Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor Cases 1879

The North China Herald, 10 January 1879


Shanghai, 6th Jan.

Before H. D. BAILEY, Esq., Vice-Consul-General.

G.  F. SEWARD v. Messrs. OLYPHANT & Co.

   This was an action, by petition, to recover the sum of Tls. 275, due for rent of the dwelling house and premises adjoining on the Eastern side of the United States Consulate-General, as per lease dated 10th April, 1876. Application for the amount had been made, but defendants refused to pay in consequence of their suspension of payment.

   Defendants filed no formal answer, but admitted their indebtedness.

   On the application of Mr. COWIE, who appeared for the plaintiff, judgment was entered for the amount claimed with costs, and an execution order was granted.

8th Jan.

H.  S. BIDWELL v. Messrs. RUSSELL & Co.

   This was an action to compel performance of a contract, or to claim $500 as damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendants.

   The petition set forth that the plaintiff rents, from the defendants, a house on the Bubbling Well Road, as per lease dated 1st January, 1878, and that rent for the same had been paid up to the 15th December, 1878.  It was alleged that the roof of the house and the verandah were in an untenable condition, and, according to the terms of the lease, defendants were compelled to keep the external walls, roof and foundation in good and substantial repair.  Plaintiff had applied to the defendants to carry out their part of the contract, but they had not done so; and in consequence plaintiff had sustained damage to the extent of $500 through the leaky and imperfect condition of the roof and verandah.

   The defendants in their answer stated that they were agents for the owner of the house rented and occupied by the plaintiff.  In accordance with the terms of the lease the rent was payable monthly in advance, and that the plaintiff was in arrears for one month's rent, namely sixty taels.  They (the defendants) were prepared to carry out their part of the contract, and alleged that plaintiff had sustained no damage from any neglect of theirs; therefore they asked for the petition to be dismissed with costs.

   Mr. C. RIVINGTON appeared and explained that the plaintiff unexpectedly had had to go to Foochow, and he had asked him to attend the Court on his behalf.  Though the facts of the case appeared very simple, he was not prepared to go on with it, and would ask the Court to postpone the hearing until plaintiff returned.

   The COURT said on a proper showing that plaintiff could not prosecute his suit, a continuance of the proceedings might be allowed.  It was for the plaintiff, however, to be prepared to go on with the case when he once instituted proceedings, and he should like to hear whether the defendants considered the plaintiff's unexpected departure from Shanghai a sufficient cause for a continuance to be allowed.

   Mr. RIVINGTON said he believed it was not decided until a few hours before plaintiff left, that he should go to Foochow.

   Mr. FORBES, who represented the defendants, said he thought he could show the Court, from documents in his possession, that these were simply vexatious proceedings on the part of Mr. Bidwell, and therefore he thought judgment should be given on the evidence that could now be produced, Mr. Bidwell having instructed Mr. RIVINGTON to attend to the case in his absence.  He asked for the hearing to be proceeded with, as he objected to be put to the inconvenience of attending the Court again to suit Mr. Bidwell's convenience.  He was prepared to show, from documents in Mr. Bidwell's own handwriting, that no damage to the house was through the negligence of the defendants.

   Mr. RIVINGTON replied that Mr. Bidwell was prepared to being forward witnesses to prove that the water was leaking through the roof.  He himself could prove this.  He went into the drawing-room, and thought he had made a mistake and had got into the bath-room, the water was leaking through the ceiling so badly.

   In answer to the Court, it was explained that Mr. Bidwell left for Foochow on the 31st December, and defendants' answer was not filed until three days afterwards, when the day for hearing was fixed.

   The COURT said the fact  that the hearing was not fixed before Mr. Bidwell went await was something to be considered; and if Mr. Rivington would make an affidavit setting forth that fact, he should be disposed to grant a continuance, if defendants did not press for the case to be decided at once.

   Mr. RIVINGTON said he had no objection to make an affidavit as suggested, and withdrew to the adjoining room to do so.

   Mr. FORBES, in Mr. Rivington's absence, intimated to the Court that he had no objection to the case being postponed, but said it should never have been brought into Court.

   The COURT ordered Mr. Rivington to be fetched, and, having explained to him what Mr. Forbes had said, decided that there would be a continuance by consent, which would render the affidavit unnecessary.

   Mr. GROOM, who had been summoned as a witness for the defendants, explained that the defendants had always been willing to execute the repairs.  Mr. Bidwell first complained to him in the early part of December that there was a leak in the roof of his house and a portion of the verandah defective.  At Mr. Bidwell's request, he examined the damage, and experiencing difficulty in getting a contractor to do the work for reasons that he need not now explain, to prevent further difficulty he asked Mr. Bidwell to get his own carpenter to make an estimate of the repairs that were necessary to put the house in perfect order.  Some days afterwards, on the 12th December he believed, he received an estimate from the plaintiff that the repairs could be done for Tls. 70.

   At the time Mr. Forbes was in Hongkong, and he (Mr. Groom) saw Mr. Hitch to ascertain of he would  sanction the expenditure of Tls. 70.  Mr. Hitch was disinclined to give his consent, as Mr. Forbes was expected from Hongkong in a few days, and he complained that Mr. Bidwell had not paid his rent according to the terms of his lease, and that an action had been entered against him in the English Court.  He persuaded him not to prosecute the claim until Mr. Forbes returned.  When Mr. Forbes did return, they talked the matter over and thought the estimate of Tls. 70 rather excessive, and he wrote to Mr. Bidwell about it.  He heard nothing more from Mr. Bidwell until after the present action was commenced.  Through him Mr. Forbes had always been willing to execute the repairs, and he thought Mr. #Bidwell had little cause to complain.

   Mr. RIVINGTON asked why  he did not so the repairs himself, if he considered Mr. Bidwell's estimate excessive?  He denied that Mr. Bidwell had not paid his rent; he understood the money had been paid into the English Court pending the result of the present case, as Mr. Bidwell supposed there were two sides to a contract.

   Mr. FORBES s aid that a summons was taken out in the English Court against Mr. Bidwell to recover the rent before the present proceedings were instituted.  When he returned to Shanghai  and found Mr. Groom negotiating for the repairs to be done, he withdrew the summons.  The rent was never deposited in the English Court, and was still in Mr. Bidwell's pocket.

   Mr. RIVINGTON expressed his belief that Mr. Forges did not know whether the rent had been paid into the English Court or not.  He was under the impression that it had been paid into the Court and was still there.

   Mr. FORBES said he would see in the afternoon whether the money was there or not, and if it was there he would soon have it out.

   The COURT thought that as defendants were willing to make the repairs and put the house in perfect order, it would be better to stay proceedings until this was done.

   Neither party had any objection to offer to this course being  adopted, and it was accordingly decided that the hearing of the case should be postponed until the 27th inst., and that in the meantime the repairs be proceeded with.


The North China Herald, 10 January 1879


Shanghai, 2nd Jan.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff is a tailor in Hongkew, and he sought to recover from the defendant, who is mate of the barque Canon Harrison, the sum of $35.75 for goods supplied.

   Defendant admitted having received the goods, but said that some of them did not fit properly ands the prices charged were extortionate.

   His HONOUR entered into the details of each item on the plaintiff's bill, and ultimately gave a verdict for $36.25, including $3 as the costs of the Court.


The North China Herald, 17 January 1879


   Yesterday was fixed for the hearing of the case of Frank Reid v. Messrs. Olyphant and Co., at the Court of the United States Consuate-General. The parties assembled in Court at the hour appointed, Mr. J. J. Henderson appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. R. E. Wainewright for the defendants; but Mr. Bailey, Vice-Consul-General, explained that owing to pressure of public business, and it being mail day, he was unable to proceed with the hearing.  A postponement accorded also with the wishes of both parties, and the case was therefore fixed to be heard on Monday, the 27th inst. 

   The action is very similar to the one tried a week ago against the same defendants, in which Mr. Jameson, an employee of the firm at the time they suspended payment, was the plaintiff, and claimed compensation for dismissal without due notice and consequent allowances, amounting in the aggregate to Tls. 1,013.33.  Judgment is still pending.  Mr. Reid makes out a claim in his petition for Tls. 4,150, whereas defendants, in their answer, make him indebted to them in the sum of Tls. 686.88.


The North China Herald, 17 January 1879



Shanghai, 14th Jan.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.

Mrs. M. L. KING v. Mrs. J. H. BAKER

   Defendant is a dress-maker in the Kiangse Road, and plaintiff, who is also a dress-maker and keeps a boarding-house in Hongkew, sought to recover $30 money advanced, and $22.25 the value of materials supplied for a dress.

   Defendant, in answer to his Honour, admitted having received the $30 and the materials, but explained that she made the plaintiff a dress and sent it to her eight months ago.  The dress was returned by the plaintiff because she said it did not fit her and was not as she wanted it.  She wished it to be taken to pieces and made up in a different style, and to satisfy her taste more silk was required which she (defendant) could not obtain.  The dress was taken to pieces and still remained in that state.  She was willing to make it up again but could not do so to please the defendant, unless she had more silk.

   Plaintiff stated that about a fortnight before the last Spring Races she took a piece of serge to the defendant and explained to her that she wished a serge and silk costume to be made.  She took no silk with her, and asked defendant to buy a sufficient quantity for her and gave her an advance of $10 to do so, telling her at the same time that she could have more dollars when she wanted them.  The dress was to be made immediately, as she wanted it for the races.  It was to be a nice handsome dress with silk apron and flounces, and defendant told her that eight yards of silk would be sufficient.  A week afterwards she called on defendant to see if the dress was ready for her to fit on, but it had not been touched.  She was not very strong just then and could not get about very well.  She had to go five or six times to defendant's place of business before she got the dress, and it was late in the hot weather before it was sent to her.  

   When she fitted it on she found it was three inches too small in the body, the sleeves were too short and so tight that she could not raise her hands to the top of her head, and it was six inches too short round the bottom.  She was a dress-maker herself and was doing work for ladies now, and she knew the dress could not be altered to fir her properly.  To make it fit in the waist pieces would have to be out bin under each arm, and that was not proper in a lady's dress - it did not look nice.  Besides there was a horrid little flounce on the skirt which she objected to, and she sent the dress back to be taken to pieces and made over again, and gave defendant twenty more dollars to get silk.

   It was then hot weather, and she was wearing whites, so the dress at that time if it had fitted properly was of no use to her.  She asked defendant to make it up so that it would be ready for her in the winter.  She went time after time to see if it was done, and defendant always said how sorry she was and made the excuse that she could not match the silk.  She (plaintiff) told her that she thought she could if she tried at some of the China stores, and defendant promised to try, but when she called again she made the same excuse - she could not get the silk.  It was always the same when she called on defendant; she could not match the silk.  The summer passed and she did not get the dress, and she had not got it yet.  At Christmas the gentlemen in her house were going to have a party.  She  went and saw defendant and asked her to let her have the dress as she wanted o wear it at the party, but defendant again made the excuse that she could not match the silk, and  said it could not be matched in Shanghai she was sure. Defendant wanted her to give her more money.  It was utterly out of the question for her to do so when she had been kept out of her dress so ling, but she told her that she should be paid her dollars as soon as she received the dress.  Mrs. Baker was wrong when she said that the silk could not be matched in Shanghai.  Sayle and Co. had exactly the same kind of silk at $1.60 a yard and Mrs. Baker had charged her $3.25 a yard.

   In answer to His Honour, defendant said the price of the silk was $3.25 a yard.  She received eleven yards of serge from the plaintiff, and was to make it up into a costume, the style being left to her.

   Plaintiff said she sent defendant fourteen yards of serge and another yard afterwards, making fifteen yards in all.  Defendant was entirely wring when she said she only got eleven yards.

   Defendant, in reply to his Honour, said she was quite willing to make up the dress again, as it was before, but she objected to spend her ready money in silk for the plaintiff and run the risk of not getting it back again.  She got no per centage from Chinese stores, and could not buy material for the plaintiff as she did for her other customers.  She objected to work for the plaintiff at all until she received an advance.  She had already had to pay the tailor's wages for making the dress, and it still had to be made up again.

   Plaintiff said defendant had a balance of something like five dollars in hand.

   Defendant repeated her willingness to do the best she could with the dress without more silk.

   Plaintiff said it was impossible for the dress as it was to be made to fir her.  It could be tacked together, and she was quite willing to put it on for his Honour to see (Laughter.)

   Defendant said she made the dress in a style that she thought would suit the plaintiff, and she would guarantee now to fit her.

   Plaintiff reverted to the price she had been charged for the silk, and produced a muster which she  said had been sent to her by the defendant, and silk #like that could be got at Sayle and Co.'s  for $1.60 a yard.

   Defendant said the muster was not like the silk of the dress - it was a darker colour and of an inferior quality.  She sent it to the plaintiff for her to get some like it in the China stores, as she never went to them herself, thinking it would do for the dress, and she intended to take the other silk she has used back again.  She was willing to do this to get the thing off her hands.

   Plaintiff insisted that defendant represented that the muster produced was cut from the silk used in the making of the dress.

   The muster was compared, and plaintiff said it matched and defendant said it did not.

   In support of her view plaintiff said it was not usual for ladies to wear dresses made of two or three kinds of material.

   His HONOUR said he believed ladies wore dresses of different shades of colour.

   Plaintiff asked how a coat made of lighter and dark brown cloth with blue silk facings would look on a gentleman?

