Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor Cases China and Japan, 1886

North China Herald, 7 April 1886
At a meeting of Consuls held last week a series of amendments on the Harbour Regulations proposed by the Harbour Master were considered and disposed of.  All were approved with the exception of one to Regulation No. 14, regarding the portion of the harbor in which ships laden with kerosene oil may be berthed and discharged. .  .  .  
[Not transcribed.]
There is no danger in either case.  The Consuls have placed themselves in what we may mildly call an awkward position, and the sooner they get themselves out of it the better.


North China Herald, 17 April 1886
Shanghai, 9th April, 1886
Before E. J. Smithers, Esq., Acting Consul-General.
  WILLIAM JAMES MARTIN, a negro, was charged with having assaulted and robbed one Michael Hanley on the night of the 7th April.
  MICHAEL HANLEY, the prosecutor, who appeared with two black eyes and a cut face, said he was a second-class fireman on board the U.S.S. Marion. .  .  .  
  The CONSUL GENERAL, addressing the prisoner, said he had been charged with assaulting Michael Hanley without provocation, and with the intention of extorting money from him.  This charge was conclusively proved; but with regard to that of robbery, while the evidence pointed to the prisoner's guilt, still, considering the character of the place where the assault was committed, and the people in it, his Honour was unwilling to say that it was conclusively proved that the robbery had been committed by the prisoner.  He sentenced Martin to be imprisoned for sixty days in the consular Gaol, and to pay the sum of $2 for the damage to property.
.  .  .  
  MARTIN NESBIT, seaman of the U.S.S. Marion, was then charged with feloniously assaulting one Geo. Francomb, seaman of H.M.S. Pegasus, on the night of the 7th inst.  .  .  .  
  After a consultation on the Bench,
  His Honour said - Martin Nesbit, the Court finds you guilty of the offence as charged - of having wounded the prosecutor with intent to do him bodily harm.  The evidence shows that you committed this offence under some provocation - that is, the prosecutor did challenge you to go into the street and fight.  That is some provocation; but it did not justify you in using a knife, and it was a cowardly thing for you to do. And in carrying a knife about you you violated the rules of the navy. You know - all naval seamen know - that you have no right to carry a knife on shore; they are all told that.  And although you say you had no knife we ae unanimously of opinion that you had a knife, and that you used it on that occasion.  You say you were so drunk you did not know what you were doing.  That is no excuse. When you go ashore and go to these places and drink you know the effect that liquor had upon you. Therefore whatever you do under the influence of liquor the law holds that you intended to do.  That is the law.  The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned with hard labour in the Shanghai Gaol for ninety days, and that you pay the costs of this prosecution.


North China Herald, 23 April 1886
Shanghai, 17th April 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., H.B.M.'s Acting Assistant Judge.
  HENRY DAVIS, alias Smith, was charged with deserting from the s.s. Prometheus.
  CAPT. Webster, of the Prometheus, said he had shipped the accused in Hongkong on the 26th of last month, and he had deserted here on the 9th of this month.
  The Prisoner declared that it was a case of mistaken identity - that his name was Smith, and that he had come to Shanghai in the Ningchow.
  Detective Constable Jones, sworn, identified the man as having been convicted in this Court of creating a disturbance in the Sailors' Home, under the name of Davis.
  The Prisoner said he would admit now that he was the man; but he flatly declined to return to the ship, saying he had no clothes and the Captain would not give him any money to buy them, although he had been promised in Hongkong that he should be enabled to get them when he came to Shanghai.
  The Captain said the last statement was false. The man was in debt to the Sailors' Home at Hongkong, for board; and he (the Captain) had promised to pay over the man's wages in settlement of the debt.
  Prisoner - I effuse to go in the ship.
  His Worship - Well, if you refuse to go in the ship, I will send you to prison for the longest term I can.
  Prisoner - I will not go in the ship.
  His Worship - Very well. Three months.


North China Herald, 18 June 1886
  We give elsewhere an account of the treatment to which the French native constable is being subjected in the City.  L'Echo de Shanghai of yesterday indulges in a few remarks on our statement, which would perhaps have some point had we made any accusation against a judge, or sought to bring any one into disrepute.  We told a plain story of what is going on in the City, as similar cruelties are no doubt going on in probably every city in the empire.  We are sure of the facts we related; and we left them to tell their own tale, and produce their own effect on our readers.  It is childish to ask where we got our facts; and our contemporary in the position he has taken will have only himself to thank if he is held to have in great measure constituted himself the defender of the inhumanity which is now being perpetrated on A-Nee. Doubtless he did not mean to defend the Yamen cruelties, but he need not be surprised if people attribute that intention to hm.  Now that his attention has been directed to the condition A-nee is in, we are sure that the Consul-General, M. Kraetzer, will not lose sight of this case, and if he has any doubt of the truthfulness of what we related he as only to make a few enquiries to be satisfied that our account was accurate.
  We obtained further information yesterday of the torture to which A-nee is subjected.  He is chained by the legs; an iron frame is fastened from his shoulder down to the arm so that his hands cannot be raised at all or the arms bent, and the hands are fastened together.  He cannot recline to sleep, and cannot of course feed himself, but has to depend on those who are willing to put food into his mouth.  His family have to pay in order to see him'; they offered all their ready money to have him released from the iron frame, but the answer was that it was not a quarter enough, and two to three hundred dollars are demanded for the removal of the iron frame, so that the man could have the use of his arms and sleep without pain or inconvenience, having only manacles on his feet.  There is nothing in this treatment of a prisoner in A-nee's position in life which can surprise anyone having the slightest knowledge of what goes on every day in Chinese prisons. Everybody knows that Chinese prisoners are subjected to tortures, some of them so cruel that probably a Chinese official would laugh at foreigners considering this man ill-treated. We do not doubt that now the Consul-General has been made acquainted with the treatment to which a humble servant of his Municipality has been subjected, he will do everything he can to have his wretched condition mitigated.


North China Herald, 25 June 1886
Shanghai, 21st June, 1886
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant judge.
  Two sailors belonging to the s.s. Victoria were brought up at the Police Court yesterday charged with being drunk and assaulting a French police constable.  The constable said he saw the men, who were drunk, assaulting jinricksha and wheelbarrow men.  He tried to get them to desist, but without avail.  He arrested one, and the other tried to rescue his friend; but with the assistance of another constable he tool both of them to the police station.  On the way there the constable found that his watch-chain was broken and hanging down, the watch being gone.  When the men were searched at the police station, the watch, considerably damaged, was found on one of them, while a jade ornament which had been attached to the watch-chain, was missing.  Mr. Jameson fined one man $5 and the other $2, and ordered them to pay between them the cost of repairing the constable's watch and chain, together with six dollars for the lost hade ornament.


