Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases, 1888

North China Herald, 3 February 1888
ASSAULT.
  The charge against Wm. B. Tyler, second officer of the Sin Nanzing, for assaulting a Chinese boy on board that vessel was resumed.  Captain Waddilove was sworn and deposed to seeing the complainant with a slight black eye on the morning in question.  Witness questioned him as to how he got it, and the complainant stated that he had been beaten by the defendant.  Upon witness speaking to the latter upon the subject, he said that the boy had been cheeky.  His Worship ordered Tyler to pay a fine of $3 with costs.
  Wm. Porter, seaman, was brought up charged with committing an unprovoked assault upon another sailor named Ericson in the Sailors' Home.  The evidence of the complainant was to the effect that while he was sitting quietly at a table, Porter rushed at him and struck him repeatedly in the face.  Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Hone gave corroborative evidence, and added that Porter appeared to be the worse for liquor at the time.  The prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 16 March 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
12th March.
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
A COOL THIEF.
  LOUIS JERSEY, a seaman, was charged with stealing a gold ring and two dollars from the house No., 44, Rue du Consulat.
  Rosa Borlass, 44 Rue du Consulat, was sworn and said that two Saturdays ago the prisoner, whom she had never seen before,  came into her house while she was at tiffin and said he wanted to speak to her.  She told him to go upstairs until she was ready to see him.  He did so and when she went to speak to him he said "I am going now," (and pointing to a small cabinet in the corner) "you had better look there."  Shortly afterwards she missed the ring and two dollars and gave information to the police. She now identified the ring produced as the stolen article.
  Mr. James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, stated that he knew the prisoner, who had been an inmate of the home from the 16th February.  About the evening of the 23rd ultimo he came to witness and producing the ring asked for an advance of $3 upon it, which witness gave him, thinking the ring belonged to him.  Witness also lent him some money three days before on another ring (produced), which the prisoner told him he had given 2 Pounds 10s. 0d. for in the Colonies.
  Inspector Fowler said with reference to the second ring, for whom so far there was no claimant, he thought he would be able to prove that it was made in Shanghai.  It had the initials W.S. inside and was Chinese gold.
  WOO SHING, a goldsmith, was cautioned and identified the second ring as one of his make.
  Detective Officer Jones was sworn and deposed that about a fortnight ago the complainant informed him that a foreigner had been in her house, and while she was downstairs stolen a gold snake ring with two ruby eyes, along with two dollars.  Witness was given the ring yesterday by Mr. Eveleigh.  Yesterday afternoon he met the prisoner who corresponded to the description given by the woman, and asked him did he know such a woman.  The prisoner said he did and that h introduced his captain to her the last voyage.  Witness asked him had he any objection to go to the Station to see her, and he replied that he had not.  There the complainant identified him as the thief.  She said that the man was better dressed when she saw him before, and wore a longer moustache.  The man denied he had ever been dressed differently.
  The prisoner, in reply to his Worship, again protested his innocence, but his Worship said he was satisfied he stole the ring and the money, and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment for the theft of the ring, and a similar term for stealing the money, or six months in all.

 

North China Herald, 23 March 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th March, 1888
MUTINOUS CHINESE SAILORS.
On Thursday in H.B.M.'s Police Court before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge, an Amoy man, boatswain of the Wuchang, was brought up on a charge of mutinous conduct, and assaulting the chief Mate, Mr. Paul Holtz. The prisoner, who is a big, burly man, appeared in court surrounded by his crew numbering about a dozen.
The Mate was sworn, and said - I have been on the ship about 5 weeks. The boatswain is in the habit of using water out of the fresh water tanks "and I object to that when the vessel is in fresh water." Whenever I spoke to him about it, he took no notice. This morning the boatswain was going to the tank, and I went up and said "I'll have no more of this and I will lick you if you do I again." He immediately called the crew, and they came. He cried out "Tung lai. Tung lai. Ta ta." and as I did not like the look of this, there being twelve of them, I retreated to the wheel house, and took down a hatchet.
To His Worship - There were about twelve men, I think. They did not assault me, I only got a clout or two as I went along to the wheel house. I don't know exactly which of them gave it, but it was not of much account. When they came they all stood at bay, and when the boatswain saw me with the hatchet, he stepped back, and told the men to go on. I went away because I knew they would give me a beating when they were crying out ta ta. They had nothing in their hands when they came along.
His Worship - Why did you think they would lick you? Because the boatswain called on them to do so, and because I have been mobbed before.
His Worship - They did no attempt to strike you? No. because I ran into the wheelhouse.
The Interpreter explained what the prosecutor had said to the prisoner, who said the mate gave him permission that morning to use the water in the tanks to wash the funnel, as the river water was very muddy and would discolour it. The prosecutor struck him twice before he went into the wheelhouse, when the prisoner was in the boat, and he also told him to go to the Captain. That was why he ran aft. He did not call his men until the mate went to strike him with the hatchet. He then got scared and called them to his assistance.
Prosecutor, in reply to the Magistrate, said the men did nothing when he got the hatchet, but went away. The Captain then came out of his cabin and said, "What do you want to use the hatchet for? Put it down." The boatswain then made a rush at me and got hold of me by the ear, and not having a good footing, he (Holtz) fell down near the wheelhouse. The boatswain put him down, but not by a straight blow. The statement of the boatswain that he had struck him twice when he was in the boat was untrue. Prosecutor would have been very foolish to do so, as the prisoner's foot was then on a level with his (Holtz's) head and he would have kicked him. It was also untrue that he took up the hatchet before all the men rushed at him.
His Worship directed the Interpreter to tell the prisoner what the complainant said about his statement. The Prisoner, in defence, said that after the Mate put down the hatcher he never caught hold of him, but when he was trying to hit him (prisoner) with the axe, he fell down.
Captain George Vallack was sworn and deposed that he came up the river with his steamer this morning. He heard a great commotion outside his cabin, and saw the mate rushing along the deck with about half a dozen sailors after him. He went into the wheel house and took up a hatchet, which witness ordered him to put down. He did so, and the boatswain rushed at him and got him down. Witness then went between them caught he boatswain and knocked him down. The prisoner thereupon sang out to all hands to knock off work, and they would go to the Consul. Witness asked him did he intend all the men to knock off, or only himself, adding that he would have an opportunity of seeing the Consul. The prisoner then appeared to repent and told the men to go on with their work. To the Bench - The men were nearly all running after the Mate and making a great commotion. The Prisoner, in reply to his Worship, said the men ran aft because the Mate told them to go to the captain's cabin. When the Captain told them they would see the consul, he (prisoner) told them to go on with their work again.
The Captain said they rushed past his door, so that they could not be going to see him.
The prisoner said the Mate told them to go to the Captain's cabin, but they went to the wheel house instead.
Hs Worship said that was nonsense.
Mr. Percival, Clerk of the Court, said there was a cross summons by the boatswain for assault against the Mate.
His Worship intimated that he would hear it with the other charge, and asked the Captain were the men threatening.
The Captain - Yes, especially the boatswain; the men were not very menacing.
His Worship - Have you often heard of cases of this kind before?" No, very seldom. It is he first one since I have been in China that such a thing occurred. Did the men knock off when he old them? Yes, he seems to have a great influence over them, more so, in fact, than any boatswain I have been with.
TSU A-CHUNG, a quartermaster on the vessel, was called to support the summons by the prisoner, and stated that he had been engaged by the boatswain six years ago, ever since which time the boatswain was on the ship. Yesterday morning he was in the wheelhouse when the Mate came in quite excited and took off his coat and picked up a hatchet.
His Worship said he wanted someone who saw the beginning of the row.
PING A-CHING was cautioned and said he was on the deck at the time of the disturbance. The boatswain did no call out tung-lai tung-lai, ta ta. Witness was not one of the men who followed the mate.
His Worship asked the prisoner had he any other witnesses to call.
The prisoner said he had only to all one man as to the Mate striking him in the boat.
Another sailor said he saw the boatswain helping to get up water to the men - of whom witness was one - washing the funnel, and he saw the Chief Mate come up and strike him twice on the body. The boatswain did no call out ta ta, nor did he try to strike the Mate, no Chinaman would try to do so. Witness did not hear or see any of the sailors running after the Mate. He kept on washing the funnel, and did not knock off work himself.
His Worship asked the prisoner had he any more witnesses, to which the prisoner replied in the negative.
His Worship said that with reference to the first part of the business, it appeared to him that one party was about as bad as the other. He thought that the Mate had been acting rather indiscreetly, or at all events, was at the beginning of the affair. With regard to the assault at the wheel house, which the Captain witnessed, he would convict the prisoner of a common assault, and ordered him to pay a fine of $10, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment.
At the same time he thought the Mate had behaved with some want of care and caution in taking up the hatchet, which might have done more harm than good. It was extremely unwise to take up such a weapon to the boatswain, and if he refused to obey orders, the Mate should have gone to the captain and told him.
The Mate said the evidence of the last witness was altogether false.
His Worship said he was not going upon that evidence in his decision, but upon the whole facts of the case.
[To the Interpreter.] Tell the boatswain that he should have known he was on board an English ship and was subject to English law, and if he had thought he was badly treated he could come to the Court and have redress. He dismissed the summons against the mate with a hope that the case would be a warning to him in future.
The prisoner intimated that he would rather pay the fine than go to gaol.

