Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1892

North China Herald, 22 January, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th January
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. OLSEN.
  Oscar Olsen, quartermaster of the Glenavon, was charged with being drunk, assaulting and wounding a coolie named Chang Tso-sai by striking him on the eye. He was also charged with damaging a jinricksha and assaulting several coolies at the same time and place, i.e., about noon on the 16th, at the Hongkew Wharf.
  Chang Tso-sai deposed that he was at work placing a gangway between the P. and O. steamer Canton and the wharf. Prisoner came up and pushed him, without any provocation. Complainant walked away, but prisoner came after him and struck him in the eye, having a brick or stone in his hand at the time.
  Inspector Kluth produced a certificate from Dr. Reid, who stated that complainant was suffering from
"a wound on the outer side of the left eye which extended half way along the upper and lower lid, and which appeared to have been caused by a blow with some hard body, such as a stone or a piece of wood. The wound required at least three stitches to bring the edges of it together. The lids were very much swollen, so that it was difficult to see the eye. It was found to be uninjured, and the power of vision also seemed to be unaffected. From the position of the wound it is evident that the eye had a very narrow escape of being destroyed."
  Prisoner, who had marks on his face, urged that he came to the wharf in a jinricksha and tendered the coolie 10 cents. The coolie demanded 50 cents, and when prisoner refuse to give that amount, the coolie and several others with bamboos set upon him and struck him twice in the face. Prisoner took one of the bamboos in self-defence, and a comrade coming up, they drove the coolies away. His comrade could prove that the prisoner was not in the jinricksha from 9 till  12.
  The jinricksha coolie deposed that he was hired by accused from 9 till 12, and when witness asked for 50 cents accused took up a bamboo and began to lay about him. Witness had received no payment at all.
  Accused denied this statement, and said he only took the jinricksha from the Travellers to the wharf.
  Philip Chambers, assistant wharfinger, deposed that he noticed a disturbance on the wharf. He saw prisoner run up to a sampan man who was leaning over the rails, and strike him in the face. Prisoner then assaulted two or three other coolies, and finally ran up to a cook-stall and hit the proprietor over the heads with his tray. Witness, who was now accompanied by the chief wharfinger, Mr. Hodgson, went up to prisoner and advised him to go on board his ship. Prisoner then suddenly turned round, and, with a large stone in his hand, struck Chang Tso-sai upon the eye. Witness considered prisoner acted with wanton cruelty, none of the Chinese offering any resistance.
  Police Sergeant Walker deposed that he saw prisoner take a bamboo from a coolie and strike a pea-nut-hawker on the head. Prisoner then went on board his ship.
  His Worship described prisoner's conduct as monstrous, and sentenced him to go to prison for two months and pay the complainant Chang £10.
  Prisoner - Won't you hear my witness, sir?
  His Worship - Why didn't you say you had a witness before?
  A comrade of the prisoner was then called, and deposed that prisoner went on shore at 9 o'clock and returned to the ship at 10, when witness joined him. They went to the Travellers, where they stayed till 11.30. Accused then took a jinricksha to the wharf, witness following on foot. When witness reached the wharf, he found a crowd of coolies with bamboos, and prisoner bleeding from the face.
  His Worship said that had nothing to do with the assault on Chang, which took place after the dispute with the jinricksha coolie and was entirely unprovoked. The accused must go to prison.
.  .  .  
20th January.
R. v. COUVEN AND OTHERS.
  Frank Couven, Jas. D. Stevens, and Andrew Hennessy, able seamen, British barque Chasca, were charged with being absent without leave since the 19th.
  The case was proved by the master, who said the men had been absent three days on a previous occasion.
  Stevens asked to be discharged, saying he wanted to better himself; but he was reminded by the Court that it took two to break as well as to make a contract.
  Ordered to forfeit two days' pay and to be sent on board.
R. v. SMITH.
  J. H. Smith appeared in answer to a summons charging him with having assaulted a Japanese woman named Fuma in the Nanzing Road on the 15th.
  Defendant denied the charge, and complainant not appearing, his Worship dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 6 February, 1892
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 12th February.
Before Chief Justice Hannen.
ROBERTS. V. SHANGHAI TUG BOAT COMPANY LIMITED.
  This was an action by John Roberts, diver, of Shanghai, against the Shanghai Tug Boat Co. Ltd., to recover Tls. 2,200, for services rendered and balance of the price of some diving gear.
[Not transcribed; detailed judgment.]

 

North China Herald, 19 February, 1892
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th February
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHURCHER v. EVANS
This was a suit by Mr., W. Churcher, in the employ of Messrs, Frazer and Co. to recover from Mr. E. Evans, missionary agent, $5.50 charges on a case of ether.
   Plaintiff said he received advice from New York that a case of ether had been sent for a missionary, the Rev. Mr. Goddard, to the care of plaintiff, who took delivery of the case and wrote to Mr. Goddard that the charges for his (plaintiff's) services would be $5.  Shortly afterwards defendant claimed the case on behalf of Mr. Goddard.  Plaintiff told him the charge, and plaintiff promised to pay it on receiving the case. Plaintiff accordingly sent it, but instead of payment he received a letter asking how much of the charge was for actual expenses and how much for personal remuneration. Plaintiff thereupon saw defendant, and as the latter declined to pay the charge, plaintiff said he would take out a summons, and the interview ended.
  His Honour remarked that anyone taking delivery of a package had a right to know how the charges were made up. The promise to pay might fairly be considered as conditional on the charges being reasonable.
  In reply to his Honour, plaintiff said the box, which contained 10 lbs. of ether, did not come as freight but was brought by one of the ship's officers. In addition he had spent $3 in taking the officer for a drive, and had him to tiffin - 50 cents. The balance of the claim for plaintiff's trouble in taking delivery of the case and keeping it until it was sent for.
  His Honour said the charge seemed ridiculous.
  Plaintiff said he should not have parted with the case if defendant had not promised to pay the $5.
  Defendant pointed out that the original charge of $5 had mounted up to $5.50 on the summons. This, however, plaintiff said he was prepared to explain.
  His Honour said there was no justification for refusing to give defendant the explanation for which he asked. A reasonable charge to make under the circumstances would be $1.50 and there would be judgment for that amount without costs.
  Defendant asked how he was to obtain the case, which he had returned by the coolie who brought it to him.
  Plaintiff said the case was not in his possession.
  His Honour told defendant to tender $1.50 to plaintiff and ask for the case. If he could not obtain it, he might apply to the Court for assistance; but there would probably be no further difficulty.
.  .  .  
18th February.
VINCENT v. NISH.
This was a claim for Tls. 63 for pilotage from sea to Woosung of the Cyclops. Captain Nish repudiated the claim.
  C. Vincent, sworn, stated - I am a licensed pilot and on the night of Saturday last, was cruising outside the river mouth. One of my men called me and said he had seen two blue lights, and I afterwards saw one. I was then about two miles outside the outer lightship. It was about nine o'clock on Sunday morning but I did not look at the time. I ran out to the vessel which showed the lights, and it proved to be the Cyclops. I went under her stern and spoke her, asking if she wanted a pilot. I received answer that they wanted Williams. I said I was not Williams. I again asked if they wanted a pilot, and they said "No." I then asked why they had burnt blue lights. I think the answer was, "It's our own signal."  
  I left but was hailed from the steamer, and I again asked if they wanted a pilot. They said, "No." I did not go on board, but only went alongside.  The usual signals for pilots are blue lights, rockets, flash lights, or whistles. The ordinary signals are the blue lights or bright lights, though I do not know of any regulation in force at Shanghai as to the kind of signals to be used. When a blue light is used it is burnt over the side or on the bridge for not more than three or four minutes. That is what I thought they did in the Cyclops.
  On this occasion I burnt a flash light, and afterwards saw a blue light on the steamer. I told my men to flash again, and it was then that I saw the blue light on the steamer. I saw no blue lights go up in the air.
  H. Nish., master of the Cyclops, sworn, stated - I did not burn blue lights but I used Roman candles; they are our private signal. They contain about six blue balls which go up about fifty feet in the air.  The candle does not give sufficient light to be seen more than two miles off; it is the balls that are depended upon.  I was coming up to Shanghai and saw a fixed light in the place where I thought the Tungsha light vessel ought to have been, and then I saw a Masthead light. I told the Chief Officer to fire off one of the Company's private lights, a Roman candle. These burn for about a minute and a half. I saw it go off and the balls go up. It was burnt in the bridge. We fired three candles inside seven minutes. The signal is registered by the Board of Trade, otherwise we should not be allowed to use it. I burnt nothing else. I have used them for the last fifteen years.
  His Honour read an extract from the Board of Trade Regulations as to the right to use private signals, and said the Board of Trade considered the private signals used by the Cyclops sufficiently distinct to prevent their being mistaken for ordinary pilot signals, and not liable to be confused with the pilot signals here. That being the case he must decide against the plaintiff.
  The plaintiff contended that no notice had been given either to the Harbour Master or to the pilots of what the private signals of the company were, so that he for one did not know what those signals were.
  His Honour said he could not help him. The signals had been recognised by the Board of Trade as sufficiently distinct to prevent their being taken for ordinary pilot signals, and what the Board held to be sufficiently distinct must be held to be so here.

 

North China Herald, 26 February, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd February.
Sitting in Admiralty.
Before Chief Justice Hannan and Captain W. R. Clutterbuck, R.N., (Nautical Assessor.)
Re The Esang.
  This was a case of damage against Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., owners of the steamship Esang, by the Fung Tah hong, owners of the junk Kung-li-san, in respect of the sinking of the junk by collision with the steamer.
[Very long case, not transcribed.]
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court adjourned till Saturday at 10 a.m.

North China Herald, 4 March, 1892
[As above.]
27th February.
Re The Esang.
The hearing of this case was resumed. .  .  .   At the conclusion of the arguments, the Court reserved judgment.

North China Herald, 11 March, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 4th March.
Sitting in Admiralty.
[As above.]
THE "ESANG."
.  .  .  
Upon this evidence and against the unshaken evidence of those on board the junk, supported as Captain Clutterbuck thinks by the probabilities of the case, it is quite impossible for me to find as a fact that the junk altered her course.  On the contrary I find as a fact that she did not.
  I should add that Captain Clutterbuck fully concurs in the whole of this judgment.
  The Esang must therefore be held solely in fault, and the usual reference to the Registrar and merchants will follow.

 

North China Herald, 26 February, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th February.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MILLER.
  Walter Miller, second officer of the Singan, was summoned for assaulting a Chinese sailor on that vessel on Monday.
  Complainant stated that he was oiling the steam steering gear when defendant came along, took the oil-can out of his hand and threw it at him, cutting his forehead. Defendant had frequently knocked him about, and he was in fear of his life. He asked for his discharge from the ship.
  Defendant stated that he found complainant using an oil-can which had no oil in it. He took the can away, said "That's no use," and threw it away. Defendant had not assaulted him on any occasion, and the statement that complainant was in fear of his life was a mere excuse for leaving the ship.
  Defendant called the ship's boatswain, who said can did not strike complainant.
  Huis Worship said the charge was a most trivial one, and he should dismiss it.

 

North China Herald, 4 March, 1892
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd March.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHUN KING-MUNG v. PARLANE.
  This was a claim to recover $8 for services rendered as a coolie during the months of February and March.
  Mr. Browett appeared for the defendant, who paid $6 into Court. Plaintiff refused to accept this amount, and elected to go on with the case. He stated that $2 were due to him as balance of wages due in January and $2 in February.
 Mr. Browett stated that Mrs. Parlane paid to her amah the wages for both amah and coolie, and  it was therefore a matter between those two domestics.
  His Honour suggested that the simplest way would be to hear what the amah had to say.
  Mr. Browett said she was not present.
  Defendant's wife deposed that plaintiff left without applying for his wages, and witness had no opportunity of inquiring into his claim.
  Plaintiff said he left because he broke a bottle of gin and he was afraid his mistress would hit him.
  His Honour - That's an old story; I've heard that before.
  Adjourned till Saturday.
North China Herald, 11 March, 17892
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 8th March.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHUN KING-MUNG v. PARLANE.
  This was an adjourned hearing of a claim to recover $8 for services rendered as a coolie during the months of February and March.
  Mr. Browett, who again appeared for the defendant, said that for the sake of the amah, who had had some complications with the other servants, his client had agreed to pay the $2 in dispute but he (Mr. Browett) submitted that plaintiff having left without notice was not entitled to the other $6 which had been paid into Court.
  His Honour said foreigners usually considered they had a right to discharge Chinese servants at any time, and that being the rule it must work both ways. Of course a man engaging to work from the beginning of a month to the end must complete his month's service; but in this case plaintiff having completed his month's service could not be deprived of his month's wages, although he had left without notice. There was not, however, the slightest necessity for him to take out  a summons with such haste, and plaintiff would have to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 18 March, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th March.
Before G. Jamieson, Assistant Judge.
R. v. BROWN.
  William Brown, chief officer of the ship Cape City, was charged with being absent without leave since the 11th.
  Accused said he was ill and unable to go to sea.
  The captain said accused had been working on the ship, which had been undergoing repairs, since January 2nd. He signed the articles on Monday, and left the ship on Tuesday. Witness went to accused's house on Wednesday and found him in bed.
  Accused, in answer to his Worship, said he was taken suddenly ill on Tuesday and had to go home to "fix himself up." He had not seen a doctor.
  Mr. C. A. L. Dunn, owner of the Cape City, said Dr. Sloan had been attending the ship. It had been necessary to write accused off as a deserter, in order to clear the ship, which was to start next morning. He believed accused had been drinking.
  His Honour said accused's excuse was rubbish. If he were sick, which he probably was not, there was the ship's doctor to attend to him. It was not worthwhile sending him to gaol, although he deserved it; but if there had been any wages due to him, he would have been ordered to forfeit them. He must pay the costs of the case, or in default undergo a week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 8 April, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 6th April.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
EVANS v. CROAD.
  This was a summons taken out by Mr. A. M. A. Evans against A. Croad, to recover $99.99 for damage to plaintiff's property.
  Defendant, who had gone to Hongkong, was represented by Mr. S. J. Morris.
  Plaintiff stated that on 16th December defendant summoned him for trespass, but the summons was withdrawn. Since then, defendant had annoyed and threatened the contractor's men at work building a house in complainant's garden, in Broadway, which adjoins defendant's. He first pulled down a gate, and on March 22nd cut down a large tree on complainant's property and removed the wood to his own premises. On the previous morning defendant's men kicked down a new gate pillar which had to be rebuilt. Complainant did not see these acts committed, but saw the tree lying on defendant's lawn. He valued the tree at $10. The rebuilding of the pillar cost $1 and had interfered with the work, besides inconveniencing plaintiff in making him wait for the completion of the house. Defendant had threatened the workmen that he would pull down a coach-house which had been built on plaintiff's ground; and the workmen had been so intimidated that they had left off work from 16th October to 15th November.
  Mr. Morris said defendant contended that the tree and pillar were on his own property. He (Mr. Morris) could say the roots on the tree were certainly on defendant's property.
  His Honour - And where was the stem?
  Mr. Morris - It was on defendant's property. There might be a little of it on complainant's side.
  Complainant said he had repaired the fence between his property and defendant's, but defendant claimed that the ground belonged to him and that complainant must continue to keep the fence in repair, which complainant objected to do.
  His Honour held that defendant had been trespassing in the case of both the pillar and the tree, and must pay $12 damages and costs.