   The further the investigation proceeded the more diametrically opposed became the parries, each contradicting what the other said, and under the circumstances his Honour said the case could not be disposed of till the dress was made again up by the defendant and tendered to the plaintiff.  The case was a fitter one for another dressmaker to decide, and his Honour suggested that that course should be followed.


The North China Herald, 24 January 1879


Shanghai, 16th Jan.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Vice-Consul-General, and ?

17th Jan.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Vice-Consul-General.

The Charge of Stealing a Box.

   HENRY W. LANCASTER, a sailor out of employment, was charged on remand with having stolen, in company with another man named Daniel O'Farrell, a camphor-wood box of the value of $3, from the shop of Chang lee-shing, in the Broadway, Hongkew.

     Mr. STRIPLING explained that O'Farrell was an Englishman and had been tried in the British Court and sentenced to two months' imprisonment for stealing the box in company with the prisoner.  The evidence, he said, would show that on Saturday night last prisoner and O'Farrell went to the prosecutor's shop and representing that they wanted to buy the box, got the prosecutor to carry it down top the Sailors' Home where they would pay him three dollars for it.  When he arrived at the home, O'Farrell and the prisoner left him and some of the other inmates took the box from him and assaulted him rather severely, one of them named Henderson having been sentenced to a week's imprisonment for participating in the assault.  The box was hid, and the Police, for a considerable time, were unable to find it.  But eventually they ascertained that the prisoner and O'Farrell went on board the Canon Harrison, which was lying alongside the Hongkew Wharf, and asked the curfew if any one among them wanted to buy a box as they had one in the Home they wished to sell for a dollar.  Axel Mamlborg, one of the sailors, expressed his willingness to buy the box, and prisoner and O'Farrell then went away.  Shortly afterwards they returned in a jinrikisha with the box, which Mamlborg received and paid a dollar for it.  The same evening O'Farrell and the prisoner had their mustachios shaved off by a native barber.

   The foregoing facts were deposed to by six witnesses, and three of them, Mamlborg, Svend Anderson, and Patrick Daly, all belonging to the Canon Harrison, proved positively the identification of the prisoner as one of the men who sold the box.

   Prisoner denied all knowledge of the box, saying that if he had been mixed up in the affair he must have been very drunk.

   The COURT said there was not the least doubt about the prisoner's guilt, and the evidence tended to show that there was a deliberate plot among the inmates of the Sailors' Hone to get the box from the prosecutor in the way they did and sell it for drink.  The fact that they promised to give $3.50 for the box, when they sold it for $1, was strong proof that they intended to steal it.  Prisoner would have to go to gaol for two months' hard labour.


The North China Herald, 24 January 1879



Shanghai, 16th Jan.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff is a tailor and outfitter in Hongkew, and he sued the defendant, who belongs to the crew of the barque Canon Harrison, to recover the sum of $13.20, for goods supplied.

   Defendant admitted the debt, but said he was unable to pay.

   Judgment was entered for the amount claimed, with costs, less $4.50, the value of three shirts supplied, which defendant was ordered to return, not having worn them.


The North China Herald, 31 January 1879


Shanghai, 29th Jan.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Judge, Vice-Consul-General.

G. H. DAVIDSON v. Messrs. OLYPHANT and CO.

   This was an action instituted by C. H. Davidson, master of the German barque Hermann, to recover the sum of $240, received by defendants as agents for a charter of the Hermann.

   Plaintiff in his petition said that he employed the defendants to obtain a charter for his ship, and on the 30th November, 1878, they succeeded in doing so, the charter being for a cargo of coals from Nagasaki to Shanghai for $1,200.  Defendants were to receive, as their commission for obtaining the charter, 5 per cent., or $60; and as an advance on the charter they received $300, which sum the petitioner now claimed less the $60 for commission, namely $240.

   The COURT explained that on the day fixed for the filing of the answer by the defendants, Mr. Seaman, one of the partners, appeared and stated that they had no answer to make. They had no defence to the claim, and had no objection to judgment being entered against them

   Plaintiff was called and briefly stated his claim as set forth in the petition, and stated that application for payment had been made without success.

   The COURT ordered judgment to be entered for the amount claimed with costs.


The North China Herald, 31 January 1879


Shanghai, 25th Jan.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Judge.


   Petiitioner resifes in the French Concession and she seesk to obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery.  The case was down for hearing to-day, but owing to some misunderstanding neither the petitioner nor her legal representative were present.

   The COURT, under the circumstances, said a continuance would be allowed.

   Defendant, who was not represented by Counsel, offered no objection to this course being adopted, and the hearing was accordingly postponed until Monday next.


The North China Herald, 7 February 1879


   The divorce case, Bridget Williams v. John Curtis Williams, was down for hearing on Monday at the United States Consulate-General.  It is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery; and defendant, in his answer, says he has no objection to a divorce being grated, but pleads that he should not be mulcted in the costs.  The proceedings yesterday were on a motion by Mr. J. J. Henderson, who represented the plaintiff, and defendant's answer to the petition.  The Court expunged some of the statements as immaterial to the issue, but retained others; and decided that the evidence should be taken in Chambers, before Mr. Weiller, as referee, on the ground that the case was not "a proper one to obtain publicity."


The North China Herald, 21 February 1879



Shanghai, 13TH Feb.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice, and G. A. LINDSAY, A. N. BROWN, A. WHITE, R. W. CROAL, and J. V. W. GARDNER, Jurors.


   Mr. DOWDALL appeared for the plaintiff.

   Mr. MYBURGH appeared for the defendant.

   This was an action to recover the sum of Tls. 750 alleged to be due on a promissory note.

   Mr. DOWDALL opened by reading the pleadings.

   The petition of John How Cheverton, lately of Shanghai, but now residing in England, gentleman, the above named plaintiff, filed by Alfred James Shaw, of Shanghai, afore-said, exchange broker, his attorney, .  .  .

[Not yet transcribed]

   His LORDSHIP said there would be judgment for the plaintiff for the Tls. 750 claimed, with interest from the 31st Dec., 1876, amounting to Tls. 159.37, making the total amount of the judgment Tls. 909.37, with costs.


The North China Herald, 21 February 1879


Shanghai, 18th Feb.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Judge.


   Defendant is manager of the Celestial Empire office, and the action was brought to recover $98 for work done at his request in the month of January last.

   $75.25 had been paid into Court.

   In answer to his Lordship, defendant explained that the claim was one of a number of items in the plaintiff's bill.  All the other items were admitted, and the one for which the claim was made was the binding of 405 copies of the journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.  Plaintiff charged 20 cents a copy, and the amount paid into Court was 15 cents per copy, which he was able to show by witnesses was more than the full value of the work done.  He had not paid the costs into Court because 15 cents per copy was offered to the plaintiff before he took out the summons.

   His LORDSHIP said the question to be decoded then was whether it was good or bad work - or rather whether defendant was entitled to charge 15 cents or 20 cents for binding each copy of the journal.

   Defendant said the defence was that the work done was very bad work, but inasmuch as payment for it had not been refused in consequence of its inferiority, and he had accepted the work, his contention was that the amount paid into Court was ample payment for it.

   CHING-DEE, the plaintiff, said the amount paid into Court was not sufficient. He wanted 20 cents per copy, which was the proper price.

   His LORDSHIP pointed out that there was a difference of $23 between the parties.

   Defendant said that if the work had been well done 15 cents per copy was more than sufficient to pay for it.

   His LORDSHIP said if that were so there was an overcharge of five cents per copy, and the work had been badly done.

   Defendant replied that that was the case.

   Plaintiff, in cross-examination by the defendant, said the book produced was a fair specimen of the work generally.  It was "stabbed" three times, and the sample copy he showed him (defendant) before he did the work, was stabbed four times.  He did not bind the book produced, "The Treaty Rights of Foreign Merchants," of 421 pages, but he should say 15 cents a copy was a fair charge for binding it.

   Defendant pointed out that the journal plaintiff now claimed 20 per vents per copy for binding only contained 325 pages, and plaintiff had admitted that 15 cents was a fair price for a volume of 421 pages, and the work was well done.

   Plaintiff, in answer to further questions by the defendant, said he received 25 cents per copy for binding the journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, , for 1876.  In that year the volume was thicker than the present one, and it was stitched and not stabbed.  For binding same society's journal last year, he was paid by the defendant 12 cents per copy, but it was a much thinner book, and it was stabbed.  Stabbing was much easier and quicker than stitching.

   Defendant produced other volumes on which he questioned the plaintiff in reference to the price and quality of the binding to show that plaintiff's charge of 20 cents per copy in the present instance was much in excess of his previous charges, and that the work was inferior to his previous productions.

   Defendant was then sworn and deposed that he had examined more than 100 copies out of the 465, and the books produced were fair specimens.  They were not bound according to the one submitted by the plaintiff as a sample, and the general character of the work on the 100 books he had examined was very bad indeed.  He had no contract with the plaintiff for the work.  The journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society had been brought out at their office for the last three years, and the plaintiff had always done the binding.  The journal varied in size, and for that of 1876, 25 cents per copy was paid him for the binding.  In that case the book was stitched, and plaintiff did the work very well.  It was left to the plaintiff whether he stitched or stabbed the book.  He knew he had to do the work well.  The journal for 1877 was stabbed because it was a much thinner book than the one for  1878.  It was the practice to stab thin books, but thick ones like the journal for 1878 should be stitched.

   His LORDSHIP examined the specimen volumes produced, and remarked that some of them appeared to have been knocked about or maltreated by some one.

   Defendant said they were fair specimens taken indiscriminately from the lot of the 100 he had examined.

   In answer to his Lordship, defendant said the plaintiff worked on the premises of the Celestial Empire office, but he did not belong to their regular staff.  They gave him a place to work in, and he was paid for what he did.  His work was not superintended.  Besides doing their work, he worked for other people.  15 cents was ample to pay him for the work he had done.  He had made inequities of two of the largest Chinese book-binders in Shanghai as to what they would have done the work for, and one had said his charge would have been eight cents per copy, and the other's price was ten cents per copy.

   THOMAS BROWN, partner in the firm of Kelly and Walsh, stationers, printers, bookbinders, &c., deposed that he had been to the celestial Empire office, and had examined a dozen out of a lot of about 100 journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic for 1878, and should say that 10 cents per copy was an outside price to pay for the binding.  The work was very badly done.  A book of that size should not have been stabbed; it should have been stitched.  If the work had been done for him, he should have sent it back.

   F. S. OLIVEIRA, Superintendant of the printing department of the North China Herald office, also deposed that he had examined the plaintiff's work, and gave it as his opinion that eight cents per copy was a fair price to pay for it.

   His LORDSHIP thought on this evidence plaintiff was only entitled to the amount paid into Court; and now there was the question of costs.

   Defendant explained that before the proceedings were taken plaintiff consulted Mr. Hannen and letters had passed between Mr. Hannen and himself.  In his first letter to him he offered him the amount paid into Court in satisfaction of the claim.

   His LORDSHIP perused these letters, and then gave a verdict for the amount paid into Court, and ordered plaintiff to pay the costs of the Court.

   Defendant applied for cists to be allowed the two witnesses he had called, explaining that he made the liberal offer of 15 cents per copy to the plaintiff to prevent the case coming into Court.

   In reply to his Honour, the Usher said it was not the practice of the Court to allow witnesses anything for attending.  It was, he believed, for them to show that they had lost anything by attending.

   Defendant replied that witnesses were paid for their attendance in County Courts in England.

   His LORDSHIP asked whether the witnesses in this case would be satisfied with Home rates.

   Defendant thought they ought to be allowed more, as salaries, &c., in Shanghai were different to those in England.

   His LORDSHIP said that as it was the practice of the Court not to allow costs to witnesses he was afraid he could not allow them in this case.

   Defendant replied that he would not press the point further.


The North China Herald, 28 February 1879



Shanghai, 20th Feb.

Before   R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Plaintiff is a native furniture dealer and he sought to recover from the defendant, who is a man of colour, the sum of $50 on a promissory note.

   Defendant admitted his indebtedness, but said he had no money to pay they amount.  As soon as he had money he would pay the plaintiff.

   Plaintiff, in answer to his Honour, explained that some time ago, when defendant was chief boy in the service of Mr. Groom, he sold him furniture, on credit, to the amount of $175.  Defendant left Mr. Groom's service and subsequently sold the furniture for $125.  Of of this amount he was paid only $90.  Defendant paid off other debts he owed with the remaining $35, and gave him the promissory note produced for $50.  The note had been presented for payment, but defendant had failed to pay it.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs, but told the plaintiff that he had acted very foolishly in giving credit to the defendant to the extent he had.


   Plaintiff, who is a jinrikisha runner, sued defendant to recover $8 damages done to a jinrikisha.

   The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that on Friday last his jinrikisha was standing on the south side of the Yang-king-pang Creek, near the Bund Bridge, having just set down a passenger, when defendant drove up in his trap and smashed the wheel of the jinrikisha.  He had asked defendant to pay for the damage done, but defendant refused.

   Defendant explained that he was driving along the street next to the Yang-king-pang Creek, in the French Concession, and going towards the Bund.  Between Mr. Millot's house and Morris and Co.'s, there was a jinrikisha, and standing opposite Morris and Co.'s on the right hand side of the street was a pony and trap.  He was on the left side of the street, with the wheel against the kerbstone, and just before he passed the jinrikisha he saw, plaintiff with his jinrikisha appeared from somewhere - probably from behind the other one - and ran across the street placing the shafts of the jinrikisha on the foot path. He did his best to pull up, but had not time to do so, and the pony smashed the wheel of the jinrikisha with his feet.  He refused to pay the plaintiff for the damage done because he did not think he was to blame for the accident; and he had a sergeant of police to prove that plaintiff had first asked four dollars for the damage done, and now he claimed eight.

