Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1896

North China Herald, 3 January,1896

SWEDISH AND NORWEGIAN CONSULATE-GENERAL

(Not transcribed; see below.]


 

North China Herald, 10 January,1896

SWEDISH AND NORWEGIAN CONSULATE-GENERAL.

Before Carl Bock, Esq., Consul-General, and Carl Holmstrom and Captain Bull, Assessors.

YUEN LEE & CO, v. RAFEN.

   Judgment was delivered in this suit, which arose out of a claim by a Chinese firm Yuern Lee & Co., merchants, against Captain Rafen, the master of the Niorwegian steamer Ariel, and Messrs. Rafen Brothers, the owners, for an alleged breach of a charter party. Mr. W. V. Drummond appeared for the plaintiffs, and Captain Rafen appeared in person.

   The judgment of the Court was as follows:-

   The complainants have in this case declared that they have through Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzell chartered the s.s. Ariel for the period of two months and six days, at a monthly rate of $5.550 payable in advance, but the defendants have not acted up to the charter party signed by Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzell, and for those reason the plaintiffs ask to recover the sum of $8, 567.60.

   Although the evidence given by the witnesses in the court during the hearing of the case is directly opposed, yet the Court finds that the defendant has committed a breach of contract and the judgment is that defendant Captain John Rafen shall pay to the complainants, Yuen Lee & Co. Tls. 1, 522.60 as compensation for their loss.

   The cost of the Court is nil in accordance with law.

(Signed) &c.


 

North China Herald, 10 January,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 9th January.

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ABRAMS.

   Sydney Abrams, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening in the Hanbury Road.

   Sikh Constable No. 72 said that on the previous night at about eight o'clock the accused was in the Hanbury Road drunk and chasing Chinese. 

   Accused admitted being drunk but said that the Chinese were annoying him.

   Hs Worship dismissed the accused with a caution, as he had not been charged before.


 

North China Herald, 10 January,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 6th January.

Before T. L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.

WILLIAMS v. COSSINS.

   This was a claim by K. J. Williams, jeweller, of Broadway, against C. W. Cossins, of the s.s. Polyphemus, for $32 on account of a ring bought in December.

   Defendant admitted the debt but said he could not pay it now, and offered to return the ring.

   Plaintiff, after some hesitation, said he would accept the ring, and

   His Honour allowed $3 costs.

.  .  .  

Ching Fong, tailor, claimed $39 from the same defendant for goods supplied in November and December.

   Defendant said he had paid the bill and offered to produce a witness who saw the money handed over.

   His Honour adjourned the case to enable defendant to call evidence and produce the receipt, if possible.

.  .  .  

Shanghai, 9th January.

J. P. BISSETT & Co. v. BANNERMAN.

   This was a claim by Messrs Bissett & Co., against John Banerman, for $26.50, rent of 28 Chapoo Road for August, September, October, November and December.

   Defendant admitted the claim but said he was not now in a position to satisfy it.

   Mr. J. C. Grant, who appeared for the plaintiffs, said they wished the defendant to vacate the premises at once, as the house was let.

   His Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed, it being understood that the defendant would be allowed time to pay on condition that he gave up possession at once.


 

North China Herald, 24 January,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 18th January.

Before T. L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.

DIAL SINGH v. MANN.

   The plaintiff, a Sikh watchman, sued Mr. F. Mann for $16.25 wages from 1st of December to 3rd of January.

   The plaintiff said that on the 20th of December he gave notice he wished to resign at the end of the month. The defendant told him to get another man, which he did, and the defendant said he would try him. Plaintiff was told he would be paid on the 9th or 10th, but on the 11th the defendant refused to give him any money.

   The defendant said when the plaintiff was employed it was agreed fourteen days' notice was to be given on either side, but the plaintiff left without giving that notice.

   His Honour said he was of opinion, from the plaintiff's evidence, that he knew he had to give fourteen days' notice. His Honour accepted Mr. Mann's statement and dismissed the suit.


 

North China Herald, 31 January 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th January

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ABRAM, BEST AND REGAN.

   Sydney Abram, Robert Best, and John Regan, unemployed, were charged with entering the dwelling house, No. 111 Woochung Road, and stealing therefrom one cloth jacket, one waterproof coat, five table knives, four forks, four table spoons, two cups and saucers, and one sugar bowl, the property of T. Llewellyn, a sanitary inspector in the employ of the Municipal Council. Abram was also charged with stealing a pair of Police uniform boots, the property of the Municipal Council, value $7.

   Inspector Reed conducted the case on behalf of the Police.

  Thomas Llewellyn, a Sanitary Inspector in the employ of the Municipal Council, deposed that on the 23rd inst., he saw the prisoners in a samshu shop about 70 or 80 yards from his house, in Woochung Road. There was communication between the alleyway in which his house was and the samshu shop, through a temporary tailor's shop in the alleyway. Witness on several occasions had seen them pass through the alleyway. It was between 4.40 and 5 o'clock on the 23rd when he saw them. Witness came out of his house at about five o'clock and went to a shop in an alleyway off the Woosung Road. Coming back to his house he saw Best, who had left the samshu shop. Witness did not return to his house until half-past five next morning (Friday). 

   During the afternoon Abram visited him at his house, and began the conversation by saying: "I am very sorry for you that you have lost your things last night." Shortly before Abram called witness had missed his property, but had not spoken about it to anybody. After breakfast witness reported to the Police the loss of the articles, detailed in the charge sheet, and now produced. A waterproof overcoat had not been recovered. The things stolen were worth about $15. When witness next saw the things they were shown to him by the detective in the house if a man named Huckins.

   In regard to Abram, witness said the prisoner might have asked him how the engineer was, and he (witness) might have said that he (witness) had lost his things and was going to report the loss to Inspector Reed.

   Answering Regan, witness said he had seen him "knocking about" for a month or so, and on one occasion took him into his house and gave him some food.

   By the Magistrate - He had never taken Best into his house.

   Chang Ah-tsai, a Fukien man, the keeper of a second-hand shop, who appeared somewhat reluctant to give evidence and was cautioned by the Magistrate, said that Best and Regan went to his shop on Thursday morning with some clothes and wanted to sell them. At 9 p.m. a man came with a rain-coat, but he could not say whether it was one of the prisoners or not.

   His Worship said he was not satisfied with the witness's evidence. He was evidently not telling the truth and would be sent to the Mixed Court.

   Witness said he could only recognise one man (Best), but was not positive.

   His Worship cautioned the witness and ordered him to be kept at the police station.

   Wang Ah-foo, apprentice in a samshu shop at the corner of Woosung Road, identified the defendants as regular customers. They were in the shop on Thursday, the 23rd inst., for a little while and had five cash worth of samshu.  He did not see then between four and five o'clock on that day. They frequently passed through the alleyway where the tailor's shop was.

   In answer to Abrams, he said that he could not see the tailor's shop unless he went outside his own shop, There was a side door at the samshu shop facing the alleyway, but it was only used by a Cantonese tenant living upstairs. He had never seen Abram go through the tailor's shop alleyway. Witness added he had seen Best and Regan going through the alleyway, but not on the Thursday.

   Cheng Tze-chung, also employed at the samshu shop, said the prisoners were there on the Thursday afternoon. He had seen them using the tailor's alleyway. They were in the ship at about three o'clock.

   Mrs. Lillie Huckins, living at 64 Yuhang Road, said that on Thursday at about half-past eight Abrams brought the cups and other articles now in Court. He said he had broken one piece, but that was his business.

   In reply to Abram, witness said he stopped at her house the night before, but not on the Thursday.

   Detective Sergeant Armstrong said he found the articles produced in Huckins's house. Huckins, an American citizen, was now in custody. The knives and forks were tied up in paper and put inside a bag of feathers. The jacket was sewn up in the form of a cushion. Witness arrested Abram in the Wuchang Road and charged him with stealing the articles. He said, "I can put you on to the man who took the coat and sold it, if that will do." The house was searched in the absence of Huckins and Mrs. Huckins.  Witness did not get a search warrant from the U.S. Consulate. He had seen the prisoners together several times.

   Inspector Reed applied for a remand, which was granted, and the case was adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.

.  .  .  

28th January.

[First para as above.]

   Lu Foo-yen, a marine store dealer of No. 832 Woosung Road, said that on Thursday evening, about nine o'clock, the prisoner Regan came to his shop and tried to sell a waterproof coat, but witness refused to buy it as he did not make a practice of buying things which were brought to his shop by strangers. The witness recognised Mr. Llewellyn and said he had seen him wearing a coat suimuilar to the one offered for sale by Regan.

   Chang Ah-tsai, recalled by Inspector Reed, said he remembered being taken to Hongkew Police Station and identifying a foreigner who had been in his shop. The prisoner Regan was the man.  He had never seen Best.

   Mr. Llewellyn was called, and described the waterproof.

   Detective Sergeant Wood, in reply to Abran, said that he went to No. 64 Wuchang Road, but did not receive any property belonging to the prisoner.

   Best said that he was in bed when the robbery was committed.

   His Worship sentenced Abram and Regan to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and discharged Best, there being no evidence against him.

   A further charge against Abram of stealing a pair of boots was withdrawn.

 

North China Herald, 7 February,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 5th February.

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. FITZGERALD.

   John Percy Fitzgerald was charged with being drunk and incapable in Boone Road on the 4th instant.

   Defendant expressed his regret. He was a ship's carpenter and was left here three months ago, and had not got his discharge or any belongings.  He would like to go away.

   Inspector Reed said defendant had wilfully left the Strathclyde to which he belonged.

   His Worship fined defendant $8 or 14 days, and as defendant could not pay the fine he must go to prison, and would be released as soon as a ship could be found for him.

.  .  .  

R. v. ELLIS.

  Chares Ellis was charged with being drunk in Tiendong Road on the 4th instant.

   Inspector Reed said it was the first time he had been charged, but he had been in custody several times.

   Defendant said he was a fireman from the Adour. He would be pleased to go to sea again.

   His Worship ordered him to attend the Shipping Office every morning for one week to see if a berth could be secured for him, and if he missed attending the office he would be re-arrested.

.  .  .  

R. v. CAIN.

   John Cain was charged with being drunk in Tiendong Road on the 4th instant.

   Inspector Reed said he had not been before the Court before, and he belonged to the British barque Lynnwood.

   As this was defendant's first offence he was dismissed with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. BEST.

   Robert Best was charged with being drunk in Tiendong Road on the 4th inst.

   Inspector Reed said there were seven previous convictions against defendant.

   His Worship remarked that defendant came before him too often, and he sentenced him to one month's hard labour, and if a ship could be got for him before the expiration of that term defendant was to be put on board.

 

North China Herald, 12 February,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 6th February.

Before T. L. Bullock, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.

EVANS v. BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE.

   This was a suit instituted by Mr. Edward Evans, missionary agent, against Messrs. Butterfield & Swire, agents of the Holt's line of steamers, for $99.99, on account of damage to a washing machine.

   The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that Mr. Wilson, missionary returning from furlough, sent by the s.s. Hector a washing machine, the case of which on arrival was found to be damaged. The defendants said they would pay for the repairs to the machine if it could be mended, or if not make good the loss. Mr. Wilson had to go inland and left the matter in the plaintiff's hands, but the defendants eventually denied any liability on the ground that the damage had originated from imperfect packing.

   Mr. Robert Carr, on behalf of the defendants, said he had examined the case and found that all the damage had come from the inside, the machine having been badly packed.

   Captain J. P. Roberts, and Mr. W. Poignand, warehouseman, Hongkew Wharf, gave expert evidence that the damage had been caused by improper packing, and

   His Honour, having inspected the packing, gave judgment for the defendants.


 

North China Herald, 12 February,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th January

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. LINDLY, AND OTHERS.

   Charles Lindly, H. Smallbill, H. Stentz, and John Cain, belonging to the barque Lynnwood, were charged with being absent from that ship without leave since the 24th of January.

   His Worship sentenced them to one months' hard labour each, or to be put on board in the event of the ship leaving earlier.

 

North China Herald, 21 February,1896

THE EVANS AND SU PAU-SAN CASE.

We have received the following statement for publication:

   The finding of Mr. Bullock in the above case is obviously based upon a misapprehension of the facts, as the following statement clearly shows.

[Detailed letter from A. M. A. EVANS.] 

[Not transcribed.]

.  .  .  

   I am confident that any man of business who looked through the papers in my possession which bear upon this case would at once see through the character of the transactions in which Su Pau-san and Fobes engaged in the name of my firm. It was impossible for Mr. Bullock to judge of the case without going into the particulars. The importance of the guarantee note has been greatly exaggerated, but in so far as it may be said to be important its production would be in every way to my interest. That the finding of Mr. Bullock will be allowed to stand I cannot and will not believe.

A. M. A. EVANS.


 

North China Herald, 21 February,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th February

Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. WHELAN.

   Benjamin Whelan, A.B. belonging to the British barque Lynnwood, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway, and also with being absent from the ship since the 25th of January.

   Inspector Reed informed his Worship that a warrant had been issued for the apprehension of the accused, who had managed to evade it, and the ship had now left Shanghai.

   Prisoner admitted both charges and was sentenced to three weeks' hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. HAMET.

   A man giving the name of Hamet, and desribed as a quartermaster on the Kiangyang, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Woosung Road.

  The evidence showed that the accused, in a drunken state, was brandishing a heavy truncheon, which was produced in Court, and causing great disorder amongst the Chinese. He admitted the charge, and said he carried the weapon for self-defence.

   His Worship, remarking that he could not overlook the carrying of such a formidable baton, sentenced accused to two weeks' hard labour.

.  .  .  

20th February

R. v. FITZGERALD.

   James Fitzgerald, unemployed, no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the 19th inst.

   Prisoner admitted the offence and expressed regret.

   Inspector Reed said that prisoner had had two previous convictions, and had only been released from gaol the day before yesterday. He was a ship's carpenter and had deserted from his ship, having some time ago, gone to the Police Station and asked for a night's lodging, remaining there until his ship had left.

   His Worship said he would sentence accused to fourteen days' imprisonment, cautioning him that he would receive one month should he again be brought up.

.  .  .  

R. v. MILNE.

   Peter Milne, winchman on the P. & O. s.s. Bombay, failed to appear in answer to a summons charging him with refusing to obey orders on board ship, as well as being drunk and disorderly.

   Captain R. J. Sleeman, master of the Bombay, said that prisoner had been left on board in a drunken condition. He refused to obey any orders, wanted to fight everybody, did just what he liked, and left the ship last night in defiance of strict orders to the contrary. The ship was not leaving till tomorrow afternoon.

   His Worship remarked that it might have saved trouble if the man had been brought to the court and issued a warrant for his arrest.

 

North China Herald, 28 February,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd February

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. PEARSON.

   Louis Pearson, of no fixed abode, was charged with stealing an ulster valued at $14, the property of Mr. C. Wilck, from the Masonic Hall, in the 18th of January, 1896; an overcoat, valued at $20, from No. 4 Whangpoo Road, the property of Captain T. E. Crocker, on the 8th of January; also on the same date, from the house of Mr. J. L. Scott, in Kiukiang Road, various articles, valued at $70.

