stated that he only struck one man on board, Atkins, and that was in self-defence. There was only one man in the crew who was a competent sailor. For the first two or three months the men were very insubordinate.
  Captain Stevens deposed he never saw the chief officer assault a man on board.
  The charge of Patrick Grace was then heard. Defendant, he alleged, struck him several times on the voyage out,  once in the mouth with his hand while in the carpenter's shop. On another occasion defendant struck him while he was at the wheel. The first assault committed by the defendant was on the day the ship left New York.
  In cross-examination, complainant contradicted himself once or twice, grew confused and finally declined to answer any further questions, on the plea that he went to the court to get justice, and not to answer questions. He called witnesses, however, the first being
  Henry Jackson Lawrence, who said he sometimes went by the name of Jackson, and deposed he saw defendant call Grace into the carpenter's shop and there assault him by striking him with his hand in his face. Defendant also assaulted witness that day.
  Atkins said he saw defendant strike Grace on the fore topgallant forecastle. In reply to Mr. Wilkinson witness said the last witness and he were both on deck when the chief officer struck Grace.
  Defendant admitted having struck Atkins once in self-defence.
  Lawrence then preferred his charge of assault against the chief officer, who he said struck him the night after leaving New York when they were picking out the watches, for not calling him "Sir."
  Defendant denied this charge also, and after some discussion the cases were remanded till Thursday.
28th May.
  His Honour said that although the men had been roughly treated, he thought they had exaggerated the conduct of the mate somewhat, and provoked him by not being up in their duty, except in the case of Lawrence, who, as admitted by the defendant himself, seemed a competent seaman. For the assault on Lawrence His Worship fined defendant $2, but in the other cases only ordered him to pay the cost of the summons.
.  .  .  
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SHIP MASTER
  On Tuesday Captain Stevens of the ship Cyprus was charged by William Stafford, one of the crew, with having wilfully destroyed a letter entrusted to him by complainant to post.  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson defended.
  Mr. Browett appeared on the second day for the complainant.
  Complainant stated that while on a voyage in the Cyprus from New York to Shanghai he gave a letter to Captain Stevens to be posted at Bahia. He heard nothing more of the letter for a week or so after, when one of the men told him he heard the captain tell the second mate that he (the Captain) had destroyed the letter.
  The second mate, Thomas Little, said that some time after leaving Bahia the Captain told him he had destroyed the letter Stafford gave him to post. Witness told Stafford this on reaching this port, the latter instituted the present proceedings.
  By Mr. Wilkinson - The Captain thought to drive the men away by bad treatment. He told me he wanted the crew to go back, but he said he would not pay them off. I have heard that summonses have been taken out. I do not know what was in the letter.
  By his Worship - I did not advise any of the men to take any action against the captain except in the case of this letter; I told Stafford he ought to see into this matter.
  Robert Speed, said - I do paintwork on  board and have been very badly treated. The second mate treated me brutally and his conduct was sanctioned by the captain. I wrote a letter for W. Stafford asking for new papers to be sent on for him to Shanghai. I know nothing about the posting of the letter, but I heard something afterwards which led me to believe he had received it.  The captain would have good reason for destroying the letter after he had read it. When I heard the captain tell the second mate he had destroyed the letter I went immediately and told Stafford. This was in Bahia.
  By Mr. Wilkinson - I was on the poop conversing with the captain about the two men that swam ashore. When I left the captain I played the eavesdropper and listened to the conversation of the captain and second mate. I don't know what a sea-lawyer is. I only advised the crew in one instance. The second officer began the conversation. He asked the captain whether he had posted Stafford's letter or not, and the Captain said he had not. I spoke to the second officer on several occasions about the letter after I heard it was destroyed. I saw the captain interfere with the second mate when the latter was striking a man named Atkins, and again when he was striking Lawrence.
  This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkinson then briefly opened the case for the defence. He pointed out a palpable misstatement made by the second mate, who said he did not know the contents of the letter, though the other witness for the prosecution said he had told him what he had written for Stafford.
  Captain Stevens deposed - I was going ashore one morning at Bahia, and I said I would take a letter for Stafford. He asked me if he could have a receipt for the letter. I put his letter along with my own letters and brought it to the office.  I did not notice the letter particularly; it was closed but not stamped. I did not look at the address nor do I know what it was.  I did not get a receipt because the place is Spanish and I do not speak that language.  I asked the broker however for a receipt for this particular letter, but afterwards forgot about it. The last I saw of it was the broker putting it through a pigeon hole into a till. I did not see him stamp it. It was the broker's custom to stamp all the ship's letters and charge them altogether. I never told anybody I had destroyed the letter.
28th May.
On the case being resumed this morning, Mr. Wilkinson objected to the jurisdiction of the court to try this case.  His Worship said that he had decided the court had jurisdiction, and then proceeded to read his judgment in favour of the defendant, the case being dismissed and the prosecution ordered to pay the costs.
.  .  .  
REFUSAL OF DUTY.
Lawrence, Thompson, Grace, Stafford, Atkins, and Spreight belonging to the Cyprus were charged with wilfully and unlawfully disobeying the lawful commands of the master and chief officer of the vessel.  His Worship, while convicting them, did not inflict any punishment as he considered there were extenuating circumstances in the case. Mr. H. Browett appeared for the defendants.

 

North China Herald, 29 May, 1891
MIXED COURT.
  At the Mixed Court on Saturday Pao Tzu-k'ing of Kobe appeared and was "confronted" with Hsu Kwo-chen, on a claim of the latter that the former owed him money.
  Our readers will recollect that on the 11th of March last, the Mixed Court gave judgment for the Hongkong Bank against Hsu Kwo-chen of the Yuen Yuen-chang firm for $15,000, the amount of a Bill of Exchange drawn by him upon the firm at Kobe, and which Pao Tzu-k'ing, one of the representatives of the firm there had refused to pay, and that the judgment went on to say that Hsu Kwo-chen having stated that Pao Tzu-k'ing owed him money, the former was to petition the court for the rendition of Pao Tzu-k'ing and hold himself in readiness to be confronted with him in the Court.   
  Mr. W. V. Drummond appeared for Pao Tzu-k'ing.
  The Comporadore of the Hongkong bank and a gentleman from their office attended at the request if the Assessor to look into any accounts which might be produced.
  Mr. Drummond objected to the Assessor being present, as this, he contended, was a case between Chinese.
  The Assessor took a different view; and it was eventually arranged that the accounts were to be reported upon by some Chinese experts connected with the Chinese Bankers' Guild, and the matter then disposed of by the magistrate himself, though the Assessor might be present.

 

North China Herald, 5 June, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 1st June.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Judge.
ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE.
  C. Nielsen and D. McDonald, sailors belonging to the Kelvin, were charged with being absent from the vessel without leave since the 22nd May. They excused themselves by stating that they had been ill-treated on board, and wished to summons the chief and second officers.
  His Lordship said the summonses would be granted, and the charge would be heard on Tuesday, when the case against them would be settled. The men were then remanded in the custody of the Police.
.  .  .  
  C. Johnson belonging to the Canara was then charged with being absent without leave.
  He admitted the offence, but said he had been abused, kicked round the deck and never called by his right name.  He had been to the Consul about it, but had been told to go back to his ship.
  The master of the vessel stated that the defendant had shipped at New York as an A.B., but he was only an ordinary seaman, and had been paid off at Shanghai, and signed on again.  He had been sent to attend the inquest on the man who was drowned and had received money to pay his sampan hire, but had deserted on the way.
  In answer to his Lordship, the captain said the vessel would remain here some considerable time.
  The defendant said he would not go back to his ship, upon which His Lordship sentenced him  to two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.
.  .  .  
3rd June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., H.B.M. Acting Vice-Consul.
R. v. PECK
  Charles Peck, second mate of the Kelvin, was charged with assaulting two of the sailors, Charles Nielsen and Donald McDonald, on several occasions during the voyage from New York to Shanghai.
  McDonald stated that two weeks after the ship left New York defendant struck him with a rope's end when he was cleaning the paintwork on the poop. Defendant also kicked complainant. The first mate then kicked complainant several times. One kick caught him in the mouth and loosened several teeth. When complainant showed himself to the captain, with two black eyes and blood on his face, the captain took no notice.
  The Captain stated that the ship had been in port ten days, and he had heard nothing of the present charge until yesterday.  He suggested that nothing would have been heard of the charge if the plaintiffs had not been arrested on a charge of being absent without leave.
  The second officer said he admitted pushing and hustling complainants and other men to make them do their work smartly, but he denied having struck or kicked anyone. Defendant had been thirty years at sea and had never sailed with such an incompetent crew.
  McDonald, in answer to his Worship, said he had asked several members of the crew to attend as witnesses, but they refused to come.
  His Worship thought the assault could not have been of any consequence, or McDonald would have made a complaint sooner. The second mate should not have hustled the men, as that amounted to an assault, though a very slight one; and in consideration of its slightness, the defendant would pay the costs of the summons only.
  The charge by Nielsen brought against the second mate was then gone into.
  Complainant said that on one occasion the second mate struck him fifteen or sixteen times in the face, and on other occasions kicked him, besides constantly abusing him and "calling him out of his name."
  Defendant admitted pushing complainant to hurry him over his work, but denied striking or kicking him. The only name he ever called complainant was "Romeo," a name by which the other sailors called him.
  His Worship ordered defendant to pay the costs of the summonses,
.  .  .  
R. v. MCDONALD.
  D. McDonald charged R. McDonald, chief officer of the Kelvin, with assaulting him.
  Complainant deposed - Two weeks after we left New York I was assaulted by the defendant, at the same time that the second officer assaulted me. It was in the forenoon, I was washing paint on the poop on the port side. The first mate made a kick at me and missed me. He then turned round and struck me with his fist and blackened my eye. He struck me all the way across from New York. He told the second officer to go and kick the life out of me, if I did not do my work properly,  and to keep me up during my afternoon watch below till we got back to New York. The second officer struck me before the mate did, with a rope's end. When the mate struck me I did not strike him back. He never called me by my own name the whole voyage.
  By Mr. Browett - I was in the second mate's watch all the voyage. A man named Sullivan was standing at the wheel and saw the assault. He could see what was going on, he was about 30 feet away. I left the ship because I had been ill-used on board.  I did not complain to the captain about the assault, but all the crew on board saw it, and that I was cut about the face.
  Thomas Allen and Frank Getting, called as witnesses, did not know anything about the assault.
  The chief officer then made a statement admitting striking the complainant with his open hand on one occasion.
  His Worship was of opinion that the assault was not so serious as the complainant tried to make out, but officers had no right to strike sailors and he would fine the defendant $2 and costs.
ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE.
  The complainant D. McDonald and Nielsen were then put forward charged with being absent without leave and sentenced to be imprisoned till Friday or to be put on board the vessel if she leaves before that date. The two men said they would not go back in the ship.
.  . .  
3rd June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., H.B.M. Acting Vice Consul.
DRUNK AND CAUSING A DISTURBANCE.
  Two unemployed sailors named Nielsen and Flynn, living at the Sailors' Home, were charged by the Superintendent, Mr. Eveleigh, with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Home on the previous day.
  At first Nielsen denied the charge but afterwards admitted it and was sentenced to three days' imprisonment. Flynn admitted the charge, saying that it was the first time he had been drunk since entering the Home, a statement borne out by Mr. Eveleigh. He was cautioned, and ordered to pay costs.
.  .  .  
4th June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., H.B.M. Acting Vice-Consul.
R. v. HASSELL
  William Hassell, seaman of the ship Canara, was charged with assaulting Henry Peters, the master, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
  Prosecutor stated - On April 22nd, when the ship was in the Java Sea, near the Equator, I was sitting in a chair, reading, about 10 o'clock in the morning. My back was towards the wheel. Suddenly I felt three heavy blows, the first of which fell on my head; the second I partially warded off.  The blows were delivered by prisoner with a wooden belaying pin. I was rendered nearly insensible, but had strength to call out to the mate. I had no hat on at the time. Prisoner, who had run away, was put in irons. I was not rendered ill for more than a few hours, but I have ever since felt pains in my head. I had reduced prisoner from able seaman to ordinary seaman.
  Henry Thomas Smith, second officer, deposed - I heard the captain shout. I ran to him and found him bleeding and insensible. I saw prisoner running up the fore rigging with a belaying pin in his hand.  I stopped the bleeding and afterwards secured the prisoner.   
  Prisoner, when asked if he had any statement to make, said - Before I went on deck, at 8 o'clock, a coloured man told me to look out, as the captain was going to shoot me. At ten o'clock, the captain, who was sitting in a chair, reading, told me he was going to get his pistol. I told him to go and get it, and I then gave him a slight blow on the head with a belaying pin which I had previously placed in my belt. The captain then stood up, and I ran forward.
  Prisoner then went on to describe the manner in which he was chased about the rigging, the end of which was that, one of his pursuers kicking him on the head, prisoner let go and fell overboard. He was in the water for some time before being picked up, and when taken on board and put in irons the captain took up a revolver and threatened to shoot him.  Prisoner added that he had been at sea nine years, the last four of which he had served as able seaman, and he had five A.B.'s good discharges.
  The Captain, in answer to His Worship, said the pain in his head was gradually going away, and he apprehended no bad consequences. He had no revolver in his possession.  Prisoner had not expressed regret. He had been kept in irons since 22nd April.
  His Worship asked prosecutor if he would rather have the case sent for trial or disposed of summarily.
  The captain elected the latter course, his Worship passing sentence of ten weeks' had labour, adding that he would have inflicted the maximum penalty of twelve weeks' hard labour had not prisoner been already kept in irons for some time.

