Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1894

North China Herald, 12 January, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th January.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LYON AND WILLIAMS.
  F. J. Lyon and William Williams, two men belonging to the ship Troop, were charged with desertion, and also stealing a sheep in the vicinity of Woosung.
  Captain Elis, the master of the Troop, said the men has been absent from the ship for seven days.
  His Worship said the prisoners had been brought to Shanghai by the French police and handed over by the French Consul.
  Lyons, in answer to His Worship, said he and his companion left the ship with the idea of joining the U.S.S. Monocacy. They decided to go into the country until the Troop left. In the course of their wanderings they came across  an empty godown, the door of which was open. They were very hungry, and seeing a sheep "running round the yard," they "knocked it in the head," and then built a fire in the stove and tried to roast the animal. They did not get on very well, however, for the meat was only partially cooked.
  The captain said the claim regarding the slaughtered sheep had been settled.
  His Worship remarked that the men might have been in a serious position if the charge of stealing the sheep had been pressed. As it was, he would take into account the youth and inexperience of the accused, and regard the case as being one more of foolishness than deliberate malice. The accused would be fined two days' pay for each day of absence, and would be put on board their ship.

North China Herald, 19 January, 1894.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 12th January.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. PALLISER.
  James Palliser surrendered to his bail to answer the charge of carelessly discharging a revolver in Chapoo Road, and wounding a Chinaman named Wong Kwai-long on the 31st ult. Mr. Harold Browett again represented the accused.
  Inspector Reed produced a certificate from Dr. Boone, stating that the wounded man was progressing fairly well and would be able to attend in eight days. He accordingly applied for a further remand.
  His Worship adjourned the case to the 23rd inst., accepting the same bail as before.
.  .  .  
Before R. W. Hurst. Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WATERS AND FITZMAURICE.
  Joseph Waters and Peter Fitzmaurice, seamen belonging to the Keemun, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting a French police constable on the Yangkingpang, on the previous night.
  The constable stated that at about 11.30 on the previous night he saw the two accused and another man  trying to force their way into the Hotel de l'Europe on the Yangkingpang. He went up to them when he was struck on the nose, the skin being knocked off, and his hands were hurt. He succeeded in arresting the two prisoners, who were taken to the French police station and subsequently handed over to the British authorities.
  His Worship fined Fitzmaurice $3 and Waters $6.
.  .  .  
13th January.
R. v. SPONG.
  Police constable Spong appeared to answer a summons charging him with having assaulted a Chinaman named Wong Ching-chong on the 27th ult. Complainant did not appear.
  His Worship was informed that the complainant was distinctly told to attend at ten o'clock, and it being then 10.45 his Worship dismissed the case.

North China Herald, 19 January, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 17th January.
Before HG. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Jydge.
SAY ZOONG v. BAKER.
  This was a claim by the plaintiff, a livery stable keeper, for $94.97, the value of a pony alleged to have been killed by the defendant on the Bubbling Well Road.
  Say Zoong's evidence was to the effect that the Spanish Consul hired  a double-harness brougham on New Year's Day which was being driven along the Bubbling Well Road when the accident happened. Plaintiff saw the pony after the collision when it had a bad wound as if from a shaft. It was seen by a Chinese veterinary surgeon and died the next day.
  Mr. F. J. Marshall said he was on the Bubbling Well Road on the day in question when he saw the Spanish Consul being driven along towards the country in a brougham, which was on the proper side. The defendant was driving a hansomette towards town, and was also on his own side. When the vehicles came within about 12 ft. of each other the defendant's pony shied very suddenly, and springing into the middle of the road collided with the brougham.  One of the shafts penetrated the side of the pony drawing the brougham, inflicting a serious wound. The defendant did not appear strong enough to hold the pony.
  His Honour said he had received a letter from the Spanish Consul to the effect that the fault was entirely with Mr. Baker.
  Plaintiff's mafoo also gave evidence, and the plaintiff said the pony was a good one. Quite worth Tls. 100.
  His Honour said no great blame appeared to attach to Mr. Baker, but he should not have been driving a pony he was unable to control. He must bear the responsibility for that, but as the case was a somewhat hard one, and Mr. Baker was not very much in fault, if the plaintiff would accept Tls. 50 he (His Honour) would give judgment for that amount with costs.
  Judgment accordingly.
.  .  .  
NG KING SUNG v. F. MANN.
  The plaintiff, a cooper, claimed $11 from Mr. F. Mann, the manager of the Acid Works, for work done during December, 1893. Defendant denied owing anything.
  Plaintiff said that in June last he undertook to make ten barrels watertight, and the defendant paid him $10 on account when the work was completed, and promised to pay him $2 when he had tested the barrels. Defendant did not put water into the barrels until November, and then he said they were not water tight, and the plaintiff must make them satisfactory.  He did so and he claimed for the work.
  Defendant said when he tested the barrels they leaked badly, and even now they were not fit for use.
  Plaintiff said the wages he claimed were for two other barrels.
  Defendant replied that according to the original contract four barrels were to be made right for $12.
  After much discussion the case was adjourned for the attendance of the Chinese interpreter who was present when the contract was made.

North China Herald, 26 January, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 19th January.
Before R. W. Hurst. Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. FISHBECK AND MULLER.
  William Fishbeck, carpenter, and John muller, sailor, British ship Landskrona, were charged with being absent without leave from the ship.
  The first defendant was fined two days' pay and the latter three days' and both were ordered to be detained till the ship leaves, to be then put on board and to pay costs.
.  .  .  
23rd January.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. PALLISER.
  James Palliser surrendered to his bail to answer the charge of carelessly discharging a revolver in Chapoo Road, and wounding a Chinaman named Wong Kwa-long on the 31st ult. Mr. Harold Browett again represented the accused.
  Inspector Reed produced a certificate from Dr. Boone, stating the wounded man would probably be able to attend in a week. He accordingly applied for a further remand.
  His Worship adjourned the case to the 3rd prox., accepting the same bail as before.
.  .  .  
24th January.
Before R. W. Hurst. Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SING CHEE LING AND SHUH SHIH-YEE.
  In this case the accused, two Chinese quartermasters belonging to the s.s. Chungking, were summoned for refusing duy, the former on the 20th and the latter on the 22nd inst.
  Capt. Hughes, the master of the Chungking, said that when ordered to steer the vessel the prisoners refused. Sing Chee-ling did not give a reason but the other prisoner said he would not do so because the witness had ordered some baskets of oranges, earthen-ware, biscuits, &c., which had been found in the prisoners' room and which they were attempting to smuggle, to be thrown overboard. These were thrown overboard on the morning of the 22nd as soon as discovered.
  Sing Chee-ling said he refused duty because he had been struck by the chief officer and could not see well. He was struck before the vessel arrived at Amoy, where the chief officer was fined for the assault.
  Hsu Shih-yee said the chief officer asked him why he did not report the fact when the other quartermaster went  to lodge a complaint at Amoy.  On the 22nd inst., the chief officer came along to their quarters and threw overboard some oranges which he (Hsu Shih-yee) was bringing up for the use of himself and family at China New Year. When he said he would not work the chief officer said very well he need not.
  James Harris, chief officer, said that on the 22ndf instant, he went to the quartermasters' room, and found about twenty baskets of oranges and earthenware and threw them overboard. While witness was getting the oranges out, Hsu Shih-yee was on duty, but he came along to where witness was. Witness ordered him back to his work but he did not go. Witness asked him whether he intended to work or not, and he said "No." He (witness) denied that he then gave the accused permission to knock off.
  His Worship said it was rather an exceptional thing for Chinese quartermasters to refuse duty, and when they did so it was a serious matter. The prisoners would be fined six days' pay each and have to pay the costs.

North China Herald, 26 January, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th January.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
M. JORDAN v. A. C. YOUNG.
  This was a claim for $59, balance due on a judgment summons.
  Defendant said he had made four payments of $10 each and he would have paid this month but for the fact that his vessel, the Feiching, had remained down at Woosung unloading cargo, and that he could not get up to Shanghai in time. He further stated that he was not on the articles of the vessel and was working on daily wages. He would pay $10 now, but if the plaintiff wanted any more he would have  to take proceedings in the German Consulate.
  His Honour said it was too late to raise that point now.
  Defendant said that while in the Feiching he would pay the instalments as ordered, but after that the plaintiff would have to go to the German Consulate.
.  .  .  
22nd January.
NG KING SUNG v. F. MANN.
  The hearing of this case, in which the plaintiff, a cooper, claimed $11 from Mr. F. Mann, the manager of the Acid Works, for work done during December, 1893, was resumed this morning, having been adjourned from Wednesday for the attendance of the Chinese interpreter who was present when the contract was made.
  His Honour, after hearing the evidence, non-suited the plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 2 February, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 27th January.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
JACKSON v. HAWKYARD.
  This was a claim brought by Mr. J. A. Jackson, proprietor of the Mercantile and Family Hotel, against Mr. Hawkyard, for $42.20, for board and lodging supplied to Mr. Hagins.
  Mr. H. Browett appeared for the plaintiff; defendant did not appear.
  Mr. Smyth, Usher of the Court, said he served the summons on Friday afternoon when he called at defendant's house. The houseboy said his master was sick and could not come downstairs. Witness then gave the summons to the boy, who took it upstairs, and soon after came down again, saying that was all right.
  Plaintiff stated that Mr. Hagins had been staying in his house for some time and failed to pay his bills, so plaintiff told him he could not keep him any longer and detained his boxes as security for payment. Mr. Hagins then gave plaintiff an undertaking, (produced), in which defendant made himself responsible for the amount due by Mr. Hagins up to that time, $42.20, upon the production of which plaintiff released Mr. Hagin's goods. Plaintiff had since tried in various ways to get the money from defendant, but without success.
  Mr. Browett said he had also written to defendant threatening proceedings, but had received no reply.
  His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 2 February, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 27th January.
Before R. W. Hurst, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WATSON.
  Alexander Watson, second officer of the ship Marabout, was charged with being absent from his ship without leave since the 27th inst., and also with having assaulted a jinricksha coolie and thrown his vehicle into the river on the previous night.
  Complainant stated accused hired him from the Cleveland Hotel to the wharf, where accused got into a sampan and refused to pay his fare. Complainant caught hold of his sampan, upon which accused came ashore again and pushed the 'ricksha into the river. The 'ricksha was damaged to the extent of about $1.20. Complainant called for the Police, who arrested defendant. The prisoner seemed to be drunk.
  Defendant denied being drunk and said he had paid the coolie ten cents. It was the wind that blew the 'ricksha into the river.
  P.C. 314 deposed to having arrested the prisoner, who was drunk, but knew what he was doing; witness saw the jinricksha in the water. It was taken out by two coolies.
  Inspector Reed produced the warrant for prisoner's arrest for being absent from his ship.
  His Lordship said with regard to the first charge, it simply amounted to one man's statement against another's, and as the wind was rather high on the previous night and as the prisoner did not appear to be very drunk, he was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
  The charge of being absent from his ship was then one into. Accused admitted being absent but said he was going on board when the occurrence on the wharf took place.
  His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 9 February, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd February.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate
R. v. PALLISER.
  James Palliser surrendered to his bail to answer the charge of carelessly discharging a revolver in Chapoo Road, and wounding a Chinaman named Wong Kwai-long on the 31st of December. Mr. Harold Browett again represented the accused and Inspector Reed watched the case for the police.
  Inspector Reed informed His Worship that the wounded man left St. Luke's on the 30th ult. and had not been seen since.  That being so he (Inspector Reed) proposed to complete the case without him.
  Dr. Boone was then called and deposed - The wounded man left the Hospital on the afternoon of the 30th. Since the 25th the wound had been entirely healed.  From the nature of the wound I should say the wounded man was below the prisoner when the revolver was fired, the bullet appearing to have glanced downwards when it entered the body. I am inclined to think the bullet was about spent because it did not penetrate very deeply. I could not find it with a probe. The man appeared to be quite well when I saw him last.
  By Mr. Browett - My Chinese assistant tells me the man has gone to Tsungming Island, which is his native place.
  Chang Ah-kee, a jinricksha owner residing in Wuchang Road stated - I know the wounded man. Shortly after 5 o'clock on the day in question I saw him in Chapoo Road walking towards the Creek. I know the foreign house No. 55 Chapoo Road. Some people were removing furniture from the house in a cart and the complainant waited a few minutes to let the cart go past. While he was waiting I saw a foreigner come out of the house; then I heard the report of a revolver. I heard four or five shots. I then saw Wong Kai-long fall down. He fell after the second shot and then a policeman came up. Wong Kwai-long complained of being in great paid and when his clothes were opened there were blood stains inside. After that we all went to the police station.
  Native P.C. 180 stated - On the 31st December I was on duty at the corner of Quinsan and Chapoo Road. While there I heard the report of a revolver and saw the smoke. There were four or five reports. I ran to the place and saw Wong Kwai-long with his hand pressed to the wound.
  His Lordship said he would like to have some witness who actually saw the revolver fired; of course it was admitted that prisoner had discharged the revolver, but it would have been satisfactory to the Court to hear how the revolver came to be fired.
  Inspector Reed said he had not been able to find any witness who actually saw the revolver discharged.
  Mr. Browett said he understood the revolver was not wantonly discharged by the prisoner, who had simply held the revolver towards the ground and fired off the shots when he found the pistol was loaded. Not knowing how to unload it in any other way he thought the best thing to do was to discharge the weapon and he accordingly did so, holding the revolver pointing towards the road.  The late Mr. Barnes had lived at No. 55 Chapoo Road.  Before Mr. Barnes died he asked the prisoner, who was an old friend of his, to return the revolvers which were in the house to their respective owners. The prisoner in looking for some things came across two revolvers; he put one away in a box but finding no room for the other, he was carrying it out of the house in his hand, when he found it was loaded. He then discharged it at the ground outside in the manner already described.
  Inspector Reed stated that he had examined the ground and walks in the neighbourhood but failed to discover any bullet marks.
  His Worship - I understood you to admit you deliberately fired the revolver.
  Mr. Browertt - I admit the revolver was fired by him into the ground. Considering the amount of traffic on that road, pedestrian and otherwise, it would be very difficult to find traces of bullets a day or two after the occurrence. I may mention that I have since settled with the wounded man on behalf of Mr. Palliser.
  His Worship suggested that Mr. Browett should go into the witness box and give evidence as to the settlement, observing that though the course was somewhat unusual it was warranted by circumstances.
  Mr. Browett was accordingly sworn and stated - I saw the wounded man in the hospital on Tuesday, the 30th ult. I produce this Chinese document, according to which the man says a case pf accidental wounding and that I am willing to give him compensation. It is signed by myself, by the wounded man, by my clerk, and by the Chinese doctor in the hospital.  Mr. Palliser has also paid the hospital expenses. Mr. Browett added that the accused was very sorry for the accident and, in view of the very liberal settlement that had been made with the wounded man, he asked his Worship to dismiss the case.
  His Worship said he was afraid he could not do that. The offence of discharging firearms on the public highway was a very serious one, and the consequences in the present case might have been more serious than they were. If the prisoner were discharged a bad precedent would be established, and the least he could do under the circumstances was to inflict a fine of 40 shillings, or its equivalent, $15 and costs.
  The money was paid.

 

North China Herald, 16 February, 1894
H.B.M.'s CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 14th February.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
MACARTHUR v. ROBERTS.
  This was a case in which Mrs. E. A. Macarthur sued Mr. W. H. Roberts, a pilot, for $99.99 hire of the pilot-boat Teaser since August, 1893.   
  Mrs. Macarthur, the plaintiff, having been sworn, said that on the 12th of August, when the bot was hired by the plaintiff, it was owned by her. Two agreements were signed, by herself and the defendant, each having a copy. Plaintiff produced an agreement signed by the defendant to hire the boat at the rate of $25 per month. Defendant had used the boat, but he had not paid her one cent, and she now claimed for four months.
  Mr. Browett said he should prove the boat did not belong to the plaintiff at all; it was really purchased by Mr. John Roberts. The defendant did not deny entering into the agreement, but circumstances arose under which it was agreed that it should be destroyed and not fulfilled. He (Mr. Browett) asked for an adjournment of the case.
  His Honour adjourned the case till Wednesday the 23rd inst.

 

North China Herald, 16 February, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 12th February.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
THE JURY LIST.
  This was a special sitting for the hearing of any objections that persons might have to their names being placed upon the List of Jurors for the ensuing year.
  Upon his Lordship taking his seat,
  Mr. Cornelius Thorne claimed exemption on the score of age. Having been sworn, he said he was over sixty years of age, having been born on the 19th February, 1828, according to the family registrar.
  His Lordship - Very well; according to Chief Justice Rennie's decision you will be exempted.
  There being no other objections the Court rose.

 

North China Herald, 16 February, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th February.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. BURGE, HAYNES, AND WEBB.
  Henry Burge, Wm. Haynes, and George Webb, quartermasters of the s.s. Kaisow, were placed in the dock, the first charged with assaulting and threatening the chief officer, and all three charged under the Merchant Shipping Act with embezzling cargo from the s.s. Kaisow.
  Mr. Stokes appeared to prosecute.
  Leonard Andrew Miller, chief officer of the Kaisow, having been sworn, said that on the afternoon of Friday the 2nd of February, Burge was drunk and went ashore without leave. He returned on board at 8.30 p.m. with a matted case containing a bottle of whisky. He showed the second officer what he had, and the officer then brought him to witness, who took the drink away from him. A struggle took place in which Burge struck witness.  Prisoner was then secured and handcuffed to a stanchion. Whilst there he kicked out at a compass and smashed it.
  Burge admitted being drunk, but said he did not know what he did.
  Mr. Stokes explained that the accused was charged with embezzling cases of whisky and also a case of candles found in the rooms they occupied on the vessel. The evidence went to show that Haynes breached the cargo and the others were under the influence of drink more than once between Hongkong and Shanghai, and as a number of bottles were found in the cabin, they must be taken to be particeps criminalis.  Haynes wss under the influence of liquor some time after the vessel left Hongkong, and upon a search being made, two bottles of whisky, corresponding with some of the cargo, were found in the cabin. Arriving here another search was made, when thirteen bottles were found. It was a serious case, as the prisoners' duty as quartermasters was to see the cargo was not stolen.
  The chief officer, continuing his evidence, said that on the 26th of January as the vessel was coming out of Hongkong Harbour Haynes was found to be under the influence of liquor and unfit for duty. The next day he was again under the influence of drink. Witness then went and searched the cabin occupied by the three accused and another quartermaster. In Haynes' bunk witness found two bottles which had contained whisky, the bottles bearing the mark "White Horse Cellar" corresponding with the cargo in the hold.  The next day witness said the second officer counted the cases in the hold and found instead of fifty only forty-nine. The matter was reported to the Captain and witness accused Haynes of stealing the whisky. Haynes denied the charge and stated he bought the whisky on shore.
  On the same evening witness made another search in the cabin and found in Haynes' bunk, covered over with some sacking, a case of Price's candles corresponding with the cargo mentioned in the manifest. On the next morning, the 29th ultimo, witness again accused Haynes of having taken the whisky. After again denying he ultimately admitted having taken the whisky and candles. The matter was reported to the Captain and Haynes again acknowledged the offence in the presence of the Captain.  Witness thought the cargo must have been abstracted from the hold the night before the ship left Hongkong. The hatch was battened down and one man alone, though he could have got into the hold, would have had a difficulty in removing the cargo. On Tuesday, the 8th instant, witness found twelve full bottles in a case and one empty bottle. The bottles had had the labels washed off them with the object of preventing identification, but the corks were all branded and the neck of the bottle being broken the brand could be seen.
  His Worship directed that one of the bottles should be opened in Court, and this being done the cork was found to be branded "White Horse Cellar."
  Witness said that yesterday he again went through the whisky and found three cases to be missing.
  Haynes, in reply to His Worship, admitted taking the candles, which he said he did under the influence of drink, but he denied having had anything to do with the whisky.
  Captain James Gray, master of the Kaisow, sworn, said that on the 27th ult. when Haynes was brought to him by the Chief Officer, he (Haynes) confessed to having taken the candles and the whisky. When the charge accusing him of taking the whisky was entered in the log-book he made no reply.
  Webb was under the influence of drink yesterday. The men had not had money to get liquor after leaving England. Burge, however, had been displaying local bank notes when the vessel was at Woosung, and witness' supposition was that the men had been pilfering the cargo and selling it. Yesterday Burge was let out of his room where he had been detained since the assault on the Chief Offficer, and he then threatened the Chief Offier's life. Witness then had him arrested. Burge, although under detention on the ship, had more than once been under the influence of liquor, and this caused the further search to be made, resulting on the discovery of the other theft of whisky. Witness was of opinion that two cases of whisky must have been abstracted between the 7th and 78th inst. whilst the vessel was lying alongside the wharf in Shanghai.
  William Milne, Second Officer of the Kaisow, said that on counting the cargo on the 27th ult. he found one case of whisky short. Yesterday witness assisted the chief officer in searching the quartermasters' quarters, and found the whisky in one of their lockers, as well as the remains of a case which had contained soap, which bore a mark corresponding with another cargo in the manifest.  Since the vessel left Hongkong the three men had been more or less under the influence of drink. Prior to that they had been steady.
  His Worship said Haynes appeared to be the principal offender and he sentenced him to three months' hard labour. Burge and Webb would each have two months' hard labour for their share in the theft, and the former would also be sentenced to one month's hard labour for the assault, to commence at the expiration of his other sentence. The prisoners would also have to pay $9 each, to be deducted from their wages, the value of the whisky stolen.
.  .  .  
14th February.
R. v. RYAN AND CLUNIE.
  R. H. Ryan and T. Clunie were charged with being absent without leave from the Glenfalloch.
  Captain Darke, the master of the vessel, said the men had both borne good characters, but on Monday morning in defiance of the orders of the chief officer they left the ship.
  The accused admitted the offence, but promised to go on board.
  His Worship inflicted a fine of two days' pay for each day of absence, and costs.

 

North China Herald, 23 February, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th February.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHANG SUE v. VAUGHAN.
  This was a claim by Chang Sue, a tailor, for R$37 for goods supplied since June, 1893.
  Mrs. Vaughan, the defendant, admitted owing $21.60 for goods supplied to her for her young children, but the other goods to the value of $16.30 were supplied to her son, aged sixteen, without any authority from her.
  Plaintiff said Mrs. Vaughan accompanied her son to his shop when the son ordered the goods, and they were sent to her house.
  His Honour gave judgment for the amount.
.  .  .  
WHITE v. WHITE.
  In this case Mrs. J. White, a Japanese woman, sued David White for $90 for board and lodging for 4 ½ months to the 15th of April last.
  The plaintiff, having been sworn, said the defendant agreed to pay $20 a month, but he paid nothing and put her off with all sorts of excuses.
  Defendant was sworn and said he had been out of employment for some time or he would have paid the money. He was at present bill-collecting "for anybody and everybody," but he had not been able to make much. He had no money or property wherewith to pay the debt.
  Plaintiff (smiling) - How was it then, if you say you have no money, you told me you were going to marry Mrs. Vaughan?
  Defendant - That has nothing to do with this case.
  His Honour said he could hardly see his way to make any order as the defendant had nothing to attach.