 

North China Herald, 8 April, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 6th April.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LO PING-CHANG
  Lo Ping-chang, cook, s.s. Pekin, was charged with being absent without leave since the 1st instant.
  Accused said he had obtained leave from the steward of the Pekin to temporarily assist a friend who was steward of the new steamer Hsinfun. He thought that as he was engaged by the steward he was only required to obtain that person's permission to leave.   
  His Worship said that as accused had signed articles he must obtain the Captain's leave before he could go. He must forfeit 10 days' wages, pay the costs, and go back to the ship.
  The Captain said accused had no wages due to him and had better be discharged.
  His Worship replied that the captain could do as he pleased about that.

R. v. WATKINS.
  G. A. Watkins was summoned for assaulting Yuen Tai, a storekeeper.
  Defendant said he simply used sufficient force to put complainant and his assistant out of his (defendant's) private premises, which complainant had entered without permission.
  Complainant said that he and his shroff went to obtain some money from defendant's boot boy. They found the latter upstairs, and complainant asked the boy to come with him to defendant, with the object of finding out whether the boy had received his wages. As they were coming down the stairs, defendant came out of his shop, and struck complainant's Shroff, who was at the foot of the stairs. Defendant then struck complainant.
  Defendant said that when he was in his shop, he heard a noise on the stairs, and on going to see what was the matter, found the boy clinging to the bannisters. Complainant's shroff had hold of the boy by his queue, and was trying to force him downstairs, while complainant was pushing him. Thereupon defendant ejected complainant and his Shroff.  Defendant had told complainant to take the boy to the Mixed Court, not dreaming that complainant would go upstairs to defendant's private premises and forcibly seize the boy.
  The shroff admitted that he and his master were trying to get the boy downstairs, but said they were using very little force. There was some disturbance, but not much.
  Defendant's boy deposed that complainant, after demanding payment for a check for which witness had settled last year, seized him by the hair and tried to drag him out of the house. Witness produced some hair which he alleged had been torn out of his scalp.
  His Worship said that if complainant had any claim against the boy he must take proper legal means to recover. To go into a house, drag the boy about, and make an unseemly disturbance, could not be tolerated. The summons would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 22 April, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th April.
Before G, Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. McEVOY.
  James McEvoy, an unemployed sailor, was charged with being drunk and violently assaulting a coolie in Broadway on the 18th.
  Complainant stated that accused struck and kicked him without provocation, and a witness, a jinricksha coolie, said accused had used his jinricksha the whole morning without paying anything.
  Accused admitted the offence and said he was very sorry.
  Fined $5, of which $3 was to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
  Accused said he had no money, and went to gaol for two weeks in default of payment.

 

North China Herald, 29 April, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd April.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LI FUH-CHANG v. GULLAND.
  This was an action brought against Mr. W. A. Gulland by his late house-boy, to recover $53.90.
  Defendant explained that he had a contract with plaintiff, the latter obtaining goods whence he chose and defendant paying him a fixed sum per month. Of late defendant had been frequently importuned for payment by various Chinese from who the boy had obtained goods for defendant's use. One of these creditors was an infirm old man who had a bill of $13.50 for fowls, and defendant had had to advance a few dollars to this man to keep him from starvation. He (Mr. Gulland) did not dispute the correctness of the present claim, and had even offered to pay it provided the boy would undertake to pay his creditors, but the boy had rushed off to the Consulate to take out a summons.
  Plaintiff said he could not pay his creditors until his master paid him.
  Defendant said the claims of the various creditors amounted to $98, and he did not see how that could be settled with $53. From what he heard of plaintiff, he (Mr. Gulland) felt certain that if the money were handed over to the boy, the creditors would never get any of it.  He (defendant) had heard that when the boy quitted his last place he left behind him unpaid bills to the amount of several hundred taels, which his late employer had to pay.
  Plaintiff here proceeded to give a picturesque account of having asked Mr. Gulland for money and having been seized by the throat and shaken; but defendant denied that anything of the kind had occurred, and His Honour intimated that he did not believe the boy's story.
  Defendant further mentioned that the bill contained an item representing wages due to a servant who had gone away after serving for a short time, and who had not returned to claim his wages. Plaintiff was now asking for this money, which he would no doubt keep in his own pocket.
  His Honour said that as defendant had admitted the debt he must pay the amount with costs; but instead of the money being paid to plaintiff it would be sent to the Mixed Court magistrate, who would decide how it should be apportioned among the creditors. Defendant would then have no further responsibility in the matter.
.  .  .  
25th April.
CHING AH-KING v. MANN.
  This was a claim against F. Mann for $11.20, wages due as sampan man.
  Defendant, who paid the amount into court, said plaintiff had not asked him for his wages. All plaintiff did was to come to him, together with another servant, the lowdah of a steam-launch, and ask for two or three days' leave.
  Plaintiff deposed that he had been struck by defendant's son, and being badly hurt, he went to defendant with lowdah, as interpreter, to ask for his wages in order to leave. Defendant told him he would be paid in a day or two. That was on the 19th of the month.
  The lowdah, called as a witness, corroborated plaintiff's story as to the demand for wages and not for leave of absence.
  Defendant declared that the case was part of a system adopted by the Chinese employees at the Acid Works, and that the plaintiff had been "put up" to bringing the case into court.  Defendant was unable to pay his men on the day in question, on account of the Bank being closed, but he would have given plaintiff an advance of a dollar or two if he had asked for it.
  His Worship said he would divide the costs.
.  .  .  
27th April.
CHING MAI-TSZE v. BISHOP.
  This was an adjourned hearing of a claim against F. E. J. Bishop for $54.45 for goods supplied during the months of February and March.
  At the first hearing defendant disputed the claim and the case was adjourned to enable the plaintiff to produce an intelligible account.  He now produced this account, which he swore to be correct. Defendant did  not appear and judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs, less the costs of the adjournment, which His Honour ordered plaintiff to pay for not producing a proper account at the first hearing.

 

North China Herald, 29 April, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 25th April.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. SEXTON.
  John Sexton, sailor, was charged with deserting from the s.s. Hankow.
  Vice-Consul Playfair, who prosecuted, produced a letter from the ship's captain stating that the prisoner was entered on the books at Shanghai and received an advance of $13. Prisoner did not come to the ship, and the captain was compelled to treat him as a deserter. Mr. Playfair added that prisoner came to the Shipping Office and applied for assistance, stating that he had spent all his money. It would be advisable to keep him in Shanghai until the return of the ship, which would be in about a fortnight.
  His Worship passed sentence of two weeks' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
26th April.
R. v. STEWART.
  J. A. Stewart appeared in answer to a summons charging him with assaulting a coolie lately employed in Muller and Co.'s store.
  Complainant said he had been in the employ of Muller & Co. for thirteen years. On Thursday defendant told him to send two watches to some person on board the Japanese steamer. When the chit book was returned, and it appeared that a mistake had been made, the chit book being signed by some person for whom the watches were not intended, defendant became angry and struck complainant with his fist, giving him a black eye.
  Defendant denied the assault, and said the first intimation which he received of it was contained in the summons. Complainant on Thursday said he wanted to leave, and defendant said he could do so as soon as a successor was found. Complainant worked in the store all Friday, and had since absented himself, causing defendant great inconvenience. Ever since defendant had been in the store complainant had been giving trouble through laziness and failure to carry out defendant's orders. On Thursday complainant failed to convey defendant's instructions to the coolie who took the watches on board the steamer, and the consequence was that the chit book was returned with only a Chinaman's signature for two valuable gold watches. The probability was that they would be lost. When defendant found this out he was very angry, but did not strike him; and if he had received a black eye, it was hardly likely that all trace of it would have disappeared in five days.
  His Worship asked complainant if he had any corroborative testimony.
  Complainant replied that another coolie saw the assault, but it was useless to produce him as a witness because he would be obliged to take his employer's side.
  Mr. Smyth, the court usher, said that when complainant applied for a summons his face was partially discoloured all round the eye and complainant admitted this was caused by putting Chinese "medicine" on it. The eye was only slightly bloodshot.
  His Worship dismissed the case, saying he was disposed to believe complainant's story was not true, more especially as there was no corroborative evidence, and as complainant had worked in the store on Friday, which it was not likely he would have done if he had been given a black eye the day before.

R. v. FERNANDO.
  M. Fernando was charged with assaulting Miguel Nabiscus, a Manilaman.
  The parties are sailors on the British barque William Le Lacheur. Complainant deposed that he went into the galley on the night of the 24th and found accused there, grumbling about the bread. Complainant said it was all right, whereupon defendant began to abuse him, and finally, after chasing him round the galley, struck him on the face.
  John Lewis, boatswain, corroborated this testimony, and the captain said accused had been constantly giving trouble since he had been on board the ship.
  Defendant, who had very little to say, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.
.  .  .  
27th April.
R. v. BLIK
  Max Blik, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Seward Road on the previous afternoon.
  A Sikh constable deposed that he saw accused rolling along the street, drunk, and kicking at Chinese children. When witness took him into custody, he struggled and attempted to strike witness.
  Ten days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 13 May, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th May.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. CLAPPERTON.
  James Clapperton, third engineer s.s. Tehhsing, was charged with assaulting Sze Ming-ching, houseboy to Dr. Blanc, Kiangse Road, by striking him in the eye and tearing his clothes last night.
  Defendant admitted the assault.
  Complainant stated that defendant came to the house at 12 o'clock last night and rang the bell. On complainant answering it he found defendant did not want to see the doctor, and seeing he was drunk he tried to send him away, but defendant struck him in the eye and tore his clothes before the door could be shut.
  His Worship imposed as sentence of three weeks' imprisonment and ordered defendant to pay $3 damages to the boy, and the costs of the case.

 

North China Herald, 13 May, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 10th May.
Before Chief JustIce Hannen.
HO CHI-KIU AND OTHERS v. WILKINSON AND OTHERS.
  In this case Mr. W. V. Drummond appeared to make an application on behalf of the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with the property in question.
  The case has already been before the Court several times and the facts are familiar to the public.
[Not transcribed.]

 

North China Herald, 20 May, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 14th May.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
ROSENZWEIG v. VAUGHAN.
  This was a claim against Mrs. Vaughan to recover $7.20 for goods supplied.
  Complainant stated that defendant, on Thursday or Friday, promised to pay the bill on the following Monday. A Shroff had already been to her house six or seven times; but she did not pay.
  Defendant said the arrangement was that a shroff should be sent with the bill on Monday, but the bill never came.
  His Honour, after some argument, held that there had been sufficient notice and defendant must pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 20 May, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 14th May.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. FRASER.
  Malbrook Fraser, 26, unemployed, was charged with obtaining by false pretences from Chu Sen-sai, a watch and two chains valued at $9.50, by means of a fictitious I.O.U. with intent to defraud.
  Inspector Reed, who conducted the prosecution, said there were several other charges against the accused.
  Detective Inspector Keeling deposed that on the 6th inst., a piece of paper bearing the following words was brought to the Central Police Station:
J. King, Esq., Engineer, Silk Works, Temperance Hall, Room No. 236, Nanking Road.  I.O.U. $9.50.
  The complainant, who brought the I.O.U. said he had been to the Temperance Hall to collect the money but was unable to find "J. King, Esq." Later on, witness obtained two other I.O.U.s in different names, for $20 and $39.10, which had been accepted by At-chi, a tailor, who had furnished a quantity of goods to the writer of the I.O.U.s. On comparing them, witness found them to be in the same handwriting. Witness also learnt that the writer of the I.O.U.s had hired a room at the Hotel des Colonies, and had had the goods sent there by At-chi.  From the description of the man, witness concluded that he must be the accused.
  Detective Horley stated that he arrested accused in Woosung Road at 7.40 a.m. Accused said he was heavily in debt.
  Complainant, a watchmaker living at 61, Canton Road, said accused gave him the I.O.U. produced in exchange for a watch and two chains. Prisoner wrote the I.O.U. in the shop, and told complainant to send to the Temperance Hall for the money. Complainant allowed prisoner, on the strength of the I.O.U., to take away the watch and chains, but on going to the Temperance Hall found that no such person as "J. King, Esq." lived there.
  Inspector Reed applied for a remand, in order to enable particulars of the other cases to be obtained.
  Accused, who put no questions to witnesses, was remanded until Wednesday.
.  .  .  
18th May.
R. v. FRASER.
[As above.]
  Inspector Reed, who conducted the prosecution, stated that there were eight other charges of a similar nature against the accused.
  His Worship not requiring further evidence on the first charge, the second was proceeded with.
  Li Kung-jang, a tailor, deposed that prisoner came to him and represented that he was connected with the Circus. Complainant, thinking that the accused would bring plenty of work to the shop, lent him $9 on prisoner signing an I.O.U. for $10. This document was in the name of J. Haswell.  Prisoner also gave complainant an order to admit him and three friends to the Circus, signing it "F. Harmiston."
  Wei Ah-chi, tailor and storekeeper, Rue Montauban, said accused came to his shop on the 10th and ordered two watches, some shirts, ties, an umbrella, walking stick, cigar-holder, a cigar case, and other articles for which he agreed to pay $39.10. After asking that the goods should be sent to his room at the Hotel des Colonies, accused borrowed $20, which he promised to repay next morning, accused signed an I.O.U. for $20 in the name of "J. Hamsworth, Lieut. L.J."  and received the money. He took some of the goods, and the remainder were sent to the hotel. After delivering them, complainant asked the hotel manager if he knew accused, and received a reply in the negative.  Complainant went to accused's room the same evening, but did not see him again until called to the police station. Complainant identified several articles produced in court as being among those which he sold to accused.
  Detective Horley said he found the cigar-holder, gloves, two watches, chain, knife and pouch produced upon accused when arrested.
  His Worship asking for information as to prisoner's previous history,
  Detective Inspector Keeling said accused was formerly second officer of the Haechang [?] which he left to join the Customs staff. He was in the Customs employ from the 1st to 29th April. He had since been staying in various houses of ill-fame.
  Remanded till Monday at 10 a.m.  

