Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor Cases China 1880

The North China Herald, 15 January 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 8th Jan.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

CHANG MOO v. R. H. ELTON.

   This case was struck out owing to the non-appearance of the plaintiff.

M. H. COOK v. J. W. HUME.

   This was a claim for $58.76, against the schooner Daniel Webster, of which the defendant is part owner.

   The defendant admitted the claim as against the schooner, though not against himself personally.  In reply to questions from His Honour, he stated that he owned three-fourths of the schooner mentioned, the other fourth belonging to Mr. Hugh Cameron who was then at sea.  His Honour said in answer to a question from Mr. Hume, that he was at liberty to sell his own share of the vessel if he wished to do so, but he could not give him any advice as to disposing of Mr. Cameron's property.  As there seemed to be a possibility that Mr. Cameron might be in Shanghai shortly, the hearing of the case was adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday the 22nd instant.

 

The North China Herald, 22 January 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Shanghai, 19th Jan.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

ALEXANDER N. BROWN v. HENRY LESTER.

   This was a claim for Tls. 32.40, money paid by mistake.

   ALEXANDER NAIONE BROWN, sworn, said that he was a British merchant residing in Shanghai.  In July last Mr. Lester had sent him a debit note (produced).  He told the shroff that he could not pay it, and wrote on the envelope (also produced), "submit to Bishop."  On the 12th January he had written to defendant, to which he had received a reply. (Both letters produced.)  The goods in question in the godown in question were to the charge of Mr. Bishop, who was the tenant of the house and the godown adjoining; he left the house for the convenience of Mr. Lester and at his request, at least so he had been told by Mr. Bishop.  No agreement had been made between him (plaintiff) and Mr. Lester.  No rent had been paid for the godown except the Tls. 48 which was not in dispute.  He had never personally promised to pay any rent.  On the 9th September the goods were taken out of the godown.  He had nothing to do with any agreement between Mr. Bishop and Mr. Lester.  There might have been an agreement between those gentlemen.

   JAMES DRAPER BISHOP, sworn, stated that he was a British subject, and an electrician.  He had been a tenant of Mr. Lester, and had held a lease from him of a house and godown which he had surrendered about July or August.  He could not remember the exact date.  When he had spoken to Mr. Lester about the things in the godown, he had told him that if they belonged to him (Mr. Bishop) personally, he would not charge him any rent for them, but that if they belonged to the Electric Light Company, he should want compensation for the use of the godown.  Some of the things belonged to wiriness, and some to the Electric Light Company.  He had told Mr. Lester that he (witness) was only the Electrician to the Company, and if any rent were to be charged or paid the matter must be arranged with Mr. Brown. 

   The things were taken from the godown on the 9th September and he had handed receipts from Mr. Kite, the Engineer of the Shanghai Fire department for some of the goods which belonged to the Municipal Council, and from Messrs. Little and Co., for others belonging to the Electric Light Company, to Mr. Brown.  He was almost certain that he had had no conversation with the defendant since that time.  There were no keys to the godown; it stood in the same ground as the house, but was detached from it; it was included in the lease.  There was a bolt on the inside of one door and a padlock on the other.  There were two other locks which he had ordered to be taken away when he left the house.  His own things were removed on the same day as the other goods.

   In reply to Mr. LESTER, witness said that he did not fasten up the godown when he left it; and he had not been there since.

   HENRY LESTER, sworn, stated that he was a British subject, and an architect.  When he bought the premises Mr. Bishop leased one of the houses and the godown in question; and he asked him to cancel the lease, which he agreed to do.  A few days after Mr. Bishop called on him and said that the Electric Light Company had a light in the godown, and that he also had some things of his own in there.  As far as he could remember, he told Mr. Bishop that he had no objection to his keeping his own things there, but that the Electric Light Company would have to pay rent for their property being kept in the godown.  A few nights after that conversation he saw Mr. Brown at the Club, and supposing him to be connected with the Company, called his attention to the fact that the light was there.  Mr. Brown replied that he did not want it in his own godown as all the room in it was required.  From that time until the 12th January, he had heard nothing about the light or the godown from anyone, and had considered the Electric Light Company as ordinary monthly tenants.

   The COURT found that the plaintiff was not a monthly tenant.  The plaintiff, being willing to allow Tls. 15.60 for the value of the accommodation furnished to the Electric Light Company, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, Tls. 32.40 and $3.00 costs.

ALEXANDER SEISSON v. ROBERT HENRY ELTON.

   This was a claim for $28 for goods, etc., supplied.  This case was struck out owing to the non-appearance of the plaintiff.

 

The North China Herald, 5 February 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 28th Jan.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

CHARLES SMIDT v. R. H. ELTON.

   This was a claim for $30 on a promissory note.

   Defendant, who has been before the court on several occasions during the last fortnight, did not appear.

   The USHER proved personal service of the summons on the previous day.

   Plaintiff, who is a publican and storekeeper in the Foochow Road, produced the promissory note on which he made the claim.  He said he supplied the defendant with furniture, and of $43 defendant paid him $13 and gave him the promissory note for $30.  He believed defendant was going to leave Shanghai that day b y the steamer going to Japan, as all the goods had been removed from his rooms and he did not sleep there last night.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs, and execution forthwith.

 

The North China Herald, 19 February 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 16th Feb.

Before G. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.

WALTER PARDON v. ADOLPHUS FERGUSON.

   The plaintiff in this case appeared as the acuter of the late Mr. F. C. Clark, to prosecute a claim for Tls. 100, the amount of a compradore order given to the deceased by the defendant, dated 2nd April, 1876.

   Plaintiff said that the compradore order (produced) was found in the deed-box of the deceased after his death.  It was given for services rendered to the defendant for keeping his accounts.

   Defendant said that he did not consider that he owned the money claimed, because the deceased left his employ before the books were completed, and he had thought he was entitled to stop the payment of this order until they were finished.

   His LORDSHIP gave judgment for the plaintiff.

 

The North China Herald, 19 February 1880

POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th Feb.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

R. (CHARLES SMIDT) v. CALTEN FATAS ELTON.

   The defendant was charged with using threatening language to the plaintiff.

   The plaintiff said that he had had a difference with the defendant about some curtains and she had threatened to knife him and shoot him; he said she was an Italian woman and that she had threatened to break everything in the premises.

   The defendant gave particulars of the dispute about the curtains and denied threatening to shoot or knife the prosecutor.

   His WORSHIP ordered the defendant to find a surety in $20 to keep the peace for one month or in default to be imprisoned for that space of time.

 

The North China Herald, 18 March 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 10th March.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

LIN AH-ZIAN v. Captain BADENOCH.

   Plaintiff is a stevedore living in Hongkew, and he sued the defendant, who was formerly Captain of the barque Willie, to recover the sum of $30, alleged to be due on a contract for the discharge of some sea-weed.

   Plaintiff alleged that he contracted with the defendant to discharge the sea-weed for $30, and produced a pocket-book containing an entry made by the defendant of the contract.