 

North China Herald, 2 March, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 24th February.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. ALLANSON.
  Arthur John Allanson, unemployed, giving his address as No. 1, Woosung Road, was charged with "burglariously entering the dwelling house and general store No. 1 Woosung Road and stealing therefrom 15 dozen pocket knives, 18 dozen purses, 12 boxes of soap, 6 black alpaca umbrellas, 18 ladies purses, i8 bottles of scent, one French almanac, and 10 Dutch cheeses, total value $100, the property of complainant; and then breaking out of the said house, between the hours of 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. on the 21st of February."
  Charles Labrude, the prosecutor, whose evidence was translated, having been sworn said - I keep a restaurant and general store at No. 1, Woosung road, where I live with my wife. On Tuesday night the 20th inst. my house was all properly secured at 11.30. The next morning about six o'clock the 'boy' came and told me that a robber had been in the house. I went down and found that the large outside-street door and the inside door were open. The front door is in two halves. The top and bottom bolts had been pulled back, but the lock had not been turned back with the key. Only one side of the inner door was open. This was not locked the night before.  When I locked up the place on Tuesday night I took the key to my room.
  The glass show-case (produced) is mine, and stood just below the window in my store which looks out on the alleyway. The two small boxes (produced) are also my property, and when I closed the store they were on the windowsill.  When I went into the store on Wednesday morning, I found the show-case had been placed on the billiard table and the small boxes were near the fire place. The window near the alleyway had been broken and the glass was lying on the floor inside the room. There was no appearance of any one having come through the aperture left by the broken pane of glass. In front of the window, looking on to the Woosung Road, was a large glass show-case which had been forcibly opened when I saw it on Wednesday morning.
  The following articles had been stolen from the case: 15 dozen pocket knives, 18 dozen gents;' purses (tobacco pouches), 12 boxes of soap, 6 black alpaca umbrella, 8 ladies' purses, 8 bottles of scent, one French almanac, 10 Dutch cheese, one billiard-table cover, and a small box containing 3 bottles of scent. These things were worth about $100. I know the prisoner, who has been lodging in my house for about five months. The prisoner had a key which opened the back door, and another door which enables him to get to his room. On the night of the robbery, the accused did not occupy his room. At 5 o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon, the accused came to me and said he was dining out that night with one of his friends.  I did not notice his hands as he had gloves on.
  His Worship asked the accused if he had any questions.
  Prisoner - I can say my hand was not hurt that evening at all; it was on the next day my hand was hurt.
  His Worship advised the prisoner not to make a statement at this point, but to ask question if he had any.
  Prisoner - I have one question to ask him. Did he try the key to see if it could be inserted into the store-room door lock?
  Witness - I have not tried it, but I am aware it does, and the prisoner has heard me say many times it does.
  Prisoner - What time did you go to bed that night?
  Witness - About half-past eleven.
  Prisoner - Did you hear any footsteps or anybody's footsteps going to my room that night?
  Witness - I did not.
  Prisoner - So that even if I had come home you would not have known?
  Witness - No. I never take any notice of the boarders; they are free to go out and come in whenever they like as I trust in them.
  Prisoner - There was a fire that night; did you hear the fire-bell?
  Witness - I did.
  Prisoner - Did you strongly suspect that one of the boarders in the house took the things?
  Witness - At first I did not suspect anyone of the boarders but on looking at the way the glass was broken, I saw it must be some one in the house, either a boy or a boarder.
  Prisoner - Did you supply the other boarders with a key like mine?
  Witness - There are two of the boarders who have no key.
  His Worship - How many boarders are there?
  Witness - Four.
  His Worship - That is, one other boarder has a key like the prisoner's?
  Witness - Yes.
  His Worship - When did that other boarder come in that night?
  Witness - At 2.30. He had forgotten his key and I threw down mine from the window and he let himself in.
  Prisoner - Altogether how many keys have you for the back door?
  Witness - Six or seven.
  Prisoner - Have you your own door open or shut at night?
  Witness - I always leave my door open.
  Prisoner - Does not the store-room door shut very tightly so that when it is opened it shakes the whole house and rings the bell?
  Witness - Anybody who knows how to open the door can do so without making a noise; the house does not shake so much as that.
  Prisoner - At what time did you go to my room this morning?
  Witness - When the alarm was given they all came down stairs except you; then I went to your room and found you were not there.
  Prisoner - During the five or six months I have been with you, did I behave myself all right and did I always pay you regularly; do I owe you any money?
  Witness - No, you always paid me.
  Prisoner - Were you under the impression that I was in financially straitened circumstances; that I was in pecuniary difficulties?
  Witness - I did not know; I do not look into my boarders' pockets.
  Inspector Reed at this stage asked for an adjournment for a week, which was granted.
.  .  .  
26th February.
R. v. BOURKE.
  Henry Bourke, a sailor belonging to the Glenesk, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting a jinricksha coolie, and carrying a large and dangerous knife contrary to the Municipal Land Regulations.
  Accused admitted being drunk, and having the knife. He said the coolie ran away with his hat and struck him two or three times.
  A native constable having given evidence as to seeing the accused with a knife in his hand,
  His Worship fined the prisoner $5, and costs, and ordered him, to pay 50 cents to the coolie.
.  .  .  
R. v. ALLANSON.
  In the case of Arthur John Allanson, who is charged with burglary at No. 1 Woosung Road, Inspector Reed stated that all the stolen property had been recovered, and he asked that the hearing might be taken earlier than the day originally fixed.
  His Worship assented and set the case down for Wednesday.
.  .  .  
R. v. SIPF.
  William Sipf was charged with stealing $4 from William Hexter, cook and steward of the Athena, ad assaulting James Hanne, chief officer of the vessel.
  The defendant denied the charge of theft and said the mate attacked him first.
  James Hannen sworn, stated - I am chief officer of the Athena.  When I was mooring the ship, I saw the defendant with a capstan bar threatening the pilot. He did not belong to the ship.  I told him to get on shore and he went   along the deck towards the gangway and stopped.  The captain of the tug boat and pilot tried to get him away.  I told them to leave him to me - I was more protecting him than a anything - when he struck me in the eye.  I pushed myself between them and he struck me  with his hand and immediately jumped over the rail into a sampan and went ashore.
  The Defendant - I was in the galley talking about the money said was stolen. The mate and pilot were drunk, and the mate struck me and I struck him in self-defence.
  William Hexter, cook and steward, sworn, stated - This man came on board and was in the galley with me when the pilot came in and said there was a fire in the cabin. I left this gentleman in the galley and went aft to put the fire out. I found the leg of the table was on fire. I put it out and then went back to the galley and was not away more than three minutes, as I suspected the defendant. I found him in my cabin which is off the galley.  I asked him what he was doing in my cabin, and he said he was looking for whisky. He was standing and leaning forward with one hand outstretched. The row commenced with my ordering him out of my cabin and galley but he refused to go. I took up a big stick, but thought better of it and put the stick down again.  The pilot came then and heard me tell the defendant to go out of the galley and he ordered him out too.  He struck the pilot, who fell down. The pilot, I think, fell from being struck.
  The defendant then ran away from the pilot and I told the pilot that the defendant had stolen $4 from me.  The money and some small change was under the mattress before I went to put out the fire. The money was there on Monday morning. I saw it when I made up my bed. The defendant came on board about 9 o'clock. I was just finished making my bed when he came to the door. I missed the money when I returned from putting out the fire, and I saw the bed a little canted up.
  Defendant - The witness is not speaking the truth. The mate was drunk. I can prove that I got the money from the Superintendent of the Sailors' House that morning. When I was accused of stealing the money I opened my coat and asked to be searched.
  Witness - Yes, but it was not till about five minutes afterwards.  There was another young man with him and I do not know what happened in the meantime.
  Detective Horley, who conducted the case in the absence of Inspector Reed, asked the witness if he had any more dollars like those stolen. He had not and said he got them from a Chinaman who came on board the ship.
  Jas. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' House, sworn, stated - I gave the defendant $5 on Monday morning, but I do not know what chop was on them. I cannot recognise the dollars (produced) as I did not look at the chop.
  A shroff from the consulate said he gave the last witness some dollars, but they had various chops on them.
  Defendant said he had two witnesses with regard to the assault. The case was then adjourned till Tuesday morning.
.  .  .  
28th February.
R. v. HEXTER
William Hexter, cook and steward on board the Athena, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a jinricksha coolie and a native constable.
  The defendant said he had nothing to say. He had leave to come on shore, and it had been a long time since he took any liquor and when he did take some it overcame him.
  The jinricksha coolie and the constable having given evidence,
  His Worship sentenced him to pay a fine of $2, the costs, and 5o cents to the jinricksha coolie, and ordered him to be detained in custody till he could be put on board the vessel.
.  .  .  
R. v. ALLANSON
  In the case of Arthur John Allanson, charged with burglary at No. 1, Woosung Road, Inspector Reed said that nearly all of the things had been recovered.
  G. Labrude, recalled, identified the articles on the table as his.
  The defendant pleaded guilty and addressing the Court said the theft was not premeditated, but that he was jovial on that day and had had many drinks. He asked that the offence might not be visited upon him.
  His Worship said he had no knowledge of any body else connected with the burglary, but Inspector Reed said that some Chinese would be dealt with by the Mixed Court.
  At the end of the defendant's appeal,
  His Worship at first sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, but taking into consideration all the property had been recovered, he made the sentence four months with hard labour.
.  .  .  
1st March.
Before James Scott, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SIPF.
  William Sipf was charged on remand with steaking $4 from William Hexter, cook and steward of the Athena, and assaulting James Hannen, chief officer of the vessel.
  E. Petersen, a seaman formerly employed on the Athena, said that on the day in question he saw the accused, the chief officer, and the pilot struggling together amidships. The chief officer was under the influence of liquor.
  G. Goddau, a seaman employed on the vessel, gave similar evidence. The pilot ran after the accused with a carpenter's axe, and the accused took up a capstan bar. They were disarmed by the second officer.
  Detective Hotrley informed his Worship that it had been ascertained the four dollars found on the prisoner were not the coins which had been in the steward's possession.
  His Worship said the charge of theft was "not proven," and the case of assault would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 9 March, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 8th March.
Before G. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
HALL AND HOLTZ LTD. v. FERRIS.
  In this case Messrs. Hall and Holtz, Ltd. sued F. F. Ferris for $92.37, the amount of a promissory note and interest, for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear.
  Evidence of the service of the summons having been given, and Mr. W. Hayward having proved the claim,
  His Honour gave judgment for the amount, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 9 March, 1894
FRENCH CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 6th March.
Before M. G. Dubail, Consul-General, and MM. Oriou and Voulillement.
  This was an action by the Bank of China, Japan, and the Straits, Limited, against M. E. L. Lepissier, to enforce the payment of call upon 30 shares in the Bank registered in the name of the defendant.
  Me. A. Botte (instructed by Mr. J. C. Hanson) appeared for the plaintiffs, the defendant conducting his own case.
  The facts of the case can be briefly stated. The plaintiffs sought an order directing the defendant to pay the call on the shares, which the defendant contested on the ground that he had no interest in the shares at the time the calls were due, having sold them through the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, in proof of which he produced a letter from that Bank, dated the 11th of June, 1892, notifying him of the sale. The plaintiffs contended that they had had no notice to transfer the shares into any other name, and the defendant was still the registered owner.
  The case for both sides having been stated, it was adjourned for the production of certain documents by the plaintiffs.

 

North China Herald, 16 March, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 10th March.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHANG YUNG-KEE v. MANN.
  The plaintiff in the preceding suit sued Mr. J. Mann for an alleged assault.
  Chang Yu ng-kee stated that the defendant had a dispute with him about some coal which was landed at the Acid Woks' jetty on the 15th ult. in the course of which the defendant struck him twice.
  Defendant denied the statement, and added that complainant had been sent away from the Works for stealing coal. Since then it had been found that 700 taels of cotton-seed had also been stolen from the Works and complainant was suspected of the theft.
  Complainant having called a witness who corroborated his account of the assault,
   His Worship imposed a fine of $2 and costs.
.  .  .  
14th March.
R. v. RODRIGUEZ.
  D. Rodriguez, butcher on board the P. and O.'s steamer Assam, was charged with being absent without leave on the 7th and 8th instant, and with bringing liquor on board.
  The chief officer of the vessel proved the offence, and His Worship sentenced the defendant to seven days' imprisonment, to pay the costs, and to be put on board at the expiration of his sentence.
.  .  .  
Shanghai, 15th March.
R. v. D'AGUILAR.
  Jose Sanches d'Aguilar was charged on a provisional warrant with having committed forgery whilst in government employ at Hongkong.
  Captain McEuen said the prisoner had been arrested upon instructions received from the Captain Superintendent of Police in Hongkong, who had sent up a letter saying that the accused had committed forgery there and that he was believed to be in employment in Shanghai. The warrant for his arrest was issued on the 16th of January. The amount of the forgery was not stated. Witness had received a photograph of the person wanted, and to the best of his belief the prisoner was the man. He was arrested at half-past five o'clock on Wednesday afternoon.
  His Worship (to the accused) -  Do you wish to make any remarks or make any statement?
  Accused - I have nothing to say except that I am guilty.
  His Worship - That you are guilty?
  Accused - Yes, sir.
  In reply to his Worship, Captain McEuen said he had telegraphed the fact of the arrest to Hongkong, and he thought an officer would arrive here with the warrant in about seven days.
  His Worship accordingly adjourned the case until the 22nd instant.

 

North China Herald, 16 March, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 9th March.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
LANE, CRAWEFORD AND CO. v. WHITNEY.
  The plaintiffs sued the defendant F. W. Whitney for goods sold and delivered to the amount of $72. The defendant did not appear.
  W. Brun proved personal service of the summons.
  W. Cope, partner in the firm, proved that the goods claimed for were sold to the defendant in 1891 and 1892, and stated that application had been made for payment.
  His Honour gave judgment for $72, with costs.
.  .  .  
10th March.
CHANG YUN-KEE v. MANN.
  The plaintiff, a shroff, claimed $5.50 from Mr. J. Mann, money lent, producing an I.O.U. signed by the latter.
  Defendant said the debt had been paid. At China new Year the plaintiff went away with $20 belonging to his (defendant's) father, and when he returned he only brought $15, saying that he (defendant) owed him $5. Defendant's father said it was all right, and defendant not knowing of the settlement, did not get back the I.O.U.
  His Honour directed defendant to pay the amount claimed together with the costs into Court, and if there were any outstanding transactions between defendant's father and the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) could be taken to the Mixed Court; and if it were then ascertained that the defendant's story was correct, the money would be refunded to defendant. If, on the other hand, no proceedings were taken in the Mixed Court within seven days, the money was to be paid to the plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 22 March, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th March.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
YUE MEE-KEE v. ASTLE.
  This was a claim for $3.50 for goods supplied by Yue Mee-kee, a tailor, to R. J. Astle.
  Plaintiff said the goods were supplied last spring, at the order of s third party. He had several times endeavoured to obtain payment but had been put off with some excuse.
  Defendant admitted receiving the goods, but said he had paid the claim. Plaintiff sent a boy to collect it in July and the money was handed to him by his (plaintiff's) servant. The boy took away the bill for the purpose of getting it receipted, and did not return.
  After a good deal of conversation, and evidence,
  His Honour said the defendant, if he paid the bill, should be able to produce a receipt. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 22 March, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th March.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. DORAN.
  Patrick Doran, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway.
  P.C. No. 40 deposed to finding the prisoner in a drunken condition in Broadway.
  Inspector Reed gave him a bad character.
  His Worship sentenced him to two days' hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 22 March, 1894
LAW REPIRTS.
H.B.M.'SD SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 19th March.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE STRAITS, LTD. v. J. S. BRYAN.
  This was a suit to enforce payment of calls on 50 shares in the Bank of China, Japan, and the Straits. Ltd. of which the defendant was the registered holder. Mr. J. C. Hanson (of the firm of Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson) conducted the case for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeared in person.
  The defendant admitted his liability, but said he was at present unable to meet the call.
  His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs.
.  .  .  
BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE STRAITS. LTD. v.  S. BOWNESS.
  This was a similar suit, the defendant being the registered holder of 75 shares in the Bank.
  The defendant admitted the claim, and stated he was unable to meet the call at present.
  His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 30 March, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd March.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. HANLON.
  Stephen Hanlon was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Woosung Road on Wednesday.
  Detective Horley having stated that the defendant had been locked up before, and a native constable having deposed to arresting him,
  His Worship sentenced him to 14 days' imprisonment.
.  .  .  
R. v. D'AGUILAR.
  Jose Sanches d'Aguilar was brought up on remand charged "that he with intent to defraud, unlawfully and feloniously did attempt to cause to be paid to himself the sum of $30, by virtue of a certain forged instrument, to wit, a certain forged cheque on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank purporting to be signed by one R. S. Combe, he the said Jose Sanches d'Aguilar then well knowing the said cheque to be forged, contrary to Ordinance 6 of 1865."
  Detective Green of the Hongkong Police produced the warrant for the arrest of the accused.
     Mr. A. Alemar, a telephone operator at Hongkong, gave evidence as to identity.
  His Worship made an order for the prisoner to be handed over to the police.
.  .  .  
CHARGE OF ROBBERY.
  A Jew from, Bagdad was charged by I. Abraham, a Jew from Jerusalem, with robbery from the person of some Turkish gold coins valued at $60.
  According to the evidence it appeared that the prosecutor arrived in Shanghai on the 11th inst. from Hongkong. He went to live in the house of the accused and missed his property that night. The accused was a passenger on the same steamer from Hongkong. They came together from Hongkong in the steamer Canton and lodged at No. 58 Szechuan Road.  During the night accused took the money from a belt he had on. There were seven gold coins in the belt. Complainant did not know that the accused stole them, so he went to the police station about it. The money produced by the police was his money. The robbery happened some night during the week, but he could not swear which night it was stolen. The reason was because it was so much trouble to get to the belt as he three or four more round him. He had been in bed very sick.
  The accused said he came from Bagdad and was a Turkish subject.
  In reply to His Worship, who asked why he was brought to the British Court, it was explained that the accused came from Bombay and it was understood he was under British protection.
  Inspector Ramsay stated that the gold pieces had been sold to a cash shop and the notes and money tht the accused got for them were found on the roof under the tiles.
  His Worship adjourned the case to enable the police to find out where the accused had to be tried.
.  .  .  
28th March.
R. v. DORAN.
  Patrick Doran, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that the accused had been suffering from delirium tremens and had been for some days in the police station until he recovered from his violence, when he was sent to the hospital. He had been imprisoned for two days for drunkenness, and had been a general nuisance. He had been discharged from the Athena.
  His Worship said the prisoner would go to prison for fourteen days.
  Accused - Well, you won't get me out of Shanghai while Shanghai is Shanghai.
.  .  .  
R. v. MASHITA.
  Ya Mashita, a Japanese seaman, employed on board the British barque Satsuma, was charged with steaking 3 cases of kerosene, valued at $6, from the vessel on the 27th of March.
  His Worship said that in such a case as the present it was customary to ask the Consul of the accused whether he would try the case. If he did not, then the case would come back to that Court.
.  .  .  
28th March.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. GRANT.
  David Grant, a seaman belonging to the Glenavon, was charged with being drunk in the Broadway on the previous evening and carrying a sheath knife.
   P.C. Young deposed to seeing the prisoner in the Broadway, being assisted along by another man. He had a sheath knife on him, but it was not out. Prisoner did not resist arrest.
  His Lordship ordered the accused to be put on board, and to be fined $10.

 

North China Herald, 6 April, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th April.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MUSH
  Salia Mush, a Bagdad Jew, was charged with stowing himself away on board the P. and O. steamer Thames at Hongkong, and defrauding that company of his passenger-money to Shanghai.
  Captain Seaton, of the Thames, who prosecuted, stated that a few minutes before the steamer left Hongkong the prisoner was noticed by a steward in the company of another Jew deck-passenger, who had a ticket. Prisoner said he was going ashore, but when the vessel had left Hongkong he was found on board.
  Prisoner, in reply, to his Worship, said he gave another man the money to buy the ticket, but the man did  not give him the ticket.
  His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment.
  Inspector Reed asked that on the expiration of the sentence the prisoner should be deported, and his Worship made an order to that effect.

North China Herald, 13 April, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 11th April.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. THOMPSON.
  Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent, Sailors' House, charged J. F. Thompson with being drunk and disorderly in the house on the 10th instant. He said that on three occasions yesterday samshu was taken into the House, and that the defendant was a perfect nuisance. He had taken liquor from him on several occasions.
  The prisoner said he bought the liquor at stores.
  His Worship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment with hard labour.
.  .  .  
19th April, 1894
R. v. MEEDE.
  Thomas Meede, stoker belonging to H.M.S. Flower, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Bund on the previous night and assaulting native Police Constable No. 211.
  Complainant stated that he heard accused refusing to pay a 'ricsha coolie whom he had hired. He went up to see what the matter was when accused struck him, cutting his cheek and eye.
  P.C. Armstrong stated he saw accused walk over towards the native constable and throw the latter's hat off. The constable then rushed up to witness holding his hand to his cheek, accused following him. Accused was drunk. He did not attempt to assault witness.
  Accused admitted the charge, and was sent on board his ship to be dealt with.
  The case being returned by Captain Addington, the prisoner  was again put forward in the afternoon, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment.

North China Herald, 13 April, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 7th April.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
SZE YUEN MING v. MOUTRIE.
  This was a claim by Sze Yuen Ming, photographer, of Nanking Road, against Mr. S. Moutrie for $12 for certain photographs.
  The plaintiff's case was that defendant came and ordered him to take photographs of a dinner party he intended holding. The photographs were to be taken by flash-light, and the charge was to be $4 for the first copy and 75 cents for each succeeding copy. Three proofs were sent to the defendant, but he declined to pay for them, saying they were not satisfactory, although some of his friends had bought copies.
  Mr. Moutrie produced the photographs and pointed out their defects, comparing them with a flash-light photograph taken by an amateur.  He said the figures in the photographs were almost unrecognisable, and he told the plaintiff so when the proofs were sent. He went to the plaintiff's shop to see him but he behaved so rudely that he (Mr. Moutrie) had to leave. Afterwards with the desire to reimburse the plaintiff for the expenditure on plates, chemicals, etc., he paid $4 into Court.
  His Honour inspected the photographs and he remarked that he was bound to say one was not at all satisfactory. Another might pass muster, and the third was not so bad, although he would not call it first class. He thought that the $4 paid into Court would satisfy the plaintiff's claim.
  The plaintiff remarked that it was not easy to take a photograph of a dinner party in a room at night time.
  His Honour - That may be so, but if you want to make a success of your business you must endeavour to do a little better than that, and it is no use trying to force people to take bad photographs.
.  .  .  
SZE YUEN MING v. DANIEL.
  In this case Mr. H. W. Daniel was sued for $8, the plaintiff's charge for taking photographs of the Drag Hunt Club.
  The plaintiff said he went out to the country at Mr. Daniel's request and took photographs of the Drag Hunt Club. The charge for sending a man out and taking photographs was $8.
  Mr. Daniel said he objected to pay the $8 because he thought the charge excessive. The plaintiff took some photographs of the Club. He had already sold about $35 worth of the photographs to the members, and might probably sell $100 worth; moreover Dr. Macleod took some photographs at the same time, which were better, and gave his negatives to the plaintiff who had printed copies from the negatives and sold them. It was quite true there was no specific contract that in consideration of selling the copies the plaintiff should not charge for taking them, but at the same time the charge appeared to be excessive.
  His Honour said in the absence of any understanding he thought Mr. Daniel was liable, and judgment would be given for the amount claimed.

 

North China Herald, 20 April, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 17th April.
ON APPEAL FROM H.M.'S COURT FOR JAPAN, AT KANAGAWA.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice, and George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
BETWEEN TSUNE KIJIMA AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
AND THE
PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.
  This was an appeal by Tsune Kijima and others, the next-of-kin of the men drowned in the collision which took place between the Chishima Kan and the Ravenna in the Inland Sea in November, 1892, to discharge the Order made by H.M.'s Court for Japan on the 13th of December, 1893, which dismissed the petition by the said Tsune Kijima and others.
[Not transcribed.]
Their Lordships reserved judgment.]

North China Herald, 20 April, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 14th April.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MELVIN.
  J. Melvin, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous night in Broadway.
  A native constable deposed to arresting the prisoner at half-past eleven on the previous night.
  James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors;' House, said the man had not been sober since the 20th of February, and had been a great nuisance in the House.
  His Worship sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
10th April.
R. v. DAVIS.
  Walter Davis, A.B., employed on board the British ship Bandaneira, was summoned for refusing duty on the 17th and 18th instant.
  Captain Max Falck, master of the vessel, produced the log book showing that on the two days in question the accused refused to do duty when ordered by the chief mate.
  Accused said he refused duty because he would not work with a man named Josephs  who was always making himself a nuisance. He (accused) told the mate he would work with another man.
  The Captain said Josephs was an Italian who could not speak English and the fact was that Davis wanted to be working with a man to whom he could talk, and thus waste time. Davis had been giving trouble all the voyage.
  James Harris, a seaman on the ship, who was called by the accused, said he had heard that the latter could not get on with Josephs.
  Hs Worship said the last witness had been logged throughout the voyage for turbulent conduct as well as the accused, so his evidence did not amount to very much. The accused would go to prison for a week.

North China Herald, 20 April, 1894
FRENCH CONSULAR OURT.
Shanghai, 18th April.
Before M. G. Dubail, Consul-General, and MM. Oriou and Vouillement, Assessors.
BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE STRAITS, LTD. v. LEPISSIER.
  Judgment was delivered by the Court in this action which was instituted by the Bank of China, Japan, and the Straits, Limited, against M. E. L. Lepissier, to enforce the payment of calls upon 30 shares in the Bank registered in the name of the defendant.
  Mr. A. Bottu (instructed by Mr. J. C. Hannon) appeared for the plaintiffs, the defendant conducting his own case.
  The Court held that the Articles of Association of the Bank were not in conformity with French law, which required that on the formation of a joint-stock company 25 per cent of the value of the shares must be paid up. Accordingly judgment was given for the defendant.