 

North China Herald, 27 May, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 21st Maty.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
AH-HO v. GOODFELLOW.
  This was a claim for $9 wages due as amah.
  Defendant admitted that the money was due, but said he had withheld it owing to the circumstances under which plaintiff left. In the middle of February she said she wished to leave at the end of the month as she desired to go to Canton with her husband and son to worship at the ancestral graves, but as defendant's wife was expecting to be confined and there were five other children in the house, defendant asked her either not to leave or to find another amah to take her place. Plaintiff said nothing more about leaving, but nevertheless went away at the end of the month, leaving defendant's wife for twelve days without an amah. Defendant intended to pay the money into the Mixed Court, but had been unable to do so, plaintiff refusing to give her name, saying she had none.
  Plaintiff, in reply to his Honour, said she had been to Canton and had only just returned.
  His Honour said plaintiff's conduct was no doubt very annoying, but she appeared to be within her legal right.
  Defendant contended that plaintiff should have given a month's notice.
  His Honour said there was no such rule as to notice. The only rule he had laid down was that the wages were not due till the end of the month, and if a servant left before that time he could not recover for the broken week. In this case defendant had had a fortnight's notice and plaintiff had left at the end of the month, when her wages were due.
  Defendant asked that plaintiff should be ordered to pay the costs, on the ground that, but for her refusal to give her name, the case would not have come into court, and of the great inconvenience she had caused by leaving at such a time.
  His Honour said he could not mix up moral and legal obligations as defendant apparently wished to do. He (Mr. Jamieson) sat in Court not to take notice of good feeling but to what suitors were legally entitled to. Plaintiff's conduct might have been hard and unfeeling, but she could not for that reason be deprived of her legal right.
  Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 27 May, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th May.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Acting Assistant Judge.
R. v. GROUDDA.
    Moses Groudda, an unemployed Arab fireman, was charged with stealing two blankets, a waistcoat, two pairs of trousers and some other clothing, valued in all at $14, from Mahomet Joseph.
  Complainant stated that he and accused had been living in the same boarding house.  On the 19th complainant missed the clothes from a box, and prisoner admitted having pawned them.
  Thomas Deighton said that the two men were constantly together, and kept their clothes in the same box, so that he (witness) was unable to distinguish between one man's clothing and the other's.
  His Worship finally said the clothes had become so mixed up that complainant apparently did not know which was which; and as no evidence had been brought to show that the clothes alleged to have been stolen belonged to complainant, the case would be dismissed.
. .  .  
21st May.
R. v. GROUDDA.
  Moses Groudda, an unemployed Arab fireman, late of the s.s. Port Adelaide, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  Sergt. Clarke stated that prisoner came into Hongkew Police Station, drunk, and apparently suffering from delirium tremens.
  Thomas Deighton, head of the house in which prisoner had been staying, said the man had been drunk for a week and had sold all his clothing to obtain drink.
  Seven day's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
23rd May.
R. v. FRASER.
  Malbrook Fraser was charged on remand with various frauds, under circumstances already reported.
  At-chi, tailor, recalled, said prisoner on the 10th promised to pay for the goods at eleven o'clock next morning. Prisoner wrote the number of his room  at the Hotel des Colonies on a piece of paper, which he handed to witness, who himself took the goods to the hotel. Prisoner said he had just come from Hongkong, but did not say what his occupation was.
  Charles Brown, manager of the Hotel des Colonies, said prisoner came to the hotel about 9 p.m. on the 10th and engaged a room, saying he expected to be in Shanghai about four or five months. He gave his name as Hamsworth, and handed witness a chit addressed to the chief officer of the Esang which witness was to send next morning for the purpose of obtaining prisoner's baggage from the steamer, in which prisoner said he had come from Hongkong. Accused said something about being a Lieutenant. Prisoner asked if there was a dry goods store close by, and witness said there was one opposite the hotel. Prisoner then said he was going to the Circus, and asked what time he would have to leave to get into the hotel. Witness said he could return at any time, as there was a watchman at the door.
  Inspector Reed stated that he did not propose to proceed with four of the other cases on the charge sheet, as in them no false pretences appeared to have been used; and in the ninth case the prosecutor had not put in an appearance.
  Prisoner, in reply to the usual caution, said he had nothing to state except that he was in drink at the time.
  The evidence of the witnesses was then read over, and prisoner was committed for trial.
.  .  .  
25th May.
R. v. KEARNEY
  John Kearney, unemployed, was charged with assaulting a coolie employed at a Chinese eating-house, by striking him in the face with a bucket, and also with doing damage to the extent of$1.
  Accused pleaded guilty, and expressed regret, saying he was in drink.
  Detective Inspector Keeling stated that accused was reported as missing from the Priam, which left Hankow without him.  When found, he was sent to Hankow in the Tatung, but returned in the Taico without having gone on board the Priam. Since he had been in Shanghai he had done nothing but drink.
  Accused said he had no intention of deserting when he left the Priam at Shanghai, but as he had lost all his clothes through the capsizing of a sampan he would not go on board again as he knew he would not get an advance to procure more clothes.
  After hearing the evidence of complainant, His Worship passed sentence of three weeks' imprisonment, saying that any charge of desertion could be dealt with separately.
R. v. BLIK
 Max Blik, an unemployed sailor living at the Sailors' Hone, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat with a razor on the 19th instant.
  Frederick Whittick, an inmate of the Sailors' Home, said he had just been shaved on the day in question, and handed the razor to another man, who asked if anyone would shave him. Accused came forward to do so, took the razor, walked to the looking-glass, and drew the razor quickly across his throat. Witness, seeing blood flow, took away the razor. All prisoner said was "It's nothing."
  James Eveleigh, superintendent of the home, said prisoner asked him for drink, which witness refused. A few minutes afterwards witness was told that accused had cut his throat. Witness found accused bleeding freely from a wound in the throat. Witness tied up the wound with a handkerchief and sent for the police, who took accused to the hospital. Accused had been in the home since 25th April, and had been constantly drinking samshu and all kinds of liquor. He had $123 when he entered the home.
  John Martin deposed that he had been watching accused in the hospital since the 23rd. On the evening of that day accused threw a water bottle at another patient, and next day he obtained from a drawer a knife which witness took away from him.
  Witness was of opinion that accused was "acting."
  Remanded till Saturday morning.

 

North China Herald, 3 June, 1892
MIXED COURT.
Shanghai, 2nd June.
Before Mr. Tsai, Mixed Court Magistrate, and Mr. George Brown, British Assessor.
HOGG v. WONG KWEI-PEN.
  In this case Mr. E. Jenner Hogg, plaintiff, for whom Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared, claimed from the defendant Wong Kwei-pen, who was defended by Mr. W. V. Drummond, the sum of Tls. 5,695.40 under the following circumstances.
  Plaintiff engaged the defendant, who is a celebrated actor, to take part in a new play in the Canton Road Theatre, which was to have opened on the 1st day of the 4th moon, and plaintiff also engaged a number of actors to support defendant in the piece. Defendant did not act till the 4th day of the 5th moon and plaintiff had to pay the wages of the other actors from the day they were engaged to play, until the day when defendant first began to act, though in the interval they had not been able to fulfil their engagement owing to defendant's failing to keep his. There was also a sum of Tls. 1,000 paid by plaintiff to defendant and Tls. 1,279.83 lent to defendant, who only returned Tls. 520.
  Defendant's contention was that he was willing to play, but that there was no proper place for him to play in.
  The case had already been twice before the Court.
  Mr. Wilkinson was proceeding to examine a witness with reference to some account books he had handed into the Court, when Mr. Drummond asked if the books in question had been examined by the Magistrate.
  Mr. Brown replied that the Magistrate had looked through the books roughly, but not being a skilled accountant, had appointed two experts to examine the books. One of these was a Shroff employed by the British Consulate and the other a shroff employed by the Municipal Council. One of the experts had already looked through the books.
  The witness was subjected to a long examination by the Magistrate as to certain irregularities found in his books, and the case was again adjourned.

 

North China Herald, 3 June, 1892
MIXED COURT.
Shanghai, 2nd June.
Before Mr. Tsai, Mixed Court Magistrate, and Mr. George Brown, British Assessor.
HOGG v. WONG KWEI-PEN.
  In this case Mr. E. Jenner Hogg, plaintiff, for whom Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared, claimed from the defendant Wong Kwei-pen, who was defended by Mr. W. V. Drummond, the sum of Tls. 5,695.40 under the following circumstances.
  Plaintiff engaged the defendant, who is a celebrated actor, to take part in a new play in the Canton Road Theatre, which was to have opened on the 1st day of the 4th moon, and plaintiff also engaged a number of actors to support defendant in the piece. Defendant did not act till the 4th day of the 5th moon and plaintiff had to pay the wages of the other actors from the day they were engaged to play, until the day when defendant first began to act, though in the interval they had not been able to fulfil their engagement owing to defendant's failing to keep his. There was also a sum of Tls. 1,000 paid by plaintiff to defendant and Tls. 1,279.83 lent to defendant, who only returned Tls. 520.
  Defendant's contention was that he was willing to play, but that there was no proper place for him to play in.
  The case had already been twice before the Court.
  Mr. Wilkinson was proceeding to examine a witness with reference to some account books he had handed into the Court, when Mr. Drummond asked if the books in question had been examined by the Magistrate.
  Mr. Brown replied that the Magistrate had looked through the books roughly, but not being a skilled accountant, had appointed two experts to examine the books. One of these was a Shroff employed by the British Consulate and the other a shroff employed by the Municipal Council. One of the experts had already looked through the books.
  The witness was subjected to a long examination by the Magistrate as to certain irregularities found in his books, and the case was again adjourned.

 

North China Herald, 3 June, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 28th May
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BLIK.
  Max Blik was charged on remand with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat, under circumstances already reported.
  Dr. Little, medical officer in charge of the Hospital, deposed that accused was brought to the Hospital suffering from a slight wound in the throat. He was under the influence of alcohol. The injury was a mere skin wound, which was now quite healed. During the four or five days accused was in the Hospital, he had a slight attack of delirium tremens, but had now recovered.
  His Worship asked Mr. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, if he could find any employment for accused.
  Mr. Eveleigh replied that all he could do would be to keep the man in the home, as there was no ship on which he could be sent away. The principal objection to taking him into the home was that the other men were afraid to sleep near him.
  His Worship - Well, if he gives any more trouble I'll give him a dormitory to himself for some little time.
  After warning accused as to the consequences of future misbehaviour, his Worship ordered him to be discharged.
.  .  .  
R. v. STENSON
   John Stenson, seaman on the Glenorchy, was charged with assaulting James Balfour and Alfred Stepto, the third and fourth engineers of the ship.
  Accused said he was drunk and had no remembrance of what had occurred.
  The assaults appeared to be of a trifling nature, his Worship dismissed accused with a caution and ordered him to pay the costs.
.  .  .  
30th May.
R. v. WHITBREAD.
  Herbert Whitbread, seaman, s.s. Iser, was charged with being drunk and assaulting the Police on Tientsin Road, on the 28th inst.
  Accused said it was the first time he had been in Shanghai and he supposed he had taken too much liquor.
  Native P.C. 395 said he was called to a native godown on Tientsin Road where accused wanted to go to sleep. He proceeded to arrest accused, who struck him in the eye on the way to the station.
  Native P.C. NO., 233 said he assisted the other witness and was also assaulted by accused.
  Fined $3 and costs.
R. V. MURPHY AND RYAN.
  Edward Murphy and William Ryan, firemen on board the s.s. Iser, were charged with being drunk and assaulting two women in a house on Woosung Road, and doing damage to the amount of $2.50, also with assaulting the police, on the 28th inst.
  Inspector Reed said the charge was really one of being drunk and disorderly, as the assaults committed and damage done were very trifling.
  One of the women gave evidence as to the damage done in the house. A door and a washing basin had been broken by the prisoners.
  The accused expressed sorrow for the occurrence. They had just finished a long voyage and when they came ashore they got some stuff to drink, which fairly drove them mad. They were willing to pay for all the damage done and promised to go on board their ship, and not come ashore on Shanghai again if his Worship dealt leniently with them now.
  Sikh P.C. 102 deposed to the assault on the police. He had gone to the assistance of two Chinese constables who were arresting the accused, and had been thrown down.
  Fined $2 each and ordered to pay a dollar each for damages and the costs of the case.
R. v. CROKER
  John Croker, seaman on board the Levuka, pleaded guilty to a charge of being absent from his ship without leave since the 25th instant. He expressed his willingness to return to his ship immediately and his Worship ordered him to be put on board and pay the costs.
.  .  .  
2nd June.
  JAMES CROKER, seaman on board the Levuka, was charged with being absent without leave, accused having been before the Court a few days ago for a similar offence.
  Accused said he was not contented with the vessel and hoped by carrying on in this way to induce the Captain to give him his discharge.
  His Worship said that was not the way to go about getting his discharge.
  The Captain stated he would be from 40 to 60 days still in port. He was not willing to discharge the man.
  His Worship sentenced the defendant to ten days' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
John Seidelbiedel, Owen Smith, A. Harold, Thomas Berry and L. G. Marterons, seamen on board the s.s. Port Phillip, were charged with being absent without leave and with refusing duty.
  Seidenbeidel admitted the charge and said he was still unwilling to go back to the ship, about which he made a number of complaints, in all of which the other prisoners concurred. According to his statement the ship was unseaworthy, the forecastle continually leaked, having at one time been flooded for a week, the food was bad and insufficient, and when the ship was coming into Shanghai no watch was kept although there was a heavy fog at the time.
  His Worship said refusing duty would not remedy their grievances. If they thought the ship was unseaworthy he could order a survey, but then if the men's complaints proved to be unfounded they would have to pay the costs of it.
  Captain Grey stated he was perfectly willing to pay the men off but the Vice-Consul would not allow him to do so because they had no wages coming to them.
  His Worship said he would deal very lightly with those who were willing to go back to work, but those who refused would be punished severely. He then asked the accused one by one if they were ready to go back and they all consented to do so except Smith, who said he would neither do any work nor pay any costs.
  His Worship sentenced him to be imprisoned until the ship is ready for sea.
  Harold and Berry were ordered to pay the costs and forfeit two days' pay, and Seidenbeidel and Marterons, who had been absent since the summonses were taken out, forfeited six days' pay.

 

North China Herald, 10 June, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd June.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LINDOHL.
  Charles Lindohl, belonging to the Nangchow, was charged with being absent from his ship since the 31st ult.
  Accused said he had got drunk and the ship had left on Thursday at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. Rivero said the Nangchow cleared on Thursday for Japan, and would be back shortly, and that the captain had left a letter in the Shipping Office directing that the man should be arrested if found.
  Mr. G. M. H. Playfair, Registrar of Shipping, stated that the man had not been signed off the articles.
  The prisoner was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment.
R. v. HUROLD AND BERRY.
  A, Hurold and T. Berry, seamen belonging to the s.s. Port Philip, who were charged on Thursday with refusal of duty, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway the same afternoon.
  P. C. Craig stated that the prisoners created a disturbance on Broadway and had caused a crowed to assemble.
  His Worship sentenced them to be imprisoned until the ship sails.
R. v. CLAPPERTON.
  James Clapperton, unemployed, was charged with being drunk at Hongkew Police Station on Thursday night.
  Sergeant Clarke stated that accused went into the charge room at Hongkew Station on Thursday night at 11 o'clock. He was drunk and refused to go away, so witness locked him up.
  He was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
6th June.
R. v. RUSSELL.
  Francis Russell, seaman belonging to the P. and O. steamer Canton, was charged with being absent from his ship without leave on 2nd, 3rd and 4th June.
  Accused, whose head was bandaged up, admitted the offence.
  Mr. Gerald E. Bridge, chief officer of the Canton, stated that at about three o'clock on Saturday afternoon the prisoner went down to the vessel in a ricksha and stood watching her. He went away but subsequently returned. Meanwhile a warrant had been procured and he was then arrested. According to the log-book the prisoner would be fined a day's pay for the first day's absence and two day's pay for each of the other days. The Captain also desired to have permission to discharge the accused at Hongkong, if he (the Captain) so wished.
  His Worship said the last matter must be arranged at Hongkong. The prisoner must pay costs and would be sent on board, but he would remain in custody until the time anointed for the sailing of the vessel.
.  .   .  
8th June.
R. v. MARVERN.
  Wm. Squire Marvern, sailor, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Monday night.
  Inspector Reed said the accused had come from Vladivostock in a Russian vessel and had been in the Settlement about nine days. This was the first time he had been charged, but there had been complaints about him having been begging.
  In reply to his Worship the accused said he was a native of Glasgow.
  Evidence was given that on Monday night the accused was on Hongkew Bridge pushing Chinese pedestrians about. He was drunk. When remonstrated with by a Chinese policemen he became violent and was then arrested.
  Prisoner was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
R. v. TOUGH.
  This was a case on which G. Andersen, seaman on board the Alice Muir, summoned F. Tough. Chief officer of that vessel, for assault.
  Complainant made a rambling statement in the witness box, alleging that the first officer had used bad language and threats towards him.
  Defendant said that the complainant was a perfect nuisance on board, refused to do work, and hindered the other men.
  Edward Yarnall, captain of the Alice Muir, corroborated the defendant, and produced the log-book to show that since the 18th May, the complainant had been off duty on account of his conduct. About £20 was due to him as wages, and he (the Captain) wished to have permission to pay off the complainant.
  His Worship said that must be arranged at the shipping office. He dismissed the summons, as there was no evidence.  If the complainant had been insubordinate the Captain could proceed against him.

