Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1893

North China Herald, 6 January, 1893
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 5th January, 1893
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Magistrate.
C. MANICUS v. A. W. BURKILL.
  This was a summons by C. Manicus claiming $99.99 as the value of a pony killed in an accident on the Bubbling Well Road.
  Mr. F. P. Catterall represented the defendant. The plaintiff did not appear, and after the Court had waited some time, Mr. Catterall applied to his Lordship to dismiss the case, with costs.
  His Lordship sad he would dismiss the case, without costs, but there would be liberty to the plaintiff to revive the case if he could show there had been a mistake.
SHING KEE v. W. PAPPS.
  This was a claim for $14 for repairs executed at Oliver's Bungalow.
  Defendant admitted the work had been done but said he was not the person to sue. The plaintiff some four months ago had agreed to accept $6 in settlement.
  Plaintiff's Shroff said the work was executed to defendant's orders, and he denied the acceptance of the offer of $6.
  His Lordship, after going through the various items gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 3 February, 1893
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 28th January.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
MORTON v. WHITNEY.
  This was an action by Captain W. W. Morton of the Leeyuen, against Mr. F. W. Whitney, veterinary surgeon, relating to the sale of a dog.
  Plaintiff, after being sworn, said that he purchased from the defendant a sporting dog for the sum of Tls. 20 on the understanding that if the dog did not suit he could return it. He did not want an untrained dog as he had no time to train one and in the presence of the Captain of the Palos and Pilot Roberts, the defendant undertook to refund the purchase money if the animal did not suit. Plaintiff took the dog up country, but was dissatisfied with it and on his return sent it back to the defendant, who sold it at auction for Tls. 2.50.  Plaintiff told the defendant that if an intending purchaser at auction knew as much about the dog as he (plaintiff) did he would not pay 10 cents for it.  Plaintiff therefore had neither got his money nor the dog.
  Defendant said he did not guarantee the dog. He told the plaintiff it was untried, but was not gun-shy, and would retrieve a stick from water.
  His Lordship - Why did you sell the dog?
  Defendant - To ensure it having a home, and being looked after. I offered to refund the money it realised at auction, but the defendant would not accept it.
  His Lordship - If you say it was sold originally, then you had no business to sell it again. By selling it you exercised the rights of ownership, and it seems to me you must refund the Tls. 20. I do not see any way out of it. Either the dog was sold or it was not. If it was sold it was not your property, and if it was not sold you seem to have taken it back and exercised the rights of ownership.
  Defendant - But I had no instructions from him not to sell it.
  His Lordship - No, you require very pointed instructions to be able to do so.
  Defendant - The present owner says it is a gun dog; it is away up country now.
  His Lordship - I am very glad to hear it.
  Defendant - In fact when it comes back I will return it.
  His Lordship - That will not do. You must pay the Tls. 20, and the costs of the case.

 

North China Herald, 3 February, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 30th January.
Before N. J. Hannen,. Esq., Chief Justice, and Messrs. A. G. Rowand, T. H. Bowern, A. R. Bowman, W. Dunn, and J. C. Bois, Jury.
  This was an action arising out of certain building operations in the Seward Road and Broadway, the plaintiff, a contractor, having erected houses in those thoroughfares for the defendant.
[Long address by Judge re missing or absent jurors.]
[Not transcribed.]
  The Jury, after deliberating in private for twenty minutes, returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff for Tls. 574.43.
  His Lordship accordingly gave judgment for that amount, with costs.  Addressing the Jury, he thanked them for the patient way in which they had heard the case, and thanked the counsel also for the way they had assisted the Court. He took the opportunity to compliment Mr. Hanson upon his conduct of the case, particularly as it was his first appearance in that Court.

 

North China Herald, 3 February, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 1st February.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. LINDSAY.
  W. J. Lindsay, a seaman, belonging to the s.s. Castleventry, was summoned for violently assaulting the master of that vessel, Captain E. White, on Sunday last.
  Accused said he was drunk and had no recollection of what happened, for which he was very sorry.
  Ernest Cole, second officer, said the accused struck the complainant several times. The accused was drunk.
  His Worship ordered the accused to be discharged his ship, and to undergo fourteen days' imprisonment, but in the event of employment offering in another vessel, he was to be shipped again.

 

North China Herald, 10 February, 1u93
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 8th February.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
THE JURY LIST.
  His Lordship, upon taking his seat, said - This is a special sitting for the hearing of any objections that persons may have to their names now being placed upon the List of Jurors for the ensuing year.
  Mr. H. R. Hearn - I have an objection; I plead exemption on the score of age. I am over 60, and I believe it is an accepted rule that that is an exemption.
  His Lordship - I must not only in this particular case, but in all such cases, have something more than a mere statement; I must ask you to be sworn, and to say that you are over 60.
  Mr. Hearn was then sworn and stated that he was over 60.
  His Lordship - It has been pointed out to me that, in 1883, an objection like this was raised, and in Sir Richard Rennie's hand-writing I find this against the name of Henry Evans, "Struck off on account of being over 60 years of age." I am therefore, I consider, bound to follow Sir Richard Rennie's holding, although I myself do not see the ground for it in the Order in Council, but, inasmuch as he was the Chief Justice, it is better that I should follow his ruling than make a ruling of my own; therefore your name will be struck out.
  There being no other objections the Court rose.

 

North China Herald, 10 February, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WATSON.
  A Japanese woman, described as Omiuie, otherwise Mrs. Watson, was charged with creating a disturbance in Broadway on Saturday night, and flourishing a loaded revolver to the danger of the public.
  Inspector Wilson produced papers showing that the accused was the wife of W. A. Watson, a British subject, at present said to be in Kobe.
  His Worship asked the accused why she did not live with her husband, and what she did for a living.
  She replied that her husband was in Kobe, and was out of work, adding, "Excuse me, Sir, I keep a ------- house, but it's only a small one."
     P.C. Craig said that his attention was called to the prisoner, who was holding a loaded revolver and threatening to shoot at a crowd of Chinamen surrounding her; she was very excited. He deprived her of the revolver and took her to the station.
  Inspector Wilson said that the rev0lver was found fully loaded, - in five chambers. One of the cartridges was dented, showing that an attempt had been made to fire it, but that it had missed fire.
  Accused said she was not exhibiting the weapon, and that when the constable came up she handed it to him.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $10, and ordered the revolver to be confiscated.  The money was paid.
.  .  .  
7th February.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MIGUEL AND ESPINOSA.
  Captain Barrier, of the barque Rewa, charged two Manilamen of these names with refusing duty this morning.
  Defendants admitted the charge, and said they refused to go to work because the Captain would not give them an advance of wages.
  His Worship looked at the Articles, and said that according to them they were signed on 6th January, and the defendants had already had an advance of $20.
  Defendants said that was correct, and added that they were part of a shipwrecked crew, and wanted to get some clothes.
  Captain Barrier said that all the crew refused to turn to that morning, demanding an advance of $15. He offered them $5, and eventually $10, but they refused.
  His Worship said that even that morning in the Shipping Office the crew had in a very impudent manner refused to work, and as the Captain had been put to much inconvenience they would go to prison for five days.

North China Herald, 16 February, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11 February.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WATERS.
  John Waters, a seaman, belonging to the Earnock,, was charged with cutting and wounding Arthur Damon, an unemployed seaman, in Broadway on Sunday night.
  Inspector Keeling appeared for the police, and informed the Court that Dr. Little had discharged the complainant from the hospital as out of danger.
  Arthur Damon, the complainant, formerly a quartermaster in the U.S. service said that he was unemployed at present, and had come from Nagasaki to look for work. On Sunday night he was in the Travellers drinking, and saw the prisoner creating a disturbance, but not with witness. Some time after, witness was crossing the Hiongkew Bridge when the accused and another man jostled up against him. Witness remonstrated, but went away. Subsequently witness encountered the accused again in Broadway, between the Travellers and the Sailors' Home, and was stepping off the pavement when prisoner came up and stabbed him in the left side. Witness tried to get hold of him, and in doing so struck him. Witness shewed where the wound was, and added it pained him occasionally and made him giddy. After being stabbed witness tried to find the accused, and met two gentlemen who induced him to go to the police station. Witness did not see that accused again that night.
  Accused said he was drinking in the Travellers, when there was some disturbance; a man struck him, and he (accused) ran out. Complainant followed him with his coat off, and he (Waters) cut complainant with his knife in self-defence.
  Detective Horley, informed his Worship that when he saw complainant after the occurrence the latter was dazed with drink, and could give very little information about the case.
  Inspector Keeling said he arrested the accused from a description given by the complainant. Accused said he stabbed the man in self-defence.
  His Worship said the man did not seem to be very seriously injured, and therefore he would treat the case as one of common assault. He sentenced the accused to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 24 February, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th February.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LIM HO-CHEON v. DODWELL, CARLILE & CO.
  This was a claim for $10.53 brought by Lim Ho-cheon, a storekeeper in the French Concession, against Messrs. Dodwell, Carlile & Co., as agents for the s.s. Teviot for short delivery of cargo by that steamer.
  Plaintiff stated that the Teviot arrived in Shanghai on 1th January, with 83 bags of mangrove bark for him from Penang.  Plaintiff applied at the Customs next day, and on 9th February, sent his man down to the wharf to take delivery of the bark.
  His Honour - Then you let a whole month elapse before applying for the goods?
  Plaintiff - Yes, I preferred to keep it in the godown and pay godown rent.
  His Honour - But did you take no steps to ascertain whether it had been landed or not until 9th February?
  Plaintiff - No. On that day I sent down to take delivery and my man found there were 11 bags short. I made out a bill for the missing bags and presented it to Messrs. Dodwell, Carlile & Co., but they refused to pay it. They said the captain of the steamer had told them not to pay me.
  Mr. Tulloch, who appeared for the defendants, sad they never notified consignees of any shortage. That was consignee's lookout.  They advertised that all Claims against the Teviot should be sent in before 25th January, or they would not be recognised. But the first intimation they got that plaintiff had any claim against them was on the 14th of this month, and the Teviot had left Shanghai. Defendants did decline to pay because the amount was trifling; if they allowed plaintiff's claim they would have endless trouble. Besides they were not really responsible, having acted simply as agents for the steamer.
  His Honour said he quite agreed with Mr. Tulloch's last contention and added that plaintiff should not have allowed a month to pass without seeing that the cargo was all right.
  The summons was dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 24 February, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd February.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. HUDSON.
  C. Hudson, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Wednesday.  Accused having admitted the charge,
  Mr. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, informed his Worship that the prisoner was discharged about two months ago from an American vessel the Estrella. Since then he had been in the Sailors' Home, where he had been a very great nuisance. He was turned pout the other day.
  In reply to his Worship, accused said he was a British subject.
  His Worship sentenced him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, but if a vessel could be found for him in the meantime then he would be discharged.

 

North China Herald, 10 March, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 8th March.
Before Consul-General von Haas.
Mr. G. Euter was summoned by a Chinaman named Chong Shou-chi, formerly a Customs Shroff, and now a rent collector, for assault.
  Complainant, whose head was bandaged, stated that between two and three o'clock on Monday afternoon he was walking down North Shanse Road when he met defendant, who without any provocation spat in his face. Complainant remonstrated, whereupon defendant struck him on the head and arm with a stick, cutting him pretty severely. Two policemen then came up, with whom complainant went to Hongkew Police Station, where he was advised to go to a doctor in order to have his wounds dressed, which he did, the doctor telling him he would not be well for ten days.
  Defendant's statement was to the effect that when he met the complainant the latter spat on the ground before him and then defendant spat too, but not in complainant's face as alleged. Defendant was passing on when complainant said: "God d--- you." Defendant then stopped and asked complainant what he meant, when complainant raised his hands in a threatening manner. Seeing this, defendant raised his stick and stepped back, whereupon compliant stooped, picked up a large stone and threw it at defendant, who stooped just in time to avoid a blow, the stone passing over his head. Defendant then struck complainant with his stick, and two policemen coming up were just in time to prevent complainant throwing another stone. Defendant gave his name and address to the policemen and then went away. The locality is a notoriously rowdy one and defendant acted throughout in self-defence.
  The evidence of a shop keeper, who saw the occurrence, was taken, and also that of the two police constables.
  Judgment was reserved.

 

North China Herald, 24 March, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th March.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WESTERLAND.
  C. A, Westerland second officer of the British barque Lucia, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Sunday night in Broadway.
  Accused, in reply to his Worship, admitted the offence, but said he had been with some friends.
  His Worship remarked that the accused could not blame his friends; it was his own fault. It was a matter of regret to see a second officer in such a position.
  Police-constable Young said he saw the accused get out of a 'ricksha and offer his watch to the coolie. He then began to use bad language, but on witness approaching he went quietly to the station.
  His Worship said he should give the accused the option of a fine, and accordingly ordered him to pay $5, and costs.

 

North China Herald, 30 March, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 28th March.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. MALBROOK FRASER.
  Malbrook Fraser, unemployed, was charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. This is the second time that the prisoner has appeared in Court on such a charge, he having been committed for trial and sentenced to four months' imprisonment in June last for offences of exactly the same nature.
  Detective Inspector Keeling, who conducted the case for the Police, stated that he only wished to offer today sufficient evidence to ask for a remand for a week.
  Wong Tse-yung, shopman, employed by Messrs. Yuet Sung & Co., shopkeepers, Honan Road, stated: On Saturday evening, 11th March, prisoner came into our store about 8.45, and ordered the goods mentioned in the bill produced. The articles were: One dinner set of six pieces, one table clock, one hanging lamp, one pair of decanters, six bottles of whisky, one bottle of bitters, one bottle of ink, two dozen Pear's soap, one pot of toothpaste, one measuring tape, one box of cigars, one inkstand, one umbrella, one box of cigarettes, two silver napkin rings, one lighting machine, one silver watch, one bottle of scent, one cigar case. $1 in cash, and 10 silk handkerchiefs. The value of these goods was $96.75, the table clock was worth $6.50 and the lamp $6. Prisoner took away goods worth $16.10 and ordered the balance to be sent to him next morning at No. 28 Hongkong Road, giving his name as James Morton. Among the things he took with him were the silver watch and $1 in cash. I allowed him to take them away because I thought he was telling the truth.  He told me that he had come from Hongkong to establish a business here.
  Next morning I sent the other things to No. 28 Hongkong Road, but not being able to find the house, I reported the case to the Police. There is no such house as No. 28 Hongkong Road. I recognise the cigar case produced as the one I sold accused.
  His Worship - Have you any questions to ask the witness?
  Prisoner - No, sir.
  Inspector Keeling - The only other evidence I have at present is to identity.
  His Worship - Who arrested him?
  Inspector Keeling - I did.
  Inspector Keeling was then sworn and stated - Information of this case was given to me on the 12th inst., the day after the goods were obtained. I thought I recognised the handwriting on the envelope as that of Fraser. I applied for a warrant on the 17th, and arrested the prisoner last night at 9.45 in a teashop in Wuhu Road.  I searched him and found the cigar case produced. The accused has been living in the country, at Woosung, at Siccawei, the Arsenal, and at Loongwha. I know the prisoner. He was sentenced to four month's imprisonment last June for a similar offence.
  His Worship - You ask for a remand then?
  Inspector Keeling - Yes, I ask for a remand for a week.
  His Worship - Very well, I will remand the case until tomorrow week.
  Prisoner was then removed. The articles found on the prisoner at the time of arrest were a couple of books, one of them in Chinese, and the other a handsome little copy of the Bible presented to prisoner by Captain Henry Newcomb of the Mission to Seamen. On the flyleaf is inscribed, "To Mr. Fraser Farquharson from his friend H.N.," and a reference to a verse in the Psalms.

 

North China Herald, 7 April, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 5th April.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. FRASER.
  Malbrook Fraser was brought up on remand charged with obtaining a quantity of goods from various stores on false pretences.
  Yang Yuen Ching, the lessee of the Point Hotel, said that on 4th ult., at about 8 o'clock in the morning the accused came to the Hotel and said he was living at the Central Hotel, Room No. 16. He said the proprietor of the Central Hotel told him to go to the Point Hotel where witness would serve him with anything he wanted. Accused produced a chit which he said Mr. Riley had given him, and witness accordingly supplied him, with refreshments to the amount of $1.75. Accused presented a card on which was engraved Bernard Zorbonsen, 1, officer des Nordd-Lloyd, Lieutenant zu See d.R. He said that was his name and signed four chits accordingly.
  Mr. Riley, Manager of the Central Hotel, said that the chit produced signed "J. F. Riley," had not been written by him. The accused was quite a stranger to witness.
  Tuing Chi-fu, employed at Messrs. Castilhio & Co., Seward Road, said the prisoner drove up to the store in a trap on the evening of 6th January.  He told witness he was the captain of a sailing vessel lying at Woosung, and took some cigars, champagne, and other liquors and $1 cash., the total value being $7.95. Accused signed the chit produced with the name of "Captain Hawes." Prisoner promised to return the next day and purchase a large quantity of stores. He did not come back.
  This concluded the evidence, and the depositions of the witnesses having been read over to him,
  His Worship formally cautioned the accused, who had nothing to say, and then committed him for trial.

 

North China Herald, 5 May, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
U.S. CONSULATE-GENERAL.
Shanghai, 28th April.
Before J. A. Leonard, Esq., Consul-General, and Messrs. A. W. Danforth and H. Sylva, Assessors.
S. C. FARNHAM & COMPANY, LIMITED v. THE "ESTRELLA."
  This was a case in which Messrs. S. C. Farnham & Co. Ltd., as libellants, sought to attach the barque Estrella on account of repairs. There were also other claims, the particulars being Messrs. S. C. Farnham & Co. Ltd. Tls. 1,520, Messrs. Dodwell, Carlill & Co. Tls. 830.61, Shanghai Tug Boat Association. Tls. 125; Captain J. P. Roberts, Tls. 80; Mr. H. [Sonne], Tls. 16; and Messrs. Cheap Jack & Co. $1,028.29.
[Not transcribed.]
  In delivering judgment his Honour found as a matter of fact that the repairs made to the Estrella and the stores supplied were necessary; and as a matter of fact that the vessel was herself liable for these necessaries. The Order of the Court would be that the vessel be disposed of by means of inviting tenders, by the Marshal of the Court, under the supervision of the Court to satisfy the claims. Interest on the sums claimed and costs were given and would be added to the several claims.
  His Honour said that the wages of the crew, which of course included the Master, would have priority and would be paid in full, after which the other claims would be satisfied pro rata.
  Tenders would be invited up to the 13th inst., and the vessel would be disposed of not later than the 16th. The order of the Court would be duly reduced to writing.