North China Herald, 27 April, 1894;
EDITORIAL.
THE BANK OF CHINA, ETC. v. LEPISSIER.
[Not transcribed, but ample detail.]
  The Court nonsuits the Bank, and orders it to pay the costs of the action.
  This judgment, it will be seen, does not go so far as has been represented; it does not attempt to decide whether M. Lepissier is still a shareholder or not, nor does it say that M. Lepissier could not be made to pay his calls, if the Bank were properly constituted. It exonerates M. Lepissier on the ground that the Bank is not properly constituted, and that it does not come into Court with clean hands itself. The decision is no doubt in accordance with French law; and it is a very valuable one,  because there are a number of insurance companies  which have less than one-fourth of their capital paid up, and which are therefore not in conformity with French law, and could not apparently successfully sue their French shareholders if they had any.

North China Herald, 27 April, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 24th April.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
CHAU SHUN SENG v. HASSAN.
  In this case the plaintiff alleged that in December, 1893, he advanced $30 to the defendant on the understanding that he (the plaintiff) was to "run" the tea-department at a Japanese theatrical performance which the defendant represented he was about to open in the Foochow Road.  The theatre, however, was not started, and the money had not been repaid.
  Defendant admitted receiving the money, and said he was not at present in a position to pay it. He was living with a friend and had no means.
  Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 4 May, 1894
LAW REPORTS
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 27th April.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. DREW.
  W. Drew, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous evening.
  P.C. Young deposed to arresting the accused at half-past five o'clock, and Inspector Reed stated that he had been previously detained for drunkenness, but released.
  His Worship sentenced him to seven days' hard labour.
.  .  .  
30th April.
R. v. MACKENZIE.
     James Mackenzie, quartermaster on board the Rosetta, was charged with being drunk in Hongkew Station, threatening the chief officer of his ship, and doing wilful damage to the police cells to the value of $3.
  Mr. A. O. Cooper, Chief officer of the s.s. Rosetta, sworn, stated that after some trouble on board ship, on finding the prisoner the worse for liquor on duty, he ordered him below, which order he refused to obey and went ashore without leave, then followed witness to the station. On entering the station he became violent and threatened to assault complainant. Upon being put into the cell he broke the windows and furniture. Defendant had a good character when sober.
  His Worship sentenced the prisoner to pay for the damage to the cells and fined him $5 with costs.
.  .  .  
R. v. SUENSON.
  John Suension, A.B., late of s.s. Abergeldie, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Saturday night.
  P.C. Young, s worn, stated - I first found accused in a tea-shop in Yuenfong Road, drunk and creating a disturbance. I sent him to the Sailors' House, but he came out again and created a fresh disturbance; so I arrested him.
  Inspector Reed said accused was left behind by his ship, had been continually drunk since the ship arrived, and had been locked up several times, but was let out upon getting sober.
  His Worship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment and to be sent to Hongkong to rejoin his ship.

 

North China Herald, 11 May, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 5th May.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. GIBBS.
  George Gibbs, A.B. was charged with being absent from his ship the Bandineira, from the 27th ult. the ship having since left.
  Prisoner said he left his ship on account of being badly treated there, and had sold what things he had to procure food while in hiding. He had nothing but what he stood in.
  His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment and to be sent to Hongkong.
.  .  .  
8th May.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WIEMEN.
  G. Wiemen, quartermaster on board the P. and O. steamer Rosetta, appeared to answer a summons charging him with creating a disturbance and using language towards the chief officer calculated to cause a breach of the peace.
  A. O. Cooper, chief officer of the Rosetta, having been sworn, said that on the previous day the defendant was drunk and when ordered to go forward refused. Witness and the boatswain were leading him along when he began a great disturbance and was exceedingly violent. Witness had him put in a cabin from which he broke out, and another attempt was also made to secure him, after which he was quieter. Later he was served with the present summons, and he then left the ship without permission and had not returned.
  Defendant admitted using bad language and expressed regret for it. He was under the influence of drink or he would not have done it. He came ashore after the summons to get advice about it.
  His Worship said defendant would have to pay a fine of $3 and costs, and if the captain insisted upon it he could deduct two days' pay for the days of absence.

 

North China Herald, 11 May, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 4th May.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
HALL v. GREGSON.
 Dr. Ward Hall, dentist, sued Mr. F. Gregson, of Chinkiang, for Tls. 45 on account of professional services rendered to the defendant's daughter in November, 1892. Mr. F. P. Catterrall appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant, who had paid Tls. 20 into Court, conducted his own defence.
 Dr. Ward Hall, having been sworn, said he had been in practice as a dentist for twenty-five years. In November, 1892, he attended Mr. Gregson's daughter, a little girl about nine years of age. There were four fillings and a consultation. There was no agreement as to fees, but what he had charged was rather below what was customary.
 Mr. Gregson said he was afraid he should have some difficulty in making out his case as Mrs. Gregson and the child were not now in China. Shortly after the child was attended to Mrs. Gregson wrote to Dr. Hall complaining of the way in which the work had been done, and stating that the filling had come out. He asked for the production of that letter.
  Dr. Ward Hall said he had destroyed it, but his recollection was that it was simply a letter saying the child had been suffering some pain, and asking what to do. No fault was found with the work.
  Mr. Gregson said unfortunately his copy of the letter was in Chinkiang, at which place he thought the case would have been heard.
  Dr. Hall said the child's teeth had been attended to before and were extremely bad. No complaint had been made until the account was sent in. If there had been he should have offered to do the work again. He did not believe the filling could have come out, as had been alleged.
  After some further conversation,
 His Honour said that if any fault was found with the work the natural thing would have been to take the child back. He could not attempt to fix a scale of charges for a dentist or anyone else, and unless there was evidence that the fees were excessive or unreasonable for Shanghai he must accept them. There would be judgment for the plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 25 May, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 21st May.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. LINCOLN.
  H. Lincoln, A.B., belonging to the Muncaster Castle, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting the Police on the previous day. Inspector Ramsay watched the case for the police.
  Native constable No. 370, said that on the previous day the accused, as trying to force his way into a house in the Soochow Road.  Witness put him into a 'ricksha with the intention of taking him to the station, but when they reached Honan Road accused jumped out, and drew a sheath knife upon witness. There was a struggle, in which witness was kicked in the face, and it was not until another native and a Sikh constable arrived that the prisoner could be taken to the station.
  Corroborative evidence of the assault and the drawing of the knife having been given, accused, who said he was helplessly drunk at the time and did not know what he was doing, was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour.
.  .  .  
22nd May.
R. v. STANLEY.
  Charles Stanley, A.B. British ship Muncaster Castle, was charged with being drunk on Broadway yesterday and carrying a sheath knife in the Settlement contrary to Regulation 37.
  T. Moran, P.O. 37, stated - About 4.45 p.m. yesterday, I found accused on Broadway, very drunk and having trouble with a 'ricksha coolie, as he had no money to pay the coolie with. He was very drunk, but went to the station quietly. He had a sheath knife on him.
  Prisoner stated that he had come ashore with others, without leave, on Sunday, and had [had] not th0ought about the knife.
  He was fined $3 or a week in default.
.  .  .  
R. v. RANDALL.
  James Randall, unemployed, living at the Sailors' House, was before the Court on a similar charge to the above.
  Native P.C. 189 stated that he found the prisoner asleep on Broadway at 1.30 this morning. He was very drunk, and witness saw a sheath knife on him. Prisoner went to the station quietly.
  The prisoner stated that he had no intention of doing wrong in carrying his knife while ashore, and he had not seen any notice of the regulation.
  He was fined $3 or a week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 25 May, 1894
ANTEDATING BILLS OF LADING.
A FIRM OF MARSEIILLES MERCHANTS V. OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  Four bills of lading were executed by captain of defendants' ship, The Agamemnon, representing that 150 tons of cargo had been shipped at Penang for Marseilles. The plaintiff firm received these bills of lading for the cargo, and accepted bills of exchange upon them for the value of the goods. Plaintiff then placed the goods at the disposal of the purchasers.  The latter, however, having purchased August and September shipments, made inquiries, and ascertained that the bills of lading were antedated. They refused to receive the goods, which the Tribunal ordered to be sold by public auction, with the result that there was a loss to plaintiffs of 10,000 francs.
  It was found that the ship only arrived at Penang on 16th October in order to load. Defendants pleaded that plaintiffs had not been prejudiced by the antedating, and that in an arbitration in London between them and the vendors they had been awarded£35 indemnity.
  The Tribunal, however, held that if the captain had accurately signed the bills, plaintiffs would not have been asked to accept the bills of exchange. The loss was, in fact, a direct and immediate consequence of the very grave error committed by the captain in falsely dating the bills of lading. Defendants were directed to pay 10,000 francs damages to plaintiff with interest and costs. - Transport.


North China Herald, 1 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 28th May.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. FREDRICSON.
  Bill Fredricson, A.B., British ship Brynhilda, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship.
  Captain John Mackenzie, master of the vessel, sworn, started - This man has been absent since the 28th instant. He has been on board several times at night, but left again in the morning. He left finally on the 25th. He also signed bills to the amount of $16, though I only gave him permission to sign for $8.
  D etective-sergeant Prest stated that he found him at the "Travellers" very drunk, and took him to the station.
   He was fined six day's pay and to be imprisoned till the ship left.
.  .  .  
R. v. VERA SINGH.
  Vera Singh was charged by Buttah Singh with having stolen two long coats, two blankets, and a saucepan, total value about $8, on the 19th of May.
  The complainant stated that he had had a quarrel with accused and two friends on the morning of the 19th of May. He went out, and upon returning in the evening found the things gone. He had traced them to the house of a Chinaman, and as the accused had taken an active part in the quarrel and had gone to the police station to report the case to the police as soon as complainant returned, he at once suspected the accused of the stealing.
  A Chinaman was called who stated that the goods were brought to his house in his absence, but that he and his wife, who received the goods, knew that they belonged to complainant, and thought that they had been brought by his friend for safe-keeping.
  Accused stated that he had won the things at gambling and had offered to allow complainant until 6 o'clock to redeem them for $9, but that when he came back at 6 he fund the things gone, and heard that complainant's friend had taken them away.
  This being corroborated by a witness  to the gambling, and the loss of the things in that way, the case was dismissed.
.  .  .  
31st May.
R v. WILLIAMS.
  Thomas Williams, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Hongkew Coffee House on Wednesday.
  P.C. Young stated that at about 7.15 p.m. he was called t0 the Coffee House and found the defendant. The Manageress said he had gone in, sat down, and fell asleep. The Rev. H. C. Hodges sent for witness to take the defendant in charge. He did not resist.
  The defendant said he was staying at the Coffee House, but that he was being given a passage to Japan.
  His Worship remanded him and he is to be discharged if he gets the passage to Japan.
.  .  .  
R. v. SMYTH AND BRADSHAW.
  Peter Smyth and George Bradshaw were charged with desertion from the Brynhilda.
  Detective Horley deposed to finding the men outside the Sailors' Home but they said they would not go on board their ship.
  Smyth stated that the mate kept a loaded revolver to prevent the men deserting. They were sentenced to one week's imprisonment with hard labour.

North China Herald, 15 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th June.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SMITH.
  C. Smith, seaman, belonging to the British ship Muncaster Castle, was charged with being absent from his ship since the 20th May, without leave.
  Evidence was given that the accused had been doing nothing since the ship arrived, and he had been in the doctor's hands from the effects of drink, and had not been on the ship since the 20th ult.
  His Worship imposed a fine of ten days;' pay, and ordered him to be kept in gaol until the ship's departure.
.  .  .  
11th June.
R. v. McWILLIAMS.
  H. McWilliams, third engineer of the s.s. Taisang, was charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship without leave. Mr. H. Browett appeared to defend the accused.
  Detective-sergeant Prest said he arrested the accused on Sunday morning at about eleven o'clock in a barber's shop in Hongkew. He was sober and made no resistance.
  Mr. Browett said the ship had left the port on a voyage to Hongkong, and he asked that the accused should be admitted to bail. He believed he should be able to justify the accused's conduct.
  Accused explained that on Saturday afternoon he went on board the ship at a few minutes to four o'clock when the second engineer said he was not wanted. He found another man in his place, and it was too late to report the matter to the Consulate.
  His Worship said the accused should have known perfectly well that the second engineer could not give him authority to leave the ship, and he should have gone to the captain. To say the least accused had been guilty of injudicious conduct in taking the so-called order of the second engineer.
  After some further conversation,
  His Worship consented to admit the accused to bail in the amount of $50.
.  .  .  
R. v. SIMPSON.
  Robert Simpson, third engineer, was charged with being absent without leave from the same ship. It appeared that he left the ship on the 2nd inst., and that McWilliams was engaged in his place.
  Accused said he left the ship because he was sick. The chief engineer told him he could go, and he believed that was sufficient.
  His Worship said the accused's conduct seemed to be very peculiar. He must have known the captain only could discharge him, and that he would have to sign off the articles in the proper way.
  Accused said he was not prepared with bail, and his worship said he would have to be remanded to prison, although every facility would be given him to communicate with his friends to obtain bail.
.  .  .  
R. v. RANDELL.
  J. E. Randell, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Sailors' House.
  James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the prisoner was released from gaol on the 28th ultimo, and had been drunk every day since, sometimes before breakfast. Witness could not understand how the accused got the money with which to obtain the liquor.
  His Worship imposed a sentence of a fortnight's imprisonment, with hard labour.
  Prisoner - Can I come out if I get a ship?
  His Worship - I will ship you from the gaol if possible.
.  .  .  
12th June.
R. v. SELLSTROM AND OTHERS.
  J. Sellstrom, W. Crockett, A. Jocobsen, R. Haskell, C. Stanley, J. Higgins, H. Lincoln, and C. Sellstrom, seamen, Muncaster Castle, were charged with refusal of duty on the 11th inst.
  Captain Scarboro, master of the vessel, s worn, stated - I charge the men with continuous and wilful refusal of duty from Sunday morning till this morning. They have stated that they will do no more work on board as they do not want to be used like dogs, and prefer to go to gaol. Lincoln made the statement on Sunday morning.  I know of no real grounds for their refusal, and as the ship has been in port four weeks, they have had sufficient time to make any complains. There was no trouble at all only after the ship arrived. No complaints were made at sea, and I have not seen anything to justify any complaints.
  Crockett said - The second mate struck Lincoln on Sunday morning, but I do not know what the man said to him that caused him to strike him.
  Lincoln said - The second mate told me to do some scrubbing and to put my weight into it.  I replied that I was doing so. The mate told me to "shut up." I told him not to talk so fast as he might be sorry for it. He then struck me. The chief mate came along and said: "He's going to draw a knife," and one of the apprentices took me by the throat and tried to choke me. They took the knife out of the sheath and threw it overboard. I never attempted to draw the knife.
  Stanley said - I have been thirty-nine years at sea and have never seen anything like the treatment we got on board. The Captain knocked down Cross, one of the crew, at sea.
  His Worship - He is not here?
  A voice - No, he's a married man and wants to get home; he thinks the quietest way is the best.
  Andrew Carruthers, apprentice, sworn, stated - I saw Lincoln put his hand towards his knife. He did not actually draw it, though he made the attempt. If the mate had not been behind him he would have done so. The mate came behind and pulled him by the hand and the second and third mate and myself seized him. The third mate took the knife and gave it to the second mate and he threw it overboard. The mate said to Lincoln: "I'll see that you don't have a knife in future." Lincoln replied, "I'll get something else."
  I have seen no ill-treatment by the officers. In the case of Cross, all hands had been called up and when the Captain told Cross to hurry up, he said he would take his time. The Captain went over to him and spoke to him about it; I do not know what Cross said but it appeared to be an impertinent answer, for the Captain struck him, but did not make any attempt to reach for a belaying pin. I cannot say whether the blow was with the open hand or closed fist. Cross went to his work and no more was said about it. I do not know of any complaining being made at sea.
  His Worship said to his mind the excuses made by the men were frivolous, as hey related to the case of a man who did not appear and had made no complaint.
  Captain Scarboro asked to make a statement on oath with reference to what Stanley had said. The assault on Cross occurred three months ago, and at the time, 26 men were kept waiting for him. I did slap the man's face, but Cross afterwards admitted that he (Cross) was wrong. I have no complaint to make against him, and he has been with me before in another ship. Stanley after sickness induced by drink after I had nursed him said to me in the presence of others, "You have treated me like a brother; you have never said a cross word to me," and now he comes here with a different story.
  His Worship said he had no doubt that the men had been induced to act as they were doing under the leadership of Lincoln. He sentenced Lincoln to one month's imprisonment with hard labour and the others to 14 days; all are to forfeit 6 days' pay for the time they had refused duty and whatever expense the ship had been put to through their conduct is to be deducted from their wages.

 

North China Herald, 8 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th June.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. QUINN, REGAN, ANTONIO AND JENSEN.
  Peter Quinn and Charles Antonio, belonging to the Wray Castle and John Regan and Peter Jensen from the Crofton Hall were charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting Inspector Reed and native constable 248 while in the execution of their duty.
  Inspector Reed said he was in Broadway at 8.30 p.m. on Sunday and saw the four defendants and others, stop at the "Travellers," and he then saw that there was some kind of disturbance. He went towards them and saw Quinn take off his coat and strike at the native constable. Witness arrested him and while taking him to the station the defendant seized him by the knees and butted him in the stomach, and tried to throw him down. Regan, Antonio and Jensen also interfered with the witness and pushed him about. While witness was struggling with Quinn, somebody kicked at witness from behind, but the blow struck Quinn instead of witness. The prisoners were eventually arrested and locked up.
  Chinese constable 248 and Detective Horley, and Sergeant Nicholson having given evidence,
  His Worship sentenced Quinn, Regan and Antonio to two weeks' imprisonment, and Jensen to one week.
.  .  .  
R. v. WESTERLAND.
  C. A. Westerland, 2nd officer Lucia, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Bund and assaulting P.C. Johansen.
  P.C. Johansen stated that he was called by a native constable to a foreigner, who was drunk and creating a disturbance. Witness spoke to him and asked him why he had made a row, what ship he belonged to, and why he did not go home. He told witness that his vessel was lying off the French Concession. He then commenced shouting and refused to leave the place, so witness was compelled to take him to the station, and on the way there, defendant seized him by the throat, but was stopped by a native constable.
  The native constable confirmed the evidence.
  His Worship sentenced the accused to one week's imprisonment with hard labour.

North China Herald, 19 June, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd June.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
BHANGIT SINGH v. ROBERTS.
  This was a claim for $85, the balance of a loan of $200, and $4.17 for interest. Mr. F. P. Catterall appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant appearing in person.
  Defendant admitted the debt and said he had been paying interest at the rate of 120 per cent per annum.
  Mr. Catterall said that by an agreement he drew up interest was fixed at 20 per cent per annum.
  His Honour eventually made an order for $10 a month.

North China Herald, 22 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 16th June.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
BREWER v. FERRIS.
  In this case Mr. Brewer sued Mr. F. F. Ferris for $29, for goods supplied during 1891 and 1892.
   Evidence was given that the goods had been supplied, and that the bill had not been paid.
  Mr. Ferris stated that he could not find the receipt, but he knew he had paid for the goods as he had marked his bill as "Paid by Compradore Order." As no receipt could be produced, judgment was given for the amount with costs,
.  .  .  
19th June.
TSONG KWAI-FAH v. THORNLEY.
  This was a claim for $34.45 for services rendered from 1st to 13th instant.
   Tsong Kwai-fah deposed that he had been three months in defendant's employ at the rate of $10 month, and he claimed for himself and others. On the 13th there was a dispute about some clothes lately washed and the defendant went into the wash-house and struck somebody and turned them all out. Defendant asked him to engage more men, but witness said the others must be paid first. He was not dismissed himself, but left because he could not get other men. He considered all the washmen were Mrs. Thornley's servants, not his, and he was willing to work, but was sent away on the 13th.
  The defendant stated that she asked the plaintiff not to go; all the men were willing to work.
  Plaintiff said that the head washman was A-yung, who was struck by Mr. Papps. This was in the washing-room and A-yung ran into the ironing-room.
  His Honour informed the plaintiff that servants are not entitled to leave in the middle of the month and he dismissed the case.
PAR JAI v. McCARTHY.
  In this case, Par Jai, a tailor, claimed $33.88 balance of goods supplied in 1889-90.
  Defendant admitted having received the goods but said she had never seen the bill.
  Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

North China Herald, 22 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th June.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SILEN.
  Charles Silen A.B., British ship Croston Hall, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway on the 17th.
  A jinricksha coolie stated that he had been engaged by the accused from midday till 5 p.m. and that upon asking for his fare, $1, he was struck in the face by accused who refused to pay the fare. He called for the police.
  P.C. 44 stated that he was called by the previous witness, whose face was covered with blood. The prisoner was in the Seamens' Mission, and was pointed out as the man who had struck the last witness. Accused was not very drunk, and gave little trouble in going to the station.
   Accused stated that he had only had the first witness a few minutes, and he ordered the 'ricksha to take him on board. Instead of that the coolie had taken him to a grog shop. Complainant struck him first, and accused returned the blow. The Manager of the Mission had paid the coolie 20 cents.
  Accused was fined $3 for the assault, and to pay 50 cents to the coolie.
R.  v. REGAN AND WILKINSON.
  John Regan, A.B., British ship Croston Hall, and Samuel Wilkinson, A.B., British ship Matterhorn, were charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway.
  It was stated that Regan had left gaol on Saturday, had been locked up the same night, and was again very drunk on Sunday evening.
  P.C. Rumbold, no. 27, deposed to finding the two accused asleep on a doorstep in Nanking Road. They were very drunk, but went to the station quietly.
  Regan stated that he had tried to get on board ship but had not enough money to go to Woosung, where he thought his ship was.
  Wilkinson was dismissed with a caution. Regan was remanded to find means for sending him on to his ship.
R. v. HAGAN.
  William Hagan, A.B., British ship Matterhorn, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Ewo jetty.
  Native P.C. 198 testified to finding accused very drunk about 11 o'clock. As he was too drunk to go ion board his ship, he took him to the station.
  Prisoner was dismissed with a caution as it was his first offence.
R. v. LYNCH.
  John Lynch,. A.B., British ship Matterhorn, was charged with being drunk and assaulting a native P.C.
  Native P.C. 435, stated that he had found accused having a dispute with a jinricksha coolie and refusing to pay the fare. Witness remonstrated with him and was shoved away. Accused was very drunk so he was arrested and taken to the station.
  Accused stated that he was going on board ship when the jinricksha coolie attempted to get extra fare out of him - hence the disturbance.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $2 for the assault, and ordered him to be put on board his ship.
.  .  .  
21st June.
R. v. O'CONNOR.
  John O'Connor, unemployed seaman living at the Sailors' House, was charged with being drunk and begging in the Broadway.
  Acting-Superintendent Howard said that on Wednesday evening, at about 8.20, when outside the sailors' House, the prisoner came up and demanded a dollar. Witness walked away but the prisoner followed, and again demanded the money. Witness then informed the Superintendent of the House, a policeman was sent for, and the accused was arrested. There had been complaints by residents living in Broadway of having been accosted by foreign sailors who demanded money, and who had, in some cases, gone into houses. Prisoner was drunk but knew what he was doing.
  Accused said he mistook Mr. Howard for Mr. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the Sailors' House.
  His Worship characterised this as an ingenious defence, but he did not think it was worth very much. Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' House, said the prisoner had about $60 at present to his name. He gave him $3 on the day in question at noon and at two o'clock he was drunk and demanding more. On the previous day accused had $5.
  Mr. Eveleigh explained that unless they got the money the men made themselves an absolute nuisance.
  His Worship imposed a fine if $3, and cautioned the accused as to his future behaviour.