 

North China Herald, 17 June, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th June.
Before G. Jamieson. Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. ANDERSEN.
  Gustave Andersen, sailor on board the Alice Muir, was summoned for an alleged assault upon F. Tough, Chief Officer of that vessel, on the 18th ultimo. Mr. H. Browett appeared for the prosecution.
  Defendant in reply to his Worship denied the offence, but said he lifted his fist.
  Prosecutor said that at about three o'clock in the morning of the 18th May, whilst the vessel was at sea, he had occasion to complain of the way the accused performed his duties.
  Andersen replied with bad language, threw off his coat, and assumed a threatening attitude. After consulting with the Captain the accused was turned off duty.
  His Worship asked in what constituted the assault.
  Mr. Browett - Throwing off his coat and assuming a threatening attitude.
  His Worship - You would not call that an assault?
  Mr. Browett - I do, I say it is an assault, pure and simple. The reason this summons is issued, is for the purpose of getting this man discharged from his ship. Apparently he does not want to be discharged, but the Captain is very anxious that he should be. He has been a nuisance to all the officers and has done his work in a most unseaman-like manner.
  Edward Yarnall, captain of the Alice Muir, said the accused was a constant grumbler and was always causing bother and discontent among the men.
  His Worship (to accused) - Look here, I think you had much better take your discharge.
  Accused - All right, if you tell me to take my discharge I will take it.
  His Worship then made an order for discharge by consent and dismissed the summons for assault.
.  .  .  
16th June.
R. v. LINDOHL.
  C. Lindohl, seaman, was charged with begging, and annoying the public in Broadway on the 15th instant.
  Prisoner, who is an absentee from the Ningchow, had previously been before his Worship.
  Detective Horley said that the vessel was expected here again about the 21st inst. He produced a pocket-book found upon the accused containing the names of people who had either assisted him or were likely to do so.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to ten days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 17 June, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 14th June.
Before Chief Justice Hannen.
  MALBROOK FRASER was brought up to answer two indictments, charging him with obtaining a watch and two chains on 6th May from Chu Sin-zai by false pretences, and also with obtaining $9 on the 8th May from Li Kwang-hung by false pretences.
  Mr. H. S. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, prosecuted.
  The first indictment having been read by Mr. T. G. Smith (Chief Clerk) the prisoner, in reply to the usual question, pleaded guilty.
  His Lordship enquired of the Crown Advocate what course he intended to adopt in regard to the second indictment.
  The Crown Advocate said he did not propose to proceed with it, as the prisoner having pleaded guilty, of course any sentence would run concurrently.
  The prisoner, in answer to the customary enquiry as to whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced replied in the negative.
  His Lordship addressing the prisoner then said:-
  I have read through the depositions which relate to both these cases, and taking into consideration all the facts that appear, I think I can do no less, and it will be a proper sentence to pass upon you, that you should be imprisoned for four months, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 24 June, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th June.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. GORDON.
   Hugh Gordon, an unemployed sailor, was charged with begging from and annoying the public in Woosung Road, Hongkew, on Saturday.
  Detective Horley said the prisoner had been loafing about the Settlement for three or four months, and there had been numerous complaints. On Saturday he stopped two persons, one of whom gave him 10 cents.
  Prisoner denied the offence, and after questioning him,
  His Worship cautioned him and advised him to apply to the Shipping Office.
   The prisoner was then discharged.
.  .  .  
22nd June.
R. v. CROOKS.
  James Crooks, seaman, belonging to the ship Levuka, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Broadway Road on Tuesday.
  Prisoner, in answer to his Worship, admitted the offence but pleaded that he was unable to help himself. He commenced drinking bad liquor, and it got hold of him very quickly.
  Mr. Brun, Second Gaoler, informed the Court that the accused's ship would remain in port for two months loading for New York.
   P.C. Wells, said he found the accused at about half past ten o'clock on Tuesday night. He had been selling his coat to get drunk, and was so helpless that he had to be conveyed to the station in a jinrickska.
  Prisoner repeated his expression of regret and promised not to offend again.
  His Worship : But you say you cannot help yourself. Why don't you stay on board? I shall fine you $2.
R. v. GORDON.
  Hugh Gordon, unemployed, who was discharged on Monday when accused of begging, was again brought up charged with wilfully damaging a bamboo fence and the roof of a house, to the extent of $1, the property of Woo Zing The, a fish hawker residing in an alleyway in Broadway.
  The complainant stated that just before midnight he found the prisoner tearing the fence and climbing on to the roof.
  Accused said he was chased by two sailors and in attempting to escape go into a house where a woman was sleeping, and she barred the door, whilst some men came. In trying to leave the place he got into the enclosure, from which he attempted to escape by climbing the fence.
  His Worship : I can't understand what you were doing prowling about tat that time doing mischief; ten days.
.  .  .  
23rd June.
R. v. OSMAN AND ALI.
  In this case Mahommed Sheikh Osman and Sheikh Amon Ali were charged with stealing nine zinc slabs, valued at $9, the property of the P. and O. S.N. Co. The accused it appeared were employed on the P. and O.  steamer Rohilla, the first named as a storekeeper, and the other as donkey-engine man.
  John McLachlan, second engineer, of the Rohilla stated that when he missed the slabs he suspected that a certain Chinaman whom he had noticed loafing about, had some connection with their disappearance. Accordingly he gave directions that when the Chinaman again came on board he was to be brought to witness. This was done and witness asked the Chinaman to identify the men who sold the zinc, he having admitted that he purchased nine slabs at 25 cents each.
  Wong Ah-yong, the keeper of a hardware store in Pakhoi Road said that the accused pressed him to buy the slabs. He refused at first but eventually consented. He got the slabs from AAli and paid the money to Osman.
  His Worship sentenced Osman to one month's, and Ali to a fortnight's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 24 June, 1892
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 18th June.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
YUE SHING v. V. T. MACE
GAILLARD JEUNE v. THE SAME.
  There were two summonses issued against Mr. V. T. Mace, who did not appear.
  In the first case Yue Shing sued for $68.68, balance of an account for goods supplied.
  Mr. W. Smyth, Usher, proved the service of the summons upon the defendant personally, and the plaintiff having been examined,
   His Worship gave judgment for the amount, with costs.
  In the second case, Mr. Gaillard Jeune sued for $60.56 for goods supplied during the months of April and May last.
  Mr. W. Smyth stated that he served the summons upon Mrs. Mace, on the 15th inst., the defendant being absent up the Yangtze in the Tatung.
  Mr. E. L. Mondor, the representative of the plaintiff, formally proved the debt, whereupon
  His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.
.  .  .  
23rd June.
SHANGHAI HORSE BAZAAR, LIMITED v. F. BISHOP.
  This was a claim for $20 by the Shanghai Horse Bazaar Limited, against F. Bishop, for hire of carriages during the year 1891. The defendant did not appear.
  Mr. W. Smyth, Usher, proved the service of the summons.
  Mr. B. E. Mayne. Manager of the Horse Bazaar, stated that the defendant owed $20 for carriage hire, for which amount he gave plaintiff promissory notes.
  His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 8 July, 1892
MIXED COURT.
Shanghai, 1st July.
Before Mr. Tsai, Magistrate, and Mr. Geo. Brown, British Assessors.
FURIOUS DRIVING.
  In this case a mafoo in the employ of Mr. Henry Morriss was summoned for furious driving.
  P.C. Moran, No. 57, stated that the mafoo had been galloping his pony on the Bund. Witness had checked the man once, but he did not them stop him. This was soon after noon on the day referred to. At 2.20 p.m. he again saw the mafoo galloping the pony and told him, he would take him in charge, but did not do so, because Mr. Morriss came up and ga*ve his card to witness who reported the matter at the Station.
  The mafoo having been questioned in Chinese,
  Mr. Morriss asked to be allowed to speak on behalf of his servant. He said - The evidence is entirely false. On the occasion referred to, I was passing the Chartered Bank and got out while the carriage was going, so that the pony could not have been galloping; if it had I should have broken my neck.
  P.C. 37, in answer to the Assessor said - I did not stop the mafoo while Mr. Morriss was in the carriage.
  Mr. Morriss then asked to be allowed to question the witness.
  To witness - How long have you been in the force?
  Twelve months.
  What were you before you joined the police?
  The question was objected to.
  Mr. Morriss. - How can he form any opinion about ponies? I believe he was a sailor before he joined the force. If I had been quietly tacking along the Bund, he would have thought I was driving properly. I have had to do with ponies all my life. You place a man in the position of Judge who knows nothing about driving. It is not fair to summon the mafoo.
  The Assessor - But he has already admitted that he was driving fast. He says "my master orders me to drive fast, I cannot help it.!"
  Mr. Morriss - Of course I drive fast. I must drive fast, but my mafoo is the very best driver in Shanghai, and never touched anything. It is a nasty vexatious attack.  Why not go for me? I am the man responsible, he acts under my orders.
  The Assessor - I suppose you will pay for him?
  Mr. Morriss - Yes; I'll pay anything you like.
  The Assessor - The mafoo is fined $3.
.  . .
A summons had also been granted against one of Za Zoong's mafoos, but was not served as the mafoo had been dismissed as soon as Za Zoong found that there was a complaint against the man.

 

North China Herald, 8 July, 1892
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 6th July.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
POO HAI-JING v. PARLANE.
  Mrs. J. Parlane appeared to answer a summons, issued at the instance of Poo Hai-jing, claiming $20 for work done in raising and turfing  a garden, at 36, Broadway.
  Poo Hai-jing went into the witness box and explained the claim, when
  Mrs. Parlane produced a written agreement in which it was stated that the garden was to be raised one foot and turfed. The agreement was not signed by the plaintiff, but by another man who was in Court.
  This man was accordingly called forward and stated that he and the plaintiff were partners. They had raised the ground to the height marked on a post by the defendant, but had not finished the turfing.  They were afraid to go back to complete the work as they had been struck by a man there.
  Defendant said she was quite willing to pay the men when they had carried out their contract. The garden was intended as a lawn tennis-ground, but at present there was a hollow in the centre which made it useless. As to the allegation that the men had been struck, that was denied.
 On Sunday the two men caused a mob to assemble in the garden and commenced quarrelling. A gentleman went out and separated them.
  Mr. Jamieson said he could give the plaintiff no redress. An agreement had been signed and they had not carried out the contract. The ground had only been raised about six inches, whereas the agreement said it was to be twelve, while the other work was not finished.
  Summons dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 15 July, 1892
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 11th July.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
JACKSON v. COOPER
  In this case J. A. Cooper was summoned by J. A. Jackson, of the Mercantile and Family Hotel, Nanking Road, for $33 for board and lodging from 8th May to 8th June.
  Defendant did not appear, and Mr. Brun, Consular constable having proved the service of the summons,
  His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.
TAI YUE v. MACE
  Plaintiff sued for $51.70 balance of an account for furniture supplied to the defendant V. T. Mace. There was no appearance and Mr. W. Smyth, Usher, having formally proved the service of the summons on Mrs. Mace,
  His Worship entered judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.
.  .  .  
13th July.
YO YOW-CHI v. V. T. MACE.
  In this case the plaintiff claimed $43.045, balance of account for goods supplied to the order of Mrs. Mace. There was no appearance on the part of the defendant.
  Mr. Smyth, Usher, formally proved the service of the summons upon Mrs. Mace.
  The plaintiff through the interpreter explained the claim, and
  His Honour gave judgment for the amount with costs, adding "Tell him I don't know how he is going to get his money."

 

North China Herald, 27 July, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th July.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
REGINA v. CALLAGHAN.
  Henry Callaghan, unemployed sailor, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Tuesday night.
  Detective Horley proved the case, and the accused was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.
REGINA v. GORDON.
  Hugh Gordon was again brought up in custody, charged upon the present occasion with being drunk and incapable in an alleyway off Woosung Road, and also with stealing a white jacket and 80 cents, the property of William Jones, a native of British Burma.
  P.C. Thomas Roalf deposed that the accused was found sleeping in the alleyway just before midnight. He was very drunk, and had to be taken to the station in a jinricksha.
  In regard to the second charge, evidence was given that the coat, with the money in the pocket, was left by the complainant hanging up in the common-room at the Asiatic Sailors' Home, in Woosung Road. Prisoner was there during the day and was seen by a Lascar to take the coat and walk away with it. Later in the afternoon he unsuccessfully offered to sell it, with some other clothing, at a second-hand clothing shop, but the coat was subsequently found by the police at another shop where it had been bought from a Chinaman.
  Inspector Reed, who conducted the case, stated that when charged with the larceny, prisoner said he took the coat away with some of his own clothing in mistake; as for the money he accused some other man of having stolen it.
  Accused in reply to His Worship, repeated the statement that the coat got amongst his own clothing by mistake, when he was drunk, but denied any knowledge of the money.
  His Worship said he did not believe a word the prisoner said; he was a thoroughly bad lot, and would go to prisoner for two months with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 5 August, 1892
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 1st August.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
RUCHWALDY v. REDMOND.
  This was a suit brought by Professor Ruchwaldy, the conjurer, against Mr. Redmond, of the Central Hotel, for the proceeds of two performances given in the Lyceum Theatre.
  Plaintiff was proceeding to make a long statement giving the history of his connection with the defendant, when his Worship stopped him and told him to state his claim; all that he had just said had no bearing whatever on the case.
  Plaintiff then in the course of a long address said that he and defendant were partners in the performances which formed the subject of the suit. The receipts had not covered the expenses, but defendant never gave plaintiff any particulars, and plaintiff never received a penny for his time, and defendant by his representations had detained him here since July 14th.
  Defendant stated that he only received $15 out of the two performances, though he had paid away $54. The proceeds of the first performance were taken by Messrs. Kelly & Walsh's compradore, and out of that sum the defendant received nothing. The takings on the second performance amounted to $21, which were taken by Messrs. Moutrie & Robinson's compradore, who handed $7 back to the defendant. The bar boy of the Central Hotel, who also sold some tickets, gave $8 to defendant, and this was all the money he received. He had paid on account of the two performances $54, and he now claimed $39.10 from plaintiff.
  After some discussion between the litigants, his Worship, as plaintiff had no evidence, found that he had no cause for action and dismissed the suit.

 

North China Herald, 5 August, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 1st August.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. J. MARTIN.
  The defendant was charged with stealing clothing to the value of $14, and $1.
  In this case the defendant, who was a runner for the Sailors' Home, received a dollar from the Captain of the Energia on behalf of W. Wimbush, to pay Chiu Foong, a tailor, for cleaning and repairing a suit of clothes. Wimbush shipped on board the Energia from the Sailors' Home, and was taken on board the steamer by Martin, who was to receive the money from the Captain and pay it to the tailor. Martin got his money, but took the clothes ashore again, and did not pay the tailor. When Wimbush missed his suit, he obtained leave to come on shore and look for it. He interviewed Martin, who said he had left the clothes on board, but could not say who he left them with. Wimbush communicated with the police, and the trousers and waistcoat were found at the tailor's, who said they had been returned to him by a boy belonging to the Sailors' Home, because Martin had been unable to collect the money, 75 cents, for cleaning them. Martin was then charged with having taken the clothes and the dollar. At the Court this morning he admitted receiving the money and sending the waistcoat and trousers back to the tailor, but did not know what had become of the coat.
  His Worship sentenced him to three days' imprisonment, ordered 75 cents - out of a dollar which was found on  Martin on Sunday night - to be paid to the tailor, and  directed that Wimbush should receive the remains of the suit.
  Wimbush asked his Worship about the coat, and was told that if the police could find it, which he hoped they would - it would be given to him.