   Inspector Reed prosecuted and informed the magistrate that the property mentioned in the first two charges had been recovered, but the property valued at $70 had not. The prisoner had admitted the thefts to Detective Sergeant Armstrong, and had said how he disposed of the articles.

   Detective Sergeant Armstrong deposed that he arrested prisoner on the Garden Bridge on the 20trh instant, and charged him amongst other things with steaking an umbrella, two articles of ladies' clothing and two hairbrushes. He replied: "I only remember finding myself in the street where Huckins lived, one morning. I took an ulster and two hairbrushes and two articles of ladies' apparel. I took then to Huckins' house."

   A Ningpo man deposed that one night in January he acted as a substitute for the watchman at No. 16 Kiukiang Road. He saw a foreigner come into the house and come out again with a coat, and on his way out he dropped an umbrella. Witness could not say whether the prisoner was carrying anything else. He took him for his master. That was at a quarter past twelve.

   A tailor, in the firm of Wilck and Mielenhausen, deposed to having made the coat produced in Court. He identified it as belonging to Mr. Wilck.

   The prisoner pleaded guilty and said he was intoxicated at the time. He had no remembrance of the occurrences whatever.

   AS jinricksha coolie stated that he waited outside the Masonic Club on the night of the 18th of January.  He was in the habit of waiting there every might. On this particular night he remembered seeing a foreigner, whom he identified as the prisoner, come out of the Club, carrying a coat. Witness could not identify the coat in Court. The witness said that he informed the Club boy of what he had seen.

   Recalled, the witness said that he thought the prisoner was a little drunk.

   The porter of the Masonic Club said that on the night of the 18th of January the previous witness informed him that a foreigner had taken a coat and gone put. Mr. Wilck's coast was then missed, and they sent out after the prisoner, who could not be found. Witness said he thought the one in Court was similar to Mr. Wilck's.

   Detective Sergeant Armstrong said he arrested the prisoner on the Garden Bridge on the 20th, and charged him amongst other things with stealing a coat from the Masonic Hall. The witness afterwards found Huckins wearing the coat.

   Inspector Reed - Huckins has already been charged at the American Court with receiving it, and is now out on bail.

   His Worship (to prisoner) - It is perfectly clear that if you were intoxicated you were not very bad, because you went into the Masonic Hall and took a coat which did not belong to you, and from there you went into the street where Juckins lives. It is a curious thing that you managed to get from the Masonic Hall into the street where a receiver lives. I must, therefore, sentence you to one month's imprisonment.

   Inspector Reed - I shall want the prisoner to attend at the Mixed Court on Monday to give evidence against one of the receivers there.

   His Worship - Very well. 

   His Worship - Captain Crocker's charge is withdrawn. On Mr. Wilck's charge I give the prisoner one month, and in Mr. Scott's case he is committed for trial on a charge of robbery.

 

North China Herald, 13 March,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th March.

Before George Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. SIM.

Peter Sim, engineer, unemployed, resident at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the 5th inst., and with assaulting Indian Police Constable No. 97, whilst in the execution of his duty.

    Sikh Constable No. 97 gave evidence, and his Worship dismissed the prisoner with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 20 March,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th March.

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. ISMAIL ALLAH.

   Ismail Allah, a fireman on the P. & O. steamer Kaisar-i-Hind, was charged with stealing a pair of pants, valued at $3, the property of Cosmo Alfonso, the pantryman, on the previous day. Inspector Reed prosecuted.

   The complainant identified the pants produced in Court and said he missed them on getting up the previous morning. At about noon he saw the accused wearing them and claimed them. Accused said they were his own. They then went to the second engineer who examined them to see if they agreed with complainant's description, and the accused was then given into custody.

   Accused, in reply to His Worship, said he bought the pants in Bombay and asked whether it was reasonable to suppose that having stolen them he would at once wear them.

   Inspector Reed said that when the prisoner was charged, at the station, he said: "The complainant said I stole these pants last night, I have had then three days. They were my pants." He afterwards said he had procured the pants in Bombay. The complainant described the pants and they were found to answer the description given.

   Mr. A. Haynes, chief saloon waiter on the Kaisar-i-Hind, said the complainant told him, he had lost some clothing. In consequence of that he went down the fore peak and met the prisoner wearing the clothing claimed by complainant. The second engineer saw the accused and complainant, and the former was then arrested.

 His Worship said he was convinced the prisoner did steal the pants. He would have fourteen days' hard labour and would have to pay all the expenses out of his wages.

 

North China Herald, 27 March,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd March 

Before L. C. Hopkins, Esq., Vice Consul.

R. v. KALLAH SINGH.

   Kallah Singh, a Sikh, unemployed, with no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the North Honan Road temple, on the 22nd inst.

    Native P.C. 213 stated that at about half-past three on the previous afternoon, he was on duty at the North Homan Road temple when prisoner, who was drunk, attempted to force his way in with the intention of seeing H.E. Li Hung-chang who is staying there. The prisoner, however, was arrested. He protested violently but Native P.C. 328 coming to the rescue he was taken to the station.

   Native P.C. 328 corroborated, and his Worship dismissed prisoner with a caution.

.  .  .  

25th March

Before L. C. Hopkins, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KING.

   Thomas King, unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous day. Accused admitted the offence.

   Sikh Constable No. 97 said he was called to the Sailors' Home where the accused was very drunk.

   His Worship, taking into account that accused had not been in custody before, discharged him with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 27 March,1896

H.I.G.M.'S COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd March.

Before Dr. R. Eiswaldt, Vice-Consul, President, and Messrs. Beumann and Bonig, Assessors.

   This was a claim by a firm of Chinese Merchants in Shanghai, against Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzel, also of Shanghai, for $7,110 for alleged breach of a charter party as set out in the following petition:

[not transcribed.]

.  .  .  

The Court pointed out that by demanding the return of the authority the Captain had practically admitted Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzel were authorised.

   Mr. Buschmann said said they had no written authority from the Captain, but the firm acted as the agents of the vessel upon her arrival in Hongkong and Shanghai. The disinclination of the Captain to carry out the charter was due to the fact that Messrs. Melchers had offered him a time charter.

   The case was eventually adjourned until Wednesday, the 8th of April, for the production of copies of the correspondence between the owners of the Ariel and Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Mennzel, Hongkong.

 

North China Herald, 2 April,1896

MISCELLANEOUS.

SERIOUS CASE OF ARSON.

EXEMPLARY PUNISHMENT.

   An interesting case has been decided at the Mixed Court in connection with the recent fire in the Miller Road, Hongkew.  The fire which originated in an empty house was proved and confessed to have been started by the occupant of the adjoining tenement who had a policy with the Meiji Fire Office for Tls. 2,000 on his furniture and clothing. This Chinaman appears to have been one of an enterprising family of five brothers who have been living for the past few years on the spoils from the insurance companies. The chief instigators have unfortunately escaped, Woo Fung-ping and Woo Tsze-leang; but the remaining brothers Chow Yuen-chang, Woo Tsze-May and Woo Ah-yuen were arrested, together with the native broker Yu Sun-chao, who had been in the habit of introducing the business to the Insurance company and who doubtless received a share of the results.

   Their modus operandi in each case was as follows: Through the broker, one of the brothers would approach the insurance company and under different names on each occasion obtained a policy covering furniture and clothes borrowed for the occasion and located as far from the town water supply as possible. The furniture, etc., would gradually be removed and in the course of a few weeks the firebells would ring and alarm for a fire in this house or the adjacent one and before the arrival of the fire brigades all traces of foul play would have been obliterated, and although in some of these fires fraud was suspected, no evidence could be obtained to bring the matter home. 

   In this last fire the "Ring" has been outwitted, the police were promptly on the scene of the fire and discovered sufficient evidence to warrant the detention of the occupant of the house and little by little learned enough to charge the individual with the crime of arson, whereupon he confessed, implicating the whole of his brothers and the broker.  

   The two ring-leaders have escaped and will be careful not to show themselves in Shanghai again. The sentence meted out to the other four is three years' hard labour and to receive 100 blows at six-monthly intervals.  This is the best case for years, and the  sentence of the Mixed Court magistrate should have a decidedly deterrent effect upon other would-be fire-raisers.

 

North China Herald, 2 April,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 30th March

Before L. C. Hopkins, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. REGAN.

   John Regan was charged with being drunk and incapable in Boone Road on the 28th instant. Prisoner admitted the offence.

   P.S. MacIntosh said that at 1.45 p.m. on the 28th the prisoner was brought to the station helplessly drunk.

   Prisoner had only been released from gaol on a previous sentence, on Friday morning, the 27th.  He said he had met a brother he had not seen for nine years.

   His Worship said he would fine the prisoner $4, or in default of payment, seven days' imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 10 April,1896

H.I.G.M.'S COURT.

Shanghai, 8th April.

Before Dr. R. Eiswaldt, Vice-Consul, President, and Messrs. Beumann and Boning, Assessors.

   The hearing of this suit, which arose out of a claim by a firm of Chinese merchants in Shanghai against Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzell, also of Shanghai, for $7,110 for alleged breach of charter, was resumed.

    Mr. Drummond said he should like to explain how it was the suit had not been brought in the Norwegian Court. Originally he did file a petition in the case, but before any more was heard he (Mr. Drummond) received a letter from Mr. Consul Bock that he had dismissed the claim on the following grounds -

   [1.] - The petitioners have summoned the wrong party.

   [2.] - The captain has never given "authority" to Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzell to charter his steamer as mentioned in his response to the summons dated 6th December,1895.

   [3.] - The captain only gave Messrs. Harling, Buschmann and Menzell a limited authority, that is an authority with a certain reservation, also mentioned in the response of the 6th of December.

   [4.] - The captain had no knowledge whatever of being chartered by the firm in question.

   [5.] And finally, the captain has never seen any charter party which is mentioned in the petition.

   He (Mr. Drummond) strongly protested against the Consul giving a decision without hearing the case, but was informed that if he liked to pay Tls. 500 the Consul would try the case again as an appeal, but at the same time the Consul adhered to the view that Mr. Drummond was suing the wrong party. Not seeing the reason of paying Tls. 500 to practically get the same decision he did not go on with the case, and he hoped the Court would recognise that he had exhausted the means of proceeding in the Norwegian Court.

.  .  .  

[not transcribed.]

   After consulting in private,

   The president announced that the Court had decided to ascertain from the owners of the vessel, in Norway, what they intended by the telegram they sent to the defendants, and, if possible, how it was they seemed to have omitted to confirm by letter that telegram, as they might have been expected to do. For that purpose the case would be adjourned and the Court would communicate with the owners through the Norwegian Court at home. 

 

North China Herald, 17 April,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th April

Before L. C. Hopkins, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. REGAN.

   John Regan, unemployed, was charged with stealing a cloth jacket from the Sailors' Home, the property of Christian Petersen. Prisoner admitted the offence but said he was drunk at the time.

   Christian Petersen identified the coat as his property. He saw it in his room the previous night at nine o'clock. He valued it at $2.

   A Chinese second-hand clothes dealer said he bought the coat the previous night from the accused for sixty cents. After the witness had brought the coat he found in the pocket some discharges. His suspicions were aroused and he wanted to return the coat, which prisoner refused to accept. Witness held on to prisoner, and the complainant came up with a policeman, and arrested him.

   Police Constable Dahl having proved the arrest of the accused,

   Inspector Reed said prisoner had only just been released from imprisonment upon a charge of drunkenness, previous to which he had served two months for larceny.

   His Worship sentenced prisoner to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

13th April.

R. v. ELLIS.

   Charles Ellis, unemployed, no fixed abode, was charged with begging alms in the Chapoo Road on the previous day. Prisoner denied the charge.

   Sikh P.C. 61 stated that prisoner was begging of everyone that passed by the Chapoo Road after 6 o'clock. The accused followed a gentleman out of his 'ricksha and would not allow him to go into his house. Accused attempted to resist when taken into custody. Witness and a Chinese constable then took him to the Station. He made no resistance on the way.

   Native P.C. 354 said that close upon 6 p.m. he saw the prisoner following some foreigners up Woochang Road towards Chapoo Road. He was begging from them all the way. He obtained the assistance of the previous witness and arrested the prisoner.  Prisoner had been asking for ten cents.

   Prisoner said he had only been asking for a cap.

   Mr. E. T. Rivero, of the Shipping Office, deposed to seeing the prisoner in Chapoo Road. He asked him what he wanted and prisoner said he wanted a cap. Witness advised him to go home and went into his house.

   His Worship said it was quite clear he had been annoying people, and he would sentence him to three days' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. NICHOL.

   Henry Nichol, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Sailors' Home on the previous day. Prisoner pleaded guilty.

   Mr. J. Eveleigh, the superintendent, stated that on the previous evening at about dinner time he was called into the dining room, where the prisoner was very disorderly. Upon his interference, prisoner used abusive language, and expressed a wish to fight him. This had happened several times previously.

   Inspector Reed said prisoner had been in custody several times already, but had not been charged.

   His Worship dismissed prisoner with a caution not to appear before him again.

 

North China Herald, 24 April,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 20th April

Before L. C. Hopkins, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. CLELOW AND PARSON.

   Robert Clelow and Henry Parson, A.B. belonging to the British ship Ventura, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Broadway Road, creating a disturbance in shop No. 1009, Broadway and wilfully doing damage to the amount of 80 cents to the property of complainant; also with wilfully doing damage to a hawker's stall to the amount of $3, the property of complainant, in Boone Road on the previous day. Prisoners admitted that they were intoxicated but did not remember anything of the occurrences.

   Woo Yee-fong, one of the complainants, stated that Parson had broken a window in his shop from the outside. The amount of damage done was 80 cents.

   Wang Ping-chong, another complainant, said that yesterday afternoon, after having bought some fruit from hid stall, Clelow had refused to pay for it, had upset the stall and struck complainant in the face. The total damage amounted to $3.

   Native P.C. 321 deposed to having heard one of the complainants calling for the police; he was at the Hongkew Creek Bridge at the time. The hawker was running from Clelow at the time. Witness summoned assistance and arrested Clelow.

   By Inspector Reed - I saw Clelow break the pane with a bottle. He was drunk.

   Native P.C.123 corroborated his colleague's statement.

   [Line missing.] called by the hawker. He had arrested the prisoners with the native policemen. They made no resistance, but at first refused to go.

   His Worship said he would fine them both $5.00 and the value of the damage they had done. If they were unable to pay the fines they were to be imprisoned for two days with hard labour and then to be put on board their ship, which was leaving very soon. His Worship remarked that he should have given them a longer term of imprisonment had it not been for the fact that their ship was going away this week.

.  .  .  

23rd April.

R. v. NICHOL.

   John, alias Henry Nichol, unemployed, was charged with stealing thirty cents from a Chinese shop, No. 112, Broadway. Accused denied the charge.

   Dzau Ah-foo, a hawker, said that on the previous day at about five o'clock he went to the shop, No. 112 Broadway, to purchase some cigarettes. He was paying $6.20 to the shopman, $5 being in Mexicans and $1.20 in small change, when the accused came up and snatched at the small money on the counter, which rolled to the ground. Accused ran away with twenty cents and another man who was with him took ten cents. A native constable was called and the prisoner was arrested.