North China Herald, 29 June, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 23rd June.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. WILKINSON.
  S. Wilkinson, seamen belonging to the Matterhorn, was charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship since the 12th inst.
  Detective-sergeant Prest deposed to arresting the accused, and in the absence of the captain the prisoner was remanded.
.  .  .  
25th June.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. McWILLIAMS.
  H. McWilliams, third engineer of the s.s. Taisang, surrendered to bail to answer the charge of being absent from his ship without leave. The case was originally before the Court on the 11th instant and remanded for the return of the Taisang, which had left for Hongkong. Mr. H. Browett appeared for the accused.
  Mr. Browett, addressing His Worship, said he desired to plead guilty on behalf of the prisoner.
  Captain Hogg, in reply to His Worship, said he did not desire to press the charge, and
  His Worship ordered the accused to forfeit any pay due to him, to pay the costs of the case, and to be discharged.
R. v. SIMPSON.
  Robert Simpson, also third engineer, whose place had been taken by McWilliams, appeared on remand to answer a similar charge. At the former hearing the accused had stated that he left the ship because he was told by the Chief Engineer he was not wanted.
  James Robb, Chief Engineer, in reply to His Worship, said he saw the accused leaving the ship and he brought him back, but as soon as witness's back was turned he left. He was drunk at the time. He did not take his clothing away with him.
  His Worship taking into consideration the fact that the accused had been detained in custody, allowed him to be discharged, but he would forfeit the wages due to him and would have to pay the costs of the case.
R. v. SHAI SINGH.
  Shai Singh, a Sikh watchman employed at Harmston's Circus, was charged with obstructing and assaulting native constable No, 304 whilst in the execution of his duty.
  Inspector Reed, who watched the case for the police, said the prisoner was charged with being concerned with another man in assaulting the police on Saturday morning at about seven o'clock outside Harmston's Circus.  The other man was an American subject, and would be charged before the American Consul-General, but he was in court, so that if Shai Singh desired his evidence he could be called.
  Native Constable No. 304, having been cautioned, stated that at about seven o'clock on Saturday evening he was on duty in Boone Road near the Circus, regulating the traffic and keeping the crowd of jinrickshas and people back. The defendant came out and interfered with him, struck him with a stick (produced) and endeavoured to drag him into the Circus. Assistance was called, and the accused was taken to the station. The accused struck him on the head eight times and clutched him by the coat collar.
  Native constable No. 204 corroborated.
  A private jinricksha coolie who was at the corner of Szechuen and Boone Roads, said he saw the accused strike "the last two blows."
  Prisoner, in answer to the Magistrate, said he was on duty at the entrance to the Circus, where he was employed as a watchman. The complainant came up and wanted to go into the Circus, but accused would not permit him. Complainant said, "I am a policeman and I can go in." Accused again refused and then the complainant seized hold of him, and calling two other native policemen took him to the station. He denied striking the complainant; if he had done so there would have been some narks.
  A house coolie was called to corroborate the case for the prosecution.
  Emanuel Sullivan was then called by the accused. He said he was on duty at the door of the Circus and saw the accused standing quite near him. The complainant came up and wished to enter the Circus. But the accused would not admit him. Thereupon the policeman seized the accused and said, "You will come to the police station with me."
  Emile Knabell, an American subject, the youth referred to by Inspector Reed as the prisoner's accomplice, was next examined. He said that up to last week he had been engaged at the Circus. On Saturday evening he was watching a Chinese acrobat outside the Circus when he heard there was a fight. He went and saw three Chinese constables dragging the prisoner along. One had hold of him by the neck, and witness remonstrated with them upon their rough treatment. They were prodding the prisoner with their truncheons. Witness was then seized by one of the constables, his coat was torn, and he was hustled into the station and charged with assaulting them.
   Replying to Inspector Reed he said he did not touch the prisoner or the constables; he simply told them not to ill-treat the accused.
  Another Sikh watchman employed at the Circus said he was stationed at the inside door about two paces away from the accused. He corroborated the story for the defence as to the policeman demanding admission; and then striking the accused. Prisoner did not leave his post.
  His Worship said it appeared to him extremely unlikely that the watchman would leave his post and go into the road to interfere with the complainant as alleged. He had brought a good deal of evidence to show he was at his post all the time, and the evidence of Knabell appeared to His Worship to be trustworthy. He (the Magistrate) thought it was extremely probable the charge had been trumped up by the native police, and therefore the case would be dismissed.
R. v. WILKINSON.
  S. Wilkinson, seaman belonging to the Matterhorn, was charged on remand with being absent from his ship since the 12th inst.
  Captain John Williams, master of the Matterhorn, said the prisoner obtained leave on the 12th inst. to come up from Woosung in order to see a doctor, and he did not return. The accused had about £8 or £9 due to him as wages.
  Accused said he saw Dr. Sloan who gave him an order for some lotion to apply to his leg, and as he would not have been able to work if he had returned to his ship he stayed away.
  His Worship remarked that the prisoner must have known he was acting improperly. He would be remanded in order that the doctor might see him.
..  .  .  
28th June.
R. v. DONALDSON.
  Captain James Donaldson, master of the British ship Ben Lee, appeared to answer a summons alleging that on the 1st of April, whilst on the voyage from New York to Shanghai, he assaulted J. Larson.
  The complainant, having been sworn, made a long and detailed statement to the effect that whilst he was steering, the captain accused him of letting the wheel spin, and on his denying it struck him in the mouth. The captain ordered him away from the wheel, but he was brought back subsequently, and the altercation resumed, in the course of which the captain produced a revolver and threatened him. After which the captain struck him. The second mate told the captain he had seen witness spinning the wheel several times, and witness said it was a lie, he had done it only once or twice. The second mate then struck him. The complainant was next ordered down on the main deck, and a handcuff was placed on him, but it was too small and the captain had it taken off. Complainant was then taken into the cabin were the articles were read over to him, and the captain said that were he younger he could punish six like the witness.
  Captain Donaldson said that whilst the ship was going along at about ten knots, Larson let the wheel spin, and defendant came and cautioned him.  He was extremely insolent, and lifted his left hand, which he (the captain) knocked up. He then ordered him from the wheel, but thinking to give him another chance ordered him back. When the second mate spoke to having seen the complainant spin the wheel, he (Larson) contradicted him. Then Larson, who was ordered away to the main deck, began to make a disturbance and was threatening to fight anybody aft. Defendant ordered the irons to be put on him, and Larson resisted. Eventually one was put on, but it was too small and defendant had it taken off. The complainant was then taken to the cabin and the articles were then read over to him. Defendant said he would give him another chance before logging him, and complainant returned to his work, which he then performed all right.
  Charles William Henderson, second mate, corroborated the captain's evidence.
  His Worship said the complainant had brought a very frivolous charge against the captain. By his own showing he had spoken as no sailor should to his captain, and had used language which no captain would tolerate. Complainant had got nothing more than he deserved and the summons would be dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 6 July, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd July.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WILKINSON.
  S. Wilkinson was brought up in custody, charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship, the Matterhorn, since the 30th ultimo.
  The Magistrate, however, declined to go on with the case in the absence of the captain of the vessel, and accordingly the prisoner was remanded.
.  .  .  
4th July
R. v. COLES
  Charles Coles, third officer on board the Matterhorn, was charged with being absent without leave from the vessel.
  The evidence went to show that the accused had leave on Saturday and should have returned for duty on Monday, but he did not do so. He admitted the offence, said he had been drinking, and desired to obtain his discharge.
  His Worship said it was a pity to see a man of the accused's position charged with such an offence, and he would dispose of the matter by ordering that he should forfeit six days' pay.
R. v. SCOTT.
  Mr. G. D. Scott appeared to answer a summons alleging that he assaulted one Er Ah-doo, on the previous Friday night.
  The complainant, a boy in the employ of Dr. Edkins, said that at about 9.15 on Friday night he was walking a couple of dogs in front of Mr. Scott's house when, because the animals barked, the defendant caught him by the queue and struck him twenty or thirty times with a walking stick.
  A cook employed by Mr. Burman said he heard the boy screaming, and going to see the cause saw the defendant striking the boy. He heard that the reason was that the dogs made too much noise.
  Mr. Scott said the boy was in the habit of letting the dogs run out twice a day, and at such times he would set them on to cats, other dogs, and even children. It had become an intolerable nuisance as the noise awakened his (Mr. Scott's) children, and Mr. Smyth (the Usher of the Court) who lived in the vicinity would be able to bear him out. He had cautioned this boy, who was insolent, but the nuisance had not been abated.
  His Worship - Have you complained to the owner of the dogs?
  Mr. Scott said he had not but he had remonstrated with the boy. The boy had exaggerated in saying that he was struck twenty or thirty times. On the night in question the boy's father came and drove in the dogs and the boy with a bamboo and he appeared then to agree that the boy had misconducted himself. Some time after the boy went for a Sikh policeman and when the latter would not arrest the defendant he was very insolent. The next day he (defendant) received a letter from Dr. Edkins (produced) in which the latter said there were only eight marks. Defendant asked if he might be allowed to call Mr. Smyth.
 His Worship - I don't think there is any need for that. The case is a simple one. You took the law into your own hands. He is the son of another person's servant an*d you took no steps, apparently, to get rid of the nuisance, in the ordinary way by *writing to the owner of the dogs, and you were certainly not authorised in going out and threatening the boy in the way you did.
  No evidence can make any difference to that at all, so that I must fine you $10 for the assault, and you must remember in any case of this sort where you have a complaint, the proper step is to go to the owner of the animal. Thrashing another person's servants on your own responsibility might lead to endless trouble.

 

North China Herald, 13 July, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 9th July.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. MALONE AND McQUEEN.
  John Malone and W. McQueen, sailors belonging to the Androsa, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, and the former with also assaulting the police.
  Sikh constable No. 88, sworn, deposed. - At 4.15 p.m. on Sunday I was on duty in Broadway. The two prisoners were fighting inside the Cleveland House. The proprietor called me in. They were fighting with each other and were drunk, and they knocked each other down. One of them, Malone, was bleeding from the head. I took him outside and asked the other man to come with me to the station. When outside, Malone struck me twice with his fist and pulled off my puggaree. The other man did not interfere. While trying to trip me, Malone fell himself and I blew my whistle and foreign constable No. 41 came to my assistance and we took the two men to the station.
  F. Uhlbright, police constable, sworn, stated - I was on duty on Broadway at 4.20 and was called by the bar boy of the Cleveland who told me that there was fighting going on in the public house. I found the Indian policeman and the prisoners; the latter were both intoxicated. We then took them to the station.  I saw the Indian and Malone struggling. I did not see Malone striking the Indian who was down on the ground. The Cleveland was full of people. None of them interfered with me.
  Malone said he "mostly got drunk in the Cleveland;" he only had one drink outside.
  McQueen was cautioned and advised not to come up again. Malone, who had resisted the police, was sentenced to one week's imprisonment, though he pleaded hard to be let off with a fine.
.  .  .  
10th July
R. v. McLENNAN
  D. McLellan, sailor on the Muskola, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  W. T. Adams, police constable, stated that at 6.45 p.m. on Monday he saw the defendant drunk in a jinricksha, and refusing to pay his fare. He went quietly to the station.
  Defendant said he had leave to come on shore.
  His Worship ordered him to be put on board his ship and to pay any expense incurred thereby.
R. v. PITMAN.
  W. Pitman, sailor belonging to the Silberrhorn, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  P.C. Adams deposed to finding him asleep in the window of a Chinese shop near the Travellers. He went quietly to the station.
  His Worship cautioned the prisoner and ordered him to be put on board his ship at his own expense.
R. v. WISELY.
  R. Wisely, a sailor belonging to the Silberhorn, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
  P.C. Adams deposed that the prisoner was struggling with native constable 193 at 7.55 p.m.  He was not sober; but witness did not see him strike the constable.
  Native constabkle193 deposed that at 7.45 p.m. on Monday, while in Broadway, near "The Travellers," he saw the defendant inside a shop where he had some lemonade which he did not pay for. The shop keeper called native constable 108, and together with another policeman they arrested the prisoner and took him to the station.
  Native constable 108 said he was called by the shopkeeper, and when witness advised the prisoner to pay for the lemonade, he pushed a bottle into witness' mouth. He was a little drunk.
  The defendant denied the statement of the witnesses, and stated that he never drank lemonade, but bought a bottle of gin at the shop and that when other men came along he was mistaken for one of them.
  His Worship cautioned him not to come before him again, and ordered him to be put on board at his own expense.
R. v. HALTON
  R. Halton, a sailor belonging to the Androsa, was charged with being drunk and assaulting the Police.
  Native Constable 193 said that at 7.30 p.m. on Monday he was in Boone Road, and heard a whistle blown. He saw a Sikh constable and native constable 103 trying to arrest five men, three of them were drunk. The accused was one of them. The police had great difficulty in arresting him and the others, and witness was struck in the face by the accused with a baton which the accused had taken from a policeman. Three of the men were arrested. During the struggling, the accused struck an old woman.
  Sikh constable 80 stated that the accused pushed him about, and the baton was taken from him by another man.
  Chinese sergeant 103 deposed that about 10 minutes to 8 o'clock he saw accused striking people with his fists and chasing them. A woman said she had been struck. The police wanted to arrest accused, but seven or eight of his friends went to his rescue. When he blew his whistle, Sikh constable 80 and other policemen came, and they arrested some of the sailors and took them to the station. Defendant was drunk.
  An old woman named Ku Yung-ming gave evidence. She said she was carrying a child in the street when accused struck her with his fists in the face. She was also kicked.
  Accused said he was drunk and did not know anything about it.
  His Worship said that drunkenness was no excuse and sentenced him to one week's imprisonment with hard labour.
R. v. DRUMMOND, LYNCH, KITSON AND PALMER.
  The prisoners were charged with being drunk and assaulting the Police.
  Sikh constable 80 deposed to having been knocked down, kicked, and struck by the prisoners.
  P.C. Adams, native sergeant 103 and another having given evidence,
  His Worship sentenced Drummond, [Kitson] and Palmer to one week's imprisonment, and Lynch, the ring-leader, to 14 days' imprisonment, all with hard labour.
R. v. McDONALD.
  P. McDonald, of the Muskola, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
  Native constable 350 said he saw the defendant leave a jinricksha without paying his fare, go into a stable, and also annoy people on the road.
  His Worship fined him $2 and ordered him to be put on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 20 July, 1894
H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 13th July.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. HARROLD.
  Albert Harrold, A.B., British ship Lauriston, was charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship without leave.
  Wm. Latter, master Lauriston, sworn, stated that the accused was absent on the 5th July, and had returned drunk, and that he had left the ship on the 9th and had not been back.
  Accused said he would not stop on the ship as the master would not give him leave and advance him money as he did the other men. And he had fever.
  The master said that accused had been drunk during the week, and would not do his work, so on Saturday last he did not give him the $2 he was in the habit of giving the men.
  The defendant was fined nine days' pay and ordered to be sent on board his ship.
17th July.
R. v. LATHAM.
  W. Latham, an A.B. from the Muskoka, was charged with being drunk and asleep on the Hongkew Bridge on Monday.
  Sikh constable 83, sworn, deposed - At 0.45 pm. On Monday, accused was lying asleep on the footpath in Fearon Road. I put him into a jinricksha and took him to the Station. He made no disturbance. He only said he was sick.
  Detective Horley said the Police had no previous charge against him.
  Defendant explained he was going on board, but felt dizzy; he had not been drinking that day but the day before.
  His Worship dismissed him and advised him not to get drunk, especially in this weather.
.  .  .  
R. v. McLENNAN.
D. McLennan, an A.B. belonging to the Muskoka, was charged with being drunk on Broadway.
  Detective Horley sworn, stated - I found the defendant drunk in Broadway near the Sailors' Home at 10 p.m. on Monday. He was in company with three others, but they went away. As the defendant refused to go away he was taken into custody. The Superintendent of the House had previously telephoned that there was a disturbance outside the House. He made no disturbance when being taken to the Station. He was before the Court a week ago charged with being drunk and was ordered to be put on board his ship.
  Defendant said he was on shore with leave to see a doctor, as he was sick.
  His Worship sentenced the defendant to three days' imprisonment with a caution not to come before him again, as in that case he would be more severely punished.
.  .  .  
R. v. LUNDY, JOHNSON, LAMB AND MUNROE.
  A. Lundy, F. Johnson, J. Lamb, and S. Munroe, A.B.'s belonging to the Lauriston, were charged on a summons with refusal of duty.
  W. Latta, master of the Lautiston, sworn, stated - The first occasion of their refusal of duty was on the morning of the 16th. The mate started them to work, but they refused and said they would do no more work. I called them aft at 10 a.m. and two of them again refused; they said they were tired of the ship. These two were Lundy and Johnson; the other two ref used to come aft when I called them. They have done no work since. I have an entry in the log book against Munroe, who has been intoxicated on board and used threatening language to the mate on Sunday. I withdrew a summons against Lamb because he promised to behave himself.
  The defendants said they had been nearly starved on the passage from New York, the spokesman saying he had lost 26 lbs. weight, and that they had been promised their discharge. They also complained of the food and the way in which it was cooked, and concluded by stating that they could get no redresss and would not do any more work on board.
  His Worship pointed out to them that if they had any complaint to make the master could not refuse to allow them leave to go on shore and make their complaint, and that they had gone the wrong way to ventilate their grievances by refusing duty. If they had any grievances, they would have them enquired into, and he sentenced them each to one week's imprisonment.
.  .  .
18th July.
R. v. WILSON.
  Richard Wilson, AS.B. British ship Glenfinlas, was charged with being drunk on Broadway.
  Geo. Woods, P.C. 223, sworn, stated - I found this man last night at 7.30 lying on the Broadway drunk, and in danger of being run over, so I took him to the Station. He was not causing a disturbance, but on the way to the Station he became very abusive. He objected to being searched at the Station.
  Inspector Reed stated that between 60 and 100 sailors were ashore just now and were in the habit of getting drunk in Hongkew, to the inconvenience of the police, and he asked to have a severe sentence passed as a warning to others.
  The defendant was dismissed with a caution and ordered to be sent on board his ship.
.  .  .  
R. v. BEATTY.
  E. Beatty, chief officer, British ship Lauriston, was charged with assaulting Charles King while on the voyage from New York.
 Charles King, A.B., sworn, stated - About the middle of February the mate struck me with a capstan bar. The second mate gave an order to haul the braces, which I, being hard of hearing, did not hear. He then came to my door and repeated the order. When I came on deck I told the second mate that if he would give his orders in a louder tone, he would not have so much trouble. He answered that he wanted none of my cheek and came up to strike me. I shoved him away, saying that I wanted no trouble with him. After making two or three attempts to strike me, the mate got a capstan bar and made for me. The second mate clinched me. I held him so that he would not hurt me, and looked out for the mate, who tried to strike me on the head with the capstan bar several times.  The mate struck me on the arm. Monroe (one of the sailors) stopped the mate and took the capstan bar away, telling him he was exceeding his authority and that if he wished to do anything he should have put me in irons. The captain then came on deck, and stopped the row, and on my afterwards explaining to him, he admitted that it was a shame for the officers to beat me because I could not hear them, and said he would not log me. I was then put into the mate's watch. While struggling over the capstan bar with the mate, the second mate managed to give me a punching. After being taken into the mate's watch, he made things as unpleasant as possible for me.
  Geo. Monroe. A.B. sworn, stated - I was close by when the trouble occurred. The second mate had given an order, which all obeyed except King, who was farther forward. We know he is hard of hearing. The second mate went forward to King, and after a few words, attempted to strike King, who shoved him away. Presently they clinched, and then the mate made to strike King with a handspike he had caught up from the poop. He struck King three or four times, and I then put up my foot and stopped the bar from striking King. I then told the mate not to strike the man with the bar, and if he had any fault against him to put him in irons.
  F. Johnson, A.B. corroborated this, and said there was considerable delay on the part of King in obeying the order given by the second mate.
  Robert Beatty, the chief mate, admitted that he struck the man with a capstan bar. He saw King struggling with the second mate, on the after hatch, and he stopped the man by striking King with it once or twice, he thought. Then the third mate took the bar from him. Before separating the men, he had sent for the captain. He knew that King was hard of hearing, and also knew that he was lazy and obstinate. If King had been where he should have been, aft, he would have heard the order given by the second mate.
  Bernard P. Towler, apprentice, corroborated the above, saying that the second mate was getting the worst of it, and that the mate struck King, after trying to separate them. He did not see the bar swung. It was only used as a prod to separate the combatants.
  His Worship said the mate had exceeded his duty in using the capstan bar, and he fined him $25.
.  .  .  
19th July.
R. v. WILSON.
  Richard Wilson, A.B., British ship Glenfinlas, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Kiangse Road.
  Sikh C. 76 said he found accused drunk and incapable at half past eleven last evening, in a 'ricksha. As the coolie had not been paid, defendant was taken to the station.
  His Worship fined accused, who was before the Court yesterday and let off with a caution, $5 and again cautioned him.
.  .  .  
R. v. DEVEREAUX.
  Thomas Devereaux, sailor living at the Home, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Bourne Road last night.
  P.C. Rumbold, testified to finding accused in Bourne Road about midnight, in a 'ricksha, drunk and incapable. As the ricksha coolie could not get rid of him and accused could not tell where he belonged to, witness had him taken to the station.
  His Worship dismissed him with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. REED, PETERSEN AND LYNCH.
  The first two defendants live at the Sailors' Home, and the third belongs to the Matterhorn. They were charged with being drunk and asleep outside the Home.
  P.C. Spon, said he found the men, between one and two o'clock this morning, asleep on the pavement in front of the Sailors' Home, very drunk. They refused to leave when ordered, and were in consequence taken to the station.
  Inspector Reed stated that Lynch had been twice convicted of being drunk and assaulting the police.
  James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, testified that he closed the Home at about eleven, but had a watchman to let the men in at any time. He did not know whether or not these men had tried to get into the Home.
  Lynch was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. The other two were dismissed with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. KELLY.
  Sergeant Kelly, of the Carter Road station, was summoned with assaulting Nee Ah-dai on the 15th instant.
  Nee Ah-dai, cautioned, stated - About 9 o'clock on the evening of the 15th while walking with my master's dogs, donkey, child and amah, all on the footpath, defendant ordered me off the footpath. As I did not go quickly the defendant slapped me in the face several times, and struck me several times with a cane.
  The defendant stated  that while on patrol on the Bubbling Well Road, he found plaintiff and his appurtenances blocking the footpath and standing there. A lady had just complained that she had to go on the road to pass these things. He ordered the boy to leave the footpath, but did not interfere with the donkey on account of the child on its back. Plaintiff refused to leave the footpath and was put off, upon which he used insulting and obscene language, and was slapped in the face for so doing. Plaintiff struck defendant with his stick, which defendant took away and struck plaintiff with it once, and no more. Plaintiff then went to complain to his mistress, and abated the nuisance.
  The case was dismissed.
.  .  .
R. v. NORTH.
  E. North, second mate, British ship Lauriston, was charged, with assaulting John King, A.B., whilst on the voyage from New York.
  John King, sworn, stated - I had been ordered by defendant to haul the braces, but as I was hard of hearing, I had to be ordered twice before I heard the order. Then having a large coat on, which I had to take off, it was some time before I obeyed. Defendant attempted to strike me and I pushed him away, in doing which he was pushed on to the hatch. The fight was stopped by the mate.
  E. North, the defendant, said that this happened in carrying out the captain's order to layer the braces. King was last to obey the order, and left the men, and had gone into the after house, shut the door, and was trying on an over coat. When ordered to come out and go to his work, he answered that he would not until he had finished trying on the coat. He did not come for some time and during the interval was using bad language. On defendant attempting to strike him he had been shoved by plaintiff on to the hatch. After this he was in a corner being held back by the throat by plaintiff, when the chief mate interfered. He did not think he struck King, as he was held too tightly.
  The master stated that King had no business to try on a coat during his watch, and that the officers had constantly complained of King's inattention to his duties.
   The charge was dismissed, and plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 27 July, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th July.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. ANDERSON.
Chares Anderson, A.B., British ship Greystoke Castle, was charged with refusal of duty since 7th June.
  W. Griffiths, master of the vessel, sworn, stated - The defendant is charged with refusal of duty since the 7th June. He altered the course of the ship in the first instance, and when corrected used foul language and impertinence. I put him in irons when he refused duty on the 7th June till the 9th. The irons were then taken off him but he refused to keep his tongue quiet and go about his work in an orderly manner stating that it was a habit he had got into and could not help himself.  He gave back answers and was tantalising. He tried to get the men to take the same road as himself. Since he has been in port he has been the same. Since the irons would not cure him, I gave him up. He has been seen by a doctor who cannot say at present what is the matter with him.
  The defendant said he had taken the course from the man he relieved, but did not know if he had understood him properly, the consequence being that an altercation took place between the captain and himself, which ended in his being put in irons and kept in a room, where he remained forty-four days. He admitted that he answered the captain back, when he "cursed" him, as he did not "cuss" himself.
  The master said the defendant had done no work during the time he was in the room. He used to go in and out when he liked.
  His Worship said the defendant must go to gaol for a week, and advised him to get rid of his habit of answering back. When his sentence was up he was to be put on board his vessel again.
R. v. BRODERICK.
  E. Broderick, an unemployed sailor living in the Sailors' House, was charged with begging on Thursday afternoon and was arrested by Detective Horley.
Mr. J. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' House, stated that he saw the defendant accost Mr. Clarke, of the Associated Wharves, and ask him for money.
  His Worship sent the defendant to prison for two weeks, but he is to be released before the expiry of his sentence, if he can be shipped.
.  .  .  
23d July.
R. v. WILSON.
  Robert Wilson, unemployed, was charged with being drunk at 4 p.m. on Saturday in Wuchang Road. Native constable 448 found him asleep in an alleyway. Inspector Reed stated that the defendant had been twice before the Court and on one occasion was fined $5.
  His Worship sentenced the defendant to two weeks' imprisonment and to pay police expenses.
R. v. EVANS.
  David Evans, a sailor living at the Home, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Home on Saturday and wanting to fight. He was sent to prison for two weeks and to pay police expenses.
R. v. GLADNEY.
M. Gladney, of the Greystoke Castle, was ordered to be locked up for a week for being drunk and annoying people.
R. v. CLARKE.
  Jas. Clarke, of the Alderly, was charged with being drunk on Saturday at 10 p.m. and refusing to pay his jinricksha. He was ordered to be locked up till the ship sails.
R. v. NOONAN.
  Jas. Noonan, of the Greystoke Castle, was charged with being drunk and asleep in a jinricksha. He was dismissed with a caution.
R. v. MELBOURNE AND DEVEREAUX.
  F. Melbourne, of the Muskola, and T. Devereaux, unemployed, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and stopping the traffic. Deveraux was also charged with rescuing a prisoner. He was sent to prison for fourteen days and Melbourne for a week.
R. v. GUILLET.
  F. Guillet, of the Lauriston, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday. He was dismissed with a caution.
R. v. WINNAN.
  G. Winnan, of the Rosetta, was charged with committing an assault on people at the "Travellers" on Sunday afternoon. He was sent to prison for a week.
R. v. McKELLER.
  P. McKeller, of the Alderly, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway. He was cautioned and discharged.
R. v. ASSAH.
  Assah, a lascar belonging to the Formosa, was charged with being drunk and assaulting the police. He was sent to prison for a week and ordered to pay $1 for the damage done to a police uniform.
R. v. HAROLD.
  The defendant was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund. He was dismissed with a caution.
..  .  .  
24th July.
R. v. ROWLY.
  The defendant, a fireman on board the Alderly, was charged with refusal of duty.
  C. McConnachy, chief engineer, gave evidence, as did also F. Kemp, the second engineer.
  The defendant denied refusing duty but said he had been drinking and was unable to work.
  He was fined 14 days' pay and ordered to return to his ship.
R. v. NOONAN.
  Jas. Noonan, of the Greystoke Castle, who was before the Court on Monday, was again charged with being drunk and incapable. He said he was doing no harm, but went to sleep in a jinricksha. He was fined $3.
R. v. DOYLE AND KELTON.
  P. Doyle, unemployed, was charged with being drunk, and causing annoyance to people by shouting, and W. Kelton was charged with attempting to rescue Doyle from the Police.
  Doyle was sent to prison for one week, while Kelton, who denied the charge, was fined $3.
.  .  .  
25th July.
R. v. COOPER.
  Charles Cooper, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway. P.C. Uhlbright stated that he found accused, in company with four others, drunk in Broadway, with a bottle of whisky between them.  He advised them to leave, but on returning found them still there. Just then Cooper fell through the window of a Chinese shop. He arrested him and took him to the station. The manager of the shop stated that accused had broken the window, which he valued at 30 cents. His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment, and to pay for the broken glass.
R. v. DRUMMOND AND HARROLD.
  Charles Drummond, A.B., British ship Muskola, and Albert Harrold, A.B., British ship Lauriston, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and threatening the Police. H. Hurley, detective, found accused drunk and making a disturbance in Broadway, and on taking them in charge, Drummond threatened to "do" for him before leaving Shanghai. He had to procure assistance to take them to the station. P.C.s Wood and Uhlbright corroborated this, and His Worship, remarking that these threats were serious, sent Drummond to gaol for a month or to be put on board his ship in the event of its leaving before then, and Harrold got a week's imprisonment.
R. v. NOONAN.
 P. Noonan, A.B., British ship Greystoke Castle, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in a jinricksha. He was sentenced to three days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 27 July, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 20th July.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
YUE DING v. D. WHITE.
  D. White was sued for $43, balance of house rent for six months.
  He admitted the claim, and
  His Honour told the plaintiff he could take out an execution warrant at once.
  The defendant promised to pay the money at 4 p.m.