 

North China Herald, 12 May, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th May.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MOORE.
  James Moore, unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday morning in the Sailors' Home.
  Mr. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the House, stated that the accused was a general nuisance. On Saturday morning he endeavoured to assault the boy.
  Accused admitted the offence, and
  His Worship ordered him to be imprisoned for one month, with hard labour, at his own expense, but to be released if an opportunity offered to ship him.

 

North China Herald, 12 May, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
(In Bankruptcy)
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
Shanghai, 6th May.
IN RE DRYSDALE, RINGER & Co.
  This was a meeting for the public examination of the debtors, Mr. J. M. Ringer and Mr. T. Wood.
  Mr. Frank Ellis appeared for the debtors. Mr. W. A. C. Platt for the Deutsche Asiatische Bank, Mr. H. S. Wilkinson for Messrs. W. J. and J. Thompson, and Mr. E. Bois for Messrs. Cole Sons & Co., creditors.
  Proofs having been filed, the debtors went into the witness box, and his Lordship asked if there were any questions. There being no questions, the public examination was adjourned to 3rd June next.

 

North China Herald, 12 & 19 May, 1893
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 13th May.
Before J. A. Leonard, Esq., Consul-General, and Messrs. G. H. Wheeler and R. W. Mustard, Assessors.
ROBERTS v. VINCENT.
  This case, which had reference to the operations connected with the blowing up of the wreck of the Peking in the [Bouhant] Pass, was resumed today.
[Not transcribed.]
His Honour, upon taking his seat, read the following judgment: John Roberts, plaintiff, against Charles N. Vincent. Having heard and tried the foregoing action, I find that there is no cause of action, and adjudge that the plaintiff, John Roberts, pay the costs of this action, amounting to one hundred and forty-seven dollars and ten cents. ($147.10.)
Signed.
Mr. Wilkinson said that on behalf of himself and the other members of the Bar, he wished, in view of the impending departure of His Honour, to acknowledge the courtesy and patient hearing which had always been extended to them in that Court.
  Mr. Browett said he heartily concurred in Mr. Wilkinson's statement.
  Mr. Leonard said - Gentlemen, I thank you for your expressions of good will, and I can assure you that nothing could be more gratifying than to feel that while trying to do my duty, my relations have always been satisfactory with those with whom I have come into contact.

 

North China Herald, 19 May, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 15th May.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. NUND SINGH.
  This was a case of assault against a Sikh Constable, No. 65, brought by a Chinese milkman, but as the complainant did not appear the case was dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 19 May, 1893
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th May.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
WALLER v. JARDINE, MATHESON & CO.
  This was a case in which Mrs. Waller sued Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., Agents for the C.P.R. line of steamers, for $21.30, the cost of legal advice and telegram to Kobe relative to the recovery of some baggage belonging to her, which was over-carried by the Empress of China.
  The plaintiff conducted her case in person, and Mr. A. K. Craddock represented Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co.
  Mrs. Waller, having been sworn, stated that on the 12th April, she booked a through passage from Hongkong to San Francisco, by the Empress of Chinas. Her luggage consisted of three boxes fully marked. "Mrs. Waller, Shanghai." One box was placed in her stateroom, and the others were placed in the baggage room. When she recovered the trunk, the subject of the present action, the screws had been removed from the lock, and she had lost some handkerchiefs.  She had had many indignities heaped on her by the company.
  His Lordship - Never mind the indignities; you are not claiming for indignities.
  Plaintiff, continuing, said she arrived in Shanghai on 15th April. She made arrangements with the Agents to stop. She left the steamer at about 10.30 a.m. at Woosung and came up in the launch. When she enquired about her two boxes in the baggage room she was told they had been sent on to Shanghai the night before. When she sent for her luggage to Messrs. Jardine's hong on Saturday (15th) it was closed. On the following Monday she sent a chit claiming her trunks, but Mr. Craddock sent it back. She sent again and went herself. She saw Mr. Craddick, who refused to speak to her. After that she went and saw a lawyer, and telegraphed to some friends at Kobe. It was through her telegram that she recovered the trunk, one only having been sent to Shanghai, the other being carried on to Kobe. She was not the first person who had lost baggage on the Empress of China; it was getting to be a very common occurrence.
  His Lordship - Did you ask Messrs. Jardine to telegraph to Kobe?
  Plaintiff - I asked Mr. Craddock to take some means to recover my luggage.
  His Lordship - Did the trunk come back?
  Plaintiff - It came back on the French mail.
  His Lordship - Was your name painted on it?
  Plaintiff - I followed the custom of the United States, where luggage is never lost, and it is carried sometimes a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 miles.  I tied a label on it, but it was evidently cut off. I paid Mr. Drummond Tls. 10 for legal advice, and I paid for a telegram to Kobe.
  Mr. Craddock, having been sworn, said that Mrs. Waller's statement was in the main correct, except that the office was open on the Saturday afternoon. He was in the office and sent off telegrams between half past one and a quarter to three and nobody came. On the Monday a Chinaman came along and asked for two boxes. There was only one in the office and that was without any name or distinguishing mark. Witness accordingly refused to deliver it. Another chit came later, and Mrs. Waller called soon after. She said the trunk belonged to her. She was very excited, and insisted upon the delivery of two trunks. She then went to see Mr. Drummond to get his opinion.  Mr. Brutton came round to see witness and got a description of the missing package. Thereupon Messrs. Jardine telegraphed to Kobe. Witness produced a copy of this telegram, as well as the reply of the representative In Kone stating that the trunk was coming back in the Natal.
  His Lordship (to the Plaintiff) - It appears to ne, on your own showing, you are to blame for the whole thing, by reason of the boxes having  been imperfectly addressed. If you had only taken a little trouble ---
  Plaintiff - He (Mr. Craddock) could not look me in the face and tell me he had telegraphed. I was obliged to go to Mr. Drummond, and it was Mr. Drummond's letter that caused Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, to telegraph. Mr. Craddock told me it was my lookout and that he knew nothing about the matter.
  That was why I, a woman standing alone, was compelled to go and take proceedings. (To Mr. Craddock) - You ought to be ashamed to stand in the witness -box, and take an oath and tell a deliberate lie against a woman. I am a woman of truth.
  His Lordship then left the bench, and the case ended.

 

North China Herald, 26 May, 1893
THE GREENLAW CASE.
26th May.
WE refrained from saying anything more about the Greenlaw matter yesterday, as we had some reason to believe that the police had it in hand to telegraph to Hongkong to arrest Devere alias Greenlaw and Alexander there, but it is reported that the British and German Consulates and the police are taking no steps at all. It has been stated that no charge has been brought against Greenlaw in the British Court, but this is explained by the fact that when M. Gaillard went there on Monday he found that being Whitmonday it was a holiday at the Court, but he distinctly stated that the Consul, Mr. G. Jamieson, and the Captain-Superintendent of Police, Capt. McEuen, promised him that the two men should not be allowed to get away; and they got away the same night. It is difficult to reprobate sufficiently such laxity as this, which practically amounts to a denial of justice.
  Our readers will no doubt be interested in seeing a copy of the contract that was made between M. Gaillard and Mr. De Vere and his friends for the hire of the former's boat. Mr. De Vere endorses the contract for himself and friends under yet another alias, that of "J. Valentine and Co."
  "Articles of agreement entered into this 16th day of May, 1893: Between Gaillard Jeune of the first part and Harry de Vere, Captain Howard, J. Chandler of the second part:
   Whereas the party of the first part supplied one house boat with all necessary gear, eating utensils, stove, sails, anchor and chain and one Chinamen (sic) who shall be responsible in every respect for damage or breakages. And the party of the first part agrees to rent the said boat for a term not less than two months; and not to exceed four months; at the rate of eighty dollars fifty cents per month; Money payable in Mexican dollars the 26th day of each month.
  And that the parties of the second part have all rights and powers to sail said boat over any river or stream within 150 miles of Shanghai, or where they may see fit. And we promise to abide by the advice of the Chinaman in charge in relative to the weather and sea, and shall in no wise endanger the boat by so doing, if we do, we are responsible for all damage."
   It will be seen that no authority was given to take the boat to sea, and that the Chinese Laodah was to be consulted as to where the boat could safely go, while one of the first acts of Greenlaw or De Vere was to put all the Chinamen ashore.
  We may mention that in a letter written by Greelaw to M. Gaillard after the former's return to Shanghai he mentions that no cartridges had been used, whereas a number of cartridges were missing, and both barrels of the gun had been discharged. How in the face of this, of the condition of the boat when it was brought back, and of the known character of Greenlaw, the German Consul-General could express himself satisfied with Greenlaw's account of the disappearance of the German sailor whom he took on the boat, we cannot understand.

 

North China Herald, 2 June, 1893
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th May.
Before James Scott. Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MEAH SINGH.
  Meah Singh, a Sikh watchman, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a Chinaman, Sing Wei-chi, by striking him with an umbrella, on Thursday afternoon, at the corner of Shansi Road.  The umbrella was produced in the Court in fragments.
  Complainant said he was walking along the Nanking Road at four o'clock on Thursday afternoon, when he saw the defendant very drunk, striking passers-by with an umbrella. Complainant was struck on the head without any provocation whatever.
  Accused admitted being drunk, but said he was holding his umbrella up during the rain, when a Chinaman came along and made some insulting remarks. He objected, a crowed quickly assembled, and he was struck on the foot with a stone. He then laid about him with the umbrella in self-defence.
  A Chinese constable having been examined, and a previous conviction against the accused having been proved, he was ordered to pay a fine of $5.