   The entry was nearly obliterated.  The figures $30 were much plainer than any other part of it, and it was palpable that there had been some rubbing out and alteration.

   Defendant stated that he promised to pay the plaintiff $20 for discharging the seaweed, and that he wrote $20 in the book produced.

   Mr. Black, who was present when the contract was made, deposed that he heard the defendant tell the plaintiff he would pay him $20 and no more, and plaintiff seemed to be satisfied.

   Plaintiff also called a witness, but he was unable to say whether the price fixed upon was $20 or $30.

   His HONOUR, through the interpreter, told the plaintiff he was satisfied the entry in the book was originally $20, and that he had got some one to alter it for him to $30.  In consequence he considered him to be a great rogue, and the case would be dismissed.

 

The North China Herald, 25 March 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT              .

Shanghai, 19th March.

Before GEO. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.

R. v. AHMET alias BATCHOO.

Escaping from Gaol.

   Mr. HANNEN appeared for the prosecution.

   The prisoner was charged with escaping from gaol on the 20th of May, 1878, while undergoing a sentence of two years imprisonment with hard labour, for unlawfully wounding Alexander Brash.

   The prisoner having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

The North China Herald, 25 March 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   We understand that the investigation of the charge preferred against Mr. Burnett of the Imperial Customs Service at Wenchow, of being implicated in the abduction of a Chinese girl, has resulted in his being sentenced to one year's imprisonment, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by the United States minister at Peking.  The case was tried on board the U.S. corvette Monocacy before a Court composed of Dr. E. C. Lord, U.S. Consul at Ningpo, the Taotai of Wenchow, and three naval officers.  The Associates, we hear, dissented from the verdict and the sentence, and it is said that Mr. Burnett intends to appeal to Peking, taking exception to the constitution of the Court.  Mr. Burnett has been released on bail to the amount of $1,500.

 

The North China Herald, 25 March 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT              .

Shanghai, 19th March.

Before GEO. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.

R. v. J. H. WILLIAMS.

Assault.

   The prisoner, J. H. Williams, was charged with assaulting and wounding John Richards with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, on the 29th February, 1880.

   There were two other indictments against the prisoner, one for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty, and the other for assaulting Thomas Deighton, the proprietor of the Globe Tavern.

   The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

   The following Jury were then empanelled: - Messrs. C. EDBROOK, J. BRODIE CLARK, J. J. TUCKER, THOMAS RUSSELL and CHARLES GRANT.

   [Not transcribed.]

   Mr. HANNEN, after reading the clause relating to deportation from the Order in Council, said that he would withdraw the other two charges against the prisoner if that clause were put in force.  The prisoner had been a troublesome fellow, and had been out of prison only one or two days when the assault took place.  If His Lordship would order him to fund security for his good behaviour, or order his deportation in default, he would then withdraw the other charge.

   Mr. STRIPLING said the prison had caused much trouble on the French side; he had been in gaol twenty-eight days for a violent assault, and had only been released on the previous night before this assault took place.

   His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment for two calendar months with hard labour; at the expiration of that period if he did not find security for his goof behaviour he would be deported.

 

The North China Herald, 10 April 1880

LAW REPORTS.

POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th April.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

R. (ALFRED BARNES) v. J. H. WILLIAMS.

Theft.

   The prisoner was brought up in custody charged with stealing a razor belonging to Alfred Barnes at Her Majesty's Gaol on the 20th ult.

   [Not transcribed.]

   The prisoner was remanded.

 

The North China Herald, 10 April 1880

LAW REPORTS.

POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th April.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

R. (ALFRED BARNES) v. J. H. WILLIAMS.

Theft.

   The prisoner was brought up in custody charged with stealing a razor belonging to Alfred Barnes at Her Majesty's Gaol on the 20th ult.

   [Not transcribed.]

   The prisoner was remanded.

 

The North Chine Herald, 24 April 1880

HIOGO.

   The investigation of the charge of murder against William Drinkelle, second mate of the American ship centennial, was resumed on the 9th inst. in the United States Consular Court before J. Stahel, Esq., Consul, sitting as Judge, and Mess. J. F. Gorham, J. A. Weed, R. H. Davis and R. G. Walsh.  Prisoner, it will be remembered, had a quarrel with the first mate of the vessel, and a few minutes afterwards fired three shots at him from a revolver, inflicting injuries from which the first mate died in a short time.  The enquiry stands adjourned until further notice, as the proceedings in the case are to be forwarded to the United States Minister at Tokio.

The North China Herald, 25 May 1880

THE MURDER ON BOARD THE "CENTENNIAL" AT HIOGO.

   William Drinkelle, second mate of the American ship Centennial, was brought up in the United States Consular Court at Hiogo, on the 7th inst., before J. Stahel, Esq., Consul, acting judicially, and Messrs. J. F. Gorman, J. A. Weed, R. H. Davis, and R. G. Walsh, Associates.  It will be remembered that Drinkelle shot C. H. Abbott, late first mate on board the Centennial, on the 3rd April last.  He was tried for murder, and at the close of the investigations the proceedings were forwarded to the United States Minister at Tokio.

   The Court now delivered judgment in the following terms: - I find William Drinkelle guilty of murder in the first degree, and I adjudge and sentence him, the said William Drinkelle, to suffer the penalty of death, in such time, place and manner as the United States Minister to Japan may direct. (Signed) J. Stahel, United States Consul, Acting Judicially.

   The Assessors concurred in the finding and sentence.

   A despatch was read from the Hon. J. A. Bingham, United States Minister at Tokio, in reference to the case, expressing his approval of the finding of the Court.  He, however, postpones the issuance of the warrant of execution, to enable him to lay the case before the President for such action on his part as may in his judgment ensure the public interest.

 

The North China Herald, 24 April 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   The case of Bean and others v. Duff and others was heard in H.M.'s Supreme Court on the 22nd inst., before G. French, Esq., Chief Justice.  Mr. R. E. Wainewright appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. A. Robinson for the defendants.

   The petition prayed the Court to order the sale of all property of the Chinkiang Club, and the division of the proceeds equally among the present members, after paying all just claims, and the repayment of all outstanding original shares.  After hearing the arguments of the respective Counsel, His Lordship dismissed the suit, adding that the costs would follow the decision.

 

The North China Herald, 24 April 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   In the United States Court for the Consular District of Shanghai, the charge against James Brennan, a marine on board the U.S. corvette Monocacy, for the murder of a British subject named Caleb Hope, alias George Enright, alias "Buffer," was investigated yesterday before O. N. Denny, Consul-General, sitting as Judge, and Messrs. C. P. Blethen, R. F. Eastlack, W. H. Carr,. and C. Hutchings, Associates.  Mr. Myburgh, Acting Crown Advocate of H.M.'s Supreme Court, conducted the prosecution under a special order from the United States Court, and Mr. J. J. Henderson appeared on behalf of the prisoner.