North China Herald 25 June 1886
Shanghai, 21st June 1886
Before G. JAMIESON, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  Mr. Grimmer, proprietor of the "Shanghai Commercial and Family House," formerly known as the Temperance Hall, was, summoned to H.B.M.'s Civil Summary Court yesterday to answer a claim of $8 for wages brought against him by a Chinese cook lately in his employ.  Mr. Grimmer said he had engaged the man as cook at a salary of $20 a month; but the fellow had proved incompetent, and he had had to employ others to do the work.  In addition to this, he had had good reason to believe that the man was systematically robbing him, and ultimately the cook was caught going out of the premises with a quantity of provisions concealed in his sleeves and pockets.  Mr. Grimmer handed to Mr. Jamison a newspaper report of the prosecution of the cook at the Mixed Court on this charge; but his Honour said he could not take that report as evidence; moreover he noticed from it that the case was dismissed.  Mr. Grimmer said that was simply because it was impossible to get any satisfaction at the Mixed Court.  He had another case in which a servant had owned to stealing three watches from boarders in the hotel; but even then he could not get the man punished.
  His Honour consented to hear evidence on the point, and  Mr. Grimmer went into the witness-box and said that while the plaintiff was in his employ the large increase in the market accounts led him to believe that the man was stealing provisions; but for a long time he could not catch him at it.  At length one day, a Mr. Darnell brought the cook into his (Mr. Grimmer's) office, having just caught him going out of the premises with something concealed about him.  On the cook being searched, a piece of sirloin of beef, weighing ten or twelve pounds, was found in his wide sleeve, while in his pockets and elsewhere inside his clothes were a loaf and a half of bead, four eggs, about two pounds of bacon, and a meat turnover.  Since the plaintiff had left his employ, there had been a saving in the market account of over $22 in thirteen days.  
  Mr. Darnell was then called, and corroborated this evidence.  He said the cook's excuse was that he was taking the things to the larder; but the man was a long way past the larder, near the gate leading into the Nanking Road, when captured.
  Mr. Jamieson asked how it was possible for the plaintiff to conceal so large a piece of beef in his sleeve, and Mr. Darnell said the Mixed Court magistrate had asked the same question; Mr. Grimmer had placed the beef in the cook's sleeve  in Court, to show how it was done.  In answer to this evidence, the plaintiff again declared that he had been taking the things to the larder, and said the charge of robbery had been trumped up against him by Mr. Darnell out of spite, because he (the cook) would not give him four or five cups of coffee a day; he could not do so because Mr. Grimmer only allowed one pound of coffee a day for all the boarders.
  Mr. Jamieson, addressing the plaintiff through the interpreter, said he was sorry he could not believe his story; the plaintiff had engaged with Mr. Grimmer to do honest, faithful service; and not having done such service, he was not entitled to any wages.  Judgment was therefore given for the defendant.


North China Herald, 2 July 1886
Shanghai, 28th June 1886
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., H.B.M.'s Acting Assistant Judge.
  EDWARD WYMAN, Mate of the British ship J. V. Troop, was charged with having on the afternoon of the 27th inst. discharged a revolver in the Sungkiang Road, to the common danger of the public.
  The Prisoner expressed a wish to employ counsel to defend him.
  His Worship intimated that he would hear some evidence for the prosecution, to see if there was anything in the charge, and then if necessary he would adjourn the case to give the prisoner the opportunity which he desired.
[Not transcribed.]
  Mr. Lathan, summing up, contended that the prisoner had by his action prevented a more serious disturbance, and that a small fine would meet the case of the admitted breach of the Municipal bye-laws.
 His Worship said that while he was prepared to hold that there had been no intention on the part of the prisoner to shoot anyone, he could not look upon the offence as a mere breach of a Municipal bye-law.  It was admitted that the prisoner had pointed the revolver at the men, and this was constructive assault.  It was reprehensible conduct on the part of the prisoner to carry a revolver at all;' it was still more reprehensible to take it out and point it at the men; and yet more reprehensible to fire it.  He could not pass a sentence of less than a fortnight's imprisonment; but as he did not wish to turn the prisoner out of his employment he would give him the alternative of paying a fine of $20.  He had to do something to mark his sense of the wrongfulness of using a revolver under such circumstances.
  The fine was paid.


North China Herald, 13 August 1886
Shanghai, 12th August, 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  Capt. Koenig, master of the British ship Sarmatian, appeared in answer to summonses taken out against him by Nicholas George, Second Officer of the Sarmatian, one charging him with assault and the other with destroying property belonging to the plaintiff to the value of 10 cents, viz., a water melon.
  Mr. W. V. Drummond appeared for the defence.  At his suggestion the two cases were heard together,
  The defendant admitted throwing a water-melon overboard, but said he did not know at the time whom it belonged to.
  His Worship - That is nothing.
  Mr. W. V. Drummond - Well, that is the whole case.  There is nothing else in it.
  His Worship (to Defendant) - Did you assault him?
  Defendant - No, Sir, never.
  The Complainant said he had some witnesses, but the Captain had refused to allow them to come on shore.
  Mr. Drummond denied this.  He said - We believe the complainant had asked the steward to attend, but the steward had told the captain that he would not come to the Court unless he were subpoenaed
  The Complainant said he had a water-melon on the deck, and the Captain had chucked it overboard.  The next morning he asked the Captain why he had done this, and captain Koemig replied that he was master of the ship and would chuck anything he liked overboard.  Complainant then told the Captain it was not proper treatment to chuck his things overboard without telling him, and the Captain repeated that he was master of the ship and would do as he liked.  Complainant then said, "Captain, you treat me like a dog or a pig," and Capt. Koenig replied, :"I don't know what you are - a dog or a pig, but you are not fit to be an officer of this ship."  The Captain then said something about the water-melon making him sick; but it was before he bought the melon that he had been sick.  He was sick for ten days, and the Captain left him without proper food and attention.
  His Worship - But assault means striking, beating.  Did he strike you?
  Complainant - No, he never struck me.  He only called me bad names.
  Mr. Drummond - I told you that was all.  He only threw the water melon over-board for the man's own good.
  Complainant - He called me a dog and a pig.
  His Worship - That is not a criminal matter.  Assault means striking, beating.
  Complainant - No, he did not do that,
  His Worship - Then I am afraid I can give you no redress.
  Complainant - I can call witnesses.
  His Worshiip - As to what?
  Complainant - That he called me a dog and a pig.
  Mr. Drummond pointed out that that was admittedly in answer to a question by the complainant as to whether he was a dog or a pig.
  His Worship said it was immaterial. If the complainant had nothing more to complain of he would dismiss the case at once.
  Mr. Drummond asked that the complainant might be ordered to pay $25 costs.  He thought the complainant ought not to be allowed to put the Court in motion and put the defendant to expense and trouble for a dollar and a half - the cost of a summons.  If that were allowed it would be a cheap way for men to annoy their Captains.  Instead of taking a glass or two of liquor they could spend the money in a summons.  He expressed his surprise that the summons had been issued.
  His Worship declined to make the order asked for, and simply dismissed the case, ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the two summonses - $3. Addressing the complainant he said - Now you understand.  You have nothing to complain of.  It is a mere squabble between you and the Captain.
  Complainant - Can he chuck my things overboard and call me names?
  His Worship - Oh, it is not your "things," it is only a water-melon - not a very nice thing anyhow.  Did he ever chuck anything else of yours overboard?
  Complainant - No, Sir.