 

North China Herald, 28 April 1888
HORROBLE SENTENCES IN THE CITY.
WE mentioned some days ago an old prisoner who had levied blackmail on a new prisoner in the Chehsien's jail, and had flogged the new prisoner for refusing to pay, and also a man who was supposed to have informed the Chehsien of these proceedings. . . .

 

North China Herald, 12 May 1888
CORRESPONDENCE.
THE BARRISTER'S RIGHT OF AUDIENCE.
To the Editor of the
NORTH-CHINA DAILY NEWS.
  Sir, - On behalf of the legal profession I will ask you to be kind enough to mention the grievous insult which has just been offered to one of its representatives here.  .  .  .  
I am, Sir, &c.
E. B. MICHELL, of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, Bachelor en Droit, M.A. &c.
Bangkok, Siam, 19th April, 1888.

 

North China Herald, 1 June 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 29th May,
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
DESERTION.
  A respectable looking young fellow named Harry Wilson was put forward charged with having deserted from his ship the Alexander Yeats.
  Mr. Geo. Brown, Vice-Consul, prosecuted, and said that the ship had gone away.  The accused had a very good character from the captain who was anxious to get him back.
  The accused in reply to his Worship, admitted the offence, and said the reason he left the ship was that he had been constantly called offensive names.
  His Worship said that in consideration of the accused's good character he would only impose a light penalty, and sentenced him to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 1 June 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 26th May.
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
WATSON v. MAITLAND
  This was a claim for $195 for money advanced to and goods purchased by the defendant W. Maitland, from the plaintiff W. A. Watson, storekeeper, Hongkew.
  Mr. Harold Browett appeared for the plaintiff; there was no appearance for the defendant.
  Service of the notice of the hearing was proved by Mr. Keeling, Usher of the Court.
  His Lordship said that on the 8th the defendant wrote saying that it was impossible for him to pay the whole bill; that he had been cheated a good deal, and that he was willing to pay in instalments as he had to remit half his monthly pay to his wife.  His Lordship asked Mr. Browett had he defendant's promise in writing.
  Mr. Browett handed the promissory note to the Bench.
  His Lordship - This is for $175, and the claim is for how much?
  Mr. Browett - One hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents.
  His Lordship - There is only $188 admitted here.  How do you make out $192.50?
  Mr. Browett - There is interest from 22nd October to 12th February, $10, and further interest from 12th February up to date, $7.50.  I have reckoned he interest in this way because the defendant promised to pay at Chinese New Year.  In fact he promised to pay in January last, and then at the latest at Chinese New Year.
  His Lordship - Your claim is for $175, with $10 interest.
  Mr. Browett - I have put in the extra $7.50 in the schedule.  But my client says he is not very anxious about the $7.50.
  His Lordship - I do not think that he will get it.  The defendant admits $175 with $10 interest. There will be judgment for $185 and costs.
  Mr. Browett - What costs my Lord? There is $8 for court fees.  Will I name a sum for costs?
  His Lordship - Our rule is that when the claim is for less than $200, the taxed costs shall not exceed $25, including Court fees.  Therefore the judgment will be for $185 and $25 costs, including Court fees.  The judgment order had better be served upon the defendant.  He promises to pay in four monthly instalments.
  Mr. Browett said he must object to that, as he did not think the letter from defendant was in order and he could not advise his client to accept the proposed arrangement.
  His lordship - Very well, you must take your own course about it.  The judgment order will be made out.

 

North China Herald, 9 June 1888
H.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 7th June.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
  F. Mann appeared to answer a summons for assaulting a Chinese gate-keeper at the Acid Works.
  The Complainant appeared in Court with a fragment of yellow paper stuck on his upper lip, and on removing this covering a slight scratch covered with ointment was visible.
  The defendant admitted the charge, but pleaded that he received strong provocation from the complainant, who used a filthy expression in Chinese towards hm.
  The complainant was cautioned and said, he was engaged by the defendant as gate-keeper and gardener at a salary of $8 a month.  The cook and boy having left Mr. Mann's service he was in the habit of doing odd jobs about the house, knife cleaning, etc., there being no other servants. On the 25th day of the last moon, (Saturday last) the defendant found fault with the way which the bots were cleaned, and on the complainant saying it was not his work and that [he] could do it no better, Mr. Mann struck him twice in the mouth with a boot brush.  Complainant then said he would leave and asked for a fortnight's wages which we due him; the defendant replied that if he did not have the boots properly cleaned he would kill him.
  The defendant said he told the man he would pay him when the other men were paid their wages.
 Complainant continuing said he then went to the Court and took out a summons, and when going back a friend told him that his face was bleeding.  He had to attend a Chinese doctor who charged him $2 for curing the wound.  He had to go to the doctor twice a day at first, but afterwards only once a day.
  His Worship addressing the defendant - Now we will hear what you have got to say.
  The defendant - There is no use for me to say anything as you do not seem to believe me against these men's words.
  His Worship sharply reprimanded the defendant for his assertion and said he could not see what reason he had to make such a remark, as he (his Worship) had said nothing to lead him to such a belief.  The statement was most uncalled for and was made without any cause whatever.  He then ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $5, and $2 compensation with costs.

 

North China Herald, 15 June 1888
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.
Shanghai, 14th June.
Before General J. D. Kennedy, US Consul-General, Acting judicially.
U.S. v. PARRY - ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
  It appeared from the evidence that the defendant L. R. Parry, who is second mate of the Wandering Jew, had some difficulty with the prosecutor, McQueen, a sailmaker of the same ship, about the latter's work, and struck him severely with his fist knocking him partly down a hatchway. The defendant pleaded guilty to the striking.  A good deal of testimony was adduced as to the facts, about which there appeared to be a conflict of evidence, in order to assist his Honour in determining what punishment would be inflicted.  After hearing the evidence very fully, the sentence of the Court was that the defendant should pay a fine of $10 and costs, with the alternative of being confined in the consular gaol for fifteen days.

 

North China Herald, 15 June 1888
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.
Shanghai, 11th June.
Before General J. D. Kennedy, US Consul-General, Acting judicially.
U.S. v. QUIN.
  Bernard Quin, lately discharged from the American ship City of Philadelphia, was brought up on a charge of assaulting Police Constable Rederston.  The evidence went to show that complaints were made about the prisoner annoying foot passengers on Broadway on Saturday night, and upon the Constable telling him to desist he replied by knocking him down, and afterwards broke one of his ribs.  Another policemen came to Redereston's assistance and the prisoner was conveyed to the station.  The prisoner pleaded that he was drunk at the rime and did not know what he was doing, but this was denied by the police who said he knew what he was about.  He was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and ordered to pay $3 compensation for the damage to the constable's uniform.