 

North China Herald, 12 August, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th August.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. J. H. SMITH.
  J. H. Smith, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday in the Miller Road.
  A Chinese constable deposed that a Cantonese woman complained that she had been struck by the prisoner, who was drunk and creating a disturbance.
  Mini Smith, a respectable looking Chinese woman, wife of the accused, said she had been married to him for ten years, and he had frequently ill-treated her. In consequence of his ill-usage she had to go home to Canton. Recently she had returned and was living with her brother. On Saturday night the accused was creating a disturbance and wanted to go into her brother's house.
  Accused denied the assault, and was cautioned. He next had to answer a summons taken out at the instance of his wife for an assault upon her on Friday last.
  Defendant admitted striking his wife, but said she gave him a great deal of provocation.
  His Worship sentenced the accused to one months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 12 August, 1892
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 8th August.
Before Consul M. von Loehr (President) and Messrs. A. Korff, and H. Heyn, Assessors.
IMP. v. IRENS.
  Ferdinand Irens was charged with obtaining goods under false pretences from Mr. E. G. Wilson, of Nanking Road, a Chinese outfitter in Hongkew, and Messrs. Castilho & Co. of Hongkew.
  The Chinese clothier deposed that the accused on various occasions up to 26th May, ordered goods to the total value of about $70, and promised to pay when the order was completed. The articles were duly delivered, but accused would not pay the account. On 7thJune he sent back some of the articles to the value of $40, leaving a balance of $26.25. He promised to pay that at the end of July, but when the witness went to Irens he said  that if the other clothes were returned he would pay. The clothes were again delivered, but the defendant would not pay and returned the clothes leaving the balance owing.  When the witness asked for payment of this Irens struck him.
  Mr. Wilson said that on the evening of 22nd July, a little after seven o'clock, the defendant came to his store and bought an umbrella and other articles, to the value of $10.50. He said he would pay cash on delivery, and accordingly witness made a reduction in the price of the umbrella. Defendant wrote out a compradore order which he said would be met when the goods were delivered. The next morning the goods were delivered, but the boy brought back an envelope with the words written on it, "Please collect this account on Monday." Witness sent the boy back requesting the return of the goods or payment.  While the messenger was away witness made enquiries, and from what he learned decided to get back the goods. The messenger returned with a note saying there need be no trouble about it as the money would be paid on Monday.  Witness himself then went to see the defendant but was unsuccessful. On the Monday he saw defendant, who promised to pay at three o'clock. Witness requested payment or the return of the goods. At three o'clock Irens did not pay, but began to bluster, and finally said he would pay at four o'clock. Witness went round to see him but he did not return.
  On the Tuesday witness wrote informing Irens that he should prosecute him for obtaining goods under false pretences. The next day he lodged the complaint at the Consulate.  Witness had only just left the Consulate when he met the accused, and told him what he had done, adding that he would be satisfied if the goods were returned. Irens again promised to return the goods but never did so.
  Irens denied that there was any understanding that the transaction was to be a cash one.
  The Consul pointed out that in the note he wrote Irens promised to pay on the Monday.
  H. O. Stare, who described himself as a broker to Messrs. Castilho & Co., stated that he sold some cigars, tobacco and whisky to Irens in July. Irens then mentioned that he already owed some money, and witness said he could pay that at the end of the month, and pay for the other articles the following month. He undertook to do that but had not done so.
  Messrs. Castilho's representative said that the total claim was $11.05. The firm did not wish to press the matter against the defendant.
  After deliberating in private for about three-quarters of an hour,
  The Court sentenced the accused to two months' imprisonment, to pay a fine of 200 marks, or in default 13 days additional imprisonment, and to pay the costs of the case.

 

North China Herald, 19 August, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13th August.
Before G. M. H. PLayfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
REGINA v. GRIMSHAW.
  R. E. Grimshaw, a tall elderly man, was brought up charged with wandering.
  P.C. Alfred Halse stated that shortly after nine o'clock on the morning of the previous day he saw the accused in the Broadway, staggering along. He asked the man what was the matter, and he replied that he had been smoking, and felt a little sick. He walked off, but witness again stopped him as he seemed unable to take care of himself, and apparently was not sane.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that for the past three weeks the defendant had not seemed in his right mind.
  His Worship put one or two questions to the defendant, who in a listless way said he did not understand the evidence.
  His Worship made an order for the defendant to be detained for the purpose of being medically examined.
REGINA v. HUTCHINSON.
  Mr. Herbert D. Hutchinson, lately manager to the firm of Evans & Co. Nanking Road, appeared to answer a summons taken out against him by Mr. A. M. A. Evans charging him with theft.
  The summons was as follows:- "You have this day been charged before this Court for that you while in the employ of Algernon Mountford Adams Evans, of Shanghai, in the Empire of China, merchant, on or about the month of February, 1892 at Shanghai aforesaid, certain Carpathian silver servers, &c."
[Not transcribed.]
" I do not think that there can be a doubt in anyone's mind that what the defendant did - it may have been that he acted contrary to what he ought  to have done, - but I am perfectly convinced that what he did, he did in the belief that her was entitled to do, and I do not believe any Jury in the world would consider the evidence such as ought to be sent before it. Mr. Hutchinson, the charge aga inst you is dismissed.
  Upon the conclusion of the Magistrate's remarks there was considerable applause, and hand-clapping, in Court.

R. v. COLBERT.
  Robert Colbert, boatswain of the Howard D. Troop, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Tuesday afternoon in the Seward Road.
  A Chinese constable stated that when he attempted to arrest the accused he became very violent and struck witness.
  Accused admitted being drunk, and was sentenced to five days' hard labour.

R. v. WARRINGTON.
  Benjamin Warrington, a sailor belonging to the same vessel, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Tuesday night in the Broadway, and assaulting a 'ricksha coolie, and damaging a 'ricksha.
  Accused said he was drunk, and knew nothing about what had happened.
  His Worship ordered the accused to pay $1 compensation to the coolie, and to go to prison for five days.
R. v. TJOLSON.
  O. C. Tjolson, another sailor belonging to the Howard D. Troop, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting a native constable in the execution of his duty, and causing the loss of his whistle.
  Accused was sentenced to five days' imprisonment, and ordered to pay 70 cents the value of the whistle.
R. v. SCOTT.
H. C. Scott, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Tuesday night.
  Accused, who admitted being drunk, was sentenced to three days' hard labour.
.  .  .  
18th August.
R. v. McLAUGHLIN AND ELLIS.
The day was occupied with the hearing of eleven summonses taken out by six members of the crew of the Howard D. Troop, against Captain McLaughlin, the master, J. W. Ellis, the first officer, and F. W. McLaughlin, the third officer. Mr. Harold Browett appeared for the defendants.
  The evidence for the prosecution in all the cases was substantially the same. It was to the effect that at various times during the voyage from New York to Shanghai the Captain abused the men, and assaulted them by striking them with his fist and kicking them. The third officer, the captain's son, was also alleged to have frequently struck the men, and in one case the first officer was summoned.
  For the defence the evidence was a total denial of the a lleged assaults. The Captain gave the crew a very bad character, and said they were lazy and stubborn. On one occasion, in the Straits of Sounda, the vessel was nearly going ashore. It was essential that certain manoevres should be executed quickly, and the men were slow, he might have shoved them to hurry them up. Having heard a great deal of evidence, each complainant called the others as witnesses,
  His Worship said he failed to see any evidence to justify the summons against the Captain and the third mate. He did not for a moment believe that the assaults took place, and he dismissed the cases.  In regard to the first officer, he believed that an assault had been committed, ad he fined the defendant $5.

 

North China Herald, 26 August, 1892
MIXED COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd August.
Before Mr. Tsai, Magistrate, and Mr. George Brown, British Assessor.
ROBBERY OF MILK.
  Two natives, employed at the Jessfield Dairy owned by Mr. Shaw, were charged with stealing a quantity of milk from their employer, and Chiang Kee, the proprietor of a dairy on the Back Bubbling Well Road was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen.
  Mr. W. V. Drummond prosecuted, and Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for Chiang Kee.
  The evidence went to show that Mr. Shaw received information that his headman (one of the prisoners) at Jessfield Dairy was in the habit of sending milk away by coolies to Chiang Kee, who purchased it. Accordingly he communicated with the police, who set detectives to watch. On Sunday, 24th inst., at about three o'clock in the morning, one of the prisoners (a coolie) was seen to leave Jessfield Dairy carrying some cans of milk, wrapped up in matting so as to resemble mats. By a circuitous route he went to Chiang Kee's dairy, where he left the milk. Subsequently, Chiang Kee, the coolie, and the headman were arrested.
  When before the Court it transpired that the robbery had evidently been going on for some time. The quantity stolen on the day in question consisted of 20 bottles, which Mr. Shaw valued at $3, and for which Chiang Kee paid the seller only 80 cents. The coolie admitted that he was paid $1 a month to carry the milk. Up to the present he had received $2, and had very nearly earned another dollar.
  Chiang Kee was ordered to pay a fine of $100; the headman was sentenced to three months' hard labour; and the coolie to one months' hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 26 August, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th August.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Police Magistrate.
R. v. McLAUGHLEN.
  R. Diego, a seaman belonging to the Howard D. Troop, summed F. McLaughlen, third officer for assault, while on the voyage from New York to Shanghai. After hearing complainant, several witnesses, and the defendant,
  His Worship fined the defendant $1 and costs.
R. v. COX AND OTHERS.
  W. Cox, J. Kelly, S. Green, F. Stafford, H. Petersen, H. Diego, Y. Albers, W. R. Dolan, A. W. Brouse, J. Swansen, H. Newell, S. J. English, and E. Beidell, seamen belonging to the Howard D. Troop, were charged on warrants with being absent from the ship without leave.
  His Worship sentenced each to seven days; hard labour, to pay the costs of the warrants, and to be discharged the ship on expiry of the sentence.
R. v. EATON.
 John Eaton was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and being absent from his ship, the Swanhilda, without leave.
  P.C. Wells deposed to arresting the accused on Wednesday night after he had been ejected from "The Travellers'" in Broadway.
  Accused was sentenced to five days;' hard labour.
.  .  .  
22nd August.
R. v. COLBERT, TJOLSON, AND WARRINGTON.
  Robert Colbert, O. C. Tjolson, and Benjamin Warrington were charged with being absent from their ship, the Howard D. Troop, without leave.
  Inspector Keeling proved arresting the prisoners that morning, upon warrant.
  Accused, in reply to the Magistrate, declared that they would not go back to the ship, and wished for their discharges.
  His Worship said the men should have applied for their discharges in the proper way, and they might have got them, but instead of that they committed a breach of the law.
  Inspector Keeling having informed the Court that the men were arrested upon their release from prison,
  His Worship remarked that it seemed rather hard to take out warrants if the men were in gaol. The charge against the accused would be dismissed, and they would be discharged from the ship.

 

North China Herald, 2 September, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 31st August.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. COLL, AND EADE.
  Harry Coll, and Ernest Eade, seamen belonging to the Strathdee, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Broadway, and assaulting a Sikh constable on Tuesday night.
  Evidence was given that the accused were drunk and disorderly outside "The Travellers" public house, and that when the constable interfered they fell upon him and taking away his baton struck him twice on the head.
  His Worship sentenced them to five days' hard labour,
R. v. WOOD.
  George Wood, seaman belonging to the Hounslow, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, on Tuesday night.
  Police Constable Wells said that the accused who was drunk, refused to go away from "The Travellers" and tried to get through the window.
  His Worship sentenced him to a day's imprisonment, in default of paying a  fine of $1.

 

North China Herald, 2 September, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.' SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 30th August.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
PORTER v. RICHIE.
   Mrs. V. Porter summoned Miss Clara Richie for $80, for board and lodging from 1st to 21st August.
  Defendant, in reply to his Lordship, said she admitted on indebtedness of $69.93 for board and lodging.
  Plaintiff sad she claimed for 21 days' board and lodging at $100 a month, and $10 for money paid for defendant's dress.
  Defendant - I admit I owe $10 for dress, and $69.93 for board and lodging.
  His Lordship - Well, it comes to the same thing.
  Defendant - But she asks it for board and lodging.
  His Lordship - Well, why don't you pay her?
  Defendant - Because I have to wait till the first of the month.  In this letter she wrote me she said she would wait. I don't know why she won't wait. I wrote a letter dated 25th August promising to pay.
  His Lordship (after looking at the letter, and addressing the Plaintiff) - In this letter you say you will wait till 1st September; you have changed your mind?
  Plaintiff - Yes, I have changed my mind.
  His Lordship - Well there is no reason why you should not. (To the Defendant) - When can you pay this amount for certain?
  Defendant - I don't think I can pay all the amount, because I have been very sick. If I have the money I expect on the 1st of the month, I will give her some.
  His Lordship - I shall give judgment for the amount with $3 costs. You will get two or three days to pay, and then if you don't she can get an order against your possessions.
  Defendant - If I have the money I will pay her, but if I haven't I will give all I can.
  The parties then left.

 

North China Herald, 9 September, 1892
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 2nd September.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
GREEN v. G. FAIRLEY.
  G. Fairley was summoned by Mrs. Green for $98.50, for board and lodging from 30th March to 8th June.
  Defendant admitted his liability, and after some discussion between the parties,
  His Lordship entered judgment for the plaintiff.
.  .  .  
3rd September
G. W. BENNETT v. C. J. DAVIS.
  C. J. DaVIS, chief officer of the Rewa, was summoned by G. W. Bennett for $22, value of goods supplied in January and February 1891. Defendant did not appear.
  The plaintiff stated that the claim was for cash money to the value of $14, and tobacco, cigars, etc., supplied.
  His Lordship gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs.
.  .  .  
5th September.
DONALDSON v. ENGLAND.
  In this case C. P. M. Donaldson, executor of the estate of C. M. Donaldson, sued C. R. England for Tls. 30, the value of sundry effects, belonging to the estate of the late C. M. Donaldson, or the return of the same, or an account of the proceeds of the sale.
  The defendant handed in an account showing that a number of articles to the value of Tls. 19.85 had been sold.
  His Lordship suggested that the case should be adjourned until Friday and this course was agreed to.
.  .  .  
7th September.
PORTER v. RITCHIE .
  This was a judgment summons take out by Mrs. V. Porter against Miss Clara Ritchie, for the sum of $80 for board and lodging from 1st to 21st August. The case was originally heard on 30th ult., when the defendant was ordered to pay the amount.
  The defendant was sworn, and examined as to her means. She admitted that she had some jewellery - a ring, a watch, and a bracelet - but it was not at present in her possession, she having deposited it as security with Mrs. Addie Tyler for a loan of $50.
  His Lordship questioned the defendant, and told her that she must distinctly understand that if she paid away money for any purpose without first having satisfied this judgment, she would be liable to be committed to orison for contempt.
  The plaintiff said the jewellery was worth quite $300.
  Eventually the plaintiff intimated her willingness to accept $10 a month until the claim was satisfied, and an order to that effect was made.