North China Herald, 20 August 1886
Shanghai, 18th August 1886
Before G. JAMIESON, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  James Baird, Agent in Shanghai of the American Trading Company, appeared in answer to two summonses, the first charging him "for that he on or about the 14th day of August instant did upon Kung Si-tsun make an assault and him the said Kung Si-tsun then unlawfully and injuriously and against the will of the said Kung Si-tsun and also contrary to law and without legal warrant authority of reasonable or justifiable excuse whatever did imprison and detain so imprisoned for a long space of time and other wrongs to the said Kung Si-tsun did to the great damage of the said Kung Si-tsun and against the peace of our Lady the Queen her crown and dignity."
  The second summons charged him "for that he on or about the 1th day of August instant did unlawfully conspire and agree with certain Chinese subjects to defraud Kung Si-tsun of certain goods and chattels or of the value thereof or of the right to the possession thereof to the great damage of the said Kung Si-tsun and against the peace of our Lady the Queen her crown and dignity."
[Not transcribed.]
The case was then adjourned till 10:30 a.m. next morning.
  The sitting was resumed next morning, when Mr. Drummond completed his case.  Mr. Wainewright after examining the goods dealer who was present when the alleged illegal acts were committed, Mr. Hey, broker in iron, and Mr. Dunne, a clerk in the American Trading Company - proposed to call a Shroff, when his Worship  interposed, saying he tho0ught it was unnecessary.  He thought Mr. Drummond must admit that his case had broken down.  Mr. Drummond said he could not for a moment admit anything of the sort, but  his Worship said it would be impossible for him, upon the evidence already given, to find the accused guilty of false imprisonment, assault, or anything else.  He therefore dismissed the case, and ordered the complainant to pay $25 costs.
  Our report will be concluded next week.


North China Herald, 10 September 1886
Shanghai, 6th September, 1886
  Today before the Magistrate and the British Assessor a Chinese from Ningpo was charged with being in possession of 110 spurious coins made in imitation of the Japanese five-cent piece.  The prisoner stated that these coins had been given to him by the coiner at Ningpo, and that they contained four parts of silver to six of copper.  The case was remanded to allow the arrest of the chief culprit by the Ningpo authorities and will probably be heard by the Japanese Consul, who has been communicated with.  
  The spurious coins are very fair imitations of the original and might easily deceive the unwary.  It is, however, lighter and thinner than the genuine piece, the sun disc on one side is not a true circle, and the dots surrounding the character [given] on the reverse are larger, and, consequently less numerous than in the authentic coins.


North China Herald, 10 September 1886
Shanghai, 7th September 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  William Brown, Second Officer of the s.s. Pekin, was charged with deserting from his ship.
  His Worship - You are charged with desertion; what do you say?
  Accused - I was told to go, Sir.
  William Moore, Chief Officer of the Pekin, stated that at 0.30 p.m. on the 5th inst. he gave the accused permission to go on shore till 5.30 p.m. At 5.45 the accused came on board drunk and went to his cabin and slept.  Witness, who wanted to go on shore, had to place the third officer in charge of the deck.  At 9.15 p.m. witness went to the accused's room and found him awake, sitting on his bed.  He remonstrated with the man, asked him why he did not come on board sober, so that he could relieve witness and enable him to go on shore.  The accused hen used threatening and insulting language, and after some hot words witness ordered him to remain in his room and do not more duty till the captain came on board next morning.   The accused reply that he did not care a ----- ----- for Captain McQueen, and that he was going  on shore, meaning, witness supposed, that as witness had knocked him off duty he was "finished with."  Witness tried to stop him, telling him he would be liable to arrest for desertion and would forfeit his pay.  The accused nevertheless packed up his clothes, got some coolies to carry them, and left the ship at 1.10 p.m.
  Accused - I never used any abusive language towards Captain McQueen. I was told my duty was finished on board the ship.
  His Worship - You said at first that he told you to leave the ship.
  Accused - Well, he told me my duty was finished on board the ship.
  His Worship - Is that equivalent to saying you could leave the ship?
  Accused - Yes, Sir; I think so.
  His Worship - Well, if that is your idea you will find you are mistaken.
  Captain McQueen, Master of the Pekin, stated that the accused had been with him about six weeks.  He had had some trouble with the man before, owing to his using bad language, calculated to provoke a breach of discipline.
  His Worship - It seems to me that so far from being told to leave, you had imperative orders not to leave the ship, from the mate, who takes the place of the captain in the captain's absence.  I shall give you fourteen days' imprisonment, and you must pay the costs.
  The Prisoner asked about his wages.
  His Worship - I make no order about that; I have no doubt your pay is forfeited.


North China Herald, 18 September 1886
Shanghai, 11th September 1886
Before George Jamison, Esq., Acting Assistant judge.
  J. P. McKuen, Captain Superintendent of the Shanghai Municipal Police, appeared in answer to a summons taken out by Chu Chi-yuen, an ex-constable, who claimed $6.66, wages from the 1st to the 21st August last.
  The Defendant denied indebtedness.
  The Plaintiff, examined through the interpreter, said he had been engaged as a police constable at monthly wages.  On the night of the 20th August his beat was in the Public Gardens.  At about 3 a.m. he felt unwell - had a "belly-ache." As he was unable to stand, he sat on one of the benches, and fell asleep.  At about half past three an Inspector came into the gardens and found him asleep; and the next day he was dismissed, the wages for three weeks during which he had served in August not being paid.  He had been in the Police Force for fifteen months.  He had not felt well for three or four days before the 20th August, and four days before he had tried to get another man to take his place.  He did not ask to be relieved from duty on the 210th, because he thought he would be discharged if he did so.
  The Defendant stated that on the morning of the 21st August Inspector Kluth had reported that early that morning he had gone into the Public Gardens and at first had been unable to find any constable there, but that afterwards he had discovered the plaintiff lying full length under one of the grottoes, fast asleep, with his waterproof cape rolled up under his head for a pillow, and his hat over his eyes.  The man, on waking, said he was sick, and had vomited near the porter's lodge; but on going to the spot indicated there was no evidence of the truth of his statement.  The plaintiff would certainly have been relieved from duty if he had complained of being sick, and he was a man not at all likely to be backward in asking to be relieved if he were really sick; he was rather an impudent man.  Half an hour before Inspector Kluth went to the Gardens a native sergeant had gone there on his round, and the plaintiff could easily have reported to the sergeant that he was sick, if such had been the case.  There had been ten previous reports of misconduct against the man, and, these being taken into consideration, as well as the serious offence of sleeping on his beat, he had been dismissed from the Force. The defendant handed to his Honour a copy of the Police Regulations, according to one of which if a man was dismissed for misconduct he forfeited any wags due to hi,.
  Inspector Kluth gave evidence in accordance with this statement.  He said the plaintiff appeared to be quite well when he woke up.
  His Honour gave judgment for the defendant, remarking that the plaintiff appeared to have been very properly dismissed, and his wages were accordingly forfeited.