North China Herald, 29 June 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd June.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant judge.
  JOHN BURKE, a sea-faring man, was charged with having been drunk and furiously riding a pony in Hongkew on Friday, to the danger of the inhabitants of the locality.  The evidence as given by Inspector Joseph Reed was to the effect that on the previous evening he was walking along Broadway, Hongkew, when his attention was directed to the erratic and furious riding of the prisoner who was mounted on a pony.  He was going at a great pace and tried to jump the pony over a private 'ricksha, and failing in this, attempted to ride him into the Sailors' Rest. He afterwards tried to induce his mount to go into a Chinese shop and then charged in amongst the people on the footpath.  The sergeant then sent an Indian Constable to arrest him, but Burke put the pony at the constable and the animal trod on the officer's foot.  The witness with the assistance of Sergeant Allen then dismounted the prisoner, and brought him to the Station.
  The prisoner in reply to his Worship said that he had done no actual damage; he did not fall off the pony, and knew what he was doing.  He had no intention of hurting anybody.
  His Worship said it might be true that the prisoner did no actual damage, but he endangered a good many lives, and he would have to pay the full penalty for his conduct, in a fine $10 and costs.
  The defendant evidently came prepared for this contingency and produced a note for the amount at once from his pocket and paid up with apparent cheerfulness.
-----------
  GEORGE MARTIN, another seafaring man was put forward in custody of Inspector Kluth to answer a number of charges, the first being that he was found drunk in a jinricksha, the second that he had obtained by means of false pretences, a bottle of quinine and iron tonic value $1.50 from Messrs. Watson & Co, and thirdly with obtaining sundry goods including a hat, stick, silk muffler and handkerchief, value $8.75 from the Hall & Holtz Co-operative Company Limited, with intent to defraud.
  The prisoner admitted the first charge, and also the receiving of the goods specified, but denied that there was any intent on his part to defraud.
  Mr. Wm. Tyce, of Messrs. Watson's, sworn, said - The prisoner came into our store and bought a bottle of quinine and iron tonic for which he signed a chit in the name of Wm. Murray of the steamer Kowshing.  We have got the chit.  On sending it for collection we found that there was no such person on board the Kowshing.
  The accused was shown the voucher and admitted that it was in his handwriting.
  Witness continuing said - A day after I saw him going by in company with a constable and recognising him we made enquiries and found that his name was Martin and not Murray.  Not approving of his style of doing business I thought it right to bring a charge against him.
  In reply to his Worship the defendant said he had no intention to defraud and intended to pay the money.
  His Worship explained the serious nature of the charges against the prisoner and asked him had he anything further to say.
  The prisoner repeated his statement that he did not intend to defraud, but intended paying for the goods.  He admitted that he signed the chit, (chit produced) adding that he was under the influence of liquor when he did so.
  Mr. Tyce in reply to his Worship said it was true that the prisoner seemed rather shaky when he signed the chit, but he was not so bad that he did not know what he was about.
  The third charge was then gone into.
  Mr. Wm. Hayward was sworn and stated that some days ago the prisoner called at the Hall & Holtz store and purchased the articles named in the charge and valued at $8.75.  He gave his correct name, and ordered the purchases to be sent to the Astor House.  The goods along with the account were accordingly sent to the place named, with instructions not to leave the goods unless the account was paid first.  The prisoner, however, forcibly took the goods from the Shroff and refused to pay the money.  We sent again to the hotel but the prisoner had then left.
  To the Court - When he made the purchase he simply said to send the goods to the Astor House and gave his name correctly.
  The prisoner had no questions to ask.
  KOO JIN-DAH, a Shroff in the employment of the Hall & Holtz Co-operative Company, cautioned, said when he went with the parcel to the Astor House, a boy told him that the prisoner was not living at the hotel, but was in the habit of calling there frequently.  The next day about half past five witness delivered the goods to the prisoner personally at room number 15, and asked for the money which the prisoner refused to give him, and wanted instead to "lick" him.  The prisoner then took the goods under his arm and got into a 'ricksha and went away, witness knew not where. When witness was handed the parcel and the bill, his instructions were not to give up the goods to the prisoner without the money.
  His Lordship - Did you bring back the parcel or the bill?
  Witness said no, that he handed the prisoner the receipted bill which he put in his pocket.
  His Worship - Then he took away the receipted bill against your will?
  Witness replied in the affirmative.
  The prisoner said he took the bill but did not know that it was receipted at the time, and besides he thought he was speaking to a boy belonging to the Astor House, and did not know that the shroff belonged to Hall and Holtz Co.
  The office boy of the Astor House was cautioned, and stated that when the last witness brought the parcel addressed to Martin, he accompanied him to room No. 15, when the Shroff handed the goods and the bill together to Martin, who first looked at the bill and then put it in his pocket.  When the Shroff asked for the money the prisoner went as if to strike him.  He did not hit him, however, but put the parcel under his arm and went away in a jinricksha.
  The prisoner denied that he attempted to strike the shroff.  All that the witness said with the foregoing exception and also that it was receipted, occurred, but he fully intended to pay the money.
  His Worship said that he would convict him on the first charge of obtaining goods by false pretences from Messrs. Watson & Co. and sentenced him to a month's hard labour; on the second charge he was found guilty of larceny and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, commencing after the expiry of the first term.
A STREET BRAWL.
  Mr. LL. E WALLER appeared on a summons to answer a charge of assault preferred against him by Mr. C. M. Muller.
  The Court was crowded with many well-known residents and much interest appeared to be taken in the case.
  The Defendant when he took his place at the bar, was busy engaged in reading a huge bundle of notes on brief paper.
  His Worship - You are charged with assaulting the complainant.  Do you plead guilty or not guilty?
  Defendant reading from his brief with slowness and great deliberation amidst the laughter of the audience - I plead guilty under very strong provocation - guilty of a slight assault, and under the circumstances regret having done so.
  The prisoner who was evidently much excited, on being invited by his Worship to give his version of the case, proceeded in a loud voice and with great rapidity of utterance to detail the facts of the assault, first asking Mr. Waller to explain what the alleged provocation was, as he (defendant) was in the best position to do so.  He (complainant) had the provocation, he considered, and was very much astonished at finding himself attacked by Mr. Waller in a brutal and ride way.
  The defendant who had obviously come prepared to conduct his case in a strict legal form said he would give his Worship a full account of the provocation later.
  Complainant, in reply to the bench, said - The assault took place at half-past ten last Wednesday morning, opposite the China Merchants' Office in the Foochow Rad.
  His Worship - What happened?
  Witness - I was walking peaceably to my office, when I met Mr. Waller who was riding in his jinricksha.  He jumped out and asked me if I had made a statement about a Miss Cheeseman - a certain statement - and I said that I had, but that it had not emanated from me but from another person,  and to the truth of that I am prepared to take my solemn oath.  Mr. Waller was then very angry and said that the person referred to denied it, and he said he wanted a written statement to this effect or he would take it out of me,  I said no, I would not give it.  He then said something about settling it there, and that he would take me to my Consul, and caught hold of me and pulled off the second button of my coat.  I am no coward and only say this to show the amount of violence he used.  Then I faced him and he rushed at me trying to hit me in a very violent and rude manner, and was very angry.  He did not hit me, however, as I leant back and tried the same thing to him.  He was calling me names at the same time.  After having tried to hit each other for a time without result, I grasped him and threw him down, face downwards; he was quite helpless and I had every opportunity to use him in a very brutal way, if I had done as he would.
  He was helpless, for he is no a match for me if I was in a proper condition, but at the same time, as Dr. Zedelius can testify I was very seedy, which is another reason for my coming here. He jumped up and ran after me again and said he would give me a good licking. This was after I had thrown him three times without his ever having touched me at all.  I was afterwards told by the person before referred to that he (defendant) had said he had given me a good "licking." This was not true, though I was desirous to get away from him and was not anxious to fight.
  His Worship, addressing the defendant - Do you wish to cross-examine the complainant on amy point?
  Defendant - Most decidedly I do.
  His Worship - Has he said anything untrue?
  Defendant - I have a great deal to ask him, and much to say on the subject.
  Defendant to Complainant - Are you in the employment of Russell & Co?
  Complainant - Is Mr. Waller entitled to address me, your worship, on this matter?
  His Worship to defendant - Is it material that you should have this answered?
  Defendant said it was material, and he repeated he question to complainant who replied - I am in Russell & Co.'s employment, if that will do Mr. Waller a favour.
  Cross-examination continued - How long have you known me, Mr. Muller.  Have you not been on friendly terms with me for a very long time? - I have known you for a long time.
  His Worship - I cannot allow you to go into any extraneous circumstances; you have said that you admitted a slight assault under very strong provocation, and your cross-examination must be to show what that provocation was, simply.