   Plaintiff, in answer to his Honour, said he should be satisfied with four dollars, which would make goof the damage done.  He claimed $8 because some Ningpo men told him to do so.

   It transpired that Mr. A. N. Brown, of Messrs. Morris and Co., and Mt. Millot saw the accident, and had sent a note to the Mixed Court respecting it.  The note was now produced and read.  It was to the effect they they considered Mr. Rivington entirely to blame for the accident, and that he ought to pay the damages.

   Defendant said he had been told that neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Millot saw the occurrence.

   His HONOUR said the note could not be admitted as evidence, but if it was necessary Mr. Brown and Mr. Millot would have to attend the Court and explain what they sae.  It was a very serious matter to the plaintiff for his jinrikisha to be damaged, but a trumpery case to occupy the time of Mr. Brown and Mr. Millot, and the question was whether it was necessary to go to the expense of summoning them to attend.  Plaintiff had said he would be satisfied with $4, and (his Honour) asked defendant if it would not be better for him to pay that amount and settle the case at once.

   Defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff $4, but thought the rule of the road should be followed by jinrikisha men, as these collisions were very dangerous and might be attended with loss of life.

   His HONOUR said the best rule of the road was to avoid collisions.

   Defendant replied that a proper rule of the road would be to avoid them, and asked His Honour to warn the plaintiff to be more careful inn future.

   His HONOUR - If I did, he might ask me to warn you to be more careful in future.


The North China Herald, 14 March 1879



Shanghai, 6th March 1879

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   Defendant is master of the barque Crosby, and plaintiff sued him to recover the sum of $37.80 for damage to his sampan and loss of clothing.

   In answer to his Honour, defendant explained that on the 22nd January last his ship was going down the harbour in charge of a pilot, and when crossing the chow-chow water, the tide got the better of the ship, and she ran into the sampan, causing it to sink.

   His agent, Mr. Meyerink, was acquainted with the circumstances and had offered to give the plaintiff $25, as compensation, when he could produce some writing to show that he was the owner of the sampan, but plaintiff had failed to do this.

   Plaintiff was now willing to accept $25 on settlement of his claim.  His sampan was sunk and he had lost all his clothing that was in it.  Two other sampans were slightly damaged at the same time.

   It was arranged that defendant should taker the plaintiff to Mr. Meyerink's office and pay him $25, and that the defendant should also pay the costs of the Court.

7th March.


   Plaintiff is a seaman staying at the Sailors' Home, and he sued defendant, who is the Superintendent of the home, to recover $42 for expenses and loss of time in Shanghai caused by his preventing him taking a passage to Nagasaki, and also for 4414 balance of money remaining in his hands, making a total claim of $56.

   Plaintiff was discharged on the 19th February from the Kaisow with a balance of wages of over $200, and he paid defendant $33 - $30 in advance for a month's board, and $3 for the usual guarantee given by the defendant that he should not become an expense to the Government.  On Wednesday, the 26th ult., plaintiff wished to go to Japan, and was taking his ticket to go there when defendant told him he could not leave Shanghai and prevented his going.  On a second occasion plaintiff wished to go to Japan, but was again prevented by the defendant, who also refused to return him the balance of the $30 he had advanced for a month's board.  On the 5th instant plaintiff took out the present summons against the defendant, claiming damages for his detention in Shanghai, and $14 as the balance of the $30 advanced for board.

   Plaintiff, in answer to his Honour, explained that the treason he did not take out the summons as soon as the defendant first prevented his going to Nagasaki, and thereby prevent the claim becoming larger, was because he hoped to get his money from the defendant without coming to Court, and when he found he could not settle with him, he tried to see the Consul.  He went upstairs and saw a young person - not the Consul - who told him he could not see the Consul just then.  Afterwards he walked towards what he thought was the consul's room by the indication of a hand pointing on the wall, and two Chinamen stopped him and pushed him down stairs.  He did not wish to assault the Chinamen, and came quietly away.

   His HONOUR pointed out to him that by the delay the claim had accumulated, which was unjust to the defendant.  The action should have been brought as soon as he was prevented going to Japan the first time.

   Plaintiff said he was ignorant of Court proceedings.  He had only been in one Court before in his life.

   His HONOUR thought from the way in which plaintiff had conducted this case that he was well up in Court matters.  He explained that the plaintiff could not recover because defendant had not prevented him going to Nagasaki; defendant had no power to prevent him going there.

   Plaintiff - But he has taken that power in his hands.

   His HONOUR - Your case rests upon the defendant having prevented you taking a passage to Nagasaki.  Now, really and strictly he did not prevent you taking your passage.  By saying to you "I don't think you should go," he did not prevent you taking your passage, and you could have gone to Nagasaki for all that I can see, and if you had any claim against him for the money he withheld you could have brought it.

   Plaintiff - He would not give me my money and he told me I could not go.

   His HONOUR - He was wrong in saying you could not go, but you should have paid no attention to him.

   Plaintiff - I did as he told me.

   His WORSHIP said he had explained the technical grounds why plaintiff could not recover, and now he came to the merits of the case.  Defendant guaranteed that the plaintiff would not be an expense to the Government, and it was only in consequence of his guarantee that he was discharged from the ship.  Without that guarantee plaintiff could not have been discharged.  Defendant was the person who gave the guarantee, and when a man was discharged from a ship in that way, the ordinary course was that he remained there until he shipped away. If, for example, plaintiff had gone to Nagasaki, and not shipped there, and returned to Shanghai and become an expense to the Government, defendant would still be liable under his guarantee.  He did not see any reason why plaintiff should not fall in with the regular course, for if it had not been for the defendant's guarantee he would still have been in the ship - the guarantee was the only condition on which he got free of the ship.

   Plaintiff said that made him not a free man.

   His HONOUR replied that he was under the guarantee.

   Plaintiff defined the law to be that a sailor, with the consent of the Captain, could be discharged in any port.  The articles did not specify that he was to be discharged in Shanghai, but he was of the opinion that the captain could have discharged him here without a guarantee.  He also maintained that he had paid the defendant for the guarantee he gave on his behalf, and  said that if he had wanted to ship he could have done so the same day he was discharged.  But he wanted to go to British Columbia, and it was his intention to pay his passage there.

   His HONOUR said unless it was specified on the articles, sailors could only be discharged in Shanghai with the consent of the Consul, and the Consul would not sanction the discharge of any one who was likely to be an expense to the Government afterwards.  The Sailors'' Home existed for the sole purpose that guarantees could be given for men so that they should not become an expense to the Government.

   Plaintiff said he wanted to pay his passage away, and therefore could not have become an expense to the Government.

   His HONOUR repeated that it was the defendant's guarantee that got the plaintiff out of his ship, and it was not right that the plaintiff should turn round and treat the defendant as if he had done nothing for him.  He also repeated what he previously said in reference to the defendant's liability under the guarantee, and advised the plaintiff to ship away from Shanghai as soon as he could, and if there was a balance of the $30 he had paid in advance for his board it would be returned to him.

   Plaintiff said defendant had prevented his leaving Shanghai when he wanted to, and it was an easy thing for him to stay at the Sailors' Home for a few years, and he would employ the time by going to school.  It was a swindle to keep a man's money when he wanted to go away, but he would have the worth of it now, and there was another man in the Sailors' Home who had been done out of £21, and he should like to know whether that was fair or not.

   His HONOUR said he knew nothing about that case at present.  A summons would be issued if the party thought proper to apply for one, and he would then decide that case also.


The North China Herald, 21 March 1879


   The News reports that in H.M. Provincial Court, on the 4th inst., the charge against the young man Mansfield for the manslaughter of the French seaman Desaunais was brought up for hearing before Hiram S. Wilkinson, Esq., Assistant Judge, and a jury of five.  The case was opened at nine o'clock, and lasted until half-past three, when, after a consultation of about ten minutes, the jury brought in a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment in the Kobe jail for two years, with hard labour.

   The two lads, Flood and McCarthy, who were in the company of Mansfield, at the time of the unfortunate occurrence, have had to be placed under the care of the Municipal Police Sergeant.  They have been misbehaving since they were discharged from custody after the inquest, both on board their vessel, the John Milton, and on shore, and as the ship was about to leave Kobe and the lads were unable to find sureties for their good behaviour and due appearance on the day of the trial, there was no alternative but to lock them up.


The North China Herald, 21 March 1879



Shanghai, 17th March.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.


   Plaintiff is a storekeeper in the French Concession, and defendant is a clerk.  The action was to recover $210.55 for furniture, &c., sold and delivered.

   An attempt to settle the matter out of Court failed, plaintiff (represented by his partner, Lee-tah) declining to accept defendants offer to pay the debt by instalments of Tls. 10 per month.

   LEE-TAH, on being put into the witness-box, deposed - I am a partner in the firm of A-mow & Co.  When defendant bought these goods in December and January last, he said he would pay $50 in February.  He did not pay anything in February.  At the time he bought the goods, he also said he would pay $30 or $40 each month until the debt was paid off.  In February, I sent a shroff to defendant five or six times, but could not get any money from him.  He has not made any payment at all.

   Defendant, sworn, deposed - I am the defendant in this action.  I made no agreement with the plaintiff to pay any stated sum.  The agreement I made was to pay him as I could.  He asked me if I could give him $50 in February, and I told him I could not afford to do so.  He has made a mistake in a month - what I was to have paid him was to have come out of my February salary.  I was to have paid him what I could.  I was out of employment a long time, and only obtained an engagement in January.  I was therefore particular in telling him that I could not pay him in February.  I have other payments to make, but nothing on an order from this Court or the Court below.  I owe the Central Hotel about $800 for board and expenses.  I was here six months without employment.  I came from India here.  My salary is now Tls. 80 per month.  I am paying off the central Hotel account - this month, I have paid them $20.  Just before coming into Court, the plaintiff said he would take back the furniture, leaving me to pay the balance for certain articles which have been consumed.  That would leave a balance of only about $50 for me to pay, and I am willing to pay $20 in April and the balance in May; or I will pay him $10 down, half the remainder in April, and the balance in May.

   Plaintiff agreed to this proposal, and a list was read out in Court of what things defendant was to pay for, the amount being $47.15.

   His LORDSHIP, who expressed surprise at the case being allowed to come into Court, said the order would be an order by consent - that defendant should pay $10 before twelve o'clock next day; $20 on or before the 3rd April, and the balance on or before the 3rd Mat, together with the Court fees, $8 (which would be included in the last payment), and to return the furniture.

18th March.


   This was an action to recover the sum of $10, or the return of a goat and kid.

   Plaintiff expressed his regret at having to trouble his Lordship with a small matter of this kind, and then went on to day that in September last he went to Japan and was absent about a month.  On his return, he found that a lot of valuable articles had been abstracted from his house, and among other things he missed was the goat and kid, the subjects of the present claim.  The first morning after he returned he told his boy to bring him his usual glass of goat's milk, and the boy told him "Goat no hab got."

   The boy then explained that while he (plaintiff) was in Japan a man named Scott, who was a confrere of his in the Chinese service, came to the house and took the goat and kid away.  The boy watched Scott who took them to the defendant's house.   He wrote defendant a letter asking him to return the goat and kid, as they were his property, and he had given no permission to Scott to dispose of them.  He received a very insulting reply from the defendant - he was sorry he had lost the letter - who refused to return the goat and kid.  On receipt of this letter, he went and saw the defendant, who tried to pass the matter over in an off-hand manner.  He insisted, however, on having the goat and kid back again, and told defendant that he could prove they were his property, and that he never gave Scott any authority to take them away.  But at the same time he said defendant might keep the goat and kid until Scott returned to Shanghai and explained the matter. Scott was then expected back in a few weeks, but he now heard that he was in gaol in Hongkong for libel.

   He then wrote defendant another letter requesting him to return the goat and kid, and defendant again sent him an insulting reply, threatening to bring him up before the head of his department.

   In answer to his LORDSHIP, plaintiff said he was first berthing officer in the Chinese Government Service, or second Harbour-master at Shanghai.

   Plaintiff, in cross-examination by the defendant, said that he could swear upon his oath that he had never given the goat or kid to any one since they were taken from his premises.

   Defendant, in reply to his Lordship, admitted receiving the goat and lid as a present from Mr. Scott, to whom he believed they had belonged.

   SHE FU-LING, the plaintiff's boy, deposed to seeing Scott take the goat and kid from his master's premises four days after his master went to Japan.  He spoke to Scott on the subject, and asked him where he was gaping to take the goat, and Scott replied, "It no belong your pidgin."  His master's house was at Pootung, and Scott took that goat and kid away in a sampan, and he saw that he took them to the defendant's house.

   Plaintiff explained that it was on or about the 26th October that he first applied for the goat and kid to be returned, and he had been waiting for Scott to return so that he could explain matters.

   Defendant was then sworn and deposed that he refused to deliver up the goat and kid upon the defendant's solicitation because his first letter was not courteous; it was a peremptory order for him to deliver them up at once.  He considered they were a present to him from Mr. Scott, and thought he was right in keeping them.  He, therefore, told the plaintiff that he would not give them up unless he proved they belonged to him.  Plaintiff then came over to see him, and after they had talked the matter over, he (plaintiff) gave him the goat and kid as his own property, saying that he did not want them, he only wanted to prove that the goat and kid and a lot of other things had been taken away from his house by Scott.  He (defendant) replied that Scott was not present, and could not believe what was said behind his back. He also had defendant's own handwriting giving him the kid, which he would produce. (Letter produced.)  Previous to that letter being written, plaintiff had given him both the goat and kid, and the letter was conclusive proof that he had given him the kid.  He had a witness who could confirm his statement, and would call him.