   The keeper of the ship corroborated the last witness, and native constables Nos. 374 and 473 having deposed to arresting the accused, who was very violent, Detective Wood said that when searched at the station the accused had a dollar and two ten-cent pieces. Accused, in reply to His Worship, stoutly contested the charge, and denied all knowledge of the other man referred to.

   His Worship sentenced prisoner to a fortnight's hard labour, and ordered twenty cents to be returned to the prosecutor.

 

North China Herald, 8 May,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 1st May

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. KING.

   Thomas King, unemployed, residing at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk, and creating a disturbance in the Sailors' Home on the 30th ult.

   Mr. Eveleigh stated that at about half-past four o'clock on the previous afternoon he heard a noise upstairs and upon going up saw the prisoner with his clothes off, drunk and making a great noise. Upon being asked what was the matter prisoner used very insulting language towards witness, who sent for the police. Prisoner came into witness's room and continued to use bad language towards him. Mr. Eveleigh said this was the second occurrence of the kind in which the prisoner had been drunk and he was a general nuisance.

   Detective Wood saod prisoner had been locked up once previously.

   P.C. Eck deposed to arresting prisoner, who was very drunk and using abusive language. Witness took him in charge, prisoner going quietly.

   His Worship said prisoner must not continue in this way.  Why did he get drunk?

   Prisoner - Yes, that's the question. I am not in the habit of using bad language. I might have misbehaved myself a little yesterday, but I did not use the tremendous language Mr. Eveleigh says I did.

   Mr. Eveleigh - I have been very kind to this man; the very clothes he has on I gave him the other day.

   Prisoner (very excitedly) - If you please, Mr. Eveleigh, my coat is hanging up and if this is the coat you gave me (pulling it off), you can have it.

   His Worship - I shall send you to prison for forty-eight hours.

.  .   .  

2nd May.

Before H. B. Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KING.

   Thomas King was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Woosung Road on the previous day.

   The evidence went to show that the accused, who admitted the offence, had been previously taken to the station, and although he now promised "never to touch strong drink again,"

   His Worship ordered him to undergo a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. JUDGE.

   Thomas Judge, who pleaded guilty, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Boone Road. Prisoner had been once in custody for drunkenness.

   His Worship discharged him with a caution.

.  .  .  

5th May.

R. v. MacMARN

   John MacMarn, seaman, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous day. Prisoner admuitted the offence, saying that it would not occur again. He intended leaving Shanghai on Thursday for Yokohama, where he expected to obtain employment.

   Detective Wood said that prisoner had been locked up before for drunkenness, and he had been begging at a house in Whangpoo Road.

   His Worship warned him against begging and advised him to leave Shanghai as soon as possible to avoid temptation. He dismissed him with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 5 June,1896

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 4th June

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

SULTZBERGER v. MORRISS.

Mr. Henry Morriss appeared to answer a summons taken out by Mr. H. H. Sultzberger claiming Tls. 50 for personal injuries, and $15 damages for clothing, sustained in a collision between Mr. Morriss' trap and a 'ricksha in which the plaintiff was riding, on the 1st of May last.  Mr. H. Browett (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. D. McNeill (Messrs. Dowdall and Hansin) for the defendant.

[Not transcribed.]

.  .  .  

His Honour, in giving his decision, said - It is a pity that a case of this kind should have come before the Court at all. It was eminently one for amicable arrangement and compromise. But, as the parties have elected to invoke the aid of the law, it is my duty to decide the merits of the dispute on the evidence produced in Court.

   The defendant seems to me to admit his liability, and the only question is to determine the amount of damages. The plaintiff states having received certain serious injuries, but no independent testimony nor any physician or dentist has been produced to substantiate these statements. The Court, however, is satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered certain damages, expense, and loss, and it estimates the amount thereof at $25. I find, therefore, for the plaintiff for that amount, and that each party bear his own costs.

 

North China Herald, 5 June,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 30th May

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BULLOCK.

   Charles Bullock, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and jumping off the Garden Bridge into the Soochow Creek, with the supposed intent to commit suicide.

   Detective Sergeant Armstrong said that at about twenty minutes past four on Friday afternoon he saw the accused jump from the Garden Bridge into the creek. He was brought to the side by a sampan-man and witness took him to the station. The accused seemed unwilling to come out of the water, but he made no resistance when requested. Witness could not say whether the accused really meant to commit suicide, or did it for a "lark."

   Dong Lai-shun, sampan man, deposed to seeing the prisoner jump in the water and then going to his rescue.

   Accused, in reply to his Worship, said he had been to see a friend off by the Kobe Maru and had had several drinks.  After the steamer left he met some more friends and they asked him to go to the Astor House.  In the course of conversation there something was said about swimming and diving, and witness left the hotel; crossing the bridge the insane idea came into his head to jump into the water, and he did so. He was a good swimmer, but some time ago, when in the Customs service had a slight touch of sunstroke and a little drink soon affected him. He had been employed at Nanking in the Chinese service, and there was an appointment now open to him.

   His Worship said this was the second or third charge against prisoner, who he knew formerly held a good position, and he seemed to be going from bad to worse.

   Accused said he had eighteen years' good character in Shanghai.

   His Worship said he believed that was so. As a matter of fact he (the Magistrate) happened to be present when the prisoner jumped into the water, and believed that Detective Sergeant Armstrong was instrumental in saving his life. It was evidently best for the accused that he should go to prison for a fortnight. Before he came out he would have to find security for a thousand dollars, and if he failed to do that he would be deported.

.  .  .  

3rd June.

R. v. REID.

   John Reid, A.B. belonging to the s.s. Benledi, was charged with assaulting Robert Anderson, A.B. of the same ship.

   R. Anderson, sworn, said that on Monday night he was in bed asleep when he was awakened by the prisoner making a disturbance. Witness remonstrated with him and the prisoner came to his bunk and struck witness with his fist and challenged him to go out on deck and fight. Witness refused and the prisoner said he meant to murder him. He did not strike prisoner in return.

   Ernest Norman, A.B. corroborated the informer witness's statement.

   Mr. David Clarke, chief officer of the Benledi, said he was called to the forecastle and saw the prisoner, who was under the influence of drink, making a disturbance. Witness put the prisoner in irons and made him fast to one of the ringbolts on deck. He was very abusive and wanted to fight witness and the second officer. He had never seen the prisoner drink before, though he had had opportunity for obtaining drink.  As far as witness knew the men were all on good terms with each other. The captain ordered witness to release prisoner on the following morning. Witness asked him if her as sober and he replied that he was, and added, "but I am still of the  same mind as I was last night."

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and said he had no recollection of what happened on the night in question.

   His Worship sentenced prisoner to be kept in gaol during the vessel's stay in port and to pay his own expenses whilst there.

 

North China Herald, 12 June,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 5th June

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GRANT.

   Walter Grant was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway.

   Sikh Police Constable No. 107 said that on the previous day he was called to the Sailors' Home, outside which place he found the accused in a drunken condition. He tried to get into a 'ricksha and fell out. Witness took him to the station.

   Mr. James Eveleigh, the superintendent of the Sailors' Home, gave the accused a bad character, and His Worship sentenced him to ten days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. COTTER.

   Frederick Cotter was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

   Native Police Constable No. 166 deposed to finding the prisoner in the North Szechuen Road drunk and annoying passers-by. Witness with the assistance of another constable, took him to the station.

   His Worship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment, with the alternative of a fine of $6.

.  .  .  

R. v. MORRISSY.

    Daniel Morrissy, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Boone Road.

   Indian Police Constable No. 166 proved the charge, and

   His Worship sentenced the accused to three days' imprisonment or to pay a fine of $2.

.  .  .  

8th June,

R. v. REGAN.

   John Regan, unemployed, was charged with stealing a coat from 947 Woosung Road, on Sunday last.

   Carl Wetsrad said that prisoner came into the house on Sunday, for what purpose he did not know. There were two other men in the place at the time. After prisoner left he missed a coat from the kitchen and gave information to the police. Witness was quite sure neither of the other men could have taken the coat.

   A native boarding house keeper was called and said that prisoner was in the habit of coming to his house to sleep. On Sunday afternoon Regan came in and produced a coat which he wanted to pledge, saying he had had no food for a whole day. He offered the coat to witness for 30 cents, which was given him. An hour afterwards the police came and made enquiries about the coat, which was at once handed over to them. Witness identified the coat worn by prosecutor as the one.

   Prisoner alleged that the coat was given to him to sell by one of the other men.

   His Worship remanded the prisoner for a day in order that the man who was said to have given him the coat might attend and give evidence.

.  .  .  

 9th June.

R. v. REGAN.

   John Regan, unemployed, was charged on remand with stealing a coat from 947 Woosung Road, on Sunday last.

   Inspector Howard said that the police had been unable to find the man named Doogan, from whom the prisoner asserted he received the coat. In fact no such person seemed to be in Shanghai, and the accused's statement was an invention.

   Evidence was given by two witnesses to the effect that the coat was hanging up when the accused came in and was missed immediately after he left the room. One witness, an old man named John McGinley, provoked a great deal of amusement in Court by his answers to questions.

   Prisoner, in reply to His Worship, elected to be dealt with summarily.

   Inspector Howard said the present was the fifth appearance of the accused in Court, the charge on two occasions being larceny.

   His Worship, in passing sentence, reviewed the facts of the case at some length, and remarked that it was only in order to get the accused out of Shanghai as quickly as possible that he gave a shorter sentence than he otherwise would. He ordered the accused to undergo one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 19 June,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 12th June.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BAKER.

   Robert Baker was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Sailors' Home on the 12th instant.

   Mr. Eveleigh said that prisoner did not belong to the Home, and on the previous day was lying drunk on the doorstep. He was not making any noise, but was just lying there asleep. Witness called a policeman and had the prisoner arrested.

   P.C. Sexton deposed to arresting the prisoner who was abusing somebody inside the Home when witness came up.

   Inspector Howard said it was the prisoner's first offence.

   His Worship ordered him to be put on board his ship, at the same time cautioning him.

.  .  .  

R. v. DALY.

   Patrick Daly was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway.

   P.C. Sexton stated that he conveyed the prisoner to the station in a 'ricksha. He was wanting to fight and was violent when witness arrested him.

   Inspector Howard said he had already twice previously released the prisoner from the police station for drunkenness.

   His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment, with the option of $4 fine.

.  .  .  

R. v. MORRISSY.

   David Morrissy, A.B. unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Seward Road.

   Inspector Howard said the prisoner was brought to the station at midnight drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha. He had been before the Court before and his last sentence had been three days' imprisonment. The native constable, however, who had arrested him, was not in attendance, but he thought the prisoner could not but admit the charge.

   Prisoner did so and,

    His Worship sentenced him to imprisonment for ten days, or a fine of $6.

.  .  .  

15th June.

R. v. ELTON.

   John Elton, belonging to the P. & O. str. Kaisar-i-Hind, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Boone Road and assaulting Sikh constable No. 121 when in the execution of his duty.

   The police constable's testimony was to the effect that on Sunday night, between 8 and 10 o'clock, he was called to a house in the Boone Road, where the prisoner, he was told, had assaulted a woman. Witness went there and saw him slap a woman in the face. Witness remonstrated with him and put his hand on him in a friendly manner. The accused then struck him and there was a struggle in the house, during which the accused fell. When outside the accused continued his violent conduct and witness blew his whistle for assistance, but without result. Whilst they were struggling they fell, and witness had to use his truncheon to defend himself. After a time a gentleman came to the assistance of witness, and the accused was taken to the station.

   Accused, in reply to his Worship, admitted striking the first blow, and expressed regret for his conduct. In mitigation of punishment he showed a cut on his head, which he asserted the constable had caused by the unnecessary use of his truncheon, and he also had several blood-stains on his shirt.

    His Worship at first was inclined to send the accused to prison for ten days, but ultimately, upon the accused pleading for a fine, and Inspector Howard stating Elton had not been in custody before, he allowed him to be released on paying a fine of $6. 

 

North China Herald, 26 June,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 9th June

Before H. Bencraft Poly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ROOSE.

   Frank Roose, A.B., unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and damaging complainant's property at No. 31, Boone Road, to the value of $5.

   The complainant, a Japanese woman who gave the name of Chesai, said that for two or three days the accused had persisted in coming to the house drunk and demanding admission. On Wednesday night he went with a friend, in a drunken state, and again being denied admittance, broke in the door and entered the house, where the two men remained until they were removed by the police.

      Sikh Constable No. 121 gave evidence as to being called to the house on Wednesday night, and seeing there the accused and another man in a drunken condition. They were taken to the station and accused admitted the damage and offered to pay fifty cents, but the complainant would not take it. All the parties then left. On Thursday night witness was going along Boone Road when he saw the prisoner again demanding admission to the house. The woman there would not let him in, and he climbed over a railing in front of the house and entered.

   His Worship pointted out that the accused had been released from the station after committing the first offence, and the evidence in the second case did not seem very definite.

   The witness added that he was told that the accused had again broken the door.

   Sikh Constable No. 80 said that on Thursday night he was told by a Chinaman that there was trouble in the house No. 31, Boone Road, and that the previous witness was in the house. Witness saw a foreigner leave the house, but the accused was arrested. He was not drunk, but smelt of drink. Neither was the prisoner disorderly. Asked why he took him to the station, witness said it was because the Japanese woman insisted upon charging him and went to the police-station. Witness saw the door of the house had been broken.

   Detective Sergeant Wood said the door had been broken twice.

   The Japanese woman, recalled, said the prisoner came to the house several times on Thursday demanding admission with a friend, and when she would not let them in the accused burst in the door. Witness called a policeman and gave him into custody. The door had been so badly damaged the second time that it was impossible to repair it.

   Accused, in reply to his Worship, admitted breaking the door open on Thursday night, but not the first time.   

   His Worship ordered him to pay $5 to the woman for the damage done the door.

.  .  .  

20th June.

R. v. DALY.

   Patrick Daly, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Sailors' Home on the previous day.

   Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said that prisoner was drunk and created a disturbance in the Home, so that witness found it necessary to call a policeman. Prisoner had only come out of prison the previous morning.

   Prisoner said he had only had a couple of drinks and was doing a step dance when a policeman came in with Mr. Eveleigh and arrested him.

   Sikh police constable No, 89 said the accused was disorderly on the way to the station, and

   His Worship sentenced him to ten days' imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. PETERSON.

   John Peterson, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous day.

   Evidence was given that the accused, who had been once previously released with a caution, was found helplessly drunk in a pool of water opposite the Sailors' Home.

   His Worship ordered him to undergo a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

22nd June.

R. v. CHAMPION AND RICHARDS.

   Arthur Champion and John Richards, two stokers belonging to H.M.S. Archer, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting a native and a police constable, and causing the latter to lose a watch, police whistle and chain, and a pair of shoes.

   Inspector Ramsay informed his Worship that he was prepared to withdraw the charge as the officer of the Archer was present who said that if handed over the men would be suitably punished by the naval authorities.