  Defendant - Very well your Worship - (To complainant) - Do you know a Miss Cheeseman?
  Complainant, excitedly - Am I to answer that question?
  His Worship intimated that the question was relevant.
  Complainant - Yes, I do know her.
  How long have you known her? - I have known her since I came to Shanghai.
  Known her intimately I presume? - Yes, I have.
  Do you recollect telling her that I told the man referred to that she lived on a woman named Mary Berry? Yes. I do, that is what had been stated by the gentleman I named.
  His Worship - I did not catch the name of the lady.
  Complainant - Jenny Cheeseman.
  His Worship to defendant - Have you anything further to ask?
  Defendant - No questions, but I should like to explain everything to your Worship personally.
  To complainant - Did you tell this to any other lady acquaintance of yours?
  Not that I know of.
  His Worship - All I want to hear is what the provocation which you mentioned was, as so far you have shown none.  Did he make any derogatory statement concerning some lady?
  Defendant - Yes, most decidedly he did.
  His Worship - Who was that lady?
  Defendant - Miss Jenny Cheeseman.
  His Worship - And is she any relative of yours?
  Defendant - None whatever, but she is well-known in town here.  I never go to any of these houses, having enough to do to do my own business.  I should like to explain the whole matter to your Worship as I consider that I have been greatly injured by this man Muller, and would wish to give my reasons for believing so.
  His Lordship - That may be so; you may have been injured but you have not succeeded in shewing me how.  The law provided the fullest redress to anyone that had been injured unlawfully, but you took the law into your own hands and created a disgraceful and unseemly brawl on the public street and for which I fine you $25 and costs, or a month's imprisonment in default.
  The parties then left the court, the complainant apparently quite satisfied at the result and the defendant just as much disconcerted.
  The fine was paid.
-------
27th June.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
A STRANGE SENTENCE.
  DAVID MAIN, an employee of the Shanghai Waterworks Co., appeared again on a summons charging him with having assaulted a Chinaman named Chao Yung-ch'ang by striking him on rhe head with an iron water-pipe key.  The complainant come into the witness box with his head elaborately bandaged and carrying a bundle of blood stained clothes which he laid at his feet with an air of great feebleness generally.
  Mr. Wainewright appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty.
  Chao Ying-cha'ng cautioned, stated that he keeps a hot water shop in the Chinkiang Road at the back of the Mixed Court.  On the 21st inst., Mr. Main came to his place, and wanted to increase the charge for the water supply by 50 cents.  Witness understood last year that there would be no increase, but on Mr. Main's demand, he agreed to pay 20 cents a month more, saying that if all the other hot-water shops consented to the increase of 50 cents he was willing to do so too. Mr. Main then took up the iron with which he was turning off the water, and struck him over the eye and on the head with it, and kicked him wo or three times.  Witness took the iron road to the Mixed Court Magistrate who sent him to the Hospital where he had been two days.  Witness was covered with blood and had to be helped by another man to the Mixed Court.
  In reply to his Worship who asked him if he wanted the man punished or if he claimed any compensation,
  Witness said - I am a poor man and will leave that to his Worship.
  Hi Worship asked if he had been put to any expense.
  Witness said he was put to the expense of having a native doctor, to attend him for three days.
  Mr. Wainewright observed that he thought it would be rather hard to find the doctor.
  In reply to further  queries  by the Court the witness said that he had not been able to attend to his work on account of the injury to his hand which he was unable to move.  He had been in bed ever since the assault.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Wainewright - It was only the day previous to the assault that Mr. Main spoke to him about the increase in his water rate.  On that occasion witness replied that business was very dull and he could not afford to pay another half dollar.  Mr. Main said he would come again and that witness must pay the extra 50 cents.  When defendant came next day he asked witness was he going to pay the 50 cents or not, to which witness replied that he would do so if the other water-shop owners were willing to do likewise.  Witness did not say to Mr. Main hat he would go back to the Whangpoo again, that he did not want the Company's water any longer; but he did say that he had paid Tls. 5 for putting up the water pipe and fittings.  The witness told Mr. Main not to close the tap as he would have no water for his shop, and it was for this that defendant struck him.
  A large iron implement with a cross bar at the top was produced, which the witness said was similar to the one with which the assault was committed.
  Witness caught hold of the key when Mr. Main went to the water, but he did not try to take it away until after he was struck with it.  He then tried to get it from Mr. Main.  Witness caught hold of it before he had been struck, but he had to let it go before he was struck.  He got it away after he was struck and took it to the Mixed Court.  He put it aside in the shop first, then brought it to the Mixed Court.  He went to the Police Station first.  Two Chinamen connected with the Water Works Co. and a jinricksha coolie witnessed the assault. Witness had since agreed to pay the extra half dollar to the Company.
  Mr. Wainerwright in defence said that the witness's whole story was a fabrication.  What happened was that this man when requested to pay the increase of 50 cents said, no, he would pay 20 cents, which Mr. Main said was not sufficient.  His client then went to turn off the water with the key, when this man rushed at him, seized hold of it, and they had a struggle and the key was wrenched away from Mr. Main and flew up, the end of it striking the witness in the face.  The fine theatrical pose of the witness in the box was all put on; the key simply flew up with the result of his own exertions and struck him.
  In reply to his Worship, the witness said that M. Main struck him, and it was not by the key flying up that he was hurt.  He first struck him with it on the hand and then on the head twice.
  His Worship asked Mr. Wainewright was it part of his case that his client was acting lawfully in cutting off the water.
  Mr. Wainewright replied in the affirmative adding that the man said he was to cut off the water, as he did not want it.
  The witness denied this, alleging that what he said was that if the water was cut off he could get no more as his water cart was finished.
  In reply to the Court the witness said that this was his whole case, he had brought no witnesses, as he thought it was not necessary to bring any.
  His Worship briefly commented upon the numerous discrepancies in the complainant's case and said he thought that as the man probably came to Court unacquainted with the mode of procedure, it would only be fair to make a certain allowance for him, and give him the opportunity of calling any witnesses he could.
  Mr. Wainewright offered no objection, but reserved his evidence for the defence until the complainant had finished his case.
  The further hearing of the charge was accordingly adjourned till tomorrow morning to allow the complainant to produce two next door neighbours named Moh and Ah Loi.
.  .  .  
28th June.
His Worship gave judgment holding that the complainant's case was clearer than that for the defence.  The evidence of the two police constables did not invalidate that given by complainant's witnesses and in his opinion the Company's Shroff was too good a witness.  He held that the blow was inflicted with the screw end, and not with the cross bar end of the key, and characterized as natural the complainant's action in resisting what he called a high handed attempt to take away the complainant's means of livelihood.  He quite believed that the defendant used the iron rod as described and committed the assault.  He considered the case a very serious one in connection with the relation of the Shanghai Waterworks Co. towards their customers, and that with their high powers and privilege they should treat their customers with a proper consideration.
  He held that Mr. Main's attempt to cut off the water was a trespass under the circumstances, and that the Chinaman was justified in resisting it as such.  In his endeavor to do so, the assault was committed. He was no quit sure as to the law as to the legal rights of the Company, and he did not intend to go into the point now, but he was of opinion that Mr. Main exceeded his instructions in committing an assault upon one of the company's customers.  He considered that a great principle, and the interests of the public were at stake, and that he should impose an exemplary penalty.  He fined the defendant the maximum sum allowed under the statute, i.e., 5 Pounds, five dollars of which were to be handed to the defendant, or in default six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 7 July 1888
TIENTSIN.
  A collision case, in which the owner of a rice junk, Peng Yu Lin, brought an action against W. Inman of the s.s. Wenchow for loss sustained by the sinking of a junk, at the mouth of the Peiho, by the steamer of which the defendant is master, was heard before H.B.M.'s Consul, Mr. T. L. Bullock, on Friday the 22nd June. Judgment was given on Saturday, and was to the following effect:-
Finding of the Court.
- The junk was at anchor near the South Bank but not on it.
- The tug having thrown the heaving line to the junk passed ahead and put up her towing light.
- The wind and tide must have set the Wenchow near the South Bank than the Pilot calculated.
- The Wenchow was being navigated with undue speed.
- The Captain starboarded to pass ahead of the junk, but being too close had not time to clear it.
- According to the Wenchow's theory the junk was under tow and crossing quickly; even if this be accepted, the steamer should have kept a port helm, according to the rule of the road, to go under the junk's stern.
- The Wenchow is found to blame for the collision, and judgment is given for amount of loss caused to plaintiff thereby.  The amount of loss will be made the subject of a reference according to the agreement of the parties in Court.  The costs follow the judgment.
(Signed) T. L. BULLOCK, Consul.
Assented: A. J. M. SMITH, R. TRANNACK, E.  M. TOWNSEND, Master, Br. Barque George, Assessors.