 

North China Herald, 9 September, 17892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 2nd September.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. AMEER AND ALI.
  Mahammund Ameer, and Rahmat Ali, firemen belonging to the P. and O. s.s. Aden, were charged with assaulting and wounding Wong Szee Zung and Chang Ah Sing on Thursday night.
  According to the prosecutors they were sampan mem, and were hired by the defendants to take them ashore. When the time came for payment, Ameer dropped the 10 cent piece into the water, and was about to walk off.  He and his companion were stopped, whereupon Ameer struck both sampan men in the head, causing the blood to flow freely.
  For the defence, Rahmat Ali (about whom, as his Worship remarked, there was no evidence) was called, and he said that Ameer paid 10 cents for the two fares. The sampan man dropped the money in the water, and then wanted to make them pay again. They refused, and were set upon by a crowd of sampan men.  In self-defence they struck out.
  Mr. F. White, chief engineer of the Aden, said he was coming ashore at about the same time and saw the prisoners in an altercation about the money having fallen in the water.  He gave Ameer a very good character.
  His Worship said he had no doubt the prisoners' statement was correct. He knew what the boatmen were like in these cases, and he dared say they tried to frighten the accused to pay over again. Probably the accused struck out in self-defence. And he thought the sampan men got all they deserved.
  The prisoners were then discharged.
.  .  .
5th September.
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. ROBINSON.
  F. Robinson, seaman, was charged with being absent from his ship, the Howard D. Troop, since 30th August.
  Accused admitted the offence, but said he was not fit to go on board.
  Captain McLaughlin, of the Howard D. Troop, said the prisoner got a month's advance of $19 but did not join the vessel.
  Prisoner said he had spent the money amongst some friends, and "in getting a little boozed." When he signed articles he did not know what sort of vessel it was; if he had he would never have done so.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to a week's hard labour, or until the time for the departure of the vessel, when he would be put on board.
R. v. KELLY.
  James Kelly was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Sailors' Home on Sunday.
  Mr. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the accused was drunk and making himself a general nuisance by challenging other men to fight.
  Inspector Reed informed the Court that the accused had previously been charged with being absent from his ship, the Howard D. Troop.
  His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $1 or go to prison for two days.
.  .  .  
6th September.
R. v. CAREY.
  Peter Carey, fireman, belonging to the Achilles, was charged with being drunk and assaulting Police Constable No. 31, in the Broadway.
  Accused admitted the offence, and expressed regret.
  His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $2, or go to prison for three days.
.  .  .   
7th September.
R. v. WILLIAMS.
  Thomas Williams, seaman, belonging to the Procyon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting and beating a Madras man named James, and damaging his clothing to the amount of 60 cents, and assaulting a Sikh constable while in the execution of his duty in Broadway, on Wednesday.
  Accused, whose head was bandaged, pleaded "Not Guilty" to assaulting James, but admitted being drunk and assaulting the police.
  James' evidence was to the effect that the prisoner met him coming out of the Sailors' Home, and demanded a light for his pipe. Witness had not got one, and the accused, who was drunk, assaulted him. Later in the day witness had to return to the Sailors' Home, and the prisoner who was hanging about again violently assaulted him, knocked him down, and tore his clothing, and when the constable interfered struck him.
  Prisoner said that on the night previous to the alleged assault he met the accused and gave him 20 cents to go into a house and bring out a drink. He, however, did not fetch the drink and went away with the money. Meeting the complainant on Wednesday prisoner demanded the return of the 20 cents, and in the altercation which followed "he supposed they got clenched."
  Complainant denied that he had seen the accused before the assault.
  Sikh Police Constable No. 109, stated that after seeing the prisoner strike the complainant he arrested him, when he struck witness, bruising his left eye severely. Accused struggled with him and threw him down, and witness drew his baton with the intention of striking the prisoner on the hand, but he thought he hit him on the head. The struggle between him and the prisoner lasted about half an hour, and further assistance had to be procured to get the man to the station.
  Inspector Reed said that when brought to the station the accused was rather drunk. The constable was bleeding at the nose when he came in with the prisoner.
  His Worship said that as the accused had come rather badly out of the struggle, he would not punish him as severely as he would otherwise have done. He would be fined $1 for the assault on the police, and ordered to pay James 60 cents for the damage to his clothing.

 

North China Herald, 16 September, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 9th September
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.
DONALDSON v. ENGLAND.
  This was an adjourned case, in which C. P. M. Donaldson, executor of the estate of the late C. M. Donaldson, sued C. R. England for Tls.30, the value of sundry effects left for sale with him belonging to the estate of the deceased C. M. Donaldson.
  Plaintiff said that since the adjournment he had looked into the account supplied by the defendant, and in order to settle the matter he would accept the sum there stated by the defendant, viz., Tls. 15, and the payment of the costs of the court.
  Defendant intimated his readiness to pay the sum, and
  His Lordship then gave judgment in the amount of $23.

 

North China Herald, 16 September, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th September
Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. FEELEY.
  Michael Feeley, mess room steward on the Strathleven, was summoned by James Brownlee, third officer, for assaulting him on the 5th instant.
  Complainant stated that when he went on board on Monday evening, in company with the second engineer, the defendant stepped in front of him and said "I want to speak to you." Witness told him to go away as he did not want to speak to him. Witness walked away, but the defendant got in front of him and used some bad language. Witness then tried to pass him, and Feeley made an attempt to strike him, whereupon witness struck him with a light cane. The defendant then jumped upon witness, knocked him down, and struck him. He (witness) could not account for defendant's conduct, as he had given no provocation.
  Some corroborative evidence in regard to the assault was given, and a witness was called for the defence who stated that the prosecutor used his cane two or three times before defendant struck him.
    Defendant said that the complainant had called him some foul names, and it was in consequence of that that he went up to him and asked for an explanation. During the altercation the complainant struck him with his cane, when he (defendant) pushed him, and being drunk the complainant fell.
  Captain Cormack, the master of the ship, informed the Magistrate that Brownlee was perfectly sober when he saw him, immediately after the occurrence.
  His Worship, remarking that there did not appear to be sufficient evidence that the assault was first committed by the defendant, dismissed the summons, each party to pay half the costs.
.  .  .  
12th September.
R. v. PREIGNITZ.
  Jacob Preignitz, second mate of the G. H. Wappans, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Sunday afternoon on Broadway, and subsequently breaking a pane of glass in the prison cell.
  Sikh constable No. 1o2, said that he was called to the prisoner, whom he found lying on the pavement at the corner of the Whangpoo Road.  Some one connected with the American Consulate requested witness to take the accused to the station, which he did. Accused was unable to walk, and had to be placed in a ricksha.
  Accused admitted being drunk, and declared he could remember nothing.
  Sergeant Walker, said that on Sunday evening he gave some water to the prisoner in his cell. After drinking the water he threw the can through the window, breaking a thick pane of glass.
  His Worship fined prisoner $1 for being drunk; ordered him to pay $1 for the broken window, and 20 cents for his food whilst in custody.
.  .  .  
13th September.
R. v. LARSEN, LUMSTRUM, GILL, SCANNEL AND KELLY.
  These five men were summoned for refusing duty. Larsen, on the 8th inst., Lumstrum, on the 9th inst., and the others on the 10th inst., on board their ship the Procyon.
  Frederick Dundas, the master of the Procyon, gave evidence as to the general misconduct of the men, who got drunk, refused duty for various alleged causes, and left the vessel. As a matter of fact, they had done nothing on board since the 6th.
  The men gave various excuses for refusing work, some being that the captain would not give authority to any of his officers, that they were put to do the  wrong kind of work, and that they had not been properly treated on board. All declared that they would never do another day's work on the ship.
  His Worship said he never heard a lot of more lame excuses in his life. The accused would go to prison for a week, and would then be sent on board. They would forfeit their pay during the time they were absent, and in prison, and would have to pay for the substitutes the captain had had to engage.
  Larsen and Kelly were then put forward to answer a charge of assaulting the captain on the night of the 8th.
  Captain Dundas in giving evidence of the assault said it was committed by Larsen, who was very drunk and came aft using foul language. Witness told him to go forward but he refused and struck him. They then had a struggle. Kelly, who was also drunk, came up and joined the assault.
  Richard Davis, second mate, having been examined,
  Captain Dundas expressed his willingness to withdraw the charge against Kelly, as his assault was not a serious one. But Larsen's assault was serious.
  Larsen said he was drunk and could remember nothing that took place, except that the Captain commenced the assault.
  Thomas Williams, seaman, said he was aroused when in his berth by a noise aft. He went there and saw the Captain and Larsen in a scuffle. The captain had hold of the accused and struck him. Witness then interfered and took accused forward.
  His Worship sentenced Larsen to three weeks' imprisonment, or to be put on board if the ship left before that date.
.  .  .  
15th September.
R. v. LAW CHING LEANG.
  Law Ching Leang, a British subject, was summoned for assaulting Woo Wai Tuen  in the Foochow Road, on the 4th inst.
  Woo Wai-yuen, the complainant, said that on the 4th instant, as he was coming out of a Chinese restaurant the defendant knocked him down, broke his spectacles, and $90 which witness had on him in notes were lost.  Complainant was not at first aware that the defendant was a British subject, but he (the defendant) told him that if he were taken to the British Court he would be fined only $5 for the assault.
  Replying to the Magistrate, as to how he came to have $90 in notes upon him at the time, complainant said he received $200 that morning; he paid away $50, and left $50 at home. He intended to put the $100 in a drawer but he went out for a walk with some friends for a walk, and spent $10 during the evening. The notes were in his pocket, but it was not very deep.
  Resuming his statement the complainant said that there had been some differences, some time ago, between himself and the defendant. When witness was leaving the restaurant, he saw a ricksha outside, and he asked the coolie where his master was. Defendant apparently heard this, and came up and scolded the rickshaw coolie. He then assaulted the witness, first striking him, and then kicking him, and knocking him down. He did not discover the loss of the notes until the next day. He was not seeking to recover them from the defendant, but he wanted him punished for the assault, and restrained for behaving so again.
  Wing Tsze-ching said he was coming out of the restaurant with the complainant, and outside the door saw a certain rickshaw. Complainant asked the coolie where his master was, upon which the defendant came up, and after scolding the coolie for telling, hit the complainant. The latter asked defendant why he did this, upon which he struck the complainant again, kicked him, and knocked him down. A foreign policeman then interfered and prevented any more assault, telling the defendant he might go away.  Witness did not know the constable's number. A native constable who came up told him he could lodge a complaint at the station.
  Defendant put some questions to the witness with the object of showing that he had "a few words" with the complainant inside the door of the restaurant, and that witness, who was then outside, could not have seen or heard anything.
  Defendant then read a statement to the effect that he went to the restaurant, on the evening of the 4th. After taking his dinner he was coming out, when the complainant stood in the doorway and obstructed the passage. Defendant could not go out and asked to be allowed to pass. Complainant, however, used foul language, and commenced pulling his (Defendant's) clothes. He tried to strike the defendant, and in self-defence he then pushed the complainant, who, being drunk, fell.  Defendant then went away.
  His Worship eventually adjourned the case until Saturday, in order that the foreign constable might be discovered and examined.

 