 

North China Herald, 27 July, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 26 July.
Before N. JH. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
MORRIS v. THE CHINA TRADERS' INSURANCE COMPANY.
In this suit the plaintiff sued the defendant for Tls. 214.81 on behalf of the steamer Faiyung. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Platt (Johnson, Stokes, and Master) and the defendant by Mr. W. V. Drummond.
[Not transcribed.]
.  .  .  
Mr. Platt then summed up and contended that the claim could have been brought in the Vice Admiralty Court, and quoted dictionaries and law authorities to explain the meaning of the term ship and vessel, to prove that a pontoon came within the designation of a ship of vessel.
  Mr. Drummond said the simple point to be considered was whether a pontoon is a ship or a vessel within the meaning of the collision claim in this policy. He maintained that it was not and quoted his authorities. He said the questions of the other side did not apply, that a pontoon had no rudder, no means of internal propulsion, and that in all the authorities quoted by the plaintiff, there was always an implication that there was some means of propulsion. Further it could not be implied that the pontoon was used in connection with navigation. He submitted that the plaintiff had failed to make out his case, and asked his Lordship to decide that a pontoon is not a ship or vessel.
  His Lordship reserved judgment.

 

North China Herald, 27 July, 1894
UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 24th July.
Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Acting Judicially.
SMITH v. GRAY.
  This was a claim for debt and an action for damages, which by consent of the parties were taken together.
  His Honour found that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim for debt and dismissed the suit with costs. In the action for damages the defendant was ordered to pay $15 and the costs.

 

The Straits Times, 31 July 1894

The Bank of China, Japan, and the Straits Limited has, it is  said, appealed to the Court at Saigon against the judgment of the French Consular Court at Shanghai in the case  in which the Bank sued M. Lepissier for calls due on shares held by him.  The judgment of the Consular Court was in favour of the defendant.

 

North China Herald, 3 August, 1894
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 30th July.
Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General.
U.S. v. OBRISSA.
   Patrick Obrissa, boatswain, American ship Roanoke, was charged with being drunk and disorderly yesterday. Two native constables and a Sikh testified to accused being very drunk on Broadway and destroying goods belonging to a hawker. Further when arrested he had resisted and assaulted the police.
  He was sentenced to imprisonment until the ship leaves.
.  .  .  
U.S. v. HARRIS.
  Frank Harris, American ship Indiana, was charged with being drunk and incapable yesterday.
  Accused admitted the offence and was ordered to be put on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 3 August, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 30th July.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. NOONAN, COLLINS AND WILLIAMS.
  James Noonan, Thomas Collins, and A. J. Williams, belonging to the Greystoke Castle, were charged with assaulting the master and second officer of the Greystoke Castle, and also threatening their lives, on the 27th of July.
  William Griffiths, the master, said that on the night of the 27th instant whilst he was in bed he heard shouting that two or three men were assaulting the second officer. Witness went on deck to stop the disturbance and saw the men scuffling with the second officer, who was down. The whole crew was out on deck, and amongst those round the second officer witness identified Collins and Noonan. The fighting stopped, but Noonan made another run at the second officer. Witness caught hold of him to stop him when accused called upon the other men to come and slaughter witness and the second officer. At the same time Noonan struck witness and made use of a foul expression. He again called upon the men to assist him and gave a signal which seemed to have been prearranged. Witness shouted for all the officers who were in bed to come and secure the men who were making the disturbance. Witness then turned blue lights and sent up rockets for assistance, which appeared to frighten the men, two of whom went and concealed themselves. There was great trouble in securing the men and Williams kicked witness. After being secured the prisoners made use of all sorts of threats and uttered very bad language.
  On Saturday afternoon at four o'clock the men were taken away by the police. Witness added that four or five men were standing on the wharf during the fight, and these the prisoner called upon for assistance. He could not suggest any reason more than that he had heard the cook (Williams) had been complaining of having too much to do, and trying to spread discontent amongst the men. Williams had made no complaint to witness, but after being secured he accused witness of "drawing his heart's blood out for the paltry sum of $4 10s. a month." No complaint had been logged against Williams but he had had some quarrels on the voyage.
  Charles James Crane, second officer, said that on the night of the 27th he was directed by the captain to remain on deck with a watchman and prevent anyone going ashore. After a while Noonan and Collins came aft and tried to go ashore. He ordered them away forward, upon which they attacked him. Witness sent the watchman to call the captain, and by the time the latter got out, nearly all the hands were struggling around witness. He believed the men were helping the accused.  Witness secured Collins, and at the same time saw Noonan strike the captain in the face.
  The mate and third mate coming along Collins was put in irons, and whilst this was being done witness saw the third mate coming aft followed by a crowd of men - nearly all the crew - headed by Williams and another man. Witness went forward to his assistance but when he got there everybody was pretending to be asleep. Noonan was found stowed away in the fore peak. He was secured, and then a search was made for Williams, who was amongst the men. As they tried to get him aft he struggled very much and used very abusive language. When put in irons Noonan threatened the lives of the captain, the first mater and witness. Williams also threatened to get the captain killed when they returned to New York.
  Witness thought the outbreak had been breeding for some time, but the men had never come aft to make formal complaint. Witness had heard a great deal of grumbling. The men had been treated very well on board, in fact it was one of the best, if not the best, living ships in the harbour.
  William Ernest Clay, senior apprentice, said that at about six o'clock he heard the second mate tell Collins and some two or three others that they were not to leave the ship. The men, however, went over the rail without taking any notice. Witness went to another vessel and returned about nine o'clock. He found a lot of the crew talking loudly in one of the huts on the wharf. About ten minutes later the men came aboard. Witness saw Collins going aft and the second mate trying to stop him. Collins began scuffling, and then Noonan and some others of the crew also went aft. Collins said "Go on, do for him; I'll see fair play.!" At this juncture the captain came up, and an attempt was made to put Collins in irons. The men encouraged one another, and there were cries to kill the officers. One of two men endeavoured to get the pins out of the rails but [she] could not succeed. They then went forward for sticks. The mate went aft and said "Put Noonan in irons; It is nothing else but mutiny." Noonan denied having anything to do with the quarrel, and ran forward and hid away in the fore peak. When the officers went forward all the hands pretended to be asleep. As soon as Noonan was got out, Williams began a disturbance saying, "We're not going to stand this, boys." The mate ordered that Williams should be put in irons.
  In reply to His Worship the witness said Collins might have had a little drink, but not much. Witness knew of "nothing particular" to account for the disturbance, but he had heard the men "growling" about there being too much work. Fourteen able seamen were employed on board.
  The prisoner Noonan, in reply to his Worship, said he saw the second officer and others "jumping" on Collins. They were treating him very badly and he (Noonan) loudly protested. The captain caught hold of him, struck him, and he (Noonan) struck the captain back.  The mate had a club and was using it. When he (Noonan) was put in irons the Captain came up to him with a gun and said he should like to blow his brains out. Collins was the only man who had attempted to get ashore, and that began the disturbance. The officers during the whole voyage had been seeking opportunities to beat the men. The captain was constantly abusing the officers and "driving" them, and they in turn were "driving" the crew."
  Collins said he was going ashore when the second mate stopped him and then shoved him down. He (Collins) had not obtained leave to go ashore. When he was knocked down the Captain and one of the officers came up and further ill-treated him. After bring put in irons he (Collins) was put on his back and secured to a stanchion with his hands fixed above his head until four o'clock on the following afternoon. Whilst so fastened someone - he could not say who it was - put his foot on his (Collins') face and said, "I should like to crush your brains out, the brute you are." Whilst the other men were shackled the captain walked about with a gun saying, "I should like to blow your brains out. I don't believe the law would touch me for blowing out the brains of dogs like you." When the captain was going away he said to the second officer, "Mr. Crane, here are eleven bullets and don't forget to use them." The weapon was a small one.
  Williams declined to make any statement until he had some witnesses he desired to call, and who were not present.
  His Worship accordingly remanded him. With regard to the other prisoners, Collins by attempting to go ashore without leave had caused a riot, which amounted almost to mutiny. The evidence showed that the men had made use of very threatening language, and if they were roughly treated they brought it upon themselves. If they had any grievances they could have brought them to the Consulate in the usual way.
  Noonan had been before the Court three times for drunkenness, and no doubt he wanted to go ashore and get drunk again. Collins and Noonan would go to gaol for a month, with hard labour; Williams would be remanded.
.  .  .  
31st July.
R. v. WILLIAMS.
  A. J. Williams, cook, belonging to the Greystoke Castle, was brought up on remand charged with being concerned with two other men already sentenced to a months' imprisonment, in assaulting the captain and second officer of their ship on the 27th inst. On the previous day Williams was remanded at his own request because he desired to call witnesses in his defence.
  Upon the case being resumed,
  James Singleton, A.B., was called and examined. He said he was on board on the night of the 27th and saw some of the disturbance. After Noonan and Collins had been put in irons he saw Williams go forward. He could not say where Williams came from.
  His Worship said the witness seemed to know nothing about the case and his evidence was not worth a cent.
  Charles Beaston, A.B., next called, said he was lying under the forecastle head when the disturbance took place. He did not see anything of the disturbance.
  His Worship (to the accused) - What do you mean by wasting the time of the Court in this way?
  Accused proceeded to make a long rambling statement when he was stopped and
  His Worship said the accused had simply been wasting the Court's time.  He had not improved his case a bit and would go to prison for a month, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. GLADNEY.
  M. Gladney, belonging to the Greystoke Castle, was charged with being absent from his ship without leave since the 29th inst.
  Accused admitted the offence, expressed his regret, and offered to go back and not misconduct himself.
  Inspector Reed, in reply to his Worship, said the accused had been in prison for drunkenness and was only released on Sunday.
  His Worship sentenced him to seven days' hard labour.
.  .  .  
1st August.
R. v. McRAE.
  J. G. McRae, second officer of the Glenfinlas, appeared to answer a summons alleging that on the 27th and 28th of July he assaulted G. Marescaux.
  The complainant, having been sworn, said he was an A.B. on board the Glenfinlas.  On Friday, the 27th, he was lying in a hammock on the forecastle head, sick, under the doctor's orders, when the defendant came along and snatched a paper from him at the same time using threatening language. The next morning complainant was relating the occurrence to Dr. Sloan when the second mate rushed from the break of the poop, struck complainant and knocked him down. The mate, boatswain, and carpenter came forward and separated complainant and defendant. Dr. Sloan saw the whole occurrence and called for the captain, who was absent. Complainant had two witnesses but he had not asked the doctor to come and give evidence.
  Otto Giesa, A.B., said he was standing by the side of Marescaux at the time of the assault on Saturday morning. He corroborated the complainant's statement.
  John Thomas, A.B., deposed that he was standing on the poop at the time of the alleged assault. He also corroborated the previous witnesses. When Marescaux fell he clutched hold of McRae and they both went down together.
  The defendant said that on Saturday morning Marescaux complained to Dr. Sloan that he (McRae) was the worse for drink on the previous morning and had tried to pull him out of the hammock. On the impulse of the moment defendant struck him with the back of his hand, and then Marescaux closed with him and they fell together. With reference to the incident of Friday, defendant was aware that complainant was under the doctor's orders. Marescaux had complained of dizziness, consequent upon drink the previous night. Marescaux and Giesa were reading comic papers, and defendant took the paper from the latter, but when he attempted to take Marescaux's he put it away, and as Marescaux was sick he did nothing more.
  His Worship said the defendant had acted very intemperately.  The man was under the doctor's orders, and was to keep quiet. His reading a paper therefore could do no real harm and defendant had no right to attempt to snatch it away. The defendant would be fined $5, and costs.
R. v. McRAE.
  The same defendant was summoned by Otto Giesa for an alleged assault at sea.
  The complainant aid that one night at sea about two months ago, whilst the crew were lying about asleep, the second mate gave some order which he (complainant) failed to hear. McRae then came up and assaulted him. On Friday last, whilst he and Marescaux were lying off under the doctor's orders, the defendant came up and snatched away a paper saying, "Sick men must not read." Complainant said McRae had no business to interfere with sick men, whereupon McRae threatened to throw him out of the hammock and added: "Very well, my time will come at sea."
  Defendant denied the assault at sea. The man was shirking his duty and defendant only roused him and told him to go and do his work. A little later complainant challenged defendant to fight, they closed, and Giesa went away. As to the occasion last Friday, he (defendant) denied snatching the paper. He told Giesa to give it up which he did, and then defendant threw it overboard.
  His Worship said the case seemed frivolous and the summons would be dismissed.
[When the defendant left the Court at the conclusion of the case both Marescaux and Giesa attacked him and knocked him down. They were at once arrested.]
.  .  .  
R. v. RHAMAN.
  Abdullah Rhaman, an unemployed Madras man, was charged with cutting and wounding Guillap Hassan and Meelel Abdullah at 0.15 a.m. today in a house in Woosung Road.
  According to the evidence of the complainants, the prisoner began a quarrel and the n cut their hands with a knife.
  The prisoner said he was cutting up some tobacco when the altercation began and in self-defence he used his knife.
  His Worship sentenced him to two weeks' hard labour.
.  .  .  
2nd August.
R. v. MARESCAUX AND GIESA.
  G. Marescaux and O. Giesa, belonging to the Glenfinlas, were charged with assaulting J. G. McRae, second officer of the Glenfinlas, within the precincts of the British Consulate-General.
  J. G. McRae, the complainant, having been sworn, said that after the proceedings in the Court on the previous day he was talking to Captain Patterson in the portico of the Consulate building with his back turned to the accused, when Giesa struck him from behind. As soon as complainant turned round Marescaux rushed in to the aid of Giesa. Complainant was kicked by both and was kicked in the spine. He was now under the doctor's treatment. Both the men punched and kicked him whilst down. They were dragged off by Captain Patterson and some officials of the Court.
  Captain Patterson, the master of the Glenfinlas, said he was standing outside the Court-room, at the top of the steps, talking to the complainant when Giesa struck McRae. Witness heard something like "Let's go for him" and at the same time Maresccaux rushed at McRae. They knocked him down and kicked him. In the struggle they got just inside the Usher's office. Witness called for assistance and some people came and separated them. Marescaux then put his fist up to McRae and said he could fight him himself. Witness said he wished if possible to take the men to sea.
  His Worship said he could not understand how the prisoners could have had the audacity to commit such an assault in the precincts of the Court.
  Marescaux said it was only a specimen of the treatment sailors received when at sea, and he only wished he had punched McRae more.
  His Worship said ruffians like the accused could not be allowed to behave in this way and they would go to prison for six months, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. BRIGHOUSE.
  Thomas Brighouse, fireman on the Parthian, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous morning.
  Sikh constable No. 92 said that on the previous morning he found the accused sitting down at the corner of Nanzing Road and Broadway. Accused was very drunk. He was put in a jinricksha and taken to the station. He made no other disturbance.
  Inspector Reed, in reply to his Worship, said there had been no previous charge against the accused, but he had been absent from his ship without leave.
  His Worship discharged him with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. PRITCHARD.
  Thomas Pritchard, fireman in the Teucer,  was charged with being drunk in Broadway on the previous night.
  P.C. Eek deposed - At half past nine o'clock last night I was on duty in Broadway. The accused asked me the way to his boat. I told him and he offered me 20 cents, I would not take it. He said unless I took it he would not go away, so I took him to the station. He was not very drunk.
  His Worship discharged the prisoner with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. HAMILTON.
  Michael Hamilton, belonging to the Teucer, was charged with being drunk in Broadway, refusing to pay his jinricksha fare, and damaging P.C. Eek's uniform to the extent of $1.
  The evidence was to the effect that shortly before midnight the accused was walking along Broadway in a drunken state followed by a jinricksha coolie who was asking for his money. When P.C. Eek accosted him he did not demur to going to the police station, but on the way he refused, and resisting the constable tore his coat. Assistance being obtained, he was taken to the station.
  His Worship ordered the accused to pay the coolie 30 cents, to make good the damage to the constable's uniform, and to pay a fine of $3.

 

North China Herald, 3 August, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 31st July.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
AH JAHIB SINGH v. W. J. ROBERTS.
  This was a claim by a Sikh watchman against W. J. Roberts for $75, the balance of two promissory notes, dated respectively 12th February, 1892, and 1st June, 1892.
  The defendant admitted borrowing the money, but produced a memorandum to show that he had considerably more than repaid the capital in interest.
  Plaintiff, on the other hand, said he had only received $31 by way of interest;' he charged at the rate of 4 ½ per cent per month.
  Defendant said it was 9 per cent per month.
  His Honour - If you agreed to pay it I don't know what you complain about. You were not bound to take the money at that rate. Why don't you borrow cheaper somewhere else? What do you propose to do?
  Defendant said he could only pay $5 per month.
  His Worship said this was not enough and made an order for $20 a month, the first payment to be made at the end of August.