North China Herald, 18 September 1886
Shanghai, 14th September, 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  Two Malay seamen of the Chinese barque Colombo were charged on remand with assaulting another Malay, one by striking him, and the other by biting his nose.
  Captain NUDENFUHR, master of the Colombo, gave both of the defendants a high character, stating that they had been with him for five years.  If they bit the fellow's nose, he said, they must have had reason for it, because they could not have been hungry, as they had had a good breakfast before they went out.
  The police sergeant gave the prosecutor a bad character, stating that he had recently been sentenced to a fine of $10 or fourteen days' imprisonment for flourishing a knife in Hongkew.
  Captain Nudenfuhr said one of the defendants had acknowledged having bitten the prosecutor's nose, saying he had done so in self-defence.
  His Worship - Well, it is a curious way to defend himself.  I cannot accept that as an excuse.
  The man charged with biting was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, and the other man was dismissed.
S.  H. SCHMID, joint proprietor of the Criterion Hotel, was summoned to answer a charge of having assaulted a Shroff in the employ of Hsin Dah, livery stable keeper.
  The Complainant stated that he went to the defendant's office at the Criterion Hotel and presented to him a bill for $9. The defendant threw the bill on the floor and told complainant to get out of the place.  The complainant asked when he was to call for the money, and the defendant slapped his face and pushed him out of the office.
The defendant denied the charge.  He said he was deeply engaged in business with a gentleman when the Shroff brought the bill to him.  Defendant told the shroff to come another time, as he was busy, and the Shroff stamped his foot and said. "When shall I come for it?" Defendant said, "I am not going to leave Shanghai.  Go away"; but the complainant insisted on forcing his way into the office.  Defendant then simply put his hand on the complainant's shoulder and pushed him back.
  W. Lindley, reporter of the Shanghai Courier, corroborated the defendant's statement, saying that the Shroff had persisted in forcing his way into the defendant's office though the latter told him he was busy, and that when the defendant pushed him back he said "I come to collect my bill and you strike me." I will go to your consul and summon you.
  His Honour dismissed the case, telling the complainant that he did not believe his story.
  John Roberts, Customs Examiner and Diver, was brought up on a warrant charged with assaulting R. Iredale on Sunday evening, the 12th inst.  The prosecutor applied for the warrant on Monday morning, attending before Mr. Jamieson with his face terribly bruised and cut, and stating that he had been assaulted by Roberts and that he went in fear of his life.  The warrant was issued, and Roberts was arrested a few hours later.
  This morning the prosecutor did not appear.
  His Worship - I have received a letter from this man who calls himself the prosecutor, saying he had left Shanghai.
(To defendant.) Very well; there is no evidence against you.  I dismiss the case.


North China Herald, 6 October 1886
Shanghai, 4th October 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  A man named Carey, lately Second Engineer of the s.s. Nanzing appeared on a judgment summons for non-compliance with an Order pf this Court for payment of $37.89, due by him to the steward of the Nanzing, judgment having been given against the defendant by default on the 1st inst.
  His Honour asked the defendant why he had not appeared in answer to the original summons.
  The defendant said he was sick.
  His Honour said he had been informed that Carey was intoxicated.
  The defendant admitted that intoxication might have been the cause of his sickness.  In answer to his Honour, he said he had no money, but would pay this debt as soon as he could get employment.
  The Defendant was then sworn and examined by his Honour.  He admitted that he had been paid $70 in the Shipping Office on Friday, but said he had on the same day paid $40 of this for a months' board at the Criterion Hotel, and on the following day $20 for drink and billiard chits.  The judgment in this case had been served on him on the Friday, and he admitted that he had paid the $20 for drink and billiard chits after receiving it.
  His Honour - Very well.  You will understand that that was direct disobedience to the Order of the Court, for which I can send you to gaol for forty days.
  Defendant - But I have jewellery and effects.
  His Honour - You can pay this $40?
  Defendant - I will endeavor to do so today.
  His Honour - What jewellery have you?
  Defendant - I have a set of studs - two sets of studs.
  Mr. Hore (Usher) stated that an application had been made for a summons against the Defendant for the cost of a set of suds sold to him, and probably these were the studs referred to by him.
  The Defendant at first protested against the Usher's interference, but afterwards admitted that these were the studs he had referred to.
  His Honour - Then they are not paid for?
  The defendant said they were not; but he had twelve suits of clothes, several pairs pf boots - in fact, lots of effects.
  His Honour - Well, I will give you till tomorrow to pay this.  You will appear here tomorrow at ten o'clock; and if this is not paid I shall send you to gaol on your own statement; that is, that you had money when this Order was served upon you, and that you paid it away, deliberately disregarding the Order of this Court.  That amounts to contempt of Court for which I can send you to gaol for forty days.


North China Herald, 3 November 1886
  Shanghai, 1st November 1886
  Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
  This was a summons taken out by Mr. R. F. Thorburn on behalf of the Municipal Council against Mr. Alex. Myburgh, for the non-payment of a claim of Tls. 16.80, Municipal taxes due by him in rpsect pf the premises 13-14 Tuen-ming-yuen Road, for the quarter ending 31st December, 1886.
  Mr. Robinson appeared for the council, and Mr. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate for the defendant.
  It appeared that the amount of the debt was not disputed by the defendant, who however pleaded that he had a counter claim for a much larger sum against the council.  This his counsel contended should be set off against the representation of the Council.
  His Lordship at the suggestion of the plaintiff's counsel consented to postpone the hearing of the case till this day fortnight in order to allow both parties to draw up a statement of facts, a course upon which they had mutually agreed, in accordance with a rule of Court (53) and upon which the decision of the court will be given.


North China Herald, 3 November 1886
Shanghai, 28th October, 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  OLTMAN SHORAN aged fifty-four, carpenter, s.s. Antonio, was put forward in custody of P.C. John Cromer, 36, charged with having been drunk in Broadway last night, and also with having a loaded revolver in his possession, contrary to the Municipal Bye-laws.
  Inspector Fowler, who conducted the case for the prosecution said, that the prisoner did not attempt to use the weapon, but a revolver in the hands of a man who drinks is a most dangerous thing and contrary to bye-law 37.
  The prisoner in reply to the bench, said that there was some trouble on board his shop yesterday, with four men who wanted to kill the boatswain. He (prisoner) went on shore with the boatswain and carried the revolver for their joint protection.  He had never been in a Court before and would not be there now, but that the police had taken the wrong man.
  Inspector Fowler informed the bench that the prisoner had gone to the station previous to his arrest to give information that his watch had been stolen, and a gold chain found on the prisoner was produced in Court by the officer.
  The police constable deposed to seeing the prisoner at twenty minutes past eleven last night, standing with two other men outside a public house in Broadway when one of the men told witness that prisoner's watch had been stolen by a Chinaman. As the prisoner was drunk witness took him to the station for his own safety and upon searching him found the loaded revolver (Produced) in his back pocket.  He was making no disturbance in the street.
  His Worship ordered the revolver to be forfeited, and the prisoner in addition to pay a fine of $2.
  Immediately after the proceedings in the court, the Police Inspector and Mr. W. S. Percival one of the officials of the Court were examining the revolver on the steps of the Consulate when the latter gentleman accidentally caused one of the charges to go off, the bullet burying itself in the ground a very little distance from where he was standing.  The noise created a momentary anxiety amongst the occupants of this building, while the little episode served to illustrate the danger always attendant upon the handling of firearms, and it was merely an accident that no serious injury was done.