   The witnesses examined were some of those who gave evidence at the inquest held by the British authorities, when their testimony was fully reported in our columns.  The prisoner gave his version of the affair on oath, and this morning the respective Counsel summed up the case.  Judgment was reserved.  Want of space compels us to hold over our detailed report.

 

The North China Herald, 24 April 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 20th April.

Before GEO. FRENCH, Esq., Chief Justice.

R. v. ROBERT MAYHEAD.

Charge of attempted suicide.

See transcript from National Archives, FO1092:340.

 

R. (ALFRED BARNES) v. J. H. WILLIAMs.

Charge of Theft.

   See transcript from National Archives, FO19092:340.

   His LORDSHIP then sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, to commence from the end of the term he was now serving.

 

The North China Herald, 18 May 1880

IN THE U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 14th May.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as judge.

U.S. v. SEAMEN of the Helena.

   Sic members of the crew of the American barque Helena were brought before the court, charged with refusing duty.

   In answer to the charge, one of the men, speaking for the rest, said that they objected to work before 6 o'clock in the morning.  The Captain had insisted upon it that they should do so, and they refused.  They were anxious to be discharged.

   The Captain was willing that their wish should be granted if the men would be content with wages up to date only.

   His HONOUR consented to the discharge of the defendants.

U.S. (Captain PETERS) v. JOHN JOHNSTON.

   The prisoner was charged with insubordination and drunkenness on board his ship, the Mary Whitridge.

   Captain Peters said the prisoner's conduct was always satisfactory when not drunk.

   His HONOUR fined the prisoner $10 and costs.

 

The North China Herald, 18 May 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 12th May.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

CHARLES SMIDT v. WILLIAM DAVEY.

   This was a claim for $25, the value of goods sold and delivered on the 5th January, 1879.

   The defendant admitted the debt, but said he was out of employment and could not pay it at present, but he would pay it in instalments as soon as possible.

   The plaintiff said he knew the defendant was out of work, but he wanted to have payment of the debt secured as he was leaving Shanghai.

   Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs.

 

The North China Herald, 6 July 1880

IN THE U.S. CONSULAR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 28th June.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General.

U.S. (POLICE) v. THOMAS WILSON.

    The prisoner, a sailor belonging to the U.S.S. Palos, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the neighbourhood of the Yang-king-pang Creek and with assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty on Saturday night.

   The offence was proved and the prisoner ordered to pay a fine of $5 and costs, and to stand committed until the money was paid.

U.S. (POLICE) v. JOHAN ERICKSON.

   The prisoner is one of the crew of the American schooner Humboldt, and was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night in the neighbourhood of the Yang-king-pang.  It was stated that in the course of a quarrel with another sailor he threw a bottle at him.  The bottler missed the man, but fell on the foot of a Chinese woman, inflicting a severe wound.  She had to go to Hospital to have it attended to, and was unable to appear in Court.

   The prisoner was fined $10 and ordered to pay the costs.

U.S. (POLICE) v. IVORY CLARK.

   The prisoner was brought up on a charge similar to the foregoing.  He pleaded guilty, and as it was his first offence, he was ordered to be discharged on payment of the costs.

29th June.

U.S. (POLICE) v. B.  F. LITTLEFIELD.

   The prisoner was charged with being drunk and disorderly in a house in Hongkew on the previous evening, and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty.

   The offence was proved, and the prisoner ordered to pay a fine of $5 and costs.

 

The North China Herald, 20 July 1880

IN THE U.S. CONSULAR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 12th July.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, sitting as Judge.

AH-SAY v. JENNIE CHISHOLM.

   This was a civil suit to recover $104, alleged to be due for services rendered and money advanced by plaintiff to defendant.

   Plaintiff and defendant were both present.

   The defendant admitted a portion of the indebtedness, but disputed the balance.

   The plaintiff, defendant, and a coloured woman were examined.  The accounts were handed over to the court for examination, and judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff for $49.65, with costs.

 

The North China Herald, 20 July 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 14th July.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

E. HEY v. W. M. PRIMROSE.

   This was a claim for the amount of Tls. 36.50, for brokerage on the sale of 50 tins of lead.

   The claim was denied.

   Mr. E. HEY, sworn, said - I am a German subject, and a broker.  I called on Mr. Primrose on the 22nd June last.  He asked me about the market price of lead.  I told him I thought it was about Tls. 4.30 to 4.35 for L. B. lead, one month's delivery.  He said he had 50 tons he would like to sell at Tls. 4.35, if I could get that for it.  I saw some Chinamen; one of them offered me Tls. 4.30.  I came back and told Mr. Primrose that I could offer that sum.  At first he thought he would sell at Tls. 4.30, but as I told him I thought I could get Tls. 4.35, he told me that it was my lead at that price, and I could sell it.

   I went away and called at the office of Messrs. Hewett & Co.  I was asked by Mr. Such as to the market price.  I told him I had fifty tons at 4.35, one month's delivery.  He offered me 4.30, which I said I could not take, as that amount had been offered and declined.  He then told me to settle for him at 4.35, and asked me the vendor's name. I told him it was Mr. Primrose.

  I then went back to Mr. Primrose's office.  I found he was out and I left a chit there, in which I said I had sold at Tls. 4.35, a month's delivery.  I met him in the street and he said he had to get the lead from another party and had to ask them about the sale.  He asked me if I would share the brokerage with him and I said "Yes." He saw his people and afterwards said that they declined to sell, and would sign no contract.  I informed Messrs. Hewett & Co. of the matter, but they hold me responsible for the difference, Tls. 168.  They bought the lead for Hongkong and they had to get some more outside for which they had to pay two mace a picul additional.  They sent me this letter (handed into Court.)

   The defendant objected to the admission of the letter, and said - I admit noting at all.  I have no questions to ask.

   By His HONOUR - I gave no writing to Messrs. Hewett.  There was no bought or sold note given.  I did not give Messrs Hewett & Co. any memorandum of the sale.  I did not know whether the lead was afterwards sold.  I do not think Messrs. Hewett and Co. can hold me responsible.  I fulfilled my duty as broker.  I think if I can bring the piece asked, I have earned my commission.

   His HONOUR explained the usual manner in which matters of this kind were dealt with in London, and asked the plaintiff if he knew of any custom in Shanghai at variance with it.

   The latter said he did not, and His HONOUR said that he held that he could not recover the amount claimed.

 

The North China Herald, 27 July 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 21st July.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

W. HARRIS v. Mrs. THORNLEY.

   This was a suit to recover the sum of $70, the balance due on a promissory note, brought by Mr. W. Harris, trustee of the estate of Messrs. W. Papps and Co.

   Mr.  WAINEWRIGHT appeared for the plaintiff.

   The defendant was present, but unrepresented by Counsel.

   WILMER HARRIS, sworn, said - I am a British subject and official assignee of the estate of Messrs, Papps & Co.

   Mr.      WAINEWRIGHT here formally proved the deed under which Mr. Harris was appointed to the position.