 

North China Herald, 10 August, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 7th August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
WRISSENBERG v. McINTOSH.
  In this case, Carl Wrissenberg, a discharged seaman from the Roanoke, claimed £20 damages for an assault alleged to have been committed upon him by Police Constable McIntosh on the 22nd ultimo. Inspector Ramsay watched the case for the police.
  According to the complainant, he was in the Public Garden on Sunday, the 22nd of July, about six p.m. when the defendant told him to leave. He did so, and went to the Sailors' Home, where he was staying.  After supper he went out again, visited the Yang-king-pang where he had some lemonade, and was on his way home in a 'ricksha when the defendant stopped him, and after asking where he was going, struck him in the mouth, knocking out three teeth.
  Replying to Inspector Ramsay, complainant swore positively he was not drunk, and he did not use bad language or attempt to touch the police constable.
  Otto Schmidt deposed to the complainant having supper at the Sailors' Home soon after six o'clock when he was quite sober.
  Witness admitted having been locked up three times for drunkenness himself.
  John Smith, another unemployed sailor, also gave evidence as to the complainant's sobriety.
  Police Constable McIntosh, the defendant, was sworn and stated that he had been a policeman for six years, the last eight months being in Shanghai. On Sunday, the 22nd of July, at 6 p.m. the complainant was in the Public Garden drunk. Witness ordered him to leave, but he refused and was put out. Complainant then went away shouting. At about 10.20 the same night the complainant came along the Bund in a jinricksha. He was drunk and was using bad language. Witness stopped the jinricksha and told Wrissenberg to be quiet. He went on for about ten yards, but then stopped the jinricjksha and continued swearing. Witness went to the jinricksha, and when he got to the side the complainant sprang at him. Witness put up his hand intending to catch him by the throat, but the complainant's teeth struck against it and cut it. Complainant did not say a word about his teeth having been knocked out until he was brought up at the German Consular Court next morning.
  Police Constable Armstrong said he saw the complainant going along the Bund in a 'ricksha on the night in question swearing and calling out. He saw him stopped by the defendant near the gate of the Public garden
  Police-Sergeant Clarke, who took the charge of drunkenness against Wrissenberg when he was brought to the police station, said Wrissenberg was certainly drunk. His mouth was bleeding but he said nothing about having had his teeth knocked out.
  His Honour said he did not doubt the man was drunk and more or less disorderly, but at the same time there had been unnecessary violence, as the man had lost three teeth. More violence was used than was necessary, and whilst the police must understand that they would be supported in every possible way, they must do their duty with discretion. The defendant would have to pay $20 as compensation and $3 costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 August, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th August.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. EDMUNDS.
  H. R. Edmunds, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Miller Road on the previous day.
  Native Police-Constable No. 123 deposed that on the previous afternoon he found the accused very drunk in a jinricksha in Miller Road. The coolie said he had been taking the accused for four or five hours and did not know what to do with him. Witness took him to the station.
  There being no previous complaints against the accused,
  His Worship discharged him with a caution.
R. v. LEWIS.
  John Lewis, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk in the Wuchang Road and assaulting and beating Native P.C. No. 134, whilst in the execution of his duty.
  The evidence was to the effect that on the previous evening the accused and two or three others were drinking samshoo in a Chinese shop when, as the native constable was passing, the accused rushed out and assaulted him.
  His Worship sentenced prisoner to three days' hard labour.
R. v. BOTHAM.
  Thomas Botham, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk in Broadway on the previous night.
  P.C. Spong said that at ten o'clock on the previous night he found the accused lying down in Broadway. He had two Cardigan jackets, and a pair of trousers, which he was using as a pillow. He made no disturbance.
  His Worship allowed the accused to go with a caution.
.  .  .  
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. McINTOSH.
  P.C. McIntosh, No. 33, appeared to a summons alleging that on the 22nd ultimo he assaulted Carl Wrissenberg.
  Inspector Ramsay, who appeared for the police, informed his Worship that the case was before the German Consular Court on 23rd July, when the complainant was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Bund the previous evening. The case was remanded until yesterday, when the hearing was resumed by the Vice-Consul and two assessors, who found that Wrissenberg had been drunk at the time of the alleged assault by the Constable, and disorderly up to a certain degree, but not sufficiently so as to justify his conviction under German law. The matter had also been investigated by the Municipal Council, which had not dealt with McIntosh in anyway.
  Carl Wrissenberg, the complainant, having been sworn, deposed that he was discharged three weeks ago from the ship Roanoke, since when he had been living at the Sailors' Home.  On the 22nd of July he went to the Public Garden and was ordered out by the defendant. This was about 6 o'clock in the evening. He said nothing but went away up to Frenchtown where he bought a straw hat and remained till about 10 o'clock. He then took a jinricksha and was returning to the Public Garden, when he was stopped at the gate by the defendant who was accompanied by a Chinese constable. Defendant asked complainant where he was going and where he had bought the new hat. When complainant told him what he wanted to know, the policeman said, "Well, go ahead with that jinricksha."
  Complainant remarked it was a funny fashion the police had of asking people where they were going and where they had bought things, and then the 'ricksha coolie started off towards Hongkew. Defendant followed and when close to the Garden Bridge caught hold of the 'ricksha with one hand, and with the other struck defendant in the mouth, knocking out three of his teeth. He then pulled complainant out of the 'ricksha and arrested him.
  His Worship - In this matter I want to ask you do you claim damages? You brought this charge in the form of a criminal suit. I do not know whether you understand the difference between that and a claim for damages. Do you claim any compensation?
  Complainant - I claim damages for the loss of my teeth.
  His Worship - I must point out to you that you cannot claim damages in a criminal suit. If you want compensation you must drop the criminal case, for if I find I must punish the defendant for being guilty of unnecessary violence then I will fine him or imprison him as the case may be, but I cannot give you compensation at the same time.
  His Worship's observations being interpreted to the complainant by an official from the German Consulate, who was present,
  Complainant said he was prepared to drop the criminal proceedings and institute a complaint for damages.
  His Worship proposed that complainant should state what he claimed and upon the evidence taken a decision could be arrived at.
  Inspector Ramsay applied to have the case adjourned until he received some further instructions in the matter, as neither the Acting-Superintendent nor the Council knew the turn the affair had taken.
  His Worship - I have not heard what the defendant has to say. Is there anything in it that materially affects the statement of the complainant?
  Inspector Ramsay - Yes, he pleads not guilty, and denies the assault.
  His Worship - Yes, but as a matter of fact has he lost the teeth?
  Inspector Ramsay - I do not know.
  His Worship suggested that pending the hearing of the civil suit some arrangement should be arrived at between the parties, and some compensation given to the complainant.
  Inspector Ramsay - That would be admitting a case which does not exist. We are not prepared to do that.
  His Worship - Then this charge will be withdrawn and it will be open to the complainant to bring a civil suit if he decides to do so.
.  .  .  
7th August.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WILSON.
  Richard Wilson, unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Bund the previous morning.
  P.C. Laurieson said that at 8 o'clock on the previous morning he found the accused on the Bund in a drunken state, interfering with passers-by. Witness arrested him.
Detective Sergeant Prest said there were three previous convictions against prisoner.
  Accused vehemently protested against the way he had been treated in Shanghai. He had been here three weeks and had only had a day's liberty. He denied being drunk, and asked whether the police intended "to keep him in gaol for life."
  Inspector Ramsay said accused was undoubtedly drunk when arrested.
  His Worship said the prisoner seemed to get drunk whenever he had a chance. He would be sentenced to a week's hard labour, and if a vessel could be found he would be shipped from the gaol.
R.  v. SHAINE.
  Michael Shaine, sailmaker, belonging to the Glenfinlas, was charged with being drunk and incapable at the Central Police Station.
  Police Sergeant Macdonald said he found the accused on the previous afternoon lying in one of the doorways at the new Central Police Station.  He said it was the coolest place he could find to lie down in.
  Prisoner said he had a bad leg, and being also overcome by the heat he was resting.
  His Worship discharged him with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 17 August, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 11th August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
WANG AH-TAH v. ANDERSON.
  Wang Ah-tah, a laodah, sued Mr. A. L. Anderson for $11.15, wages due and goods supplied during July.
  Mr. Anderson said he was quite prepared to pay the claim, but he did not think he should pay the cost of the summons, $3, as the plaintiff had taken it out when he could have had his money. The man's wages were due on the 7th of each month, but on the 5th instant he said he would do no more work, and after demanding his wages on the 6th applied for the summons.
  His Honour, after hearing the plaintiff, said he had been unnecessarily hasty in summoning the defendant, and therefore he would have to pay the cost of the summons himself.

 

North China Herald, 17 August, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 10th August.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R.  v. EVANS.
  David Evans, unemployed sailor, was charged with being drunk in Broadway on the previous night.
  Police constable Johansen stated that at a quarter to one that morning, prisoner came up to him in Broadway and demanded to be arrested, threatening that if he were not taken to the station he would do something to make the policeman take him there. Prisoner was drunk. Witness accompanied him to the Sailors' Home, but they could gain no admittance there, so witness arrested him.
  Inspector Reed stated that the prisoner had already been committed for fourteen days for being drunk and disorderly, and that he only came out of the gaol on Sunday morning.
  His Worship said he did not wish to be hard on the man as he had tried to get home and had made no disturbance. He would be discharged with a caution.
.  .  .  
11th August.
R. v. LEWIS   
  George Lewis, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and asleep in an alley-way off Chapoo Road on the previous evening. Native constable No. 248 found accused helplessly drunk and arrested him.
  Inspector Reed gave the prisoner a very bad character, and his Worship sent him to prison for a week as a rogue and vagabond.
.  .  .  
R. v. SHANE.
  Michael Shane, belonging to the Glenfilas, was charged with being absent without leave since the 5th inst. - Captain Patterson having proved the charge accused was ordered to forfeit six days' pay and to be sent to gaol until the ship left.
.  .  .  
13th August.
R. v. EDMONDS.
  H. R. Edmonds, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Soochow Road on the 11th instant.
  Evidence was given that the accused when arrested by a Sikh constable was reeling about in a drunken state surrounded by a crowd of natives. He had been previously before the Court, but discharged.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $2.
.  .  .  
15th August.
REFUSING DUTY.
  Ten firemen and coal-trimmers belonging to the Empress of China were charged with refusing duty on the 13th inst.
  Philip Underwood, third officer, said that the accused refused to trim the coal in the bunkers after five o'clock on the afternoon of the 13th, although they knew the ship was liable to capsize when she was being hauled off the mud if that were not done. They had been working from 7 a.m. and would have been paid overtime.
  His Worship said the men had no right to refuse duty in such a case, and they would each be fined four days' pay, to cover all expenses.
.  .  .  
16th August.
R. v. CLARKE
   Thomas Clarke appeared to answer a summons charging him with assaulting Robert Glegg, chief officer of the Glengarry, on the 4th inst.
  Robert Glegg, chief officer of the Glengarry, having been sworn, stated that at midnight on the 4th inst. in Hongkong harbour, he was on the bridge talking to Captain Ferguson when he heard a disturbance on deck. He went to see that was the matter, and found the defendant assaulting a quartermaster. Witness ordered him to stop and tried to quiet him. Witness turned away his head, and the defendant struck him in the mouth, cutting his lip very badly. The Captain coming down ordered him to be put in irons at once, which was done with the help of three other officers. Defendant was confined in the bath room until the next day. The vessel left Hongkong at daylight on the 5th, and the occurrence was recorded in the ship's log. The defendant appeared to be drunk at the time, but he knew perfectly well what he was about.
  Captain James Ferguson, master of the Glengarry, stated that he came down from the bridge after the assault, and found the complainant holding the defendant by the arms. The complainant was bleeding from the mouth. Before the vessel left Hongkong the case was entered in the ship's log and the entry was read over to the defendant, who denied being drunk at the time and asserted that he knew perfectly well what he was doing. Witness was of opinion that the man was drunk. He knew of no previous trouble between the chief officer and the defendant prior to that.
  James Farrance, quartermaster, deposed to seeing the assault. He was on watch when Clarke came up on the port side of the deck and asked for the key of the galley. Witness said he would unlock it when he had served out the officers' coffee. Clarke than shoved him and struck him two or three times. Clarke seemed to be a little the worse for drink. Upon this the fourth mate and chief officer came along. The latter was trying to stop the disturbance when Clarke threatened to strike Mr. Glegg as well, and immediately afterwards carried out his threat.
  The defendant, in reply to his Worship, said that at the time in question he was a quartermaster and had had "a bit of a squabble" with the last witness. There had been an ill-feeling between them for some time, and as Farrance would not give up the key of the galley, he (defendant) shoved him. Farrance shouted out and the officers came up and seized him roughly, nearly choking him. In the heat of passion he struck out and hit the chief officer. He was then ordered into irons. He did not remember whether he said he had struck Farrance and would strike the chief officer.
  Albert Donovan, A.B., who was called for the defence, said he saw the chief officer come down after the commencement of the dispute. Prior to this two other officers had seized the defendant. Witness took Farrance away. The chief officer came up and tried to quiet Clarke, who struck him. The complainant was not holding Clarke when the blow was struck.
  In reply to the defendant witness said that whilst the others had hold of the defendant's hand, and before he (defendant) was put in irons, the third officer struck him.
  His Worship said that even supposing the defendant had been a little roughly used he had brought it upon himself, and as a lesson not to strike his officers he would go to prison for a month with hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. EDMUNDS.
  H. R. EDMUNDS [Edmonds] unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous night in an alley way on Honan Road.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that the accused was one of four men left behind by Harmston's Circus. They were regular pests and were always in trouble.
  His Worship sent accused to prison for a week, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 24 August, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th August.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. BENNICK.
  John Bennick was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  Native Sergeant 106, sworn, deposed that at 5.30 p.m. on Sunday he found the prisoner very drunk in Seward Road with a large crowd of Chinese following him. Witness with the assistance of a native constable, took the prisoner to the Hongkew Station.
  Fined $2 as he had caused a crowd to collect.
  R. v. JACKSON.
  George Jackson was charged with being drunk.
  Sikh Sergeant 59 deposed that he found the prisoner in Broadway at 7 o'clock on Sunday drunk and took him to the station: he was staggering about. He was not causing any disturbance.
  Dismissed with a caution.
  R. v. WILSON.
  W. Wilson was charged with being drunk.
  Native constable 365 stated that he found the prisoner in Seward Road asleep at 10.15 on Sunday. Witness woke him up and requested him to move on, but as he would not go, witness with assistance, took him to the station. He resisted a little.
  Fined $2 and cautioned.
.  .  .  
22nd August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
  R. v. MAHOMED.
  Goolam Hassan Mahomed, a fireman on the P. & O. str. Cathay, was charged with fighting and creating a disturbance on board that ship.
  Arthur Odgers, chief officer of the Cathay, said that on Sunday night there was a disturbance on board, and the prisoner was fighting with others of the crew. In the course of the disturbance the accused received injuries to his shoulder which would prevent him working between here and Bombay.
  David Bell, head saloon-waiter, said that on Sunday night at nine o'clock hearing the disturbance he went to see what it was about.  The accused pushed up against witness, who shoved him. One of the men got a small iron bar and struck witness, whilst the prisoner attempted to throw witness down the fore hatch.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $5, and costs.
R. v. ABDOOLAH.
  Hoosien Abdoolah, a fireman on the Cathay, was charged with being concerned in the same disturbance, but in the absence of direct evidence he was discharged.

North China Herald, 31 August, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 30th August.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. GEORGE.
  Nicholas George, lamp-trimmer on the British s.s. Angers, was charged, on the information of Mr. J. Graham, with stealing a bar of silver valued at $1,061, from the s.s. Angers in Nagasaki Harbour on or about the 20th instant.
  Inspector Reed, who appeared on behalf of the Police, explained that about the 16th or 17th instant one lot of 162 bars of silver and another lot of 82 bars had been shipped on the Angers in Nagasaki. It had been found that the treasure-room was too small, so the lot of 1623 had been taken ashore just before the ship left. After the departure of the ship, it was found in Nagasaki that only 161 bars had been landed. Information had been sent here, and the police had succeeded in finding a man who had seen accused carrying the silver ashore, and two men to whom the silver had been offered for sale. As yet the silver itself, or its purchaser, had not been found, so he desired that, after enough proof to warrant it had been heard, the case should be remanded. He then called the first witness.
  Mr. J. Graham, sworn, started - I am the agent of the Angers. I believe defendant is the lamp-trimmer on board. 162 bars of silver were received on board at Nagasaki and then taken off, when it was found that one bar was missing, and I have received a letter that a bar of this was stolen and that it was thought that it was bought to Shanghai by one of the crew. The Municipal Police have traced the connection of accused with the theft. The silver is through cargo from San Francisco. It was shipped at Nagasaki. It was entered on our special manifest. 161 only were entered and came to hand. All I know is the evidence from Nagasaki, and that the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank will claim against us for the value of one bar.
  Chu Yu-sh-sheng, cautioned, said: I am a tally-man on the Angers, I know the defendant who is a lamp-trimmer on board. I have heard from the purser that some silver was missing. The ship arrived the trip before last on Sunday. The ship arrived during the afternoon. I saw accused go ashore on Tuesday night at 10 o'clock. Accused had a heavy parcel, wrapped up in white cloth. The parcel appeared to be very heavy. He was carrying it in both hands. (Witness here showed the size and the way it was carried). Accused had on a white coat, which partially covered the bundle. I was taking tally at the gangway. Accused passed close to me from the gangway. I saw him go ashore.
  Hsu Li-shan, cautioned, said - I am a tally-man on the wharf. I was formerly a silversmith. I know prisoner as belonging to the Angers. While the Angers was in port the trip before last I was asked to go on board and see a piece of silver by one of the stevedores named A-san. I saw a bar of silver about 10 inches long by about 4 inches thick, valued at, I should think, Tls. 500 or 600. A-san took me to a small dirty room where I saw the silver. A foreigner was in the room. I could not see his face. Accused was the man. A-san asked accused how much he wanted, and accused answered $250. I did not buy it. I was afraid to buy it.
  Liang A-san cautioned, stated - I am a stevedore on board the Angers. When the Angers was here the trip before last, accused told me he had a piece of silver for sale. This was on the night the ship arrived. The accused offered to sell the silver to me. I first knew accused that time. I recused, and the accused asked if I knew anyone who would buy it. I asked Ah-me, who refused also after looking at it. Accused lighted a lamp in the lamp-trimmer's room and showed myself and Ah-me the silver. After seeing the silver we left. I do not know what became of the silver. I am certain it was accused who showed me the silver.
  Accused was remanded for a week.

 

North China Herald, 7 September, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd September.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. WATSON.
  J. Watson, steward on the P. & O. str. Cathay, was charged with refusing duty.
  Captain Symons, master of the Cathay, having been sworn, said the accused had absolutely refused duty from the 30th ult., and would only give some unintelligible answer. Accused was a general servant and was under the orders of the chief steward. He seemed to have some grievance against the head waiter. Accused had about £12 to £14 due to him as wages.
  Prisoner said he refused duty because the head waiter bullied him and ordered him about in an objectionable manner.
  His Worship said the dispute did not seem worth taking very much notice of. If the accused had a grievance he could have sought a remedy in a proper way. He would have to forfeit two days' pay, be imprisoned until the ship was leaving, and put on board.
  Accused said he still refused duty. He would not do any more work on board, no matter what happened.
  His Worship said it was useless for the prisoner to object to pay the fine as it would be deducted from the money due to him.
  Accused, who still insisted he would not do any work, was then removed.
.  .  .  
R. v. SCROGGINS.
  Joseph Scroggins, boatswain's mate on the Alcides, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
  P.C. George Wood said on Sunday night at 10.30 he found the accused outside the "Travellers," Broadway. He was drunk and causing a disturbance. Prisoner went away after a time, and another man came up in a drunken state. Witness was taking the latter to the station when the prisoner came back and renewed the disturbance.  He was subsequently taken to the station.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $2.
.  .  .  
R. v. BONNICK .
  John Bonnick, belonging to the Alcides, was charged with being drunk on Broadway.
  P.C. Wood said the accused on Saturday night went up to the "Travellers;" in a jinricksha. He was drunk and refused to pay his fare.
  Prisoner, who admitted being drunk, was discharged with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. PAYNE.
  Martin Francis Payne, unemployed, was charged with obstructing Captain C. M. der Senna, of "D" Company. S.V.C., whilst in the execution of his duty in Szechuen Road on the 2nd instant. Prisoner was also charged with carrying a large knife and a bludgeon contrary to Municipal Bye-laws.
  Captain de Senna, sworn, stated he was drilling "D" Company on Sunday night at 9 o'clock at the corner of Boone and Chapoo Roads. Some sentries were posted, and the prisoner came up and interfered with one of them, insulting the man. The Volunteers were in uniform, and they turned the accused away. Accused then began a disturbance, which attracted witness's attention. On going to the spot witness found the prisoner shouting and challenging the sentry to come forward. Witness spoke to him and he went away. A few minutes afterwards he returned and began the disturbance again. Someone came up to witness and warned him to be careful, as the accused was armed. Witness sent for the police and the accused was arrested. When taken into custody the prisoner was searched and a formidable knife or dagger about a foot long was found concealed under his coat.  At the station an iron bar about two feet long was found on him.
  P.C. Halse, deposed to being called to arrest the prisoner, and searching him upon the spot. Prisoner was carrying what witness presumed to be a walking stick, but when he reached the station it was found to be an iron bar.
  Accused said his father was an American, and he was born in Hongkong. He was doing nothing in Shanghai, but was living with some friends. As to the present case, he was walking along with a friend who asked him who was drilling. He said it was the Portuguese Company, and his friend said: "Can they drill well?" He (accused) replied, "No, the English Company can drill better than the Portuguese." The sentry then came and gave him a slap.
  His Worship - And serve you right too, if you said it in his hearing.
  Accused further said he was in the habit of carrying a knife every day, but not the iron bar.
  His Worship remanded him.
.  .  .  
4th September.
R. v. PAYNE.
  Martin Francis Payne, unemployed, was brought up on remand charged with obstructing Captain C. M. de Senna, "D" Company, S.V.C., whilst in the execution of his duty in Szechuen Road on the 2nd inst. Prisoner was also charged with carrying a large knife and a bludgeon, contrary to the Municipal Bye-laws.
  The American Consul-General having declined to deal with the case,
  His Worship sentenced the accused to one week's imprisonment, with hard labour, ordered him to enter into his own recognizance in the sum of $50, and to find a security in $50 to keep the peace for six months, or in default go to prison for one month.

 

North China Herald, 21 September, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 15th September.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
YEH MOW v. MAITLAND.
  The plaintiff, a vegetable and poultry dealer in Smith's Market, sued Mrs. Maitland, of the Bubbling Well Hotel, for $22.60, for goods supplied during February.  In the course of the case defendant contended that she had paid the account, producing receipted bills for March and April, and pointing out that she could not have paid these bills and omitted to pay for February. She denied that she had a pass-book as the plaintiff alleged.
  His Worship said the defendant's case had failed as she had not produced a receipt for February. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 21 September, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 18th September.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. KINGSMILL.
  Mr. T. W. Kingsmill appeared to answer a summons charging him with having assaulted a Chinaman named Ching Quay-pow on the 11th instant.
  The complainant stated that on the 11th instant at noon Mr. Kingsmill, accompanied by the tipao of the locality and some others, was measuring some land at the end of the Yuhang Road, opposite the silk filature, and placing boundary stones. Complainant pointed out that Mr. Kingsmill was potting a stone on his ground, and he (complainant) wished to remove some mud to exhibit a stone already there showing that the land belonged to him (complainant). Mr. Kingsmill, however, would not allow that, and struck complainant on the arm and hand with a walking stick.
  Ching Ping-san, a son of the complainant, corroborated his father's statement.
  Mr. Kingsmill said the land in question was measured several years ago by the Taotai's deputy, and proper boundary stones used. The land was now registered in Mr. Morrison's name, but formerly it stood in his (Mr. Kingsmill's), and he now acted as agent. Complainant had encroached on the land, but other boundary stones were set up in April last year marking out the lot. Complainant removed them. He (defendant) applied to the British Consulate; the land was again measured, and an official plan handed to him. On the morning of the 11th inst. defendant went to see the proper stones fixed on company with the tipao. Complainant, his wife, and son, were there and objected.  Defendant said he would leave the stones fixed, and if the complainant removed them, he would be taken to the Mixed Court, and the case would be settled there. The official plan was produced but complainant said he did not care what it said. He went on digging and refused to desist when defendant told him. In order to avoid any more trouble than was necessary defendant stepped on to the land and said, "I will not let you dig there." Complainant then struck at his (defendant's) foot with a hoe.  Defendant's office-boy stooped and caught hold of the handle of the hoe to prevent defendant being struck. Complainant went on struggling, and tried to strike defendant, whereupon he (Mr. Kingsmill) hit him across the knuckles with his walking stick. Complainant stepped back and defendant thought it was all over when he made a second attempt to strike, and defendant then hit him on the head. Complainant was held back whilst the stone was put down. After this complainant, his wife and son rushed at defendant, seized his walking stick, and tried to take him to the police-station. A Chinese constable coming up, he took possession of the stick, and defendant went off to some other property in the neighbourhood. The complainant, his family and some neighbours came up soon after and mobbed defendant, but he eventually got away.
  Albert Agatr, assistant to Mr. Kingsmill, corroborated the defendant, and added that whilst Mr. Kingsmill was engaged with the complainant his son tried to strike him with a spade.
  His Worship said the defendant was no doubt in a certain amount of danger when he struck the man, but, on the other hand, he had acted unwisely in attempting to place the stone in position by force. Disputes with Chinese about boundaries if dealt with in that way led to riots. Mr. Kingsmill should have reported the case to the Consulate. He would pay a nominal fine of $3, and costs.

 

North China Herald, 28 September, 1894
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 27th September.
Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General.
R. v. CAMPBELL, SMITH AND BENSON.
  H. J. Campbell, unemployed, W. Smith, barber, and O. P. Benson, constable, River Police, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Boone Road at 3 a.m. on the 27th instant, and damaging property to the value of $4.
  Fanny Watson deposed that she was awakened by some people kicking at her door and found the three defendants. They broke in her door after she had told them to go away and had gone to fetch a policeman. One of the men kicked her and another struck her.
  Inspector Reed assessed the damage at $4.
  His Honour sentenced Smith to five days imprisonment and the others to pay $5 each.

 

North China Herald, 5 October, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd October.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. SELLS.
  Thos. Sells, of the Glenfarg, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship.
  Captain Forbes Selby, master of the Glenfarg, deposed that on the night of the 1st inst., accused was absent from his ship without leave until about midnight. In the morning when witness remonstrated with him he was insolent. Accused admitted being drunk and disorderly, and gave as a reason that witness would not advance him money. Accused disturbed the whole ship on the night of the 1st when he returned.
  Chares Donald, Chief officer of the Glenfarg, also gave evidence as to the accused being absent.
  The prisoner denied being insolent, but admitted being absent without leave.
  His Worship ordered the accused to pay a fine of two days' pay, and to be imprisoned until the ship left.
.  .  .  
4th October
R. v. McLEAN.
  Duncan McLean, unemployed, was charged with begging and being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night.
  P.C. Mackenzie said that about 9 o'clock on the previous night he saw the accused go into a Chinese shop and ask for alms. He was turned out, and then went to the Hongkong Coffee House where he obtained a glass of stout, for which he was unable to pay. Immediately he was turned out he crossed the road and overturned three or four 'rickshas. He was drunk and used bad language.
  Inspector Reed said the accused had been deported from Hongkong, and arrived here about two months ago. He had not been charged before, but had been a great nuisance.
 His Worship said the accused would go to prison for  fortnight.