 

North China Herald, 12 June, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 11th June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Deputy Acting Assistant Judge.
CHANG SOEY-SUNG v. ELTON.
  This was a claim by a boy to recover $9.60 of which $8.609 was for wages due and $1 for coal brought by plaintiff and supplied to defendant, Mrs. Elton.
  Plaintiff stated that he was formerly in the service of Mr. Bennett, an American, who had gone to Japan, owing plaintiff $8.60 wages.  Before he left Mr. Bennett told plaintiff that defendant would pay him out of the proceeds of the sale of his (Mr. Bennett's) furniture, which proceeds defendant was to receive.  Plaintiff produced an I.O.U for $9.60.
  Defendant admitted her signature on the I.O.U. but  said she had not written the figures $9.60 above, Bennett had not told her to pay plaintiff any wages, but had told her to pay him $4 for jinrcksha hire, hot water, etc., when he collected some chits owing to Mr. Bennett. These chits, however, plaintiff had not collected.
  Geo. Lemon, auctioneer, deposed that the proceeds of the sale had been handed to defend ant. He understood that when plaintiff attempted to collect the amount from defendant, she gave him into custody, and likewise attempted to snatch the I.O.U. from him.
  Defendant denied this, and said she had never handed the I.O.U. to plaintiff, who stole it from her together with two chits.  At the police station the figures were $ 7 and not $9.60.
  William Hoffman deposed that he heard Mr. Bennett tell defendant that she was to pay the boy $4 and 10 per cent on the chits he collected. The chits and auction money were to be handed to defendant in satisfaction of a claim of $100 which she had against Mr. Bennett.
  The case was adjourned till next morning for further examination.
North China Herald, 19 June, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 12th June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Deputy Acting Assistant Judge.
CHANG SOEY-SUNG v. ELTON.
  The hearing of this case was resumed.
  Plaintiff was recalled, and stated that the I.O.U. was given to him on 8th May, the day of Mr. Bennett's departure, by defendant, in Mr. Bennett's presence.  Asked if he was willing to collect the I.O.U.s handed by Mr. Bennett to defendant as satisfaction of her claim for $100, plaintiff replied that he was willing to point out the addresses of the writers of the I.O.U.'s but could not undertake to collect them, as he had other business to attend to.
  Defendant called Ferdinand Urens with a view to proving that plaintiff had taken some I.O.U.'s from her. The witness stated that plaintiff came to him before the spring races and presented a chit of witness's for $1.20. Witness told him to come again after the races, but in the meantime he was told by defendant not to pay the chit to plaintiff as she had Bennett's power pf attorney to receive monies due to him. The chit was presented towards the end of April.
  His Honour asked if Mr.  Bennett was likely to return to Shanghai, to which defendant replied in the affirmative.
  The witness Lemon here came forward and said that Mr. Bennett had gone from Yokohama to Hongkong, and would not come back to Shanghai, from which he had run away, leaving several debts behind him.
  Hoffman (excitedly) - Howe do you know that?
  His Honour (who was several times interrupted by defendant) said it was not fair that plaintiff should lose any benefit that had been promised him. Defendant was provided with written authority to collect Bennett's debts, and she admitted that he told her to pay plaintiff what was owing to him. Defendant probably gave plaintiff a hastily written chit for $9.60 and was sorry for it afterwards. There would be a judgment for the plaintiff with costs, but plaintiff ought to collect the chits as he promised to do.

North China Herald, 12 June, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 11th June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Deputy Acting Assistant Judge.
STANFORD v. ROBERTS.
  This was an action against Captain O. Roberts to recover Tls. 60 (less $20 paid on account) for work done, and materials supplied to the pilot schooner Aggie.
  Plaintiff, when asked to explain how the claim was made up, said Tls. 50 was the balance of account. Tl.s. 5 was for writing a letter from a solicitor's office to defendant, and Tls. 5 was for plaintiff's trouble in running about after defendant to obtain payment. The work was done 22 months ago.
  Defendant produced receipts amounting to Tls. 145, but plaintiff said the Tls. 50 was for extra work not included in the contract.  Defendant replied that no extra work was done. The contract was for Tls. 160, and defendant had paid Tls. 145 and $20 (equal to Tls. 14.68.)
  His Honour (to plaintiff) - It appears then that he only owes you 32 tael cents.
  Plaintiff - I am quite willing to accept that.
  Judgment was accordingly given for thirty-two tael cents, plaintiff to pay costs.

North China Herald, 19 June, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13h June.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Deputy Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. ADLER AND GRIFFITHS.
  Frederick Adler and Albert Griffiths, able seamen of the Andelana, were charged with being absent without leave since the 11th.
  Griffiths said he had leave on Thursday evening, and slept on shore, but overslept himself and could not return on board owing to not having money to pay sampan hire. Adler also said he had leave.
  Adler was then charged with stealing a lifeboat sail, a land lead-line and two cases of kerosene oil, valued in all about $28, from the ship during the voyage from New York to Shanghai.
  Evidence was given by members of the crew, showing that defendant had cut up the lead-line and sail and converted them for his own use. The oil he brought out of the fore-peak and hid behind the mooring ropes, with the intention of selling it to a sampan man. One of the witnesses said he did not give information at the time, because defendant had war ned him not to do so.
  Defendant admitted taking the line and sail, but said that as it was night he mistook the sail for a piece of old canvas.  Asked why he wanted a piece of old canvas at night, defendant said he did not want the other men to see him taking it. He said that when the ship was in a cyclone on 20th January, the captain gave orders to jettison a large number of cases of oil. Instead of throwing over board all the cases that were got up from the hold, the crew put several in the forepeak for their own use. Defendant contended that the two cases he brought on deck formed part of those which had been ordered to be thrown overboard. A witness, however, started that defendant, when he got the cases on deck, saw there were labels on the cases. He removed these labels and placed them in his bunk, where they were afterwards found. The cases of kerosene forming part of the cargo had no labels on them, whereas the kerosene tins belonging to the ship's stores had such labels. The tins were first taken into the forecastle, but when the ship was near Shanghai the crew, being afraid that the oil would be discovered, took the cases into the forepeak and buried them under the sand which was used for cleaning purposes.
  The captain stated that the sail was a brand-new one, and no sailor could possibly mistake it for old canvas. He had received many complaints of defendant and another man stealing things from other members of the crew.
  His Worship adjourned the case to enable accused to bring evidence.
.  .  .  
15th June.
R. v. ADLER AND GRIFFITHS.
  The hearing of this case was resumed.
  A charge of stealing sugar and other stores, the property of a sailor named Montgomery, was gone into. The prosecutor stated that he kept his sugar and tobacco in his bunk and on a shelf. On several occasions during the voyage, he saw Griffiths take sugar belonging to the prosecutor and others. Adler stole a quantity of tobacco and soap. One prosecutor found that a tin full of tobacco had been half emptied and paper placed in the lower half. On another occasion, when prosecutor had hidden sugar in his boots, Griffiths brought the sugar to him, to show that he could not hide it. Finally prosecutor and others in his watch had to hand over their stores to men in the other watch for safety.  Another sailor deposed to having watched in the forecastle to see who had stolen the stores, and having seen Griffiths come in, take the sugar, and make "swanky" with it - a drunk composed of vinegar, sugar and water. He did not accuse Griffiths because the latter carried a "knuckle-duster," and the crew were afraid of him. With regard to the charge of stealing ship's store, Brown stated that he saw Adler taking the labels off two tins.  Witness told Adler that the tins contained ship's oil.
  Questioned by his Worship, Griffiths admitted having a knuckleduster in his possession, but denied that he had threatened to use it.
  A sailor named Johnson deposed that Adler came into the forecastle, drunk, with a knife in his hand, and stole a pair of boots out of Johnson's bag.
  Prisoners both denied the charges of stealing sugar, etc.
  His Worship thought it had been proved that the men had been stealing on board the ship. They would each undergo six weeks' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
16th June.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. TOPPIN.
  J. Toppin, steward on board the Zanzibar, was charged with refusal of duty.
  He pleaded guilty.
  Captain McFee said - On Sunday morning, 7th inst., the defendant had some words with the chief officer and rushed aft for me starting that he would do no more work on the vessel. He went ashore and stayed away till Tuesday morning, just before the ship was leaving. He has not personally asked me to allow him to return to his duty, and even if he had, I should have refused. If he wants to leave the ship I am willing to discharge him. He has some $20 due him. It would be better if he is separated from the ship. He has made no complaints to me of ill-treatment by the officers.
  By defendant - You did not tell me on Sunday that you were sick.  I never heard you say so.
  Defendant said - I refused duty because of the officers. The chief officer called me out of bed at 5.30 a.m. on the Sunday and wanted his coffee. On Sunday morning we are supposed to have a little more rest, and as I had only got to bed at 4 a.m., I was angry at being called so early and I told the chief officer  to make his own coffee.
  His Worship to defendant - You are liable to twelve weeks' imprisonment for refusal of duty; you will forfeit fifteen days' pay and go to prison for seven days.
  After the defendant had left the Court, the Captain said the man was a good man when sober. He asked for an order for the steward's discharge, so His Worship referred the applicant to the Vice-Consul in the Shipping Office.