Lieut. R. L. Sterling said he had orders from Captain Kingsmill to inform the Court that if the men were handed over they would be duly dealt with.

   His Worship said after that assurance the men would be given up to the naval authorities.

.  .  .  

24th June.

R. v. JEFFREY.

   Thomas Jeffrey, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Sailors' Home on the previous day.

   Mr. J. Eveleigh, the Superintendent of the Home, said the accused did not belong to the Home but witness found he had slept there and turned him out. He was abusive and tried to strike witness. Witness sent for the police.

   Accused denied the charge, and said that when he went to the Home to get some money owing to him he was struck by Mr. Eveleigh.

   Police constable No. 43 said the accused was drunk when arrested.

   His Worship discharged him with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 26 June,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 19th June.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

WONG AH-NEE v. SIMPSON.

   Mr. A. J. Simpson appeared to answer a summons for an alleged assault upon a coolie named Wong Ah-nee on the 17th instant.

   Wong Ah-nee, the complainant, a coolie employed at Messrs. Voelker and Schroder's, said that on Wednesday from twelve o'clock until five he was preparing syrup, when he was called by Mr. Voelker to draw up the blinds. He had drawn up three blinds when the defendant called him into the shop and struck him. Nothing was said to him before he was struck and he did nothing to provoke it, but he thought it was because he had left the syrup. After striking him the defendant dragged him to the tap and turned the water on him to stop the bleeding. Witness, as soon as he could, went to the Central Police Station to complain, and was advised to take out a summons at the Consulate. 

   Witness had been employed at Messrs. Voelker and Schroder's for six or seven months, and had been struck by the defendant several times.  Other coolies, who were in Court, were ready to state that they also had been struck by the defendant and had to leave ion consequence.  Mr. Voelker saw the assault and also a coolie.

   Another coolie said that after cleaning a filter he took it into the shop on Wednesday afternoon and then saw the defendant strike the last witness and drag him to the water-tap. The defendant said witness had better be careful or he would be struck also. He thought the complainant was struck because he had left the syrup. Witness had been employed at Messrs. Voelker and Schroder's for four months and had given notice on account of the defendant striking him; he had been struck at least ten times.

   Mr. A. J. Simpson, the defendant, sworn, said the wounds on the plaintiff's face were not caused by him at all, and he did not assault him with his fists. He had not brought witnesses, but could do so, to disprove the complainant's statements.

   The case was adjourned until the afternoon.

   Upon the case being resumed,

   Ho Sing-poo, employed in the shop, was called by the defendant. He said he saw Mr. Simpson strike the complainant, and then take him out and wash his head in the water kong in the backyard.

   Questioned by the defendant, witness said that when the complainant was struck he (the coolie) had his arms in front of his face, but Mr. Simpson struck him several times and some of the blows must have fallen on complainant's face. The witness called by the complainant was not present. Complainant ran into the street and the defendant followed and caught him. The coolie fell down and was dragged in by Mr. Simpson. Witness did not notice whether the coolie hurt himself in falling.

   The defendant said that the coolie in running out of the shop caught his foot in the rope holding down the blind and fell upon a row of nails, which caused the damage. He (defendant) then caught hold of him and dragged him to the back to wash his face, when he struck him with his open hand as he was making such a noise.

   His Honour pointed out that defendant practically admitted the assault.

   Mr. Simpson said he would do so, but he denied striking him with the closed fist. The man provoked him very much, as he had express orders when anything was on the fire not to go away. Notwithstanding that he went out and left a vessel on the fire, with the result that there was nearly a serious fire, as the place was a mass of flame and smoke.

   His Honour said the man was called away by his master, and the provocation was not sufficient to justify the defendant taking the law into his own hands.  He must therefore pay a fine of $5, and costs. 

 

North China Herald, 10 July,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th July

Before H. Bencrat Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. PETERSEN.

   John Petersen, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous day.

   The evidence was to the effect that the accused, who had been before the Court on two previous occasions, was drunk in the Broadway and annoying a shopkeeper.

   His Worship sentenced him to a fortnight's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 10 July,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 6th July

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

ENGLEHART v. BENNERTZ AND CO.

   This was a claim by Martin Englehart, late chief officer of the Sunfokin, against Messrs. Bennertz & Co., for $41.70, balance of wages die to him for the month of June last.

   The plaintiff said he was engaged as chief officer of the Sanfokin by Mr. Bennertz and Mr. Pollack at a salary of $90 per month. On the voyage to Tientsin he had some disagreement with the captain and refused to obey an order which he did not think rightly given. The captain then sent him to his room and told him he would be a passenger on board. Witness protested, on the ground that he had been engaged by Messrs. Bennertz. He did not sign articles as it was a Chinese ship.

   Mr. Bennertz, in applying for an adjournment in consequence of the captain being engaged in moving the vessel from the wharf to the buoy, said the captain reported that when off Chefoo in a thick fog the plaintiff refused to be on the lookout, as he said it was not his work. According to the Captain, the plaintiff put the ship in a most dangerous position by his conduct, and on arrival at Tientsin deserted without leave.

   His Honour adjourned the case for a day.

.  .  .  

7th July.

[As above.]

   The hearing of this case, arising out of claim by Martin Englehart, late chief officer of the Sunfokin, against Messrs. Bennertz & Co., .  .  .   was resumed.

   The plaintiff, in reply to His Honour, said that when going up the Tientsin river the captain ordered him to go on the lookout forward, but, as that was a sailor's place, and not the chief officer's, he refused.

   Captain William Paton, the master of the Sunfokin, said he had held a master's certificate for about ten years, but the present was his first command in steam, though he had been master of a sailing vessel for four months. He said that it was necessary in going up the Tientsin river for the vessel to be on an even keel, and witness accordingly directed the plaintiff to see particularly to it. When they left Chefoo on the voyage up the plaintiff reported that, with a 50-ton tank in the stern full, the ship was drawing 10ft 10in forward and 12 ft. aft. But when they reached Taku witness found she was drawing 12ft. 6 in aft, in spite of the tank having been pumped out. This made him angry. Going up the river, the weather being very thick, witness ordered the plaintiff to take his station forward, but he refused and witness ordered him to his room. The next morning witness asked him if he would resume duty but he declined, unless, as he said, witness apologised.

   His Honour said he failed to see why the plaintiff refused to obey what was a proper order of the captain.

   Plaintiff contended that it was not his duty to be on the look-out.

   His Honour - It is my opinion you refused to obey the lawful orders of the captain, and you are not entitled to recover the money. I cannot help you and I think you had better hold your tongue about this case. 

 

North China Herald, 17 July, 1896

SWEDISH AND NORWEGIAN CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 10th July

Before Carl Bock, Esq., Consul-General.

   An A. JOHANNSEN, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, and with unlawfully trying to rescue another man from the custody of Sikh P.C. 99, on Thursday morning.

   Sikh P.C. 99, said that at about 11 o'clock on Thursday morning he arrested a man for being drunk and disorderly and assaulting Sikh P.C. 95. Prisoner, with two other men, twisted his arm and succeeded in rescuing the man from custody. Prisoner was half drunk, but knew perfectly well what he was about. Native P.C. 434 said he heard whistles blown and saw prisoner running in the direction of the Sailors' Home.  He tried to arrest prisoner but could not catch him.

   P.C. 29 proved arresting prisoner and said he made no resistance.

   Consul-General Bock sentenced prisoner to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, remarking that it was only about half what he would have got in Sweden.

.  .  .  

E. OLSEN, seaman, was next charged with being drunk and breaking a pane of glass, value 45 cents, at No. 1974 Broadway, on Thursday afternoon. Prisoner made no defence, and as he had shipped in the Clarence S. Bennett,

   Consul-General Bock ordered him to be discharged on payment of the damage.

.  .  .  

N. NIELSEN, seaman, was charged with stealing two pairs of boots from a second-hand shop in Broadway.

   The proprietor of the shop said that on Thursday morning prisoner came into his shop, picked up the two pairs of boots and walked out.

   He was arrested by Sikh P.C. 95 who was afterwards run over by a coal trolley.

   Prisoner's defence was that he had lost a pair of boors soon after arrivi8ng in Shanghai, and seeing what he thought were his boots in the shop he went in and took them. Asked by Consul-General Bock why he took two pairs he said it was because they were tied together. He had shipped in the Clarence S. Bennett and should have gone on board on Thursday morning.

   Consul-General Bock sentenced him to five days' imprisonment and to be put on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 17 July,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 16th July

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

DONG PIN-KEE v. HART.

   This was a case in which the plaintiff Dong Pin-kee sued the defendant, Mr. Stephen Hart, for $99.99 for money lent.

   The defendant admitted thee debt, but said that the matter would be settled outside. The plaintiff had agreed to take over some other accounts in payment.

   The plaintiff stated, through the interpreter, that a gentleman owed $70 to the defendant. The plaintiff had applied for that amount to be paid to him, but the defendant was not willing to hand it to him.

   His Honour (to defendant) - If you have debts to pay you must pay them. You cannot expect this man to collect your debts for you. The best thing you can do is go and get the money at once and pay him. I will give judgment against you in the usual way.

 

North China Herald, 17 July,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th July

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. MARTIN.

   William Martin, A.B., unemployed, was charged with stealing a cloth jacket value $2, the property of a native, from No. 286 Broadway. Inspector Howard, who conducted the case for the police, informed his worship that as a result if the theft which led to the arrest, and subsequent rescue of the prisoner, the Sikh constable was knocked down and a trolley passed over him smashing one of his legs and injuring him very severely.

   Moh Hung-zun, the keeper of a second-hand clothes-shop in Broadway, said that about eleven o'clock on Thursday morning six or seven men, amongst whom was the prisoner, walked into his shop and proceeded to put on some clothes.  Witness went off to the police station to complain, and, on his way back, met the prisoner wearing a coat which had been taken from his shop. Catching hold of him witness called for the police, and an Indian constable came up to his assistance. The prisoner was very violent and struck the constable. Besides the coat witness had lost a pair of boots, some handkerchiefs and other articles.

   Inspector Howard said men were charged with stealing these articles, and would be brought up at other Consulates.

   Witness identified a coat produced as the one stolen from his shop. He saw the prisoner with the coat on (produced).

   Prisoner, in reply to His Worship, said he was in the shop and paid the prosecutor $4.80 for coat, shirt, and pair of trousers. He left wearing the coat and met some of his shipmates who were going to sea with him. They wanted tobacco, matches, and other articles, and he took them back to the complainant's store. They had wine with them and sat drinking it. Prisoner became drunk and remembered nothing more. The men who were with him had gone on board the American ship now in port.

   The shop-keeper, recalled, denied that the coat was sold to the prisoner. On Wednesday, however, the prisoner bought a pair of trousers for sixty cents.

   The boy, recalled, said he also sold a shirt to the prisoner on Wednesday for forty cents.

   His Worship reserved his decision whilst the next case was proceeded with.

.  .  . 

R. v. JEFFREY AND OTHERS.

   Thomas Jeffrey, John Regan, John Horan, John Sloan and John Ryan, unemployed seamen staying at the Sailors' Home, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the 9th inst., and unlawfully rescuing the prisoner William Martin from the custody of the police and together with Martin they were charged with causing serious bodily injury to P.C. 95, Mahan Sigh, whilst in the execution of his duty.

    Lieutenant-Commander Barton, of H.M.S. Esk, sworn, said he could not recognise any of the prisoners; one man he could recognise was not present. As witness was going along Broadway at about eleven o'clock on Thursday morning he saw a number of men running by him, and then the Sikh constable on the ground. He assisted to put the man in a 'ricksha, and sent another constable after the trolley.

   Mr. Frederick William Godsil said he was walking along Broadway and saw a crowd collected. As he came up to the spot the crowd dispersed.  Witness could not identify any of the prisoners as being there. He saw a Sikh policeman and two native constables struggling with the men. Witness saw the Sikh constable pushed down as the trolley was going by, the wheels passing over him. Witness assisted to put the man in a 'ricksha.

   Sikh Constable No. 99 said that at about eleven o'clock on Thursday morning he was on duty in Broadway, and his attention was attracted by a police whistle. He saw two of the prisoners, Martin and Sloan, running away near the corner of Huakee Road. Witness seized hold of the last named, but the man got away and went into the Sailors' Home. Witness then chased Martin, caught him near the corner of Choofong Road, and, with the assistance of another Sikh constable, took the prisoner to the station. Witness did not hear of any trouble about a coat, and did not see the injured constable being struck. A Chinese constable explained to witness the men had run away after assaulting Sikh Constable No. 95.

   Native Police-constable No. 434 identified Sloan, Jeffrey, Regan and Horan as the men he saw running away from a Sikh constable.

   Captain Barton, recalled, said he identified Taylor, an American citizen (who was sitting down during the witness's previous examination), as one of the men he saw running away.

   A Chinese coolie, employed at the Old Dock, said he saw Taylor, Jeffrey, and Martin strike Sikh Constable No. 95. Regan and Sloan were present, but did not do anything. The disturbance seemed to be about a coat.

   Another Chinese witness said he heard that some foreigners had struck a policeman and he came out of his house into the street. He saw some men strike the Sikh Constable and then make off, but he could not recognise any of the prisoners. The Sikh policeman was lying on the ground badly injured.

   Inspector Howard said this was all the evidence he proposed to offer, but all the prisoners had been taken to the Hospital and put before the injured man, who, though very ill, positively identified them as being concerned in the assault.

   His Worship asked whether Martin would like to go before the Chief Justice on the charge of larceny or elect to be dealt with now.

   Martin said he would prefer to be dealt with by his Worship.

   His Worship, remarking that Martin was apparently the cause of all the trouble, sentenced him to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, for the theft of the coat.

   When asked what they had to say, the other prisoners, with the exception of Sloan, denied assaulting the constable.

   His Worship said Martin for being concerned in the assault would have two month's imprisonment. The evidence against Ryan was not so strong, and he would have one month's imprisonment; the others would have two months' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 17 July,1896

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 10th July

Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General.

   R. TAYLOR, seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway and assaulting the police on Thursday morning.

   Native P.C. 434 said he saw prisoner running away after assaulting Sikh P.C. 95. He tried to arrest prisoner who assaulted him and ran into the Sailors' Home. He afterwards pointed person out to a foreign constable who arrested him.

   Consul-General Jernigan informed Inspector Howard that he did not think there was evidence enough to convict prisoner, and adjourned the case until today to give the police an opportunity of obtaining more evidence.

.  .  .  

JAMES CONOLLY also a seaman, was then charged with stealing two dozen towels from a second-hand shop in Broadway.

   The proprietor of the shop said that a number of sailors came into the place on Thursday morning and after they left he missed the towels. He did not see prisoner take them. 

   Detective Sergeant Woods said he was informed of the theft and went to the Sailors' Home, where the prisoner was pointed out to him. He was asleep on a bed in the bowling alley and the towels were concealed under the bed. Prisoner said he knew nothing about the theft, and the bed he was sleeping on belonged to another man.

   His Honour adjourned the case for the production of further evidence.