   Witness then resumed - I have to collect debts due to the firm.  Among them I found one for $666, due from the proprietrix of the Nucleus hotel.  I received from her $100 in cash, and promissory notes payable at intervals of a month for the balance.  The last is for an odd sum.  The total amount of the debt, after a deduction had been made, was $596.75.  On the note in question, $30 have been paid and with this money I received a bill against Mr. Papps for $70.  I received it from my shroff; Mrs. Thornley kept the note and sent $30 and the bill to me.

   Defendant, in reply to His Honour, said she submitted that the signature on the promissory note he held in his hand was her's, and that she had paid $30 and tendered a bill against Mr. Papps for $70 in payment.

   WILLIAM PAPPS, s worn, said - I am a British subject and the partner of W. Papps and Co.  Mr. Hutchings is verbally a partner, and I think a letter has passed between us, but there is no deed of partnership.  I admitted Mr. Hutchings as a partner simply for reasons which I would rather not state.  He never attended to the wine business, and knows nothing of it.  I found both the money and the brains.  This liquidation   could not have gone on without my practical knowledge of the business.  Mr. Wainewright read over the deed I signed, and I understood that I was to be allowed $75 a month for maintenance.

   Mr. WAINEWRIGHT admitted that Mr. Papps was allowed $75 a month for maintenance by the deed, but that the allowance had been obtained by misrepresentations.  It had been understood that a number of debts that were assigned were absolutely unencumbered, but in many cases there were set-offs.  His clients had not paid this allowance and did not mean to.  If Mr. Papps wanted to enforce his claim for it, he (Mr. Wainewright) was quite prepared to deal with it.

   Witness - The bill presented by defendant is for my board and lodging for one month, subsequent to this debt.  Mr. Hutchings is certainly a partner.  Mrs. Thornley's debt is due to him and me jointly.  The deed produced is mine, and I do not wish to upset it. When Mrs. Thornley's bill came in, I wrote ion it a request to Mr. Harris, as trustee of the estate to pay it.

   His HONOUR pointed out that the defendant wished to set off the debt of $70 owing to her by Mr. Papps against a debt she owed conjointly to Mr. Papps and Mr. Hutchings, which, he said, she could not do.

   Witness - I told Mrs. Wilson on the 1st instant to send the bill in for payment.  I did not know that she had not done so.

   His HONOUR said that he could not admit at present that the estate was to pay witness $75 a month.  That question was not before him.

   Witness - What steps can I take to get it?

   His HONOUR - You can take out a summons against the trustee for the non-payment of the money.

   Judgment was given for plaintiff in the sum of $70, with $13 costs.

   Mr.  WAINEWRIGHT observed that the case had been brought as a test case rather than because of the amount, as the trustee was anxious to find out whether the debts that he had to collect from Mrs. Wilson were to be set off by Mrs. Papps' debts every time.

 

The North China Herald, 10 August 1880

IN THE U.S. CONSULAR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 3rd August.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General.

U.S. (POLICE) v. B. F. LITTLEFIELD.

Charge of receiving Stolen Property.

   The prisoner, a storekeeper in Hongkew, was brought up in custody charged with having received two hams and a tin of butter on the night of Sunday last, knowing the same to have been stolen.

   WALTER HARE                , sworn, deposed that he and some other men belonging to the British ship Morna took the stolen property produced in Court to the prisoner's house on Sunday night about ten o'clock.  Prisoner had agreed with them during the afternoon to take "some things" from them that they had to sell, but witness did not think that prisoner knew the ham and butter to have been stolen when he received them.  He saw the prisoner give some money top one of the men, but he did not know how much money he gave him.

   By Mr. STRIPLING - An arrangement was made between the men and the prisoner on Sunday afternoon, when three men were in the prisoner's house.  One of them was Veitch.

   JOHN BROWN, sworn, said he was one of those who took the ham and butter from the ship.  The "stuff" was taken in a bag to the prisoner's house.  Witness and others got 90 cents from the prisoner.  It was previously understood that the "stuff" should be taken to prisoner's house.

   GEORGE SHAW, sworn, deposed that a bargain was made by him and the other men with the prisoner during the afternoon that the "stuff" should be brought to him.  $6 were to be paid for the hams and butter.

   JOHN THOMPSON gave corroborative evidence.

   GEORGE SKINNER, sergeant of Municipal Police, deposed to finding the property in the prisoner's house.

   ARTHUR MACK, police constable, gave evidence in detail on the same point.

   Two Chinamen said that a sailor had tried to sell some ham to one of them on Sunday night, but they refused to buy it.  The first of these witnesses said the prisoner came to his house and offered some ham for sale on Monday morning.

   The Prisoner, sworn, said that no bargain was made for any stolen property.  A sailor told him on Sunday afternoon that he had some things on board he would like to sell.  He (prisoner) thought the things would be old clothes or some such goods.  About 9 or 10 o'clock that night the man came back to his house with others, bringing the hams and the butter.  Prisoner only had 95 cents, and her gave them that sum to buy drinks with.

   In answer to the Court, prisoner said he did sometimes give people money to buy whisky with.  He went on to say that he did not know the things were stolen.  A man called Veitch told the men to bring the "stuff" to the house.

   The Court remanded the case till 10 a.m. the next morning.

4th August.

   On opening the Court at 10 a.m.,

   The Court ordered the prisoner to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the case, which latter, we are informed, amount to about $60; or to go to prison for one month.

 

The North China Herald, 10 August 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 4th August.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

WILLIAM BROWN v. J. HOWELL.

Civil Suit.

   In this case the plaintiff, as nightwatchman in a Chinese theatre, sued Inspector Howell for the sum of $15, for damages sustained by the defendant taking a certain dog away from the plaintiff's premises on the 26th of July.

   WILLIAM BROWN, sworn, said - I am a watchman in a Chinese theatre.  About three weeks ago I found a dog there.  I took it to the Louza Police Station and asked Mr. Wilson to keep it till it should be claimed.  I kept the dog ay my house, and fed it.  After Mr. Howell had been to my house, I saw Mr. Mosher, and subsequently Mr. Howell came to see me.  I then offered to take 410 to settle the matter.  He refused to pay that amount.

   CLARA BRUNN, sworn, said - I am the wife of the last witness.  Three men came to the house; one came inside and two remained outside.  Defendant said the dog belonged to him and I told him to wait till my husband came back.  Mr. Roberts loosed the dog, and it went away with them.

   By Defendant - the outside door was open when you went in.  You asked me who the dog belonged to.  You said "when Mr. Brunn comes let him come and see me or write a chit."

   CHARLES PEIN, sworn - I am a German subject.  I saw Messrs. Howell and Brunn come to the house and take the dog away, but I did not underfstandf what was said.  They loosed him.