North China Herald, 16 June, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13th June.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LEWIS.
  William Lewis, living at No. 65, Chapoo Road, mercantile clerk, was charged at the instance of V. T. Mace with being on enclosed premises at 5 Tiendong Road, with intent to commit a felony, at 1 a.m. on Tuesday. He was further charged with stealing a canoe value $20 from the same address, the property of the complainant, at the same time. The canoe, the subject of the charge, was brought to the Consulate in a wheelbarrow, and stood outside the Court-room during the proceedings.
  Vincent T. Mace, the prosecutor, having been sworn, said - I live at 5 Tiendong Road.  At about one o'clock this morning my wife and myself were in bed, my stepson sleeping in the next room. I heard what I thought was the wind blowing the blinds about on the verandah. I took no notice for some time, knowing that the downstairs door was locked before I went to bed. Later I heard more noise, which woke me again. I looked towards the window and saw a man looking through. The windows in to the verandah were open. I then woke my wife and said "There is a man in the house." I did not recognise him at the time. I got out of the mosquito-net as quickly as I could and made a rush for the verandah, but he had got over the verandah. I made one strike at the blind, thinking he was behind it, but he was not. He was slipping down the water-pipe when I got on to the verandah. He exclaimed, "Ah, you are not clever enough this time." It was either "You are not clever enough", or "You are not smart enough." I then recognised the voice. I just caught his fingers as I was leaning over the verandah.
  His Worship - Do you know the prisoner?
  Complainant - Yes. I knew him intimately but I have no notion of him since last December. I have not seen him for several months. In fact, we are not friends. When he got over the verandah I was very angry, and I took up a cuspidor and threw it at him, but it did not hit him. I then ran downstairs, but before I could get out he had gone. My stepson followed him down. I then dressed, and my wife wished me not to go after him as she said he might be drunk. In going out of the gate I missed my canoer, which I had used the previous evening. The canoe was kept in the garden. There is a garden of about 40 or 50 ft. in length. The canoe used to be left on the side-walk inside the front gate.
  His Worship - What did you do after that?
  Complainant - I did not think at the time that he had stolen it. I thought perhaps the Chinese had taken it, but Mr. Lewis having been in the house I thought I might go to his house to see if he had taken it. My stepson and myself then went, with a native constable, to his house. My stepson went to the house and Mr. Lewis was standing there dressed. My canoe was in his front sitting room.
  His Worship - Did he open the door?
  Complainant - He opened the door to my stepson. I stayed outside, but I saw my property inside his front room.
  His Worship - What time in the night was this?
  Complainant - This must have been about two o'clock. The light was burning in the room. He then told my stepson that the canoe did not belong to me, but that he had purchased it from Mr. Skinner.
  His Worship - When had you last seen the canoe?
  Complainant - When I retired to rest at about nine o 'clock the same night. I took the paddle inside and left the canoe in the garden. I purchased the canoe in Hankow. I have had it about two months. Whilst I was waiting for a European constable he wanted to push the canoe into the garden, but I would not allow him to do it as I wanted the European constable to see it there.   The constable saw it there. Mr. Lewis had then gone to his bed. He was insulting me all the time I was there until a constable arrived.
  His Worship - Who was the constable who came?
  Complainant - His name is Nicholson.
  His Worship - You are sure it is your canoe?
  Complainant - Positive. I have seen the canoe at the police station since, and it is now outside the Court.
  His Worship (to the accused) - Have you any questions to ask?
  Accused - No, Sir.
  Allan Williams, a son of Mrs. Mace, sworn, deposed - I live with Mr. Mace. At about nine o'clock I heard Mr. Mace say "There is a man in the house." Mr. Mace went outside, and I followed him. I was not fully dressed and returned. I then went into the garden and found that the canoe was missing.
  His Worship - Had you seen the canoe the evening before?
  Witness - Yes, I saw it there about half past nine when I went out. I said I would go and see where the canoe had got to. Mr. Mace said "I will follow him."  I went to Mr. Lewis's house and knocked at the door. There was a Chinese constable with me. I knocked at the door and Mr. Lewis said "Come in." I then walked into the room and saw the canoe lying in his dining-room downstairs. I asked him what it was doing there. He said, "That's all right, it's mine. I bought it." He said he had purchased it from Mr. Skinner. Afterwards he said, "If it is your canoe you can take it, but if it is Mr. Mace's you will not take it. I will do that to spite him."  At the same time we had a few words, and he asked me to sit down and I refused. I walked out and he followed. Mr. Mace told the Chinese constable to get a European constable, but the Chinese policeman returned to say he could not find one. I then went myself to the station and reported the matter. A European sergeant came down with me and I left him at the house. I was standing just outside the Customs Club when the sergeant returned and said it was all right, and then I returned home.
  Accused said he had no questions to ask.
  Chinese constable No. 406, stated that at a quarter past nine that morning he met the prisoner in a 'ricksha carrying a canoe, and without a lamp.  He stopped the rickshaw and pointed out that the canoe should have a lamp, but the prisoner said it was his ricksha, and went on. That happened in Chapoo Road. Witness proceeded on his beat, and an hour later met the prisoner carrying a bamboo ladder, coming out of the Tiendong Road, and going into the Chapoo Road. A few minutes later the last witness came up and enquired if he had seen anything. He replied that he had seen a foreigner taking a canoe the first time, and a ladder the second time. He did not know where he had taken them to. Mr. Mace came out and requested witness to follow him. When they reached Chapoo Road he saw the canoe outside the house.
  Accused had no questions to ask.
  Mr. Mace's evidence was then read over to him and signed. He added - I asked him what motive he had for getting into my house, and he said he had a revolver to shoot me. Whether he had or not I do not know.  He said that in the presence of my stepson. My wife came up in a ricksha and he said he would have given my stepson a good thrashing if his mother had not been present.
  His Worship (to the accused) - Do you want to ask any questions upon that?
  Accused - No, Sir.
  His Worship remanded the case until Thursday morning.
.  .  .  
R. v. BOGHWAN SINGH AND MAHAN SINGH.
  In this case two Sikh constables were charged with stealing two pierces of silk, valued at $8, from No. 1104 Broadway, the property of Zee Kwang-loh.
  The complainant, having been cautioned, said he kept the Yuanta Store in Broadway. On the previous evening at about half-past nine o'clock the two policemen came into his shop. They sat down for some time and then left. The two pieces of silk produced were his property. He did not see the accused take the silk. Complainant sold provisions at his store, and the silk was not for sale. He had bought the silk for his own use.
  Accused said there were fifteen or sixteen men in the shop, and if they were seen to take the silk why were they not caught then?
  Zie Leh-sung, Shroff, in the employ of the complainant, said he and another man were checking accounts when the accused came into the ship and partook of some lemonade.  The silk was lying on the top of s [to-poy]. Witness saw Boghwan Singh walk out of the store with it under his arm. The men were in the store about half an hour. Witness, when he saw Boghwan Singh take the silk followed him, and the accused ran away towards the Boone Road. Witness missed him and then went as far as the police station, but did not go in.  Witness was returning, when he met the other accused carrying the silk under his arm. Recognising the witness he ran through an alleyway to the Hongkew Creek. He was quite close to the accused and plainly saw him throw the silk. Witness picked up one piece of silk and the other was picked up by a sampan man. After throwing away the silk Mahan Singh ran away, and witness subsequently reported the matter at the police station.
  By Inspector Reed - After Mahan Singh threw the silk away, witness met the other accused going to the store.
  Upon the evidence being interpreted to the accused, Boghwan Singh said it was whisky not lemonade which he had. He asked the witness why he did not stop him when he saw him take the silk. Witness replied it was because the prisoner ran away. Boghwan Singh added that he returned to the shop and did not see the silk.
  Liu Li-tseung, assistant in the complainant's store, said he was told that the two policemen had taken the pieces of silk, and he went out with the intention of reporting the matter at the police station. On his way he met Boghwan Singh who asked him where he was going. Witness told him, and the accused asked what was the value of the silk. Witness said it was worth $10, and the accused said, "I will give you the $10." Witness had known Boghwan Singh for some time as a customer at the store.  Witness saw the accused come into the store, but at the time they were alleged to have taken the silk witness was in the next store. When Boghwan Singh promised witness $10, he said he would give him the money in the morning, but in the meantime he could take his watch as security. Witness would not accept the watch, and catching hold of the accused went with him to the police station.
  Inspector Reed said he charged the prisoners that morning with having stolen the silk.  Boghwan Singh said, "I never steal silk. I went to the store to buy a bottle of whisky." The he said, "What for he never take my watch? I told him I would pay for the silk.  Why did the Chinaman not take it?" The other accused said, "I never steal silk. I was in Yangtsepoo station at half past nine o'clock last night."
  His Worship - Was that so?
  Inspector Reed - I am told that he was there at half pat ten o'clock.
  Mahan Singh said he left the police station at 9.30 and returned an hour later.
 At this stage the accused were remanded until Thursday.
.  .  .  
15th June.
Inspector Reed watched the case on behalf of the police, and Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton appeared for the defence. The Court was crowded and great interest was shown in the proceedings.
  Upon the case being resumed,
  Mr. Brutton informed his Worship that he appeared for Mr. Lewis.
  Henry Horley, detective constable, was then called. He said - I am a detective stationed at Hongkew. On Thursday morning at about u7.30 in consequence of a complaint made by Mr. Mace, I was sent by Inspector Reed to 65, Chapoo Road. I found the accused lying on the bed. I told him Mr. Mace accused him of going to No. 5 Tiendong Road, and that I wanted him to go to Hongkew Station. He said, "Mr. Mace is going to lock me up then, is he? I know what it is about. I shan't say anything. I will go with you to Hongkew station." He made no further remark.
  His Worship - Did you tell him what the charge was?
  Witness - I told him, that he was wanted for going into No. 5 Tiendong Road. He accompanied me to the police station. After Inspector Reed told him the charge, I went back to Chapoo Road and found a canoe there.
     His Worship - What was the charge told to him at the station?
  Witness - He was charged with stealing a canoe, the property of Mr. Mace. I went back to Chapoo Road and brought the canoe back to the station.
  His Worship - Did Mr. Mace see the canoe?
  Witness - Yes.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Brutton - When did Mr. Mace first tell you anything about the charge he was going to bring against Mr. Lewis? - On the way to 65, Chapoo Road.
  During Monday evening or Tuesday morning did he send to the station? - He was at the station when I went in there.
  But this is supposed to have happened between 1 and 2 a.m. - did he send to the station then? - I could not say.
  You do not know whether he sent up for a European police constable or not? - I heard that he had.
  Then you were not present during the night at the police station? - No.
  Police constable Nicholson was then called and examined by his Worship.
  You are a police constable? - Yes, your Worship.
  Do you remember anything on Monday night? - At about 3.15 on Tuesday morning I was in the station. Mr. Mace's stepson came into the office. He complained about the accused stealing a canoe. The sergeant in the office told me to go and see what it was. The sergeant is Sergeant Culshaw.
  Did you go? - I went to 65, Chapoo Road with Willians (Mr. Mace's stepson).  I there saw Mr. and Mrs. Mace and they said the accused had stolen this boat. Mr. Mace said the Chinese constable had seen the accused taking the boat through the Tiendong Road. I saw the boat in No. 65.
 Did Mr. Mace point it out? - Yes. I asked Mr. Mace where Mr. Lewis was. He said he was sleeping in the house. I then told Mace to come at six o'clock to see Inspector Reed and get the Chinese constable's number.  I did not see the Chinese constable.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Brutton -
  That evening did you see the accused? - No, I did not see him.
  So that it was at 3.15 a.m. that you first heard anything about this? - Yes.
  Were you at the police station all the evening? - No, I was out on patrol duty.
  What time did you return? - I returned at about 3.15 a.m.
  On what beat were you? - I am on patrol; I took the Hongkew Settlement.
  Did you pass Tiendong Road any time during that evening? - No.  I passed it in the morning afterwards.
  What time did you pass it? - I should think about four o'clock.
  And what time did you go on patrol duty? - Twelve at night.
  And yet your beat was all down Hongkew and you did not pass down Tiendong Road? - Not that particular spot.
  What do you know of Mr. Mace? - I know nothing of him.
  Don't you know he is in quarantine? - No.
  Never heard of it? - No.
  Are you likely to hear of it? -  No.
  Inspector Reed (to his Worship) - I do not think I can carry it any further. Detective Horley gave the reply that Lewis gave to me, I told him the charge. He said, "Oh. That's all right. I have the canoe in the house rented by Mr. Mace.
  His Worship - I think, Mr. Brutton, I have heard quite enough to warrant me in committing the accused for trial, and I shall do so unless I am satisfied that there is a complete answer.
  Mr. Brutton - I think when you have heard my defence you will be satisfied there is a defence, and a very good defence, and the reasons I shall  bring forward will, I hope, show that there is no evidence of any felony or larceny in this case.
  His Worship - I leave it in your hands, if you wish to go on. Only I may tell you in general terms, unless it is quite clearly made out I shall probably feel bound to commit the prisoner. I do not feel disposed to put myself in the way of a jury and to weigh evidence, and if I think there are grounds for committing, I shall commit. It is for you to say whether you will make the defence now or reserve it.
  Mer. Brutton - I prefer to make the defence now. It was only late yesterday I was instructed to appear for Mr. Lewis, therefore I am handicapped in not having been present at the first hearing when the prosecutor's case was stated. I therefore had no opportunity of cross-examining him as to the statements he then made. But I feel confident the evidence I shall bring before you will prove that Mr. Lewis was not on enclosed premises with any intention of committing a felony, and that in simply taking away the canoe he had no intention of defrauding Mr. Mace of his property in that canoe.
  The definition, as you are well aware, of larceny, is wilfully and wrongfully taking possession of the goods of another person with intent to deprive the owner of his property in them. Now in this case I think the prosecutor has shown no intention on the part of Mr. Lewis to deprive him of his property in the canoe, ad it is necessary in a case of felony to prove animus furandi. In this case there has been no intention of this sort proved, and I think you will come to the conclusion that this was a case in which what was done was dine simply as a lark, and for nothing else. I shall be able to show you the reason why the accused was on the premises, and the purpose for which he was there, and that there was no criminal intent at al. It simply amounts to a trespass, and nothing more. I will now call Mrs. Mace.
  Mrs. Mace then entered the witness box and was sworn. She was examined by Mr. Brutton.
  You are the wife of the prosecutor, Mr. Mace? - Yes.
   His Worship - What is your Christian name? - Emily.
  Examination resumed -
  You have known the accused, I think, for some time? - Yes, I have.
  And you have been fairly intimate with him; he has lodged in your house when you kept a boarding house? Yes.
     Can you give me any reason why the accused came onto the verandah? - Do you think he came with any fraudulent intention to steal anything? - No.
  You think he may have come there to see you? - He did.
  His Worship - She thinks?
  Mr. Brutton - She says yes; she thinks he came there to see her.
  Examination resumed -
  Has he ever been on the verandah before? Has he at any previous time come up there to see you? - Yes.
  Where do you live? - At No. 5 Tiendong Road, with my husband.
  On the Saturday previous to this did Mr. Lewis come up on the verandah to see you? - Yes, he did.
  His Worship - How did he get on to the verandah? Mr.  Brutton - I believe the accused has a ladder, which he has used for going up to the verandah.
  Witness - Yes, it is the one in his house.
  Mr. Brutton - And on this occasion he probably used the same ladder?
  His Worship - How do you know he used the ladder?
  Mr. Brutton - Whose ladder is this?
  Witness - It was formerly inside.
  Mr. Brutton - It was bought by you?
  Witness - Yes.
  His Worship - Where is it kept?
  Witness - at 65, Chapoo Road.
  His Worship - You say you bought it and gave it to him.?
  Witness - I lived alone for some months at 65 Chapoo Road, and when Mr. Lewis returned from Hongkong I asked him to take over the house from me, as I had returned to my husband.
  His Worship - Well, what does that mean? You knew there was a ladder there?
  Witness - Yes.
  His Worship - And did you give the ladder to Mr. Lewis?
  Witness - It was left in the house. I did not give it him. It was left there.
  Examination resumed -
  You formerly lived at 65 Chapoo Road? - Yes, it is rented by me.
  With regard to this canoe, does it not belong to your son? - Mr. Mace told me that he had made a present of it to my son; I heard Mr. Mace say he bought it for my son, and my son, I believe, is under the impression that it was bought for him.
  His Worship - Your son cam speak for himself.
  Examination resumed -
  I believe that your husband was aware that Mr. Lewis frequently came to see you; he practically treated your home like a home? - Mr. Lewis came to my home several times. He had only just returned from Hongkong and he came to see me several times.  I handed over the key of No. 65 Chapoo Road on the understanding that he was to take the house over from me.
  Mr. Brutton - I want to find out whether Mr. Lewis did not look upon 5 Tiendong Road more as a home than anything else, as he had been accustomed to live in Mrs. Mace's house and had been good friends with Mrs. Mace, and I wanted to find out whether he did not look upon this house more or less as a home. That is all I wish to ask.
  His Worship - Then what I understand is that when your husband was away, Mr. Lewis was in the habit of coming to see you? - He only returned the other day, and he came to see me once before this time.
  Your husband has been away? - Yes, he has been in Hankow.
  What is your husband? - He is a pilot, and he goes between this and Hankow.
  Then during his absence - tell me if I am correct - Mr. Lewis was in the habit of coming to see you in this way during the night. - Mr. Lewis came to see me one evening before, and we had some conversation, and he returned by the verandah again.
  Only one evening? - Mr. Lewis had only returned from Hongkong a few days before.
  As I understand, the Saturday previous was the only occasion he had seen you during the night? - He never came with a ladder before?
  Mr. Brutton - Only on the Saturday. Mr. Lewis has been in Hongkong for several weeks, and only returned recently.
  By his Worship -
  When did Mr. Lewis return from Hongkong? - I do not know. I do not remember the day he returned. About a week ago.
  What time in the night did he come on the Saturday previous? - I think about eleven o'clock; between eleven and twelve o'clock I should say.
  He brought a ladder with him then? - Yes.
  Did you see it? - Yes, I did.
  Your husband was not here on the Saturday? - No.
  When did he return? - On the Sunday morning.
 Mr. Brutton - The reason why Mr. Lewis came by the verandah was because he did not want your son to know he was in the house?
  Witness - Yes.
  Mr. Brutton - He could not come in  the other way because your son would see him?
  Witness - Yes. There is only one staircase in the house.
  By Inspector Reed -
  Have you yourself any ownership in this canoe? - No, I have not.
  You were not part owner, it solely belongs to Mr. Mace? - He says so.
  Did you know on Tuesday morning that Mr. Lewis took away the canoe? - Yes.
  At what time did you get to know? - At about two o'clock. My son first gave the alarm that the canoe had been stolen.
  Then it was your son who gave the alarm; you did not know that it had gone? - No, I did not know.  
  Was Lewis there on Tuesday morning with your husband's consent? - No.
  Was he there on the previous Saturday with your husband's consent? - No.
  Has he ever been in your house since December last with your husband's consent?

  Mr. Brutton - I don't know what this has got to do with the case. It is simply a charge of being on enclosed premises and stealing a canoe, and I don't know what the husband's conduct has to do with it.
  His Worship - The real point, no doubt, is as to committing the felony which of course has to be judged by the circumstances, no doubt.
  Mr. Brutton - I think Inspector Reed is taking a wrong order of events. The canoe was taken first, and he came on to the verandah after the canoe was stolen. That was the order of the events.
  Inspector Reed - Perhaps he might be going to take something else.
  Mr. Brutton - May I call the accused? I should like to ask him a few questions.
  His Worship - Call him? He can make a statement but he cannot be sworn. I must, however, warn him before he makes a statement that whatever he says may be taken down in writing. I think before he makes a statement I must do that.
 Mr. Mace - May I afterwards be heard in the box again?
  His Worship - I have heard your evidence. I cannot go into it again. If the prisoner is going to make a statement I must read over the depositions of the witnesses and have them signed, and then he can make a statement. It is extremely unlikely, however, that any statement he makes will alter my opinion. There is sufficient evidence of the larceny to go to a jury.
  Mr. Brutton - I want to show that the case has not been made out. Here is a man in receipt of a good salary every month and he is not going to take  a canoe worth a few dollars.
  His Worship - A man must be responsible for the consequences of his acts.
  Mr. Brutton - Not at all; there is the case of taking a horse out of its stable. The man was prosecuted for larceny, and it was held that there was no intention to defraud.
  His Worship - There may be a case where a man may take a thing innocently.
  Mr. Brutton - I wanted to get his statement to show that he took the canoe as a lark. Knowing Mrs. Mace and the son intimately he took it away as a lark.
  His Worship - It is a matter for a jury to judge. If you have no more evidence, I may tell you plainly I shall commit him on that charge.
  Mr. Brutton - Of course it has to be proved that there is the animus furandi or the charge falls. It is the main point in larceny.
  His Worship - If the jury are of opinion that there was no animus furandi they will acquit him, but I am prepared to say it is a case to go before a jury. That is with regard to the larceny. With regard to the other I am disposed to think that the jury would not find that there was any intention [of] commit a felony, but as to the removal of the canoe I shall commit.
  His Worship was proceeding to read the depositions, for the witnesses to sign them, when,
  Inspector Reed said - Williams (Mrs. Mace's son) is not hear, and I have just heard from Mr. Mace that he has been induced to leave the place.
  Mr. Mace - I think he can be found in Shanghai.
  Inspector Reed - Mr. Mace thinks he is in Shanghai, but he does not know. Perhaps Mrs. Mace may know?
  His Worship - Where does he usually live?
  Mr. Mace - With me. He left me a chit to say he would not appear again in Court unless they brought him in handcuffs. He told me Mr. Lewis had been at the house, but he (Williams) did not want me to let his mother know that he had told me. I foolishly mentioned it to my wife, and because I did so he says he will not appear again.   
  His Worship - Have you the letter? (The letter was handed up and perused by his Worship.) If there is any attempt to withdraw witnesses from the Court it will be a serious matter for whoever is concerned.
  Mr. Mace - They have tried all they can to get me to compromise.
  Mrs. Mace was understood to remark that her son had gone to the New Dock on a visit.
  His Worship - He left this morning? You had better, Mr. Reed, apply for a summons for him to appear.
  Mr. Brutton - There are several questions I should like to ask him.
  His Worship - In that case I will adjourn it again. In the meantime, Mr. Reed, you will apply for s summons and if he disregards that I shall have to issue a warrant to bring him up.
  The depositions of the other witnesses having been read over and signed by them,
  His Worship said - I shall adjourn this case until Saturday morning. I will allow the prisoner out on bail - two sureties each in $500 and himself in $1,000.
  Mr. Mace - They wanted to send him away ----- (the sentence was not finished.)
  The Court then rose for the day.
.  .  .  
R. v. MORDON AND STEVENS.
  George Mordon, who described himself as fourth engineer of the s.s. Rosetta, and P. Stevens, barman, also of the Rosetta, were charged with being drunk and disorderly this morning in the Szechuan Road, and assaulting native P.C. No. 293 whilst in the execution of his duty.
  The native constable in his evidence said that at half past one this morning the accused were quarrelling with people in the Szechuan Road. He told them to desist when they struck and kicked him. They were taken to the station by a foreign constable.
  P.C. Symons, deposed that whilst on duty on the Bund he was called by a Cantonese woman to the Szechuan Road. He went to the spot and saw one of the accused in a 'ricksha and the other standing at the side. The native constable complained of having been assaulted. Witness requested the prisoners to accompany him to the station, which they did quietly.
  Accused denied having assaulted the constable.
  His Worship ordered the prisoners to pay the costs of the case, and cautioned them as to their future behaviour.
.  .  .  
R. v. BOGHWAN SINGH AND MAHAN SINGH.
This was a case in which two Sikh constables were charged in remand with stealing two pieces of silk, valued at $8, from No. 1104, Broadway, the property of Zee Kwang-loh, was resumed.
  Upon the case being called on,
  Mr. Brutton said he was instructed for the defence, and applied for an adjournment. His clients did not speak English, and when he called at the gaol on the previous day to see them, there was no interpreter available so he could not receive instructions from them.  In the event of the case being adjourned, he (Mr. Brutton) also applied that the accused might be admitted to bail. The accused had friends who were willing to find security or deposit a sum of money in Court.  The proposed securities were Sikh constables.
  His Worship - Really I do not know that I can take Sikh constables as security.
  Mr. Brutton - They can pay the money down if you wish.
  His Worship (to Inspector Reed) - Have you any objection to taking security?
  Inspector Reed - No. I have no objections to taking security.  Eventually, after some further conversation,
  His Worship said he would accept two securities in $250 for each accused, and each accused himself in $500.
  The sureties expressed their willingness to accept these conditions, and the necessary papers were made out.
  Inspector Reed informed the Court that he had discovered the sampan man who picked the silk out of the Creek, and he was in Court.
  Ching Yu-fok, sampan man, was then called. He stated that he was asleep in his sampan on the Hongkew Creek the other night when he heard a noise. People were calling out that some silk had been thrown into the creek. He awoke and picked up one of the pieces. He was told a Sikh constable had thrown it in.  It was about ten o'clock on Tuesday night.
  His Worship - Was it Tuesday night?
  Inspector Reed - No. it was Monday night.
  His Worship - (to the interpreter) - Try and tell him to recollect.
  The Witness corrected himself and said that it was on Monday night. He picked up the yellow piece of silk, and following the store people to their place received fifteen cents for his trouble. He did not know the store people before. He did not see either of the accused.
  At this stage,
  His Worship remanded the prisoners for a week.