R. v. SMITH.
  H. J. Smith, chief officer of the Camelot, was charged with being absent without leave on the 9th instant.
  Mr. Browett appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty.
  J. H. Peters, master of the Camelot, deposed - The defendant went on shore at 9 a.m. on the 9th. I followed him as I had business up town. He returned between 11 and noon, stayed on board a few minutes and went on shore again. He came back after 1 p.m. I left at 1.15 and while I was away he went on board, but refused to take in cargo. He was not on board at 4 p.m. and had not returned at 6 p.m. when I took the ship into the stream with the aid of a tug. He was on board next morning, and has been on board all the time since.
  By Mr. Browett - It is the duty of the chief officer to superintend the discharge of cargo. It was his duty to receive cargo receipts from the wharf officer after the cargo had been discharged. He gave me the receipts at 9 a.m. before I went to town; there was only one; that was all I wanted.
  Mr. Browett - Defendant says he had to go to the agent.
  Witness - He went up to the compradore's for drink, but the compradore would not supply him.
  Mr. Browett said defendant wished to tell the Court that he had been 24 years on board ship and had good discharges. He asked the Court to deal leniently with him.
  His Worship - It is a serious thing to be absent from your ship when your ship is to be moored.
  Mr. Browett - Defendant says he did not know that the ship was to be moored that afternoon; the captain did not tell him that he was going to move the ship.
  His Worship - You will forfeit six days' pay.
  The above defendant was then charged with being drunk on the 9th and 14th inst.
  Defendant pleaded guilty to being drunk on the 9th.
  The captain gave evidence as to the drunkenness on the 9th and also on the 14th. He called Mr. Buessler as a witness.
  Mr. Browett called a sailor named Matterson for the defence, but he had not much to say.
  His Worship said he would dismiss the charge referring to the 14th, but fined the defendant three dollars and costs for the offence on the 9th.
R. v. STAFFORD.
  W. Stafford, boatswain of the Camelot, was charged with the above offences.
  He said he did not deny the charges.
  His Worship asked him how it was that he had got into trouble.
  Defendant said it was all owing to his having taken a little drink.
  His Worship sentenced him to forfeit four days' pay, and cautioned him that if he was brought before the Court again, he would be sent to prison.
.  .  .  
17th June.
R. v. SMITH.
  H. J. Smith, chief mate of the Camelot, was charged with wilfully disobeying a lawful command of the master, Henry Peters, on June 9th, and again on the 14th.
  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the prosecution.
  The captain deposed that at 7 o'clock on the morning of the 9th he showed defendant two lighters full of iron lying alongside the ship, and told him to get the hold ready for taking in this cargo. At eleven o'clock when witness was om shore, it was reported to him that the mate would not take in any cargo. Witness sent a note to the effect that if neither the mate nor boatswain were on board, Matteson, a sailor, was to superintend the taking in of cargo. Shortly after twelve defendant came alongside drunk. Witness left the ship at 1.15 and then saw defendant sitting in a jinricksha near the wharf. In the afternoon witness told the stevedore to get his gear ready for taking in cargo. Between four and six o'clock, when the stevedore's men were busy aloft, the mate came to the ship's side and told them to come down.
  By defendant - The hold was made ready and the bilges were cleaned during the day.
  A sailor named Matteson said he delivered the captain's note to the defendant, who read it and said no work was to be done that day. He then told the crew to cease work, and ordered the hatches to be put on.
  Capt. J. P. Roberts stated that he went to inspect the Camelot on the 9th, at 2 p.m.  No work was being done. The boatswain told witness that he and defendant were going to ask the captain for an explanation of his note. Both the boatswain and defendant were drunk. In consequence of their condition, witness reported against insuring the cargo. Ships were frequently loaded on Sundays, when a special permit had been obtained.
  Willoughby Poignand, warehouseman at the Associated Wharves, said it was quite a common thing for steamers and ships to take in and discharge cargo on Sundays. And as far as the wharf was concerned, Sunday was the same as any other day.
  Defendant denied that he received orders from the captain to take in iron cargo. He had been previously told by the captain that the ship would be loaded with kerosene oil, and knowing that heavy tackle was not needed for kerosene oil, he told the stevedore's men to take the tackle away.  He understood the captain's note to apply only to kerosene. Besides, there was only one seaman on board to do the work.  Defendant further alleged that the prosecution had been brought out of spite, from his having said he would have the ship examined, as she was not seaworthy. The captain had said he would get defendant out of the ship if it cost him £20.  Defendant was the only Englishman on board this English ship, and out of the small crew she carried there were three who could not answer to their names.
  With regard to the charge of disobedience on the 14th, the captain said it was necessary to work on that day (Sunday) to comply with the charter party, a day having been lost through defendant stopping work on the 9th. On the Saturday night witness told defendant that he would have to take in cargo next day, to which defendant replied, "All right." Next morning defendant asked if he would be paid overtime. Witness replied that he could not and would not do so.  The defendant then said he would not take in the cargo, and witness had to superintend the work himself.
  Defendant said he was willing to work on Sunday, as he had done over and over again in all parts of the world, but anyone who worked cargo on Sunday expected to receive overtime for it. On the Sunday he attended to his other duties. He had understood all along that the cargo would consist of kerosene, and if he had allowed the stevedore to load iron on the 9th and had found afterwards that this was the wrong cargo, he would have had to pay out of his own pocket the expenses of removing it.
  His Worship said that of it had not been shown that defendant was drunk on the 9th, quite early in the morning, he would have been given the benefit of the doubt as to what orders were given him; but when a man was drunk he could not remember what he did. With regard to the second case, defendant admitted refusing to work. There was no sufficient excuse for this. Defendant, if he considered extra money was due to him, should have done the work first and afterwards brought an action against the captain. Refusal of duty was only punishable under the Merchant Shipping Act by imprisonment and forfeiture of pay. In this case the defendant would undergo four days' imprisonment on each of the two charges.
  Defendant - That's what he's working for, your Worship, to get me out of the ship.
  His Worship - You have put yourself in this position, principally by drinking.
.  .  .  
18th June.
R. v. GRACE.
  Patrick Grace, sailor, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and incapable in Broadway at 7 p.m. on the 17th, and was fined $3 and ordered to be put on board his ship, which was to sail next day.
R. v. NIELSEN.
  Martin Nielsen, Sailor, charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, admitted being a "little drunk," and it appearing that he had been before the court on a similar charge a fortnight ago, he was fined $6 or in default 14 days' imprisonment, but to be put on board the ship if she left before that time had expired.

 