   Inspector HOWELL, sworn, said - About 4.30 p.m. on the 26th July, I saw Mr. Roberts.  He told me that Mr. Ramasse had seen a dog like the one I had lost.  Three of us went together to plaintiff's house.  I saw a woman there and asked her who lived at that house.  She said a man named Brunn, her husband.  I asked if he was at home, and she said no.  She said he was at a China sing-song.  I asked who tied the dog up, and whose dog it was.  She said it belonged to Mr. Brunn.  I said it was my dog.  She denied it and said Mr. Brunn had had it a long time.  During this time the dog got released.  It ran out and did not comer in again while we were there.  I told Mr. Brunn my name and where I was living, and told her to tell her husband to come and see me.  He did not come, and I went the following afternoon to see him.  The first thing he said was that he was going to summons me for insulting his wife and Mr. Roberts for stealing the dog.  He said he had been to some expense for medicine for the dog, and I asked him what expense he had been to.  He said he had spent a dollar, that he had had the dog two months, and if I would give him $10 he would say no more about it. 

   I did not see him again till last Monday morning, when he came on the Customs jetty, and wanted to know if I was gaping to give him the $10.  There was a disturbance on the jetty, and I went to look for a policeman to gibe him in charge.  I left him there.

   JOHN ROBERTS, sworn, said -0 I am a British subject, and a diver in the Imperial Maritime Customs.  I released the dog when we went to plaintiff's house.  He knew me when he saw me.  He would never have stayed away from me, if he could have got loose.  The dog is now at Pootung.

   His HONOUR advised the parties to settle the case, and the plaintiff agreed to take $7.50 and $3 costs.

 

 

The North China Herald, 24 August 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 19th August.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

WONG CHUNG-CHIN v. FRANCISCA PALLISTER.

   This was a suit to recover the sum of $40.70, for services rendered by the plaintiff to defendant and money spent by him on her account.

   Defendant was absent and unrepresented.

   The service of the summons was proved.

   The Plaintiff stated that he was the defendant's "boy."  He had been her servant from the 25th of June until the 14th of August, and there was due to him the sum of $16.30, 49 days' wages at the rate of $10 per month.  He had not received anything.  He went on to say that he had bought wines, spirits and other things for her on his own credit.  He had also brought oil, milk and coal for her.  He wanted altogether $57.70.

   His HONOUR directed that the summons should be altered by having the additional amount stated in it, and ordered that the case should be heard next Monday morning at ten o'clock.

23rd August.

WONG CHING-CHIN v. FRANCISCA PALLISTER.

Claim for Wages, &c.

   The hearing of this suit, brought to recover $57.70 for wages, &c., which was postponed from Thursday last, came on again this morning.

   Defendant said she had not paid plaintiff for this month.  He had been very remiss in his duty.  His wages commenced on the 1st of each month.  Although he was engaged on the 25th March last, he did no work till the 1st April.  Defendant had no house on the 25th March.

   Plaintiff said he worked every day from the 25th March.  He had had three months' wages.  He had bought for defendant, six bottles of champagne, price $6; two bottles of brandy for $2; and eight bottles of beer for $2.  He bought these things at Ting Chong's, in Hongkew.

   Defendant said that the plaintiff had stolen the liquors from her in the first place, and then sold them to her again.

   Plaintiff said he had further claims for $7.70 for milk, $4 for ice, and $5 for coals, he having pledged his credit for them.

   Defendant denied these claims altogether, and said there was no responsibility on the part of the plaintiff, adding that she paid all her debts herself in cash at once.

   Plaintiff said defendant did so for the first two months, but not after that time.  There were five baskets of coal for which he was responsible to the vendor, and for which he had not been paid.  Defendant also owed him $14.70 for fish, vegetables, &c.

   Defendant said she had not seen a fish in her house for two months.

   His LORDSHIP told the plaintiff of this statement of the defendant, and while the man was replying,

   Defendant asked him how much he paid a picul for rice.  As he was standing with his face towards the Bench, and did not immediately reply to her, she made a lunge at him in the chest with her parasol.

   His HONOUR then said to Constable Bowman, "Take the defendant into custody on the rising of the Court," and immediately left the Bench.

   After the lapse of half an hour, his Honour took his seat on the bench, and Mrs. Pallister, brought up in custody, expressed her regret for her exhibition of temper and physical energy.

   His HONOUR said that he was glad to hear an expression of regret from the prisoner, and proceeded to read to her the Section of the Order in Council bearing on the case; and said that if she had not apologised for her conduct, he should have acted upon it.  Ass this, however, was the first time in the course of his career that such an occurrence had taken place before him, and it was a sort of thing seldom done by British subjects, he thought he would pass it over on this occasion, and discharge her.  It must, however, be distinctly understood that the court had full power to protect everyone who came therein.

   He would adjourn the hearing of the case trill the following morning at ten o'clock, but thought it would be best for the defendant to settle the matter with the plaintiff out of Court.

 

The North China Herald, 31 August 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 24th August.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

WONG CHUNG-CHIN v. FRANCISCA PALLISTER.

Claim for Wages, &c.

   The hearing of this suit was resumed from yesterday.

   Plaintiff called the man from whom he had purchased milk for defendant, an assistant in Ching Chang's store, a boy in the employ of a coal dealer, and an ice-vendor; who deposed to the sale of goods of various kinds for the purchase money of which plaintiff sought to recover.  They all said they looked to him for payment and not to defendant.

   The ice-man's account had been settled the previous day.

   MARY ERNESTINE FRANCISCA PALLISTER, the defendant, sworn, admitted the claim for beer and brandy for $4, but disputed the item of champagne.  She thought she only owned about $3 for coal, and she totally denied the claim for $14.70, for fish, vegetables and small payments made at different times for sampan hire, jinrikisha fares, &c.

   With regard to this last claim, plaintiff admitted that the sums mentioned were not all spent for defendant personally.

   His HONOUR finally gave judgment for the plaintiff for $15 for wages, $4 for brandy and beer; $5 for coal, and $7.70 for milk; in all $31.70, and $3 costs; the money to be paid in three days.

 

The North China Herald, 31 August 1880

IN THE U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 26th Aug.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

U.S. (Captain D. S. GOODELL)

v.

J. B. MATTHEWS, G. T. SHRUGG, OLAF THENDER, K. KATFER, T. INQUIS, P. PETERSEN, C. P. ERICKSON.

Refusal of Duty.

   The prisoners, who form part of the curfew of the American ship Brown Brothers, were charged with refusing duty on the 23rd inst.  On that day they were arrested, and they have been in the Consular gaol ever since.

   On being brought before the Court, they complained of ill-treatment experienced at different times from J. H. Brown, the second mate of the vessel, in the form of kicks, blows, &c.

   His HONOUR ordered a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the second mate, and adjourned the further hearing of the case till he should appear before the Court, when the matter will be fully investigated.

27th Aug.

   The prisoners, members of the crew of the American ship Brown Brothers, were brought before the court on remand from the previous day, and J. H. Brown, the second mate of the vessel, of whom they complained, was also present.

   The men made a number of statements similar to those they had given before, but could not in any instance name the date on which any specific act of ill-treatment occurred.