North China Herald, 23 June, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 17th June.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LEWIS.
  George William Lewis was charged on remand with being on the enclosed premises, No. 5 Tiendong Road, between 1 and 2 o'clock on Tuesday morning last, with intent to commit a felony, and also with stealing therefrom a canoe value $20, the property of V. T. Mace, the occupant of the premises.
  Mr. Brutton defended and Inspector Reed conducted the case for the Police.
  On the case being called, Allan Williams, the stepson of the complainant, who was absent from court at the last hearing, came forward to sign his evidence.
  His Worship - This is the witness who did not appear last time?
  Inspector Reed - Yes.
  His Worship - Well, as he is here now I will proceed to read over his evidence and ask him to sign it.
  The deposition was then read over and signed by the witness.
  Mr. Brutton - May I ask this witness a few questions?
  His Worship - Yes, there is no objection to it; you wish him to be called for cross-examination?
  Mr. Brutton - Yes, your Worship. May I see the letter that was handed in on Thursday by Mr. Mace?
  His Worship - Well, I have no note of this; you mean this piece of paper?
  Mr. Brutton - Yes, Mr. Mace handed it to you. Mr. Mace stated that he received the letter and I do not know what the contents of it are.
  His Worship - He handed it up, but it was not sworn to. However, you can ask this witness of he wrote it.
  Mr. Brutton - That is just what I want to do. (Letter handed to Mr. Brutton.)
  Mr. Brutton (to the witness ) - On Thursday you were not here in Court? - No. I was not here, but I was here on Tuesday.
  Mr. Brutton - Why did you not appear? - I had no summons.
  Mr. Brutton - But you knew you would be wanted? - I had given my evidence and I thought that would be sufficient.
  Mr. Brutton - Where did you go on Thursday? - I went to some friends at Tungkadoo.
  Mr. Brutton - At what time did you make up your mind to go? - AT 9.30 in the morning.
  Mr. Brutton - Did anyone speak to you about going?? - No, I went away of my own accord.
  Mr. Brutton - And is this your writing on this letter? - Yes, it is mine.
  Mr. Brutton - I will read it:
"Mr. Mace, - You promised me that you would not mention what I told you. Never mind. I won't get more than five years. Everything goes for evidence against me. Now, tomorrow, Thursday, I will see myself handcuffed and hauled to Court not of my own free will. You must remember I am under 21 years of age. I do not intend to remain in Shanghai long and will keep as far from this 5 Tienndong Road. I have not gone against you and never will, but you may do as you like with me. I will go and look for a job tomorrow morning. I won't say more than I have against Mr. Lewis as I know none. Keep all the money you can get. None for me. A. E. W."
  Mr. Brutton - What did you mean by saying "I won't get more than five years?" - Because if I tell the truth I won't get into trouble.
  Mr. Brutton - What do you mean by "I have not gone against you and never will, but you can do as you like with me." What did you mean by that sentence? - I have nothing to go against Mr. Mace about, simply what I was witness to.
  Mr. Brutton - Now, I should like to ask you a few questions about the evidence you gave in Court the other day. I believe you have known Mr. Lewis for some time? - I have.
  Mr. Brutton - He has always been a good friend to you? - He has been a good friend to me, but I have not been to him.
  Mr. Brutton - He has often assisted your family in different ways? - I do not know anything about that.
  Mr. Brutton - In what way has he been a good friend to you? - I do not know in particular he has been a good friend of mine; he has simply come into the house and pout of the house, and I have no seen anything against him.
  Mr. Brutton - I should like to know what Mr. Lewis said to you when you went down to his house the night the canoe is said to have been stolen? - I asked him what was the meaning of the canoe being there in his house, and he said it was his, that he had bought it from Mr. Skinner. He then asked me if it belonged to me and I said I was quite sure it did not belong to me. He said: "If it belongs to you, you may take it, but if it belongs to Mace, you will not take it."
  Mr. Brutton - Did he not ask you what he would want to steal it for? - I asked him what he meant by having it there.
  Mr. Brutton - And what did he say? - He said he had bought it.
  Mr. Brutton - Did he not say he did not steal it, that he would rather give you a canoe than take one from you? - He did.
  His Worship - Meaning you personally? - Yes.
  Mr. Brutton - To whom did this canoe belong? - To Mr. Mace.
  Mr. Brutton - Did he not give it to you? - No, he said "If you want to go out in it you can. Keep it down at one of the house-boars. When I come down again I will paddle in it too.
  Mr. Brutton - Was it not understood to be yours? - No.
  Mr. Brutton - Did you not tell Mrs. Mace it was given to you? - No I did not.
  Mr. Brutton - What else did Mr. Lewis say to you, did he not say: "I would give you $100 if you wanted it? - Yes, I said it was not required.
  Mr. Brutton - In your own mind you knew Mr. Lewis did not want to steal the canoe? - I did not know at all. It was simply missing from the house and I asked him why it was in his.
  Mr. Brutton - When you told him the canoe was not yours did he not reply he knew it was? - I said it was Mr. Mace's, but that I was going to have it, meaning that I was going to take it from Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. Brutton - You said in your evidence that you went about 2 o'clock to fetch the constable, was it 2 o'clock? - It was about 2 o'clock when I went to the station and reported. When I met the Chinese constable it was about 2 o'clock.
  Mr. Brutton - I was not speaking about the Chinese constable, but when you met the European. - It was about 2 o'clock.
  Mr. Brutton - What is his name? I believe his name is Sergeant Nicholson.
  Mr. Britton - Have you read his evidence on Thursday? - No I did not.
  Mr. Brutton - In his evidence he states it was 3.15 when he saw you? - It was about 2 o'clock when I went to fetch the constable, but I was waiting there some time before the sergeant appeared.
  Mr. Brutton - You said he came back with you? Yes, he did.
  Mr. Brutton - How long were you waiting for him? - I do not know exactly. I was  waiting there some time  talking to Sergeant Culshaw.
  Mr. Brutton - In that letter of yours what is the money you refer to? - If Mr. Mace got anything out of it I meant I would not take a  cent from him.
  His Worship - What is that?
  Mr. Brutton - The last paragraph of the letter.
  His Worship - "Keep all the money you can get. None for me." Yes, what does that mean?
  Witness - I meant that if Mr. Mace got any money out of this affair I would not touch it. I was angry at the time I wrote the letter.
  Mr. Brutton - What were you angry for? - Mr. Mace told my mother something I had told him, that he promised not to tell, and then she came in and scolded me.
  Mr. Brutton - What money did you think Mr. Mace would be likely to get out of this case? - I do not know myself, I was angry at the time.
  Mr. Brutton - Were you present all the time at Chapoo Road that evening? - I was present up to the timer I went for the constable.
  Mr. Brutton - Were you present when the conversation took place between Mr. Lewis and Mr. Mace down there?
  Witness - What conversation?
  Mr. Brutton - Did you hear them speaking together? - Yes, I did.
  Mr. Brutton - But you did not tell us anything about this conversation on Tuesday? - No.
  Mr. Brutton - Well, what did you hear them say then? - Mr. Mace was walking up and down the street and Mr. Lewis was following him with a bottle  asking him to be friends and have a drink.
  Mr. Brutton - That was the conversation? - There was not much of a conversation.
  Mr. Brutton - Did you see Mr. Lewis push the canoe out of the house? - I did.
  Mr. Brutton - What did Mr. Mace do? - He would not take it. He said: "Leave it there till the morning. I want a foreign constable to see it."
  Mr. Brutton - Did he not say: "No you don't, I'll fix you this time, Lewis? - I do not know.
  Mr. Brutton - Did he not say: "I have waited a long time for my chance and I will get you five years for this.?" - Yes, he did.
 Mr. Brutton - If it was said to you would you not think it spiteful? - I would.
  Mr. Brutton - Did not Lewis say: "Don't be nasty, Mace, let us be friends; you know I was only larking." - Yes. He said that.
  Mr. Brutton - You knew he was only larking? - I do not believe he was. Mr.  Mace and Mr. Lewis are not friends. Spite, I think, that was it.
  What was he going to do with the canoe? - I do not know, I simply went to see.
  His Worship - It cannot make any difference what he might have thought. You must confine him to statements of fact.
  Cross-examination resumed - I believe  Mr. Mace is rather a passionate man? - Yes. He is at times.
  And that night I believe he was rather passionate. I think he threw a cuspidor at Mr. Lewis's head? Yes.
  Well, I think that shows passion? - Well, he had no right to be there.
  But a man has no right to injure another, especially as he is going away? - Well, at the time, I don't think Mr. Mace could know what he was doing, seeing a man on his verandah.
  But then you know he knew who it was? - When he heard the voice.
  But that was before he threw the cuspidor - I believe it was.
  Have you heard anything about the withdrawal of this charge? - No, I have not.
  You have heard nothing? - No, I am very seldom in the house.
  What sort of terms are you on with Mr. Mace? - Well, I am simply living with Mr. Mace who treats me well in everything.
  I believe he goes away sometimes and leaves you with no money in the house??
  His Worship - What can this have to do with the charge we are investigating?
  Mr. Brutton - I want to show that this charge is brought simply as a matter of spite. Mr. Lewis has treated the family well in every way and it is not likely he is going to take away a canoe with the intention of depriving the owner of possession of it.  It is not a thing he can get rid of, and he cannot use it. He might as well take away a steam-roller as take away a canoe and put it in a small room.
  His Worship - I don't think whether Mr. Mace shows temper on the occasion has much to do with it.
  Mr. Brutton - I think it shows if he had not been in a temper he would have treated it as a lark, and there would have been an end to the whole matter.
  His Worship - Well confine yourself to what has a reasonable bearing.
  Mr. Brutton - I simply wanted to prove through this witness what state Mr. Mace was in, and that it was really a lark and nothing more.
  His Worship - Very well, go on.
  Cross-examination resumed - Has this canoe been paid for? - I believe it has. I do not know.
  When was it paid for? - I do not know.
  After this charge was made? - I do not know anything about the canoe. I know it was taken away that evening it came down from the river.
  Why were you so anxious to keep away on Thursday? - I did not want to appear at the Court, because I was not summoned.
  That was your reason because you were not summoned? - I am under twenty-one years of age.
  That is no reason why you should not attend here. - I had given my evidence and I thought that was sufficient. I was not told to come again.
  Mr. Brutton - Were you asked to keep away from the Court? - I was not.
  Mr. Brutton - No one asked you? - No, I stayed away of my own free will.
  Mr. Brutton - Mr. Mace said nothing to you, I believe? - No.
  Mr. Brutton - He did not suggest you should keep away? - No.
  This closed the evidence and the last witness having signed his deposition his Worship told accused that if he had any statement to make, now was his opportunity, at the same time formally warning him that whatever he said would be taken down in writing and might be used against him.
  Accused - All I can say is I took the canoe as a lark, - just in a lark and I would have returned it next morning.  It is hardly likely I would have deprived Allan of the canoe when I was on such intimate terms with his mother. I was going to the house whenever I liked and Allan and I have been always very good friends and his mother also. Mrs. Mace told me the canoe was her son's. I myself have no time for canoeing and it is a sort of sport I would not go in for if I had time. I think that is all I have to say. The thing was simply done as a joke, and I thought that being on such friendly terms with Allan Williams and his mother, it would have been regarded as a joke and it would have been so regarded only Mr. Mace was at home.
  His Worship - I will commit the prisoner for trial; bail will be taken as before. The witnesses will have to appear again and give evidence. I tell this particularly to the witness Williams, and I warn him that he will have to come. (To the witness.) If you come forward and tell the truth you can get into no trouble; your evidence is required and you must come and give it.
.  .  .  
R. v. BOGHWAN SINGH AND MAHAN SINGH.
  In this case in which two Sikh police constables are charged on remand with stealing two pieces of silk, valued at $8, from No. 1104, Broadway, the property of Zee Kwang-loh,
  Mr. Brutton said - I have been informed this morning, your Worship, that the prosecutor wishes to withdraw the charge against the Sikh policemen.
  Inspector Reed - I object to this. I am the prosecutor.
  Mr. Brutton - Yuen Tah is the prosecutor.
  Inspector Reed - No, I am the prosecutor, and Yuen Tah is the complainant.
  His Worship - The case must go on. It is adjourned till Thursday next.
.  .  .  
19th June.
R. v. Four Lascars s.s. Aden.
  Four Lascars belonging to the Aden were before the Court this morning charged with being  drunk and disorderly on Sunday evening.
  Sikh constable 61 deposed - I took one of them to the station; he was so drunk that he could not get into a jinricksha.  The others were standing about and stopped vehicles from passing, and they would not go away when told to do so. One of them struck me a slight blow. They did no other harm. I told a Chinese constable to take one of the men, and he made trouble. Many people were looking on.
  Chinese constable 204 corroborated the statement. One of the defendants admitted being drunk, and another said he had no recollection of what had happened.
  His Worship sentenced the defendants to pay the costs and to be put on board their steamer by the Police.
.  .  .  
22nd June.
R. v. BOGHWAN SINGH AND MAHAN SINGH.
  This case, in which two Sikh police constables were charged in remand with stealing two pieces of silk, valued at $8, from No. 1104, Broadway, the property of Zee Kwang-loh, was resumed.
  Inspector Reed conducted the case for the Police, and the prisoners were defended by Mr. Brutton.
  Inspector Reed stated that he wished to recall one of the witnesses who had already given his evidence and examine three fresh ones.
  Zie Leh-sung, Yuenta's Shroff, recalled, was examined as follows:-
  Inspector Reed - The last time you were here you said you saw No. 68 (Maham Singh) throw the two pieces of silk into Hongkew Creek and then run away; where did he run?
  Witness - He ran away in the direction of Hongkew Police Station. He ran first along Fearon Road and then turned down Seward Road towards the station.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Brutton - It was about 10 o'clock when I saw No. 66 throw the silk away.
  Where was this teapoy in the shop? - In the inner room where we usually sit.
  At what time was it when these two men left the shop? - 9.40. I followed them immediately after. I lost sight of both the men when I first went out.  I saw them, but lost sight of them immediately after.
  Dud you follow them immediately? - I sat a little time. I did not know to whom the silk belonged at first, but as soon as the prisoners left the shop I enquired who owned it.
  At what time did you leave the store? - About a quarter to ten.
  And you went as far as the Hongkew Police Station, I think? - Yes.
  How far is that from the store? - Not quite half a li.
  Mr. Brutton - How far is that??
  Inspector Reed - Three li make one English mile. Half a li is one-sixth of a mile.
  Mr. Brutton - Did you follow both the accused?
  His Worship - I understood him to say he lost sight of them after they got out of the shop. What time elapsed between their going out with the silk and the time you followed them? - A few minutes.
  His Worship - Then when you first went outside of the shop did you see them at all? Not until I returned from the Station.
  Cross-examination resumed -
  You stated on Tuesday that you followed the prisoners, that is correct? - I knew the prisoners were going in that direction and I followed them, but I did not follow them at once.
  As a matter of fact did you see the policemen taking the silk at all? - I did see No. 101 taking the silk.
  And at what time did you meet No. 66 on your way back from the Station? - It was after it struck ten.
  Mr. Brutton pointed out to his Worship that there were discrepancies in the times mentioned by the witness.
  His Worship - If he merely means to say it was off and on about ten o'clock that is all right. (To witness) - Did you notice the time accurately? - It was about that time. I do not carry a watch with me.
  Cross-examination resumed -
  What alleyway did No. 66 run through? - An alleyway from Boone Road to Fearon Road. When I saw him he was hiding in the corner of the alleyway trying to hide the silk and I called out to him and he ran off.
  Where was he hiding it? - He was putting it in his trousers.
  And then did you not see No. 66 carrying the silk at all? - He was in the dark corner standing there with the silk.
  How could you tell the prisoner? - A passer-by told me the two constables were in that direction.
  How could the passer-by know anything about the silk? - I was telling the people as I was going along that these two Sikhs had taken the silk and then these people  told me they saw the constables walking in that direction.
  How far were you from the policeman when you saw him? - Some distance.
  Had the policeman got the silk in his trousers? - I noticed the prisoner had the silk in his trousers.
  Had he got it all in? - He only got it half in.
  When the prisoner saw you he ran down the alleyway, you say? - I called to the prisoner and as soon as he heard me he ran down the alleyway.
  How do you know it was the prisoner? - I was close enough to see his number, which is bright brass.
  How near did you go to him? About two or three paces from him.
  What became of these passers-by; were they still with you? - No, they had gone on.
  You simply stopped them to talk to them? - Yes.
  What part of the Fearon Road was the prisoner in when he threw the silk away? Near the Hongkew Bridge.
  How far from the Bridge was he? - Not further than here to the door (about four yards).
  Was there anybody else there besides yourself? - Nobody else.
  The these passers-by had not the curiosity to go and see what became of the silk? - Only one man passed by that I told.
  I thought you said three? - No, only one.
  Are you sure there was anybody there at all? - When the silk was thrown into the Creek a lot of people came out of the houses.
  After No. 66 threw the silk away what did he do? - He ran away towards the Seward Road.
  And what did you do? - I jumped into a boat and with a hook pulled up one piece of silk, the other floated off.
  When you went to Hongkew Station why did you not go in and report the matter? - Because I had not recovered the silk and I had no proof that it had been taken.
  Has Yuanta a license to retail liquor? - No.
  And you thought perhaps the policemen might report you to the Inspector for selling liquor, did you not?
  His Worship asked how did the license affect the charge against the policemen.
  Mr. Brutton said if the policemen reported Yuanta to the Inspector for selling liquor there might be a disturbance and so Yuanta's people thought the best thing to do would be to get the policemen into trouble first. For this purpose his contention was that Yuanta's people took the silk away themselves and then accused the policemen of it. It was absurd to think that with 15 men in the shop only the present witness seemed to have seen No. 66 throw the silk into the Creek.
  Cross examination resumed.
  Did not some one belonging to the shop take the silk? - No, our own people did not take it away.
  How many people were there in the shop at the time? - In the store there were three, and I and another man were inside checking the accounts.
  And although you were inside you still saw the policemen taking the silk out of the shop? -  was checking the accounts, but when the prisoner got near the door I looked up and saw him with the silk.
  Did any one else see him take the silk? - When I called out that the prisoner had taken away the silk other people must have seen it then.
  When the prisoners came into the shop what did they ask for; did they ask for whisky? - No. 101 bought a bottle of whisky and had it opened there.
  Did he ask for whisky? - Yes.
  And went straight into the little room behind? - Yes.
  Was the whisky brought into him there? - Yes.
  Did he ask for his account book? - Yes, he called for his pass book and another man handed it to him.
  And before the whisky was given to him he had to write the price in the account book? - Yes.
  And I believe the prisoners had some whisky? - Yes.
  And they stayed there talking a little time? - Yes.
  And then did you go into the room and ask how much he had written for the whisky? - I was in the room at the time but I did not ask; it was another man who asked him.
  What is the other man's name? - He was an apprentice.
  You heard all the conversation that passed? - The apprentice did not know how to speak English and had to have an interpreter.
  How much did he write for the whisky? - 30 cents for one bottle.
  And how much did the apprentice want him to pay? - The prisoner would only pay 30 cents, and I said that would be all right.
  Was there not some dispute? - No, there was not.
  And this was in the room where the silk was? - Yes.
  You were in the room all the time? - Yes.
  His Worship - When the pass-book was produced did the prisoner enter the 30 cents for the bottle in the book? - Yes.
  His Worship - And what did the apprentice do? - He handed the book to the prisoner.
  His Worship - And asked him what? - The apprentice said he wanted 40 dents for the whisky.
  His Worship - And the prisoner only put down 30 cents? - Yes.
    His Worship - And what did the apprentice do then? - The apprentice said "No can" and I said "Never mind, 30 cents will do."
  Cross-examination resumed.   
  Did you not tell him to take the bottle away? - No, I only asked the prisoner not to drink the whisky in the shop.
  They had already had the whisky? - Yes.
  And the policeman said he could not take the bottle away? - He asked to be allowed to keep the bottle there.
  And what was he told? - He was told we could not keep it there.
  Then did he take the bottle away? - Yes.
  And you were in the back room all this time? - Yes.
  And saw the prisoners go out of the shop? - Yes.
  And saw then take the bottle away? - Yes. No. 66 took it away.
  Did not the prisoners leave the bottle on the table with the account book? - No, the whisky was taken away.
  Did not the prisoners tell you they could not take it away because they would not be allowed to take it into the Police Station? - We would not consent to the whisky bottle being left there and they had to take it away.
  But I believe No. 101 had been in the habit of leaving whisky there? - Once before, when he asked it as a favour we allowed him to leave a whisky bottle in the shop.
  But you would not allow him to do so this time? - No.
  Which one took the whisky away? - No. 66.
  How long were they in the store? - About a quarter of an hour. They only stayed a little time and then went away.
  At what time did they leave? - About 8.45.
  No, 66 had the bottle of whisky under his arm? - Yes.
  Chinese Constable No. 256, examined by Inspector Reed said - I remember the night of 12th June last, when I was on duty at Hongkew Bridge. I went on duty at 7 and remained to 11. From 8 to 11 I was not absent from my post that night. I know P.C. 66. I did not see him pass over the bridge whilst I was on duty. If he had passed the bridge I should have seen him. I know the Seward Road Bridge and Banbury Road Bridge. A policeman is not stationed there. If any one wished to pass through the alleyway from Boone Road, and go to the station he could go over one of the other bridges and would not be seen by me. I do not remember whether No. 66 was ever stationed in Hongkew.
  His Worship - I really do not see that this is important.
  Inspector Reed - I thought it was from what I believed was to follow.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Brutton.
  Was not No. 81 stationed somewhere near this bridge? - His beat was in Broadway. No. 81 came up and asked me what the disturbance was about and I then went over to a crowd which had collected.
  Who saw this crowd first?? - No. 81.
  And although you could not see the crowd, you were quite certain you could see a police constable pass over the bridge? - It was at my back.
  And could not the policeman pass over the bridge at your back? - It was impossible; I was standing against the rail of the bridge. No. 81 was standing on the Yangtszepoo side.
  Was the crowd making any noise? - Not much; there were a lot of people, but not much noise. I thought a child had fallen into the water and I asked No. 81 to take over the beat. The crowd was about 8 or 9 chang from where I was standing.
  What time did you see the crowd? - On returning from the crowd I took out my watch and found it was 10 o'clock.
  Did you see a sampan man take any silk out of the water? - No.
  Chinese Constable No. 142  deposed - On the 12th June I was on duty at Yangtszepoo Station from 4 till 11. At 10 o'clock the Indian trooper goes on duty. I saw him go on duty. Sometime after I saw Mahan Singh. I did not look at the rime, but I think it would be about a quarter past ten. When I saw Mahan Singh he was a few yards from the Police Station. The trooper was not then in sight.
  Inspector Wilson was then called. He said - I am in charge of Yangtszepooo Station. On Monday 12th June, from information I received I sent for the prisoner Mahan Singh. I asked him if he had been into Hongkew with the other accused, and he replied "Yes." I asked him when he returned, and he replied at 10.30. It was then about 10.55.
  Inspector Reed - How long would it take an ordinary walker to come from the Broadway, Hongkew, to the Yangtszepoo Police Station.
  Witness - from 50 to 60 minutes.
  Inspector Reed - What is the distance?
  Witness - About 2 ¾ miles. After he told me he returned at 10.30 I did not feel quite satisfied and called the last witness in and asked, and they both agreed it was 10.30.
  Zee Kwang-loh, the complainant, recalled, was cross-examined by Mr. Brutton.
  Were you in the shop on Monday night? - Yes.
  You saw two policemen come in? - Yes.
  What did they do? - They drank lemonade.
  Were they in the habit if coming in for lemonade? - Yes.
  You call it lemonade, was it not something else? - I do not know the English name.
  Did you hear the conversation that passed? - I was in the other room. I could see into the room where they were. The silk was on a chair. The accused remained in the room, about half an hour. They came in at about 9.30. I saw them pass through on the way out.
  And you did not see them carrying anything? - I did not pay any attention to them when they went out.
  Did you see them take it? - I did not suspect them.
  His Worship - I think he stated in his evidence that he did not see them carrying anything.
  Mr. Brutton - But when his attention was called, he did not see anything in their arms? - No, I did not.
  Liu Li-tseng, assistant in Yuenta's store was recalled and ceoss-examined by Mr. Brutton. - When I came out of the store I went towards Hongkew Bridge. I saw Boghwan Singh outside the church which is just near the store. This was at ten o'clock. The policemen came inti the store at 9.30. I met Boghwan Singh about ten minutes after he had left the store.
  And you asked him to take away the bottle of whisky? - I do not know anything about the whisky. They drank some aerated water or lemonade. They frequently came into the store. They had some lemonade on this occasion. They left the store at about ten o'clock.
  How do you know they left at ten o'clock? -  I returned into the store at ten o'clock and they had gone.
  Did you see them going out? - They had already left.
  Then how did you know Boghwan Singh had gone in the direction he had? - I noticed one of the assistants following.
  Where did you see him? - The other assistant ran towards the Boone Road.
  Did you see the accused standing talking outside the store? - No.
  When you met Boghwan Singh was he carrying anything? - No.
  He was not carrying a bottle of whisky? - No.
  When you went into the little room did you see a bottle of whisky there? - No. I saw two empty lemonade bottles.
  What is the price of lemonade? - Five cents a bottle.
  Did you see a pass-book on the table? - No, I only saw the lemonade bottles. After I left the store Boghwan Singh stopped me and asked me where I was going.
  Did you not tell him that he must take away the bottle which he had left at the shop? No, I only said he had taken the silk and must come to the station.
  What was he to go to the station for? - Because the silk had been stolen.
  Can Boghwan Singh talk English? - Yes, a few words; he knows it pretty well.
  Can you understand everything he says? - Yes.
  Do you know English? - Yes.
  Let me hear you speak English.  When Boghwan Singh spoke to you what did you say? Witness (in English) - I  said "Go Station."
  Mr. Brutton said he wished to test whether the witness knew English and for that purpose would like to ask him one or two questions in English. As for Bogwhan Singh he did not know English and he doubted whether such a conversation could have taken place.
  The witness in "pidgin" English then repeated his evidence as to the alleged conversation in which he stated the Sikh offered him $10. This concluded the evidence.
  Mr. Brutton said the statements of the witnesses were very contradictory but he should like to know whether Boghwan Singh understood what had been said.
  Boghwan Singh through the interpreter, after the evidence had been explained to him, said it was quite untrue.
  Mr. Brutton asked whether any of the other people who were in the store were to be called.
  Inspector Reed said he did not intend to call them.
  Mr. Brutton then asked for an adjournment to enable him to call further evidence if he thought it desirable.
  His Worship said he might say that he thought there was strong evidence against the accused and in these cases of larceny he felt obliged to send the accused to a jury. He thought the evidence was sufficiently strong to justify that course, but if Mr. Brutton liked he would adjourn the case.
  Mr. Brutton said under these circumstances his clients would reserve their defence.
  The prisoners were then committed for trial, bail being taken as before.   