 

North China Herald, 7 July 1888
MR. J. C. HALL'S SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION.
THE statement mad on Tuesday to the public through the Press by Mr. J. C. Hall will evoke for that gentleman the fullest sympathy and admiration.  Even when he found that a mistake had been made, he might have wrapped himself in the maxim stare decisis, and determined to await some action on the part of the accused in the late case; but he has taken the nobler cause of coming forward proprio motu and owning that he was mistaken; and while his remarks justify all that we wrote on the decision, their simple dignity wipes away all reproach from the judge.  It was a very plucky thing for a gentlemen in his position, who has only just come to the port and has been severely criticized by the Press and the public, to do; but by doing it he has raised himself greatly in the estimation of all who can appreciate such a manly, outspoken confession of error as Mr. Hall has made.

North China Herald, 7 July 1888
LAW REPORTS.
THE RECENT ASSAULT CASE.
THE FINE REMITTED.
In H.B.M.'s Police Court on Tuesday morning J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge, on taking his seat, addressed the representatives of the Press as follows:-
  I shall be glad if the gentlemen of the Press will take notice of a few remarks I wish to make public with reference to the decision I gave in the last case tried in this court, R. v. Main.  The accused in that case was convicted of striking with a water key the complainant who was forcibly endeavouring to prevent him from screwing up the tap through which the complainant's house was supplied with water.  I have since ascertained that - contrary to what I supposed - the tap in question was not in or on the complainant's house or premises at all; but in the street outside.  That is a material fact which was not brought to my notice at the trial. It was not mentioned by Counsel or any of the witnesses. The language used throughout on both sides led me to believe that the tap was on the complainant's premises.  The fact that it is not really alters the legal aspect of the caser, for there was no trespass, and the force used by the complainant was not justifiable, as it would have been had the tap been inside his premises.  Had the truth as to this important point been before me, I should undoubtedly have dismissed the charge.
  In view of the new light thus thrown upon the case, steps have been taken in the proper quarter for a remission of the fine.

 

North China Herald, 13 July 1888
CHINKIANG CONSULAR COURT.
Before E. L. Oxenham, Esq.
11th July, 1888
  E. W. GEORGE plaintiff sued W. Bean defendant and landlord, for damages for trespass on house on Lot 2.
  Plaintiff had possession of house on Lot 1 to 31st May, 1888, and told defendant on 9th May on going to Hankow the house would be empty by 12th May.  On 10th May furniture was removed by defendant, who obtained key from plaintiff's agent through plaintiff's coolie, under superintendence of Mr. Bryant, I.M. Customs, who gave a receipt dated 19th May.  Mr. Bryant did not ratify or approve the proceedings of defendant.  A piano, not furniture of plaintiff, was also removed by Dr. Lynn, M.D. and by Mr. Bryant.
  In this case I must hold trespass was committed by defendant who should have waited till 12th May, or better have given 7 days' notice.
  The act of defendant has not been ratified or sanctioned by plaintiff's general agent Emery or special agent Bryant.
  Defendant appears to have behaved very liberally to plaintiff in matter of salary, there will only be nominal damages.
  Judgment for plaintiff with costs.  Damages at $1.00.

 

North China Herald, 13 July 1888
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 6th July.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant judge.
IMPORTANT PILOTAGE CASE.
  Captain Norman, of the s.s. Glenfruin, appeared on a summons to answer a claim of $99.99 for pilotage of that vessel from outside the Tungsha Lightship to Shanghai.
  Mr. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff.
  The defendant conducted his own case.
  Mr. Wilkinson on opening the case said that the summons had been issued before he was retained, and though practically it was correct enough technically it was for not allowing the pilotage to be earned.
  His Worship intimated that he would consider the claim in the light suggested by Mr. Wilkinson, namely for not allowing pilotage to be earned, instead of for pilotage.
.  .   .
  Mr. Wilkinson expressed his unwillingness to place himself in opposition to his Honour's decision, but at the same time he thought that he would be able to bring forward authorities if the case were adjourned which would influence his decision.
  His Honour observed that as the case was an important one he hoped there would be a rehearing, but he did not consider that it was necessary to go further into it and he would have to enter non-suit.  There was no contract and therefore there could be no breach of contract, and a dismissal would accordingly be entered.
  We learn that later on the learned counsel for the plaintiff applied in Chambers to Acting Chief Justice Mowat for leave to have a re-hearing of the case under Sub-Sec. 4 of sec. 4 of the China and Japan Order in Council 1878, and that the application was granted.

 

North China Herald, 13 July 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th July.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
STEALING SHIP'S CARGO - A SMART ARREST.
  F. GORBUS, described as a Hollander, who looked much more like a Jewish dealer in old clothes than a mariner, and Louis Van Dael described as a Belgian; both being firemen on board the British steamer Lord of the Isles, were put forward in custody of Detective Officer Jones on the charge of stealing five clocks, portion of the cargo of that ship.
.  .  .  
His Worship addressing the prisoners said that from the whole evidence, he had not the slightest doubt that they had stolen the clocks; and the evidence of detective officer Jones of their offer of a bribe to silence him was fully conclusive of their guilt.  His Worship found them guilty of larceny and sentenced them to the full penalty allowed him namely, twelve weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered the costs of the proceedings to be deducted from the wages due them.
  The captain applied for the cocks to be returned to him.
  His Worship said he would order that all the clocks be returned with the exception of the one bought by the Chinaman, who, he thought, bought it in good faith, although he might not be legally entitled to keep it.
  At this intimation Mr. Chen Foo-ching smiled and advanced to the table to pick out his purchase thus happily restored to him, and he was almost in the act of talking possession, when unfortunately, Inspector Fowler interposed and informed his Worship that he intended to have the Chinaman dealt with at the Mixed Court where the question of his right to buy stolen goods and keep them will no doubt be dealt with in a rough and ready, but generally effective way.
  His Worship thereupon said he would make no order about that particular clock, and Mr. Chen Foo-ching who seemed very much chap-fallen at the unexpected turn which affairs had taken when at their happiest, was escorted out carrying his clock under his arm, Mr. Jones showing him the way.
Shanghai, 12th July 1888
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
  THOMAS O'DONNELL, a fireman on board the British s.s. Teviot, was put forward on a charge of assaulting James Ferrier, chief officer, and Andreas Metz, a Dutchman, one of the crew.  From the evidence it seems that there were only two or three Britishers on board, the greater number of the crew being Dutchmen and Germans, and an ill-feeling naturally existed between the different sets.  The prisoner yesterday was having words with one of the Dutcmen and on the chief officer interfering, he go a blow from O'Donnell, who next gave Metz a blow between the eyes which coloured both of that gentleman's optics, which were still enshrined behind well-defined purple bruises when he came into Court to relate his woes.  O'Donnell's defence was that the Dutchman threw a friend of his, another British, into the hold, and said he would do the same to him with the assistance of his countrymen who were in force about him.  This was more than Irish flesh and blood could bear.  The weather being so hot, it being so near the Twelfth, and the offender being a liniel descendant, perhaps, of those very same Dutchmen who went to the relief of Derry when William of glorious and immortal memory, - and O'Donnell admitted that he did give Metz a "shtroke" but it was in self defence and partly for the sake of the "ould country" may be.  But the Court did not look upon it in quite this light and sent him for two months to ruminate upon this latest outrage upon Irish liberty.