   His HONOUR, after hearing all they had to say, and the statements of the second mate, ordered them all to return to their duty on board the ship.  He should send a record of the case to their next port of destination and if they had received any ill-treatment on the voyage they could complain then.

30th Aug.

U.S. (Captain GOODELL) v. H. KATFER.

Refusal of Duty.

   The prisoner, one of the crew of the American ship Brown Brothers, was brought before the court on the 27th inst., with seven of his shipmates, charged with refusing duty, and all eight of them were sent back to the ship by the Consul.  Prisoner, having again refused duty, was arrested on Saturday.

   Captain GOODELL now said that the other seven men had turned to, but that the prisoner, who seemed to be the ringleader, refused to do so.

   In reply to a question from His HONOUR, prisoner said he would not return to duty on the ship.

   His HONOUR then ordered him to be confined in the Consular gaol until the ship should be ready for sea, and to pay the costs.

 

The North China Herald, 31 August 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   Edward Hintz, the tenant of the house at the corner of Minghong Road and Broadway, Hongkew, in which the fire originated on Sunday morning by which it and two other houses were destroyed, was arrested by the Municipal Police on Thursday afternoon at the Columbia Tavern in the French Concession, under a warrant from the German Consulate-General.

   The charge against him is that of attempted fraud on the Prussian national Fire Insurance Company, whose agent in Shanghai is Mr. B. Telge.  About a week before the fire, Hintz took out a policy of insurance for Tls. 2,000 on the furniture in the house and his private effects.  A few days since he sent in a claim for compensation for property alleged to have been lost by the fire.  It now appears that Hintz removed a box, sufficiently heavy to require four coolies to carry it, to the tavern where he was arrested.  It is believed that some of the contents of this box have been represented as destroyed in the claim made on the insurance company.  No charge of arson has been preferred.

 

The North China Herald, 11 September 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   Dr. E. C. Lord, United States Consul at Ningpo, has, we understand, given notice that the case of J. H. Burnett, charged with the abduction of a nun at Wenchow last spring, is set down for hearing on the 27th inst. in his Court.  Mr. R. E. Wainewright has been retained for the prosecution by the Chinese authorities, and Mr. J. J. Henderson is conducting the case on behalf of Mr. Burnett.

 

The North China Herald, 11 September 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 1st September.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

CHU TA-KUEI v. FRANCISCA PALLISTER.

Claim for Wages.

   This was a claim for wages instituted by a Chinaman who had served defendant in the capacity of coolie.

   Defendant did not appear.

   Constable BOWMAN proved the serving of the summons of the court on the defendant on the 28th ult.  He had told her to attend the Court at 10 a.m. today.

   CHU TA-KUEI deposed that he took out the summons himself.  His claim was for wages from Mrs. Pallister for $11.70, for 44 days, 1st July to 14th Asugust, at $8 per month.  He served defendant as coolie.  He had asked defendant for his wages but she refused to pay him, and struck him.  He left his situation on that account.  He had not received any part of the wages claimed.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, $11.70, with $3 costs, to be paid in three days.

 

The North China Herald, 18 September 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 15th September.

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

NASSIM v. IBRAHAM.

Claim for Board.

   This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $7.50, due to him from the defendant for one meal a day for 45 days, at the rate of $5 per month.

  Both plaintiff and defendant are Malays.  Mr. Deighton interpreted.

   Defendant denied the claim.

   Plaintiff said that defendant owed him the sum named for board; he had had one meal a day for 45 days, and there had been an arrangement between them that plaintiff was to receive $5 a month.

   The plaintiff's wife corroborated her husband's statement.

   Defendant said he had only boarded with the plaintiff for 21 days.  Plaintiff owed his (defendant's) father $3 for house rent seven years ago, so he had set this debt against the 21 say's board.

   His HONOUR observed that either defendant or the plaintiff and his wife had been lying.  There were, however, two on one side and one on the other.  He told Mr. Deighton to explain to defendant that there were two reasons why he could not set-off the alleged debt of $3 against this claim; first, it did not belong to him, and second, it had, according to what he said himself, been incurred too long ago. 

   Judgment would be given for plaintiff for $7.50 with $3 costs; $3 to be paid on the 1st of October, November, and December respectively, and $1.50 on the 1st January, 1881.

 

The North China Herald, 30 September 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 24th September

Before H. S. WILKINSON, Esq.

ALFRED SILVERTHORNE v. WALTER HEPPER.

Civil Suit.

   This was a suit to recover a claim for the sum of $99.99, alleged to be due to the plaintiff, who is the landlord of the "Eureka Hotel," Hongkew, for board, lodging and money advanced at various times during the year 1880.

   Defendant admitted the claim, but said that the items described as "money lent" and "lodging" were not correct.

   His HONOUR directed that the summons should be altered so as to read, "balance of account stated."

   Defendant explained that he had only been employed for the last three months, and that he had other claims to meet besides this one.  He thought that $3 a month was as much as he could manage to pay.

   His HONOUR considered that he ought to pay $5 a month, and accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff for $99.99, the amount claimed, and $3 costs, to be paid in instalments of $5 per month on the first of each month, beginning with the 1st of October next, till the amount was paid.

 

The North China Herald, 30 September 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   The charge of embezzlement against Mr. E. P. Caussade, late acting secretary of the French Municipal Council, has been investigated at Saigon.  The accused was found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, in accordance with articles 401, 406, and 463 of the French Penal Code.  The sentence was passed by the Court at Saigon on the 31st August.

 

The North China Herald, 14 October 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   Judgment was given on Friday in the United States Consular Court at Ningpo in the case of the United States (Chong-leng) v. J. H. Burnett.  The Consul found the defendant guilty of the offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of $500, and to be imprisoned for a year in the consular gaol at Shanghai.   From this judgment all three of the Associates dissented; and the case is to be again referred to the U.S. Minister at Peking.

   On other pages we continue our report of the case, but for want of space we hold over the speeches of Counsel and the judgment.

 

The North China Herald, 21 October 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 18th October.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

J. C. WILLIAMS v. JESSIE LOWARK.

   This was a suit to recover $4, due to the plaintiff from the defendant for a sideboard supplied in the month of September.

   The defendant admitted that she owed the money, but explained that she could not pay it.  Her husband went away in August, and she had not yet heard from him.  She was quite willing to return the sideboard to the plaintiff.

   The plaintiff expressed his willingness to receive it.

   His HONOUR thereupon directed the defendant to return the article and settle the case in that way.

   No order was made as to costs.

 

The North China Herald, 11 November 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   An action was set down for hearing in H.M.'s Supreme Court on Friday, in which William Power, builder and draughtsman, of No. 10, North Soochow Road, sued Samuel Ballard to recover the sum of Tls. 192 for preparing drawings and tracings for the erection of nine Chinese hongs in the Kiangse Road.  The case has been pending for many weeks, and at the eleventh hour the plaintiff accepted Tls. 80.  Tls. 50 had previously been offered him, and defendant had also wished to have the case settled by arbitration.