North China Herald, 30 June, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd June.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. O'SHEA.
  Mr. J. B. O'Shea appeared to answer a summons alleging "that you a British subject, resident in Shanghai, have failed to register yourself at Her Britannic Majesty's Consulate-General during the current year, as required by section 114 of the Order in Council of 1865."
  Mr. E. F. Bennett, who said he appeared to prosecute on behalf of Her Majesty's Consul-General, entered the witness box and was sworn.
  His Lordship (to defendant) - Do you admit the fact that you have nor registered?
  Mr. O'Shea - I do not admit that.
  Mr. Bennett then stated that he was charged with the duty of registering British subjects. The defendant was a British subject and was previously registered as such.
  His Worship - Has he registered for this year?
  Witness - He has not.
  Mr. O'Shea - You are charged with the issue of these summonses?
  Witness - Yes.
  Mr. O'Shea - Is there any regular method when sending out summonses to ascertain whether the parties have registered or not?
  Witness - Yes.
  Mr. O'Shea - Do you take the names in alphabetical order?
  His Worship - I have no objection to your asking these questions but I must point out that they cannot affect the question.
  Mr. O'Shea - I hope to show that they do affect it. (To witness) Have you examined the records of the Consulate to see whether I am registered?
  Witness - Yes.
  Mr. O'Shea - And my name does not appear there?
  Witness - No.
  Mr. O'Shea - How long have you been here?
  Witness - Off and on for two and a half years; this time since the end of January.
  Mr. O'Shea then asked to inspect the book referring to his own name, which he did.
  His Worship - If you wish to show you are registered your best plan is to produce your registration paper.
  Mr. O'Shea then produced a certificate of registration dated 21st January of the present year, which he handed to Mr. Bennett.
  Mr. Bennett - I regret there has been some mistake. I looked through the list and somehow Mr. O'Shea's has been omitted. I withdraw the summons and I regret that Mr. O'Shea has been troubled through a mistake.
  Mr. O'Shea - I accept the apology.
  The summons was then withdrawn.

 

North China Herald, 7 July, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd July.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. KENEALLY.
  Maurice Keneally, A.B., belonging to the s.s. Telemachus, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway in Sunday.
  Detective Horley informed his Worship that the accused had been arrested on three occasions previously for drunkenness, and had been released. The Telemachus was due to leave on Wednesday.
  Accused admitted being drunk.
  His Worship fined him $2, and costs, and ordered him to be put on board, the Chief Officer at the same time to be directed to stop his leave.

 

North China Herald, 14 July, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 12th July.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice, and Messrs. C. M. Dyce, W. J. M. Dyer, J. O. Grant, W. G. Moore, and A. R. Bowman, Jury.
R. v. LEWIS.
  George William Lewis surrendered to his bail, to take his trial on an indictment charging "for that he the said George William Lewis on the 13th day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, one canoe of the goods and chattels of Vincent Thomas Mace, feloniously did steal take and carry away against the peace of our lady the Queen her crown and dignity." There was a further count charging him with receiving the canoe knowing it to have been stolen.
  Upon the case being called on,
  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson said - In this case I withdraw the prosecution, and enter a nolle prosequi.
  His Lordship - Prisoner, you are discharged.
  Mr. Lewis then left the Court.

 

North China Herald, 28 July, 1893
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 24th July
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
IN THE MATTER OF THE LATE MR. R. E. WAINEWRIGHT
  This was a case connected with the estate of the late Mr. R. E. Wainewright.
  Mr. W. A. C. Platt (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) made an application on behalf of the Royal Infirmary of Scotland that their claim should take priority of the other creditors. It appeared that certain shares in the Shanghai Waterworks Company, and other securities, at the death of Mr. Wainewright, were in the custody of the Chartered Mercantile Bank, and the Royal Infirmary of Scotland, from whom the late Mr. Wainewright had a very full power of attorney, now asked that the securities should be marshalled in their favour, against their claim of Tls. 9,274.93.
  Mr. J. C. Hannon, on behalf of the executors and other creditors admitted the priority of Tls. 4,010.02 of the claim and contested the balance, contending that it should rank with the other creditors.
  After considerable legal argument,
  His Lordship gave judgment granting priority for Tls. 4,010.02 of the claim, but not the balance, which must rank with the ordinary creditors.

 

North China Herald, 28 July, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd July.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BENSON AND ABRAM.
  Two men named Benson and Abram, stewards belonging to the C.S.S.N. Co.'s steamer Achilles, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night. Benson was further charged with assaulting native constable No. 365 while in the execution of his duty, and causing him to lose his watch and whistle, valued at $5.50.
  Captain McEuen stated - Last night I was at Hongkew Police Station, and left a minute or two after 11 o'clock. I was driving along Seward Road when I heard shouting and yelling in front of me, and when I got opposite to Yih-dah's stable three jinrickshas with foreigners in them passed me, at a very fast pace. As the last jinricksha went by, the foreigner seated in it struck a violent blow at the front of my carriage with a stick.
  Benson - I had no stick at all.
  Witness - there was a native constable standing in front of Yih-Dah's, who I think must have seen the occurrence because the electric light is close by. At all events he ran after the jinrickshas shouting to the coolie to stop and eventually he came up with the vehicles and caught hold of the foreigner. I do not know the man, but the constable will be able to identify him.
  P.C. 365, native, stated that on the previous night he was on duty near the Astor House. Shortly after 11 o'clock he saw Capt. McEuen driving along Seward Road towards the English Settlement. At the same time there were three jinrickshas  going in the opposite direction, and as they passed Captain McEuen's carriage the prisoner Benson, who was in the last jinricksha, struck the carriage with a stick. Witness ran after the jinricksha at once and stopped it. Benson jumped out immediately, struck witness and knocked him down and witness had to blow his whistle for assistance. In the struggle that ensued witness lost his watch and whistle and had his helmet broken.
  Benson - It was not me. As soon as I got out I stopped Abram and then went back to see what was the matter.
  His Worship - How many jinrickshas were there?
  Witness - Three, the two the prisoners were in and another that got away.
  His Worship - And he ran after this one and caught it at once?
  Witness - I caught hold of Benson at once, but when he got out of the jinricksha he ran away first, and I had to chase him.
  His Worship - Which is the man that struck Captain McEuen's carriage?
  Witness - This man (Benson).
  His Worship - How was the other man arrested?
  Witness - With the assistance of other constables.
  Captain McEuen -  I saw him catch up to the jinricksha at the Japanese store at the corner of Seward Road, but they did not stop there. At the time the carriage was struck the policeman was only about ten yards away.
  His Worship - Did he catch hold of the jinricksha?
  Captain McEuen - I could not see. By the time I pulled up and got out of the carriage they were a considerable distance away.
  Witness - Prisoner ran away as far as Minghong Road where a Sikh constable assisted me in arresting him. The other prisoner was arrested by another constable in Nanzing Road.
  By Inspector Reed - You spoke about your whistle, where is it? - Lost.
  Did you see Captain McEuen's carriage struck? - Yes.
  And from the time Benson struck the carriage until he was safely in the Station did you ever lose sight of him? - No.
  What state was the prisoner in?  -  drunk or sober?  - A little drunk. He had had some drink but he was not disorderly.
  In reply to his Worship Benson said there was no struggle at all. As soon as the policeman came up he stopped the jinricksha, got out, and stopped the other jinricksha.
  The other prisoner, Abram, also denied all knowledge of the affair.
  The evidence of constable No. 365 as to the manner in which the prisoners were arrested, was corroborated by a Sikh and some other Chinese constables, none of whom, however, could say which man struck the carriage.
  Captain McEuen pointed out how much more serious the matter might have been if a lady had been in the carriage, and his Worship in sentencing the men, said it was quite evident they had both been more or less rowdy and disorderly. They had no business to go about near midnight in jinrickhas striking at carriages. Had a lady been there they might have done her some serious injury. He would fine them each $3 and costs.

 

North China Herald, 4 August, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 31 July.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. McCROHN.
  D. McCrohn, quartermaster of the P. and O. s.s. Surat, was charged with creating a disturbance on board the P. and O. s.s. Manila, and also assaulting Police-constable Young, on Sunday morning.
  Police-constable Young said that at 2 o'clock on Sunday morning he was on duty in Broadway when a quartermaster of the s.s. Manila informed him he was wanted on board that vessel, to quell a disturbance which was being caused  by a drunken seaman belonging to the Surat. Witness went on board the Manila and was told by the Chief Officer that a quartermaster on board the Surat went on board whilst they were at work at the after hatch, and attempted to take charge whist in a drunken state. The chief officer further said that the man had left the Manila and gone on to the pontoon. Witness came off the ship and found the accused lying asleep in a dangerous position, with a shipmate, on a cargo-boat. The boatman complained that the accused had been causing a disturbance by w anting to fight the cargo-boat man and sampan-men. Witness awakened the prisoner and his companion and requested then to go on board the ship. The other man left quietly, but the prisoner attempted to trip the witness while on the cargo-boat. Witness freed himself and stepped onto the pontoon, the prisoner following. After they got on the pontoon prisoner "butted" witness with his head at the same time grasping his hands. He managed to throw the witness, and then catching hold of his (witness's) tunic tore it right down the back. Witness had to use his truncheon and then took the prisoner to the station. He was drunk and very violent. Witness handed to the Magistrate a letter received from the chief officer of the Surat.
  Witness in reply to the prisoner said he did not use his truncheon until the prisoner threw him. He used his truncheon simply in self defence. He might have struck the prisoner three or four times.
  E. A. Clarke, quartermaster of the Manila, said he requested the accused to leave the vessel and go ashore. Accused refused, and witness went for the police. Police-constable Young arrived, by which time accused had left the ship and gone on to a cargo boat. Accused refused to take the advice of the constable and go to his ship, and then there was some struggling and both fell. Witness heard the prisoner call out "Send for a doctor," and that the constable had "done for him." Prisoner was drunk.
  Accused said if the constable had not used his truncheon there would have been no trouble. He (accused) was asleep on the cargo boat when the constable came along and after pulling him struck him violently. He had been attended by the doctor of the ship. Accused exhibited the wound on his head, which the constable had inflicted. He strenuously denied that he attempted to resist the police, and he wanted the chief officer of the Manila called to say what he saw.
  Inspector Keeling said the Chief Officer had been notified that his evidence might be wanted, but he had sent a reply that he was too busy and would send the quartermaster.
  Accused, in reply to his Worship, admitted being drunk.
  His Worship said he would take into consideration the fact that the prisoner had had some pretty rough treatment, and would deal with him leniently by ordering him to pay a fine of $5 and the value of the constable's tunic.