North China Herald, 26 June, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th June.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. MATTHEWS, OLSEN AND LYNCH.
  A. Matthews, sailor, belonging to the British barque Cyprus, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a European police constable in Broadway on the previous night. The assault consisted of two blows with the fist. Accused, who said he did not remember the occurrence, was fined $2 and costs and ordered to be put on board his ship, which was about to leave.
  Martin Olsen, another sailor belonging to the Cyprus, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and incapable and was fined $1 and ordered to be put on board.
  James Lynch, of the Zanzibar, was fined $1 for drunkenness.
R. v. WEDEL.
  Carl Wedel was charged with obtaining clothes, value $16, and $4 in money, by false pretences from Ching Fong, tailor.  It appeared that accused had been shipped on board the Kosciusko, but deserted, the ship going away without him. He had obtained an advance note for $20, which was cashed by prosecutor, but in consequence of his desertion the agent refused to pay the note.
  Prisoner, who behaved in a very strange manner in the court, was sentenced to one week's imprisonment, his Worship also directing that prisoner should be examined by a medical man.
.  .  .  
20th June.  
R. v. ATKINS.
  Henry Atkins, sailor belonging to the Cyprus, was charged with being absent without leave since the 17th. Prisoner, who had given himself up to the police, said he had fallen overboard on the 12th and stayed on the Pootung side till the 19th, unable to get back. Asked how he lived during this time, accused said he lived on the beach and had no food for three or four days. His Worship received this story with considerable doubt, and ordered accused to forfeit his pay during his absence and to be put on board the ship at Woosung.
.  .  .  
22nd June.
R. v. ENNIS, BELLIS AND CANNON.
  Thomas Ennis, fireman, Queen Margaret, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway at 1.20 on Sunday afternoon.  Prisoner, it appeared, was so drunk that he fell out of a jinricksha. He was fined $1 and costs.
    Joseph Bellis, stoker, Queen Margaret, pleaded guilty to being drunk and incapable in a jinricksha in Broadway at 4.145 p.m. on Sunday, and was fined $1 and costs.
  Abraham Cannon, A. B., Queen Margaret, acknowledged a similar offence and was also fined $1 and costs.
R. v. BROWN.
  James Brown, A.B. Cyprus, a negro, was charged with deserting his ship.
  Inspector Kluth stated that accused was arrested on the 10th on a charge of being absent without leave. He was put on board the ship, and remained there till the 13th, when he absconded. The ship left on Saturday, and on Sunday prisoner came to the police station and asked to be allowed to sleep in a cell. He was permitted to do so. In the morning witness discovered prisoner's identity.
  Accused, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
23rd June.
R. v. HARRIS.
  William Harris, fireman, s.s. Diomed, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and incapable in Taiping Road, and was fined $1 and costs.
R. v. MCGREGOR.
  James McGregor, police constable No. 9, in the employ of the Municipal Council, was summoned for assaulting Tsiang Chu-ching.  Defendant pleaded guilty.
  The complainant, a youth 17 years of age, who appeared in court with a black eye, a badly swollen face and cut lip, said he lived in an alleyway off Fuchow Road. On Sunday night he was asleep in the cook-house and was aroused by receiving a blow from the accused, who then dragged him into another room, in the meanwhile striking him two or three times.
  Complainant's mother stated that she was roused by the noise, and on opening the door of her bedroom she saw accused strike her son with his fist.
  Defendant said he was on his beat and saw a crowd of men and women creating a disturbance. When he went up to them the women ran away, and accused told the men to go home. One of them struck accused, and ran away, in company with another man. Accused followed, and overtook them as they entered the door of complainant's house. Complainant was standing at the door and attempted to shut it in accused's face. Accused struck at one of the men, but missed, and struck complainant instead. The injuries, which could not all have been caused by the blow, might have been caused by complainant having been knocked down in the crowd.  Accused denied entering the house.
  Inspector Howard said that when accused came to the station, at 2.30 a.m., he was under the influence of liquor. Witness considered him unfit for duty, and sent him to his room. Accused had been in the force about three months. Complainant's house was a brothel.
  His Worship thought accused had been guilty of a brutal assault on quite a young boy. The explanation as to striking at another man was not satisfactory, and even if the case were as stated, accused would still be guilty of the assault. He would be fined $10 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 3 July, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th June.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. WAUGH, BELLIS, ANDERSON AND MITCHIM.
  William Waugh, Joseph Bellis, Alexander Anderson, and John Mitchim, firemen, were charged with being drunk and neglecting their duty on board the s.s. Queen Margaret on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th. They pleaded guilty.
  Capt. Wilson said the accused had not only behaved disgracefully in getting drunk but had tried to induce the deck hands to join them, by bringing bottle after bottle of liquor on board and offering it to the crew. Mitchim had drunk so much that yesterday he had the "horrors" and was found climbing up the mast head, where he was obliged to make signals of distress until rescued.
  His Worship said the best thing he could do for the accused would be to put them in safe keeping. They would be imprisoned for a week or until such time as the steamer left.
  Bellis protested vigorously, urging that drunkenness was no crime, but his Worship declined to alter his decision.
R. v. ROBERTS.
John Roberts was summoned for assaulting Ah Mow. He pleaded guilty.
  Complainant stated - Defendant engaged me as boy and cook to go with him to the wreck of the Holme Eden on Leuconna Island. He gave me an advance of $5. We left Shanghai on May 8th. On May 22nd defendant told me to hang up his clothes to dry.  I said it was no use doing so, as the weather was foggy. He then struck me several times on the arms and legs with a piece of firewood and drove me away from the joss house in which we were living. He forbade the sailors and workmen to give me food or shelter. I stayed in a blacksmith's hut for three days, when another pilot cutter arrived. I asked permission to return to Shanghai in her.  Defendant said I must first sign a paper, which the compradore was to draw up, promising not to prosecute him. The compradore did not draw up such a paper, but I went on board the boat, defendant telling the captain not to give me any food. The only nourishment I got on the way to Shanghai consisted of a few biscuits which the sailors gave me.
  Defendant stated -  I began to have trouble with complainant on the first day after leaving Shanghai. He stole liquor and was frequently drunk. On the morning of the 22nd, I found the boy had not prepared any food for me. He was lying on the ground, drunk, and my clothes, which had been wet the day before, were also on the ground, in a heap, still wet. I asked him why he had not put out my clothes to dry, as the sun was shining, which it had not done for some days. He laughed. I pushed him towards my wet clothes. He took them up, carried them a little way, then dropped them and sat down by them. I told him to hang them on a bamboo.  He replied, "No have got bamboo." I fetched a bamboo and put it into his hand. He threw it on the ground, turned up the sleeves of his coat, and said, "Maskee fight." I took hold of him; he seized me, tore off my pyjama jacket, bit me and tried to seize me by the lower part of the body. I took up a piece of wood and struck him several times as hard as I could before he would let go. I sent him out of the joss house because I thought he would create a mutiny. I never asked him to sign a paper not to prosecute me, I told the compradore to write out a statement of what had happened and my reason for dismissing the complainant.
  A Chinese sailor deposed to seeing the two men struggling together. Complainant had his shoes in his hand and was striking the defendant with them. The other men who witnessed the affair were still at the wreck. Witness heard complainant say he had got $5 advance and that he did not care what happened.
  Complainant said he had seen some of the men in Shanghai but they were afraid to attend at the court.
A Mixed Court runner said a man named Chang Hai-ying had promised to attend but could not now be found.
  His Worship adjourned the case till two o'clock for the attendance of the witness.
  On resuming, at two o'clock, complainant said he was unable to find this witness.
  His Worship said that in that case he had to decide on the evidence before the court. Defendant had admitted the assault, and the only witness called state that he saw the parties fighting, complainant with his shoes in his hand and defendant with a piece of firewood. That did not bear out what defendant stated as to what occurred, and it was hardly likely that the boy would have used a pair of shoes as a weapon to fight with.
  His Worship then read a letter from Dr. Henderson, who had examined complainant on June 5th, about a fortnight after the assault. Dr. Henderson stated that there had been a fracture of the metacarpal bone of the index finger of the right hand. The bone had united badly, as was to be expected; and, short of breaking the bone again, he did not see what could be done to remedy the deformity. The patient would recover the use of his hand in six weeks or two months if the bone were again broken. This, his Worship thought, showed the defendant must have struck the complainant a very hard blow.
  Defendant urged that he had acted in self-defence, and that if he had failed to act decidedly he would have been at the mercy of the Chinese by whom he was surrounded.
His Worship said he would fine defendant $5 for the assault. Complainant stated that he wished to bring an action to recover damages, caused by his hand being disabled, for the time he had been out of work. If defendant wished, he could settle the case out of court; but if not, the case could be heard at once.
  Defendant protested that this whole case was a conspiracy to blackmail him, got up by  the complainant and the captain of a tug-boat; and that there was no proof of his having broken complainant's finger.
  His Worship said he was satisfied that the injury was the result of a blow by defendant.
  Ultimately, defendant, at his Worship's suggestion, agreed to pay complainant a month's wages ($10) less the $5 advanced.
.  .  .
26th June.
R. v. MC CAFFERTY.
  James McCafferty, fireman, s.s. Monkseaton, was charged with being absent without leave, since the 23rd, and being drunk and incapable in a cook-shop in New Seward Road at 9 a.m. on the 25th. Asked how he managed to obtain drink when he had had no advance of money, he said he obtained money from a shoemaker.
  As he promised to return on board and stay there, he was let off with a fine of $1 and the forfeiture of three days; pay, and was ordered to be put on board the ship.
  The captain stated that the shoemaker had asked if he could advance accused $5, and witness had told him not to do so, but nevertheless the shoe maker had advanced $5. He (the captain) wished to know if the shoemaker could recover from him.
  His Worship - Certainly not. I should refuse to issue a summons.
.  .  .  
27th June.
R. v. TODD AND WATKINS.
  The defendants, two of the crew of the Glengyle, were before the Court this morning on a charge of being absent without leave.
  Captain Gasson said the men went on shore at 8 a.m. on Friday and did not return until 4 p.m. Both were then the worse for drink, and told the chief officer that they would not work. They went ashore again between 6 and 7 p.m. Such conduct on their part would set a bad example to the rest of the men.
  Watkins said he had not asked leave to go on shore.  He had gone ashore to get a drink and intended to return by breakfast time, but supposed he had got a drop too much and did not go back to his ship.
  His Worship said they had no right to leave the vessel without permission, and sentenced them to forfeit three days' wages, and to pay the costs, as the Captain said he was willing to give them another trial if they promised to behave themselves.  They gave the promise and were ordered to be put on board the steamer.
R. v. JAMES YOUNG.
  The defendant, a fireman, was charged with being absent without leave from his vessel, the Monkseaton, on the 23rd inst. His Worship ordered the defendant to be imprisoned for a week or to be put on board if the vessel sails before that time.
.  .  .  
29th June.
R. v. DIAMOND AND MCCAFFERTY.
  John Diamond and James McCafferty, firemen of the Monkseaton, were charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway at 12.15 on the 27th and with being absent without leave since the morning of that day. Both men pleaded guilty.
  McCafferty was before the court a few days ago, and was then let off with a fine on promising to behave better. The captain stated that the ship would have left on Sunday morning had the two prisoners been on board, and that the delay had caused a loss of £60 to the ship. At the request of the captain, his Worship ordered them to be put on board, and in addition ordered them to pay a fine of $1 and forfeit three days' pay.
.  .  .  
R. v. FITZGERALD, HARRIS AND JONES.
  Edward Fitzgerald, William Harris, and Charles Jones, firemen, s.s. Diomed, were charged with being drunk and incapable in a Chinese wine-shop in Woosung Road at 1.45 p.m. on the 27th, and with deserting the ship on the 26th.
  All three admitted being drunk and absent without leave, but denied intending to desert, stating that they thought the ship (which left on Friday) would remain till Saturday.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $1 on each one, and said he would communicate with the agents of the steamer to know what could be done with the men pending their being re-shipped.
.  .  .
30th June.
R. v. YOUNG AND PAUL.
  James Young and William Paul, sailors, were charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway at 10.25 p.m. on the 29th. They admitted the charge. Paul was fined $1; but Young, who had been discharged with a number of men belonging to the Minister of Marine, and had been unable to obtain admission to the Sailors' Home, was discharged with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 10 July, 1891
COURT OF ENQUIRY.
  A Court of Enquiry was held on the 25th as to the loss of the British barque Perle, Captain Williams.
W. S. AYRTON, H.M. Consul, President.
H. E. BUSH, British merchant,
Captain Harris, s.s. Woosung,
Capt. Suderman, British barque Contest, Assessors.
 The finding was to the effect:-
  That the British barque Perle grounded at 7 a.m. on 21st June, and was abandoned at 8.30 p.m., same day.
  That though considerable blame is attached to Capt. Williams for not making use of the lead sooner, and for not ascertaining the error in his compasses, the court do not consider it sufficient reason for withholding his certificate.
  That he (Capt. Williams) was right in abandoning the ship, and did all that was required under the circumstances.
  That no blame is attached to the chief officer, boatswain, or crew.
.  .  .  
  The Perle was auctioned and realised Tls. 80. It is likely that the fishermen on the west bank or fleets have already helped themselves to all portable articles.
Newchwang, 29th June.

 

North China Herald, 10 July, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th July.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. LOUNSBERY.
  Edward Lounsbery, a sailor, belonging to the Annie E. Wright, pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting a Chinese barber.
  Complainant stated that five or six men came to his shop to be shaved. Two of them went away without paying, and complainant went after them. Accused, who was standing by, struck complainant in the face with his fist.
  His Worship fined accused $5 and ordered him to be put on board his ship.
R. v. MONTGOMERY
  William Montgomery, sailor, Adelana, was charged with being drunk in Broadway and stealing a pair of trousers from the house No.  154, Broadway.
  Accused admitted being drunk, but said he knew nothing about the trousers.
  A Chinese constable gave evidence to the effect that he saw accused, who was walking along the Broadway drunk, go into the shop of Eu Don, a tailor and outfitter, and come out with a pair of trousers under his arm. The tailor followed and gave him into custody.
  Ten days' imprisonment and to be put on board ship.
R. v. BURNS.
  James Burns, a sailor lately paid off the Minister of Marine, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and incapable in Broadway, and, on expressing regret, was discharged with a caution.
R. v. GORDON
  William Gordon pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and incapable in Broadway, and was discharged on promising to go on board his ship forthwith.
.  .  .  
6th July.
R. v. J. MURPHY.
  The defendant, a sailor on board the Ajax, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Sunday night.
  P. C. Wells deposed - I was called to the "Travellers" to eject the defendant as I was told that he and another man had been behaving in a disorderly manner inside the house. I was asked to go inside by the landlady but I did not see any disturbance only what the landlady told me.  Some one was trying to put the prisoner out. He refused to go away; he was drunk at the time so I took him into custody.  He struck at me twice.
  The prisoner said - I have nothing to say. I am not used to taking drink, and I do not remember being turned out. I was at the "Travellers;" all the evening; I went there at 6.30 or 7 p.m. I had no leave to come on shore.
  In answer to his Worship, P.C. Wells said he was called to remove the prisoner at 11.20 p.m.
  His Worship then fined the prisoner $2 or five days' imprisonment and to be put on board if the vessel sailed before the expiration of the sentence.
.  .  .
7th July.
R. v. BURNS AND PATON
  John Burns was charged with being absent without leave from the Adelana since the 15th ult., and John Paton with a similar offence since the 12th ult. They pleaded guilty.
  Burns complained that after acting as cook during the voyage for extra pay during all the bad weather, he had been put back in the forecastle, and a Japanese steward engaged as soon as the ship reached Shanghai. Capt. Gillies said Burns would have been kept in the galley if he had been able to cook; and in addition to his incompetence he got drunk. His Worship ordered Burns to forfeit a month's wages and to be put on board the ship, which was to leave next day.
Paton, who had been 17 years in the navy, said he would rather suffer imprisonment for an unlimited period than go on board again, on account of the unsatisfactory treatment he had received. Asked to give an instance of this treatment, he said that one day he dropped the deep-sea lead on his toe, and when he went to the captain for something to put on it, the captain gave him nothing and advised him to tie a rag round the toe. In consequence, accused said, the member was black and blue till this day, and he offered to produce it for the inspection of the court.
  His Worship said the excuse was simply childish,  and he should inflict the same penalty as that on Burns, namely forfeiture of one month's pay.
  As soon as his Worship had given judgment, the prisoner Paton took off his shoe and threw it t the captain, hitting him on the side of the head. Burns immediately followed suit, but instead of hitting the captain the shoe struck Detective Horley in the shoulder.  On being placed in the dock again, Paton threw his remaining shoe at the captain. For these assaults they were each sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
9th July.
R. v. MACFARLANE.
  David MacFarlane pleaded guilty to being absent without leave from the Ajax since the 6th instant, and was ordered to forfeit six days' pay and undergo a weeks' imprisonment, but to be put on board the ship  in the event of her leaving before the expiry of the term.