   GILBERT HENDERSON was then called and sworn.

   Plaintiff said it was hardly fair to call this witness to give evidence against him, as they had not been on friendly terms for some time; and, moreover, the witness was a confrere of the defendant, working on the same wharf with him.

   Defendant replied that he might object to the evidence given by the plaintiff's boy, on the same ground.

   His LORDSHIP explained that the witness being on unfriendly terms with the plaintiff was no reason why his evidence should be rejected, and they would hear what he had to say.

   The witness then said that he was a clerk employed at the Shanghai and Hongkew Associated Wharves.  Before he narrated what he knew of the circumstances of the case, he wanted his Lordship to bear in mind that the matter took place five months ago, but he would give the conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant as exact as he could.

   One Sunday morning, about five months ago, Mr. Poignand called at his room at the wharf, and he had not been there very long when Captain Robertson came in.  Captain Robertson said, "Poignand, I want that goat back."  Poignand replied something to the effect that he did not see what right Captain Robertson had to the goat; she had been given to him by Mr. Scott.  They talked for some time about the matter, and Captain Robertson said something to the effect that Poignand could keep the goat and kid.

   His LORDSHIP said that would not do.  It must be more explicit "than something to the effect," &c.

   Witness again reminded his Lordship that it was five months since the conversation took place, and he could not remember the exact words that passed.

   His LORDSHIP pointed out that the plaintiff had said in his evidence defendant could keep the goat until Scott returned, but he had positively sworn that he never have the goat and kid to the defendant absolutely.

   Witness could not recollect the words that passed, and possibly plaintiff might have said that defendant could keep the goat only until Scott returned, but his opinion was that captain Robertson gave Poignand the goat.

   His LORDSHIP said it was not for the witness to form an opinion about the conversation.  He himself had to do that.  Besides, the witness could not remember the conversation.

   In answer to the defendant, witness said he did not recollect any condition mentioned as to Scott returning.  It might, however, have been said, and he might not have heard it.

   His LORDSHIP - How about the kid, Mr. Robertson?  You give it to the defendant in this letter.

   Plaintiff - I am quote agreeable to abide by what I say there.  He is at liberty to keep the kid.

   Defendant - But you swore just mow that you had not given it me.

   Plaintiff - You told his Lordship just now you had no more questions to ask, and therefore you should not speak now.

   His LORDSHIP - There is nothing in the letter about the goat?

   Plaintiff - No. Only the kid.

   Defendant - And I have handed in that letter to show my eight to the kid.

   His LORDSHIP - The kid is clearly yours, but you must return the goat.

   Defendant - Your Worship decides I must return the goat/

   His LORDSHIP - yes.  You must return the goat, but as to the kid I think there is evidence that he gave it you.  As to the goat he has distinctly sworn that he never intended to give it you.

   Defendant - He swore the same about the kid.

   Plaintiff - I find Mr. Poignand has disposed of this particular goat and kid.

   Defendant - You are perfectly correct in saying so.

   His LORDSHIP - Then the question is what is the value of the goat.

   Plaintiff - Before I went away she gave me all my milk.  She cost me $7.50.  Since I have been without her I have had to pay $1.50 per month for milk.  I have done that ever since I came back from Nagasaki.  You Lordship can reckon what it has cost me.

   His LORDSHIP - But that would not be the value of the goat.

   Plaintiff - I claim $10.  I think that is reasonable, with the costs of Court.

   Defendant - But you couple the kid in that amount, and the pair together are not worth it.

   Plaintiff - I gave $7.50 for the goat, and she gave me two quarts of milk a day, which I have lost while she has been with you.

   His LORDSHIP - What would you say the goat was worth, Mr. Poignand?

   Defendant - I should day certainly not more than four or five dollars.

   His LORDSHIP - Cannot you get some one who knows the value of goats to give us his opinion?

   Plaintiff - I would look round and see if I know anyone among the present crowd who knows the value of goats.  Here is a man, my Lord. The one with a necktie on (pointing to a sailor-like looking person in the audience.) He has been a costermonger in London, and ought to know the value of goats.

   The Costermonger, evidently proud of the appeal to his knowledge to solve the knotty question, stepped forward with an air of distinction, and took up a position in  front of the witness box.

   The Costermonger - I have not seen this particular goat, and therefore can hardly say, but if she gives two quarts of milk a day, and is a good breeding goat I should value her at about $9 in Shanghai.

   His LORDSHIP - I shall allow $6, and you must pay the costs, Mr. Poignand.

   Judgment was then entered for $6 and the costs.


The North China Herald, 28 March 1879


Shanghai, 20th March.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.

H. EVANS v. Captain WARING.

   Defendant is master of the steamer Gordon Castle, and plaintiff sought to recover Tls. [20] from him for short delivery of one drum of spirits of wine.

   In answer to his Lordship, playoff said that the drum of spirits of wine was shipped in London, ands when it was delivered in Shanghai it was nine gallons short.  The drum was surveyed before he took delivery.

   His LORDSHIP asked for the bill of lading under which the goods were shipped.

   Plaintiff explained that he had given up the one he received to the Custom House authorities, but the defendants had one and he had expected they would produce it.  The bill of lading set forth, he believed, that the hoods were shipped on deck at shippers' risk.

   Defendant produced a bill of lading and said that Mr. Evans chose to take delivery of the spirits of wine, and he afterwards complained that it was short.

   Hiss LORDSHIP said they would hear the plaintiff's statement, and proceeded with the hearing in the usual way.

   Plaintiff was then sworn, and said he was a brewer and general storekeeper in Shanghai.  He had shipped, on his account, by agents in London, a quantity of goods by the steamer Gordon Castle, among which were two drums of spirits of wine.  The steamer arrived at Shanghai on or about the 5th Feb., and he began to take delivery of the goods as soon as he possibly could after she began discharging.  As soon as the steamer got alongside the Wharf, he went down and asked the chief officer to allow him to see the two drums of spirits of wine, which were consigned to him.  He saw them on the top of the house but did not go up to examine them.  The next day he sent men down to the steamer to take delivery of the two drums, and when they returned they informed him that on e of the drums was nearly empty and that they had refused to take it.  The next day he saw Captain Waring for compensation for the spirits of wine that was missing, but he got no proper reply.  It was a reply putting off the matter - the Captain would see about it, or something of that sort - and not being able to get anything satisfactory from him, he at last wrote a letter to Messrs. Adamson, Bell and Co., the Agents.  Captain Waring suggested that he should  write to them.  He received a reply which was to the effect that the agents did not consider the steamer responsible, as the goods, according to the bill of lading, were "shipped on deck at shippers' risk."  He had frequently had goods from the same party in London, and this was the first time that spirits of wine had been put on deck.

   His LORDSHIP pointed out that it was the fault of the plaintiff's agent in London that the goods were shipped on deck and at the shippers' risk.  He asked defendant what he had to say on the matter.

   Defendant replied that it was always the rule to put spirits of wine on the deck.  If they put such stuff down below among the general cargo, they would forfeit their insurance.  Mr. Evans had told him that the spirits of wine should have been put in the cabin with the passengers, which would be a very nice thing to do.

   His LORDSHIP repeated that it was the fault of the plaintiff's agent in London that the goods were shipped on deck.  The captain could not be blamed for that.  The question was whether the captain and the officers of the steamer had exercised reasonable care and precaution to secure the goods on deck.

   Plaintiff said whenever he had received shipments of spirits of wine before, it had always been put down below.  He had brought this case forward simply to obtain an expression of opinion from his Lordship as to whether there was not some responsibility in the Captain and his officers in referenced to cargo carried on the deck - whether, in fact, it was not the duty of the captain to look after and protect such gods from damage just as if they were his own property.  A high rate of freight was paid on such goods, and he wished to know whether it was not incumbent on the Captain to put them in a safe place, and to secure them so that they could not be damaged.

   His LORDSHIP replied that it was simply a question whether there had been any negligence on the part of the captain and his officers, but plaintiff must be perfectly aware that goods shipped on deck would not be as secure and as much protected as goods stowed below.  It was patent to everyone that goods on deck were subject to more dangers than those skilfully stowed in the hold.

   Plaintiff repeated that the owners of the steamer were paid a large amount of freight for carrying the goods, ands he should like to know whether they could put them here, there, and everywhere on the deck, or whether it was the duty of the Captain to take as much care of them as if the goods belonged to him.  That was the only question he wished to be decided.

   Defendant was then sworn and deposed that he had instructions from his owners not to ship these particular goods at all.  But when he went on the steamer just before leaving London, he found them on board, and, as the bills of lading had been signed, he was obliged to bring them.  The two drums were lashed on the deck between the harness cask and the hose box, and were made as secure as they possibly could be.  They encountered some very rough weather in the Mediterranean and the harness cask, hose box, and the drums were all washed adrift, and the drums were rolling about fore and aft.  They were picked up as soon as possible, and then placed on the top of the house, where they were also lashed and made secure. It was not discovered that they were leaking, but both of them were indented.  If it had been noticed they were leaking, they would have been thrown overboard.  They remained on the top of the house until the steamer arrived in Shanghai, and just the same care had been taken with them as with the property of the steamer.  The hose box, harness cask, and everything in that part of the deck, fetched away during the gale and were damaged like the drums.

   The d rum was produced in Court.  It had a large indentation on one side with a slight facture about six inches from the bottom.

   Plaintiff said it contained eleven gallons of spirits of wine when it was shipped, and nine gallons had leaked out.  The other drum, which had not leaked at all, had an extra iron band round the centre, and was therefore stronger than this one.  He had himself travelled seventeen times across the Atlantic in his earlier days, and knew something about deck cargo, and he would like to know whether it was not incumbent on a captain to make an entry in the log book of such an occurrence as the alleged storm in the Mediterranean, as well as to note that a drum of spirits of wine had been damaged and leaked to the extent of nine gallons.

   Defendant said an entry had been made in the log book of the storm in the Mediterranean, but he did not think the damage to the drums had been noted.  He believed it was not known that the d rum produced had leaked until after arrival in Shanghai, and delivery of it was taken.

   The log book was produced, and the entry referred to perused by his Lordship.

   Defendant said he also entered a protest at Singapore and renewed it at Shanghai.  He also complained of the plaintiff taking delivery of the drums without his knowledge.

   Plaintiff said he had inquired and had been told that no protest was entered at Shanghai.  He also explained that as he could not get any satisfaction from the defendant as to compensation for the damage, and the agents denying their liability, he had no alternative but to take delivery and bring the case to Court and have it decided on its merits.  What appeared strange to him was that the drum should have been injured in the Mediterranean and the leakage not discovered until the steamer arrived at Shanghai, when the Court was asked to believe that great care and attention had been taken of the goods.

   Defendant pointed out that the fracture was very slight indeed, and it was not likely to be noticed.  He had his chief mate and boatswain in attendance, and would call them if his Lordship thought it was necessary for him to do so.

   Plaintiff, in answer to his Lordship, said he did not think it necessary to call these witnesses, as all the facts of the case seemed to be now before the Court, and he supposed they would only confirm that the defendant had said.

   His LORDSHIP then said - I think it is highly probable from the evidence of Captain Waring - and he seems to have given his evidence in a very straightforward manner, - that the drum was fractured and indented in the storm he speaks of as having occurred in the Mediterranean.  With reference to the goods being put on deck, they were placed there clearly at the shippers' risk, and with his knowledge.  You may say, Mr. Evans, that it is the first time such goods shipped on your account have been placed on the deck, but your agent allowed them to be placed there in this instance; they were placed there with his knowledge, and you must take the risk of their being so placed.  You cannot expect goods on the deck to be as securely and safely stowed as if they were skilfully packed in the hold.  You say that hitherto such goods have been placed in the hold, and if you want them stowed there in future you must write to your agent and advise him to ship under those terms; from what we have heard, you must not go to the captain of the Gordon Castle to have them stowed in that way.

   Plaintiff - The only object I had in view, my Lord, was to obtain an expression of opinion from you on the case.

   His LORDSHIP - If a man ships his goods to be carried on deck at shippers' risk, as under this bill of lading, he does it clearly at his own risk; and we all know perfectly well that goods so placed for a long journey, as it is from England, are not un likely to encounter some very rough usage.  As I have said, it is highly probable that this d rim was fractured on the occasion of the storm in the Mediterranean, and under such circumstances I am afraid my judgment must be for the defendant.

   Plaintiff - I did not expect anything else, my Lord.  I only wanted an expression of opinion from you on the subject.

   His LORDSHIP - If you expected judgment against you, then you are not disappointed.  Judgment will be entered for the defendant.

   Defendant said the plaintiff had put him to a great deal of trouble, and he thought he should be recompensed for his waste of time in attending the Court.

   Plaintiff - Are you applying for costs?

   Defendant - Certainly.

   Plaintiff - Come to my house and I will pay you what you want.

   The parties then left the court.


The North China Herald, 4 April 1879


Shanghai, 24th March.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Vice-Consul General.

... A. de ENCARNACAO v. N.  F.. BUTT.

Defendant is a barber in the Nanking Road, and plaintiff, a Portuguese, sought to recover $96 from him, for wages, commission, and money advanced.