 

North China Herald, 19 October, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 16th October.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R.  v. MACKENZIE.
  James Mackenzie, quartermaster of the P. & O. str. Rosetta, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Boone Road on the previous night.
  P.C. Logan stated he was on duty in Boone Road at about a quarter to twelve; when he heard cries of "Police," and going in the direction of the shouting, saw the prisoner reeling out of a house. Prisoner complained that the inmates of the house had robbed him of $50, but as the people denied this statement, and as the prisoner was very noisy and disorderly, witness advised him to go on board his ship. Prisoner thereupon became very abusive and used filthy language towards the witness, who then arrested him. The prisoner was so violent that witness had to get the assistance of another constable.
  P.C. Mackenzie corroborated, and prisoner, who had nothing to say in his defence said he remembered nothing of the occurrence, was fined $10, or two weeks' imprisonment in default.
.  .  .  
18th October.
R. v. HERON.
  D. Heron, chief officer of the steamer Soochow, was summoned for two assaults on New Ah-le, a quartermaster, on board the same steamer. The plaintiff deposed that on the 4th and 12th instant the defendant had assaulted him, and called another quartermaster as witness. The witness, however, stated that he did not see one of the assaults, and as it was proved that he could not possibly have seen the other,
  His Worship dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 26 October, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 19th October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
GURDAH SINGH v. F. MANN.
  This was a claim by a Sikh watchman against the manager of the Acid Works for$11, balance of wages due.
  The plaintiff said he was engaged for $15 a month, to be paid at the end of the month. He left on the 14th of the present month and claimed $7 for 14 days' wages and $4 which had been kept back.
  The defendant said that the watchman had to give 15 days' notice before leaving, but he did not do so.
  Plaintiff admitted this, but said he desired to go home.
  His Honour gave judgment for the defendant, with costs.
.  .  .  
23rd October.
  This case arose out of a summons by a houseboy named Woo Ah-sai against Mr. W. J. Roberts, for wages alleged to be due from the 15th of August to the 15th of October.
  Defendant said $11 was the amount of the plaint8ff's wages, and that it had not been paid; but he set up a counter-claim against the plaintiff to the value of some articles which had been lost or stolen out of his house, owing to plaintiff's carelessness. On the 6th of the present month plaintiff went out without telling anybody he was going. He neglected to close the door, and remained away for about an hour and a half, and during his absence an eight-day clock, worth $6 and s new damask table-cloth, worth $7.75 disappeared from the house. In the morning he reported to defendant, that they were missing. Defendant told him their value would be stopped out of his wages, as he had frequently been warned that if he left the house without letting the family know he was going, and without locking the door behind him, he would be held responsible for anything that might be lost.
  Plaintiff said the amah locked the door after him when he went out on the night in question; and that she had subsequently gone out herself and left the door open; but this the amah denied.
  His Honour eventually came to the conclusion that the articles mentioned by Mr. Roberts had been stolen from the house entirely through the fault of the plaintiff. He would dismiss the case and he hoped it would be a lesson to the boy not to neglect his duty in the same way again.

 

North China Herald, 26 October, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 22nd October.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. McCOMB.
  John McComb, Foreman belonging to the s.s. Strathmore, was charged with being drunk and incapable in a jinricksha in Broadway on the previous evening.
  Native P.C. No. 304 proved the case, and as the accused had not been charged before, His Worship discharged him with a caution.
R. v. EVANS.
  Charles Evans, foreman on the s.s. Strathmore, was charged with being drunk and assaulting Sikh constable No. 1009, whilst in the execution of his duty, and also damaging the constable's uniform.
  The Sikh Constable said that on the previous day at about half-past five the prisoner got out of a 'ricksha on the Bund and began a dispute with the coolie. He would not pay his fare and struck witness in the chest. Witness caught hold of him, whereupon the accused fell and began to struggle. He continued for about a quarter of an hour until witness, with assistance, tied him to a wheelbarrow and took him to the police station. Accused was drunk. During the struggle witness's trousers were damaged to the extent of $2.
  Two native police constables corroborated.
  Accused said he was under the influence of drink at the time and knew nothing about the occurrence.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $10, or in the alternative a week's imprisonment, and ordered him to also pay for the damage to the constable's uniform.
.  .  .  
24th October
R. v. DOHERY.
  J. Dohery, a fireman, belonging to the Strathmore, was charged with refusing duty on the 21st inst.
  Captain Cunningham, the master of the Strathmore, having been sworn, stated that accused went aft on Sunday morning and declared to witness and the chief officer that in future he would obey no orders. Accused was perfectly sober at the time and the only thing witness could think of being likely to account for the way in which he acted, was that witness had refused to advance him some money. On Wednesday last accused went away without leave and stayed on shore 24 hours. Next morning witness told him he would be reported for desertion. Accused then said he wanted to go ashore again to see the Consul, and witness gave him leave for that purpose. He remained ashore for another day and when he returned he told witness that he had not gone to see the Consul, because on thinking the matter over, he had come to the conclusion that he had been in the wrong. He then asked to be allowed to return to his work, to which witness agreed, and did not log him for remaining ashore.
  Accused said the reason he refused duty was because the Captain had refused to give him money to remit home to his wife and family at Shields.
  The Captain said that was the case, but said his agreement with the man was that he should get the money to remit so long as he behaved himself. There were other men in the vessel similarly situated to accused. They had all got their money to send home, but as accused was absent on shore when the money was distributed, he did not get his wages.
  His Worship said accused had gone the wrong way to work.  He ought to have known that if the  Captain refused him money for such a purpose he could obtain redress at the Consular Shipping Office.  Instead of doing do he had deliberately refused to work, and for that he would be fined six days' pay. The question about money to send home to his wife and family would have to be settled separately.

25th October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. KUM AH-LUM.
  Kum Ah-lum, a British subject, appeared to answer a summons to the following effect:
  You this day have been charged before this Court, for that you on the 18th day of October, 1894, and on other days previously thereto, along with one J. M. Guedes and others, did publicly, at No. 8 Szechuen Road in Shanghai, keep  open and expose to be drawn by numbers or figures a certain illegal lottery called the Sterling Loan and Paying Fund Company, a lottery not authorised by Act of Parliament, to wit, a lottery for gambling and for winning money prizes contrary to the stature in that case made and provided.
  Acting Captain-Superintendent of Police Howard conducted the case for the Police, and Mr. F. Ellis appeared on behalf of the defendant.
  Mr. Ellis said he had only just been asked to appear for the defendant, and therefore he wished to be allowed to reserve his cross-examination of the witnesses.
  J. M. Woodford was then called and sworn. He said - I am a British subject. I purchased a ticket in the Sterling Bond Lottery on the 17th of this month at No. 8, Szechuen Road.  That is the ticket (produced.)
  His Worship - It is printed in Portuguese?
  Witness - Yes, partly. The translation is - "This is the half part of the number to be drawn at Shanghai on the 28th of October. J. M. Guedes, Secretary."  I have here also a white ticket not divided.
  His Worship - How do you know this is a ticket of the Sterling Loan and Paying Fund?
  Witness - I know that it is the same as I have seen it advertised in the newspapers.  The newspaper (produced) has a copy of the advertisement. A full ticket costs 60 cents and the first prize is £300 or £3,000.  It states there that $10 are given to the £. A Chinaman sold me the ticket. The office where I bought it is a large one with a counter. This is the only lottery office I know of at No. 9, Szechuen Road. On the 8thof October I attended at the drawing and saw the defendant there. When I entered the room I saw s Mr. Dzionk who asked me if I was doing anything. I said, "No," and he then said: "Well, would you mind writing down the numbers and we will pay you."  As I was out of employment and did not know there was anything illegal, I agreed.
  Witness then went on to describe the way in which the drawing was conducted. One large drum contained the ticket numbers and another the amounts of the various prizes.
  Continuing he said - Anyone was allowed to draw. Mr. Dzionk was there for about half-an-hour superintending the drawing. He disappeared when Mr. Howard came. I have not seen him since. The defendant was sitting at my side. I understood he was the compradore. He was watching me as I wrote down the numbers. There was another foreigner in the room.  He is a Jew and I think his name is Moses. As the drawing proceeded I remarked to the defendant that none of my chances seemed to be turning up. The drawing proceeded until Mr. Howard came in and stopped it. Mr. Howard asked me my name and whether I was a British subject. I told him and he told me to go home.
   By Mr. Howard - I understood that the defendant had some interest in the concern from the way in which he was watching me, but I did not hear him say so.
  Mr. Ellis asked to be allowed to reserve his cross-examination.
  His Worship said the case would have to go on tomorrow, as he should like to settle it before the Race.
  Mr. Howard opposed an adjournment for a week as the defendant had had a week's notice of the case and plenty of time to instruct his solicitor.
  Mr. Ellis said he would only be doing himself and his client an injustice by proceeding now. In fact he would not cross-examine the witnesses.
  Charles Prest, sworn, deposed - I am a Detective-Sergeant in the Municipal Police. I was at No. 8, Szechuen Road on the 18th inst. I went there in the first instance upon instructions from Mr. Howard to watch the drawing. I knew that a drawing had been conducted in another house last month. I did not know anyone who won a prize. On the 8th I saw the lottery proceeding in the usual style of such things. I have seen the Gold Bond Lottery drawn here. Last month this lottery was called the "English Shilling Investment Company." The majority of the same people were at both drawings. The defendant was there on both occasions. Two drums were used for drawing, one, a large one, containing the 30,000 tickets and a smaller one the 800 prizes. The defendant seemed to be in charge of the table where the numbers were being put down. Whilst I was there Mr. Howard and the police arrived. Mr. Howard stopped the drawing, and we dispersed the crowd of spectators.  We then arrested 21 people who were on a sort pf raised platform conducting the drawing. We then asked the defendant where the printing-press was.  In the presence of Mr. Howard, and Mr. Green, of the Shanghai Mercury, he told me he was the owner of the lottery, and he then showed us the printing-press. He said he was a British subject, and we told him he would have to appear before his Consul. The printing-press was locked up in a room. We seized quite a quantity of tickets in process of printing, as well as type figures, etc. I produce specimens of the tickets.
  Mr. Howard - Would anyone not acquainted with the building know where to find the room in which the press was?
  Witness - No, it is a very large straggling building and the room is in a most out-of-the-way place. The defendant conducted us there very easily, but coming back we lost our way and he had to show us.
  His Worship - What is the house?
  Mr. Howard - It is one of the oldest hongs in Shanghai, belonging to Gilmour's. You can understand it is a rather large place from the fact that the rental is Tls. 250 a month, as I am informed.
  John Green, sworn, said - I am a reporter on the Shanghai Mercury.  On the 18th of October I was at No. 8 Szechuen Road. I was told there was to be a lottery drawing there, but I cannot say that I had seen the advertisement. I had to enquire to find where the lottery was. I had heard there was a warrant out for the arrest of the people and I went to see it executed. I entered the large room where the drawing was proceeding, without anyone stopping me. I went up to the rail of the platform where the drawing was proceeding, but, as I could not get on the stage that way, I passed through a smaller room, and then reached the stage. I saw Woodford, Detective Prest, several others I knew, and the defendant. I looked round, watched the proceedings and went out. I returned and Mr. Howard came in. He then stopped the drawing and the fact was explained to the crowd of Chinese spectators. I was close to Mr. Howard all the time. About 20 people were arrested.  I heard some one say the defendant was a British subject.  One of the detectives asked the defendant where the printing-press was, remarking, "I suppose the place belongs to you." The defendant said, "Well, I belong to the Company any how." We were then shown the printing-press.
  On our return to the room where the drawing had been proceeding, there was some more conversation with the defendant and he said he was part owner of the Company and that they paid either Tls. 200 or $200 to Mr. Guedes, implying that the latter was only a paid agent. The defendant did not mention any other names.
  Joseph Maria Guedes, who was next called and sworn, addressing his Worship said - Before proceeding I have to ask you to excuse me from answering questions, because probably Mr. Howard will have a charge against me, and I am recommended by my Counsel not to reply to questions.
  Mr. Howard - I would remind Mr. Guedes that he is on oath.
  Witness - I know that.
  Mr. Howard (to witness) - What position do you hold in the Sterling Lottery?
  Witness (to his Worship) - Am I to answer that question?
  His Worship - Well, the question may perhaps be put in another form.
  Witness - Well, I will answer it; I am the paid Secretary.
  His Worship - Who engaged you?
  Witness - I have to ask your Worship to excuse me answering that question.
  His Worship - You can tell me who engaged you, at all events.
  Witness - I would rather not.
  His Worship - The Company can only speak through some one who has a mouth to engage you.
  Witness - I cannot give the name.
  His Worship - Do you know the defendant?
  Witness - I can tell your Worship I am the sole manager of the whole establishment and the defendant is under me as manager. I consult him whatever I do, and he consults me whatever he has to do.
  His Worship - Did you get your appointment from the defendant?
  Witness - Not from him. The defendant is above all the native staff.
  His Worship - If you are the Secretary of the Company it seems to me as well you should state who engaged you.
  Witness - I would rather not say.
  His Worship - It was not the defendant who engaged you?
  Witness - Not at the first interview. At the first interview he had a conversation with me about it. He did not engage me. He dies not pay me. He draws a salary himself from the Company. He has nothing to do with the capital in the Company. He has not the least share in the Company.
  His Worship - Will you tell me how you come to know that?
  Witness - I ought to know.
  His Worship - How??
  Witness - I cannot tell.
  His Worship - Do you know positively who the proprietors are?
  Witness - Oh, certainly I ought to know.
  His Worship - Well, if you are a paid servant as you say, you cannot be running any risk in telling. You see, if I am to attach any credence to your evidence I must have the whole of it. I cannot believe parts.
  Witness - I cannot tell your Worship the owner of the lottery; I am very sorry.
  His Worship - It is a question for me whether I am to pay any attention to your evidence at all.
  Witness - Well, your Worship must do as you like. I am advised not to answer as there is a charge against me.
  Mr. Howard - I have no charge to bring against the witness at his Consulate for the simple reason that his statement now is different from that which he made to his own Consul. He told his Consul that he had nothing to do with the lottery as Secretary or Manager. It is a matter for his own Consul altogether. He made a declaration at his own Consulate that he had nothing to do with the lottery. Now he comes and states that he is the paid Manager and General Secretary.
  Witness said he would like to have that day to consider whether he should answer the questions.
  His Worship again pointed out that the witness, if he were only a paid servant, could not be running any risk by answering the questions.
  Mr. Howard (to witness) - Did you make a certain declaration to me at about 2.30 p.m. on the 20th of August in connection with this case?
  Witness - I did not make a statement. If your Worship will allow me -
  His Worship - Did you make a statement?
  Witness - No statement; there was a conversation. Mr. Howard sent for me and asked me certain things and I said: "If I am speaking to you as Captain-Superintendent I decline to tell you but I do not mind having a private conversation with you as Mr. Howard." (Laughter.) He said "Yes," and we had a private conversation. He brought out a piece of paper and was going to write it down, but I said he must not do that as it was a private conversation. Now I want to know why Mr. Howard can talk about this very private and confidential conversation.
  His Worship - It would be very easy for Mr. Howard to say what the statement was.
  Witness - It was a private and confidential conversation, and nothing was to be mentioned outside.
  Mr. Howard -  I said there was no such thing as a difference between the Acting Captain-Superintendent and Mr. Howard.
  Witness (stepping out of the box) - Well, I ask you to put Mr. Howard in the box. Come!  (Laughter).
  Mr. Howard - Did you tell me the defendant was your employer and drew up this lottery in connection with you?
  Witness - No, I did not.
  His Worship - Neither privately nor officially?
  Witness - No; Mr. Howard told me he had got part of the agreement.
  Mr. Howard - Did you tell me that you looked to the defendant as your chief?
  Witness - No, I never said "my chief."
  Mr. Howard - Remember, I have got a witness.
  Witness - You may have all the witnesses you like.
  His Worship - Answer the question, did you or did you not?
  Witness - No, not the word "chief."
  His Worship - Did you say to Mr. Howard that you looked to one man in particular as to one you had to do with?
  Witness - No; I did not say "one man."
  His Worship - Well, it will be very easy to prove the conversation.
  Witness - If Mr. Howard wishes to bring half a dozen witnesses against me he can, but I say on oath I did not use the word "chief."
  His Worship - We are not quibbling about words. Did you say to Mr. Howard that there was one man that you looked to in particular as the man with whom you had to do?
  Witness - I cannot answer; but I may tell you Worship Mr. Howard put the question "Is Kum Ah-lum your chief?" I said, "No, he is not my chief, but he is one of the important people in the office and I take instructions from him and he takes instructions from me." These were the words used and I am sure Mr. Howard will not deny it.
  His Worship - Have you an agreement with the Company?
  Witness - Yes.
  His Worship - Can you produce it?
  Witness - Not unless I am obliged to. I would rather not.
  His Worship - Will you say who signed it?
  Witness - I have to consult about that. As there is a case pending in another Court I cannot answer the question.
  His Worship - Well, we must get on without you.
  Mr. Howard - I have a number of questions to ask the witness, but I do not think it is any use asking any more. I would ask your Worship to allow me to go into the witness-box with reference to the statement.
  Mr. Howard accordingly went into the witness box and was sworn. He said - At about 2.30 p.m. on the 20th October Mr. Guedes came to my office at the Central Police Station. That was about the third visit since the arrests. I am not certain that I sent for him. I had a conversation with him in the office.  I said, "This lottery, I suppose, will be about stopped now, and you had better tell me who are the proprietors." He said, "Mr. Howard, I only look to one man as my chief in this lottery. He is the man who pays my wages. He is the man who signed the agreement, and the man who had the agreement drawn up and engaged me."   This man he said was Kum Ah-lum. Whilst he was telling me this I had sent for the Sergeant on duty to come to my office. The Sergeant came, and, as soon as he entered, Mr. Guedes stopped the conversation.  He said, "You are not going to catch me like that. You are not going to have a witness here while I am telling you anything."
  I said, "Oh, all right, the Sergeant has already heard the statement." He said, "Oh, I don't care; I'll repeat it," and he then repeated it again in the presence of the Sergeant. That is practically all in connection with Kun Ah-lum, but he made a Statement in connection with something else which is not relevant to this case.
  Sergeant Alfred Clarke, sworn, deposed - On the 29th of this month I was on duty at the Central Police Station. I was sent for by Mr. Howard. When I came in Mr. Guedes was with him. He said, "I think you have sent for the Sergeant as a witness," and Mr. Howard passed some remark. Then Mr. Howard said, "Then I understand you to say that Kum Ah-lum is the promoter and proprietor of the Sterling Lottery, and you look to him for your wages."  He said, "Yes." Mr. Howard put the question to him pointedly two or three times whilst I was there.
  His Worship - Did Guedes demur to making any statement?
  Witness - I do not remember more than that. I know the name of the Sterling Lottery was mentioned.
  Chu Sing-Sung, a Soochow man, was then called. He said he had been employed by the Sterling Lottery, the Chinese name of which was Se-ling Kungsu (Shilling Company.) Witness was engaged by the defendant, who was the compradore. Witness had been employed there for about a fortnight.
  At this stage the case was adjourned for the day.

 

North China Herald, 2 November, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.M.'S SUPREME COURT
Shanghai, 27th October.
Before N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.
BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN AND THE STRAITS, LIMITED v. S. BOWNESS.
  Mr. S. Bowness appeared on a summons for not paying the amount of a judgment obtained against him on the 19th of March last, in respect to two calls on 75 shares in the Bank of China, etc., amounting to £37 10s.
  Mr. J. C. Hanson, solicitor, appeared for the Bank , and stated that defendant had only paid three instalments of £20 each, the last instalment being  paid on the 10th of June last. As the defendant was not married and was in receipt of as good salary, he asked that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount in instalments of $40 a month.
  The defendant was examined upon oath as to his means, and his reason for not paying. He said that in consequence of decisions in other courts, he thought he was not liable. The Bank had always pressed him - in fact had practically ruined him - and yet many others who were better able to pay, were not proceeded against.
  His Lordship reminded the defendant that the subject matter of the judgment could not be gone into. Defendant had confessed his liability and judgment had been issued. The only matter now in question was how the amount was to be paid.
  By a statement put in by the Bank the amount of the debt was shown to be £33 6s. 9d., or roughly $330.After a discussion as to the ability of the defendant to pay, an order was made that $25 be paid monthly to the Bank until the judgment is satisfied.

.  .  .  
1st November.
A.S. FOBES v. A. M. A. EVANS and S. M. A. EVANS v. A. S. FOBES.
  Upon the case being called on -
  Mr. H. P. Wilkinson said - In this case, my Lord, I appear for the plaintiff on the original petition and for the same party, being the defendant, on the counter-claim, of the defendant in the original suit. My learned friend, Mr. Hanson, appears for the defendant and for the plaintiff in the counter-claim. By arrangement with my learned friend, and by the joint consent of the parties, I have now to apply to your Lordship to take the hearing of this case as an arbitration. That is, we desire all the pleadings put in be pleadings in the case; that the Rules of the Court as to costs and as to the amount deposited hold good; that your Lordship's award, if desired by either party, be made a Rule of Court, and both myself and my learned friend desire to have your Lordship's permission for the case to be conducted in that way.
  Mr. J. C. Hanson - I quite agree to that, my Lord.
  His Lordship - The application will be granted.
  The case accordingly proceeded in private.