 

North China Herald, 24 July, 1891
LAW REORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 21st July.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
CHAR ONO KEE v. ALLEN.
  This was a claim for $7.20 rent, owing since 1888.
  Defendant said he had been out of work for two years, and was unable to pay the money.
  His Honour - This is a very small sum, $7.20.
  Defendant - It's a  very large sum, your Honour, when you haven't got $7.20.
  Defendant, who admitted the debt, asked for an order for payment in two instalments, but his Honour refused, and made an order for payment of the full amount, with costs, on the 5th prox.

 

North China Herald, 24 July, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 29th July.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R.  v. HAMPTON, STRIMSON AND KNUTSEN.
  John Hampton, seaman, Kaiser-i-Hind, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting a jinriksha coolie.  He admitted being drunk, but denied the assault; and as the coolie did not appear, his Worship treated the charge as being one of drunk and disorderly. Accused, it appeared, had been riding in a jinriksha for three hours without paying and assaulted the coolies when the latter asked for payment. A native constable who intervened was also assaulted by accused. The latter denied not having paid the coolie, and expressed his regret for being drunk. Fined $5 or one week's imprisonment.
  Chares Strimson, seaman, barque George Thompson, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly at the Old Ningpo Wharf, was fined $1 and ordered to be put on board his ship.
  Christian Knutsen, seaman, Kaiser-i-Hind. pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, was fined $1, and ordered to be put on board.
.  .  .  
21st July.
R.  v. LI AH-TSE.
  Li Ah-tse, boatswain of the s.s Ardgay, was charged on a warrant for that he "did ion May 29th last, while the steamer was on a voyage from Wuhu to Canton, at a place called Tao liao, in the Taiping chow district, 90 li from Chinkiang, in the river Yangtze, forcibly fasten a cloth over the head of one Yi Pi ng, a quartermaster on board the said ship, tie his hands together and throw him overboard.
  His Worship read the following deposition made by the prosecutor to the Mixed Court Magistrate on June 23rd - "I charge certain persons with conspiring to murder me, and I ask that they be tried and punished. I am a native of Shantung and have hitherto been working as a sailor. During the 9th moon of last year, I was on board the Ardgay as a quartermaster. The other Chinese on the steamer were all Cantonese. All went well until the steamer made a voyage from Shanghai to Wuhu, leaving Shanghai on May24th. On this occasion the boatswain had with him 40 packages of smuggled salt, and on arrival at Wuhu this was discovered by the Customs watchers. Ah-tse and some others suspected me of having given information and they subsequently tried to do me injury by talking against me. I knew the captain was intending to dismiss me, but the chief officer and others stood up for me.
  On May 29that 8.15 in the evebing, when the steamer was at Taoliao, the captain sent me forward to get the lamps. Accused and four or five other men came behind me and threw over my head a woollen garment which I had left on my bunk, gagging me with it. Then one of them tied my hands with a rope or string and they threw me into the river.  By Divine Providence I was washed ashore. I shouted for help, and a countryman heard me, helped me ashore, and saved my life.
  The next day I got on board the Taiwo, and on June 1st I arrived at Shanghai, where I at once informed the police, by whom I was directed to come to this Court and make my charge. As Ah-tse is a Chinaman I was directed to go to the Mixed Court, but when I went there the runner on duty told me to begone and paid no attention to me.  I have therefore been waiting till now.
  About June 26th the steamer will in all probability be back in Shanghai.  I had clothes and money on board, which Ah-tse and the others will no doubt get hold of and divide. I have been 6 months and 29 days on board and I was trusted by the captain  and the rest.
  The captain and others cannot have heard of the conspiracy to murder me, and must have believed I fell into the river by accident and was drowned. I therefore pray that your Worship (the Mixed Court Magistrate) will have Ah-tse brought before the court and have him ordered to give up his accomplices; and if I am bringing a false charge I hereby declare that I am willing to submit to the punishment which would fall upon the accused if they are found guilty."
  Mr. A. P. Lewis, deposed - I am the first officer of the Ardgay. When the steamer was at Wuhu on May 27th, a Custom House officer came on board to search the ship, saying information had been laid about the salt. He found some in the chain locker beneath the forecastle. Next day the prosecutor asked the captain to pay him off, as the boatswain had threatened to kill him. The captain took no notice of the complaint. On the morning of the 29th the ship left for Whampoa. When I came on deck at 8 p.m. prosecutor was on watch, and the other quartermaster was on watch. At 8.30 the pilot asked me to send prosecutor forward to put out a light in the forecastle which made it difficult for those on the bridge to see. I sent him forward, and the light was put out. I called him about 15 minutes afterwards, but he was not to be found. I called the boatswain and second officer and some of the crew to look for him. Prisoner told me he had seen the prosecutor with his best clothes on, and he suggested the prosecutor had jumped overboard to try to swim ashore. The second officer said that if a man wanted to swim ashore he would have taken a lifebuoy with him.  Accused said "Ye," and the second officer and I went at once to see if any of the lifebuoys were missing. We met two sailors coming off the poop, where the lifebuoys were kept, and they told us that the lifebuoys were gone; which we found to be the case. There would have been hardly time, after the remark was made about the lifebuoy, for the two sailors to throw the buoys overboard. They were not tied in any way, and could be thrown in a moment. It was about a quarter past nine when we found the lifebuoys were gone. From the bridge one can see nothing of what is going on on deck, there being an awning spread fore and aft. It was a fine moonlight night.
  The captain and I subsequently made out a list of the prosecutor's things. There was no money and no silver watch. There was some opium. Prosecutor was much the best man on the ship. There had been bad feeling between prosecutor and the Cantonese.
  James Parker deposed - I am the second officer of the Ardgay. On the night in question the chief officer relieved me on the bridge at 8 o'clock. At the foot of the bridge ladder I met prosecutor who said he wished the captain had discharged him in Wuhu, as some one had stolen his money. I told him to tell the captain and prosecutor replied that hew was afraid. I said I would tell the captain in the morning. I then went to bed. Before I was asleep, I heard the order given for the quartermaster to go forward and put out a light. I then went to sleep, and was aroused by the noise made by the men who were looking for the quartermaster. I left my room, took a lamp and went with prisoner to look for prosecutor, but could not find him. I came back to the fore part of the bridge, on the lower deck, and one of the crew suggested that prosecutor had jumped overboard.  I said that if he had, he had probably taken a lifebuoy with him. Some of the men at once went aft, and the chief officer and I followed them.  We met them coming off the poop. The last witness and I went on the poop, and found that two lifebuoys had gone, and that the line attaching the patent signal to the port buoy had been cut, the signal remaining in the socket. I did not examine the starboard side of the poop, but I saw the buoy had gone from that side. I knew it was believed among the crew that the prosecutor had given information about the salt, but it was also known that the information was given by the people to whom the boatswain tried to sell the salt. After I left the poop one of the firemen said he had seen the prosecutor putting on his cloth coat. This fireman I believe is one of the men who have since left the ship. There was nasty choppy water at the time, and the tide was running very strongly. A man would hardly be able to swim in such water without some support. At present there are only three of the crew remaining on board the ship who were on board at the time of the occurrence.  Between the bridge and the forecastle there were passengers and firemen sleeping on the hatches.
  One of the crew was called as a witness, but said he knew nothing about the affair.
  His Worship adjourned the case for a week, to allow the prosecutor, who is in Hankow, an opportunity to appear. Prisoner was remanded in custody.
.  .  .  
22nd July.
R. v. OLSEN.
  Hans Olsen, sailor, unemployed, admitted a charge of being drunk  and disorderly in Broadway at 3.50 p.m., and this being his second offence, was sentenced to a week's imprisonment.

North China Herald, 31 July, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 27th July.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. JANSEN AND OTHERS.
 August Jansen, ship Centurion, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Public Garden at 6.45 p.m. on Sunday.
  Inspector Kluth, who proved the case, said prisoner refused to go and said he had as much right in the garden as anyone else. With the assistance of an Indian constable witness took accused and another man (who was subsequently charged in the Norwegian consulate) to the police station.
  Accused, who had nothing to say, was fined $5.
  John Baman, ship Centurion, pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Broadway at 8 p.m. and was fined $2.
  D. Lammers, ship Charles S. Whitney, pleaded guilty to a similar offence and was fined $2.
R. v. LI AH-TSE.
  Li Ah-tse, boatswain of the steamer Ardgay, was charged on remand with attempting to murder Yu Ping, a quartermaster on the same steamer, under circumstances already reported.
  Prosecutor now appeared, and confirmed the statements made in his deposition read at the previous hearing. He said that before he went on watch (at 8 p.m.) he was seized in the forecastle by prisoner and others, who took from him the key to his chest from which they took a watch and $70. While this was going on he was threatened with a belaying pin if he made a noise. When he went on watch he told the second officer that the others had stolen his watch and money. The second officer said he would report it to the captain next morning. When prosecutor was sent forward to put out the light, he went to his bunk in the forecastle to make a cigarette. Before he had finished making it, the boatswain came up behind and threw a coat over his head. Prisoner then called the other men, who came. Prosecutor's hands were tied in front, he was pushed out of the forecastle and thrown overboard on the starboard side, the coat still over his head. The only voice which prosecutor heard was prisoner's.
  When prosecutor was thrown overboard the ship was at least one li from the shore. While in the water he lost consciousness, and when he came to himself he was on the river bank. He called for help and a man named Yuan Kuau-tan, who heard him, came and untied his hands and took his coat from his head. Witness then told his story. That night he stayed at Yuan's house, and in the morning he crossed the river in a sampan and walked 18 li to Taipingchow, where he got on board the Taiwo, and was taken to Shanghai. The coat which had been put over his head he pawned in Shanghai in order to obtain food.
  His Worship said the case would probably have to be sent to the Chinese authorities for trial, but in the meantime the accused would be remanded in custody until next morning.
28th July.
R. v. PERRY AND ADLER.
  George Perry and Hermann Adler, sailors, were charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Hongkew Coffee House, and, the case being proved, Perry was fined $1. Adler, being a German who had been discharged from a British ship and had only just completed a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment, was sent to the German Consulate, Inspector Kluth being instructed to inform the German Consul-General of accused's previous conviction.
R. v. LI AH-TSE.
  His Worship stated that this case, in which  accused was a man who had been discharged from a British ship, was too serious to be dealt with at once, and it would be referred to the Chinese authorities. The evidence would be sent to the Shanghai magistrate, probably the day after next with prosecutor and accused.
 Prisoner, through the interpreter, asked leave to make a statement to the court.  He denied having thrown the prosecutor overboard. The salt referred to in the evidence was worth only 60 cents, and it was not likely he would kill a man for that. Accused further asked for facilities to obtain the services of a lawyer.
  His Worship said that as a prima facie case had been made out, the matter would henceforth be left in the hands of the Shanghai magistrate, who would be able if necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses, including the man who found the prosecutor on the river bank. His Worship had no doubt that a prima facie case had been made out, as prosecutor's statement was consistent with the evidence of the first and second officers. The latter had told him (his Worship) that prosecutor reported the loss of his watch and money. However, these were questions for the magistrate to decide.