 

North China Herald, 13 July 1888
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.
Shanghai, 11th July.
Before General J. D. Kennedy, U.S. Consul-General, Acting Judicially.
DRUNK AGAIN.
  Bernard QUIN, am old salt who had only just discharged the legal penalty of his weakness for strong drinks, was brought up by Detective Officer Henry Jones, on the same old charge.  The accused who had no excuse to offer was committed to the Consular Gaol for five days.

 

North China Herald, 21 July 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th July.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
CHARG OF BURGLARY.
  JOHN LANIGAN and ALFRED WITTED, two sea-faring men were put forward on a charge of burglariously entering the Wharf Hotel on Sunday morning, and stealing therefrom a quantity of jewellery and money, in all valued at $100, the property of David Sternseher.
.  .  .   The prisoners were remanded till 17th.
REFUSAL OF DUTY.
  The Indian fireman referred to in a paragraph elsewhere was sentenced to a week's imprisonment for refusing to do his work and attempting to desert from the P. and O. s.s. Khedive.
17th July.
POLICE V. WILLIAM KELLY.
The defendant, who was brought up in custody of the police, was charged with deserting from the Ajax.
  In answer to His Worship, he pleaded guilty and ruefully added "through drink."
  His Worship having ascertained from Mr. Vice-Consul Brown, that he had nothing to say about the man, sentenced Kelly to fourteen days' imprisonment.
  The defendant on hearing this remarked "All right," and was removed.
POLICE v. J. LANIGAN AND A. WITTED.
  Further evidence in this case was taken today.
.  .  .  
His Worship - There is not sufficient evidence to convict the prisoners of burglary, but I commit them for trial on a charge of stealing.

 

North China Herald, 21 July 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th July
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
MESSRS. A. SEISSON AND CO. v. W. MAITLAND.
  This was a claim for $13.20 on a number of I.O.U.s for goods supplied.
  The defendant did not appear.
  Charles Brown, a partner in the plaintiff firm, was sworn, and stated that the defendant had been supplied with meals and other things.
  His Honour said that in looking through the I.O.U.s, he could only find three that did not refer to drinks.
  The Plaintiff said there might have been drinks too, but the defendant had also had meals.
  The Usher of the Court having proved personal service of the summons,
  His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.

 

North China Herald, 4 August 1888
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.
28th July.
Before General J. D. Kennedy, .S. Consul-General, Acting Judicially.
INSUBORDINATE SEAMEN.
Five seamen of the U.S. ship W. H. Conner, named Wm. Elliott, Pat Regan. Wm. Wilson, J. Johnson. A. Crugasen, were put forward charged with refusal of duty and also with being absent on shore without leave.  From evidence given by Capt. Butman and Mr. Parkes, mate of the vessel, it appeared that the two first named prisoners were the ringleaders and led the other three away.  Elliott was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment, and $5 fine with costs, Regan against whom the charge of refusal was not fully proved, to 5 days, $5 and costs, Wilson to 4 days and costs, and Johnson and Crugasen each to 24 hours and costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 August 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd July. [August?]
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice, and a Jury.
THE ROBBERY FROM THE WHARF HOTEL.
  This morning Alfred Witted and John Lanigan were put forward to take their trial on the indictment of larceny from the Wharf Hotel, of money and jewellery amounting in value to about $100, the property of David Stenscher.  Mr. H. S. Wilkinson prosecuted.  Chief Inspector Cameron watched the case for the Police. The prisoners were undefended,  .  .  .  .  
  From the prosecutor's point of view the case rested entirely on the question of identification, and Lanigan's statement that half the property belonged to him.  But if the jury were not satisfied of his guilt, they were bound to acquit him.
  The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of "not guilty," and his Lordship ordered Lanigan to be discharged, and cautioned him against making foolish remarks of the kind in the future.
  The prisoner Witted was then put forward, and his Lordship, after observing that his honest admission of his guilt, and his exoneration of the other accused from all participation in the crime, were in his favour, sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 18 August 1888
U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSUAR DISYRICT OF SHANGHAI.
Shanghai, 10th August
Before General J. D. Kennedy. U.S. Consul-General, Acting Judicially.
ASSAULT.
  PATRICK REGAN, an unemployed seaman was out forward on a charge of assaulting Frederick L. Pierre, at the "Cleveland" public house.  It appeared that the accused who was a little exhilarated went into the bar and had a dispute with the proprietress whom he jostled about; the prosecutor thereupon interfered and was  rewarded by a blow from Regan's fist which cut his cheek open. The accused was ordered to be imprisoned in the Consular jail for twenty days.

 

North China Herald, 24 August 1888
LAW REPORTS.
NAVAL COURT OF ENQUIRY.
Shanghai, 20th August.
THE LOSS OF THE "LEESANG."
  Today a Naval Court enquiry, consisting of Captain E. E. Maxwell (H.M.S, Cockchafer), President, Mr. Geo. Brown, H.B.M.'s Vive-Consul, Captain Felgate, s.s. Lord of the Isles, and Captain Linton J. Hughes, s.s. Soochow, sat in H.B.M.'s Lower Court to enquire [ab]out the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. Leesang which was lost off Liau-ti-shan promontory on the 27th ult., and also to try a charge against Seedin quartermaster (Malay), Hung Cheng-sang, Chen Tung-tsai and Lee A-sun, able seamen of the same vessel.
[Not transcribed.]
  That a charge having been brought before the Court by the Master Augustus B.Barrier, that Seedin, quartermaster, Hung Ching-sang, Chin Tung-tsai, able seamen, and Kee Ah-sun, seaman, had committed an offence against 24 and 25 Vic., c. 96. S. 64, to wit, that they had been guilty of looting passengers' baggage, the court has enquired into the case and finds that the evidence has failed to substantiate the charge.  The Court in pursuance of powers vested in it by Sec. 23 and24 of 25 and 26 Vict., c. 63, therefore orders that a statement of the case upon which the investigation was ordered having been furnished to Augustus B. Barrier before the commencement of the investigation, his Certificate of Competency as Master No. 18895 issued by the Board of Trade and dated 9th August, 1877, be for the wrongful act and default aforesaid suspended for the period of six calendar months from this day, and the court recommends that a Certificate of Competency as 1st Mate should be granted to him during the period of such suspension.
  That Charles Kilgour be and he is hereby censured for the wrongful default aforesaid.
  That Seedin quartermaster, Hung Ching-sang, Chen Tung-tsai able seamen and Lee Ah-san seaman be discharged from custody.
  That the expenses of his court fixed as 7 Pounds 11.6 are approved.  ....
R. B. MAWHOOD, Assistant Paymaster, H.M.S. Cockchafer, Clerk of the Court.

 

North China Herald, 15 September 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 12th September.
Before J. C. Hall., Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
BARGUES v. THIRKELL.
  This was a claim by Julien Bargues, a printer in the Shanghai Courier, against J. G. Thirkell, proprietor and distributor of that paper for $30 arrears of wages alleged to be due to him by the defendant.  The defendant paid $2 into Court in satisfaction of the claim.  
  The plaintiff's case was that on the 7th instant the defendant turned plaintiff's father out of the office and when plaintiff went to speak to him about it, he summarily dismissed him.  Ten dollars were claimed for wages earned in December 1886, ten for August last; ten partly for work from the 1st to the 7th instant, and the remainder in lieu of a month's notice.
  The defendant succeeded in proving to his Worship's satisfaction that there was no money due to the plaintiff for December, 1886, and said that by the rules of the office the plaintiff's wages for August were cancelled by his leaving his employment without notice.  Defendant never discharged him and when he was served with the summons he thought that the man was still in his employ.  His Worship said that he believed the plaintiff acted in good faith in thinking that the defendant dismissed him and gave a decree for $12, but without costs.