 

North China Herald, 11 August, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 7th August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
FULLER v. REILLY.
  Frank Fuller claimed $99.99 for board and lodging and balance of wages from F. E. Reilly, proprietor of the Central Hotel.
  Defendant said he did not consider himself indebted to plaintiff.
  Plaintiff stated that at defendant's request he left the s.s. Kobe Maru in which he had been 4th officer and went into the Central Hotel as general business manager, on 1st April. His remuneration was to be $50 a month and board and lodging. He remained in the Hotel until the end of last month, when he got a letter from defendant, dated 30th July, saying that his services were no longer required and that he could leave next day.
  There was no written agreement between him and defendant, but he had been paid every month and he considered that he was entitled to a month's notice, especially as defendant had induced him to leave the ship and in view of the difficulty of getting employment in Shanghai. Defendant had paid him in full up till the end of July and had given him $25 on account of August, but when taking it he had told defendant that he did not think he had been fairly treated and that he would sue him for $75, the equivalent of a month's board and lodging and the balance of his August salary.
  Defendant read a statement to the effect that plaintiff entered his employ on 1st April at a salary of $50 a month, with board and lodging. About two months ago two officers, friends of plaintiff, went into the Hotel and made a disturbance in presence of plaintiff. Defendant was sent for and requested them to leave the Hotel. Next morning defendant spoke to Mr. Fuller about the matter, telling him that he looked upon his two friends as drunken blackguards and that he objected to them coming to the Hotel. Mr. Fuller said the gentlemen were friends of his; thumped his hand on the office desk and said that plaintiff had better get another assistant.  Defendant said he would do so as plaintiff appeared to be unsuited for hotel business. Mr. Fuller then left the office. These words had never been withdrawn in any way and defendant considered that he had then given him notice. During the next few days defendant was annoyed by a number of people applying for plaintiff's situation, and he knew by hearsay that plaintiff had been saying outside that he was leaving the Hotel. He then spoke to plaintiff again, telling him not to consider him (defendant) in any way, but to look out for himself and leave as soon as he could get another situation. He knew that plaintiff had been trying to get another situation.
  Defendant succeeded in getting another assistant at the end of July and he then wrote to plaintiff telling him their business connection must cease from that date. On 1st August plaintiff went into the office where defendant counted out $50 and handed it to over to him as his salary for July; and then, though he did not think plaintiff was entitled to anything more, he gave him another $25 because he did not like an employee to leave dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated. Plaintiff took the money and put it in his pocket and then said he thought defendant had taken advantage of him, and that he would sue him for more.  With reference to the claim for b$75 for board and lodging defendant said that was his charge for a boarder living in a first-class room, whereas the room occupied by plaintiff had been the most inferior room in the Hotel, and would not let, with board, for more than $40 a month.
  His Honour - When did this conversation take place?
  Defendant - In the end of May or the beginning of June.
  His Honour - And when did you refer to it again?
  Defendant - About ten days afterwards.
  Plaintiff admitted that what Mr. Reilly had said was substantially true, but added that Mr. Reilly was simply making a convenience of him.
  His Honour said it seemed to him as if plaintiff had been making a convenience of defendant just as much. His Honour's idea was that from the time plaintiff had given notice to defendant that he wanted to leave and defendant had said "All right," plaintiff had simply been employed at the Hotel from day to day and was at liberty to go whenever he liked, and defendant was just as much at liberty to send him away whenever he liked. It was no longer a monthly arrangement and plaintiff consequently could not sue for breach of that engagement.  Plaintiff had been looking out for employment, and if he had got it His Honour supposed he would not have hesitated to leave the Hotel at any time.
  Ass for the $25 His Honour thought it would have been more frank for plaintiff not to have taken it if he did not accept it in satisfaction of his entire claim against Mr. Reilly. He thought it was evident that from the time the conversation took place between them, plaintiff's intention had been, and Mr. Reilly's intention had been, that plaintiff could leave at any time, and therefore he did not think that plaintiff was entitled to succeed in the present claim.

 

North China Herald, 11 August, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 7th August
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. COMANDA SINGH.
  Comanda Singh, a Sikh watchman employed in Messrs Jardine, Matheson and Co.'s filature, Yangtszepoo, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Hupeh Road on Sunday afternoon and with assaulting a woman in a disorderly house in the Kiukiang Road.
  Inspector Howard appeared on behalf of the police.
  Chinese Constable No. 410 said he was called to the Kiukiang Road shortly after three o'clock on Sunday afternoon and there saw a crowd. Witness was told that the accused had been trying to force himself into a Chinese house. He saw the accused running away, and subsequently arrested him. Prisoner was drunk.
  By Inspector Howard - A large crowd had gathered at the time.
  King Ah-zah, a native detective in the Municipal Police, said that when he arrived on the scene of the disturbance he found the accused in the custody of the last witness, and he then assisted in taking the prisoner to the Louza police-station. In accordance with directions from Inspector Howard witness made enquiries and ascertained that a woman living at 161 Kiukiang Road had her finger hurt. He took her to the Shantung Road Hospital, where it was stated that the woman's finger would be all right in a day.
  Sergeant Dauson, stationed at Louza, said that when the accused was brought to the station he was drunk.
  The complainant, a Chinese woman, said the accused had on several occasions called at her house but she had pushed him out. On Sunday he came again, at about two o'clock, and she wanted him to go away but he struck her with a small sugarcane on the finger. She had pushed him out, but did not strike him. After striking her he caught hold of her.
  Inspector Howard, in reply to his Worship, said the house was not a respectable one.
  Another woman, living in the house, deposed to seeing the accused strike the last witness.
  Accused denied striking the woman and said he had held his present situation for three years.
  His Worship considered the charges proved and fined the accused $5 and ordered him to pay the woman $2 compensation. The money was paid.

 

North China Herald, 18 August, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 11th August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
OELKERS v. MACE.
  Mrs. Oelkers sued Mrs. V. T. Mace for $85, balance due on a promissory note signed by defendant.
  In reply to his Honour defendant admitted the debt.
  His Honour - Well, can you pay the money?
  Defendant - I have not got it to pay at present; I have told her I would pay as soon as I could. When I have it she shall have it.
  His Honour - What are the circumstances?
  Defendant - She was living with me at the time and offered to lend me $100, which I accepted, being in want of money at the time. I have paid some of it and the balance she told me I could pay at my convenience in instalments.
  His Honour - What were you doing at the time; had you a boarding house?
  Defendant - No, I was in the house where I am now, but Mrs. Oelkers was stopping with me as a boarder.
  Plaintiff - She borrowed this money to get out her jewellery which she has had ever since. She told me she would raffle it and pay me back and I would not have gone so far with the case only I was given to understand she did not intend to repay me.
  Defendant - I told you the other day that I would pay you, that I would even beg if necessary in order to pay you.
  Plaintiff - I told her she could pay me at her convenience, but I cannot afford to lose the money; my husband has to work too hard for it.
  His Honour - Have you any suggestion to make?
  Defendant - Only this, that I will pay when I can. I have not any very bright prospects, but as soon as I can I will pay. I am not in the habit of borrowing money and not paying it back.
  His Honour - Has she any property of her own, do you know?
  Plaintiff - I believe she had her jewellery. I am quite agreeable to accept it by instalments.
  His Honour - The question is how to enforce payment. I will give judgment of course, but if she has no property I do not see how you are to get paid.
  Plaintiff - I fully believe she has her jewellery.
  Defendant - The jewellery I got back out again but I have already been obliged to dispoise of that.
  His Honour - Go in the witness-box, please.
  Defendant was then sworn.
  His Honour - Have you any private property of your own?
  Defendant - I have not.
  His Honour - Have you any jewellery?
  Defendant - No. I have already disposed of that to pay rent and servants and other little things and I now have absolutely nothing.
  His Honour - Does your husband know of this claim?
  Defendant - I have not spoken to Mr. Mace about it lately.
  His Honour - Did he have the money or you?
  Defendant - I had the money.
  His Honour (to plaintiff) - Do you wish to ask her any questions? You will understand that I am now examining her with a view to ascertain whether she has any money or any property so that you may recover on the order that I shall make.
  Plaintiff - All I wish to ask is when will she pay me and when will I receive the money?
  His Honour - That is just the difficulty.
  Plaintiff - I perfectly believe she has her jewellery.
  Defendant - I have not. I have just stated on oath that I disposed of it. I have nothing but what I have on my back and my wedding ring.
  His Honour - Are you willing to pay something every month?
  Defendant - I have nothing to pay, so I cannot promise.
  His Honour - If you can point out to me. Mrs. Oelkers, that she has any property I will sell it at once, without a moment's hesitation.
  Plaintiff - I do not know what Mrs. Mace has, but if she will bring a little to Court here every month I will be satisfied.
  His Honour - There is no use apparently of my making any order that she should pay so much a month.
  Defendant - No, your Honour, it would embarrass me very much. Some months I might be able to pay and other months I might not have anything.
  His Honour - I am afraid I can do nothing for you but give judgment for the amount with costs.
  Plaintiff - Can I not get my money back? I cannot afford to be out of it; when I lent it to her she said she had friends who would see I was paid.
  His Honour - When you have money to lend again I would advise you to lend it to someone beside Mrs. Mace and get proper security for it.
  Plaintiff - I believe she has her jewellery. If not she has lent it to some one else.
  Defendant - I have no jewellery now left.
  His Honour - There will be judgment for the amount with costs.

 

North China Herald, 18 August, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th August
Before R. W. Hurst, Police Magistrate.
R. v. LADA SINGH.
  In this case Lada Singh, a Sikh police constable, appeared to answer a summons for an alleged assault upon a Chinaman.
  Inspector Reed informed the magistrate that since the complainant did not appear, and had sent his son to say he was too unwell to come, but in the absence of any medical certificate he (Inspector Reed) asked that the case be dismissed.
  Complainant's son handed up a Chinese document. This his Worship perused and said did not state that the man was too ill to attend. Under the circumstances the case would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 18 August, 1893
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 15th August.
Before Vice-Consul Eiswaldt, Presiding, and Messrs. W. Meyerink and J. Lembke, Associates.
  At nine o'clock on Tuesday morning the Court assembled to try the case of Albert Schultze, steward on board the steamer Oldenburg, he being accused of stabbing, on the evening of the 9th instant, a jinricksha coolie named Chang Pao-zung. Just before the Court sat, Messrs Huang and Tsai, Magistrates of the City and Mixed Court respectively, and a Chinese gentleman named Shen, appeared and were accommodated with seats in the Court.
  The prisoner, Albert Schultze, pleaded Guilty.
  The President then read a letter from Dr. Zedelius certifying that the wounds received by Chang Pao-zung the jinricksha coolie were slight.
  Chang Pao-zung was then examined. His evidence was substantially what appeared in our issue of the 11th instant. On Wednesday evening the 9th instant witness and three other jinricksha coolies were engaged by prisoner and three other foreigners on the Yangkingpang and were ordered to pull their fares down to Hongkew. Getting on Broadway they stopped at "The Travellers';" and after a while their fares got into the jinrickshas, and were taken to the China Merchants' Lower Wharf, from which place the foreigners endeavoured to get away on board their ship the Oldenburg without paying their fares. Witness then attempted to get hold of his own particular fare (Schultze) and in the scuffle that ensued he received from the prisoner three stabs in the back with a knife. He called out for the police, and some other foreigners from the Oldenburg coming to him he was taken on board the steamer and had his wounds dressed. He was eventually taken to the hospital.
  Witness said prisoner was drunk at the time. Prisoner acted and walked about like a drunken man, and he was quite sure that he was drunk at the time. Two of the Chinese watchmen at the wharf saw the whole thing from beginning to end. Witness showed his wounds (dressed) to the Court and was then told to stand down.
  Niendorf, steward, and Zimling, quartermaster of the Oldenburg, having been examined on oath, and
  Prisoner being asked by the Court whether he had anything to say and replying in the negative,
  The Court retired to consider the sentence. After an absence of about fifteen minutes the Court reassembled and the President, having reviewed the case, sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment in the Hongkew Station. The proceedings then terminated.

 

North China Herald, 25 August, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 21st August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHOW TSAI-TAI v. W. MESNY.
  In this case the plaintiff, a Chinese woman, sued General Mesny for $99.99 balance due on a promissory note dated 22nd January, 1892.
  Defendant, in reply to His Honour, said he had a counter-claim against the plaintiff.
  His Honour - Have you commenced an action against her?
   Defendant -  Some Chinese are suing her and I have been waiting for the case to be finished, and then it is my intention to go to the MIXED Court.
  His Honour - If you have taken action against her in the Mixed Court I will defer this case until that one is decided.
   Plaintiff said there was no case pending against her in the Mixed Court. There had been a case against her by Mrs. Mesney -----
  Defendant - My housekeeper.
  Plaintiff added that the case had been dismissed.
  Defendant said he had certain financial transactions with the plaintiff in regard to the rents of some of his houses, but she had taken doors and windows away from the houses and had so damaged the property that he could not get any rent.
  His Honour said he should give judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, but would delay execution for a week to enable the defendant to institute proceedings in the Mixed Court. If he had not taken proceedings then execution would issue; meanwhile the money would be paid into Court.
  Defendant - I cannot pay it.
  His Honour - Then if you cannot pay it she can take out judgment summons against you.
  Defendant - I intend to bring an action against her, but I have not got the money to pay into Court. She made an arrangement for me to go to her place about the case, but as she had already set a trap for a person I had sent to make an arrangement, I did not wish to go to her place.
  His Honour repeated he should give judgment for the plaintiff, and asked the defendant if he had any property.
  Defendant - I have property but it is not realisable at anything like its value.
  His Honour - Then you must sell it for what it will fetch.
  Defendant - If it is sold it will not pay 1d in the £ of what I owe in Shanghai.
   His Honour - But it will pay the $99. If you have not the money you had better borrow it on the security you have.
  Judgment was then given for the plaintiff, with costs.
.  .  .  
23rd August.
JORDAN v. A. C. YOUNG.
 This was a claim by Michael Jordan for $92 for board and lodging and money lent. Before the case came on, the defendant returned the summons stating that if he were sued, he must be summoned in the German Court. In consequence of this, His Honour directed the Usher to make enquiries at the German Consulate, and on receiving information that Young was not registered there, he decided to go on with the case.
  W. Smyth, Usher of the Court, sworn, stated - At 11.30 a.m. yesterday, I personally served the summons on the defendant on board the Fielding, where he is 3rd engineer. He made no remark. He was registered at the British Consulate in 1891 and 1892.
  Michael Jordan handed in his claim which was in the handwriting of the defendant in which he admitted his liability.
  His Honour gave judgment for the amount with costs.

 

North China Herald, 1 September, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th August.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WOODLAND.
  James Woodland, seaman, belonging to the s.s. Telamon, was charged on a warrant with being a deserter  from his ship since 26th instant.
  Mr. Consul Hurst appeared to prosecute.
  Prisoner, in reply to His Worship, said he told the Captain 24 hours ahead that he was going ashore and he carried out his intention. If that constituted desertion, then he supposed he was guilty.
  Detective Horley said in consequence of the man being reported as absent without leave he arrested the prisoner and took him on board on Sunday afternoon. Accused refused to turn-to, and no attempt was made to detain him as he walked down the gangway, got into a sampan and returned to the shore. The ship had now gone.
  Mr. Hurst said the prisoner had been entered in the log-book as not doing any work since the vessel left Kobe. The Captain seemed very anxious to get rid of the man, and he (Mr. Hurst) was equally anxious he should not be left in the port and he thought some effort would have been made to detain him on board.
  Prisoner entered into a rambling statement of what had happened in other ports, and declared that he did not want to be in the ship as his clothes had been stolen and he could not get on with his shipmates.
  His Worship sentenced him to one month's hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 8 September, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
FRENCH CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 5th September.
Before M. G. Dubail, Consul-General, and MM. J. Oriou and E. G. Vouillement.
RAPHAEL v. ELIAS.
  This case, which commenced on the 22nd ultimo, came up again today. M. Bottu appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. R. S. Raphael, and M. Moulron represented the defendants, Messrs. J. R. and R. H. Elias.
  Mr. Bottu applied that the defendants should be ordered to deposit in Court all books and documents in their possession relating to the case.
  M. Moulron, for the defendants, pointed out that they had already produced some books which were being translated, and they were prepared to deposit more. He asked that, on the other hand, the plaintiff should deposit all the documents in his possession.
  After hearing the arguments,
  The Court directed both parties to hand in all books and documents, which M. Vouillement would inspect, he being authorised  to engage paid assistance if necessary.