   Plaintiff in his petition set forth that on the 22nd December last he entered into the defendant's service as clerk, under a verbal agreement, by which defendant was to pay him $30 per month.  On the 11th Feb. defendant summarily discharged him without any fault or misbehaviour on his part, and without paying him any salary, and on this account he claimed $60.  Plaintiff further claimed that defendant was indebted to him in the sum of $11, commission on chits collected by his sons; $12 money advanced on a lot of perfumery sold in the defendant's shop; and $13, the value of a retriever dog, making his claim amount in all to $96, less about $12 the defendant had advanced top him on different occasions.

   Defendant  denied that he was to pay any salary to the plaintiff, who had acted, he said, in the capacity of clerk for him merely for his board and a dollar now and then to buy rice for his family.  He further denied that he was indebted to the [plaintiff in the sums of $11, $12, and $13; and alleged that plaintiff had not accounted to him for all the moneys he had collected on his behalf.  In his evidence he stated that he had applied to the Portuguese Consul to prosecute the plaintiff, but had not been able to obtain any satisfaction.

   A great deal of evidence was produced on both sides, and the case lasted the greater part of two days.

   The COURT, after going fully into the details, gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for $18.43, and ordered defendant to pay the costs of the Court.

27th March.

U.S. (Captain J. H. WILLEY) v. T. HIBBLER.

Using Threatening Language.

   Defendant is a seaman on board the American ship Humboldt, and he was charged with unlawfully threatening the life of the chief officer, and with using insolent and abusive language towards him.

   The evidence produced was to the effect that while the vessel was at Woosung the chief mate ordered a boy named Charley to do some work.  Charley did not do the work to the satisfaction of the mate, who then chastised him and beat him with a rope.  The crew remonstrated, but the mate refused to desist, and produced a revolver to prevent the crew laying hands on him, whereupon defendant said he as "a shooting iron also" and threatened to shoot him, and used insolent and abusive language.

   Defendant pleaded that the mate unnecessarily abused the boy Charley, and not only beat him with a rope but struck him with a belaying pin, and he and other members of the crew interfered on the boy's behalf.

   The COURT then read the law bearing on the case, and pointed out that defendant had subjected himself to a fine of $1,000 or five years' imprisonment.  From the testimony there was no doubt defendant had threatened the mate and used abusive language towards him, but he had received some provocation, and the treatment of the mate towards to boy Charley was such as ought not to have occurred.  The proper remedy for a proceeding of that kind was, as seamen well knew, to complain at the Consulate where their complaints would always be investigated.  It was not for seamen to take the law into their own hands, which had been done in this instance.  Fortunately the case was not a very serious one, but it was one of those kind of cases where it was necessary to inflict some punishment as an example to others to maintain discipline, and defendant would be detained in gaol for one week.  As to the boy Chatrley, if he had any complaint to make about being struck by the mate, he was to make it in the usual way and the case would be heard in due course.

   Defendant said the matter was not settled yet, and when he came out of gaol he should take proceedings against the mate.

2nd April.


Charge of Larceny.

   Prisoner, who is a native of Baltimore, was charged with entering a house in Hongkew and stealing therefrom a coat, a sash and pocket the latter containing $5.

   Prisoner lived next door to the prosecutor.  On Friday last he took advantage of the prosecutor's absence, entered the house, and stole the articles mentioned from a box.   A girl eleven years of age saw him leave the house, having on his arm the coat which he subsequently pawned for 330 cash, and when arrested the sash and pocket were found in his possession.

   Prisoner denied the theft, and  sais the witnesses were mistaken in his identity.

   His WORSHIP considered the charge conclusively proved, and  sent the prisoner to gaol for one month.


The North China Herald, 22 April 1879


Shanghai, 16th April.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.


   This was an adjourned hearing, the action having been brought to recover $55.75, for goods sold and delivered.

   Judgment was entered for the defendant.


The North China Herald, 13 May 1879



Shanghai, 7th May

Before H.  S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This was an action to recover the sum of $83.

   PLAINTIFF deposed - I am a British subject, living at the Astor House Hotel.  In Hongkong I engaged Mr. Rollings, the defendant, as a member of the Opera Company which has been performing here for some time past.  He was to receive one-fourth of the profits for his services.  We have played here about three months, and I gave him notice a few days ago that the business so far as he was concerned was about to cease.  He asked me for a settlement, and he brought a person to make up the books for him.  After making up the books we found his share of the profits was $37 - that was his share of dividend over and above all expenses. 

   On different occasions he asked for advances, and I have given him sums amounting to $95, together with a bill of Mr. Dennys in Hongkong for $25, which I paid at his request.  That makes the amount $120 he has received, and his share of the dividend being $37, it leaves a balance of $83, which I now claim.  Before we went through the books Mr. Rollings and Mr. H. Franklin, who were engaged on the same terms, agreed to pay their share of any loss there might be, and when it was found there was a loss Mr. Rollings objected to pay.

   The statement of accounts was produced, and perused by his honour.

    DEFENDANT objected to certain items in the accounts, and said they did not refer to the Shanghai engagement.  They were disbursements that should have been paid in Hongkong.  He had not had a settlement with Mr. Vernon of the Hongkong account, and he thought he was entitled to a good round sum of dividend.

   PLAINTIFF said the accounts now produced referred solely to the Shanghai engagement.

   DEFENDANT said one item he objected to was $57, paid in Shanghai to the Hongkong Temperance Hall for the board of two of the members of the company.

   PLAINTIFF explained that that item was paid in Shanghai.  When they were making up the accounts, with the view to avoid any dispute, he asked Mr. Rollings if he had any objection to make to any of the items.  Mr. Rollings did object to two or three items and he kept them out of the accounts.

   Defendant said he objected to the item of $57, and he objected to anything that was connected with their engagement in Hongkong.

   The accounts were then gone into, and plaintiff said he paid the $57 out of the proceeds of the first performance in Shanghai.  It was for the board of two members of the company in Hongkong.  He explained that Mr. Rollings and Mr. De Lille were partners in Hongkong, and he balanced up the accounts with them, and they were indebted to him over $400.  With this and Mr. Rollings' benefit money in Hongkong he paid their debts as far as the money would go.

   Defendant next objected to an item of $26 paid for an agreement with Mr. Hagemann, another member of the company, and he also objected to the charge of $20 by Mr. Vernon for the use of scenery and music, and further to a sum of $20 Mr. Vernon charged for keeping then books.

   Plaintiff explained that Mr. Hageman objected to come to Shanghai unless he had a written agreement, and the $26 were paid for it; but before they came to Shanghai Mr.  Hageman played in Hongkong, Canton and Macao, under that agreement.  He maintained it was customary to charge for the loan of music and scenery, and thought that the charge of $20 for keeping the books was very reasonable indeed.

   Mr. H. FRANKLIN was next examined.  He said he was a partner to the agreement, and had no objection to make to any of the items in the accounts.  He thought they all came fairly in the Shanghai agreement.  The item of $57 was for his board and another member of the company, incurred before the Shanghai agreement was entered into.  He was under the impression that Mr. Hagemann was engaged specially for the Shanghai business.

   His HONOUR asked if he now had all the facts of the case before him.

   Plaintiff and defendant each replied in the affirmative.

   His HONOUR, after a short deliberation, said that he should strike out the items $57 for board, $26 for Mr. Hagemann's agreement, $20 for the loan of music and scenery, and $20 for keeping the books, amounting in all to $123, of which the defendant's share was $30 and a fraction, and deducting that from the $83 claimed, there would be a verdict for the plaintiff for $52 and the costs.


The North China Herald, 20 May 1879



Shanghai, [16th] May.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

CHANG SAN-MOW v. Messrs. ADAMSON, BELL and co.

   This was an action to recover Tls. 49.60, for short delivery of coals from the ship Woolhara.

   Plaintiff was called and said that he bought the whole of the cargo of coals brought by the Woolhara, from the defendants, and that after he had taken delivery of it he found that were 7 ½ tons short, for which he now claimed.

   Mr. F. H. BELL, who represented the defendants, explained that the plaintiff weighed the coal from the ship, and plaids for what he received, his own figures being taken for the weight, and on those figures they had paid the captain.  Subsequently plaintiff found some mistake in the weight, and wanted to make them responsible.

   Plaintiff tried to explain how there were 7 ½ tons short, but could not do so to the satisfaction of his Honour, who dismissed the case, telling the plaintiff he must present his claim by petition with all the facts clearly set out.


The North China Herald, 27 May 1879



Shanghai, 21st May.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This was a claim for Tls. 73 for money detained by the defendant.

   The money was alleged to be due on contracts between the plaintiff and Messrs. Iveson and Co., for the erection of some buildings in Hongkew.  Defendant's name did not appear as a party to the contracts, consequently plaintiff was non-suited and told to go and try to effect a settlement with Messrs. Iveson and Co.


The North China Herald, 3 June 1879


Shanghai, 28th May

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This was a claim for $62.94 for work done and material supplied.

   Plaintiff is a builder in the Kiangsi Road, and he stated that he verbally contracted with the defendant to build two verandahs to his house in the Woosung Road, Hongkew.  Defendant was to pay the wages of the workmen employed at the rate of 30 cents per day and for the martial used amounting altogether to $109.94 cents.  Defendant had paid him $47 on account, and he now sued for the balance $62.94.

   Defendant denied the terms of the contract as stated by the plaintiff, and said that plaintiff undertook to remove a tile roof on his house and construct a wooden one in its place, like a ship's deck, for $54.  When the work was done it was found the roof leaked.  At different times he had paid the plaintiff sums amounting to $47.  He did not pay him the remaining $7 because he wanted him to recaulk the roof and make it watertight.  Plaintiff had not done this, and he (defendant) employed a Cantonese carpenter to do it and paid him $5.  He therefore considered that he only owed the plaintiff $2; and he further said that Dr. Macgowan had offered to settle the claim privately.

   Defendant called the middleman, who, according to the interpretation of Dr. Macgowan, said that the contract was not for $54.  As soon as he introduced the plaintiff to the defendant he went away, and did not hear the contract made.

   Part of the examination of plaintiff was made by Mr. Wong, the Consulate Interpreter, but the facts not being elicited to the satisfaction of His Honour, the services of Dr. Macgowan, who was in Court, were availed of, and he was assisted by a Chinaman.

   Defendant at once pointed out that Dr. Macgowan was the adviser to the plaintiff in the case, and he objected to his interpretation, saying he thought he knew as much Chinese as the Doctor.  The case proceeded, however, and defendant asserted that the middleman, in answering the question as to the terms of the contract, mentioned $54 in Chinese, and he appealed to Mr. Wong as to whether such was the case or not.

   Mr. WONG said he heard the witness mention $54 twice, but at the same time witness had said he did not know what the contract was.

   Dr. MACGOWAN put the question again to the witness, who then said he heard $54 and $64 mentioned at the time the contract was made, but he did not know the terms of the contract, as he walked away.

   Defendant next called a native detective at the Hongkew Police Station, who said plaintiff told him in a teashop that he was to do the work for $54.

   His HONOUR gave a verdict for the plaintiff for $2.


The North China Herald, 24 June 1879


Shanghai, 18th June.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.


   Defendant is an able seaman on board the Forward Ho, and plaintiff, who keeps a Japanese Hotel on the Soochow Creek, sought to recover the sum of $25 on a promissory note for damage to a target by a revolver shot.

   The case was before the Court on the previous day, when it was adjourned because the plaintiff objected to take an oath and there was no interpreter present.  An interpreter was now in attendance, but he as unable to administer the usual caution to the plaintiff, and the case, in consequence, was further adjourned.

20th June.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This case has been twice previously before the Court.  Plaintiff keeps a Japanese Hotel on the Soochow Creek and he claims from the defendant, who was an able seaman on board the barque Forward Ho, the sum of $25, alleged to be due on a promissory note, for damage done to a target by a revolver shot.  On the last occasion the Chief Justice adjourned the case owing to the difficulty of administering the usual caution to speak the truth to the plaintiff through an interpreter.

   The USHER now deposed that when he went on board the Forward Ho to serve the notice of the present hearing on the defendant, the chief mate told him that defendant left the vessel on the previous night, and had taken his bedding and clothing with him.  Subsequently he ascertained that the defendant had left in the ship Kinclune.

   His HONOUR, under these circumstances, could do nothing, and ordered the fees paid to be remitted to the plaintiff.

21st June.


   This was a claim for $62.50, for work done and material supplied.

   Defendant did not appear after being called by the Usher three times at the door of the Court.

   The USHER proved personal service of the summons, but as he had not taken a copy of it His Honour ordered another summons to be issued to be made returnable on Wednesday next.


The North China Herald, 1 July 1879


Shanghai, 23rd June.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul General, Sitting as Judge.


   Plaintiff is a carpenter, painter and mason, living at 475, Broadway, Hongkew, and he sued the defendant, as the proprietor of the Oriental Hotel, Hongkew, now called the Hotel de l'Univers, to recover the sum of $52.90, for work done at the hotel.

   Defendant, in his answer, admitted that he was the proprietor of the hotel and that the work had been done, but  denied that he employed the plaintiff to do it, and, further, that he never authorised any person to do the work, and consequently he was not indebted to him in any sum whatever.'   Plaintiff proved that he had done the work and that he had applied several tines to the defendant for payment, but had not been able to get the money.

   Defendant explained that Mr. Pallister, the former manager of the hotel, had the work done on his own responsibility, and he understood at the time that Mr. Pallister was to pay for it.