 

North China Herald, 15 September 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 12th September.
Before J. C. Hal, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
TOO LAZY TO WORK.
  GEO. GUNN, a seaman on board the s.s. Glengarry, was put forward on a charge of refusal of duty. The prisoner admitted the offence.  From the evidence of Capt. Taylor, commander of the ship, it appeared that the prisoner had persistently refused to do any work since the 22nd ultimo.  He had been twice convicted on a similar charge in Japan, since that date and was put on board again on the 8th instant, when he again refused to go to his work.  On each of the following mornings he was asked if he was willing to do his duty and each time declined. In reply to his Worship, the prisoner said that he would never do another stroke of work on board the ship, because he had been falsely accused of stealing a coat belonging to the boatswain, and received a black eye from the chief officer.  Capt. Taylor said the latter complaint had been disposed of in Hiogo, when the chief officer was fined $5.  
  His Worship endeavoured to convince the prisoner of the foolishness of his conduct in refusing to do his work on board the ship, but failed to do so, whereupon he said he should sent him to a place where he could not refuse to do what he was told, and sentenced him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 15 September 1888
COURT OF ENQUIRY: FINDING.
  The Court re-assembled at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the 4th September, 2h3n the following finding was read:-
  This is a case where the complainants, the firm Yun Feng-heng and Wang Sheng-wan, respectively charterers and owner of the junk, declare that both junk and cargo were on the 6th May, in Fitzroy Island Channel, and while on a voyage between Shih-erh-wei (Yangchow) and Hankow, entirely lost owing to a collision with the C.M.S.N. Co.'s s.s. Kiangkwan, which collision the complainants claim was brought about by the mismanagement of thosde who were navigating the steamer.
.  .  .  
The Court therefore finds: The both vessels contributed to the mishap, the junk in altering her course when so close to the steamer, and the steamer in not stopping and reversing when a collision was imminent, and that therefore both parties were to blame.
.  .  .   Shanghai, 3rd September, 1888.

 

North China Herald, 15 September 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 12th September.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
ASSAULT.
  R. W. PATRICK, chief mate of the British sailing ship Chateaubriand, was charged with assaulting Captain Peterson of the same vessel.
  The accused pleaded not guilty.
  The Captain was sworn and stated that on Sunday morning at 11 o'clock in the forenoon the accused entered his cabin and asked had prosecutor a note for him, which prosecutor gave him.  Patrick then called him some foul name and said he had no right to keep the note, and without more ado struck prosecutor in the face with his closed fist, knocking one of his teeth out.  There was no one else present at the rime.  Patrick was drunk at the time.  He had previously assaulted prosecutor on the 23rd ult.  On that occasion they had a dispute about some work, which the accused refused to do, telling prosecutor to do it himself, and Patrick struck him on the back, knocking his pipe out of his mouth and breaking it.  Some of the men witnessed the assault.
  The accused in reply to his Worship said he never put a hand on the captain.  In fact he had never spoken to him for the last three or four weeks, nor was he in liquor on that occasion or at any time during the time he was on this ship.  He had been with Capt. Edwards for fourteen months and he has never been seen drunk in that time.
  In reply to his Worship the Captain said that he had no entry of the first assault in the log.  He did not think it was necessary.
  The accused said that the captain had never acted like a gentleman towards him or towards any one else in the ship.
  His Worship severely reprimanded the prosecutor for not logging the occurrences in the official log, and said that owing to that omission he should dismiss the first charge of assault.
  There was an entry in reference to the assault on Sunday last, but the captain admitted that he had not read the entry over to the accused.
  His Worship dismissed the second charge also, on the ground that it was not sufficiently proved, and both parties mutually agreeing the contract between them was cancelled.

 

North China Herald, 21 September 1888
LAW REPORTS.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
Shanghai, 17th September.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant judge.
IN RE GRAYSTON.
The first public examination of the bankrupt Beverly R. Grayston, decorator and art-furniture manufacturers, Foochow road, was held this morning in H.B.M.'s Lower Court. .  .  .  
The Court said it had no doubt that the creditors would act fairly in that matter, and the further examination of the bankrupt was adjourned till Monday fortnight.

 

North China Herald, 21 September 1888
LAW REPORTS.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
Shanghai, 17th September
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judger.
IN RE GRAYSTON.
  The first public examination of the bankrupt Beverly R. Grayston, decorator and furniture manufacturer, Foochow Road, was held this morning in H.B.M.'s Lower Court.
  Mr. W. V. Drummond appeared on behalf of Mr. Tong Mow-chee, and Mr. R. E. Wainewright on behalf of Mrs. Knott.  There were only three or four other creditors present, Mr. Drummond Hay, trustee being also in attendance. .  .  .  
  The Court said it had no doubt that the creditors would act fairly in that matter, and the further examination of the bankrupt was adjourned till Monday fortnight.

 

North China Herald, 19 October 1888
IN BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE GRAYSTON.
.  .  .   His Lordship read the Bankrupt's answer as given above.  It was finally decided to close the Bankrupt's public examination, as it does not seem probable that any further light could be thrown on the subject.

 

North China Herald, 19 October 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUIMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 12th October.
Before J. C. Hall, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
OLSEN v. ASTLE.
  This was a claim for $35 by A, Olsen, undertaker, against Russell Astle for balance due in respect of expenses incurred by Astle for the interment of his wife.
  The defendant admitted his liability for the amount claimed.
  Mr. Olsen was sworn and stated that the defendant gave him the order to bury his wife who died in May last, plaintiff promising to be lenient to him in the matter of payment and to take it in small monthly instalments whenever he could afford to pay anything.  The cost of the funeral was $50; shortly after the interment plaintiff received a cheque for $15 from the Ladies' Benevolent Society, but although he had made repeated applications to the defendant he had paid nothing since.  Plaintiff knew that Astle had occasional employment.
  Judgment for the amount with costs.

 

North China Herald, 16 November 1888

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT,

Shanghai, 9th November

Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

DRUNK AGAIN.

JAMES BROWN, s.s. Aberdeen, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness.  The accused, who was up on a similar charge on Wednesday, said that yesterday he went on board, as he had promised his Worship the previous day, and remembered nothing after having got drink on board the ship, beyond coming ashore at Woosung where he had more drink.  The constables who arrested the accused, stated that Brown was found by a foreigner lying in a ditch half way between this and Woosung.

   A fine of $3 was imposed and the accused was ordered to be put on board his ship again.

 

North China Herald, 16 November 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT,
Shanghai, 9th November
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
DRUNK AGAIN.
JAMES BROWN, s.s. Aberdeen, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness.  The accused, who was up on a similar charge on Wednesday, said that yesterday he went on board, as he had promised his Worship the previous day, and remembered nothing after having got drink on board the ship, beyond coming ashore at Woosung where he had more drink.  The constables who arrested the accused, stated that Brown was found by a foreigner lying in a ditch half way between this and Woosung.
  A fine of $3 was imposed and the accused was ordered to be put on board his ship again.