 

North China Herald, 7 August, 1891
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 4th August.
Before Consul-General Leonard, Messrs. H. M. Perkins and A.C. Hunter, Assessors.
U.S. v. ANDERSON.
Charles S. Anderson, sick-bay attendant on the U.S. man-of-war Alliance, was charged with being drunk, cutting and wounding an Indian police constable while in the execution of his duty, and assaulting a Chinese constable.
[Not transcribed.]
  The members of the Court retired to consider judgment, and on their return the Consul-General said -
  Charles Anderson, it is the verdict of the Court, in which both the Assessors concur, that you, the defendant, are guilty of assault as charged in the complaint, and it is the sentence of the court that you be fined $50 and costs, with $7 for the coat of Sunda Singh's uniform, and be imprisoned in the gaol of this Consulate -General with hard labour for three months.

 

North China Herald, 14 August, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 12th August.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. WILLIAMSON.
  John Williamson, third engineer of the Wuchang, was charged with assaulting a Chinese steward named Wong Sze-chen.
  Defendant pleaded guilty.
  Complainant stated that he took some hot water to defendant's room and defendant without saying anything, struck him in the face.
  Defendant said that when he told complainant to fetch some hot water, complainant used abusive language but went away and returned with the water. Defendant then asked him what he meant by using abusive language, and defendant offered to fight. Defendant turned away, and complainant seized defendant by the lower part of the body.  Defendant had to strike him to make him let go.
  His Worship thought it was hardly likely that complainant would have assaulted defendant after the latter had turned away. Defendant would be fined $5 and costs.

R. v. HARDY.
  John Hardy, chief officer of the Haean, was summoned for assaulting Chang-chun, a book-binder's messenger.
  Complainant stated that on August 1st, he went on board the Haean, having a letter to deliver to the compradore. Complainant was met by defendant who after asking him what he wanted, dragged him into a cabin and struck him several times in the face with his fist, causing his nose and mouth to bleed. After a time defendant opened the door and asked the ship's boy if he knew prosecutor.  The boy replied that he did not, and then defendant closed the door and struck complainant again.  Complainant said he had come to the ship on business, and asked why he was treated in this way. Defendant said nothing, but took complainant out on the deck, and struck him with a piece of wood which he picked up from the deck.
  Another foreigner came up and spoke to defendant, and they then took complainant back to the cabin, where they both struck him. They next took him into another cabin and locked him in for half an hour. They then took him out, tied his hands behind him and fastened his queue to a stanchion, leaving him in this position for about an hour. Finally he was taken to the French police station where he remained for some time before defendant bailed him out.
  Defendant stated that there had been six robberies on board the ship in six weeks, and he had been the victim of four of them, all his discharges and his master's certificate being stolen, with other things. Seeing prosecutor near the door of his cabin, defendant thought he was the thief, and assaulted him. Defendant admitted that he had made a mistake.
  Complainant's father, who was called as a witness of the prosecutor's condition after the assault, swore that he (witness) paid a Chinese doctor $100 to cure his son.
  At the suggestion of his Worship, the parties retired to discuss an arrangement, Mr. Wilkinson having stated on behalf of the complainant that he was willing to accept compensation instead of pressing for a penalty.
  Later on Mr. Wilkinson announced that a compromise had been arrived at, and that prosecutor desired to withdraw the charge.
  His Worship accordingly dismissed the case, remarking that the assault was undoubtedly unprovoked.

 

North China Herald, 21 August, 1891.
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 17tgh August.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
YING LEE-CHEE v. CAREY.
  This was a claim to recover $14, hire of plaintiff's jinricksha, from July 15th to August 11th, from the captain of the ship Charles S. Whitney.
  Plaintiff stated that he was engaged at the rate of 50 cents a day. On the 11th, plaintiff, being ill, sent his brother as substitute, but defendant refused to take him or to pay anything.
  Defendant alleged that he had been put to expense by plaintiff leaving him behind at various places, causing him to hire other jinrickshas. On the 11th plaintiff refused to take him to the Hospital when ordered to do so. He said nothing about being ill.
  His Honour said plaintiff might have said he was ill, defendant not understanding Chinese. Verdict for $13 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 21 August, 1891

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 19th August.
Before Consul-General Leonard, and Messrs. Haskell and Endicott, Assessors.
KLIENE v. MCCASLIN.
  The hearing of this case was resumed. M. D. P. Drummond appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. E. Wainewright for the defendant.
  Mr. Wainewright called defendant's compradore, whose evidence was interpreted by the Consulate compradore. He deposed that about last August he paid several small accounts for defendant, but did not borrow any money for defendant, and the latter did not ask him to borrow any money. Witness had never heard of defendant borrowing money in Ningpo. The money witness advanced to defendant was secured by cargo in defendant's godown.
  Mr. Wainewright said that the plaintiff should be recalled, to be questioned on matters which had come to his (Mr. Wainewright's) notice since the first hearing.
  Mr. Drummond objected to matters being gone into outside the question whether the defendant did or did not write the promissory note. Evidence as to plaintiff's character or as to money paid or received by the compradore was entirely outside the question.
  Mr. Wainewright rejoined that as defendant denied that he wrote a word of the note, the court was entitled to go into the probabilities and consider what the surrounding circumstances were.
  The Consul General asked what the proposed questions were.
  Mr. Wainewright said he proposed to show that at the time plaintiff alleged that he lent defendant $470, plaintiff was not in a position to lend money, plaintiff himself being a borrower. He (counsel) could show that within a month after this money was alleged to be lent, plaintiff himself signed a promissory note for $500; and he could produce a letter of plaintiff's stating that he had lost $2,000, and that he was ruined, etc.  He (counsel) was unable to ask these questions before, as the information had only come to his knowledge since the first hearing.
  The Consul General said he did not think the fact that plaintiff gave a promissory note a month afterwards would shew that he had not the money at the time defendant's alleged note was given. The Court would not, therefore, allow plaintiff to be recalled.
  Mr. Wainewright said he would prove the facts by another witness if the Court would grant him an adjournment for the purpose.
  The Consul General said he would not allow an adjournment.
  Mr. Wainewright then proceeded to address the Court on behalf of the defendant, and Mr. Drummond, in reply, said that the most charitable view to take of the case was to suppose that defendant had forgotten that he wrote the note.
  The members of the Court retired to consider their judgment, and on their return, after about half an hour's absence, the Consul General stated that the finding of the Court, in which both assessors concurred, was for the defendant.

 

North China Herald, 21 August, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 17th August.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. NELSON.
  Thomas Nelson, sailor, unemployed, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering the bar-room of the Sailors' Home between 1 and 5 a.m., stealing therefrom $2.60, and being drunk and incapable in New Seward Road at 1.45 p.m. on Saturday.
  Detective Horley, who examined the premises, said a venetian blind of a window about 5 feet from the ground, had been broken, and the window opened by breaking the loop of the lower bolt, apparently with a chisel or some such instrument. The upper bolt was not fastened.  A drawer in the till had been forced open. The bar-room is detached from the main building.
  A boy employed on the premises gave evidence as to finding the window open and the drawer forced, when he went into the bar-room early in the morning.
  Two coolies deposed that they saw accused standing under a tree close to the window, at daybreak.
  Remanded till next day.

R.  v. KEIGHLEY.
  C. E. Keighley, second officer of the s.s. Exe, was charged with being drunk on board ship.; defendant said he had slept on deck, and, finding when he woke that he was drenched with dew, he took some liquor. Finding himself unable to work after this, he told the chief officer, and went to sleep.
  Captain Watson and defendant agreeing that the latter should leave the ship, and the captain promising not to press the charge if a discharge from the ship were arranged, his Worship recommended the parties to go and make some such arrangement with the Shipping Vice-Consul.
.  .  .  
18th August.
R. v. NELSON.
  The hearing of this case was resumed.
  Detective Horley, recalled, said the bar-room was about 40 yards from the main building of the Sailors' Home.  On Sunday accused made a statement, after being cautioned, to the effect that he had broken into the place, and that he was very sorry for it.  Accused also said he had forced the window and drawer with a corkscrew and taken $2.
  Inspector Kluth, who was present when accused made his confession, confirmed the foregoing evidence, and said accused admitted that 60 cents found on him formed part of the money he had stolen.
  Accused elected to be dealt with summarily, and urged that he was under the influence of drink when he committed the offence. He said he had been drinking heavily all the week and had nearly "got the horrors," so that he was very glad he had been locked up and kept from drink.
  Two months' hard labour.
  Prisoner : Thank you.

 

North China Herald, 11 September, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th September.
Before M. F. A. Fraser, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. GIBSON
  James Gibson, quartermaster of the Keemun, was summoned for assaulting Li Ah-sz, the captain's boy.
  Complainant alleged that at six o'clock on Sunday morning he was drawing water from a pump, when defendant, who was drunk, twisted complainant's arm, and struck him. On the afternoon of the same day defendant again struck complainant.
  Defendant stated that complainant used filthy language to him and kicked him. Defendant had told the lamp-trimmer to come as a witness, but he was intoxicated and could not attend.
  The chief officer of the Keemun said he saw defendant striking complainant in the afternoon. Witness did not see what occurred just before. Defendant was drunk, and behaved so badly that witness sent him off duty.
  Defendant admitted that he was sky-larking with complainant, when the latter suddenly kicked him.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $3 and costs.
.  .  .  
9th September
R. v. STEWART.
  Robert Stewart, lamp-trimmer of the Keemun, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on board that steamer at 10 a.m. on the 8th, and attempting to assault the chief officer.
  Accused pleaded guilty, and expressed regret for what had occurred.
  According to the evidence, accused was drunk and interfering with the Chinese coolies at work on the ship. When given into custody, he made a rush at the chief officer and steward and attempted to strike them.
  Prisoner, who received a good character, was fined $1.
.  .  .  
10th September
R. v. GIBSON.
  James Gibson, quartermaster of the Keemun, was charged with being drunk and neglecting  duty on the 8th.
  Captain Perrelle stated that on Tuesday accused was fined in the court for assaulting witness' boy.  When the case was over, about 11.15, he was sent back to the ship to go on with his work. He did not arrive on board till 1 p.m. Then he went to bed instead of working.
  The chief officer stated that when accused came on board at one-o'clock he was under the influence of liquor. He was told to go to work, but two hours afterwards witness found him asleep in his bunk. Next morning he said he was sick, and was not required to work.
  Accused admitted being the worse for liquor when he went on board in the forenoon, but said that the reason for his doing no work then was that he was supposed to be drunk and was told to go to his berth until he was sober.
  His Worship - But you were drunk?
  Accused - Well, Sir, I wasn't sober.
  His Worship said he would give accused another chance if he would promise to behave properly and keep away from liquor. He would forfeit two days' wages and pay the costs of the case.

 

North China Herald, 25 September, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th September.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. THOMPSON.
  David Thompson was charged with being drunk and assaulting a sampan man by striking him on the mouth and head, at the Old Ningpo Wharf, on the night of the 17th. Accused pleaded guilty.
  Complainant said defendant jumped from his sampan, struck him on the mouth and head and kicked him on the chest. The blow on the mouth cut his lip, and he lost a tooth.
  His Worship told complainant to come forward and show the state of his mouth. After making an inspection of that part his Worship remarked that the lip was cut but there were no signs of any tooth having been knocked out.
  Accused said that when he arrived at the wharf from the settlement, he had a bottle of whisky in his hand. There were nine or ten sampan men on the Wharf, and one of them snatched the bottle and got into his sampan. Accused went after him, and was struck three or four times with a bamboo, he could not say by whom. Accused got out of the sampan on to the Wharf, and seeing complainant close at hand, struck him, thinking he was the man who hit accused. Besides the whisky, accused lost $2.70 in silver.
  Accused was fined $3 or in default one week's imprisonment.  He chose the latter alternative.
.  .  ,.  
4th September.
R. v. UIRELAND.
  William Ireland, able seaman, ship Hilatria, was charged with being absent without oleave since the 22nd.
  Caotain Allwen stated that accused, in  addition to the offence with which he was charged, had several times before going on shore without leave, and had repeatedly been drunk.
  One week's imprisonment and to be put on board the ship.