.  .  .  

11th July.

   JOHN TAYLOR was again brought up to answer the charge of having unlawfully rescued the prisoner William Martin from the custody of the police, thereby causing serious injury to Sikh P.C. 95, whilst in the execution of his duty. The evidence was taken of Mr. Dzionk, who witnessed the whole affair. He stated that the prisoner was one of the principals of the men that knocked the constable down.

   His Honour, thereupon, sentenced the prisoner to fifteen days' imprisonment, unless he was shipped before the expiration of the term.

.  .  .  

   JAMES CONWAY also re-appeared, charged with the theft of two dozen towels from a shop in Broadway. The case had been adjourned in order that the Police might have an opportunity of bringing further evidence to bear. Evidence was given that the prisoner was seen to enter the Sailors' Home with the towels in his possession. The prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days.

 

North China Herald, 24 July,1896

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd July.

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

KING SUNG-NUH v. HART.

   This was a claim by a house-boy against Mr. Stephen Hart for $30.32, wages and messing supplied.

   The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that he was engaged by the defendant as boy at $8 a month, and the account rendered also included articles purchased for the defendant. He left his employment on the 8th of July.

   Defendant said his cook had purchased the goods stated in the account, and the case was accordingly adjourned for the attendance of the cook.

   Ma Li-chia, the cook, said the boy had no authority to purchase the articles in the account for which he (witness) was responsible.

   Plaintiff admitted that he had not paid for all the items in the account, and said if he received the money he would hand it over to the cook. He left his work because the defendant struck him.

   His Honour made an order for the defendant to pay $8 wages, $1 for sundries, and $3 costs.

 

North China Herald, 24 July,1896

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 18th July.

Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General.

   ROBERT STEWART, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Woosung Road on Friday.

   Prisoner admitted the offence.

   Detective Sergeant Armstrong said prisoner was simply drunk and incapable. He made no disturbance, and was taken to the station in a 'ricksha.

   His Honour ordered him to be imprisoned for five days on half rations.

 

North China Herald, 31 July,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 30th July

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KEARNEY.

   John Kearney, sailmaker, belonging to the British ship Holyrood, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Hanbury Road. 

   Sikh Constable No. 50 said that when on duty in the Hanbury Road some Chinese complained to him that a foreigner, in a drunken state, was in a house and would not leave. Witness went to the spot and saw the accused. He took him to the police station.

   Accused said he did not remember what happened.

   His Lordship said a warrant had been issued that morning for the accused's arrest for absence from the ship since the 20th. Dealing with the police case he ordered him to pay three days' wages for being drunk. 

   In the afternoon the accused and another man named James Brown were charged with being absent without leave, and were ordered to pay ten days' pay, the Court expenses, and to forfeit all pay due until put on board the ship.

.  .  .  

DISORDERLY JAPANESE SAILORS.

   Three Japanese sailors belonging to the British ship Strathesk, were charged with being drunk and assaulting a Japanese barber and his wife living at No. 37 Boone Road, and damaging property to the value of $3.

   The evidence of the complainant and his wife was to the effect that he returned home about midnight, and whilst the door was being fastened the accused burst in. They refused to leave and began to smash the furniture and a number of small articles.  They smashed a lamp and there was considerable danger of fire.

   A native police constable said when he was called he found one of the prisoners creating a disturbance, the other two having run away.

   The accused said the damage was done during a scuffle in the house.

   His Worship said the men would have to pay for the damage done, and then go to prison for a week with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. EDGSON.

   G. E. Edgson, belonging to the Strathnevis, was summoned for assaulting John Liddle, on board the ship on Monday.

   John Liddle, the complainant, said that on Monday morning whilst the ship was in harbour, the defendant struCk him. There had been quarrels before, but they had not come to blows. Witness told defendant he was the cause of all the trouble on board and the [xxxx] said there had not been enough.

   William Johnson said the two men were working close together, and Edgson charged Liddle with interfering with his gear.  He then swore at Liddle and struck him.   

   Captain James Pattie, master of the Strathnevis, gave Edgson a bad character. In Hongkong he was sentenced with other firemen to three weeks' hard labour for refusing duty and had generally caused trouble. Witness expected to be leaving Shanghai on Sunday; there was a considerable sum of money due to the defendant.

   Defendant said the complainant had been doing all he could to annoy him, and he (defendant) had cautioned him. He related several instances in which he alleged the complainant had deliberately annoyed him. He disliked the complainant, and they had had several "growls" with one another. On Monday morning the complainant shifted some of his gear, and defendant called him a "----- ----- hoodlum" and struck him.

   His Worship said the defendant would be kept in prison until the departure of the ship, and would be fined ten days' wages.

   Defendant complained that he was "a marked man," in the ship and asked to be discharged.

   His Worship said the defendant's  admissions alone were enough to convict him, and he could not think of granting him his discharge from the ship.

 

North China Herald, 7 August,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd August

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. CRAWFORD.

   William Crawford, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Public garden in the 2nd inst.

   Police Sergeant Madsen's evidence was to the effect that the accused was lying drunk in the Public Garden with a stone bottle containing gin by his side. He was removed, but declined to go away and threw the bottle down at witness' feet.

   Prisoner admitted being drunk, but said it was because he met a few friends during the day. He added that he did not take the gin into the Garden, although he helped to drink it. In reply to his Worship, accused said he had been a policemn in Hongkong and came up here to seek employment some two months ago.

   Inspector Ramsay added that the accused some two years ago was also in the Municipal Police, but his conduct was not good.

   His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $4 or to go to prison for a week.

.  .  .  

R. v. WHITE.

   Thomas White, A.B. belonging to the Poltalloch, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on board, and damaging the ship's property.

   William Hanley, chief officer of the ship, said that on Saturday afternoon the accused, who had been more or less drunk all day, struck one of the crew and created a disturbance. Witness remonstrated and the prisoner then severed a hauling line worth about £8.

    Robert Chatham said that on Sunday, shortly after breakfast, he was sitting by the witness when the accused came up to the lamp room, which was near and tried to open the door. When he found it locked he called to witness, who had the key, to open i. Witness refused, and the prisoner coming up said if he (witness) did not do so he would open him. The accused then struck him, and witness reported the matter to the chief officer. Prisoner was drunk at the time.

   Prisoner in reply to the Magistrate, said he did not recollect doing anything; and if what was alleged against him was true he was very sorry.

   His Worship sentenced the accused to two weeks' imprisonment and to be put on board in the event of the ship sailing before.

.  .  .  

R. v. AGAHTOOUS.

   Michael Agahtoous, fireman on board the s.s Shirley, was charged with disobeying orders and refusing duty.

   Captain Chares Whymper, master of the s.s. Shirley, said that on the 13th of last month the accused refused duty, and was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment at Hankow. When put on board the accused again refused. He had been examined by a doctor and pronounced perfectly sound, but he simply shook his head and refused work, saying he was finished. Witness kept him on bread and water and had him put in irons after the ship left Hankow. The other men did not like the accused hanging around, so witness had him put in irons.

   Benjamin Watson, chief engineer, said the prisoner simply refused duty. There could be no doubt about his understanding what was said and he used to work fairly well, although a bit lazy.  When the hot weather came on accused absolutely refused to work, without any reason. None of the other men had complained

   Joseph Marshall, donkeyman, said he had heard the accused say to others that rather than work he would go to prison. The accused understood and could speak English perfectly well.

   Prisoner when questioned by his Worship, said he was a Greek, but born in Constantinople, did not understand English.

   Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the accused came to him on Sunday, with his bag, and said he was a fireman. He spoke in English, and after some conversation witness sent him off.

   His Worship said he knew Greek at one time and was inclined to attempt to speak it now. He then carried on an animated conversation in Greek with the accused, who persisted that he was sick and unable to work.

   Captain Whymper said the man had been examined by a doctor and declared quite fit for work. He was a nuisance and demoralising to the other men.

   His Worship said he could not sanction the accused being discharged from the ship as the Board of Trade would not allow it, but he would explain to the accused that he would be sent to prison for two weeks' hard labour, or until the departure of the ship,  and would forfeit his wages  from the 27th of July until he resumed work.

   Captain Whynper pointed out the nuisance the man was, and wished to discharge him, but

  His Worship said that would have to be discussed in the Shipping Office.

.  .  .  

4th August.

R. v. A LASCAR FIREMAN.

   A lascar fireman, belonging to the Ravenna, was charged with being drunk and disorderly outside the P. & O. office on Monday afternoon.

   Native P.C. 35 said that about 2 o'clock on Monday afternoon he was called by a gentleman from the P. & O. office to arrest the prisoner, who was drunk and making a disturbance outside the door.  When arrested the prisoner became very violent, and witness had to call assistance.

   Native P.C. 3512 corroborated the previous witness' evidence.

   Prisoner admitted the offence, and said  he went to the office to ask to be sent  back to Bombay as his agreement with the company had expired.

   His Worship cautioned the prisoner and ordered him to be put on board the Ravenna.

.  .  .  

6th August.

R. v. NELSEN.

   John C. Nelsen, steward of the Holyrood, was charged with being absent from his ship without leave since the 30th ult.

   Detective Wood deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the previous afternoon in a boarding house in a n alleyway off Dixwell Road, Hongkew. When arrested prisoner admuttedf having deserted his ship, saying that the reason he had done so was that he did not like the captain.

   Prisoner in reply to his Worship said the captain had told him to leave. He said he had not intended to return to the ship, if he could have "got clear."

   His Worship said it was certain that the captain did not tell him to leave, because he was in the Shipping Office when the captain explained that he did not want the prisoner to leave the ship.

   Two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .

R. v. O'BRIEN.

   James O'Brien, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in North Honan Road.

   Native P.C. 352 said that at half-past nine on the previous night he saw the prisoner in North Honan Road annoying passers-by by throwing stones at them. A large crowd gathered and chased the prisoner, who ran into a rice shop, the proprietor of which asked witness to arrest him. Witness did so. Prisoner was drunk.

   Prisoner sad a stone had been first thrown at him, and he had thrown it back into the middle of the crowd.

   Mr. Eveleigh said he shipped accused in the Holyrood, which, however, sailed on Saturday without him. Witness had given him $5 to get a bag, which witness never saw. He had been a great nuisance in the Home, robbing and thieving all round.

   One week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 14 August,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th August

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. CAMERON.

   Duncan Cameron, unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund, on the 8th inst.

   Sergeant McDonald said the accused, in a drunken condition, was brought to the Central Police Station in a 'ricksha by a coolie who complained that he had been taking the accused about and could do nothing with him. This was the fourth time the accused had been in custody for drunkenness.

   His Worship ordered him to go to prison for ten days.

.  .  .  

R. v. RYAN.

   William Ryan was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Broadway on Sunday.

   Sikh Constable No. 119 said that at about 9 p.m. he was on duty near the Sailors' Home when he saw the accused drunk and endeavouring to force his way into a foreign hotel. Witness told him to go away but he refused, and used bad language, whereupon he took the accused to the police station. On the way there accused offered witness half-a-dollar to let him go.

   Accused admitted being drunk, but remembered nothing as to the other charges.

   His Worship sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. ROBINSON.

   John Robinson was charged with begging at a house in Woosung Road.

   Mr. George Skinner said that a little after eight o'clock on Sunday night the accused walked into the hallway of his house and asked for money. Witness ordered him off, but the accused was very reluctant to go, and witness then assisted him off the premises and handed him over to a constable.

   Inspector Howard, addressing His Worship, said the prisoner arrived from Japan last week.  Just now the authorities in Japan seemed to be rather strict and were deporting unemployed foreigners from the ports and sending them to Shanghai. Accused had been twice locked up in Shanghai for drunkenness and released, and he promised to become a great nuisance.  Just now there were a good many men hanging about Hongkew in the Chinese and foreign drinking shops - he did not know that there was much difference - and were becoming a nuisance to the community.

   Sergeant Spong having given evidence that when he arrested the prisoner he was sober, accused was asked what he had to say by the Magistrate. He was unable to give any intelligible reply and seemed to be suffering from the effects of drink.

   His Worship sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

11th August.

R. v. NICOLAS

   S. Nicolas, a Manilaman, quartermaster of the s.s. Glamorganshire, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in North Szechuen Road and attempting to stab P.C. 179 and 448 whilst in the execution of their duty on the 10th inst., also with unlawfully carrying a sheath knife within the limits of the Settlement contrary to Municipal Bye-law No. 37.

   Native Police constable 179 said that at a quarter to twelve on Monday night he saw the accused in a 'ricksha in Tiendong Road. The accused had been drinking but was not too drunk and the coolie wanted his fare. Witness advised him to pay his fare and go away, whereupon he drew his knife and threatened witness. With the assistance of Native Police Constable 448 the prisoner was then taken to the station.

   Native Police Constable 448 corroborated.

   Accused said he must have been very drunk as, when he woke up in the police station, he thought he was on board his ship, but he then discovered his mistake. He was very sorry for what had happened. He came ashore at six o'clock, and, meeting some friends began drinking with them. He brought the knife ashore by inadvertence.

   His Worship ordered the accused to pay a fine of $4 and all the expenses incurred, remarking that had the ship not been leaving he would have been sent to prison as well.

 

North China Herald, 21 August,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th August

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GRAHAM.

   William Graham, A.B. belonging to the Drumeltan, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous evening.

   Native police constable 424 said he found the accused drunk and asleep on the Yangtzepoo Road on the previous evening at six o'clock. There was a good deal of traffic at the time and the accused was in danger.      

   Accused admitted the offence but said he remembered nothing about it.

   His Worship discharged him with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. PAL SINGH.

   Pal Singh, a Sikh Police Constable, appeared to a summons charging him with assaulting Ting Ah-sung in the Yantzepoo Road on the 13th inst.

   The complainant, a fishmonger, said that as he was going along Yangtzepoo Road early in the morning of the 13th the defendant caught hold of him and struck him with his baton. The constable followed this up by kicking him. Complainant was carrying two empty baskets and a pair of scales, and before striking him the constable asked to see what was inside. He (complainant) allowed him to see. It was not daylight at the time, and complainant had just left his house with the intention of going for some fish to take to the Hongkew Market. Complainant added that he had a mother, wife, and two children dependent upon him and earned from 40 to 70 cents a day. In consequence of the assault he could not work.

   His Worship said the complainant was at the Consulate from 9 a.m. until about noon on the previous day when he saw him, so the assaukt had not then knocked him up.

   Complainant removed a handkerchief he had bound round his head and showed a small mark under the left ear with some clotted blood. He added the assault was committed at about 2 a.m. that he had no witnesses and did not show his injuries to anyone.

   Pal Sigh, No. 90, the defendant, said that he was on duty on the No. 3 police beat on the Yangtzepoo Road from 11 p.m. on the 12th to 6 a.m. on the 13th.  At about five minutes to two on Thursday morning he reported himself to foreign constable No. 41, at about which time the alleged assault was committed. He had no altercation with a Chinaman and positively denied having struck the complainant or even seen him.

   His Worship said that when the complainant came to the Consulate later he had a piece of paper with "Police-constable No. 90" written on it. Where did he get it?