   The COURT said the question to be determined then was whether Mr. Pallister was the agent of the defendant or not.

   Mr. Pallister deposed that when he and his wife went into the hotel, it was necessary to have certain work done, to enable them to live comfortably in the place.  He spoke to defendant's carpenter abort doing it, and he wanted to charge $12 for one window, whereas the plaintiff undertook to make three windows for $15, which was a saving of over 100 per cent, and he made a contract with him to do the work it was necessary should be done.  He had previously spoken to the defendant about it, who said he was to have the work done, and as the manager of the hotel he acted as the defendant's agent.  The prices charged for the work were very moderate.  While the work was in progress, defendant came to the hotel and saw what was being done and raised no objections.

   Mrs. PALLISTER gave confirmatory testimony.  She said one portion of the work defendant specially ordered to be done.  This was the putting up of a banister to prevent customers falling down some steps, as one or two had fallen down and hurt their faces.

    Defendant said he told Mr. Pallister that he did not wish to incur much expense on the hotel. When he saw the work bring done he spoke to Mr. Pallister about it and Mr. Pallister said that he was going to pay for it himself.  He produced a written agreement between himself and Mr. Pallister, which stipulated that the latter was to spend no more money unless he received instructions to do so in writing.

   Mr. PALLISTER denied that he said he was to pay for the work.  All the work that was done was absolutely necessary, with the exception perhaps of the painting, which he had done for his own comfort, and he was willing to pay for that himself.  The charge for painting was about $8.  It was after the agreement was made that defendant told him to have all necessary repairs done.

   . A. GRONNER deposed that he visited the hotel several times while the work was being done, when Mr. Pallister said he was to pay for it, - it had nothing to do with defendant.

     In answer to the Court, witness said he was a partner with defendant and lived at his house.'

   The COURT said the question was simply one of agency.  There was no doubt about the fact that Mr. Pallister was in charge of the hotel, and to that extent he was the agent of the defendant.  A written agreement had been put in that Mr. Pallister was not to incur any expense except by authority of the proprietor, but according to Mr. Pallister's testimony he subsequently had a verbal agreement with the defendant, who was the proprietor, that he was to have all necessary repairs made; and Mrs. Pallister's testimony showed that the defendant gave positive orders for the repairs to be made.

   The only disinterested witnesses were Mr. and Mrs. Pallister; the others were parties to the suit and therefore interested.  A case of this kind must be decided by the w eight of testimony, and he was clearly of the opinion that there was a preponderance of evidence in favour of the agency of Mr. Pallister, and therefore judgment would be given for the full amount claimed, less the amount charged for painting, which Mr. Pallister had said he was willing to pay.


The North China Herald, 8 July 1879


Shanghai, 30th June.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General; sitting as Judge.




Assault and Wilful Damage.

   The prisoners O'Connell and Charles are seamen belonging to the barque Penang, and the other prisoner is a sailor out of employment staying at the Oriental Tavern, in Hongkew.  They were charged with being drub and creating a disturbance in Ching-chow's stores, in the Broadway, Hongkew, on the previous night.

   A great deal of evidence was taken, which was to the effect that the three prisoners called at the store and asked to see a bun-boat man, and were told that he was not in.  O'Connell then asked to be supplied with a bottle of beer which he was about to drink, when an assistant in the store objected saying that the beer could not be drunk on the premises.  A disturbance ensued, in the course of which Charles picked up a box and threw it at one of the assistants.  The box struck him on the mouth, cutting his upper lip and causing it to swell considerably.  Charles continued his diversions by breaking a small Japanese cabinet, some tobacco boxes, and other fancy articles, doing damage which was estimated by the Chinaman at $19.10.  All the broken articles were produced in Court.  The police were sent for, and the prisoners were arrested.  Charles and Riley were drunk, and O'Connell had been drinking but was not drunk.

   Each of the three prisoners made a statement to the effect that O'Connell paid 30 cents for the bottle of beer and the people in the store refused to give him any change.  When O'Connell was opening the bottle of beer the assistant attempted to take it from him and struck him in the face.  O'Connell returned the blow, whereupon alleged seven or eight Chinamen in the store surrounded the prisoners, pulled them about, and commenced to pelt them with the articles that were broken.  That was the way in which they alleged the damage was done.  They never touched a single article, the Chinese themselves broke them all.

   The COURT believed that the evidence showed that the prisoner Charles threw the box at one of the assistants in the shop cutting his lip, and that he also broke the articles produced in Court.  It was an offence he sh ould treat with some  degree of severity, and he (Charles) would have to go to gaol for one month, and pay $19.10  for the damage he had done.  The other two prisoners were sent to gaol for fourteen days each.


Charge of Mutiny.

   Prisoner is an able seaman belonging to the crew of the ship Sacramento, and he was brought up on the complaint of the Captain charged with mutiny and assaults.

   Prisoner is an Italian and could not speak English.  The cases set down for hearing in the forenoon, but owing to the absence of an interpreter on behalf of the prisoner, the hearing was adjourned till the afternoon, when an interpreter from the Italian Consulate was in attendance.  He, however, could not speak English but was proficient in Chinese.  To get out of the difficulty the evidence was given in English, then interpreted into Chinese, and from Chinese into Italian.

   Six witnesses were examined, all able seamen belonging to the vessel, and their evidence went to show that the prisoner on several occasions had been quarrelsome during the passage from New York, wanting, as they put it, to "boss" the crew.  On one occasion he threw a bottle of vinegar at one of the sailors, and a belaying pin at another, and often threatened to use his knife, but never attempted to do so.  On the complaints of the crew the Captain put him in irons.  One of the witnesses said that prisoner threatened to bore a hole in the ship and sunk her.

   The COURT, after a most careful investigation, did not think there was any evidence that the prisoner engaged in mutiny.  The evidence showed that he was a violent character, boisterous, and belligerent, and disposed to bully the members if the crew in his own watch.  Two cases of assault had been proved against him, and therefore some kind of punishment would have to be inflicted - not severe punishment, however, because the cases were not of a grave nature.  He thought the ends of justice would be met by the prisoner being detained in gaol two weeks, and at the expiration of that time the question of his discharge from the ship could be considered.


The North China Herald, 15 July 1879


Shanghai, 10th Jolty]

Before H.  S.  WILKINSON, Esq.


   Defendant is Captain of the British barque Presto, and plaintiff sued him to recover $99.99 for  damage to three ballast boats and their furnishings.  Plaintiff's claim was about $140, but he reduced it to less that $100 to obtain summary jurisdiction in preference to proceeding in the higher Court.

   It transpired that plaintiff was the owner of only one of the damaged boats, and the other riot were owned by different Chinamen, who were told by His Honour that they would have to take out separate summonses on their own behalf, and they accordingly did so.

   For convenience the three cases were heard together, each plaintiff being examined.  Their evidence was to the effect that on the morning of the 4th inst. their boats, with others, were delivering ballast into the barque Nimrod, which was moored at the Hongkew wharf, when the Presto came alongside the wharf in tow of a tugboat.  She struck the boats, sunk two and  damaged the third, which belonged to the plaintiffs.

   Defendant and two witnesses were examined for the defence and they asserted that only one boat was upset, which was caused by the wash from the tugboat. The evidence was very conflicting, and after a long investigation his Honour dismissed the three summonses.


The North China Herald, 15 July 1879


Shanghai, 9th July.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge,

and Captain J. ROWSE and Mr. M. H. COOK, Assessors.

In Admiralty.

CHEN TZU-HUI v. Master ands owners of the steamer Pingon.

   Plaintiff is a Chinese subject and he sues the defendants to recover the sum of $160.40 for the loss of a cargo boat and its cargo through a collision, as alleged, with the streamer Pingon.

   [Not transcribed.]

   The evidence of all the officers of the Pingon was positive and unmistakable on that point; the locality was so clearly fixed that there could be no mistake about it, and it was physically impossible for the Pingon to have collided with the plaintiff's boat under such circumstances.  The plaintiff had simple hade a mistake as to the vessel that ran into his boat.  No doubt some vessel collided with it, but the evidence for the defence clearly and unmistakably showed it was not the Pingon, and it could not have been the Pingon, and therefore there must be judgment for the defendant and costs taxed against the plaintiff.


The North China Herald, 15 July 1879


Shanghai, 9th July.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge,

and Captain J. ROWSE and Mr. M. H. COOK, Assessors.

In Admiralty.

CHEN TZU-HUI v. Master ands owners of the steamer Pingon.

   Plaintiff is a Chinese subject and he sues the defendants to recover the sum of $160.40 for the loss of a cargo boat and its cargo through a collision, as alleged, with the streamer Pingon.

   [Not transcribed.]

   The evidence of all the officers of the Pingon was positive and unmistakable on that point; the locality was so clearly fixed that there could be no mistake about it, and it was physically impossible for the Pingon to have collided with the plaintiff's boat under such circumstances.  The plaintiff had simple hade a mistake as to the vessel that ran into his boat.  No doubt some vessel collided with it, but the evidence for the defence clearly and unmistakably showed it was not the Pingon, and it could not have been the Pingon, and therefore there must be judgment for the defendant and costs taxed against the plaintiff.


The North China Herald, 22 July 1879


Shanghai, 14th July

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge.


Three Charges of Assault.

   Defendant is chief mate of the American barque Caprera, and there were three charges of assault against him.

   The first case taken was that of

   BENJAMIN ERICKSON, able seaman belonging to the crew of the Caprera, who complained that on 3rd May defendant struck him on the head, shoulders and arm with a belaying pin, and that on other occasions he had used abusive and obscene language to him.

   After hearing evidence, the Court told the complainant that the mate had to maintain discipline on board, and no evidence had been given to show that he deserved wither fine or imprisonment.

   The case was accordingly dismissed.

   JOHN CAMPBELL, able seaman of the Caprera, next complained that, on the 15th May, on the high seas, defendant assaulted and beat him, knocked him down and kicked him; that on the 20th May defendant abused him with vile and profane language; that on the 3rd July, when the vessel was at or near Woosung, defendant struck him with a knuckleduster, severely injuring his nose, which bled for an hour; and that defendant habitually used abusive and threatening language to the complainant.

   In this case, the evidence was more conclusive, and defendant was sent for trial, the Court admitting him to bail in his own recognizance of $200. The case will be tried on Monday next, before the Court and assessors.

   JAMES MCCORMACK, who is an able seaman on the Caprera, complained that on the 7th and 15th of May defendant assaulted him, using on the latter occasion a carpenter's bench screw; and he further alleged that on the 1st May and other occasions defendant was guilty of harsh treatment towards him.

   The Court considered this case proved, and ordered defendant to pay a fine of $10 and costs.


The North China Herald, 29 July 1879


Shanghai, 21st July

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge.

Messrs. R. P. HUNTER and H. B. ENDICOTT, Associates.


   On the 14th inst., defendant, who is chief mate of the American barque Caprera, appeared to answer three charges preferred against him by members of the crew for assaults and brutal conduct.  One of the summonses was dismissed; on another he was ordered to pay a fine of $10 and the costs; and on the third his Honour adjourned the hearing until today in order that he might be accompanied by two Associates, the charge being one of a serious nature.  In this case John Campbell was the complainant, and he alleged that while at the wheel defendant struck him with his fists, knocked him down and kicked him, and that on another occasion defendant struck him in the face with something hard, supposed to be a knuckle-duster, breaking his nose.

   When the case was now called, Campbell failed to put in an appearance, but the defendant was present.

   Dr. LATHAM, the Clerk of the Court, produced a letter he had received from the captain of the vessel, which stated that Campbell had deserted.

   The COURT said it was very singular that the complainant was absent, and they could not proceed unless he was present.

   Dr. LATHAM said all the other witnesses were present.  The complainant was the only one who was absent.

The COURT explained that the accuser was the most important witness, and that under the regulations of the Court his presence was indispensable and they could not proceed without him.  It was very singular he was not present, and not only singular but suspicious.  If it could be ascertained that Campbell had been tampered with in any way with the view to procure his absence or to prevent his attending the trial, it was a serious offence under the statutes of the United States.  To show that this was the case he read the 5,399th and 5,406th sections of the Revised Statutes, under which a person for intimidating a witness could be imprisoned for six years or fined any sum not exceeding $6,000.  He rerated that it was very suspicious Campbell was not present, as he was duly informed that the case would be heard today before associates.  There could be no misunderstanding on his part, and, moreover, Campbell expressed not only a willingness but a desire to prosecute the charge.

   He should adjourn he case, and if in the meantime it could be ascertained that there had been any intimidation or threats used to prevent Campbell attending by any person within the jurisdiction of the Court, he would see the necessary steps were taken under the law.


The North China Herald, 29 July 1879



Shanghai, 21st July v

Before H.  S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This was a claim for $22.70 alleged to be due foe wages and money expended by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.

   It was simply a question of accounts between the parties.  Plaintiff alleged that he was to be paid $8 per month wages, while defendant alleged that for part of the rime he was in his service his wages were to be $6 per month.  Defendant also alleged he had made payments to the plaintiff, which he was not credited with.

   The case was adjourned till Wednesday, for the attendance of the defendant's interpreter, who it was said could prove all the payments made and also speak to the arrangement made whereby plaintiff was to be paid $6 instead of $8.

23rd July

   This case was before the Court on Monday and was adjourned till today for the production of further evidence.  The claim was for $22.70, alleged to be due the plaintiff for wages and money expended by him on behalf of the defendant, who admitted indebtedness to the amount of $5.20.