 

North China Herald, 2 October, 1891
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 29th September.
Before Messrs. M. von Loehr, Vice-Consul, and Siers and Lemke, Assessors.
HUNG-TAH v. SCHLICHTING.
  This was an adjourned hearing of a cross suit in which the Hung-Tah firm of piece goods and foreign sundries dealers sought to recover Tls. 716.90 from H. Schlichting, merchant and commission agent, in respect of four unsettled transactions, known between the parties as the "Blue," "Chains," "Scarlet," and "Green" accounts, for merchandise consisting of watch-chains and dyes of various colours imported by defendant for plaintiff.
  Mr. Parkes solicitor (for Mr. Wilkinson), appeared for the plaintiff.
  Plaintiff now produced a written statement admitting the receipt of 560 cases on one account, in corroboration of the defendant's contention, but adding that defendant had been paid for 62 cases.
  Defendant said he had credited plaintiff with the balance of 12 cases.
  Defendant's late compradore and shroff were called, but were unable to give any evidence as to the number of cases handed over to plaintiff.
  The Vice-Consul, after consulting the assessors, gave judgment for the defendant. He said the plaintiff's written statement was an admission of what he had previously denied; and as Mr. Rief, who had gone into the accounts, had stated that Mr. Schlichting's books and accounts were correct, the Court must accept defendant's version.
  Judgment for defendant, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 2 October, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th September.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. CHURCHER.
  Alfred Churcher, of the ship Hilaria, was charged with being absent without leave since 2 p.m. on the 23rd.
  Accused said the captain gave him leave on the 23rd to go on shore to see the consul. Accused went on shore, but did not return till the night of the 24th.
  Captain Allen, who proved the case, said accused came on board that morning, but flatly refused to do any work.
  Churcher had nothing to say except that he wished to leave the ship, but his Worship pointed out that as prisoner had signed articles he could not leave the ship unless the captain was willing to let him go.
  A week's imprisonment and to be put on board the ship.
.  .  .  
26th September
R. v. MALROOK AND OTHERS.
  Five Seedy-boys employed as coal-trimmers on the P. and O. steamer Shanghai were charged with refusal of duty since the 21st.
  Accused all said they were sick and unable to work.
  Captain Tillard said the affair was a conspiracy to get him to transfer the men to another ship, so that they might return to Bombay.
  His Worship said he had a certificate from the doctor of the ship, to the effect that accused were all fit for duty. As they refused to go back to their work, they would go to prison for a week or until such time as the ship sailed, if before the expiry of the sentence; and they would have to pay the cost of substitutes from the 21st to the day on which they themselves returned to work.
.  .  .  
28th September
[As above.]
R. v. MASON.
Remanded to October 5th.
.  .  .  
30th September
R. v. CAREY AND WICKSBURG.
  Albert Carey and John Wicksburg, sailors belonging to the ship Frankistan, were charged with refusal of duty.
  Accused both pleaded guilty, stating that they were not satisfied with the ship and that they wished to leave her.
  The captain stated that accused had made no complaint to him.
  Imprisonment for fourteen days with hard labour and to be put on board the ship.

 

North China Herald, 2 October, 1891.
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 25th September.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
SHANGHAI HORSE BAZAAR CO., LTD. V. SMYTHE.
This was an action to recover $27 for carriage hire, from Mr. F. Smythe, a member of the Willard Opera Company.
  Defendant stated that he brought from Hongkong a letter of introduction to Mr. Mayne of the Horse Bazaar, from Mr. Maclean of Hongkong, the letter asking that defendant and his wife (known professionally as Miss Alice St. John) were to have anything they wanted from the Horse Bazaar. When defendant was presented with a bill for $42 he was very much surprised. He subsequently saw Mr. Mayne, who agreed to take $30. Defendant had since paid $15.
  His Honour gave judgment for $15 and costs.

SHANGHAI HORSE BAZAAR CO., LTD. v. ZEPLIN.
  This was another claim in respect of carriage hire, for $99.99, against Mr. T. Zeplin, musical conductor of the Willard Company.
  Defendant did not appear, and judgment was entered for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 9 October, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COUTRT.
Shanghai, 6th October.
Before G. Jamieson. Esq., Assistant Judge.
RAHMAN v. HASSAN.
  This was a claim by the Sheikh Abdul Rahman to recover from one Hassan, a watchman on board the Taiwo, the sum of $51.50. of which amount $32.50 was for money advanced to defendant and his family, and $19 the value of a gold ring and a silk umbrella which plaintiff alleged had been forcibly stolen from him by defendant.
  It appeared that plaintiff was engaged to be married to defendant's sister, and from time to time advanced various sums of money to the lady's family, to cover a variety of expenses, including the burial of a  brother and the cost of bringing defendant's mother from Chinkiang, to arrange for the marriage of her daughter. The engagement, however, was broken off - according to defendant, in consequence of a discovery that plaintiff had a wife and children at Hongkong. Plaintiff then attempted to obtain the return of the money advanced, but without success.
  With regard to the item of $19, plaintiff said that one night he had been dining with some friends and took too much to drink. When he left the house, he saw defendant outside, waiting. Having been previously told that Hassan was likely to rob him, plaintiff got into a jinricksha in order to escape; but Hassan told the jinricksha coolie to go very slowly, in order, plaintiff averred, that the liquor would have more time to take effect on him. Defendant followed the jinnricksha to the racecourse, and then forcibly took possession of the gold ring and umbrella, which plaintiff had not seen since. Asked why he did not complain to the police, plaintiff replied that he did not care to do so, as he and Hassan were both Mahomedans and knew each other well.
  Defendant admitted asking for and obtaining from plaintiff $23 to pay the expenses of the bride's mother from Chinkiang, but contended that this expenditure ought to be borne by plaintiff as it was in connection with his marriage. Defendant had since repaid $2 of the amount.
  His Worship said that as defendant had asked for the $23, and had admitted his liability by refunding $2, he must pay the balance. As to the other money lent, defendant could not be held responsible, and plaintiff should sue the parties themselves. The alleged theft of an umbrella and gold ring was a criminal matter of which the Court could not take notice.

 

North China Herald, 16 October, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 10th October, 1891
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MASON.
  Charles Henry Allen Welch Mason was charged on remand under the Explosive Substances Act of 1883 that he "did on or about the 13th September have in his possession and under his control five pounds weight or thereabouts of an explosive substance under such circumstances as to give reasonable suspicion that he did not have it in his possession for a lawful object."
[Not transcribed.]
In reply to the usual caution, accused said he did not wish to say anything at present.
  Accused was then formally committed to take his trial before a jury.

 