 

The North China Herald, 11 November 1880

IN THE U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 4th November.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

U.S. (POLICE) v. W. H. RAGSDALE.

Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct.

   The prisoner, a landsman on board the U.S.S. Alert, was brought up in custody charged with being drunk and incapable in Hongkew at noon on the 3rd inst., and also with disorderly conduct at the Hongkew Police Station after apprehension.

   The prisoner admitted the offence.

   Police Constable JONES said the prisoner was brought to the Station about two o'clock on the afternoon of the previous day, and he became very violent and used a great deal of filthy and abusive language in the hearing of some woman and children passing through the Police compound.

   His HONOUR said if the prisoner had been simply drunk he would not have imposed a fine, as it seemed to be his first offence, but for using bad language he should fine him $3.

 

The North China Herald, 25 November 1880

INN THE U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 20th November.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

U.S. (POLICE) v. ISAAC DUNCAN.

Assault and Battery.

   The prisoner, second engineer on board the C.M.S.N. Co.'s steamer Haesan, was brought up in custody charged with having maliciously assaulted and wounded Leo Ernest Bretshcneider, with intent to commit murder.

   In reply to the Court, prisoner said that he went to a house in the Foochow Road with the injured man, with whom he was on friendly terms, and that they had a quarrel there.

   Mr. STRIPLING handed into Court a medical certificate stating that the wounded man was in the General Hospital, and that it would be at least a week before he could attend to give evidence.

   The COURT asked of the poker then lying on the table was the weapon with which the assault was commuted, and Mr. Stripling answered in the affirmative.  It was about two feet and a half long, and stained with blood.

   Prisoner, in answer to a question, said that his steamer was leaving for Foochow on Sunday morning, but would probably be back in about eight days.

   The COURT adjourned the further hearing of the case until Monday, the 29th inst., the prisoner being required either to deposit $250 as security for his appearance on that day, or to find two sureties for $250 each.

 

The North China Herald, 25 November 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 19th Nov.

Before R. A. MOWAT. Esq.

R. D. MARSHALL v. H. COOPER.

   The plaintiff, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Marshall, Marsh & Co., in Hongkew, brought this suit to recover the sum of Tls. 40, alleged to have been paid to the defendant for a piano; the instrument having been returned into the possession of the defendant.

   Defendant denied his indebtedness.

   It appeared from the evidence that the defendant had a piano left in his possession which the owner wished him to sell for him.  Defendant sold it to the plaintiff for Tls. 40, but subsequently the owner wanted to obtain it back, and plaintiff complied with the defendant's request in this particular, but defendant refused to return him the Tls. 40, owing to other complicated transactions between them.

   After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant, His Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff, it appearing that defendant had acknowledged in a chit that he owed the Tls. 40.

24th Nov.

ELIZABETH BURTON v. GEORGE ORMSBY POWELL.

Civil Suit.

   It will be remembered that on the 17th inst. a woman, whose name is now given as Nina Mow, died in a room over the store of Messrs. G. O. Powell & Co., No. A993 Broadway, Hongkew, under somewhat unusual circumstances.

   This suit was brought by a person claiming to be related to the deceased, to obtain the sum of $99, or the delivery to her of all jewellery and clothing now in the possession of the defendant, with whom the deceased lived, that had formerly belonged to her.

   After hearing various uninteresting particulars about different articles produced in Court and other personal effects,

   His HONOUR made an order calling on the defendant to deliver all the cloying spoken of to the plaintiff, together with the pawn ticket for a certain watch, and all other similar tickets in his possession.  The defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the case.

 

The North China Herald, 2 December 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Shanghai, 29th November

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

KUO YUNG-CHANG v. FRANCISCA PALLISTER.

   This was a claim for the sum of $91, due to plaintiff for three months' rent of premises No. 6, Lower Yuen-ming-yuen Road, occupied by defendant.

   Mr. Hore, the Usher of the court, proved the service of the summons upon the defendant, and produced a letter in which she acknowledged her indebtedness.

   Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the full amount claimed, with costs.

 

The North China Herald, 9 December 1880

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

The case of the United States v. Isaac Duncan has been withdrawn.  To remove any erroneous impression that may have been created by the settlement of the case out of Court, we may state that under Section 4,099 of the Revised Statutes, it is lawful for the parties in all criminal cases, not of a heinous character, to adjust or settle the same among themselves upon  pecuniary or other considerations.

   It is also necessary, according to American law, for the complaint to be made by the prosecuting witness, which was not done in this case, the prisoner having been arrested by the police at the scene of the occurrence, taken before his Consul, and formally remanded pending the recovery of the injured man.  The settlement come to was arranged solely by the parties themselves.  A Government prosecution might have been instituted, but all efforts in this direction could have been thwarted by a disinclination of the injured party to testify, being, as he is, beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

 

The North China Herald, 9 December 1880

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 3rd December.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

WONG AH-HAI v. ALEXANDER FULLER.

   The prisoner, "captain" of the lorcha Lark, was brought up under arrest charged with committing an assault on the complainant, a mafoo in the employ of a Chinese livery stable-keeper named Hsin Dah, on Wednesday night.

   The evidence went to show that the prisoner hired a trap from the complainant's master on the evening in question, and went some distance down the old railroad towards Woosung.  The complainant for some reason declined to continue the journey, and the prisoner assaulted him, or "gave him a shove unintentionally" with the horse whip, inflicting a cut about half an inch long on the mafoo's forehead.

   The prisoner was fined $3 and ordered to pay the costs.

 

The North China Herald, 9 December 1880

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd December.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

MARY BERRY v. CHARLES A. WILLIAMS.

Civil Suit.

   The plaintiff, a boarding-house keeper in Hongkew, sued the defendant, a seaman on board the American schooner Mary Whitridge, to recover the sum of $17, alleged to be due to her for board and lodging.

   It appeared from the evidence that the defendant had lived in plaintiff's house for 17 days, and that $8 had been paid by him on account.  Plaintiff said that she had afterwards advanced $2 to defendant, but he said that $1 was all that had been lent to him by her.

   Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff for $11 and costs.

6th December.

SE SEK v. R. D. MARSHALL.

Civil Suit.

   The plaintiff, a "boy" in the service of the defendant, brought this action to recover the sum of $10, alleged to be due to him for wages, and the return of certain bedding and other property said to be in the possession of his late master.

   Se Sek said that when he recently left the employ of the defendant, the things he spoke of were left in his late master's house.  He subsequently went to fetch them, and told the "boy" who had succeeded to his situation the object of his visit.  This "boy" went upstairs and informed the defendant, who came down and ordered him to leave the place.

   The defendant explained that when the plaintiff left him, he removed the bedding, &c., referred to upstairs for greater security, and also to make room for the belongings of his successor.  On the occasion of the plaintiff's visit to the house he was told that "the old boy" was making a disturbance downstairs, and he went and told him to go away. After the plaintiff had obeyed his instructions, he (defendant) told his boy to take the plaintiff's property downstairs, and it had remained there ever since.  With regard to the question of wages, he admitted that he owed the defendant $6.33; but he wished the defendant to account for a number of articles belonging to him that he enumerated, which he said were missing.