   His HONOUR gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $7.20, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the Court.

25th July


   Plaintiff, acting on behalf of the Taotai, sued the defendant to recover the sum of 38,496 cash, for land tax on two lots of land, numbered respectively lots 933 and 1,040.

   Defendant explained that on a portion of his land on the Yang-tsze-poo road he had some trees planted which were removed by the Chinese.  He took the case to the Mixed Court and the Chinese there stated that the land on which the trees were planted did not belong to him.  The decision of the Mixed Court was that the land was to be premeasured and that he was to be informed of the result. The Taotai, he said, had decided that the land belonging to him was three mow less than was mentioned in the title deeds, but they had charged him kind tax on the quantity of land named in the title deeds.  He was quite willing to pay the tax, but he did not think he should pay it on the three mow of land it was said he had lost.

   The TEPAO of the district said that the claim was for 38,496 cash, being at the rate of 1,500 cash per mow.

   Defendant said that the man who was sent to him by the Taotai told him there was three mow of land deficient, and promised to give him a copy of the measurement, but he had not yet received it.

   On answer to his Honour defendant said he had not got the title deeds rectified.  He thought it would be necessary for some steps to be taken with that object in view, but he had been waiting to get the Taotai's measurement of the land.

   His HONOUR - Under the lease you are bound to pay.

'   Defendant - I am bound to pay for all the land I have got, but not for land I have not got.

   His HONOUR - The lease was granted for a certain amount of land, and you have to pay the land tax on the amount stated in the lease.

   Defendant - The lease says twenty-six mow, but there is three mow less than that now.

   His HONOUR - What do you contend for?

   Defendant - I saw there is only 24 mow of land now, and admit the claim on that land.  I say I should not be asked to pay the tax on 27 mow when there are three mow short.

   His HONOUR - You admit the claim less 4,500 cash, which is for three mow.

   Defendant - Yes.

   His HONOUR proposed to adjourn the case for the production of the land register from the Land Office, but Mr. Allen, H.M.'s Vice-Consul happened to come into Court just at the time, and gave instructions for the register to be produced at once.

   His HONOUR pointed out that lot 933 was 16 mow, ands asked defendant whether that was the lot on which he claimed there was a deficiency of three mow.

   Defendant said he did not know.  The two lots adjoined each other, and were measured into one lot by the man who told him there were three mow short.  He did not know whether the tax was payable in advance or not.  The notice for it came top him about two months ago.

   Plaintiff said the tax was due on the 1st January last.

   Defendant said the dispute as to the measurement came up about three months ago.

   His HONOUR pointed out that defendant should have paid the tax before the question of the measurement arose.

   Defendant said payment was not solicited before that time.

   His HONOUR told defendant that as the tax was payable in January, it was foolish on his part to run the risk he had for the sake of two or three dollars.

   Defendant said it was not the amount he objected to.  He did not wish to pay for more land than he actually had.

   His HONOUR told him he should have taken steps to rectify his title deeds, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs.


Church Missionary Gleaner (London, England), 1 August 1879

The Chinese mandarins have brought an action of ejectment in the British Consular Court at Fuh-show against the Rev. J. R. Wolfe, with a view to turn the C.M.S. Mission out of the convenient ground on the Wu-shih-shah, or Black Stone Hill, which it has occupied for nearly thirty years (see the picture in the GLEANER of April, 1876).  The trial came on before Chief Justice French on April 30th, and lasted nine days.  Judgment was reserved, and we do not yet know the result.  The case has excited much interest in China, and is regarded as of the greatest importance, not only to missionary enterprise, but to British rights generally.


The North China Herald 5 August 1879


Shanghai, 28th July

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sittinbg as Judge.


Alleged Assault.

This case has been twice previously before the court, and on the last occasion, it will be remembered, the Court made some strong remarks on the absence of the prosecutor, John Campbell, and able seaman, who, when the offence was said to have been committed, was a member of the crew of the barque Caprera, of which vessel the defendant is chief mate.

   Prosecutor still failed to appear.

   The COURT, after again commenting on the suspicious circumstances of the prosecutor's absence, dismissed the charge.


The North China Herald, 5 August 1879


Shanghai, 30th July

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge.


   Defendant, who is an A.B. staying at the Boar's Head Tavern, was charged with assaulting a Canton woman and with breaking four panes of glass in a house in the Woosung Road.

   On Sunday last defendant, with some other sailors, went to the complainant's house.  A disturbance ensued, and according to the evidence of three witnesses, defendant struck the complainant on the face, giving her a black eye.

   Defendant denied the assault, and called three sailors to support his statement.

   The Court believed that the defendant did strike the woman, and ordered him to pay a fine of $5.

   Another charge of assault was preferred against the same defendant.

   The complainant was a native tailor in the Woosung Road, and it was alleged that during the previous disturbance, while he was sitting in his shop, defendant threw a brick at him, which struck him on the leg, but did not seriously injure him.

   Defendant denied throwing the brick, but a witness was called who saw him throw it.

   His WORSHIP, in this case, imposed a fine of $2.

31st July.


Alleged Assault.

   Defendant, who is chief mate of the American barque May S. Ames, was charged with assaulting Solomon Simmons, an able seaman on board, by striking and kicking him and attempting to gouge our one of his eyes.

   The complaint was formally made and the hearing of the case fixed for ten o'clock this morning.

1st Aug.

   The case was adjourned from the previous day.

   The evidence on behalf of the complainant was to the effect that between seven and eight o'clock on the night of the 29th July, he and one of the other sailors named Charles Wendt went ashore without leave.  They returned to the ship in a sampan about half-past four o'clock the following morning, and attempted to get on board over the bow.  Defendant told them to go to the gangway, and they did so.  In coming up the ladder complainant alleged that defendant kicked at him twice, one kick taking effect on the chest, and the captain came and took hold of him (complainant) to prevent his falling overboard.  As soon as he got on deck he said defendant kicked at him, but did not reach him; then he closed with defendant and they struggled together, in the course of which he alleged defendant attempted to gouge out his eye with his finger. The captain and Wendt separated them.  Complainant's eye was then bleeding, and he appeared in Court with a patch on it. He said the skin was torn in the corner, and he did not think it would ever heal together again; besides, it felt as if there was something in the eye.  It had not been examined by a doctor.

   The COURT said if the eye was permanently damaged it was a very serious offence.

   Defendant said a doctor attended the ship daily, and if complainant had not shown his eye to him it was his own fault.

   In answer to the defendant, complainant   said he did not strike him as soon as he got on the deck.  He did not think defendant's finger slipped into his eye accidentally.

   The Captain and the man Wendt also gave their version of the affair.  Neither of them could say whether the complainant was actually kicked by the defendant or not as he came up the ladder, but defendant kicked at him. They did not see the complainant strike the defendant, but the former was no sooner on the deck than they were scuffling together.  The whole affair, according to the Captain, did not last three minutes.

   Defendant said he gave positive orders that none of the crew were to go on shore without leave, and when he found that the complainant and Wendt were absent he told the watchman to come and tell him when they returned.  The watchman did so, and he went forward to the bow of the vessel and told the complainant and Wendt to come on board up the gangway.  Some words passed between them, and when the complainant got on deck he kicked at him, but missed him. Complainant then struck him on the side of the face, and they closed and struggled together.  Complainant was bending his back on the poop, when, to hold himself up, he put his arm round his neck and his finger slipped into the complainant's eye tearing the skin.  He had no intention at all to injure his eye.

   The watchman gave similar evidence, but he was too far away to see what took place during the scuffle.

   The COURT adjourned the case until today for complainant's eye to be examined by a doctor, who would be asked to make a report on the injury.  If it was of a serious and permanent nature then the present proceedings would be taken as only preliminary, but if the injury was not serious and not permanent he would dispose of the case on the testimony now before him.

2nd Aug.

   This case has been twice previously before the Court. .  .  . When the case was before the Court on Friday, the decision was reserved for the complainant to have his eye examined by a doctor.

   The COURT now read the doctor's report, which was to the effect that the lower eyelid was considerably torn, but the wound did not and would not interfere with the sight.  From the report the Court inferred that there was no permanent injury to the sight, which made the case less serious than it otherwise would have been. There was no question that an assault had been committed, and it was clearly shown that the defendant commenced the assault by kicking, or kicking at, the complainant when he was on the ladder coming over the side of the ship.  This was proved by the evidence of the Captain and the watchman.  He was of the opinion, from the evidence, that the accused put his finger voluntarily into the complainant's eye, that he pressed it in and tore the eyelid, that he did what is called in sailor's parlance gouge his eye.  Certainly such conduct was not to be commended.  But the complainant himself was in fault - he had been away from the ship without leave.  There was a way, however, to punish him for that, and an officer of a ship was not justified in taking the law into his own hands.  The injury to the complainant was not permanent, but the accused had been guilty of an assault of some severity and he should impose a fine of $10 and order him to pay for the medical assistance complainant might require for the injury to his eye.


The North China Herald, 19 August 1879


Shanghai, 16th August.

Before D. H. BAILEY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge.


Charge of Assault.

   Defendant is a barber in the Nanking Road, and he was charged with assaulting the complainant, who was formerly in his service as "boy."

   His WORSHIP, at the outset, told the defendant that he seemed to be in a chromic state of eruption.  What had he to say for himself, was he guilty or not guilty?

   Defendant said he had struck the complainant in self defence.

   The evidence showed that the complainant was formerly in the defendant's service as "boy," and that while in that capacity a coolie was also engaged by the defendant on the complainant's recommendation.  Complainant left about a month ago, and a few days ago the coolie ran away, having, it is alleged, broken into a drawer during the night and stolen some dollars.  The other morning defendant went to complainant's house in the Peeling road to see him in reference to the coolie.  Complainant was not at home, but, on returning, defendant met him in the street, stopped him, asked him why he had left his employment, and then assaulted him by striking him in the face, and kicking him.  After the assault complainants sais he was covered with blood, and defendant took him to his shop and washed his face, and afterwards to the Police Station, where he was asked to give information respecting the coolie who had ran away from the defendant's shop.

   Complainant, who appeared with a black eye and his head in bandages, deposed to the foregoing facts, and in cross-examination by the defendant denied that he struck him first, but admitted that he accidentally knocked a cigar our if his (defendant's) mouth in raising his hand to protract his head after defendant seized him by the queue.

   Complainant's statement was corroborated by a friend who was with him at the rime the assault was committed.

   Defendant called a sailor, who has been a witness in other cases three or four times during the last few weeks.  He deposed that he was passing down the Peking road when he saw defendant attacked by three Chinamen, one of whom knocked him down.

   His Worship - You are quite a professional witness. (Turning to the defendant.) Were you knocked down?

   Defendant said he was not actually knocked down, but he was struck with a bamboo, and complainant struck at him with his first, knocking the cigar out of his mouth, and the fire and ashes went into his eyes.

   Witness said he saw defendant struggling on the ground, and he concluded that he had been knocked down.

   His WORSHIP told the witness he had said quite sufficient.

   Defendant was then sworn and deposed that for some days he had been searching for the complainant in order that he could give the police the name and description of the coolie who had ran away with his money.  When he met complainant in the street, he asked him to go with him to the police Station, but he refused.  He told him he must go, and took hold of his queue, whereupon complainant seized him by the wrist and struck him in the face.  Two other big Chinamen interfered, and one of them struck at his head with a bamboo but he guarded off the blow with his left arm.

   His WORSHIP - You cannot govern your temper at all.  This is the fourth time you have been before me for assaults.  You are constantly before the Court in criminal or civil cases - the docket is full of your name.  You are not a policeman and had no right to take the man to the Police Station. You are now fined $10 and costs, and I tell you plainly that if you come before me again for an offence of this kind, I shall take different measures to what I have hitherto done, so be careful what you do.


The North China Herald, 19 August 1879



Shanghai, 4th August

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   Defendant is Captain of the Japanese steamer Hideyoshi Maru, and plaintiff, who was formerly chief officer on board the same steamer, sought to recover, through his representative Mr. A. Silverthorne, the sum of $99, alleged to be due to him as part of his share of money received by the defendant for towage.

   Defendant denied his liability.

   Mr. SILVERTHORNE said the plaintiff had cleft Shanghai, and produced his Power of Attorney to sue on his behalf.

   Defendant admitted that the plaintiff had left Shanghai.

   Mr. SILVERTHORNE then handed in the following statement by the plaintiff in support of his claim:-

"I hereby certify that I, Frank H. Noel, was chief officer of the Hideyoshi Maru steamer, and on the 11th November, 1878, we found the American ship Annie Fish aground on the North Bank.  I was informed by Captain Cotter that an agreement was made between him and Captain Hoffier to tow her off the Bank for two thousand taels, and if we could not tow her off the bank to receive one thousand taels.

   Before we commenced towing, Captain Cotter of the Hideyoshi Maru promised that all the officers should have their share of the towage money.

   I left the s.s. Hideyoshi Maru, in Nagasaki, on or about the 24th November, 1878.  When I arrived in Shanghai, I went to the Company's agents to inquire about my share of the towage money, and they informed me that Captain Cotter had received the half of the towage money, less expenses (twenty-seven taels) for himself and the crew.

   I was requested in the agent's office to go to the Captain for my share, as they had nothing more to do with it.

   I went on board to see captain Cotter on the 21st July, 1879, in Shanghai.  He ordered me over the streamer's side after I asked him for my share of the towage money."

   In answer to his Honour, defendant said he had received money from the company, but he understood it was given him as a present for running the steamer successfully.