North China Herald, 23 October, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th October
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
SAU LIA v. FORRESTER
  Defendant, who paid $7 into Court, said plaintiff was in his employ for seven weeks. During a month of this time defendant was absent in Japan, and on his return noticed that two ponies had become very thin. Next day he drove in the direction of the "Point" and when near the Chinese Gardens one of the ponies suddenly fell, cutting his knees badly. Next day the other pony fell, and defendant had to send them to the Horse Bazaar to be attended to.
  This caused the defendant to think that the ponies had not been properly fed during his absence; and, in company with Mr. King, who was staying with him, defendant paid a visit to the stable. There he found no food except bran and chopped straw placed on the floor of the stable. The mafoo should have given the ponies two pounds of either barley or corn three times a day, but instead of doing so he had apparently fed them all the time on bran and chopped straw. The consequence was that the ponies became too weak to do any work. The pony which cut its knees, defendant stated, would not be able to work for three weeks, and during that time defendant had to hire another. The pony, too, was now worth only half his former value. Defendant added that he discharged plaintiff instantly, on finding out the nature of the food he had been giving to the ponies.
  In reply to questions by the Court, plaintiff said he fed the ponies with barley and straw. He had not given them any corn, because it was not customary to do so during the hot weather, Asked if the pony fell down, plaintiff said it knelt down suddenly. The pony was in good condition, but was old.
  Defendant - It is not an old pony at all.
  His Worship said it would be desirable to have the evidence of someone from the Horse Bazaar as to the condition of the ponies; and for that purpose he would adjourn the case till Monday.
.  .  .  
19th October.
This was an action by a mafoo against Mr. W. Forrester to recover $23.60, balance of account for wages due and fodder supplied.
  This case was adjourned from Saturday. The defendant now called Mr. Mayne, manager at the Horse Bazaar, who deposed that one of Mr. Forrester's ponies had been taken to the Horse Bazaar suffering from a broken knee. The animal was an elderly pony, and required care and better nourishment than had been given it by the mafoo. Its poor condition was due to the improper nourishment it had received.  It should have had from 12 to 15 lbs. of food a day, including crushed barley; bran and chopped straw was insufficient for a pony after a certain age, and he estimated that the quantity of bran and chopped straw he had mentioned would cost between $2 and $3 a month.
  His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for $7.60, the amount paid into Court, plaintiff having accordingly to pay the costs.
..  .  .  
17th October
RAHMAN v. HASSAN.
This was a judgment summons to enforce payment of $21, for which judgment had been given, and $3 costs. The parties are Mahomedans.
  Defendant at first stated that he had no property, and that he lived on $20 a month, out of which he supported a wife at Chinkiang. On being pressed to give details of his monthly expenditure, he said it included $3 for house rent at Shanghai. Asked why he wanted a house in Shanghai, when he lived on board the steamer Taiwo, he said he wanted it to keep his furniture in.
  His Honour - Then you can sell the furniture and pay the debt.
  Defendant protested that the furniture belonged to his father, but his Honour made an order for payment at the rate of $7 a month, defendant having offered only $5 a month.
.  .  .  
19th October
WO0-SHING v. A. F. MCCARTHY.
This was a claim for the price of two gold rings, 2 scarf pins, and 2 walking sticks, to the total value of $32.
  The defendant did not appear. The plaintiff deposed to having supplied the articles. He had received a compradore order, but could not get it cashed.
  It having been ascertained that the defendant had left Shanghai,
  His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff but told him that he should not have delivered the articles till he had received his money. He ought not to give credit to people he did not know.
.  .  .  
20th October.
This was a claim by a coolie against his late employer, J. W. Allen, to recover $5.87, being wages for one month and two days.
   Plaintiff said that when he entered defendant's service it was stipulated that he should only perform coolie work in the house, plaintiff being a countryman from Ningpo and not understanding a word of English, on which account plaintiff accepted low wages. After he had worked for a month and six days, he was given ten cents, and told to go and buy some beef, a work previously performed by the boy. Plaintiff went off but could not find the market, and returned without the beef. He was then discharged.
  Defendant, who admitted the debt, said plaintiff went away without asking for his wages, and he (defendant) considered it a hardship to be summoned under such circumstances.
  His Honour said the money was due and defendant could not escape paying it. He must pay the amount claimed, with costs.
  Defendant - But he packed his bag and went away at once. I wasn't going to run about after him.
  Hid Honour - Well, you should have paid the amount into court.
  Defendant - I don't see why you should believe his story more than mine.
  His Honour (sharply) - Pay the amount.
.  .  .  
22nd October.
OLSEN v. BAMBER.
  This was a claim by A. Olsen, acting as attorney for H. Kierulff, proprietor of the Globe Hotel, Tientsin, against H. Bamber, to recover $17.65 for board and lodging and goods supplied.
  Defendant, who is a surgeon employed by the Chinese Engineering & Mining Co., at Tientsin, said that when he was at Tientsin a few days ago on his way to Europe, he saw Kierulff and disputed the account. He told Kierulff then that he had better take out a summons, but during the rest of his stay at Tientsin defendant heard no more of the matter. Defendant said he had paid $10 unto Court, the balance consisting of part of the value of some Indian cigars supplied to defendant, who kept them at Tongshan for some time without opening them, and then found that they were nearly all worm-eaten. Defendant, however, admitted that he smoked some, destroyed others, and gave some to his boy, instead of returning them at once.
  His Honour said that if the cigars were bad defendant should have sent them back at once. He must pay the full amount, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 23 October, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th October.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MATTSAN AND BURNS.
  M. Mattsan and R. Burns, two of the crew of the Strathleven, were charged with being absent without leave.
  Vice Consul Playfair prosecuted.
  The men admitted the offence, and in reply to his Worship said they left because they did not like the ship.
  His Worship told that that was not the proper way to act, and that they rendered themselves liable to 12 weeks' imprisonment. They had been before him previously on a similar charge and the captain had then asked him to deal with them severely, but he (His Worship) had given them another chance, and as they had not profited by it, he must send then to prison for four weeks with hard labour.
.  .  .  
22nd October.
R. v. KHAMAS.
  Rangoo Khamas, a coal-trimmer on the P. and O. steamer Ravenna, was charged with stealing three pieces of zinc from the stokehole of that vessel.
  A Chinese hawker deposed that accused offered him the zinc in exchange for three tassels. Witness agreed to the exchange.
  Inspector Kluth stated that no tassels had been found in accused's quarters.  The hawker would be charged at the Mixed Court with having the stolen property in his possession.
  The chief engineer of the Ravenna deposed that the pieces of zinc were taken out of the boiler and cleaned in the stoke-hole. They should not be taken on deck at all.
  Ten days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 30 October, 1891
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th October, 1891
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MACGREGOR.
  George MacGregor. an unemployed sailor, who was evidently still under the influence of drink when in court, was charged with stealing two waistcoats, the property of John Reed, from a bedroom in the Sailors' Home . Both men were mentioned in the Mason case as having come from Hongkong in the Amoy.
  The evidence showed that both prosecutor and prisoner were living in the Sailors' Home. Prosecutor went out for a walk leaving two waistcoats on his bed. When he returned, they had disappeared. Prisoner sold one of the waistcoats to a Chinese storekeeper for 10 cents; the other had not been traced.
  Prisoner, who said he wanted to have the case settled without delay, was sentenced to fourteen days hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 13 November, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th November
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WHESSALHAFT
  J. J. Whessalhaft, of the crew of the s.s.  Port Fairy, was charged with assaulting Joseph Farant, a policeman in the employ of the French Municipal Council.
  Prosecutor, whose head was swathed in bandages, deposed that on Sunday night he was called to the Hotel d'Europe, on the Yang-king-pang, where he found accused who was drunk, fighting, and making a great disturbance. When prosecutor tried to arrest him, he showed fight, and, with the help of another man (not arrested) got prosecutor down on the floor. During the melee prosecutor lost a silver watch valued at $8 and a chain valued at $4.
  The keeper of the house testified as to prisoner's riotous conduct and his assault on the constable, and
  His Worship fined accused $5 and costs and ordered him to pay the value of the watch and chain. The money was paid by the captain of the Port Fairy.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 14th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. TAVERNA.
  Cowasjee Byramjee Taverna was charged under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, with larceny committed at Hongkong.
  Detective Inspector Keeling stated that in consequence of a telegram from the Hongkong Police he arrested accused on Friday on board the Empress of China. In his possession accused had $165 in Hongkong notes and 30 cents in silver.
  Defendant was understood to say tne charge was in respect of $200 and not $2,000 as had been stated. Defendant said he knew very little English.
  His Worship remanded accused till Thursday, to allow time for an officer from Hongkong to arrive with the warrant.
.  .  .  
19th November
R. v. TAVERNA.
[As above.]
  It was stated that an officer had been despatched from Hongkong, to take charge of accused, but had not yet arrived, and his Worship ordered a further remand till Tuesday next.
.  .  .  
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. MAITLAND.
  William Maitland was summoned for carrying a sword stick in contravention of bye-law 37 of the Land Regulations, which is as follows:   
  "No person except Consular officers and the officers of the Council duly authorised, and military and naval officers, volunteers or soldiers, or soldiers in any Government force in uniform or on duty, shall under any pretence carry offensive or defensive arms, such as guns, pistols, swords, daggers, loaded sticks, slung shots, knives or any weapon of like character, under a penalty or fine not exceeding $10 or one week's imprisonment with or without hard labour. Provided that nothing in this bye-law be construed to extend to the carrying of fowling pieces for the purpose of shooting game."
  Defendant pleaded guilty. He said the stick had been presented to him as a curio by a Japanese friend, and he was merely carrying it home.
  Jane Horwitz , keeper of the Travellers' beer house, Hongkew, deposed that on Friday afternoon accused came to her house and asked for a glass of beer, at the same time inquiring whether he could have credit for it. As he had owed a bill of $10 for two years, witness said he had better pay for the beer. Thereupon he became annoyed and pushed suddenly against witness. A glass which she was carrying fell to the ground. A stoker of the Linnet was present, and, thinking accused was about to assault witness, stepped towards accused who then lifted the stick (produced) to keep off the sailor.  The latter took hold of the stick and pulled, defendant holding the handle. The sword came out and remained in accused' hand, the stick being in the sailor's hand. He then took the sword from defendant.
  One of the sailor's fingers was cut, and a coolie who was picking up the glass also had his hand slightly cut. Defendant had been drinking, but was "not very tight."
  Inspector Kluth, in answer to his Worship, said the stoker was not in attendance, the Linnet having left Shanghai.
  Maitland urged in defence that he gave up the sword without resistance. He admitted that Mrs. Horwitz had given a correct account of what had happened.
  His Worship, after examining the stick, said it was the sort of thing that no person ought to carry. It was a most dangerous weapon. If defendant was carrying the stick home he should have taken it direct and not gone with it to a place where it was likely there would be a disturbance. It was a reprehensible thing to do, and he (Mr. Jamieson) was not satisfied that defendant was merely carrying the stick home. He had committed an offence against the Municipal bye-laws for which he would be fined $5 and costs.
  Defendant - What will become of the stick?
  His Worship - It remains here.
  Defendant - Will it be sent by the police?
  His Worship - I make no order about it.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1891
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
BISSET v. ELIAS.
 This was a claim by J. P. Bisset & Co. to recover from a Jew Hawker and general dealer the sum of $15.75 due for rent of a house in Foochow Road.
  Defendant stated that he had no money, but plaintiff's representative said defendant had curios and furniture worth $200 or $300 in his house.
  Verdict for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1891
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 16th November, 18912
Before Chief Justice Hannen.
SASSOON v. FERRIS.
This was a claim by Messrs. D. Sassoon, Sons ^ C. against Mr. F. F. Ferris, to recover $180 for rent due.
  Defendant admitted the claim and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1891
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 14th November.
Before Consul-General von Steubel (President) and Messrs, A Wasserfall and Slevog, (Assessors).
I. v.  IDELER.
  Fritz Heinrich Christian Ideler, assistant to Mr. H. Salzwedel, photographer, appeared to answer a charge of assaulting H. Rosenzweig, Draper.
  It appeared that complainant, on 20th October, went into Mr. Salzwedel's shop to speak about a photograph of complainant and his family which was exhibited in Mr. Salzwedel's window. Defendant was called downstairs by a coolie and complainant spoke to him about it. Defendant denied that the photograph was in the window, and complainant walked to the window, took up the photograph and showed it to defendant, who became excited, and high words followed, which led to blows. Defendant, it was alleged, seized complainant by the throat and shook him and while complainant was leaning against the wall half stupefied by the suddenness of the attack, defendant rushed across the shop to an adjoining room and took up a glass bottle containing some liquid, which he threw at complainant, striking him in the mouth, loosening two of his teeth, and causing his lip to swell. When complainant got into the street he felt pain in his head, and found inside his hat a large piece of broken glass (produced). He had on his scalp a wound about a quarter of an inch deep (Also shown but nearly healed.)
  Defendant admitted throwing the bottle, but urged that he received provocation. The bottle, he said, contained a little spirit.
  The Consul-General read a medical certificate from Dr, Little, as follows:-
  "I have this day examined Mr. H. Rosenzweig and found him suffering from an injury to his lips, gums and teeth, such as would be produced by a blow with some hard material. Two of the front teeth are loosened, and the gums lacerated. On the scalp there is a scar such as would be caused by a caustic fluid.
  A house boy in the employ of Mr. Salzwedel said he was in a room adjoining the shop when complainant came. A coolie went upstairs to fetch defendant. When the latter arrived witness saw complainant pick up the photograph. Then the two parties began to speak very fast and loud and complainant slapped defendant's face. A fight ensued, ending in defendant throwing the bottle at complainant. The bottle struck Mr. Rosenzweig on the arm, which he had raised in self-defence.
  In reply to the Consul-General the witness adhered to his statement that the bottle struck complainant on the arm.
  The case was adjourned till Wednesday next.

 

North China Herald, 27 November, 1891
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th November
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

  Mr. A. M. A. Evans was charged by a Chinese employee of Chang Mow with assault.
  Defendant admitted the assault but pleaded provocation as the complainant had created great disturbance and refused to leave quietly after being in the office for two hours.
  Complainant denied making a disturbance. He was only in the office a few minutes when the assault complained of was committed.
  A Chinese shop assistant, called by complainant, stated he was going into Mr. Evans' office on the 15th inst., and that just as he got to the top of the stairs leading up to the floor on which defendant's office was situated, he saw the assault complained of, in the manner described by the complainant.
  Defendant described the position of the office door and the staircase and proved that the witness could not have seen what happened.
  Defendant's office boy was also called by the complainant and deposed to having been knocked against by complainant as the latter came flying out of Mr. Evans' office.
  Herbert D. Hutchinson, defendant's clerk, stated that complainant was a long time in the office before Mr. Evans came in. He made a great disturbance, and witness had to take him by the shoulders and forcibly sit him down to keep him quiet. When Mr. Evans came in, complainant recommenced the disturbance, refused to leave the office when requested by Mr. Evans, and finally had to be forcible ejected.
  His Worship said it was plain that complainant was himself to blame for the occurrence. Mr. Evans was quite right in putting him out, but he was not justified in kicking him. He would order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.
  The defendant explained that it was hardly a kick.

 

North China Herald, 4 December, 1891
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd December
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
SZE SEE-FOK v. TWEEDIE.
  This was a claim by a cook against Mr. A. C. Tweedie, chief engineer of the s.s. Chintiang for $8, one months' wages.
  Defendant paid $8 into Court and stated that plaintiff left suddenly without giving notice or asking for his wages.
  Judgment for $8, plaintiff to pay $3 costs.
.  .  .
Shanghai, 3rd December
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. DEVEREUX.
  Michael Devereux, stoker, H.M.S. Archer, was charged with being drunk on the Bund on Wednesday night, assaulting two Chinese constables, and a jinricksha coolie, and damaging a jinricksha.
  Accused admitted having been drunk and having done some mischief.
  Inspector Reid stated that 50 cents would cover the damage to the jinricksha.
  The coolie stated that he did not wish to press the charge of assault, not having been much hurt, but he required compensation for damage to the jinricksha and loss of time.
  Accused was ordered to pay $1.10 to the coolie and $3 costs, Inspector Reid not pressing the charge of assault upon the constables.

 

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.

 

 

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