   Complainant said a neighbour told him that was the number of the policeman who struck him.

   An aunt of the complainant gave evidence that a Sikh constable brought her nephew home, but she knew nothing of the assault.

   In reply to Inspector Reed she said she reported the occurrence at Yangtzepoo station and there asked who was on the beat at the time.

   Defendant, recalled, said that along the Road where the alleged assault took place some twenty Sikh watchmen were employed at various factories.

   His Worship said the complainant had failed to prove his case; there was no proof whatever that the defendant had assaulted him. The case would therefore be dismissed.

.  .  .  

17th August.

R. v. NORANG SINGH.

   Norang Singh, a Sikh watchman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Yangtzepoo Road on Saturday.

   The evidence was to the effect that the accused in the course of his wanderings when under the influence of drink fell into a creek. He expressed his regret, and on promising not to offend again was dismissed with a caution.

.  .  .

19th August

R. v. PETERSEN.

   John Petersen, an unemployed seaman, was charged with begging.

   Inspector Reed said that as he was walking along the Bund shortly after midnight the accused accosted him and asked for money. Recognising him as a man who had been in custody on previous occasions for drunkenness witness took him into custody. Prisoner had 80 cents on him when searched at the Police Station.

   Accused, who said he asked for ten cents, said three months ago he was discharged from an American ship, and had done nothing since.

   Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the man was to have gone on board a ship on the 1st of August, but on account of some temporary injury, which he had sustained when climning a wall at the Sailors' Home, the mate of the ship would not accept him.

   His Worship ordered him to go to prison for a fortnight.

.  .  .  

20th August

R. v. TOONEE.

   Peter Toonee was charged with being absent from his ship, the Darra, since the 15th instant.

   Detective Wood having deposed to arresting the accused on a warrant, prisoner said he had leave to come ashore on the 15th but he overstayed it.

   His Worship ordered him to forfeit five days' pay, and to be put on board.

.  .  .  

R. v. CAMERON.

   Duncan Cameron, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and assaulting the police on the previous day, and also with stealing a watch and chain value $12.

   Native police constable 121 said he saw the accused in the Public Garden at half-past six on the previous evening and, as he was drunk, arrested him. Prisoner struck witness more than once on the way to the station.

   Accused said he remembered nothing of the affair, and the next charge was proceeded with.

   Mark Abbott said he was staying at the Travellers' Hotel, Broadway, and on the previous afternoon, at about five o'clock he took the accused up to his bedroom to give him a suit of white clothes out of charity. Complainant left him there for a few minutes and then returned to the bedroom. He noticed that a case, containing the watch and chain was missing, and at once reported the matter to the landlord, and the police. Later in the evening he heard that the accused had been arrested with the watch in his possession.

   Prisoner questioned the prosecutor in order to show that the latter gave him the watch to dispose of, but this prosecutor absolutely denied.

   His Worship offered the prisoner the option of being summarily dealt with or committed for trial, and accused elected to be dealt with by his Worship.

   George Sterling, the landlord of the Travellers' gave evidence to the effect that prior to the prosecutor reporting the loss of the watch he (witness) sae the black case in prisoner's possession during a dispute with the barman.

   Inspector Ramsay said that when the accused was searched at the police station the watch and chain were found in his possession, but without the case.

   His Worship refused to accept the prisoner's explanation and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 21 August,1896

A CHINESE "ARTFUL DODGER."

   The Municipal Police of the Louza District have succeeded in bringing to account at the Mixed Court a young native criminal, whose career in the Settlement, short though it was, exhibits some extraordinary features. The youth, who claimed to be fifteen years of age but looked considerably younger, gave his name as Sun Woo-sun, hailing from the not distant city of Kashing. On the 3rd of the present month he escaped from the Taotai's city gaol, where he had been locked up for thefts in the city. In the course of his way out of the city he stole some clothing, which he pawned for $2.

   He commenced operations within foreign jurisdiction on Wednesday, the 5th inst., and it is a singular fact that though unacquainted with foreign houses, he had little difficulty in carrying out the most daring thefts. He began by stealing a silver cup and silver box from Mr. Arthur Dallas' house, worth $50; then, on the 8th, he visited the house of Mr. Midwood and Mr. W. Lamond, Mohawk Villas. Belonging to the former gentleman he appropriated a valuable gold watch and chain, three sovereigns (sporting mementoes), and a gold match-box, worth at least $300; and Mr. Lamond he relieved of a gold watch and chain, some gold studs and sleeve-links, and a silver pencil case and shoe of syce, worth about £140. Mr. Shaw's house was the next object of his attention, and from there he took away three watches and some silver ornaments.   Mr. J. C. Johnston's house also received a visit, and from there, as elsewhere, he took away clothing. 

   The young thief was captured almost red-handed. He was detected on the premises of Mr. Bruce Robertson, and being unable to give a satisfactory account of himself was taken into custody. At the time he was dressed like a young mandarin, but a suspicion as to his connections with the previous robberies was aroused in the minds of the detectives. After a time he began to "open his mouth," and the police once fairly in the scene cleverly unravelled the intricate story.

   Without any accomplices the young criminal adopted a clever mode of seeking to conceal his operations. When  he became possessed of Mr. Midwood's watch, worth some 35 guineas, he found it impossible to pawn it, but he went to a shop on the French Concession and there changed it for a silver watch, worth $25, and $8 in money. The second watch he took elsewhere and changed for a third watch and $2, and the third watch he changed for another, which he then pawned.  Mr. Lamond's watch went through a similar system of barter and sale, but some of the articles he pawned direct and became possessed of $475 in hard cash.  But when arrested on the 13th he had managed to get rid of all but twenty cents. It was discovered that during his brief career in Shanghai he was in the habit of travelling about in a private 'ricksha, varied by an occasional carriage drive to Chang Su-ho's garden. At this popular resort he succumbed to the fascination of a Chinese beauty to whom he considerately gave a silver watch. He also figured as a patron of music and on the occasion of a visit to a concert in Frenchtown, finding the programme not to his liking, paid a certain sum to have it entirely altered.  When brought up at the Mixed Court he presented a very independent demeanour, and replied to the Magistrate's questions with the utmost nonchalance. He was ordered to be confined in the Taotai's penitentiary for juvenile criminals inside the city, for an indefinite time. Whether he will derive any good from the depraved society there is a matter of doubt. The recovery of all the property in the case is certainly a matter upon which the police may be heartily congratulated.


 

North China Herald, 28 August,1896

THE DRUMMOND CASTLE ENQUIRY.

28th Aug.

THE first thought of anyone who reads the report of the Board of Trade Enquiry recently held into the loss of the Drummond Castle will be, how very much more complete these enquiries at hone are than the Naval Courts which are held from time to time in Shanghai. 

[Not transcribed.]

It seems that the steamer tore out so much of her bottom going over the rocks at full speed that her bulkheds were of no use to her; and though no definite lesson seems to have been learnt from the enquiry, it must be a melancholy satisfaction to the friends of the drowned to know that nothing that could be explained was neglected by the Court.


 

North China Herald, 4 September,1896

H.I.G.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 2nd September.

Before Dr. Stuebel, Consul-General, and Messrs. C. Beumann and Aug. Ehlers, Assessors.

   HEINRICH HENKE, mate of the Siamese barque Charon Wattana, was charged with breaking open a cash box belonging to the captain and stealing therefrom the sum of $180.

   Captain Koch, master of the Charon Wattana, said that on the 23rd he went ashore, leaving prisoner in charge of the ship. When he returned in the evening he found that his cash box had been broken open and $180 stolen. He found that prisoner was absent from the ship, and as he did not return witness gave information to the police. A warrant was obtained from the German Consulate and prisoner was arrested on board a ship in the harbour by the River Police. Witness gave the prisoner a good character and said he had always performed his duties in a satisfactory manner though he was somewhat addicted to drink.

   Prisoner admitted the theft and said he was drunk at the time. He was desirous of returning the money on the following day, but a friend persuaded him that he had better clear out.

   Prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, without hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 4 September,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 31st August

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. RYAN.

   William Ryan, unemployed seaman, was charged with creating a disturbance in the "Travellers" on Saturday night and using abusive language to the proprietor and his wife.

   Sikh P.C. 78 was called and proved being called to arrest the prisoner, who was drunk and making a disturbance.

   George Stirling, proprietor of the "Travellers," said that on Saturday evening  he was sitting in the dining room and heard a noise in the bar-room. There were about thirty persons in the bar. Witness went to see what the trouble was and saw the prisoner, who was drunk, making a disturbance and wanting to fight another man. He was told to leave but refused, and gave witness a push; he was then ejected by some of the "P. & O. gentlemen" who were in the bar. Prisoner stood in the street, and used most insulting language to witness and his wife. He was drunk, but knew perfectly well what he was about.

   On being asked by His Worship if he had any witnesses to call, or anything to say, prisoner became extremely impudent, and said he knew he would be sent to gaol even if there were no charge against him.

   A Greek was called who said he did not see the prisoner create any disturbance outside the house, though what happened in the bar he was not in a position to say.

   His Worship considered the charge proven, and sentenced prisoner to two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

3rd Sept.

R. v. BOYLE.

   John Boyle, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, and assaulting the police, on Wednesday evening. A charge of assaulting a man named Reynolds was also preferred against the prisoner but as the complainant did not appear it was not gone into.

   Sikh P.C. 89 said he was on duty in Broadway on Wednesday evening, when he saw the prisoner and another man, who was in a 'ricksha, having some words. Prisoner struck the other man with his first. Witness told him to desist, and as he did not witness arrested him. Prisoner escaped from custody and ran away; witness followed him and, with the assistance of a native constable, took him into custody again. When near the Hongkew Bridge prisoner again attempted to escape and struck witness. Another native constable came to their assistance and prisoner was taken to the station.

   Native P.C. 466 and 467 corrroborated the previous witness' evidence.

   Prisoner said he had been fighting with the other man in a beer shop, and was turned out. He waited outside the Sailors' Home for his antagonist for the purpose of settling the quarrel. He did not assault the police, but only struggled because the Sikh constable had hold of him by the neck and was hurting him. His Worship sentenced prisoner to seven days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 11 September,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'SD POLICE COUTRT.

Shanghai, 8th September

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. OGDEN.

   Ernest Ogden, an unemployed engineer, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Hongkew Coffee House, on the 7th inst.

   Mr. F. Ulbricht said that prisoner came into the bar and wanted to fight a man named Logan, an engineer. Witness requested him to leave, and as he refused to go, pushed him outside. Prisoner stood outside the door and made use of filthy language, so witness, not seeing a policeman at hand, took him to the station.

   Prisoner made an incoherent statement admitting the charge, and his Worship sentenced him to ten days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. BUSBY.

   Alfred Busby, engineer, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Monday evening.

   P.C. 29 said he was called to eject prisoner from a shop in Broadway, where he was making a disturbance. He would not go away so witness took him into custody.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and said he was drunk at the time, and did not know what he was doing.  He was sentenced to four days' imprisonment.

.  . .  

R. v. SMITH.

   Patrick Smith, a fireman belonging to the Leander, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Monday night.

   P.S. MacIntosh said that about 10 p.m. on Monday, he saw prisoner drunk and creating a disturbance in Broadway. Witness advised him to go on board his ship, but as he refused he was arrested.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was ordered to be put on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 18 September, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. JEFFREY.

   Thomas Jeffrey, unemployed, no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the compound at Hongkew Police Station at noon on Sunday.

   Police Sergeant Champion said the accused was discharged from prison on the 9th and had since been supplied with food at the Hongkew Police Station. On Sunday at noon he went there drunk, but made no disturbance beyond shouting to the coolies to bring him food.

   His Worship said the accused had been before him on previous occasions and had expressed contrition, but apparently he had given way again. The best thing for him was to go to prison for six days, unless in the meantime he could be shipped.

.  .  .  

15th September

R. v. REYNOLDS.

   Fred Reynolds, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Hone, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night.

   Police constable Urquhart said that on the previous night the accused was drunk and annoying native shopkeepers in the Broadway. He took him into custody.

   Accused admitted having been drunk but remembered nothing about being disorderly.

   His Worship sentenced him to three days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. O'BRIEN.

   Edward O'Brien, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Hone, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous night in the Broadway.

   Native Police-constable No. 309 said that shortly before eleven o'clock on the previous night he saw the accused knocking at a shop in the Nanzing Road. Witness ordered him away, and he went over the road to a store, where he made a disturbance and said he wanted to buy a hat. Accused was drunk, so witness put him in a 'ricksha snd took him to the police station.

   Hi Worship, as the accused had not been previously charged, released him with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. BOULLES.

   Louis Boulles, A.B., British ship Semantha, appeared to a summons charging him with disobeying a certain lawful command of Captain D. P. Crowe, the master of the said vessel; being absent without leave from the ship on the 12th and 13th; and using theatening and abusive language to the master.

   Captain Crowe said that on Saturday the defendant came out of hospital and applied to him for money, which he refused to give. Defendant than became abusive and said he would force complainant to pay him off. After this he left the ship for about an hour without leave. The next day he said he wanted to go ashore again, and persisted in doing so against complainant's orders. On Monday, when ordered to work, the defendant refused and, moreover, said he would shoot the complainant.

   H. Pattison, third mate on board the Semantha, said he heard the accused abusing the captain on Saturday.

   Defendant, in reply to his Worship, said he was not very familiar with English, and his Worship then explained the charge and evidence to him in French.

   Defendant vigorously contested the charge. He said that he had been sick for three months and in the hospital, and when he applied for money due to him on coming out, the captain refused to give it to him.  It was entirely a question of money. With regard to coming ashore without leave he did not think he was doing anything wrong. Work had finished for the day and he saw no objection. The captain did not forbid him to go ashore.

   Captain Crowe, in reply to his Worship, said the accused had borne a good character, but for three months he had been sick.

    His Worship, addressing Captain Crowe, said the defendant was no doubt of an excitable temperament, and evidently liable to say things which he would not mean in his calmer moments. No doubt he had refused duty, but he seemed to be labouring under a grievance. It would probably be better for the Captain to pay off the accused.

   Captain Crowe said he would do so but he hoped the magistrate would punish the accused for his insubordination.

   His Worship ordered the defendant to forfeit one week's pay.

.  .  .  

16th September.

 R. v. SUTTON AND DAQUIDT.

   James Sutton and Lewis Daquidt, belonging to the British ship Lynton, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Broadway on the previous night.

   The evidence of Police constables Dahl, and Native constables Nos. 433 and 442, went to show that the accused were in the Broadway at about midnight drunk and striking 'ricksha coolies. When arrested Daquidt struck No. 433 in the face.

   His Worship discharged Sutton with a caution, but ordered Daquidt to forfeit two days' pay. Both men were to be put on board their ship at their own expense.


 

North China Herald, 25 September,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd September

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

BHAGGA SINGH v. DYAN SINGH AND LLANNA SINGH.

   Two Sikhs, named Dyan Singh and Llanna Singh, appeared to a summons alleging that on the 19th instant, they assaulted one Bhagga Singh.