 

North China Herald, 2 November, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 26th October.
Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. KUM AH-LUM.
  Kum Ah-lum, a British subject, again appeared to answer a summons alleging that on the 18th day of October, 1894, and on other days previously there, along with one J. M. Guedes and others, he did publicly, at No. 8, Szechuen Road, in Shanghai, keep open and expose to be drawn by numbers or figures a certain illegal lottery called the Sterling Loan and Paying Fund Company.
  Acting Superintendent of Police Howard conducted the case for the Police.
  Mr. Ellis asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case. He understood the defendant had something to say in his own defence.
  His Worship - Very well.
  Defendant - I ask your Worship to take into consideration that Mr. Ellis has withdrawn from my case, and I have no other lawyer to defend me.
  His Worship - Very well, you can speak for yourself.
  Defendant - When I took the position of compradore to the Company I was under the impression I was doing nothing wrong, because at the Shanghai Club, German Club, Race Club, and the Gold Bond, the German and Manila Lotteries are all lotteries which have gone on for some time. I did not think I was breaking the law. I was only the compradore - as paid servant.
  His Worship - Yes, but the prosecution say you are more than a compradore, that you are one of the owners and that you have money in the Company.
  Defendant - Well, if they can prove it.
  His Worship - I have evidence to prove it; your own admission for one.
  Defendant - I have my own agreement with the proprietors. I am sorry I cannot give the names, but if I am compelled to reveal the names I must, but I prefer not to do it.
  His Worship - You are not compelled to do anything; you can keep your mouth shut.
  Defendant - Then I am put in an awkward position myself. Shall I produce the agreement or not?
  His Worship - I am not going to give you any advice upon that. You understand it is for the prosecution to make out you have contravened the statute. I will tell you bye-and-bye whether they have made it out or not, but I may say that there is certainly some evidence to justify me in holding that you have taken part. The fact that you were there superintending the operations is pertinent to that point, and if I believed it I should be bound to find that you have a share in it.
  Defendant - No, I deny that.
  His Worship - Have you any questions to ask those witnesses who were examined yesterday?
  Defendant - I do not think it is necessary for me to prolong the case longer, I produce the agreement to show I am the compradore.
  His Worship - It is in Chinese, and I must have a translation before that can go in. Besides you will have to prove it in the ordinary way.
  Defendant - The man is not here now.
  His Worship - Who is the man?
  Defendant - a Hongkong man. I was in Hongkong last year, and he came to Shanghai, and we had a talk together. We went to Mr. Guedes' home and talked over the matter and settled it.
  His Worship - But you certainly have taken part in keeping this establishment open.
  Defendant - But I am not the proprietor.
  His Worship - I do not think even that good, and for keeping this place open you are liable to a fine of £500.
  Mr. Howard, in reply to his Worship, submitted that it had been clearly shown that the defendant had been connected with the lottery.
  His Worship said it was not even necessary for the defendant to be the proprietor to come under the Act. British subjects were not allowed to be paid servants of anybody for the purpose of conducting a lottery.
  Mr, Howards pointed out that these lotteries were becoming very numerous and a great nuisance. He hoped the Court would impose an adequate penalty.
  His Worship - I take it it is simply to determine the principle. I do not propose to impose a heavy penalty, but I will impose a nominal fine. You must understand that even supposing your statement is correct, you were a servant for the purpose of keeping open house. Now it is not permitted to any British subjects to keep open house for drawing a lottery.
  Defendant - When I took the position in the Company I never thought I was breaking the law.
  His Worship - Well, you know now.
  Defendant - Others have lotteries in Shanghai and I thought I was doing nothing wrong.
  His Worship - Being a British subject as you are it is not permitted to you to do this business.
  Defendant - I ask your Worship to deal leniently with me.
  His Worship - I shall deal leniently with you, and I do not intend to inflict a more than a small fine. I shall fine you $10, which is a nominal fine, seeing that I might make it $5,000.
  Defendant - It is hard upon me when other lotteries have been doing business for some time.
  Mr. Howard - I ask your Worship to caution the defendant.
  Defendant - I have had a lesson and I will not do it any more.
  The fine was paid.
.  .  .  
Before W. Holland, Police Magistrate.
R. v. HOLLISTER.
  B. Hollister, belonging to the Alcides, was summoned for creating a disturbance and fighting on the 23rd instant, and threatening the lives of the crew.
  Captain L. C. Dart, the master of the vessel, said that on the 23rd instant, the defendant was holding the turn of a rope, and very carelessly let it slip, thereby endangering the lives of those who were working below. The boatswain spoke to him, and the defendant becoming very abusive, kicked the boatswain and at the same time used threatening language. The defendant was put in irons later, and remained there until witness returned to the ship late in the afternoon, when he was released. The defendant had been a bad character ever since he joined the ship.
  William Mason, Boatswain, also gave evidence as to the defendant's unruly conduct.
  Accused made a long rambling statement which had little to do with the case, and
  His Worship sentenced him to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour.
.  .  .  
29th October.
R. v. PARANAHTA.
 The prisoner was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Sikh P.C. 114 stated that he saw him very drunk on the Bund on Saturday, and took him to the Station. He made no disturbance.
  Accused said he was a native of the Punjab and was a musician. He admitted being drunk.
  Inspector Ramsay said that accused had been locked ups several times for drunkenness and released.
  His Worship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
1st November
R. v. MURPHY.
  Thomas Murphy, A.B., belonging to the s.s. Kintuck, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Fearon Road on the previous day.
  Native P.C. 290 stated that at 11 o'clock a.m. he found accused drunk and throwing stones at a crowd of Chinese children who were following him. Witness took him in charge, as he was unable to take care of himself. Accused made no resistance.
  Defendant admitted being ashore without leave and being overcome by drink.
  He was dismissed with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. BEST.
  R. W. Best, A.B. belonging to the Nicaraguan barque Comet, was charged with being drunk and soliciting alms in Seward Road.
  Detective Champion stated that at 5.45 p.m. on the previous day he was told a man was begging at his master's (a foreigner) house. Witness did not find him at first, but at another house he saw accused, who was identified by the boy. Witness accused him and found that he was too drunk to reply, so took him in charge.
  Defendant pleaded knowing nothing of his actions. He said he had plenty of clothes.
  His Worship dismissed the prisoner with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. PEACOCK.
  Charles Peacock, A.B., belonging to the s.s. Amaranth, was charged with being drunk and asleep in a Chinese shop.
  P.C. Young said that at 4.15 p.m. on the previous day in Broadway he found accused asleep in a shop to which witness was called. Witness found he was drunk, and took him to the Station.
  Inspector Reed stated that he had been locked up and let go in the morning.
  Captain Clift, master of the Amaranth, stated that the man had been absent from duty since the ship came in two days ago
  His Worship ordered him to be imprisoned until the ship left.
.  .  .  
R. v. COLEMAN.
  Michael Coleman, A.B. belonging to the Comet, was charged with being drunk and incapable and carrying a sheath knife contrary to the Municipal Regulations.
  P.C. Young stated that he found the prisoner on Broadway in a drunken state. On prisoner sighting witness he attempted to run away but fell down incapable. He was very abusive on the way to the Station. On being searched a sheath knife was found on him.
  He was sentenced to one week's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
R. v. BOURKE.
  Brian Bourke, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  Sikh P.C. 107 testified to finding accused at 10 p.m. on Wednesday night drunk and threatening to assault a Chinaman. In consequence he took him in charge. At the Station accused struck a native constable.
  Inspector Reed stated that no charge had been laid, but he had often heard complaints of his having begged all over Hongkew.
  The assault being corroborated, accused said that he was to get employment, and accordingly the case was remanded for enquiries. If not employed he is to go to gaol for a week.

 

North China Herald, 9 November, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
LING AH-KAI v. CAVE.
  This was a claim against Mr. H. W. Cave for $7.75, wages alleged to be due for services rendered as cook during the month of October.
  The plaintiff said he was told to leave on the 20th of October, but he remained until the 23rd and then left.
  For the defence it was explained that the plaintiff threatened to leave and was then told that if he did so before another cook was obtained he would forfeit his wages. He, however, left.
  His Honour gave judgment for the defendant.

 

North China Herald, 9 November, 1894
FRENCH CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 3rd November.
Before M. Douail, Consul-General and MM. Vouillement and Oriou, Assessors.
CHARGE OF THEFT.
 Two men named Haginas and Danaspassis were charged with being concerned in the theft of a bar of silver from the Anjers.
  M. Bottu, avocat, appeared for the former and M. Lejoncour for the latter. M. E. Moultron, partie civile, appeared on behalf of the owners of the silver to recover from the defendants the money received by them as their share of the stolen property.
  The prisoners were each sentenced to six months' imprisonment and ordered to repay the money, some $800.
.  .  .  
Since the trial the money has been paid.

 

North China Herald, 9 November, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 2nd November.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. BOURKE.
  Brian Bourke, who has been remanded for enquiries, was again brought up.
  Inspector Reed informed his Worship that it was correct that employment was open to the accused, and His Worship then discharged him with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. GRIFFITHS AND LEE.
  Joseph Griffiths, belonging to the s.s. Polyphemus, and William Lee, firemen on the Amaranth, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night.
  P.C. Wood said he found the prisoners outside the "Travellers'" at 11.30 on the previous night. They were both drunk and seemed inclined to fight with one another. Witness endeavoured to induce them to go away, but they would not, and with the assistance of a Sikh policeman they were taken to the Station. Both were disorderly.
  Sikh Constable No. 70 corroborated.
  His Worship ordered Lee to be kept in prison till the Amaranth leaves, and Griffiths to undergo a week's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
R. v. PHILLIPS.
  Frederick Phillips, stoker, belonging to H.M.S. Caroline, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting native P.C. 374 and 423, damaging their uniforms and causing the loss of a police whistle and also damaging a jinricksha to the extent of 80 cents in the Szechuen Road.
  Native P.C. No. 374, said he found the accused lying on the Soochow Road drunk on the previous night at about half-past nine o'clock. Witness told him to go away, but he would not, and seizing hold of witness's whistle tore his uniform and struck him. Witness called another constable and the accused was taken to the station in a jinricksha.
  Native P.C. 323, deposed to assisting the last witness, when he was struck by the accused in the face.
  P.C. Otto Olsen said he was on duty at the Kiangsi Road when, hearing a police whistle blown, he went to the Soochow Road and found the accused struggling with the police. He was drunk. Witness told him to be quiet and he was put into a jinricksha.
  Inspector Ramsay said the damage done by the accused and the loss of the whistle represented about $4.
  Prisoner said he remembered little of the occurrence, but he found himself being hustled by the witnesses. He had never landed in Shanghai before, and did not know at the time that the men were police constables.
  His Worship said it was a pity to see a man like the accused in the dock. He would have to pay $4 for the damage, and a fine of £3.
.  .  .  
5th November
R. v. SAUNDERS.
  Gilbert Saunders, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Chapoo Road on Saturday night.
  P.C. No. 40 having proved the charge,
  Inspector Reed said the man was a deserter from the Alcides, and had been a perfect nuisance since his arrival here. By representing himself as destitute he had obtained the assistance of the Ladies' Benevolent Society, and had been getting his food from the Hongkew Police Station. He, however, frequently went there drunk at night and further assistance was stopped. There had been frequent complaints of the prisoner going all over the Settlements begging, but people would not come forward and prosecute. One night as he (Inspector Reed) was passing through Minghong Road he heard the accused say to another man, "Let us go to the mission-house, we will be able to get a dollar or two there."
  Detective Champion gave evidence as to the accused frequently begging, and
  His Worship sentenced him to a month's hard labour.
.  .  .  
R. v. CHARLES.
  William Charles, fireman on the s.s. Amaranth, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Sunday morning, with assaulting Alex. Gerry, third engineer of the Amaranth, and stealing a Waterbury watch and chain value $25.
  P.C. No. 52 deposed to arresting the accused at half-past twelve on Sunday morning in Broadway, on the complaint of a man who said he had been assaulted.
  Alex. Gerry, the complainant, said that he was with the prisoner and some other men late on Saturday night when there was a quarrel about a watch, and the accused struck the witness with his fist. The accused was drunk.
  His Worship - Were you sober yourself.
  Witness - Well, I was very near it.
  Thomas Penton, fireman on the s.s. Amaranth, deposed to seeing the accused strike the complainant. Before that there had been a scuffle in which Gerry had returned a blow. The accused came up a second time and said, "I stole your watch and now I'll fight you for it."
  Robert Hanson, fireman, of s.s. Amaranth, corroborated.
  Captain Clift, Master of the Amaranth, said on two occasions during the voyage he had to correct the accused for fighting on board, once in Singapore harbour and again between Singapore and Hongkong. On the latter occasion the accused and the man he was fighting with were in danger of falling amongst the machinery. Prisoner was absent from his work on Thursday and Friday, and returned on Saturday before a warrant was taken out.
  Accused said they had all been drinking together prior to the assault, and there was a quarrel. He denied stealing the watch, which he said had been given him.
  His Worship sentenced him to a fortnight's hard labour.
.  .  .  
  The charge of stealing the watch was then gone into.
  Alex. Gerry, re-called, said that  on Thursday night or Friday morning he missed his watch between the  ship and the wharf gate. He had given it to the accused to mind. Witness believed the watch was seen in the firemens' room, where the accused was sleeping, on Friday morning. Witness did not suspect him until Saturday evening, when, during the quarrel, he said, "I took your watch and I'll fight you for it." The watch now in the possession of Inspector Reed, and produced, was the one in question.
   Robert Hanson, re-called, said he was in the "Travellers" on Thursday night, when the third engineer and the third mate came in. When they left the accused followed them. Witness and some others went out later. On the Friday morning, witness met the accused and they went together to a pawn-broker's where the accused pledged the watch and chain. They were both somewhat intoxicated at the time. The accused got $3 on the watch, and tore up the Chinese ticket he received. Accused told witness it was his own watch, and it was not until the Saturday night that he (witness) learned that it belonged to the third engineer.
  Chao Ah-sing, pawn-broker, Tiendong Road, said he recollected the prisoner pledging the watch and chain produced for $3. A jinricksha coolie acted as interpreter.
  His Worship said the witness was doing a rather dangerous thing in taking watches in pawn from drunken sailors. He had better be careful or he would be reported to the native authorities.
  Thomas Penton re-called, said he saw the watch in the prisoner's possession soon after Thursday midnight. Accused took it out of his pocket and said, "Look here, see what I have got." Witness felt sure he had not obtained it honestly, but he did not know it belonged to the third engineer.
  Detective Champion stated that after the accused had been cautioned and told the charge, he said the watch was given him by the third engineer. Witness subsequently recovered the watch from the pawn-shop.
  His Worship said the case had been clearly proved and the accused would go to prison for a month's hard labour on the charge. He would also have to refund the $3 he received for the watch.

 

North China Herald, 23 November, 1894.
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 19th October.
Before T. L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
KOOFOO v. KEELING.
  This was a claim by the plaintiff for $12.20. wages due, and $2.31 for goods supplied.
  The defendant paid $12.09 into Court.
  The plaintiff said his late master, the defendant, gave him permission to leave and told him to return next day for his money. He went, but was not paid, defendant stating that plaintiff had come too late.
  G. F. Keeling, the defendant, stated that he had allowed the plaintiff to leave, but had told him to call next day for his money. Plaintiff did not come at the time appointed.
  His Honour gave judgment for the defendant with costs.

 

North China Herald, 23 November, 1894
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 17th November.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. COLEMAN AND BEST.
  Michael Coleman and Robert Best, of the Nicaraguan barque Comet, were charged with stealing a quantity of ship's stores.
  Captain John C. Broadhurst, master of the Comet, having been sworn, said the accused had purloined ship's stores to the value of about $30 or $40. Coleman was night-watchman on Thursday, when some coolies were at work discharging ballast. Witness had been on deck until after midnight and had cautioned Coleman about keeping a strict look-out. Coleman said he would do so. In the morning, at about six o'clock, the second mate told witness some of the ship's stores had been taken from the store-room. The first officer suggested searching the forecastle, which was done. Looking through the bunks the first time nothing was discovered, but ion going in a few minutes later two bottles of pickles, a case of fish, and a tin of butter were discovered under a bunk belonging to a man named Walker. On looking through the store-room witness saw that a case was open in which had been two bottles of Scotch whisky. Coleman was under the influence of liquor whilst the search was proceeding. Witness challenged him with the loss of the articles, and he denied knowing anything about them. Witness pointed out that as he was the watchman he was responsible, and that the police would be informed.  Coleman was very anxious to be paid off. No other articles had been recovered, and a store-book was not kept, but witness was of opinion quite $30 worth had been taken.
  Thomas Moore, chief officer of the Comet, said on Friday morning the steward, a Chinaman, informed him some stores had been taken during the night. Witness spoke to the Captain, and the forecastle was searched twice. The second time the articles produced in Court were found. The things were not seen the first time because they had neglected to look under the bunks. The men were questioned, but they all denied any knowledge of the them. Witness had no particular reason to suspect the two prisoners. The ship was lying in the stream, and the only craft alongside were some ballast boats. It would have been possible for the coolies to have got to where the stores were.
  Charles Petersen, second mate, said all he knew about the case was being present when the articles were found in the fore castle, as described.
     George F. Walker, A.B., said he left the ship at about half-past seven on Thursday evening, and returned a little before ten o'clock, and went below. In the night he was aroused by Best who asked him to have some baked beans. He went out on deck but found they were grapes. Best said he had brought them from the shore. Witness went back to his bunk. In the morning, witness learned that the things were missing from the store-room. He was below when the things were found in the forecastle.  He had no knowledge as to how they came to be under his bunk. Felix Berhaut  told witness after breakfast that he had known the things were under the bunk, and he was going to return them to the second officer to save trouble.
  Felix Berhaut, A.B., said he was on deck with Coleman till after ten o'clock on Thursday night, and then turned in, at the same time as the last witness. In the night he was called out by some of the men to have some beans. He refused to take them, but they asked him to taste, and he then found they were grapes. Witness then turned in. He heard Best say he had bought them ashore. Half an hour later, Coleman, who was somewhat drunk from having had some gin given him by a man who was going to be paid off, called witness and gave him a bottle of pickles.  A few minutes later Coleman came back with another bottle of pickles and a tin of butter. Witness guessed they were stolen and told Coleman he was a fool, but Coleman came back again with the case of fish. Witness told him to put it back but he would not. In the morning witness saw the things under his bunk and he shifted them under Walker's bunk.  He thought that was the best place to conceal them until he could give them back to the chief officer. Witness knew of Coleman having taken other things.
  Captain Broadhurst, recalled, said that after the men turned-to on Friday morning Best was under the influence of drink. Twice that day he asked to be discharged after the stores had been found. Witness connected the prisoners' drunkenness with the disappearance of the two bottles of whisky.
  Coleman, in reply to his Worship, said that at about seven o'clock on Thursday morning he got a large square-faced bottle of gin, and he kept on drinking it through the night. He was "pretty drunk" all night and remembered nothing about taking the stores.
  Best said he came on board at about midnight and found a tin of grapes on the forecastle table. He did not know what it was and opened it. He was too drunk to know clearly what he did but he knew nothing about the stores being stolen.
  His Worship said no case had been made out against Best, but the evidence was clear against Coleman, who would go to prison for a month, with hard labour.
.  .  .  
19th November.
R. v. FIVEY.
  Geo. Fivey, a fireman belonging to the Boynton, was charged with being drunk on Saturday and Sunday.
  P.C. Spong, sworn, stated that at 11 p.m. om Saturday he found the accused drunk and incapable in Boone Road, and took him to the Station, but he was released next morning. He was shortly afterwards brought in again by another constable.
  Native constable 458, cautioned, said that he found the defendant drunk in Kungping Road. He made no disturbance.
  His Worship dismissed the defendant with a caution.
.  .  .  
20th November.
R. v. MONROE AND O'DONNEL.
  Patrick O'Donnel and Donald Monroe, boatswains on the Lydgate, appeared to a summons taken out by J. Manning, A.B., for an alleged assault on the 17th inst.
  The complainant stated that when the hands turned to on the morning of the day in question Monroe struck him with his fist, and in the scrimmage that resulted, he was struck by O'Donnel and later by Monroe with the nozzle of a hose. Complainant went to his bunk, and O'Donnel struck him while he was lying in the bunk, and made such threats that the complainant jumped overboard, swam ashore, and had been in the hospital since. He called the second mate and two of the men, who stated that all hands had been drunk over-night and that on the men being turned to in the morning a general scrimmage occurred, during which Manning, who was  very drunk and quarrelsome, received the blows complained of.
  The defendants admitted being under the influence of drink, but stated that they were only having an ordinary row.
  His Worship ordered Monroe to pay the expenses of the complainant as a lesson not to use that kind of tool while quarrelling, and the costs, and dismissed the charge against O'Donnel with a caution.
.  .  .  
21st November.
R. v. O'DONNEL.
  Patrick O'Donnel, boatswain, belonging to the British shop Lydgate, was charged with being drunk on the previous night, and assaulting the police and causing damage to a tunic to the value of $1.
  P.C. No. 41, stated that on the previous night, he saw the accused outside the "Travellers," drunk and noisy. Upon being cautioned by witness he became abusive, and when arrested struggled very much, witness being struck. With the assistance of two Sikhs, he was taken to the Station, causing much trouble on the way.
  Sikh P.C.s 92 and 102 corroborated that statement.
  Accused made a rambling statement to the effect that he had been having a parting drink with a friend when he was ordered away by the constable and because he did not go at once, he was badly assaulted. He said that he had been badly beaten with the batons in the hands of the police, and exhibited a bad bruise on his shin and stated that he could not stand.
  The police, recalled, denied having used their batons, and Sergeant Colshaw, who took the charge, stated that when accused was brought in he made no complaint and was able to walk all right.
  His Worship, remarking that the evidence was not very clear, sentenced accused to one week, with hard labour if the Doctor said he was fit, and to pay the cost of the tunic damage.

 

North China Herald, 30 November, 1894
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 24th November.
Before T' L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
PERAN DITTA v. PHATTA SINGH.
  This was a claim for $10 alleged to have been lent in Hongkong in October, 1893.
  The plaintiff stated that he lent defendant $7 for passage money to Shanghai and $3 in cash. On arrival here defendant promised to pay when he got employment. Plaintiff returned to Hongkong and wrote several times for the money and received no answer. When he came up this time defendant denied owing the money. Plaintiff had witnesses but they would not come unless summoned.
  Defendant denied owing the money and stated that he had sold some clothes to pay for his passage to Shanghai.
  The case was adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. for the production of witnesses.

 

North China Herald, 7 December, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 4th December.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. DAWSON.
  Captain L. Dawson, the master of the s.s. Kweiyang, was summoned by Chang Pao-fuk, carpenter, for an alleged assault on the 13th ultimo.
  The complainant stated that on the 13th ult. while the steamer was outside Swatow, the Captain asked whether the ballast-tank was full, and he replied that it was within 8 inches of the top, and if more water were put in it would overflow with the motion of the ship and damage the cargo. Upon that the defendant struck him with his fist.  Soon after the Captain sent the quarter-master for him, and again struck him, also threatening to throw him overboard. Complainant had asked the quartermaster to attend as a witness, but he had not done so.
  Captain Dawson said the ship was very light, and he ordered the ballast-tank, which held 10 ft. 6 in. of water to be filled. It was the complainant's duty to see to it.  At five o'clock - two hours after the order - the water was only 4 ft. deep in the tank. At six o'clock the complainant said it was full. Defendant told him to bring his sounding-rod along and see. He said he knew it was full, and then, when sounding, let down too much line so as to deceive defendant as to the depth. Complainant was insolent, and upon defendant going to take the rod out of his hand he struck him (the Captain) with it across his hand. Upon that the defendant struck him. When the steamer arrived at Shanghai the complainant wanted his wages, and defendant told him to get on with his work. After that the complainant left and did not return.
  His Worship said there was no evidence to support the summons, and the case would therefore be dismissed.

North China Herald, 14 December, 1894
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT
Shanghai, 11th December.
Before T. L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
TUK SUNG v. JOHNSON.
  This was a claim for $6.60 by a Chinese tailor for goods supplied to the defendant, Mr. A. Johnson, of the Kutsang, in the year 1889.
  The plaintiff said that soon after the goods were delivered the Kutsang left Shanghai, and Mr. Johnson had only once or twice been in Shanghai for a short time. He was sure the defendant was the person to whom the goods were supplied, and in proof of this named the vessels he had been in for several years past.
  Defendant denied any knowledge of the plaintiff or the debt, remarking that if he paid the claim he would have half the Chinese in Hongkew putting forward alleged claims for years back.  He (defendant) used to deal with another Chinese tailor and knew nothing of the present claim.
  His Honour said he thought it more likely the defendant had forgotten the bill than that the whole thing was a fraud and fabrication, and there would be judgment for this amount with $3 costs.
  Defendant - Have I to pay $3 costs?
  His Honour - Yes.
  Defendant - Then I say it is a shame and I protest against it.
  The plaintiff had also a summons against the defendant for an alleged assault, but as he had no witnesses, and had  won his civil case, he decided to allow the assault case to drop.

 

North China Herald, 14 December, 1894
H.B.M.;'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th December.
Before W. Holland, Esq., Police Magistrate.
  Captain Williamson, of the British s.s. Argyle, charged J. ALFRED, E. NAYA, J. GARA, CONTANIL, LUZERO ARNICA. and D. de la CRUZ, sailors, with refusing duty on the 7th instant.
  The master said that these six men had refused duty yesterday at one o'clock, and had demanded their discharges. They had made no complaint, and had always behaved well, and he was unwilling to discharge them. They were shipped in Hongkong only three months ago, and had signed articles for 18 months, the voyage to be finished in Hongkong.
  Defendants stated through the interpreter that the boatswain had been discharged, and as they could not understand English very well, they wished to leave the ship.
  His Worship said the discharge of the boatswain was a matter between himself and the captain, and that, as the men had signed articles for eighteen months, and the captain was not willing to discharge them, they must go back to their duty. As they all refused to do this quietly, he ordered them to be imprisoned for a week, or until the ship leaves; if before that, they are to be put on board.
.  .  .  
10th December.
R. v. CORBETT.
  James Corbett, A.B., belonging to the steamer Glenfruin, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police on Saturday night.
 Sikh Constable No. 92, said he was called to the "Travellers'" Broadway, shortly before Saturday midnight where the accused had been creating a disturbance. Accused had been ejected, and was disorderly. Witness was about to take him to the station when he took off his belt and struck witness on the hand. Another constable came up and the accused was taken to the station.
  P.C. Young deposed to seeing the accused strike the last witness with his belt.
  Accused, in reply to His Worship, said he was very drunk at the time but had no intention of striking the constable. He was fighting with some shipmates when the constable interposed and was struck.
  His Worship imposed a fine of $5, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
R. v. SYREN, A.B., belonging to the British ship Lydgate, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Sunday.
  Native constable No. 428 proved finding the accused in Broadway incapably drunk and refusing to pay his fare.
  His Worship dismissed him with a caution.
.  .  .
R. v, BENSON.
  Charles Benson, A.B., belonging to the Lydgate, was charged with being drunk and incapable.
  P.C. Young said he found the accused in a 'ricksha in the Broadway at twenty minutes past eleven on the previous night in a drunken state. He said he was going to his ship, but witness, hearing that the vessel was in the stream, took him to the station as he thought he would be in danger if he attempted to go on board.
  His Worship said the accused had not created any disturbance, and he would be discharged with a caution.
.  .  .  
R. v. GOOD.
  Charles Good, A.B., belonging to the British ship Obi, was also charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway.
  P.C. Young proved the charge, and there being no previous case against the accused he was dismissed with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 21 December, 1894
UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 17th December
Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General.
POLICE v. EDWARDS.
  William Edwards, a sailor belonging to the Berlin, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday and with attempting to rescue a prisoner.
  His Honour sentenced him to be imprisoned for five days for interfering with the Police.

 

North China Herald, 21 December, 1894
GERMAN CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 17th December.
Before F. Seitz, Esq., First Secretary.
POLICE v. PORROSSIN.
  George Porrossin, second engineer, steamer Wusan, was charged with being drunk in Woochang Road, and with assaulting and beating a jinricksha coolie.
  He was sentenced to pay a fine of 15 marks.

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