 

North China Herald, 23 November 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 21 November
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
CHOW WA WA v. LESTER.
  This was a claim against Mr. H. Lester for $99 compensation for a piece of land in the Chaoding Road, registered in the U.S. Consulate as Lot 583, and of which the plaintiff a sampan man, claimed to be the owner.
  The defendant stated that the land had been for many years in the possession of Mr. Daly.  In May last defendant received orders to sell it, and disposed of it to Mr. A. M. A. Evans.  Soon after the sale defendant was informed that some one had enclosed a portion of the land, and on examining it, he found that a piece measuring about 20 x 30 had been enclosed, and a woman came up and claimed it.  He told her he did not know anything about it, but if she could prove her claim he would compensate her.  She claimed $500, then $200, and the claim was finally brought down to the present amount, for $99. He had seen Mr. Evans, the American Vice-Consul-General, the other day, who, after making enquiries, informed him that the city authorities said the land did not belong to the woman.  Defendant had a foreign title-deed, which was now in the city for the purpose of being transferred to Mr. Evans.  The land in dispute was unoccupied and was not marked by boundary stones according to the Foreign Settlement Land Treaty.  He had not seen the plaintiff till that morning.
  The plaintiff was then examined as to his title to the land, which he stated he had inherited from his father, twenty years ago.  He had let it till the Municipal Council cut a road through it five or six years ago, for which right they paid him Tls. 160. He produced a document which he said was the title deed to the land which had formerly been marked with boundary stones, but they had been taken away.
  The defendant stated that there were no boundary stones till after he sold the property, when the plaintiff put down two.
  The case was adjourned pending the translation of the plaintiff's title deed, and for the production of Mr. Lester's.

 

North China Herald, 23 November 1888
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th November 1888
Before R. A. Mowat, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
ASSAULT.
Mr. A. L. McLAREN, described as a mariner, was charged with assaulting David Martin, Captain of the s.s. Shanghai, on the French Bund at about 1.30 p.m. on the 19th inst.
  The accused admitted the charge.
  Captain Martin stated that at the time mentioned he was walking along the Bund when McLaren came towards him, and said he had been looking for him all the morning, and then struck him with his fist, at the same time attempting to strike complainant with his stick.  Complainant warded off the blows with his umbrella, and the accused caused him to back from one side of the road to the other.  They finally got into a scuffle and two French Constables and some people from the ship came up and took the accused to the station.
  The accused in reply to His Worship said that as he passed the complainant, the latter threw out one of his "hard smiles" which hurt accused very much.  Accused said "Captain Martin you are a bad man" and hit him with his left fist.  Captain Martin lifted his umbrella to strike accused but he warded it off with the stick he had in his hand.  Captain Martin continued to use his umbrella until it was broken by the stick.  Accused then said "look out Capt. Martin I am going to hit you again" and hit him with his fist.
  His Worship - What is the trouble between you?
  Complainant - About three weeks ago he was discharged from the Shanghai through getting into trouble with the Customs at Wuhu, when the ship was fined Tls. 5- and detained for some time.  He next sued me here for his wages which were stopped, and he recovered them.  When I stopped his wages he said I would hear more about it, and to this I replied, as long as you don't use a pistol on me, I can take care of myself.  I don't want to be despatched to the next world by Mr. McLaren.
  His Worship - There is no fear of that.
  Complainant - I don't know so much about that.  I can prove that this is the second time he has done this, and also that he has been in prison before.
  The accused in reply to his Worship said he was endeavouring to get employment in Shanghai, but Captain Martin was trying to boycott him.  He expected to get employment as he did not know that there was anything against him.
  His Worship said that because the accused had had some previous trouble with Captain Martin was no reason why they should not each go upon their separate Ways.  The accused had said that he was trying to get employment in Shanghai, but his appearance there that morning was not at all in favour of his getting a ship or any employment of that kind.  His Worship thought the accused had acted in a very improper way and without any provocation that he could see.
  The accused - Nobody but myself can tell how Capt. Martin has treated me.
  Captain Martin said that McLaren believed he was the cause of his leaving the China Navigation Co.'s employment, but he had nothing to do with that.  He was dismissed for breaking the Company's rules.
  His Worship said he had nothing to do with that, and imposed a fine of $5 for the assault, ordering the accused to pay $3 damages for the umbrella, to enter into his own surety in the sum of $100, and to get two others of $50, to keep the peace for 6 months, and in conclusion His Worship advised him to give Captain Martin a wide berth, which would be better for them both; otherwise he would get into further trouble.

 

North China Herald, 30 November 1888
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 27th November
Before R. A. Mowat., Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
AN IMPERTINENT CLAIM.
  Mr. F. GOVE appeared on a summons to answer a claim by his mafoo, for $44 for balance of livery of two ponies.  The plaintiff's case was that he had been keeping two ponies for Mr. Gove for some time past at $27 a month.  In August the defendant, being ill, left for Japan without paying his bill for July, and after his return on the 15th September, plaintiff presented him with the bills for August and July, the first being for $27, and the latter which included some extra items for $31.40.
  Mr. Gove signed the August bill which was paid by his Shroff, leaving the account for July and September outstanding.  Defendant took away the ponies from plaintiff's keeping at the end of September on account of their both being lame, and refused to pay plaintiff the amount claimed.
  Mr. Gove's statement threw a different aspect on the story. The plaintiff was engaged to keep the ponies at the rate mentioned.  He had no stable himself, but put them up somewhere in the Maloo.  When defendant went to Japan on 4th August he left the two ponies in excellent condition in plaintiff's charge.  One of the animals was a valuable one, having cost Tls. 100.  Defendant asked the late Mr. John Sharp to take the chestnut pony out occasionally and keep it in condition during his absence.  On defendant's return in September the pony sent to meet him at the steamer was so lame it could hardly crawl to his office, and he had to get the other which was found to be in quite as bad a state.  Both animals were in a very bad condition and entirely screwed up.  He asked Mr. Sharp about the chestnut pony, and he told defendant that it was all right when he had it out, but he had not been able to drive it very much, having two ponies of his own.  Defendant questioned the plaintiff as to the cause of the ponies' lameness and the reply was the usual one "no savee."
  The animals looked as if they had been driven to death, and indeed a friend told him that he thought he had recognized his pony and carriage one night on the Maloo, being driven by Chinese.  But this latter he could not swear to.  He left the ponies till the end of September with the plaintiff to see if they might improve, but they did not and he took them away, sending one straight to the Horse Bazaar to be auctioned, where it fetched Tls. 20, while he placed the other in livery with another man for a fortnight.  As it showed no sign of recovery he was forced to have it shot for the hounds.   During all this time he had been obliged to hire two other ponies for his business; so that he was at the loss of the ponies as well as the hire for substitutes.
  The plaintiff, in reply to his Worship, denied that the ponies had been used either by himself or his friend in his master's absence, adding that such was not China custom.
  His Worship intimated that he had clearly a different opinion on that point.  He believed that the ponies must have been driven in the defendant's absence, and said it was very curious that the two should have been lame upon his return.
  The defendant said in reply to the Court that when he signed the August bill, he thought for the moment that it was for July.  He had no intention of paying the bill for August at the time.  He admitted the correctness of the amount $31.40 for July, which he was willing to pay, but he did not think he should have to pay for August or September.
  His Worship said that in the face of the loss which Mr. Gove had suffered he could not allow the plaintiff anything for the keep of the ponies during August or September, but ordered the difference between the bills for August and July, namely $4.40, to be paid, which the defendant  said he was quite willing to do.
  The plaintiff left the Court with a most disgusted expression on his face.

 

North China Herald, 14 December 1888
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT .
Shanghai, 8th December 1888
Before J. C. Hall. Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
"WHO THREW THAT BRICK?"
  JOHN DE LANCEY, a coloured sailor belonging to the Chas. S. Whitney, was put forward on a charge of assaulting a fellow seaman named Alex Mike, by striking him in the face with a brick.
  The accused admitted that he "frew that brick" but said he did it in self defence and under provocation.
  The prosecutor whose face and head were enveloped in blood-stained bandages, had two black eyes and a gash across his nose.  He stated that on the night of the 5th instant he was returning on board his ship with the carpenter when they met the prisoner in a sampan.  Lancey was shouting and cursing and called prosecutor several obscene names and took off his coat, offering to fight him.  Prosecutor, to save himself from the nigger, administered him a kick and stepped into a sampan.  The next thing he knew was receiving a brick between the eyes, after which he remembered nothing as he was stretched senseless and carried by the carpenter to the doctor.  The relating of narrative seemed to amuse Lancey very much, but his mirth was cut short by the court sentencing him to a month's enforced retirement where he will have time to chuckle at leisure.

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