   Complainant's evidence was to the effect that when he was cooking his food at the Lower Dock the defendants came and after abusing him struck him with a piece of iron. He denied giving any provocation, and said that up to that assault there had been no enmity. He produced a medical certificate stating the injuries he had received, but had no witnesses to call.

   The defendants denied the charge and asked for a remand in order to call evidence. Llanna Singh stated that he saw the complainant and another man engaged in a friendly wrestle, and after that the complainant bleeding.

   His Worship adjourned the case until Saturday, advising the parties, if possible, to come to some amicable arrangement.


 

North China Herald, 2 October,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 25th September

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ERNO AND BOYLE.

   Charles Erno and John Boyle, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Home, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Boone Road an smashing a window to the extent of 30 cents.

   Sikh police constable No. 123 said that shortly before midnight the accused drove up in a 'ricksha to a house in the Boone Road, and knocking at a window broke it. A woman inside called for assistance and with the aid of another constable, witness arrested the accused. The men had been drinking.

   Sikh police constable No. 84 deposed to assisting the previous witness.

   The complainant, a Cantonese woman, said that seeing the accused coming she closed the door of the house, but the men tried to force it open and broke the window.

   Boyle admitted being drunk and breaking the window.

   His Worship, being informed that Boyle had been shipped, ordered him to pay 30 cents for the damage, and to be put on board his ship. The other man was dismissed with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. MACDONALD.

   Thomas Macdonald, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway.

   Police constable No. 42 said he found the accused drunk and incapable outside the Sailors' Home.

   Accused said he was sitting on the doorstep waiting for someone to open the door.

   His Worship ordered him to go to prison for three days.

.  .  .  

26th September

BHAGGA SINGH v. GHAIN SINGH AND LLANNA SINGH.

   The defendants, two Sikhs, again appeared to answer a summons alleging that on the 18th inst., they assaulted Bhagga Singh. Mr. Gedge (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) now represented the defendants.

   The case occupied the whole morning, and disclosed a surprising conflict of evidence. 

   The plaintiff's story was that he was attacked and seriously assaulted by the defendants, because he belonged to a different religious sect,  and was the first watchman of that sect to be employed at the Lower Dock. They wished, therefore, to drive him out of his employment. As a witness he called another man, of his own sect, who stated that he was over at Pootung for the purpose of buying a goat, and thinking the plaintiff and defendants would be friendly with the country people he visited the Lower Dock to ask their assistance. When he got there, however, he saw the defendants assaulting the plaintiff with their fists and an iron bar.

   The defence was that on the day in question the plaintiff challenged Ghain Singh to a wrestling match for $5 a side. In the course of the wrestling the plaintiff was twice thrown, and the injuries he received were caused by falling on the ground. After the match they all had food together, and it was denied that the plaintiff's witness was near the spot. A Chinaman, in charge of the pumping machinery, and employed at the Lower Dock for fourteen years, said he saw the parties wrestling, and understood it was all in fun.

   His Worship, remarking upon the conflict of evidence, adjourned the case for the attendance of another Chinaman, who was said to have been present.

.  .  .  

R. v. O'BRIEN.

   Edward O'Brien, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway. Evidence was given that the accused, who had previously been before the Court and released with a caution, was drunk and incapable near the Old Dock.

   His Worship sent him to prison for six days.

.  .  .  

28th September

BHAGGA SINGH v. GHAIN SINGH AND LLANNA SINGH.

[As above.]

   Dr. W. A. D. Cooper deposed to the complainant consulting him regarding a wound on the head and some bruises on the back. The complainant explained that he had been assaulted by two other men. In witness' opinion the lacerated wound on the complainant's forehead must have been caused by contact with some hard substance. To have sustained the injuries he exhibited in a wrestling match he must have fallen in a very peculiar manner, but the head wound might have been caused by contact with a sharp-edged stone. He would have had to be flung violently on his face, and would probably be considerably stunned.

   In reply to Mr. Gedge the witness said the man was considerably shaken, and although it was possible, he did not think it probable that all the marks were the result of wrestling.

   Li Chung-tuk, a boiler maker employed by Farnham & Co. for sixteen or seventeen years, said he had been transferred to the Lower Dock for the last two months, and had there seen the accused and the plaintiff, but was not familiar with them.  On the day in question he saw the complainant and one of the accused struggling together. They had hold of each other's hair, but witness was told they were skylarking. They both fell to the ground, the complainant being underneath, and witness saw no more.

   Two natives, a Shroff and a No. 1 collie at the Lower Dock, who had been kept in the Magistrate's room, were now separately brought in to the Court and after being cautioned were interrogated as to what they had seen. They both firmly asserted they knew nothing about the case.

   His Worship observed that he had reason to believe the men did know something about the matter, and he was certainly of opinion that there had been a good deal of hard swearing on both sides.

   Mr. Gedge, in addressing the Court, submitted that the hard swearing had been on the complainant's side. He contended that if the prosecutor had been struck with such an iron bar as he described instead of being simply cut on the head he would have been insensible for many hours, and his skull would probably have been severely fractured.

  As to the witness called by the prosecutor, who stated that he was over at Pootung for the purpose of buying a goat, his story was most improbable. To purchase a goat he would not go to such a spot, but to some recognised market in the usual manner. If his testimony were examined it would be found to correspond most suspiciously with the prosecutor's statement for it must be remembered that two men, giving an independent  version of an affair, seldom agreed so exactly on all the points. The two Chinamen - perfectly independent witnesses having nothing on common with the defendants - had given most important evidence.  They made it clear that the affair was a wrestling match, while the two witness who were called for the prosecution this morning, when they were brought in the presence of justice had evidently shrunk from telling the story which it was thought they would, and had decided that they knew nothing about it.

   His Worship, in giving his decision, said the case had been so long on account of the lying and hard swearing on both sides.  The doctor, as an independent witness, had given evidence which shied that the man had received severe treatment, and, although the evidence was not absolutely conclusive, in his (the Magistrate's) mind there was a strong  belief that the defendants, belonging to a different sect, had endeavoured to drive the complainant away. The complainant might have taken pains to strengthen his case, but, he being the weaker man, some who could have come forward  and given evidence had held aloof.  He (the Magistrate) was positively convinced that the men called that morning who had professed ignorance knew more than they chose to say. Some powerful influence had been at work, and the complainant had failed to establish his case. He would therefore have to pay the Court fees, and the defendants would be dismissed.

.  .  .  

CHEANG YOU-SANG v. HARRIS

   Mr. T. K. Harris, chief officer of the s.s. Chihli, appeared to a summons charging him with assaulting Cheang You-sang, boatswain in the same vessel.

The complainant's evidence as to the effect that on Thursday last he received a certain quantity of paint for the purpose of painting the vessel. Half was used, and then the second officer told him to paint the ship again on Saturday. The chief officer coming on board as the work was in progress countermanded the order, and was very angry at the paint being used. The second officer came up and caught hold of complainant, and then the chief officer struck and kicked him. He denied that he gave the chief officer any "cheek," and added that he had been on the coast for ten years and until he joined the present ship had never been troubled.

   A native carpenter said he saw the defendant strike the plaintiff, and heard no insolence from the latter. He himself had been struck.

   A native sailor gave similar evidence.

   The defendant denied the charge. He said he asked the boatswain why he was painting the ship over again, and he replied he had been ordered to do so by the second officer. Defendant then ordered him to stop, and asked why he had mixed all the paint. The second officer had then come up, and complainant, turning his back, called defendant a "coolie." The second officer at once caught him by the jacket, but he (defendant) separated them, and the man then walked off, at the same time calling defendant "a ------ coolie." There was no assault at all, and to aggravate his conduct the boatswain put the paint in the defendant's room and walked off the ship.

   Mr. Harold Brooks, second officer, said that when he heard the complainant make use of the insulting expression he seized him by the coat, but the defendant took him off. There was no assault, and as the boatswain walked away he used still more provoking language. Witness had only been in the ship one voyage, but the boatswain was in the habit of sulking if an order were given him which he did not like.

   His Worship - Are you aware that even touching a man is an assault?

   Witness - I suppose it is.

   His Worship - Are you aware a word spoken in anger or an abusive word is an assault? You need not touch a man or pull him about; if you point at him with your finger it is quite enough to constitute an assault.

   The compradore of the Chihli, called for the defence, said he heard some disturbance on the deck and saw the chief officer endeavouring to separate the second officer and the boatswain. He did not see any assault. Asked whether there had been previous trouble in the ship on account of complaints against the chief officer, witness said it was the chief officer's duty to look after the crew and give them an occasional "shaking up" if necessary. He had never seen the defendant assault any member of the crew. He heard the boatswain use the bad language already described.

   Captain F. Newcomb, master of the s.s. Chihli, said the boatswain on Thursday asked for his discharge, but was told he could not have it. Evidently the complainant was dissatisfied because the officers kept a very strict inventory of the stores on board.  On Sunday afternoon the complainant called at witness' house and said he had been ill-treated by the chief officer and his coat torn. Witness went to the ship, and both chef and second officers denied any assault. Witness then entered the matter in the log. If words counted as an assault, as well as blows did not the boatswain's language amount to an assault?

   Two native quartermasters were then called up by the complainant, but were not near enough to hear any words.

   Captain Newcomb said one witness could not have seen anything from where he said he was at the time - coming down from the bridge.

   His Worship said he was of opinion an assault had been committed, but he was not satisfied the complainant had not provoked it. Some complaints regarding the state of things on the ship had been lodged in the Shipping Office, and he would like to enforce upon the officers the fact that they could preserve discipline amongst the Chinese men better if they did not use force. The summons would be dismissed.

.  .  .  

R. v. JEFFREY AND REYNOLDS.

   Thomas Jeffrey and Frederick Reynolds, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Home, were charged with being concerned together in stealing a razor and clasp knifer, value $2, the property of Ludwig Frederic and a pair of pants and shirt worth $2.50, belonging to William Graham, both the complainants being inmates of the Sailors' Home.

   Ludwig Frederic's evidence was to the effect that he left the knife and razor in his waistcoat pockets in his room on Saturday afternoon, and missed them in the evening.

   Another inmate of the home deposed to seeing both the prisoners selling some clothing at a second-hand shop in Hongkew, and informing the two complainants.

   William Graham said he reported the loss of his clothing to the police and accompanied a detective to the second-hand shop where the property was found.

   Detective Armstrong produced the stolen property and said he found the knife and razor  on Jeffrey when he arrested him.

   Jeffrey, in reply to his Worship, said he alone was responsible. Reynolds did not know the clothing was stolen, and pawned it at his (Jeffrey's) request and upon the assurance that it was his own.

   His Worship pointed out that Jeffrey had been previously convicted, and sentenced him to undergo four months' hard labour. He could not believe Reynolds was entirely innocent, so he would go to prison for a week, which would teach him to be more careful.

.  .  .  

R. v. DETTA.

   Peri Detta was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Hongkew Market.

   Native Police Constable No. 208 proved the charge, and the prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of $4 or go to prison for ten days.

 

North China Herald, 2 October, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 29th September

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

OZORIO v. CUNNINGHAM & CO.

   This was a claim by O. Ozorio against Messrs. Cunningham & Co., for $27.35 for services rendered as compositor during August and part of September.

   The plaintiff said he was engaged on the 13th of July at a s alary of $20 a month, and received the first month's wages on the 13th of August. Since then he had had $16 advanced to him. His claim was made up as follows: balance of August salary $2, overtime $4.05. In reply to the defendant he admitted being absent for four days in August without leave.

   Mr. A. Cunningham said he paid $5 into Court which represented the amount really due to the plaintiff. He was engaged as an improver and not as a practical journeyman compositor. The first intimation defendant had of his being dissatsfied was on the 23rd of September when he applied for an increase of salary. Defendant increased his wages to $18, but the next day, on ascertaining the wages paid to the competent compositors, complainant said he had an opportunity of getting $25 elsewhere and wanted to leave. Defendant said if he had another situation open he could go, but it then appeared that the plaintiff was only trying a little "bounce." He became impudent, and left his work without giving notice. According to the custom of the printing trade in Shanghai he was not entitled to any wages, but $5 had been paid into Court on account of overtime last month.

   A Chinese foreman employed at the Shanghai Press corroborated the defence, and

   His Honour having gone through the accounts, said he must give judgment for the $5 paid into Court, and $2.60 for overtime this month, without costs.

 

North China Herald, 9 October,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd October.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. MACVICKERS.

   John MacVickers, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Family Hotel, Nanking Road, on Friday.

   Mr. Jackson, the proprietor of the Hotel, said the accused, who had been staying at the hotel for about two weeks, created a disturbance by shouting the previous night.  At last the police were sent for, when the accused was found struggling with another man at the top of the stairs. Prisoner had damaged property in the hotel worth about $10 or $15.

   Prisoner admitted the offence, and as it appeared he had a prospect of leaving Shanghai, the prosecutor did not press the charge and the accused was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

5th October.

R. v. HART.

   Stephen Hart, commission agent, was charged with feloniously and maliciously setting fire to the premises, No. 3 Foochow Road, occupied by him, with intent to defraud the Meiji Fire Insurance Company, with which he had insured the contents of the premises for the sum of Tls, 2,000.

[Not transcribed; very long and detailed case.]

North China Herald, 16 October,1896

[As above.]

.  .  .   The accused was then removed in custody.

.  .  .  

10th October.

R. v. MARTIN.

   William Martin, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous day.

   Sikh police constable No. 135 gave evidence that at one o'clock on the previous day he found the accused lying drunk in Broadway, and in danger of being run over. He put him in a 'ricksha and took him to the station.

   His Worship sentenced him to three days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 16 October,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th October.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. HART.

   Stephen Hart, commission agent, was charged on remand with feloniously and maliciously setting fire to the premises, No. 3 Foochow Road, occupied by him, with intent to defraud the Meiji Fire Insurance Company, with whom he had insured the contents of the premises for the sum of Tls. 2,000.

[Not transcribed.]

The accused was then removed in custody.

 

North China Herald, 16 October,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th October.

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. MARTIN.

   William Martin, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous day.

   Sikh police constable No. 135 gave evidence that at one o'clock on the previous day he found the accused lying drunk in Broadway, and in danger of being run over. He put him in a 'ricksha and took him to the station.

   His Worship sentenced him to three days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 23 October, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.' SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 16th October.

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SASSOON v. BENNERTZ.

   This was a claim by Messrs. D. Sassoon, Sons & co. against Messrs. Bennertz & Co. for Tls. 175, one month's rent of certain premises to the 15th of October. Mr. J. E. Judah represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. Bennertz appeared in person.

   Mr. Bennertz addressing his Lordship, said - On the 5th of October, my legal adviser, Mr. Wilkinson, paid a cheque for Tls.175 to Messrs. Sassoon & Co. and they, knowing that I am now in great difficulties regarding my business, have simply, through spite, brought this case into Court, and now it is only a matter o costs.

   His Lordship - The petition was filed on the 23rd of September, and when do you say your payment was made?

   Defendant - On the 5th of October, by cheque.

   His Lordship - That was after the petition?