North China Herald, 23 September, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 17th September.
Before R, W. Mansfield, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. LAW CHING LEANG.
  The hearing of this case, which had been adjourned from Thursday, was resumed today. It will be remembered that it arose out of a summons against Law Ching Leang, a British subject, for an alleged assault upon Woo Wai-yuen, as he was leaving a Chinese restaurant, in the Foochow Road, on the 4th inst.
  Wong Ah-sing, a waiter in the restaurant, who was called for the defence, said that both complainant and defendant had been dining there. When the defendant came downstairs, to leave, the complainant was standing in the doorway. Defendant asked him to move, but he refused, and a quarrel ensued.  Complainant caught hold of defendant and pulled him into the street, after which a crowd gathered, and a constable came up. Witness was standing in the doorway. He did not see the complainant fall down, and defendant did not strike him. The complainant was slightly the worse for drink.
  Police Constable Bramble said he was on duty in the vicinity of the restaurant on the night in question at about a quarter to ten o'clock, when his attention was attracted by a crowd. He went up and saw the complainant, who had a pair of broken spectacles in his hand. Complainant was very excited, and said a friend of his had struck him, and gone into the restaurant. Witness did not see the defendant. He advised the complainant to lay a complaint against defendant, and accompanied the complainant to the Police Station for that purpose.
  His Worship, remarking that the whole affair seemed a very trifling matter, ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the case, and $3 the value of the broken spectacles; $4.50 in all.
.  .  .  
19th September.
R. v. BLOOD.
  James Blood, seaman, belonging to the Audelana, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Woosung Road, on Saturday, carrying a loaded revolver in the Settlement contrary to the Land Regulations, and discharging it to the danger of the public.
  Sergeant Walker said he was on charge room duty on Saturday, when the prisoner was brought on by a civilian (a Chinaman), who stated that the prisoner had discharged a revolver. The civilian had since gone away in his ship.
  Witness searched the prisoner, who was very drunk, and found on him a revolver and five loaded cartridges, and two cases which had been recently discharged.
  Accused pleaded guilty, and expressed regret. He said he brought the revolver ashore to sell for one of the apprentices. He had some drink, and "got a bit crazy," or he should not have done what he had.
  His Worship fined the prisoner $1 for being drunk; and $5 for discharging the revolver.
  Inspector Reed applied for the revolver to be confiscated, and his Worship assented.
R. v. BRIDGES.
  Thomas Bridges, belonging to the Procyon, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a Chinaman and the police.
  Yung Ah-hung, a fruit seller, deposed that at about three o'clock on Sunday the accused came up and partook of some fruit. When complainant asked for payment, prisoner struck him, and kicked over the fruit stall, spoiling about $1 of fruit.
  Native constable No. 413, who was called to arrest the accused, said that he was very violent, and a Sikh constable had to be called. Prisoner was drunk and struck the Sikh. At the station he again struck the latter, drawing blood.
  Sergeant Walker deposed to the prisoner being very violent at the police station, and striking the Sikh.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to ten days' hard labour, and ordered him to pay 50 cents for food.
R. v. WALSH.
  George Walsh, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Minghong road on Saturday.
  Inspector Reed informed the Magistrate that he had some doubt about the nationality of the prisoner. He said he was a British subject, although he (Inspector Reed) had heard prisoner was an American. In answer to the Magistrate prisoner admitted the offence. He said he lived in Miller Road, was at present unemployed, but formerly carried on business in Shanghai.
  His Worship ordered him to pay $1 or go to prison for two days.
.  .  .  
21st September.
R. v. GORDON.
  H. Gordon, against whom four previous convictions were entered on the charge-sheet, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund on Tuesday.
  Accused admitted the offence, and was fined $3, or five days' imprisonment.
R. v. LUMSTRUM, KELLY, SCANNEL AND KILLINGBERG.
  These four men, belonging to the Procyon, were charged with refusing duty on the 19th inst. All admitted the offence, and declared their intention not to work on the ship. Lumstrum made a rambling statement as to his treatment, in the course of which he alleged that the master, Captain Dundas,  was in the habit of getting drunk.
  Captain Dundas said that this was obviously untrue, as liquor was never allowed on the ship.
  Killingberg said he was not engaged as a carpenter, but was put to do carpenter's work. The captain had found fault with him, put him to work in a dangerous position, and had reduced his allowance of food.
  His Worship asked whether it would not be as well to discharge the latter, if he only spoiled his work, as had been stated.
  Captain Dundas said he must have someone on the articles as carpenter. He had been trying to get a good carpenter, but could not.
  His Worship sentenced the three first named prisoners to a fortnight's imprisonment, and Killingberg to a week.
R. v. WILLIAMS.
  T. Williams, another man belonging to the Procyon, was summoned by Captain Dundas for having used language towards him calculated to cause a breach of the peace, on the 10th instant.
  Captain Dundas gave evidence to the effect that the accused threatened to "do for him," because he (witness) refused to give him some tobacco.
  Accused denied the offence, and made a statement as to his having been ill for some time, suffering from an affection of one of his eyes.
  In answer to the Magistrate, Captain Dundas stated that a doctor had pronounced  the accused to have cancer of the eye. He (the captain) did not know what to do with the man, who had done no work since 12th August, and since the arrival of the vessel at Shanghai had been frequently getting drunk and annoying him. He would be very glad if the Magistrate would take him off his hands.
  His Worship, in the absence of corroborative evidence, dismissed the summons.
R. v. LUMSTRUM.
  Lumstrum was again put forward for having assaulted the captain, within the precincts of the court, immediately previous to the commencement of business.
  Evidence was given that when the captain arrived, the accused went up and demanded his discharge. The captain refused, and the accused at once struck him, and would have continued the assault but for the interference of a police constable, and Mr. Brun, Consular constable.
  His Worship ordered the prisoner to pay a fine of $10, as the sentence he had just received would not expire until just before the departure of the ship.
.  .  .  
R. v. HARVIE.
  Mr. William Morrison Harvie appeared to answer a summons charging him with having furiously driven a pony and trap on the Bund, on the 17th instant, contrary to the Municipal Regulations.
  Chief Inspector Cameron conducted the prosecution, on behalf of the police.
  Mr. John William Bennett was first called. He said - On Saturday morning, at a little after half past s even o'clock, I was walking along the Bund with Mr. Sharp, and Mr. West. I was on the inside. Just as we got to Peking Road I must have stepped in advance. Just as I stepped off the pavement I heard a shout. I put up my arm, and I saw a pony and the shaft of a trap just on me. The pony knocked me down. When I was on the ground I felt a sharp "clip" on my head, and the wheel of the trap went over my left leg.
  By the Magistrate - Did you see who was driving? - No, I did not.
  Did you see anything of the trap when you got up from the ground? - Mr. Sharp picked me up. The trap went down the Peking Road; at least, I saw a white light in the distance, but I could not say it was the same trap.
  Before you were struck did you see the trap? - No.
  You could not see who was in the trap? - I could not; it was all done so quickly that I could not see.
  Whoever was driving the trap did not stop? - No.
  Mr. John West, accountant to Messrs. Kelly & Walsh, Ltd., was then called.
  By the Magistrate - Were you walking with Mr. Bennett on Saturday morning last? - I was.
  Will you tell me what you saw of the accident?  - We were walking along the Bund, between here and Peking Road. At the moment we got to the curb there was a trap turning round from the Bund very rapidly. Mr. Bennett was a pace or two in front.
  You say "very rapidly;" was the pony trotting? - Yes, he was trotting very rapidly. Why I say rapidly is that in a moment the pony and trap had passed us.
  You could not give an idea of the pace? No. I can only say rapidly, because the trap came on to us in a moment.
  From which direction did the trap come? - From the direction of Hongkew.
  What did the trap do? - In a moment I lost sight of Mr. Bennett, and I wondered what had become of him. In the next moment the trap had gone by, and I saw Mr. Bennett lying on the ground. The trap turned down the Peking Road.
  Without any slowing? - No, he did not slow down, so far as I could tell.
[very detailed evidence, not transcribed.]
.  .  .  Perhaps you have something to say, as to the reason you did not notice you had caused an accident.
  Mr. Harvie - I should like to say that the pony I had was not my own. Going over the Garden Bridge my pony got troublesome. I was paying more attention to it than I ought to, and coming to the corner of Peking Road I only looked up the street. There is a bright electric lamp where the accident happened, and the three gentlemen have known my trap, and I cannot understand how they did not recognise it. I am certain there was no intention of knocking them over.
  The Magistrate - Oh! No.
  Mr. Harvie - If I had seen a coolie knocked over I should have stropped. I heard of it on Sunday at half past five, and I went immediately to Mr. Bennett, to make amends.
  The Magistrate - At the time you got over Garden Bridge your pony was rather beyond your control, and restless, and going fast?
  Mr. Harvie - It was restless, and going fast.
  The Magistrate - Of course there are certain places where a pony at a sharp trot does no harm. But at the same time the driver of a trap knows that in going round corners you should not go at the same pace as on the clear road.  The only excuse is that the pony was not completely under your control as you were going round the corner. What the consequences are you know, and I have no doubt you regret them as much as anyone, and I dare say all your friends will be glad to hear that you were so much taken up with the management of your pony, that you did not notice what your pony and trap had done. But at the same time, the limbs of the people of Shanghai who are not driving in traps, have to be protected, and I fine you the full amount, which is $10, with costs.
R. v. ANDERSON AND GILL.
  Alexander Anderson and John Gill, belonging to the Procyon, were charged with being drunk on Broadway at about eight o'clock on Wednesday morning.
  Accused admitted the offence, and were fined $1 each, or a day's imprisonment.
R. v. HOUDEN.
  William Houden was charged with being drunk  on the previous day within the precincts of the Court.
  William Brun, Consular Constable, stated that he had to eject the accused from the Court during the hearing of a case on the previous day, because of his drunken behaviour. Outside the Court the prisoner was very abusive, and attempted to kick witness.  The accused at the time had a bottle of rum in his pocket.
  Prisoner acknowledged being drunk, and added that he did not know what he was doing.
  His Worship sentenced him to a weeks' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 30 September, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th September, 1892
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WILLIAMS.
  T. Williams, belonging to the Procyon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting Captain Dundas, the master of the Procyon.
  Two Sikh constables gave evidence that they were called to the Astor House on Friday at about five o'clock, where the prisoner was creating a disturbance. When the first witness arrived he saw the prisoner strike Captain Dundas. Prisoner was then arrested, but he was so violent that it took four constables to take him to the station. He seemed to have been drinking.
 Captain Dundas, master of the Procyon, said he was in the Astor House, when the accused came in and commenced a most unprovoked assault upon him. Accused had "smashed up" his face, and bitten witness on the right side, right through his clothing. Witness exhibited to the Magistrate the mark on his right breast, the skin being much broken.
  Prisoner, in reply to his Worship, said he remembered what he had done. He had been suffering from an affection of the eyes.
  His Worship - But do you think that biting your master is good for the eyes? You have committed a brutal and unprovoked assault, and you will go to prison for three months, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
26th September
R. v. RYDSTRUM.
  A. Rydstrum, seaman, belonging to the Procyon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Sunday.
  Detective Horley, and a Chinese constable, proved he charge, and the accused was sentenced to a day's imprisonment.
R. v. SULLIVAN.
  Patrick Sullivan, boatswain on the Andelana, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway, on Sunday.
  A Chinese constable gave evidence to the effect that the accused was creating a disturbance outside a ship by collecting a crowd.
  His Worship pointed out that the charge was for being drunk and incapable, and he discharged the accused with a caution.
R. v. McCORMACK AND KELLY.
  James McCormack, and Thomas Kelly, firemen on the s.s. Strathavon, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway.
  A Chinese constable stated that on Sunday afternoon he was called to a camphor-wood box shop where he found one of the prisoners, McCormack, lying down inside the shop, and the other man, Kelly, attempting to take down a box to make himself a bed.
     His Worship pointed out that in this case again the evidence was not connected with the charge.
  The Chinese constable continuing said that the proprietor of the box shop objected to the man taking the box down. Witness, a Sikh constable, and another man, removed the two accused to the station. That was all the disturbance they made, and they did no damage.
  His Worship, remarking that the case did not seem a very bad one, ordered the prisoners to be put on board their ship.
R. v. McGUINNESS.
  A sailor named McGuinness was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  Police Constable Young said that while on duty on Broadway on Sunday afternoon, he saw the accused walking along under the influence of drink. He was able to walk, but was shouting.
     His Worship pointed out that in this case the accused was charged with being incapable, whereas the evidence was to the effect that he was disorderly. Such mistakes should not be made, and he (the Magistrate) would be justified in refusing to hear the charge.
  Accused denied being drunk.
His Worship took into consideration the fact that the prisoner had been locked up all night, and allowed him to go without further punishment.
.  .  .  
27th September.
R. v. G. ROWE.
  G. Rowe, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Monday night.
  Sikh constable 67 deposed that at 7.15 p.m. on Monday he saw the prisoner knock against the doors of houses, and into one house where there were three women who ran out of the house. They objected to his presence and asked witness to take the prisoner away, whereupon he took him to the station. The prisoner said he did not know anything about it, beyond that he had had a couple of drinks.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to one day's imprisonment as a warning to him.
R. v. THOMAS SMITH.
  The prisoner in this case was taken to the Hongkew Police Station as drunk and incapable.
  Sikh Constable 102 saw him on Monday evening asleep in a jinricksha, and stopped him to find out who he was. As the prisoner could not give any account of himself, the witness took him to the station.
  In answer to his Worship, the prisoner said he had had "a little drop of drink," at The Travellers, and fell asleep in the jinricksha. Fined $1.
R. v. T. SMITH, C. BROWN, AND A. FORBES.
  The prisoners belong to the Strathavon, and were arrested on Monday night for disorderly conduct.
  Foreign Constable 31 stated that near midnight a lady and a gentleman told him that they had been stopped in Boone Road by three foreigners who had knocked their jinricksha coolie about. Witness went after the foreigners, and found them creating a disturbance and pulling some Chinese women about, and one of them had taken a stool from a house. With the aid of another constable he arrested the men and took them to the station. All were drunk, though they made no disturbance on the way to the station. The prisoners admitted being drunk, but did not remember that they had caused a disturbance.
  His Worship ordered them to be locked up for three days, but to be put on board their vessel if she sailed before the expiration of the sentence.
.  .  .
28th September.
R. v. ALEX. ANDERSON.
  The prisoner was charged with being drunk and sleeping in an alley-way off Broadway at 3 p.m. on Tuesday.
  Native Constable 56 deposed that he was informed that a foreigner was drunk in the alleyway. He went there and found the prisoner. Witness and a jinricksha coolie put him into a jinricksha and took him to the station.
  Prisoner, in answer to his Worship, said he did not remember getting drunk, all he remembered was getting to the station.
  His Worship said that the prisoner, who belonged to the Procyon, had been before him less than a week ago, so he would send him to prison for a week where he would be out of trouble. He was to be put on board, however, if the vessel left before the expiry of the sentence.
.  .  .  
29th September.
R. v. KILLINGBERG.
  The accused, the carpenter of the Procyon, was charged for the second time with refusal of duty. He admitted the offence, and declared he would not sail in the ship again.
  Captain Dundas, the master of the Procyon, in proving the case, said he wished to discharge the accused, as he had now engaged a Japanese house carpenter.
  His Worship sentenced the accused to a month's hard labour.
R. v. WATSON.
  John Watson, belonging to the Hilda, was charged with being drunk on Broadway on Wednesday night.
  His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $1.
R. v. MARSHALL.
  David Marshall, unemployed, was charged with being drunk in a 'ricksha at Garden Bridge on Wednesday night.
  Accused admitted the offence, and was fined $1.
R. v. KERR.
  Thomas Kerr, belonging to the Procyon, was charged with being drunk and sleeping on Broadway.
  His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $1.

 

North China Herald, 14 October, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 10th October.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice, sitting with Captain Roche, of the P. and O. S.S. Brindisi, as Nautical Assessor.
THE CHINA NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD. v. THE SHANGHAI TUG BOAT COMPANY, LTD.
[Not transcribed.]
.  .  .   The Assessor advises me that had the anchor dropped when the Captain of the Hoihow first ordered it, the collision could not possibly have occurred, that it did not drop was the result of the defective gear of the tumbler. The tug cannot be held to blame for this. And as we have come to the conclusion that the tug master did not act in an unusual or negligent manner before or after this, it follows that I must pronounce her free from blame, and dismiss the petition with costs.
.  

 

North China Herald, 14 October, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 10th October, 1892.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. W. BECKER AND OTHERS.
  Five men named W. Becker, F. Beckman, F. Bernin g, F. Silliotz and T. Carroll, seamen belonging to the Andelana, were arrested on warrants and charged with being absent without leave.
  One of them, the boatswain, said he would not go in the ship because the others were not sailors, some being firemen. In his watch he had ten men, only four of them being sailors.
  The other men said they would not go on board again.
  His Worship - Not now.
  The boatswain said it was not the captain's fault, the men were shipped on board at New York, and then the tug took the vessel to sea.
  The Captain wished to have the men put on board.
  The Usher stated that the Andelana had been over a month in port, and none of the men had been in trouble during that time.
  His Worship asked the men why they did not want to go back, but all they said was that the rest of the men were not sailors.
  Inspector Keeling stated that the five men had been living at Pootung on eggs, and Chinese chow-chow, and what they could get.
  His Worship sentenced them to 14 days' imprisonment, but to be put on board if the vessel left earlier.

 

North China Herald, 21 October, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 15th October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. CARROLL.
  Thomas Carroll, alias Patrick Sullivan, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway at half past three o'clock in the morning.
  The evidence was to the effect that on Friday the accused was put on board the Andelana to which he belonged, but he refused work and left the ship. The vessel left later in the day, and prisoner after loafing round was found drunk and asleep by a Chinese constable.
  His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment, and directed that he should then be brought up, so that if any charge of desertion had been preferred against him he might be dealt with.
.  .  .  
18th October.
R. v. HOUDEN.
  William Houden, who on several previous occasions had been before the Court, was charged with being drunk and incapable. A Chinese constable found the accused sleeping on Broadway. He was drunk.
  Inspector Reed informed the Court that the prisoner had only been released from gaol on Sunday morning.
  Accused said that he was given two glasses of grog by a sailor, belonging to an American vessel, and not having had any food since Sunday morning the liquid soon took effect upon him.
  Mr. Eveleigh informed his Worship that he guaranteed the accused and took him into the Sailors' Home. He, however, took drink into the Home, and besides getting drunk himself, made others so, and was so great a nuisance that witness turned him out. The rules provided that any man taking drink into the Home was liable to expulsion.
  His Worship - Has he the option of going to the Home now?
  Mr. Eveleigh - No, sir.
  His Worship - But is that so? If you guaranteed him, have you not to take him in?
  Mr. Eveleigh - If he misconducts himself I can turn him out. He is one of the very worst men I have had to do with - and that is saying a good deal. Continuing, witness said that the prisoner and some other men had obtained clothes from a mission, and sold them to get drink. He believed that all the clothes that had been given to the prisoner had been sold in that way.
  Mr. Eveleigh - I have found that if these men are turned out in the street, and made to hunger a bit, probably it does them good.
  His Worship sentenced the accused to 14 days' imprisonment, and to be put on bread and water every second day.
.  .  .  
19th October.
R. v. BECKER.
  William Becker, seaman, was charged with assaulting a Chinaman in the Whangpoo Road on the previous day.
  Complainant, a cook, said he was in the courtyard at the back of 25 Whanpoo Road when the accused struck him with a stick.
  Accused said he was with two other men, when the Chinaman insulted him, and witness struck him.
  His Worship sentenced him to 14 days' hard labour.
.  .  .  
Prisoner was then charged with deserting from the Andelana.
  William Brun, Consular constable, said that on Sunday, after the prisoner's release from gaol, he put him on board. The vessel left that day.
  Prisoner said he deserted because he was a fireman, and had been shipped at New York as a sailor.
  His Worship declined to accept this as an excuse, and sentenced accused to six weeks' imprisonment, to commence at the expiration of the other term.
.  .  .  
20th October.
R. v. JONES.
  William Jones, A.B., belonging to the Agamemnon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and carrying a sheath knife, contrary to the Municipal Regulations.
  Sikh Police Sergeant No, 69 deposed that shortly after six o'clock on Wednesday morning the accused was on the corner of Whangpoo Road, surrounded by a crowd of Chinese. He was pushing them about and running after them. Accused did not produce the knife, but it was found on him at the station.
  Accused said he did not think he was disorderly. He came ashore about half an hour before, without leave.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of $2, and ordered prisoner to be put on board, the captain being requested not to give him any leave.

 

North China Herald, 28 October, 17892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 26th October.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
DONALDSON v. ENGLAND.
This was a judgment summons, taken out by C. P.  M. Donaldson against C. R. England for the recovery of the sum of $20.50 and $5 costs, for which judgment was given for the plaintiff on 5th September.
  Defendant went into the box and said he had not paid the money because he had not got it.
Plaintiff said he did not wish to press the matter if the defendant had nothing, and he would let the matter drop. He thought the defendant was an auctioneer, and sent the goods to him for sale, but had not received any money.
  Defendant said he parted with most of the goods to a Chinaman to whom he owed money.  He had with him in Court a coolie who was his "cook, Shroff, and general factotum," and who could prove the state of his business. He had been ill, and had not done any business.
  His Worship eventually adjourned  the summons indefinitely, remarking that if the defendant became in a position to pay, the summons could be revived.