North China Herald, 3 November 1886
Shanghai, 28th October 1886
Before General R. Kennedy, U.S. Consul-General, Acting Judicially.
  Frank Merriman, a seaman was charged with having been drunk and incapable in Broadway last night, and also with refusing to go to sea in the ship Adam W. Spies (Capt. Field) after he had engaged and accepted an advance of $5.20.
Geo. Holmes, barding-house keeper, proved to having engaged the prisoner for the ship and advanced him the amount stated.
  The prisoner who pleaded guilty was sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment with the alternative of proceeding to sea within that term.


North China Herald, 3 November 1886
  One of the most daring robberies with violence that have ever been carried out in Shanghai ok place last Monday evening at about 7 o'clock, the building selected by the desperadoes being the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China which is situated in the Bund.

North China Herald, 3 November 1886
Shanghai, November 2nd 1886
  This evening the two men captured last night by the police were brought up in the Nixed Court.
.  .  .   The formal charge upon the sheet against the prisoners, whose names were given as Hing Tai-lee and Wai Chi-tai, bot described as fruit dealers from near Chefoo, was, 1st; with eight other men but in custody feloniously and wilfully entering the premises of the Chartered Mercantile Bank 15 Yangtse Road, at about 7 o'clock on the night of the 1st instant, and violently assaulting the complainant, and robbing the bank of about $100 (Mexican), some bank notes, $2 in small coin and 45 jinricksha tickets; 2nd; with feloniously and unlawfully discharging firearms in the streets and intending to commit murder, one of the bullets lodging in the clothes of P.C. 253, native.

North China Herald, 10 November 1886
  The two prisoners Hing Tai-kee and Wei Cho-tai, captured by the police on the occasion of the recent violent robbery from the Chartered Mercantile bank, were brought up on remand this morning in the Mixed Court, before the native magistrate Mr. Tai with whom Mr. Emens sat as assessor.
.  .  .  
  It appeared that a wish had been expressed by the authorities in the British Consulate, that their assessor should have an opportunity of hearing the case, as British interests were most immediately interested, and accordingly Mr. Emens, who up to this has heard the case, expressed his willingness to accede to the course suggested.  The prisoners were therefore remanded till tomorrow when the British Assessor will sit.  [Mr. Emens from U.S. Consulate.]


North China Herald, 10 November 1886
Shanghai, 3rd November 1886
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  Ali Hassan, an Arab, fireman on board the Danish Monarch, was brought up charged with having absented himself from his ship last night, without leave.  The prisoner, who was stated in Court to be a most intractable fellow and had been before the Magistrate on a previous occasion for a similar offence, said, in reply to the bench that he had asked to go ashore but he was not allowed.  Walter Warren, second engineer of the ship, deposed that the prisoner came to him when he was on deck last night and said "I am on board, Mr. Warren."  Witness asked him who gave him leave to go on shore, and he replied that Byrne did.  He said he only granted leave to those who came to him personally, adding that the prisoner never reported himself the last time he went on shore.  Hassan retorted that he would go on shore without asking leave.  Witness told him to go forward, but he refused, and said he would not, and that he would not go in the --------- ship, and that he would rather "have a month."  He went on shore and returned to the ship at half-past eleven, having been on shore twice yesterday without leave.
  The Magistrate to the prisoner - You went on shore a second time in defiance of the engineer's orders.  The prisoner - He wanted to drive me off the ship because I don't agree with him or he with me.
  The Magistrate sentenced him to ten days' imprisonment.
  A complaint was also made by the second engineer about another fireman who had used threatening language on the ship towards him. The donkey engine man reported that the men referred to had advised Hassan, if he (Mr. Warren) spoke to him about going ashore without leave, to hit him with a piece of iron.  He was not afraid of the man if he attacked him openly, but he thought such a matter should not be allowed to pass unnoticed and he asked the magistrate for advice.  Mr. Jamieson said that he could do nothing unless the man was brought before him, in the regular manner.


North China Herald, 10 November 1886
Shanghai, 8th November 1886
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  Four seamen of the Danish Monarch were brought up, charged with insubordination and refusal to do their duty.  Captain Burgoyne deposed that one of the prisoners, named Pugh, had used abusive language towards the chief mate, and stated that since coming into port the men had been doing only what they liked.  The other defendants were not so bad as Pugh, who stated in defence that the men had refused to wash decks on Sunday because it was not necessary to do so.  In reply to the Magistrate, who asked the men if it was their custom to judge such matters for themselves, Pugh said the decks could have been washed on Saturday afternoon, but they were then kept working till dark, on purpose to make them wash the deck on Sunday.  Bartholomew, another defendant, said that in eight years spent at sea he had only known the decks washed on Sunday on one occasion, and that was in a passenger ship, but the captain stated that in his twenty-five years' experience the decks were always washed on Sundays.  The Magistrate pointed out that it was absurd for the men to refuse to obey the captain's orders because the day happened to be Sunday, after which Pugh said the men would be very thankful to the Magistrate if he would order them to be paid off, but this Mr. Jamieson replied was a matter in which he could not interfere.  He thought the men had nothing to complain of, and he wanted to know about their going back to the ship, and in answer to a statement of Pugh's that it was wanted to get all the white men off the ship to fill their place with Chinamen, said, that as a matter of fact, Chinamen were sometimes much easier to deal with than European sailors.
  One of the defendants, McWilliam, admitted having used the improper language to the chief mate, which the captain had said was used by Pugh, but pleaded that the officer had used improper language to him. The Magistrate said that was no excuse, and that if the men went back to the ship he would let them off with a fine of two days' pay; but if not, he would send them to prison.  After some demur, and a few words from the bench, the men left the court, it being understood that they were going to return to the ship.