 

North China Herald, 8 September, 1893
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 5th September
Before A. D. Jones, Esq., Consul-General.
U.S. v. DUNCAN.
  Isaac Abraham Duncan, described on the charge-sheet as an engineer, was charged with firing a revolver on the Bubbling Well Road, at 6 p.m. on Monday, to the danger of the public.
  Accused in reply to his Honour, said the revolver went off by accident. He pleaded "Not Guilty."
  Mr. Runge, the first witness, said he was driving along the Bubbling Well Road, near Chang Su-ho's garden, on the previous evening, when he saw two foreigners - the accused and another man - struggling. He saw the accused fire two shots at the other man, one in the air and the other at the man with whom he had been struggling. When the first shot had been fired a Sikh constable caught hold of the accused, and the second shot went under the constable's arm towards the other man. The men seemed to be very angry. Witness was about twenty yards off when the shots were fired.
  Accused denied that there was any quarrelling, and had no questions to ask the witness.
  Chinese constable No. 121, said he was called to Chang Su-ho's garden, where a collision had taken place between a carriage and a 'ricksha. The harness on the pony in the carriage was broken and while it was being put right the accused came up  in a 'ricksha and had a quarrel with the man in the carriage. Another man was with the accused in the 'ricksha. The prisoner drew a revolver and fired.  Witness remonstrated with him and blew his whistle. A Sikh policeman came up, but before he arrived the accused fired another shot at the man with whom he had been quarrelling.
  Sikh constable No. 55, deposed that, hearing a whistle blown, he proceeded to the spot, where he saw three foreigners. Accused and another man were exchanging blows. Witness caught hold of the accused who then took out a revolver and fired. Witness took away the weapon. Accused aimed at the man with whom he had been fighting.
  Capt. McEuen suggested that the officer who took charge at the Station should be called.
  Sergeant Kelly said that, being informed of the occurrence, he went to ascertain about it. When he returned to the Station he found the accused, Mr. Morton and Mr. Chandler. Accused and Mr. Morton said they were American citizens.  Mr. Morton was not in Court. As soon as witness arrived at the Station-door an Indian constable handed him a revolver, and the accused said: "You had better be careful with that as it is loaded." Accused said he would unload it, but witness put it away. Witness tried to get the particulars of the case from the parties but they would not say anything.  Witness took them to the Louza Station and a charge was prepared. Mr. Morton denied that the accused fired at him.
  His Honour - That makes a different case, simply firing off a revolver. Was prisoner drunk?
  Witness - I think they were both under the influence of liquor.
  Accused - Mr. Morton volunteered to take the charges out of the revolver; it was Mr. Morton's revolver, not mine.
  The case was then adjourned for a short time whilst Mr. Morton was sent for.
  Mr. Chandler was then called. He said he and the accused set out in 'rickshas to overtake Mr. Morton who was driving. They came up with him where the collision had occurred. Morton wanted to take the revolver from the accused, and in the scuffle the revolver went off. There was no fighting. Witness could not say why the weapon was produced.
  Accused went to the witness-stand, and, after being sworn, said the revolver belonged to Morton and he went out intending to give it to him (Morton). When he came to where the accident had occurred Morton endeavoured to take the revolver from him. There was no fighting.
  His Honour - Why did you not want to give it up?
  Accused - I did not think he had any more right to it than I had. I did not think it was going off or I should have given it to him. When the revolver went off I threw it away. We are very good friends.
  His Honour - Well, I will accept the view that this was not an intentional shooting, but, on the other hand, it was a rather dangerous business being there with a revolver. I shall fine you $25, and costs, or imprisonment for five days. I do that because I think I ought to protect the lives of the community here. Whilst I do not think you had any intention in the matter, it was still very careless of you.

 

North China Herald, 15 September, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th September
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BARRE AND VARTO.
  Joseph Barre and Juan Varto, seamen belonging to the British ship Samaritan, were charged, the former with desertion and the latter for being absent without leave.
  Mr. Consul Hurst informed His Worship that a warrant had been out for Barre since the 30th ult., but a warrant had not been applied for in the case of Varto, who came ashore on 2nd inst. The vessel had now left.
  His Worship sentenced Barre to a fortnight's, and Varto to ten days, imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 15 September, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 8th September.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHAIT SINGH v. ABDUR RAHMIN.
  In this case Chait Singh, Sikh watchman, sued the defendant, a storekeeper in the French Concession, for $50, money lent in September, 1891.
  Mr. Browett appeared for the plaintiff and handed in a document showing the debt. The defendant had paid interest until within the last six months, but since then the defendant had not paid any interest and the plaintiff could not recover his principal.  There was a set-off of $5.45, which the plaintiff would admit, so the balance due was $44.55.
  Defendant admitted the debt, but said he had not been able to satisfy it on account of sickness.
  His Honour gave judgment for $44.55, with costs.
.  .  .  
11th September.
HOTEL DES COLONIES v. P. & O. Co., LTD.
  In this case, the Hotel des Colonies, Ltd., sued the P. and O. Company for $99.99, the value of a cask of claret, alleged to have been damaged in transit from Bordeaux to Shanghai, and certain expenses.
  M. Seisson, the Manager of the Hotel des Colonies, appeared in support of the claim, and Mr. W. A. C. Platt for the defendants.
  M. Alexandre Seisson, having been sworn, said the claret was shipped at Bordeaux by Messrs. Dubois and Co. He produced the bill of lading and other documents showing that the cask was in good order; when it arrived here the cask was empty, and he alleged that the leakage had been caused by the defendants' servants negligently placing heavy cargo on the cask. The claret was worth $90.
  His Honour - Well, Mr. Platt, that is prima facie evidence the cask was received in good order, and you delivered it in bad order.
  Mr. Platt - Yes, it is prima facie evidence.
  His Honour - What is the defence?
  Mr. Platt - I shall bring here before you the quartermaster, Capt. J. P. Roberts, and Mr. Poignand, who have had great experience in these matters and they will tell you that the cask was a bad cask, and all the leakage was due to the inherent defects of the cask itself; the stowage has been everything that could be desired, and the fault, if anything, lies with the shippers who shipped this cask in a faulty condition.
  M. Seisson - The cask is here and it is a very good cask.
  In cross-examination M. Seisson pointed out certain marks on the side of the cask (which was in Court) which he contended were caused by heavy cargo. The staves had been pressed in and the claret had run out. The cask was now dry and the wood had sprung back.
  His Honour examined the cask in question, and also another one.
  M. Seisson, in further cross-examination, said he had had over 20 years' experience in the importation of wine. Whenever casks had been damaged on the Messageries boats he had received compensation.
  For the defence,   
  Samuel McFadden, quartermaster of the P. and O. str. Rosetta, said the cask was stowed with five or six others in a tier from the ice house to the ship side, in the after-hold No. 3. Only light cargo, consisting of brandy cases and candles, was on top. The casks had rests at each end, so that there was a space between the cask and the ship.  When the cargo came to be unloaded he noticed the cask was very light. None of the other casks were damaged.
  Captain J. P. Roberts said he had examined the two cases which were in Court. The one the subject of the action was an old cask which had been made to appear new. The staves were exceptionally wide, and the cask was insufficiently hooped. The leakage was entirely due to the defects in the cask. The other cask produced was a much better one.  An ordinary claret cask should have staves 4 in. or 4 1/.2 in wide, but in the defective cask some of the staves were 8 in. wide.
  Mr. W. Poignand, warehouseman at the Associated Wharves, said he entirely agreed with the last witness, the cask was a defective one.
  M. Seisson said of course it was a question of his expertise against that of others, but he would like to put in a report from Mr. Fearon.
  Mr. Platt said he would not object to this document being put in, although Mr. Fearon had not been called.
  His Honour thought it was hardly necessary for the document to be produced. He had come to the conclusion that the defects of the cask were responsible for the leakage. There was nothing to show that the cask was not treated fairly, or that it had had any extraordinary pressure put on it.
  M. Seisson suggested that His Honour should appoint an expert to examine the cask.
  His Honour said he did not think this would be any use, and upon the evidence submitted to him he could only find for the defendants.
  Mr. Platt said his client did not ask for costs.
.  .  .  
12th September.
JORDAN v. YOUNG.
  This was a judgment summons for $97, M. Jordan suing A. C. Young for $92, balance of account for board and lodgings and money lent during 1891 and 1892, and $5 costs.
  Defendant said he was third engineer on board the Feiching, and he offered to pay $10 a month until the debt was satisfied.
  His Honour made an order for $10 to be paid on the first of each month, or as soon after as the Feiching arrived in port.

North China Herald, 29 September, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th September.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. LINAHAN.
  James Linahan, a sailor belonging to the Hilston, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Public Garden on the 25th inst.
 Inspector Ramsay appeared for the Police and informed his Worship that he had nothing to say against the accused beyond the fact that he was found drunk in the Public Garden.
 Native Constable No, 268 deposed that at about a quarter-past four in the afternoon the prisoner walked into the Garden. He was drunk at the time and scared the children. Witness told the accused to leave the Garden, when he struck him on the mouth. Witness blew his whistle and another constable came along.
  Inspector Ramsay said the accused had been locked up once before for drunkenness but released.
  Native Constable No. 216 corroborated.
  Accused admitted being drunk and expressed regret.
  His Worship ordered the prisoner to pay a fine of $2 and to be put on board his ship.
.  .  .  
25th September.
R. v. McGILL.
 John McGill, quartermaster on board the P. and O. str. Shanghai, was charged with being drunk on board his ship and obstructing the crew whilst in the execution of their duty on 23rd inst.
Mr. A.F. Vine, second officer of the Shanghai, said that on Saturday afternoon at about three o'clock, the accused came out of the forecastle, and pushed the watchman away from the winch, with the result that a sling of cargo, consisting of bundles of iron, fell overboard. Three bundles were picked up but two or three were believed to be missing. The three were recovered by the divers. Prisoner was intoxicated at the time and could hardly stand. Prisoner was not known to have been ashore that day, but the men sometimes bought liquor from Chinamen who came on board. A dollar was paid to the Chinese divers for recovering the three bundles.
Captain Street, the master of the Shanghai, informed His Worship that the iron was worth about $1 a bundle.
  Accused said he had no questions to ask the witness, and he supposed what had been said was correct. He was doing his duty at the time in attending to the winch.
  John Ellerton, carpenter, said he saw the accused push the Chinaman away from the winch, and lower the sling down on to the wharf.  Some of the iron went into the water.
 Accused contended he was only doing his duty at the winch. There were a lot of things one had to do on board which one was not supposed to do. He was simply lowering the cargo and it was an accident which might have happened to anyone in his sober senses.
 Captain Street, in reply to his Worship, said he had had occasion to complain of the accused only once before, but he had never logged him. Prisoner's duty was to be in the hold and see that no pilfering went on. The divers had not been able to find any more than the three bundles recovered, and witness could not tell how many were lost until all the cargo had been discharged.
  His Worship said he should order the accused to pay $2 for being drunk and £1 for each bundle of iron lost, the total fine not to exceed $5.

 

North China Herald, 22 September, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th September.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MACKENZIE.
 Wm. Mackenzie, described as boatswain of the British vessel J. Y. Robbins, was charged with assaulting native police constable No. 440 in the execution of his duty.

  The complainant said he was outside the "Travellers" in the Broadway on Sunday afternoon when the accused rushed out and without any provocation struck him in the back. He seized hold of the accused who struck him again, and two other men came up and also assaulted him. With the assistance of two other native constables complainant took the accused to the station. The accused had been drinking.
  Native constable No. 380 corroborated.
  Accused said he supposed he must admit the charge although he had no recollection of it. He was "perfectly drunk; and in fact could not hold any more."
  His Worship sentenced the accused to a fortnight's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
R, v. CONWAY, WALSH, AND PASSEY.
  James Conway belonging to the J. Y. Robbins, Richard Walsh belonging to the Harold, and Frederick Passey belonging to the Aisgurth, were charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Broadway on Sunday afternoon.
  P. C. Spong said he saw the prisoners at about a quarter to five in the afternoon very drunk and creating a general disturbance at the corner of Hawker Road and Broadway, by upsetting jinrickshas and bamboo coolies. Witness saw Walsh knock down two bamboo coolies. They were very drunk, and it was with difficulty they were taken to the station.
  The accused admitted being drunk.
  His Worship ordered Walsh to pay a fine of $3 or 10 days' imprisonment, and the two others a fine of $2 or 7 days' imprisonment.
  Walsh said he would go to prison, but the others elected to pay the fine and were ordered to be put on board.
.  .  .  
19th September
R. v. KING
Captain King, of the Harold, was summoned by F. Klein, cook on board that vessel, for assault.
  Complainant read a long statement to the effect that on 21t July, while at sea, he was lying in his berth when the mate came and ordered him to get up. Complainant said he could not, and the mate left. A little later the mate returned with the captain, and the latter ordered him to get up. As he could not do so the Captain said: "I will give you some medicine in English style," and he then dragged him out on to the floor and kicked him with his heavy sea boots. Complainant wanted his discharge.
  Hi Worship pointed out that the summons only alleged an assault on the 1st July.
  Complainant said that was a mistake. The assault was committed on the 21st.
  His Worship then amended the summons, and the case proceeded.
  Richard R. Marser, a coloured man, a seaman on the Harold, sad he was on the lookout at the forecastle head a little after four o'clock on the morning of the 21st July, when he heard a cry. He looked round and saw the complainant crawling on his hands and knees. He could not say whether or not the mate struck the man.
  By the Captain - When he saw the complainant at daylight that day he could not see any marks of violence.
  By the Court - He had heard the complainant say he was suffering from rheumatism and he used to cry out at night.
  George H. Bidwell said he shipped as assistant cook but as he could not fulfil his duties he went on deck as an ordinary seaman.
  His Worship - You were disrated?
  Witness - Not in wages.
  Witness explained that when he went on deck as an ordinary seaman the complainant took another man to assist him in the cooking. Witness had never seen the complainant struck. On the 21st July at about 4.30 a.m. he was standing by the forecastle ceiling up ropes when he heard voices proceeding from where the cook slept. It was dark at the time and rather heavy weather, but witness went along and heard the captain tell the cook to get up. The latter said he could not as he was sick. Witness returned to his work, and some time afterwards he heard some one calling as though in pain. He then saw the complainant lying on the deck. The captain and mate then took the complainant and put him in the galley.  Ten minutes later the mate told witness to go and build a fire in the galley. He did so and got breakfast as well as he could. The cook said he had been struck by the captain. Before this happened witness had noticed that complainant's feet were swollen. That might have been caused by standing in the galley on hot bricks and the sea water was coming into the galley, as the vessel was shipping seas. When witness first entered the galley the complainant was on his hands and knees. In witness's opinion he was not fit to do a day's work.
  The Captain - After I gave him a glass of grog that morning, did not Klein resume his work at eight o'clock, and has he not continued it ever since?
  Witness - As far as I know he was assisted by another man that day, and he has continued at work since.
  Louis Lorde, a coloured man, a sailor on board the barque, said he saw nothing of the assault, as he was aloft, but when he came down he saw complainant lying on a seat on the galley.
  Wiliam Swainson, another sailor, said he was aloft on the morning in question. When he came down he was told that the cook was very sick and could not get the coffee ready. The captain called witness and sent him to the galley to help.  When he got there he found the cook sitting down on a bench. Klein said he was "very bad." He did not know anything about the Captain having struck him. Witness helped in the galley for a couple of days. He never saw the complainant ill-used.
  This closed the complainant's case.
  Joseph Gill, chief officer of the Harold, called by the defendant said that at the time of the alleged assault the men were shortening sail, and witness went to the galley to see if the cook was preparing the coffee for them. There were no lights there so he went to the cook's room. The cook, who was lying in his berth, said he had a pain in his back and could not get up. Witness informed the master, who came forward with him into the cook's room. The cook made the same reply to the captain, who told him to try and get up.  He said he could not, and then witness and the captain lifted him out of his bunk and put him on the floor. Complainant made a rush for the door, fell on his hands and knees and commenced to sing out. The defendant said he could not stand the noise, and telling witness to steer the cook into the galley, walked aft on the poop.
  Complainant again went down on his hands and knees and continued making a noise. Witness lit a lamp and lifted him on to a seat there.  As the cook did not commence his work he told the Captain, and Bidwell was sent in to assist. The Captain said he did not want the cook to work, all he had to do was keep quiet and tell Bidwell what to do. At eight o'clock the same morning the cook informed witness he did not want anyone in his galley, and Swainson was sent to do any outside running about for him. Witness had never seen the captain ill-use the complainant.
  In reply to the defendant, witness said he was in charge of the medicine chest, and had strict instructions to report any case of sickness on board. Other men had been sick on board and the captain had always acted with humanity to them, and had even forced them to rest against their will.
  Captain King said he absolutely denied the assault, and he felt sore about the accusation of having forced a sick man to work. He had always acted with consideration for the men, and the present case was a complete invention. He did not want to give the man his discharge because it would be yielding to what was nothing less than a case of coercion.
  His Worship, after looking through the evidence, said - Although several people say they saw the complainant screaming with pain on the deck, that is easily accounted for by his having been suffering from rheumatism. Not one witness gives evidence of the assault having been committed, so I dismiss the case with costs.

 

North China Herald, 22 September, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th September.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LI PING JEE v.  W. H. ROBERTS.
  In this case the plaintiff claimed $41 balance of wages as Laodah on board pilot boat No. 4.
  According to his case, the plaintiff was engaged as laodah and to find the crew for $45 per month. For July he received $43, for August $39, and he had not received anything on account of September.
  The defendant on the other hand said he engaged the plaintiff as laodah at a salary of $40 per month. He denied that he owed the plaintiff anything and applied for an adjournment in order to secure the attendance of witnesses who could refute the plaintiff's evidence.
  His Honour said if he adjourned the case defendant would have to pay the costs of the adjournment, but having heard both sides he was now prepared to give judgment for $22. He thought the plaintiff was entitled to that sum, and if the defendant paid that he would give judgment.
  Defendant said he did not consider he owed the plaintiff anything. He left the boat without anyone in charge, so that things could be stolen, and caused the defendant to be boycotted by other men. However, he would adopt His Honour's suggestion and pay the $22.
  Judgment accordingly for £$22 and costs.
.  .  .  
21st September
CHEN LING-DONG v. MESNY.
  In this case the plaintiff compradore to Messrs. D. Sassoon, Sons and Co., sued General Mesny for $16, rent of No. 6 Chefoo Road for the current month.
  Defendant, in reply to His Honour, admitted the claim.
  Mr. Judah said the rent was payable in advance, and, moreover, the defendant had not paid for the two previous months. When judgment on that claim was obtained against him, he promised to leave in a week's time, but he had not done so.
  Defendant - I have no other place to go to.
  His Honour - I see I made an order that you should vacate the house. What are you prepared to do?
  Defendant - I have not the money and if your Honour can devise some means by which I can get another place I shall be quite ready to go.
  Mr. Judah - He has not paid anything since he has been in the house.
  His Honour - Are you prepared to leave the house? If not, then they must take some means to eject you, and you will be in no better position than if you had left. To begin with, if you have no money a $16 house is too expensive for you.
  Defendant - When I took the house I expected to have some money, but I have been disappointed.
  His Honour - In any case I must give judgment against you.
  Mr. Judah applied for an ejectment order.
  His Honour (to defendant) - What are you prepared to do? I will give you a reasonable time in which to give up your possession.
  Defendant -  Seeing that I am sued for the month's rent I think I have a right to stay until the end of the month.
  His Honour - The rent is payable in advance. Of course if you pay the rent you can stray until the end of the month.
  Defendant - I admit the proper thing to do would be to give up possession, but I have not got another place to go to.
  His Honour - The case is hard, but it is not for me to advise you. If you have no suggestion to make they must take the usual course and get an ejectment order.