   The plaintiff said that some of the things mentioned were in the defendant's house.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the plaintiff for $7 on account of wages due, to be paid into Court, and held pending a further order.  The bedding, &c., must be returned, and the defendant must pay the costs.

 

The North China Herald, 16 December 1880

LAW REPORTS.

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 14th December.

Before G. FRENCH Esq., Chief Justice; and Messrs. W. PARDON, C. R. MARKES, S. REVNELL, J. L. BROWN, and V. D'O. WINTLE, Jurors.

JOHN HENRY JOHNSON v. WILLIAM VENN DRUMMOND.

   Plaintiff conducted his own case.

   Mr. WAINEWRIGHT appeared for the defendant.

   Plaintiff has recently been on the staff of the Shanghai Courier, of which paper the defendant is lessee; and the action was brought to recover the sum of $2,100 for alleged wrongful dismissal and a first-class passage to England. 

   [Not transcribed.][Court adjourned.]

23rd December.

   Having referred to what he considered to be the material parts of the evidence, his Lordship propounded the following questions to the jury for their decision:-

  1. - Was there such disobedience of orders and such general misconduct on the part of the plaintiff while reporter and general assistant, as would have been in themselves and apart from the agreement a proper ground of discharge of the plaintiff from the defendant's service?
  2. - Are you satisfied on the evidence that a usage exists of allowing persons employed in the regular staff of newspapers under a written agreement, such as that in the present case, to correspond freely with and do literary work for other newspapers?
  3. - Assuming that the work actually done by the plaintiff is forbidden by the agreement, did the amount of work so done justify the defendant's discharge?
  4. - What is the amount of damages (if any) to which the plaintiff is entitled?

   His LORDSHIP told that Jury that in considering the third question, they should also consider as to whether the work had been done in defiance of the defendant's orders and against his expressed wish; and in referenced to the question of damages, he advised then that the plaintiff was entitled to a return passage Home, and such a sum as would make up his income during the time he was likely to be out of employment.

   The Jury retired shortly after four o'clock, and were absent about three-quarters of an hour.  On returning into Court, His Lordship asked them if they had agreed on their verdict, and Mr. Pardon rose and read their answers to the four questions put to them as follows:

  1. - We find that there was no such disobedience of orders and general misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, while reporter and general assistant, as would have been in themselves, and apart from the agreement, a proper ground for discharging him.
  2. - We are satisfied on the evidence that a usage exists allowing persons employed on the regular staffs of newspapers to correspond with and do literary work for other newspapers unless specifically prohibited in the agreements.
  3. - Certainly not.
  4. - Six months' salary at the rate of $125 per month, with $60 for a passage to England.

   Plaintiff took it that costs would follow the result.

   His LORDSHIP replied in the affirmative.

   His LORDSHIP then briefly thanked the Jury for the patient hearing they had given to the case, and discharged them.

[See also Editorial, 'JOHNSON v. DRUMMOND,' 30 December 1880.]

 

The North China Herald, 16 December 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 10th December.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

J. BORRODAILE v. H. EVANS.

Civil Suit.

   This was originally an action to recover the sum of $30, alleged to be due from defendant for wages, but the plaintiff was allowed to amend the summons by the addition of a further claim for $25 for mess allowance.

   The defendant denied his liability.

   JOHN BORRODAILE, sworn, deposed - I was lately in the Customs service.  About the 27th of October, I applied to the defendant for the situation of assistant to him in his town store.  On the 1st of November, he engaged me for a month.  My wages were to be $30 a month with my board and lodging.  At the end of the month he said to ne, "you have not given great satisfaction, but I will take you for another month on trial."  One day, I think it was the 6th inst., when I had returned from collecting orders from steamers, I was entering things in the day-book, when the defendant asked why I had not entered them before, and I said that the day-book was not down.  Mr. Evans then    said I was no good and that I had beater leave.  I replied that I would leave at the end of the month.  Defendant then ordered me out of the house.  I asked him for my wages for the month, and he refused to pay me.  It would cost me at least $25 a month to live at the Temperance hall.  That amount is the lowest at which I could board there.  I am living in Hongkew now, and have to pay rent.

   By defendant - When you paid me $30 last week, you did say that there was no engagement between us, but that you would take me another month on trial.

   HENRY EVANS, s worn, deposed - One of my assistants was leaving me a short time ago, and the plaintiff, with others, applied for the situation vacated by him.  He came to me frequently about the place.  At last I agreed to take him for the wages, &c., mentioned.  Plaintiff told me that he knew something of book-keeping, and also of store-keeping, but I found he knew little of either.  Mr. Russell, however, who was leaving me, had not yet done so, and for twelve days he helped the plaintiff into the ways of the business.  But at the end of the month, I was anything but satisfied with the plaintiff, and I told him so on the 4th inst., when I paid him.  I added that I would try him a little longer, as I did not wish to part with him if he improved.  I also said explicitly that there was no engagement between us, but that if the plaintiff got on well, I might make one with him after the current month had elapsed.

   On Monday, I had occasion to complain to him, and he told me he had too much to do, and I said that in that case he had better leave at once.  He s aid that he should stop for the remainder of the month.  I said that he should not do so, and offered him $6, the sum of money due to him.  He agreed to accept it, and next morning he came down to the Brewery to get it, but he then refused the money and took out the summons for the amount claimed.  I considered that I was entitled to discharge him at any moment I felt inclined to do so.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the defendant, allowing the plaintiff the $6 that had been paid into Court by Mr. Evans.

 

The North China Herald, 23 December 1880

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 18th December.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

J. E. NESBITT v. W. COTTER.

Civil Suit.

   Plaintiff, who has been employed on board the M.B.K. Co.'s str. Yiritomo Maru, sued the captain of that vessel for $13.25, alleged to have been due to him before leaving England.  It was stated that plaintiff was on board the steamer in question for a month before she left for the East, and that by a verbal agreement he was to get $6 a month and mess allowance till the ship should leave.  Plaintiff had received $4, and was now seeking to recover $2 more for wages, and 10s. 8d. for mess allowance.  He had applied to the defendant several times for this money, but had been refused on the ground that the account had been settled before leaving England, and that a voucher for the full amount signed by plaintiff had been sent to the Company's office at Yokohama.  When plaintiff was paid off, defendant said he would pay the amount if the voucher did not come to hand by a certain time.  That occurred some time ago.

   Defendant said that he had paid the plaintiff all that was due to him, and he had received a voucher for it.  He had sent to Yokohama for it, but it had not yet come.  He thought it would come by the next steamer from Japan.  He did not think he was to blame for the non-arrival of the voucher.

   His HONOUR adjourned the case for ten days; if the defendant does not then produce a receipt signed by the plaintiff for £6.10.8, judgment will be given for the latter for $13.25 and costs.

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