North China Herald, 10 November 1886
Shanghai, 9th November 1886
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  Captain Burgoyne, master of the ship above named, appeared to answer a summons for assault preferred against him by Wm. Byrne, one of the crew.
  The plaintiff was sworn and deposed that about a month ago while on the voyage between Kobe and Shanghai he went to make some complaint to the defendant on the quarter deck, whereupon defendant said,
  "Go forward or I'll kick you there. You are a liar, an impostor, and an Irishman.  And if I knew you were an Irishman would not take you on board my ship."
He also laid his hand upon plaintiff's shoulders and told him that the best thing he could do was to run away from the ship.  Thinking it was only a nasty word, he took no notice of the matter at the time, and would not have said anything about it only that the Captain had on Sunday morning insulted him again.
  In reply to the Court, Byrne said that the act described was the whole assault complained of, but he thought it was very hard that the captain of a ship should use such language towards his men.  On Sunday he asked the Captain for an order to go ashore to see the doctor at the Hospital, and for money to buy medicine, but he again told him that he (plaintiff) was an impostor and a liar.
  The Magistrate said the plaintiff had very little to complain of.  The latter replied that upon the occasion of the assault he had to put his hands up to save himself.
  The Captain stated that he knew nothing about the alleged assault, but on Sunday Byrne came to him and asked for an order to go to see the doctor, which he gave him.  But after he had seen the doctor, witness saw him go into a public house.
  The Magistrate said that the assault was too trivial for him to take any notice of, and he accordingly dismissed the summons.


North China Herald, 17 November 1886
Shanghai, 13th November 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  William Byrne an unemployed seaman residing at the American Home, Woosung Road, was brought up on a charge of stealing the sum pf $4.50  from Sing Wong-ching the owner of an exchange shop at 1375 Broadway, Hongkew.
  Sergeant 13 who had charge of the case said that the charge against the prisoner was that last night about 11 o'clock he went into the prosecutor's shop and asked for change of a five dollar note of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.  At the same time he produced a seaman's discharge which looked, when crumpled, something like a bank note.  The prosecutor's assistant not knowing the difference, handed him $4.50, whereupon the prisoner seized the discharge and the money and ran away with both.  The prisoner denied the charge and made a rambling statement about his being in a sampan when he was arrested.  But it was afterwards shown that he was taken in the middle of Broadway and that$4.50 cents and the discharge were found in his possession when searched.  The Sergeant also stated that from information which had been lodged at the police station he believed that the prisoner had been guilty of a series of petty frauds on jinricksha men and others during the last few days, and he was also the man who had Captain Burgoyne of the Danish Monarch up on a summons last week for assault, which case was dismissed.  The prisoner had been discharged from the ship.  He was sentenced to 6 weeks' imprisonment.


North China Herald, 17 November 1886
Shanghai, 15th November 1886
  The two men Wong Tai-kee and Wei Cho0tai who were captured by the police on the occasion of hew bank robbery were brought up in the Mixed Court this afternoon before the District Magistrate, the Mixed Court Magistrate Mr. Tsai, and the British Assessor Mr. Playfair.
.  .  .  
The Magistrate decided to send the prisoners into the City where they will be dealt with, after they are allowed an opportunity of aiding the authorities in the capture of the other men implicated in the robbery, and in reply to Mr. Playfair he said the sentence will be notified to the police authorities in the Settlement.
  The prisoners were then removed.


North China Herald, 17 November 1886
Shanghai, 10th November 1886
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  James Cain, described as an unemployed seaman residing at the American Sailors' House, Woosung Road, was brought up charged with assaulting Wm. Hogan, second mate, and Michael O'Shay, seaman, of the ship J. C. Potter, on Thursday night and also with creating a disturbance in the public thoroughfare.  Hogan whose hand was in a bandage, and whose head was marked with two or three wounds, stated that he was going along the road in company with the other prosecutor, and the first thing he knew about the assault was being struck on the head with the club (produced).
  This was a formidable piece pf timber with a loop of cord at the top and hollowed out at the lower end as if it had been loaded, as according to the statement of police sergeant 13, it was.
  Hogan further deposed that he then closed with the prisoner who caught one of his fingers in his mouth and bit it right through.
  The prisoner, in reply to the Magistrate as to the reason of the assault, said that he shipped Hogan yesterday but he came on shore again in the evening and he (prisoner) was merely trying to persuade him to go back to his ship, when Hogan struck him and bit his finger.  The other man had taken Hogan away and concealed him. He found them both in a mandarin wine shop.
  Hogan contradicted this statement, saying that he shipped a week ago and was on shore  with the Captain's permission.  He had met the other man and they went to have some drink in the Globe Hotel.  The prisoner never said anything before striking hm.  When they were separated, he was covered with blood and could not see.
  The prisoner said that the captain had told him to take Hogan on board, and when he went to do dos, Hogan assaulted him, and he admitted biting Hogan in return.
  The other prosecutor gave corroborative evidence and stated that he was also struck with the club and bitten by the prisoner.  At the time of the assault, he and Hogan were walking arm in arm along the road he being engaged in trying to take Hogan on board ship.  They had some drink, but were not drunk and he said nothing to the prisoner till he was struck with the club.  Some gentleman lifted him up and told him to get into a 'ricksha.  Some man sung out, "Look out" just before he got the blow on the head.
  The prisoner admitted having struck the prosecutor, but alleged that he had assaulted him on Tuesday morning.
  Frank Merriman, another sailor, deposed that he was sitting in the Sailors' Home when the prisoner invited him out to see "a bit of dirty work."  Cain took down the club from his sleeve.  Witness saw something fly out of the end of the weapon when the men were struck.  He at first thought that the prisoner meant by the invitation that he was going to assault him, as he had some weeks ago shipped on the A. W. Spies, but did not go to sea having got into trouble and into jail himself.  The prisoner never said a word to either of the men before he used the club, but rushed at them without the slightest warning.
  The prisoner said he had nothing more to say but that the prisoners would have "bested him if they were able."
  He was sentenced to a month's imprisonment.


North China Herald, 17 November 1886
Shanghai, 10th November 1886
Before General R. Kennedy, U.S. Consul-General, Acting Judicially.
  The plaintiffs claimed $203.09 for goods supplied to, and work done for, the defendant between 4th and 30th April 1885.
  The defendant admitted purchasing the articles, but denied that the account furnished was correct, the charges being considered exorbitant and unusual.
  J. Bouchard sworn, stated -I am a silk mercer, and my wife is a dress maker.  We are in partnership under the name of Bouchard-Braendlin & Co.  Miss Clinton bought articles from me in April, 1885, amounting to $203.09.  The items are mentioned in the account which was rendered to the defendant.
  By the defendant - I think I told you the price of the articles at the time they were purchased.
  By the Consul-General - My wife and I were together at the time the things were sold.  We always let people know the price when they buy anything.  I suppose we did so in this instance, but it is nearly two years now, and I do not remember what was said.
  The defendant - I wish to pay for the things I have had, but how is it I have not had the bill sent before; you charge me more than other dressmakers do.
  The plaintiff - I do not charge you more than other people, I have charged you less in 1885 than I did previously.  If you did not like the price, why did you come to me; I did not call you to come to me.
  The defendant - I do not object to the price of the materials, it is the cost of making.
  The items in the account were then gone into, and the plaintiff produced his books to show that he had charged the defendant no more than he had charged other people.  The defendant handed to the Court some stuff, and asked His Honour to value it, but as His Honour said he was no judge of such articles, he appealed to everybody in the Court as to whether they could value it, but met with a negative reply.
  The defendant now said she objected to some of the things, a dress had been ruined in making up, and after it had been washed it looked like a balloon, besides, she said, she had had the same kind of dresses made up at $1 a piece.  There was not so much lace supplied to her as she was charged for.
  As there were no means of ascertaining the true value of the articles from people in Court, His Honour adjourned the case till 3 p.m.
  On the Court re-assembling
  His Honour said the parties had come to a settlement out of Court, the plaintiff agreeing to take $150 in satisfaction of his claim.  Each party would pay half the costs in the case.