 

North China Herald, 6 October, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 29th September.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. TSEN AH-PING, CHING YEN-SHUNG. AND YEK AH-KUING.
  These three men, the first a Cantonese cook, the second a Ningpo cook, and the third a Cantonese fireman, on board the s.s Taku, were charged with fighting and assaulting one another.
  Inspector Reed said the first man was charged with throwing hot water, the second man was charged with assaulting the first, and the third was charged with wounding the second.
  The evidence went to show that the two cooks had a quarrel and a fight in which the Cantonese man got worsted. About half an hour after, the fireman came along and knocked the Ningpo cook senseless on the deck with a hammer.
  His Worship said it appeared the two cooks were not on the ship's articles, so he could not deal with them, and as the other assault seemed serious he should send the three men to the Mixed Court.
.  .  .  
3rd October.
R. v. HARVIE.
  Mr. William Morrison Harvie appeared to answer a charge of having committed a violent and unprovoked assault on a native police-constable on the evening of 28th ult., and also with being drunk at the same time.
  Native police-constable No, 442, said that at about 8 p.m. on the 28th ult. he was on duty at the corner of Singkiepang Road, a short thoroughfare between Seward and Hanbury Roads. Accused drew up in a trap and alighted near the bridge. He then walked over to the complainant and kicked him twice. Complainant caught hold of accused's collar, and the accused then struck him two blows in the face. Accused refused to go to the station but when a Sikh constable and some native policemen came up he consented. On the way to the station a friend of the accused endeavoured to prevent them from taking him to the station, but the Sikh insisted he should go.
  In answer to Inspector Reed, wh9 conducted the case for the Police, complainant said his clothing was torn, and he had to go to St. Luke's Hospital to have his injuries attended to. He had been three days off duty in consequence of the assault.
  His Worship (to the accused) - Have you any questions to ask?
  Mr. Harvie - It was not in the Singkiepang Road that this assault took place.
  His Worship - Do you wish to ask the witness any questions? You can make any statement afterwards.
  Mr. Harvie - There are several statements I do not agree with.
  His Worship (to the complainant) - Where were you struck?
  Complainant - I was hit on the body and also in the eye.
  His Worship - Can you give any reason why you were assaulted?
  Complainant - No.
  Inspector Reed - Have you spoken to or interfered with the defendant in any way?
  Complainant - No.
  Native police constable No. 413 said he was on duty in the Seward Road when some Chinese told him a foreigner was assaulting a constable in Singkiepang Road.  He went there and saw the complainant with blood on his face. Witness went with the parties to the station. The accused seemed as if he had been drinking.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that on the following morning he saw the complainant, whose face was considerably bruised, the right eye was cut, swollen and blackened, and the left eye was slightly blackened.
 Mr. Harvie then said that he drove up to the bridge, which was near the house of a friend with whom he was going to dinner. To get to the house he had to pass alongside a creek and as he was proceeding the Chinese constable came up and stopped him. The constable seized him and he (accused) tried to knock his arm away.  In the struggle he (Mr. Harvie) fell. The constable insisted upon holding him, and taking out a whistle began to blow it and made a tremendous noise. He (Mr. Harvie) could not make him understand and in the struggle he might have hit the complainant, but all he did was in self-defence.  His friend came along and tried to reason with the constable, but he would not let go.
  His Worship - Have you brought any witnesses?
  Mr. Harvie - No, in fact I have no summons to come here.
 Inspector Reed - The defendant was in custody, and was bailed out on the night on the 28th on a cheque for $50. Through some mis-understanding he did not appear on the following morning, as he should have done, and he only came this morning.
 Mr. Harvie explained that he was starting for Hangchow that night, and it was understood he should appear when he returned to Shanghai. He arrived on the previous night, and called upon Inspector Reed this morning.
 His Worship -  said he thought the defendant had assaulted the complainant out of proportion to the provocation.  He had no business to assault him in the way he had done, which was very excessive, and he would have to pay a fine of $10.
  The money was then paid.

North China Herald, 13 October, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 6tgh October.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. GRIFFITHS.
 H. G. Griffiths, second engineer on board the s.s. Hankow, appeared to answer a summons charging him with having assaulted Moses Ali on the 30th ult.
 Complainant, a fireman on board the Hankow, stated that at about half-past seven on Saturday morning last the defendant came on deck and struck him in the face.
  In reply to the defendant, complainant said he was not smoking a cigarette at the time. The defendant did not ask him to take a cigarette out of his mouth.
  Complainant called no witnesses.
 Albert Sprosen, called by the defendant, said that at the time of the alleged assault the complainant was smoking a cigarette. The second engineer twice requested him to take it out of his mouth, and then as he refused to do it, the defendant simply "flicked" it away.
  Thomas Kielman, donkeyman, corroborated.
  His Worship dismissed the case with costs.
.  .  .  
R. v. HOLLIDAY.
  W. Holliday, chief engineer of the Hankow, was summoned by Taha Hausen for an alleged assault on the 2nd inst.
  The complainant, fireman, said that on Monday morning at 8 o'clock the bell rang and he was going to breakfast, when the second engineer stopped him and then the chief engineer came and struck him.
 The defendant said that when the bell had rung for the men to go to breakfast the complainant came up from the stoke-hole leaving his lamp burning. The second engineer told him to put his lamp out, but he refused and an altercation ensued. Defendant then came along and requested complainant to go to the captain but he would not go. Defendant thereupon took him by the shoulders to hustle him to the captain, and the complainant turned round, showed fight and used a vile expression. Defendant then struck him.  Both the men had been very troublesome on the voyage and detained the ship at Singapore.
  His Worship said he could not lay it down that any officer had a right to assault a man and the defendant would be ordered to pay the costs of the summons.
.  .  .  
9th October.
R.  v. BARRE.
 James Barre, a seaman belonging to the Braziliera, was charged with being drunk and assaulting Mr. Thomas Deighton on Sunday night.
 The prosecutor stated that the accused was absent from the ship without leave and he went to look for him. He found him in an alleyway off the North Szechen Road.  Prosecutor told him the ship was waiting for him. Accused refused to go on board and said he would rather go to gaol. Prosecutor caught hold of him, with the intention of pulling him out of the house, when the accused struck him. Hr was then arrested.
 His Worship said the accused had a month's wages in advance, and the ship was leaving today. The best thing therefore would be to have him put on board, but had the ship not been leaving the accused would have been sent to prison.

North China Herald, 13 October, 1
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COUTT.
Shanghai, 7tgh October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHENG SOONG-FOH v. ROBERTS.
[Not transcribed] See Judgment on 20th October.  
.  .  .  
9th October.
GREEN v. WATERS.
  Mrs. Green sued Mr. William Waters, for $43.90, balance of account for board and lodging for December.
 Defendant said he would admit the debt but at the same time if the case were gone into he could prove that not even 43 cents was really due. He was not in a position at present to meet the claim, as he had sustained an injury to his hand which put him out of employment for about four weeks. He would be quite prepared to pay a certain amount monthly.
  His Honour - You are not in receipt of any fixed income?
  Defendant - No.
  His Honour - Well, Mrs. Green can please herself about that. If she liked to apply for judgment and sell up your property she can.
  Defendant - I have not got any property. I am staying at the hotel and my expenses are pretty heavy, and I cannot see anything in view, but I will pay a certain amount every month. If she will only wait she will get it; she cannot get it any other way.
  His Honour (to the plaintiff) - What do you say?
  Plaintiff - I object to it, because he has got money, and goodness knows when I will get paid.
  Defendant was proceeding to comment upon the items of the claim, when
  His Honour said  he had given judgment against defendant as he had admitted the claim. The only question was how to enforce payment.
  Defendant - The only thing to do is put me in gaol. I have not got a cent.
  Plaintiff - You can afford to stay in the hotel and get drinks and you cannot pay a poor woman.
  Defendant - You have nothing to do with what I do. If I had had a good house on Saturday night I would have paid you.
  His Honour - The better plan would be for the defendant to go into the witness-box for it to be ascertained on oath what he received.
  Defendant then entered the witness box and was sworn. He said - On Saturday night I gave a show in the Theatre. It cost me $100 for the hall and the men attending on me. The receipts were just $236.
  His Honour - What have you done with it?
  Defendant - I have paid $100 I borrowed; and $80 out of $97 I owed. I am still in debt. The $80 was for the last tournament in Chang Su-ho's garden, which did not cover expenses by $100.
  His Honour - Have you got any other means?
  Defendant - Only from giving boxing lessons, and I will not now be able to do that for some time. If Mrs. Green had only waited I could have paid her. She knows very well it will do me no good coming here.
  His Honour - Have you got any property?
  Defendant - No. If Mrs. Green waits I will pay.
  Mrs. Green - But my landlord will not wait for the rent and I cannot starve.
  His Honour (to plaintiff) - You have judgment for the amount, but unless it appears there is some property that can be seized I am afraid I cannot help you.

North China Herald, 20 October, 1893
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 16th October.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHENG SOONG-FOH v. ROBERTS.
 Mr. John Roberts, diver, appeared to answer a summons taken out against him by Cheng Soong-foh, a diver, for $61.58. The summons stated that the money was due by defendant to plaintiff in virtue of a written agreement made and entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 25th July, 1892, by which defendant agreed to give plaintiff and seventeen other native divers 25% of the value of all cargo salved by him with the assistance of the divers from the wreck of the s.s. Hsiusheng. The cargo so recovered was sold for Tls. 4,399.42 and the defendant had only paid the divers $398, of which sum plaintiff only received as his share, $22, leaving $61.58 still due by defendant to plaintiff.
  Mr. W. A. C. Platt appeared for the plaintiff and defendant conducted his own case.
  The first hearing of this case was on the 7th inst., and adjourned till today when .  .  .  
[Not transcribed.]
By Mr. Platt - This statement of accounts (shown) is correct. I have no vouchers beyond those given in the old case, but I can get some, or produce the people who supplied the things. I swear that this account is correct. I paid the money, so I ought to know.
 His Honour - I attach no value to the accounts placed before me giving the amounts in lump sums. What I want is a statement of the items as they were incurred from day to day, if they are to have any value with me. I must assume there are no other accounts.
 I find that Tls. 971 were due the men, from which has to be deducted the money expended for reasonable disbursements. The men have received $398, which leaves about $36 for each man. I give judgment for this amount with $25 costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 November, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 6th November.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
TUK SUNG v. MON O.
  This was a summons taken out by Tuk Sung, a tailor, claiming $8, balance of account due in October. Defendant did not appear.
  Mr. R. Smyth, usher, proved the service of the summons upon the defendant personally on the 4th instant. Defendant until recently was the second officer of the Kunguo, but had been paid off.
  Plaintiff put in an account to support his claim.
  His Honour said that when the plaintiff supplied goods to any seaman he should ask for a guarantee from the master.
  Plaintiff replied that he thought that the defendant being a second officer it was hardly necessary.
  His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 16 November, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
INDECENT ASSAULT.
 Hwakuin Singh, a Sikh Police constable, was charged with committing an indecent assault upon Ng Pu-zz, on the night of the 4th instant.
  Inspector Howard watched the case on behalf of the Police.
  The defendant denied the charge.
  Ng Pu-zz, the complainant, said she was amah at a brothel and her husband kept a carpenter's shop. She was returning home on Sunday at 1 a.m. and while passing down an alleyway, the defendant took hold of her and dragged her upstairs to a room over the alleyway where an Indian watchman lived. He then attempted to assault her; she shouted out but he would not let her go. A number of people came and released her. They were neighbours, including two women and her husband. She called the police herself. The women used to serve in brothels. The brothel where she was herself working was in Smith's Market, and the two women lived next door to her house (in an alleyway off Chekiang Road). While she was being dragged up the stairs to the watchman's house, she called out.
  The defendant said he met the woman at the corner of Foochow and Chekiang Roads and she took him to her house. He gave her a dollar, and she went out, but returned saying the dollar was bad. Her husband afterwards came in while he was sitting in the woman's house, the fourth inside the alleyway. An Indian watchman lived over the entrance to the alleyway, but he did not know whether he lived there at night.
  Witness said defendant was never in her house, and he did not give her a dollar or anything else.
  Defendant said he did not know the time when the woman met him; it was after 12 o'clock. Nobody was with him and he was in civilian clothes. The district was patrolled by a Chinese policeman.
  Ng Kun-tsung, husband of last witness, said he kept a carpenter's shop in an alleyway called Womingle. He was asleep and heard his wife shouting out for help. He went up the stairs to the room over the alley.  The upper story of witness's house is occupied by a woman, the wife of a tailor who works in the city. As soon as he heard his wife call he went out and saw the Indian had hold of her. The neighbours also saw it, they were men and women. The police were called.
  Accused said the complainant took him to the lower part of the house. There was a youth about ten years old and two women when he went in. The woman's husband came from outside, and when he came in, defendant asked for his dollar and then the row began, and he was severely beaten with sticks and bamboos.
  Le Shou-ma, an amah to a Portuguese family living in the Womingle alleyway, knew the complainant and last witness. She heard cries for help and got up and went out. She saw a lot of people at the entrance of the alley, including the last two witnesses. The defendant was there. Witness lived in a small room; there were six or seven people living in the house. There were two lamps in the alleyway.
  Another woman who worked in a brothel said she heard cries just as she was going to bed. She did not know how many people lived in the carpenter's house. She saw the complainant descending the stairs at the entrance of the alleyway.  She picked up a chest protector belonging to the complainant. The cries for help did not come from the complainant's house but from the entrance to the alleyway.
  The defendant said that the Chinese were enemies of the Police and would say anything.
  Chinese constable 402 deposed to being called. He heard a woman calling out "Save life." He proceeded to the spot and found the woman's husband had hold of the Sikh, just at the entrance of the alley. They were all standing together. They said the Sikh wanted to take the woman upstairs but that the husband prevented it.
  Accused said he spoke to the witness and told him that he had been assaulted and wanted his dollar back.
  Police sergeant P. Don remembered that at 1.30 a.m. on Saturday the native constable brought the Sikh, the woman and her husband to the station. The latter complained that the Sikh had indecently assaulted the woman. The Sikh said that he went on Friday night to see a friend, an Indian watchman living over the alleyway, and met the woman there. She said the watchman was not there and called him as "laleloong." No mention was made about a dollar.
  Accused said he had received such a severe beating that he was dazed at the time he went to the Station, and so did not mention it.
  His Worship said he thought at first there might be some truth in the defendant's story, but after hearing all the evidence, he was satisfied the charge had been made out, and that the defendant had assaulted the woman in the manner described. He would sentence accused to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 1 December, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 29th November.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BERDIKE, McCALLUM AND HERMALSON.
  N. Berdike, F. L. McCallum, and A. Hermalson were summoned by Captain Slater, master of the British vessel Dorothy Hall, for persistent refusal of duty.
  The accused men admitted the offence and said they wished to be discharged.
  His Worship sentenced them to be imprisoned until the ship left, the term not to exceed three weeks, and to pay costs.

 

North China Herald, 8 December, 1893
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 5th December.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. EPP AND THOMAS.
  James Epp, a native of Germany, and Charles Tomas, a native of Africa, were charged with being absent without leave from the British ship Wildwood since the 2nd instant.
  Captain A. N. Smith, the master of the Wildwood, said the men left the vessel at 8 o'clock on Sunday night, taking their effects with them.
  The prisoner Thomas said that while they were washing down decks on Saturday the second mate ill-treated him by hitting him with a belaying-pin and then kicking him.
  His Worship remarked that that was no excuse for desertion, and the accused could have complained to the captain or the Shipping Office.
  Epps also said he had been ill-treated.
  Captain Smith said he was on board at 5 o'clock on Saturday and no complaint was made to him. The ship would probably leave on Friday.
  His Worship ordered the accused to be imprisoned until the departure of the vessel, and then to be put on board.

North China Herald, 22 December, 1893
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 21st December.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WATSON.
  A Japanese woman, giving the name of Watson, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Bourne Road.  In February last the accused  was charged with creating a disturbance in the same locality, and papers were then produced showing she was the wife of a British subject said to be living in Japan.
 Accused, in reply to His Worship, admitted being drunk, in fact she had been "tipsy all day."  She complained that some persons had been breaking her gate in Bourne Road, which had very much annoyed her.
  P.C. Craig proved the charge, stating that about a hundred Chinese had collected round the accused, who was making a great disturbance.
  His Worship ordered her to pay a fine of $10.
.  .  .  
R. v. SMITH.
  James Smith was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway.
  Inspector Reed said the accused had been taken into custody really for his own good. He had been getting drunk lately, and although he was not disorderly, he would fall down in the street in a helpless condition. He was a seafaring man, and had formerly been a captain of a ship.
  His Worship said he thought it would be advisable if a ship could be found for the man, as he would only go from bad to worse if he remained in Shanghai without employment.
  Accused said he had a situation at present on the Newchwang lightship, and would return to it.
  His Worship ordered the accused to be detained for several days, and directed, however, that if in the meantime any employment offered he should be at once released.

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