 

North China Herald, 28 October, 17892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUMMARY CIVIL COURT.
Shanghai, 24th October.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHI CHING YUNG v. CHINA NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.
  In this case the plaintiff claimed $60 as damages for injury done t0 his boat by the s.s. Soochow, owned by the defendants, on the 9th ultimo.
[Not transcribed.]
His Worship, in giving his decision, said he had come to the conclusion that the Soochow was not to blame, but that so far as she was concerned the accident was an inevitable one. If there was anybody to blame, it seemed to him that it must be the cargo-boat people, although even there they might have some answer, and them the loss must be where it fell.
  Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendants.

 

North China Herald, 28 October, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 21st October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. CARROLL.
  Thomas Carroll, who on the 15th inst., was sentenced to 7 days' hard labour for being drunk and incapable, was brought up in prison garb, and charged with deserting from the Andelana, which had now left port.
  Accused said that when he was put on board, at the expiration of a previous sentence, he refused to turn to, and the captain told him it was no use his staying there if he did not intend to work. He did not want to go in the vessel and accordingly left.
  His Worship said he had a letter from the captain to the effect that the accused and some others had deserted the ship. Accused had been before the Court before, and would go to prison for two months, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
22nd October.
R. v. CHRISTIAN.
  Anton Christian was charged with desertion from the Andelana, which had now left port.
  Mr. James Scott, Vice-Consul, prosecuted.
  Detective Horley said he arrested the accused on a warrant. The prisoner then said he had deserted because the Chief Officer struck him. Witness had had the warrant for some time but the prisoner had evaded him.
  His Worship said if the accused had a grievance he should have come to the Consulate, and it would have been enquired into.  The ship had now gone and the question could not be settled. The prisoner had deserted, and for that he would go to prison for a fortnight, which was letting him off lightly.
.  .  .
24th October
R. v. McBRIDE.
  Thomas McBride, unemployed, was charged with wilfully and maliciously setting fire to a bale of cotton in front of the General Hospital, and doing damage to the amount of $5.20 to the property of Ying See-sz.
  Accused said he was passing by when he saw the fire, and he tried to put it out by throwing the bale into the water.
  The prosecutrix stated that on Saturday morning about eleven o'clock she placed the bale of cotton on the wharf, and was waiting for her son to come and take it away, when she saw the accused strike a match, and purposely set fire to the cotton. It was worth about $5.20 and the bag in which it was contained about 60 cents.  She caught hold of the prisoner, and a man who was passing struck her.
  His Worship asked whether any other witnesses saw the occurrence.
  Inspector Reed said another woman stated she saw it, but she had not attended.
  Accused said he was walking with two other man, when they saw the cotton burning.  He tried to throw it over the side, when the prosecutrix caught hold of him. One of the men named George then came up and struck the woman.
  His Worship remanded the prisoner for enquiries to be made.
.  .  .  
25th October.
R. v. McBRIDE.
[As above.]
  Pue Ah-do, a woman belonging to a ferry-boat, said she saw the accused strike a match and set fire to the cotton. It was about eleven o'clock on Saturday morning. After the accused ignited the cotton, the prosecutrix, who was examined on the last occasion, caught hold of him, when he struck her in the mouth.
  Accused said he had lighted his pipe and threw the match down. It set the cotton on fire and he could not put it out.
  George Rowe said he was with the accused and another man, when the former struck a match and put it to the cotton.  Accused then tried to throw the bale over into the water to put the fire out, but it fell between the landing stage. Accused was not drunk, and he could not say what caused him to do such a thing.
  His Worship said it seemed a case of absolute mischief, and the prisoner would go to prison for a month with hard labour.
.  .  .  
26th October.
R. v. CARTER.
  James Carter, fireman, belonging to the Priam, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in Broadway on the previous day, and with doing damage to the property of the proprietor of a Chinese restaurant No. 375, Broadway, to the amount of 20 cents.
  Accused in reply to his Worship admitted being drunk, but had no recollection of anything else.
  Yue Ah-ching, the prosecutor, said the prisoner entered his shop and helped himself to all the eggs and fish on the counter. Witness remonstrated with him, whereupon the accused took up a large plate and attempted to throw it at witness's head. A Chinese constable was called, who attempted to arrest the prisoner. The latter then pushed against a large plate, and knocked down three basins, smashing them. They were worth 22 cents.
  His Worship ordered the accused to pay 20 cents for the damage; to pay a fine of $1, and to be put on board.

 

North China Herald, 4 November, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 1st November.
Before G. M. H. Playfair, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R.  v. HOWDEN.   [Houden]
  Willian Howden was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway on Monday afternoon. The evidence of a Chinese constable was to the effect that the accused was found lying at the corner of Minghong Road, helplessly drunk.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that the prisoner had only just been released from gaol, where he had undertone a term of 14 days' hard labour, with bread and water on alternate days.
  His Worship said the accused seemed to be a very great nuisance, and he would go to prison for a month, with hard labour, and bread and water every alternate day. If at the end of a fortnight a sailing vessel could be found to take the prisoner he could be put on board.
R. v. McCULLOCH.
  Patrick McCulloch was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway.
  Inspector Reed said the accused was a deserter from the Glenesk.
  Prisoner said he could get a place on a Russian steamer, which would take him to Yokohama in time to catch his vessel.
  His Worship ordered enquiries to be made. And if a ship could not be found for the accused, then he must go to prison for a week.
  

 

North China Herald, 4 November, 1892
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 28th October.
Before Consul M. von Loehr.
WOODS v. MULLER AND CO.
  This was a case in which G. A. Woods, sued Messrs. H. Muller and Co. for Tks. 43.44. for supplying three cast iron rings weighing together 724 lbs., at Tls. 0.06 per lb., and Tls. 26.55 for use of a small lathe and tools, and the supply of certain tools, etc.
  Mr. H. Browett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. A. Stewart represented the defendants.
  Mr. Stewart stated that the defendants secured the contract to supply a clock to be erected upon the Grand Strand at the Race Course. They wanted three iron rings, measuring 4ft. 6in. inside diameter, and asked the plaintiff to give an estimate for the work. Mr. Woods was shown a small pattern, and he said the cost for the iron would be Tls. 0.06 per lb., and that he thought the rings would weigh 76 lbs. each. When the rings were delivered they were found to weigh 240 lbs each and they were not hollowed-out like the pattern, but were solid. The defendants then refused to pay for the rings, although in the course of subsequent negotiations they offered Tls. 40 to settle the matter.
  Mr. Browett stated that the plaintiff made the rings as he did, because if they had been hollowed out they would have been unsuitable for the purpose for which they were intended, and when fixed up they would have broken either by expansion or contraction.
  Mr. Stewart asserted that the charge for the use of the lathe and tools was preposterous, as his assistant had used them but a little. The firm had given an estimate for the erection of the clock, and he did not see why they should suffer because the plaintiff had made a mistake in carrying out his order.  He doubted whether the tower which had been placed on the Grand Stand would be strong enough to bear the weight of such heavy rings.
  After a good deal of discussion between the parties,
  The Consul suggested that the matter was one for compromise. If the parties were willing to come to some arrangement he would not regard the case as having come into Court, but would act more as an arbitrator. No costs would then be incurred, but if they did not settle the dispute of course the case would go on, and then costs would have to be paid. He adjourned the matter for the parties to consult.
  In the afternoon, the defendants agreed to pay, and the plaintiff agreed to accept, Tls. 50, so the matter ended.

 

North China Herald, 11 November, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 4th November.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
IN RE THE WILL OF THE LATE EDWARD NEWMAN.
  This was an application by Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, on behalf of Annie Elizabeth Victoria Newman, and Edwin George William Sait, for the appointment of trustees of the estate of the late Edward Newman of Chefoo.
  It appeared that the testator died on the 13th of August 1883, leaving all his property to his wife Mary Ann, and at her death to be divided equally between Edwin Sait, child of her former marriage, and Annie Newman, Edward Francis Southern Newman, Ellen Eliza Maud Newman, and George James Thomas Newman, children of her marriage with the testator.
  On 21st August 1891 Mrs. Newman died, and their (sic) being no trustees, and the three last-named children being infants, the present application was for the appointment of Mr. John Pender Wake and Mr. Edward Finch Ottoway as trustees. The personal estate consisted principally of the Family Hotel at Chefoo, which it was desired to sell, but which could not be disposed of until the appointment of the trustees.
  Mr. H. R. Parkes appeared for the three infants and concurred in the application.
  Affidavits having been read, and Mr. E. J. Hogg having given formal evidence,
  His Lordship granted an order in the terms of the petition.

 

North China Herald, 11 November, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th November.
Before Jas. Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MARSHALL.
  The prisoner was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Monday night. He was ordered to be locked up for one week.
R. v. ROWE.
  The prisoner, an old offender, was again before the Court for being drunk and incapable.  It was decided to lock him up for ten days and then send him away from Shanghai if possible.
.  .  .
10th November.
R. v. BUTLER, KEOHANE AND FINNEY.
  Reuben Butler, Phiip Keohane, and William Finney were charged with being drunk, and creating a disturbance in the Criterion Hotel, and taking forcible possession of $2 worth of liquor, and refusing to pay for it.
  Inspector Ramsay informed his Worship that Butler was a cook's mate on board H.M.S. Severn, while the other two belonged to the Arizona.
  Mr. Tueffenborg, proprietor of the Criterion Hotel, the complainant, having given evidence, all the defendants admitted being drunk.
  His Worship ordered Butler to be put on board to be dealt with by the officers of his ship, Keohane to have 24 hours imprisonment, and to be put on board his ship; and Finney to be discharged.

 

North China Herald, 18 November, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 14th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WATT.
  James Watt was charged with drunkenness and with being in the unlawful possession of a suit of naval uniform belonging to the American Government, but as no one appeared to prosecute from the American Consulate the latter charge was withdrawn.  Evidence having been given as to the drunkenness,
  Accused said that on Friday an American sailor made him drunk and exchanged clothes with him. He did not know the man's name, but the cap was marked "Neill" on the inside.
  His Worship fined accused $1 and ordered him to give up the clothes and be put on board his vessel, the Arizona.

 

North China Herald, 25 November, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th November.
Before Jas. Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. BRISTON.
  Paul Briston, unemployed, a native of Mauritius, was charged with damaging a seat in the Public Garden to the value of Tls. 10.
  A native constable stated that at about half past one on the previous afternoon, he saw the accused turn over one of the long iron seats in the Public Garden, and hammer it with a large stone, breaking the frame in two places. Witness thought the prisoner was drunk.
  Mr. Bechkoff, Inspector of Works, said that to repair the damage would cost Tls. 10.
  Prisoner denied the offence.
  Inspector Ramsay informed the Court that he believed the prisoner's object was to get recognised at the British Consulate.
  It eventually appeared that the accused had some $90 belonging to him, and had recently come off a British ship.
  His Worship ordered him to pay for the damage being made good, and to go to prisoner for ten days.
.  .  .  
21st November.
R. v. STANLEY.
  Edward Stanley, belonging to the Centurion, was charged with being drunk in Boone Road on Sunday and carrying a sheath knife, contrary to the Land Regulations.
  A Chinese constable said that on Sunday night, at about half past nine, he found the accused drunk and lying in the road. On the way to the station, to which he was being taken in a 'ricksha, the prisoner became violent and attempted to get out. At the station a sheath knife was found on him.
  Accused admitted being drunk, but said he carried the knife in his belt as usual, and brought it ashore quite unintentionally. He daresay half the merchant seamen in Shanghai did the same.
  His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $2, and costs, and to be put on board.

 

North China Herald, 25 November, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 18th November.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
ADMISSION OF A SOLICITOR.
  Mr. John Currie Hannen was presented by Mr. C. Dowdall, who moved that he be admitted to practise as a solicitor in the Court.
  His Lordship made an order admitting Mr. Hannen, upon signing the Roll.

 

North China Herald, 2 December, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 29th November.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
IN RE THE WILL OF THE LATE EDWARD NEWMAN.
  This was an application that John Pender Wake and Edward Finch Ottoway, both of Chefoo, trustees of the will of Edward Newman, deceased, appointed by an order of the Court on 4th instant might be appointed trustees under the Settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1882, and that the powers conferred upon a tenant for life by sections 3 to 13, and sections 16 to 20 of the Act might be exercised by them on behalf of Edward Francis Southern Newman and Ellen Eliza Maud Newman, and George James Thomas Newman, during their minority.
  Mr. H. S. Parkes made the application on behalf of Percy Francis Lavers, the guardian ad litem of the infants.
  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for Annie Elizabeth Victoria Newman, and Edwin Gorge William Sait, the other beneficiaries under the Will, and Mr. Harold Browett for the trustees.
  All the parties concurring,
  His Lordship made an order in the terms prayed for, giving the trustees authority to sell the estate - consisting principally of the Family Hotel at Chefoo - out of Court.

 

North China Herald, 2 December, 1892
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 25th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. O'SHEA.
  The hearing of this case was resumed today.  Upon his Worship taking his seat,
[Evidence not transcribed.]
His Worship - His object to me is quite apparent, and I think a journalist in a place like Shanghai is quite within his rights in calling attention to anything which is a danger to the community. There are a number of young men, some of them more or less in positions of trust, and if he has information that such a house is kept open, and undue temptation is thrown in the way of young men to go there and lose money, and he knows what that leads to, then he would be right to say what he knows.
  Mr. Drummond - But he has no right to say anything more than any other member of the community.
  His Worship - That is so, and if he was actuated by any malicious motive, then I should be disposed to deal with the thing severely, but I do not think so. There is no evidence that he ever had any acquaintance with any of the members of the Club, or knew anything about it, and I am entitled to take it for granted that his object was a lawful one.  Therefore it comes to this, that he has said more than he is able to justify, and so I must find him technically guilty. But I do not propose to inflict a heavy fine - I will not make it absolutely nominal - but I will make it a fine of $10, and no costs.
.  .  .  
While the parties were gathering up their papers, and the Court was being cleared, Mr. Drummond addressing Mr. O'Shea said "Now you have the satisfaction of being convicted criminally."
   Mr. O'Shea (to his Worship) - I should like to know whether Mr. Drummond has the right to speak to me and say "Now you have the pleasure of being a convicted criminal." If Mr. Drummond used that expression outside I would reply to him very quickly.
  His Worship said he had not heard the remark, and the parties left the Court.

 

North China Herald, 16 December, 1892
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th December.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SINGH.
  Ayah Singh, a Sikh watchman employed by Messrs. Llewellyn and Co. Ltd., was charged with assaulting P.C. 89, Sunda Singh, when off duty, in Chekiang Road, at 10.45 p.m. on 8th inst., by striking him on the head with a walking stick.
  Inspector Howard watched the case for the Police.
  The prosecutor said he had just come out of a house in the Chekiang Road, when the prisoner came up and struck him with a walking stick. He could give no reason why the accused should strike him, as there was no enmity between them.
  A Chinese constable deposed to seeing the assault, upon which he interfered.
     Accused told a long story in which he alleged that the prosecutor had lent $20 to the Chinese constable and charged him $2 a month interest. On the night of the assault there was a marriage, and all the parties had been drinking. Accused went home to bed, and soon after the prosecutor and another man called. The two latter fell downstairs, and on witness going to see what was the matter, a general fight ensued.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to three weeks' hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 16 December, 1892
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 12th December
Before Consul-General von Haas, and Messrs. Bottu and J. Kremsir.
SHUN MAI-SUNG v. I. POLLAK.
  This was an action by Shun Mai-sung, formerly compradore to Mr. I. Pollak of Shanghai, against the latter for Tls. 823 odd, being money advanced and interest upon same.
[Not transcribed.]
See 30 December for judgment.

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