North China Herald, 24 November 1886
Shanghai, 19th November 1886
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
 In this case he plaintiff who had been a clerk with the defendant sought to recover the sum of $31 for services rendered.  The facts of the case were these. Somers entered Mr. Sydenham Moutrie's employment on the 21st October last on a month's trial at a remuneration of $50 a month.  On the 6th of the present month he wrote saying he was going to Chefoo and would not in consequence be able to continue in defendant's employment.  Mr. Moutrie thereupon refused to pay him any salary when it was demanded.  His Worship made an order for $15 on respect of the portion of October during which the plaintiff was in the defendant's service, holding that he was not entitled to any money for the portion of November.


North China Herald, 24 November 1886
Shanghai, 22 November 1886
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Kt., Chief Justice.
  This was a suit by Fung Tai & Co, to recover the sum of $122.53 from George Darke late proprietor of the Lo-ka-wai public house, in the French Sicawei Road, for goods sold and delivered, prior to the burning of the defendant's premises.  The debt was not disputed, but the defendant pleaded that he had no means of satisfying the claim, his present income being only $30 a month, and out of this he stated, he had to support a wife and two children.
  The plaintiff said that if the defendant had no money just now he had sufficient to pay the [defendant] some time ago and he did not make any effort to do so.  The Court made an order for the full amount and costs, His Lordship adding that the plaintiff could have a judgement summons for the purpose of interrogating the defendant as to the amount of his income.


North China Herald, 24 November 1886
Shanghai, 17th November 1886
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant judge.
  A fireman of the s.s. Benarty, named Sehinte was charged with having been absent from his ship without leave for two days and also with creating a disturbance at the British Consulate.  The prisoner's defence to the first charge was that he did not want to go to sea in the ship because he could not agree with the second engineer and he desired to be paid off.  From the evidence of S. Charles Hawkin, assistant jailer, it appeared that the prisoner went to the Consulate yesterday in a state of intoxication and created a great disturbance.  Witness had to get assistance before he could remove him to the station.  The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine twelve days' pay for absenting himself from his ship, and $2 for his disorderly conduct.


North China Herald, 1 December 1886
Shanghai, 27th November 1886
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
  His Lordship gave judgment in this case today.  The suit was one for the recovery of a theodolite and other surveying instruments valued at $250 from Mr. A. M. A. Evans by Mr. A. Morrison Harvie.  The defendant pleaded a lien on the plaintiff's things for a sum of over $100, both parties having previously been on terms of friendship and resided together.  The case was heard on Thursday, Mr. Myburgh appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Wainewright for the defendant.
  No witnesses beyond the parties to the suit were examined.
  His Lordship in giving judgment said -
  This is a suit to recover possession of a theodolite and other articles.  The defendant admits that they are the property of the Plaintiff but denies that he was entitled to possession of them by reason, as he alleges, of the Plaintiff having pledged them to him to secure the payment of a  balance of the account claimed by him from the plaintiff.  On other words the defendant sets up a claim of lien by special agreement, and, as his Counsel admitted at the hearing, the onus of proving that agreement lies entirely upon him.
  The Defendant himself was the only witness in support of his case, and beyond the admitted fact of the Plaintiff having sent the articles in question to his (Defendant's) house he adduced no corroborative evidence whatsoever to support his own assertions.
  On the other hand the Plaintiff swore that he never entered into the alleged agreement or contemplated that the Defendant was to have a lien on the articles and he gives an explanation of the Defendant's being in possession of those articles, which is, in my opinion equally reconcilable with the admitted facts of the case, as the Defendant's account of the matter.
  It is quite obvious then that if I am to hold that the agreement in question has been made out I must disregard entirely the Plaintiff's evidence.  I do not think I should be justified in so doing.  That evidence was in no way shaken on cross examination nor was any argument even adduced before me to show that the Defendant's version of the case was more worthy of credit than that of the Plaintiff. I see no reason for entering into further details.  It is quite clear to me that there is not such a preponderance of evidence in the Defendant's favour as to prove the lien he sought to establish and as there is no other defence in the suit the Plaintiff must therefore succeed.  The damages will be $5 only.  The Defendant must deliver up the articles claimed and pay the costs of this suit.



North China Herald, 1 December 1886
  At the Mixed Court this morning before the native Magistrate Mr. Tsai and the British Assessor, a native of Hupei named Yang Ching Bian was brought up charged with being implicated in the recent attack on the Chartered Mercantile Bank, in which, as was previously reported, a sum of about $500 was carried off.  As in the case of the other men who pleaded guilty and were sent into the City for sentence, there was a second charge against the prisoner of discharging firearms in the public thoroughfare with the intention of doing bodily harm to several police constables. The prisoner, who was arrested some days since by Detective Sergeant Keeling, in an opium shop in Sinza Road, practically admitted the charge and with the opium den keeper - charged with being accessary to the robbery - was sent into the City.