   THOMAS RUSSELL was then called by Mr. Silverthorne.  He deposed that formerly he was second engineer on board the steamer Hideyoshi Maru.  He left her on the 25th of June last.  He remembered the steamer towing off the Annie Fish.  St the time captain Cotter informed him that he had arranged to tow her off for Tls. 2,000, which would be better than a month's pay for each of the officers.  The Annie Fish was towed off. He afterwards went to the Mitsu Bussan Kaishia office, the owners of the steamer, to inquire about the towage money, and he was told that it had been paid less the expenses, and that if the streamer had been running to Shanghai the officers would have received their share of it.  The steamer was not running to Shanghai at this time.  Subsequently he spoke to Captain Cotter about the towage money and he told him he had heard nothing about it.  He went to the office again and they refused to give him any information about it.

   By the defendant - He had received all the wages due him from the steamer.  He was scalded on board her, and was sent to Hospital at Shanghai, and his expenses while there were paid by the Japanese.  Defendant had behaved kindly to him.

   His HONOUR said this had nothing to do with the present claim.

   Defendant was then sworn and deposed - I am a British subject, and master of the steamer Hideyoshi Maru.  I remember towing off the Annie Fish.  I do not remember having had any conversation with the chief officer at the time.  I had no conversation with the last witness.  The Company received Tls. 2,000 for towing the Annie Fish off.  I received Tls. 975 from the Company as a present for running the ship.

   His HONOUR - Had it anything to do with this towage.

   Defendant - The Company gave it to me as a present, and I say it falls to me.

   His HONOUR - Had it anything to do with towing off the Annie Fish.  Don't try to shirk the thing.

   Defendant - I believe it had.

   His HONOUR - Then did you ever hear of a Caption receiving money in that way putting it all into his own pocket?  My advice to you is that you come to a settlement with your officers as soon as you can.

   Defendant said he was perfectly willing to adopt any course his Honour might suggest.

   His HONOUR said it was difficult to adjudicate on one claim alone.  It was perfectly clear that all the men were entitled to a certain sum.  They must all be before him in some way or other, but his advice was that the matter be referred to arbitration.

   Defendant said he believed the chief engineer had gone Home, and that the chief engineer was in Yokohama.

   His HONOUR decoded to adjourn the case until Wednesday morning, when defendant is to be prepared with a statement of the different claims.

6th Aug.

   This case was adjourned from the 4th inst.

   Defendant at the previous hearing admitted that he had received $975 from the owners of the steamer, being about half the amount paid for towing the barque Annie Fish off the North Bank, and he had not divided it among his officers.  It was alleged that there was a promise made before the vessel was towed off that he was to do so, which defendant denied.

   His HONOUR advised defendant to come to an arrangement with his officers, and with that object in view the case was adjourned.  He said he now understood the amount claimed had been paid into Court.

   Mr. SILVERTHORNE, who again appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, said that $102 - $99 the amount of the claim and $3 costs - had been paid into Court, but one or two more dollars had been expended in bringing the case forward.

   His HONOUR thought it was unnecessary to contest the case for so small an amount.

   Mr. SILVERTHORNE was willing to accept the $102 and the case was settled in that way.

   JOHN FUSSELL, who was second engineer on board the Hideyoshi Maru at the time the Annie Fish was towed off, asked his Honour what steps he should take to get his share of the money from Captain Cotter.

   His WORSHIP advised him to see Captain Cotter and try to come to an amicable arrangement with him.

13th August.

Mrs. VAUGHAN v. Captain ACKFORD.

   Defendant is master of the barque Pelham, and he was sued by the plaintiff, who lives in Hongkew, for $75, a month's board and lodging for himself and wife.

   Defendant had paid $32.25 into Court - $30 the amount of his indebtedness to the plaintiff and $2.25, costs of the Court, exclusive of the hearing fee.

   Plaintiff, who is a native married to a British subject, explained that on the 3rd July, defendant and his wife came to live at her house, the arrangement being that they should pay $2.50 per day for board and lodging.  Up to the 10th July they had paid her, according to that rate, but they had objected to pay for the other month.

   Mr. BROUGHAM MILLER, who appeared for the defendant, contended that on the 10th July it was arranged that defendant and his wife should provide their own food and merely rent a room at $1 from the plaintiff, which made their indebtedness amount to the sum they had paid into Court.

   Plaintiff, in answer to his Honour, admitted that she had not provided the defendant and his wife with food for the last month.  As to the arrangement that was made, she only knew what her husband had retold her, and he said she was to charge $2.50 per day.

   Mrs. SUTTON and Mrs. ACKFORD were called and confirmed the statement made by Mr. Brougham Miller.

   His HONOUR made an order for the plaintiff to receive the amount that had been paid into Court.


The North China Herald, 26 August 1879



Shanghai, 20th Aug.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   Defendant is master of the British steamship Killarney, and the plaintiff, who is a licensed pilot, sought to recover from him the sum of Tls. 54 for pilotage.

   Defendant did not appear.

   The USHER proved personal service of the summons on the previous day at the entrance to the court.  He had been looking for defendant all the afternoon and hearing that he had come to the Consulate he came and met him at the door.

   His HONOUR noticed some alterations on the copy of the summons, and asked what was the date on the copy the Usher served on the defendant.

   The USHER explained that the summons was first made out for Friday, the 22nd inst., and that it was afterwards altered to Wednesday, but the date 22nd was not changed to the 20th.  At the time he gave the Captain the summons he noticed the mistake and called the Captain's attention to it, but he refused to let him have it back to change the date.  A second time he called his attention to the mistake, this time at the Shipping Office door, and told him the case was to be heard at half-past nine o'clock on the 20th and not the 22nd.

   Plaintiff was then called and deposed that he was a licensed pilot.  He piloted the British steamer Killarney, of which Captain O'Neill was master, from Gutzlaff to Woosung.  He boarded her at 1.30 a.m. on the 11th, and anchored at 5 a.m. the same day at Woosung.  The rate for pilotage was Tls. 3 per foot.  The Killarney was drawing 18 feet, which made his claim Tls. 54.  Captain O'Neill engaged him to pilot the vessel.

   He made application for payment on Monday, and the Captain said he would wait until the trial was settled in the Harbour-Master's Court, the steamer having got ashore between Shanghai and Woosung.  He only piloted her to Woosung, and was not in charge when she grounded.  When he left her at Woosung he came to Shanghai with the Captain and the mails.  When the Captain returned, her took another pilot down to Woosung with him, who brought the steamer up to Shanghai.  He came to the Court on Monday to take out a summons, but was too late. He obtained one on Tuesday.  He did not know whether the Killarney was still in port.  He believed she cleared, according to the newspapers, on Tuesday evening, for Foochow.  He could not say whether she was going to return to Shanghai, but he believed she was going to load for Home.

   His HONOUR adjourned the case until 9.30 a.m. on the 22nd instant.

22nd Aug.


   This case was before the Court on the 20th inst., when defendant did not appear.  It will be remembered that it transpired there had been an alteration made in the date of the summons as to the time defendant was to appear.  The alteration was not properly made and the summons read "Wednesday, the 22nd inst.," in stead of Wednesday the 20th, and the case was adjourned until today.

   Defendant did not appear, the steamer having left for Chefoo, and judgment was entered for the amount claimed with costs.


The North China Herald, 2 September 1879


Shanghai, 29th Aug.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.



   Defendants are engineers on board the steamer Galley of Lorne, and the plaintiffs, who are storekeepers in Hongkew, sought to recover from them the value of goods delivered to them when the vessel was in Shanghai, in the spring of 1878.

   Ching-kee claimed $13.25 from Elliott, and $9.80 from Westhorpe; and Fung-tah claimed $12.78 from Elliott, and $9.99 from Westhorpe.

   Defendants admitted their indebtedness, and said that no application to them for payment had been made.

   It transpired that no Chinese traders were allowed to board the steamer, and when caught on board they were ordered off.

   In each case judgment was entered for the amount claimed, and in one case against each defendant costs were allowed.


The North China Herald, 9 September 1879



Shanghai, 3rd September

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.


   Plaintiff sued to recover Tls. 70.56, brokerage on sale of a hundred tons of lead, on account of defendants, to Messrs. Hewitt & Co., on the 29th August last. - Plaintiff conducted his own case, and Mr. Drummond appeared for the defendants, who were represented in Court by Mr. W. Howie.  After hearing the plaintiff's statement, His Honour suggested that a request be made to plaintiff by the defendants' counsel to allow the matter to be settled by arbitration should be acceded to. - Plaintiff at first demurred to this course, but ultimately consented, and His Honour adjourned the case for one week to give an opportunity for its settlement in that way.


The North China Herald, 16 September 1879



Shanghai, 12th Sept.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   Plaintiff keeps a public house at Woosung, and sued defendant to recover $99.99, debt incurred for board and losing from 6th January to 19th March last.  Plaintiff said defendant had given him a promissory note for $105.85, but had not paid any money; and he (plaintiff) also held a watch of his worth $25.

   Defendant alleged that his watch was worth $130, and that he had been offered 4100 for it in Shanghai.  He also said he was not in employment, but had a pension from Hongkong.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for $73.60.  Two items of $18.75 and $13.50, for drinks supplied at the bar, were struck out, his Honour saying plaintiff could not recover for them as they were not necessaries.  Sixty cents for jinrikisha hire were allowed.


The North China Herald, 10 October 1879


Shanghai, 4th Oct.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   This case was set down for hearing at three o'clock on Saturday afternoon.  Defendant is captain of the barque Pelham, and he was sued by the plaintiff, who is the cook on board the same vessel, for the sum of $35, due for balance of wages.

   Defendant admitted the debt, but explained that the Pelham was in difficulties.  She was in the hands of Mr. Robinson and likely to be in the hands of the Court before long.

   Judgment was entered for the amount claimed with costs.


The North China Herald, 17 October 1879



Shanghai, 13th Oct.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.


   This was to have been a Jury case, and the usual complement of residents were summoned from among whom the Jury of five would have been drawn in the usual way; but the defendant intimated that the matter would be settled by arbitration.


The North China Herald, 24 October 1879


Shanghai, 16th Oct.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

                CHEN PAU-PAH v. F. MAWHOOD.

   Defendant is a livery stable keeper and plaintiff, who was formerly in his service as farrier, sought to recover from him $10.10, as wages from 1st to the 24th September.

   Defendant denied his liability, stating that plaintiff left his servicer without notice and took another situation.  For breaking his engagement he had prosecuted plaintiff at the Mixed Court and he was sentenced to a week's imprisonment.

   Plaintiff admitted having left defendant's service, and said he did so because he wanted an increase of salary, but he did not tell his master this.  He got leave to go home, and the other situation was offered him and he accepted it.

   His HONOUR gave judgment in favour of the defendant.


The North China Herald, 21 November 1879


CIVIL SUMMARY COURT               .

Shanghai, 18th Nov.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.


   Defendant is an engineer on board the str. Hideyoshi Maru, and plaintiff, who is an engineer living in Shanghai, sought to recover $20, balance of a promissory note.

   The debt was admitted, and the only point in dispute between the parties was the question of exchange, and at the suggestion of his Honour they agreed to split the difference.

   A verdict was entered for the plaintiff for $21.10 and $3 costs; the money to be paid this morning.


The North China Herald, 5 December 1879



Shanghai, 27th Nov.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

  1. GRONNER & Ors v. Mrs. M. GREEN.

   This was a claim for $42.30 for the rent of rooms occupied by the defendant at the corner of the Nanking and Szechuen Roads.

   Plaintiff claimed, as the assignee of N. F. Butt, under a lease dated March, 1879.  Defendant admitted that plaintiff was the assignee of Butt, and that rent was payable under the lease, but claimed that she was entitled, under a postscript to the lease, to have six rooms, whereas the plaintiff wished to limit her to five.  The question therefore for decision was simply the validity of the postscript to the lease.

   His HONOUR, after hearing the plaintiff and defendant, decided that the postscript was proved.

   Defendant then admitted that she owed $42.30 for one month's rent and taxes, which she was willing to pay; and a verdict for that amount was entered, but no costs were allowed.


The North China Herald, 31 December 1879

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT               .

Shanghai, 23rd December.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

                                                FUNG CH-SHUN. v. F. A. GROOM.

   Plaintiff, who stated that he was a brass smith in the Fuh-kien Road, sued the defendant to recover the sum of Tls. 30 alleged to be due under a contract for work done.

   Defendant explained that he entered into a contract with the plaintiff to fix ten bells in a house in the Foochow Road, and that if the work was done properly he was to pay him Tls. 30.  But the work had not been done properly, and therefore he had objected to pay him.

   Plaintiff contended that the bells were properly fixed and in good order, and that they were examined in the presence of Mr. Groom and his compradore.

   An adjournment was suggested for further evidence to be given, but defendant did not wish to take up more time with witnesses and asked his Honour to decide the case on the evidence of the plaintiff.

 His HONOUR said the statement that the work was bad should be clearly proved to deprive the plaintiff of payment.  But the case had been left to him to decide on the evidence of the plaintiff'  he found that the plaintiff had done his work, and it was not necessary, to entitle him to recover now, that the work should have been properly done in the first instance - he had made it right and it had been accepted.  That was the conclusion he came to, and judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs.

   Defendant then asked if it was possible to re-open the case.

   His HONOUR replied in the negative, saying he had given the defendant every opportunity to settle the case or call further evidence.  His only course now was to apply for a rehearing before the Chief Justice.

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