   Defendant - yes, I asked the plaintiff several times and said the money would be paid; it is not money actually due but money paid in advance for rent.

   His Lordship - It may be very hard of Messrs. Sassoon, but I am afraid I cannot help you. The costs, of course, they are entitled to, as you did not pay before the petition.  [To Mr. Judah) - What do you say on behalf of Messrs. Sassoon; are they prepared to waive the costs?

   Mr. Judah - No, we have waived the costs in a former suit, and we cannot waive them in this. There is another month due yesterday, and I am afraid I shall have to ask for another summons.

   His Lordship - I am afraid you will have to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 23 October,1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT

Shanghai, 15th October

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. LING CHUEN-SENG AND OTHERS.

   Ling Chuen-seng, boatswain, and ten seamen of the Whampoa, were charged with refusing duty on the 15th inst.

   Captain Anderson, of the Whampoa, said he gave the boatswain permission to go ashore to the Consulate to lodge a complaint, but did not give leave to the other men. Witness had heard there had been some trouble between the chief officer and the man at Taiwanfoo, and had put one of the men in irons, but afterwards released him. Witness put the man in irons to prevent any further trouble, the more so as the chief officer had a black eye and had nearly been thrown overboard. He (witness) asked the chief officer whether he had struck any of the men first, and he said no. There had never been any complaint against the chief officer.

   Ling Chuen-seng, the boatswain, was cautioned and said he obtained permission from the captain to go on shore, and when the other men heard he was going to the Consulate they insisted upon accompanying him.

   Witness told the captain that the mate wanted a commission out of his (witness) wages and that he was afraid he would be ill-treated by the mate if he did not give him some money. The men all wished to be discharged and would rather go to gaol than go back to the ship. They came to the Consulate to complain that they were kept at work for 14 or 15 hours at a time. Witness was struck by the second officer at Taiwanfoo. The chief officer, and one of the men, Ling I-sheng, were having a fight, and the chief engineer told witness to separate them, but when he tried to do so the second officer struck him.

   Robert Gillespie, chief officer of the Whampoa, said he struck one man for cheek and insult, but did not strike any of the others. The man in question called witness a "son of a -----," and witness struck him. Witness positively denied having struck any of the other men.

   His Worship ordered Ling I-sheng to pay a fine of $5, and each of the others to pay $1 court expenses.

.  .  .  

R. v. REYNOLD.

   Richard Reynold, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the 15th inst.

   Native P.C. No. 115 proved the charge.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

19th October

R. v. DAHLGRAM AND THORPE.

   Charles Dahlgram and Matthew Thorpe, belonging to the British ship Indore, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and fighting with each other in Broadway, and the latter with also assaulting native police constable No. 351 in the execution of his duty.

   Police Constable Dahl said that on the previous afternoon at about half past one he saw the accused fighting at the corner of Broadway and the Nanzing Road. They were both drunk, and when witness interfered the crowd of sailors surrounding them resisted. Thorpe was dragged away and escaped, but was re-arrested by a native constable. The other prisoner went quietly to the station.

   Native police constable No. 351 corroborated and said Thorpe pushed and tried to strike him.

   Accused admitted the offence, and

   His Worship ordered them to be put on board their ship at their own expense.


 

North China Herald, 30 October, 1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd October

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. MIDDLETON.

   Mr. Osborne Middleton appeared to a summons alleging that on the 6th inst. he drove a pony and trap to the common danger over the Loongfei Bridge. Inspector Wilson watched the case for the Police.  The hearing occupied over two hours. .  .  .  

   His Worship pointed out that the Police had difficult and important duties to discharge, and it was therefore necessary they should be assisted, but at the same time the evidence in the present case was so well balanced that it was difficult to give a decision. However, he would dismiss the summons, with a caution to Mr. Middleton.

.  .  .  

20th October

R. v. KING.

   Edward King, unemployed, of no fixed abode, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by jumping into the Huangpoo River from thr Kungping Road jetty on the previous day.

   Accused, in reply to his Worship, said he arrived from Japan three days before, but had no promise of employment. He wished to get to Honolulu, to look after the lepers. He had been in Japan for a few months, engaged in a newspaper officer. He came to Shanghai because there were no boats leaving for Honolulu before the 17th of November.

   George Sterling said he saw the accused pass his house two or three times and then make a rush for the gangway leading to the river in the Old Docks. Accused jumped from a step into a sampan, and witness, thinking he was going into the river, jumped into the water. When witness got out he saw the accused on board the Lyeemoon.

   Accused said he wanted to get on the wharf.  The gate was closed, and the only way he could see to get in was to get in to the sampan and go right round.  He wanted to get on the Saikio Maru. He had been sick in Japan for about a week and was in hospital.

   Dr. Green, Medical Health Officer, said the accused required proper care and attention, and he put in a letter reporting the result of examining him.

   His Worship, addressing the accused, said he thought it would be for his good to be in a place where he could have proper treatment and friends to talk to.  He was passing no sentence, but if the accused would take a week's rest and  come and see him again he (his Worship) would see what could be done.

   Accused who during the examination appeared somewhat strange, asked whether he could choose his own doctor, but he eventually said he would take the Magistrate's advice.


 

North China Herald, 30 October,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 27th October

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.

NUTTAH SINGH v. AJAR SINGH.

   This was a claim for $25m, money lent during July last.

   The plaintiff said that he lent the defendant the $25 on the understanding that he would pay it in two months. A witness saw the money pass, but there was no receipt.  When the plaintiff requested payment the defendant said he would not pay the money as a friend of his had lost his job through him (plaintiff.)

   Natas Singh said he was aware the defendant had received the money, and

   Otum Singh deposed to seeing the plaintiff give the defendant the $25.

   The defendant entirely repudiated the loan and alleged that the case was brought out of spite, he being of a different sect. The plaintiff had been out of work and did not have the money to lend.

   Caen Singh said he knew the plaintiff had a grudge against defendant, and he would surely have known if the money had been lent. To his knowledge there was no debt.

   Allah Singh and Junda Singh gave similar evidence, and the plaintiff having been recalled,

   His Honour dismissed the case, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 6 November, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 5th November

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Esq., Chief Justice.

TATA v. BENNERTZ.

   This was a claim by Messrs Tata and Co. Merchants and commission agents, against Messrs. Bennertz and Co. for Tls. 1,795.70 for coal sold and delivered during the month of July. Mr. F. Ellis (Messrs. Browett & Ells) appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H. P. Wilkinson for the defendants.

   Mr. Wilkinson said he consented to a judgment for the amount claimed, less Tls. 70, which his learned friend agreed was owing as a set-off. Mr. Ellis had also agreed to execution being strayed for a month.

   His Lordship - Then there will be judgment for Tls. 1,635.70, with taxed costs, execution to be stayed for a month.

   Mr. Ellis - Yes, my Lord. I agree to that.

 

North China Herald, 13 November, 1896

H.B.M.'S POLCE COURT.

Shanghai, 7th November

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. REYNOLDS.

   Richard Reynolds, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous night at eleven o'clock. Accused admitted the offence, and was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

11th November.

R. v. KNIGHT.

   James Knight, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous afternoon.

   Police constable No. 42 said he arrested the accused, who was drunk and disorderly outside the Sailors' Home, whilst he was attempting to fight an Indian who was passing by. Accused went to the police station quietly.

   Inspector Bourke informed his Worship that the accused had been twice locked up for drunkenness, and released, while he was constantly drunk and interfering witth 'ricksha coolies.

   Accused admitted being drunk, but disclaimed any knowledge of what happened. 

   Mr. James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the accused was a nuisance, and

   His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 13 November, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 11th November

Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Assistant Judge.

OLSEN v. CHEE WOO.

   This was a case arising out of a summons by Mr. A. Olsen for $99.99 agaisnst Chee Woo, for failure to supply for the steam-boat Kingsu from Thursday, the 5th of November, to Saturday, the 7th of November, as per agreement.

   Mr. A. Olsen, the plaintiff, stated that he was the owner of the Normand, plying between Shanghai and Woosung, which on the morning of the 5th instant met with a mishap to her engines. In order not to disappoint the public, and for the convenience of passengers who had taken return tickets, he arranged with the Chee Woo tug-boat office for the use of the steam-boat Kingsu, at the rate of $60 a day, to temporarily take her place.  He was told by the defendants that the tug would be at the Nanking Road jetty  at one o'clock on the 5th, and plaintiff saw her there, but the master, Captain Davey, came up to plaintiff and stated, first of all, that her machinery was out of order, and eventually that he had to do some towing, so that plaintiff could not have the Kingsu.

   Captain Davey informed his Honour that the Kingsu was not licensed by the Customs to carry passengers, and that he was unable to do what Mr. Olsen required as the engines were out of order. The contract was entered into before the office knew that the machinery required repairing.

   Chee Woo, a British subject, whose evidence was interpreted, admitted arranging with the plaintiff for the hire of the tug boat at $60 a day.

   His Honour said he required some explanation of the way in which the plaintiff made up his claim.

   Mr. Olsen said the net earnings of the Normand averaged $40 a day. The gross earnings varied from $70 to $120 a day. On previous occasions he had hired a tug--boat from the defendant and obtained the permission of the Customs to transfer his (plaintiff's) passenger licence to that boat, for the time being. He had lost at least $80 by the defendant's failure to carry out the contract.

   His Honour said the plaintiff was evidently entitled to something, and he would award him $50, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT. (IN BANKRUPTCY.)

Shanghai, 14th November

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice,

IN RE LEE SAK-LONG.

   This was a sitting for the public examination of the debtor, Lee Sak-long, carrying on business in the French Concession, against whom, on his own petition, a receiving order was made on the 2nd of November.  The debtor estimated his liabilities at Tls. 1093,110.80 and his assets at Tls. 23,087.

   Mr. Clennel, the Assistant Official Receiver, informed his Lordship that the meeting of creditors had been held and adjourned to the 1st of December.

   His Lordship, there being no creditors present, adjourned the public examination to the same day.

 

North China Herald, 20 November,12896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 19th November

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice,

TAKU TUG AND LIGHTER CO., defendants and appellants, and The Master of the "Chin Wan Li," plaintiff and respondent

   This was an appeal from a judgment by H.B.M.'s Consul at Tientsin, given on the 29th of July last, in a case arising out of a collision between a vessel belonging to the Taku Tug and Lighterage Co. and a native junk. The Court found both parties to blame and assessed the damages at Tls. 1,.840, of which half was to be borne equally by the plaintiff and defendant, the effect being that Tls. 920 became due to the plaintiffs, which had been paid into Court pending an appeal.

   The plaintiff's representative attended and explained to his Lordship through Mr. Clennel, the Chief Clerk, the position of affairs, and asked for an early decision, in order that he might return to the North before the port of Tientsin closed for the winter.

   His Lordship said he would give his decision in a day or two.

 

North China Herald, 20 November, 1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th November

Before H. Bencraft Joly, Esq., Police Magistrate.

BALLAH SINGH v. CULSHAW.

   Sergeant Culshaw, of the Municipal Police, in charge of Carter Road police station, appeared to a summons alleging that he assaulted Ballah Singh, a Sikh, watchman.

   The complainant's story was to the effect that early on the morning of the 6th inst. he was lying drunk, inside his house, when a Sikh constable arrested him and took him to the police station, where the defendant assaulted him by striking him on the hand with a stick. Complainant asserted he did not misbehave himself, and whilst he was detained he lost the property at his house.

   Sergeant Culshaw said he had authority from the gentleman who employed the complainant as watchman to remove him. When the man was brought to the station he was helplessly drunk. It was absolutely untrue that he (defendant) assaulted him in any way.

   Sikh police constable No. 56 deposed to removing the complainant from the premises where he was employed. He was drunk, and the sore finger which he asserted the defendant had caused existed the day before, as witness saw him with his finger bound up.

   A native interpreter corroborated, and 

   His Worship dismissed the case and ordered the complainant to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 27 November,1896

LAW REPORT.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT. (IN ADMIRALTY.)

Shanghai, 24th November.

Before Sir. N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

TAKU TUG & LIGHTER CO., defendants and appellants, and THE MASTER OF THE "CHIN WAN LI," plaintiffs and respondents.

   Judgment was delivered in this case which was an appeal from a judgment by H.B.M.'s Consul at Tientsin, given on the 29th of July last, in a case arising out of a collision between a vessel belonging to the Taku Tug and Lighter Co., and a native junk. The Court found both parties to blame and assessed the damages at Tls. 1,840, of which half was to be borne equally by the plaintiff and defendant, the effect being that Tls. 920 became due to the plaintiff, which had been paid into Court pending an appeal.

   His Lordship, in giving his decision said - Judgment in this case must be confirmed. The junk was at anchor in an improper position and was therefore partly to blame. 

[Not transcribed.]

 

North China Herald, 27 November, 1896

H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd November

Before Mr. G. Pitzipios, Acting Assistant Judge.

MAULI-TAZ v. STEPHEN HART.

   This was a claim for $78.56 for wages and goods supplied.

   The plaintiff acted as cook to the defendant, and had not received the sum sued for, which was due to him for wages and money disbursed. Defendant did not appear.

   Plaintiff said he supplied food and attendance to the defendant for $30 a month. The $78.56 covered a period of two months, including $18.56 due for tiffins supplied to Mr. Hart's friends at 30 cents a head.  Hart admitted the debt by giving a compradore's order for the amount, which the compradore refused to pay. The order was for $70.46, but Hart cut $8.10, to which plaintiff agreed.

   Judgment for the plaintiff.


 

North China Herald, 4 December,1896

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 30th November

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

DONG PING-KEE v. HART.

   This was a suit by Dong Ping-kee, a merchant carrying n business in the French Concession, against Mr. Stephen Hart. The defendant did not appear, ad formal evidence of the service upon him of the notice of hearing was given. The plaintiff's petition alleged that on the 13th of May he lent the defendant $100 upon a promise to pay within two months. On the 10th of May he also advanced, on the defendant's account, $105.95 and Tls. 65.76. Nothing had been repaid.

   The plaintiff, having been cautioned, described himself as  at one time acting as compradore to the defendant, who promised to pay the sums due when he had engaged a compradore. He had not done so, however.  Plaintiff produced the bills signed by the defendant.

   His Lordship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.


 

North China Herald, 11 December, 1896

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 20th December

Before G. D. Pritzipios, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. DANIELS.

   James Daniels, was charged with begging and annoying visitors at the Astor House on the previous day.

   Police sergeant Gibson having deposed to seeing the accused inside the hall at the Astor House begging,

   Inspector Bourke informed his Worship that the prisoner had been obtaining food and sleeping accommodation at the Hongkew Police Station for the last two or three days. Prisoner had told him he was out of employment and wanted to get to India. There had been several complaints from residents that the prisoner had been begging of them in public places.

   His Worship ordered him to go to prison for three days.

.  .  .  

R. v. FUJAH SINGH.

   Fugah Singh, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Hongkew Police Station compound on the previous day.

   P. S. Spong said that at 6.30 p.m. he saw the prisoner drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha, in the Hongkew Police Station. He had been brought bin by the 'ricksha coolie.

   His Worship discharged him with a caution.

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