North China Herald, 8 December 1886
Shanghai, 7th December 1886
Before Sir R. T. Rennie.
  E. F. Smith, first mate of the sailing ship Coriolanus, appeared to answer a summons for assaulting George Foster West, steward of the sane ship.  There was also a summons against West for deserting his ship.  The complainant, who appeared from his appearance and address to be a man of good education, stated that on the 30th inst. He was going from the galley to hid cabin when the defendant went up to him and asked him what did he mean by "humbugging" with his whiskey?  Complainant replied that he knew nothing about it, whereupon defendant said "you lie," called him a thief, and struck him two blows with his fist in the face, and followed up with others with his right and left fists one of which knocked him down.  When he fell the defendant kicked him on the leg which was still quite sore.  Complainant's forehead was badly cut, and his face much bruised by the blows.  Complainant retired into the saloon where one of Messrs. Schultz's clerks was sitting, but he was not able to call him as a wit ness as he did not know his name.  The third mate however was in his cabin and knew something of the assault.  Complainant afterwards saw the Consul-General and the Vice-Consul on the matter and by their advice he took out the summons.
  Dr. Burge examined him and gave him a temporary permit into the hospital where he remained for twenty four hours, and Dr. Little also saw him. The captain afterwards visited him in company with Dr. Burge who said that he (complainant) could be up on board ship as well as in the hospital, as he said he was unable to do his duty.  He was in fear of his life from the violence and threats of the defendant.  He had no opportunity of complaining to the captain at the time.
  Complainant was cross examined by Smith and said he (Smith), had never struck him before. But had threatened to knock his d----- head off.  He did not fall down the stairs and cut his head while drunk.
  The defendant denied that he struck the complainant, but admitted having pushed him out of his cabin.
  Complainant to the bench - I am perfectly sure he struck me most violently, there are the marks; (showing a wound on his head which had not quite healed.) When he struck me the last time I fell heavily against the jam of the cabin door.  I expected that Dr. Burge would be here, but I did not summon him to attend.
  Henry Waller Elgar, the third officer of the ship, was then called by complainant who examined him but he failed to throw any light upon the affair, in which he only heard the defendant call West a thief.  Ten minutes before the assault and also after it the defendant was sober.  He denied having a conversation afterwards with the complainant about the assault.  Witness saw the wound on complainant's face.  It might have been from a fall or from a blow, but from which he could not say.  He did not see any bruises on his forehead.  The complainant then declined to examine the witness further.
  The defendant said the charge had been trumped up by the complainant with the object of getting clear of the ship, and he had been previously talking to the carpenter and several others about a letter which he had written to the Consul which he thought would be sufficient to get him clear, only that he tho0ught the present charge would be a better excuse. He never made any complaint about being ill-used.
  Andrew Lindsey, master of the ship, was sworn and said he knew nothing about the affair only that complainant was a deserter from the ship since the 30th.  He never complained to witness and he had an opportunity of doing so on the morning of the row.  He left the ship that morning without leave and without consulting witness who had a warrant issued for his arrest.
  To the bench:-
   The complainant bore a good character as far as he knew.  He never mentioned that the mate had threatened him.  He wanted West to go back to his ship.
  Complainant said he would rather go to prison.  He had been an officer in the Commissariat department with the Volunteers in South Africa and had camped out on campaigns and never received such treatment anywhere as he had on the ship.  He could produce testimonials showing that what he said about himself was true.  He handed up a testimonial to the bench.
  The Court held that an assault had been committed, but that the facts had been greatly exaggerated it would not therefore inflict a very heavy fine but only $5.  But with regard to the case against the complainant of deserting his shop he could only order him to go back.  He could not discharge him from the ship and he would have to arrange it with the Vice-Consul.
  The Complainant - I would sooner you sent me to prison.  I would sooner chuck myself into the river than go back to that ship with the first mate.
  The parties then left the Court, the complainant protesting that he would not go back to the ship.


North China Herald, 8 December 1886
Shanghai, 4th December 1886
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
In this suit the petition of the plaintiff Ha Long Yue broker against Wm. Church, late of Shanghai, but at present understood to be on his way to England, showed that the defendant on the 9th December, 1885, gave the plaintiff two cheques on the Chartered Mercantile Bank, one for Tls. 300 and the other for Tls. 200.  But when they were presented the Bank refused payment and notice of the fact was given to the defendant, notwithstanding which the cheques still remained dishonoured.  The plaintiff now sought payment of the cheques with interest from 9th December, and also of the costs of the present proceedings.
  Mr. Catterall, of the firm of Myburgh & Dowdall, appeared for the plaintiff.  There was no appearance for the defendant.
  Mr. Thos. Hore, usher, proved service of the petition on the 16th November when the defendant told him he had no money.
  The plaintiff was then sworn and stated that he advanced a certain [sum] of money, 500 taels, to the defendant Wm. Church in November 1885.  Defendant gave him two orders on the Chartered Mercantile Bank as well as a receipt, produced). The cheques were dishonoured at the Bank.  He had never received a single cash since, and defendant told him to wait from one day to another.
  Mr. Catterall - Your Lordship, this is my case.
  His Lordship - That is sufficient.
  Judgment with costs was then given and at the request of Mr. Catterall his Lordship fixed the amount at $60.
  Mr.  Catterall also applied for execution to be issued immediately against the defendant, stating that he was afraid the effects and furniture might be taken by someone else.
  His Lordship directed him to bring in the order, when execution would be issued.


North China Herald, 22 December 1886
H.B.M.'S Civil Summary Court.
Shanghai, 16th December 1886
Before Sir R. T. Rennie.
  This was a summons to recover $75.50 the value of certain clothing and a salinometer alleged to have been illegally removed from the plaintiff's residence, in Langham Place, by the defendant Mr. Tho. Kingsmill.
  The Plaintiff, Theodore Thomann, a German, deposed that he was an engineer, and resided in one of the defendant's houses in Langham Place for five months.  On the fifth of last month he owed Mr. Kingsmill $6, and his shroff called to collect the money.  Witness told him to come on  the 15th and he would pay him.  In the meantime he got an engagement on a steamer, and went away, locking up the house containing his furniture, etc. amongst which were the articles missing.  He told a friend to tell Mr. Kingsmill's compradore that he had gone away for a little time.  On his return he was told that Mr. Kingsmill forced his way into the house on the 27th, and took the things named.  When he spoke to the defendant he said it was a mistake and offered him the house back.  He found that his clothing and other property had been put into another house belonging to Mr. Kingsmill, and some of the property was missing.  Mr. Kingsmill said that he could not find the things, and offered to pay the value of the goods missing, and asked witness what they were worth.  He replied $75, whereupon Mr. Kingsmill told him to go to the d----. Witness had the house by the month.  He got back all his tings except those on account of which the summons was brought, and of which he gave the defendant a list.
  The defendant declined to ask the witness any questions and said that what he stated was pretty nearly correct.
  Mr. Kingsmill was then examined and stated that the plaintiff had paid his rent for July, August and September, but not for October, and witness's Shroff came to him last month and told him that the tenant of No. 7, - he did not know his name, had gone away without paying his rent.  Nearly two month's rent was due and several persons were looking after the house, so witness told the Shroff to take the furniture, etc., away and lock it up carefully in another house, so that the tenant could have it, if he came back.  No one told witness that Mr. Thomann had only gone away temporarily.  When plaintiff returned, witness explained the mistake, and offered to make good any things that were lost.  But when the plaintiff claimed $75, he admitted that he did not use very respectful language to him, as he considered that the amount was exorbitant.  He had no knowledge of a salinometer being in the house.  Witness's Shroff told him that he gave up everything taken from Mr. Thomann's house, and also that Mr. Thomann had some dispute with his washer-man, who night have taken the missing articles.
  The Shroff of the last witness gave corroborative evidence.  He did not see a salinometer or the clothes described on the plaintiff's list.
  A second shroff in Mr. Kingsmill's employ was examined and gave evidence to the same effect.
  His Honour said that if the goods were in the house and were removed by Mr. Kingsmil's order he was responsible for them, but the point to be first proved was whether they ever had existence.
  The case was adjourned till the next day for the attendance of a witness for the plaintiff.
17th December.
  This case, which was a summons to recover $75.50 from the defendant, Mr. Thomas Kingsmill, for certain clothing and a Salinometer, alleged to have been wrongfully removed and lost from the plaintiff's residence, 7, Langham Place, by the defendant who was his landlord had on Friday [???] a witness was called by the plaintiff, and swore that he saw the clothing and the instrument in the plaintiff's room before the removal.  The Court made an order for $25 including the $6 which the plaintiff admitted he owed Mr. Kingsmill at the time, and which the defendant forgave hm.

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