Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1897

North China Herald, 8 January, 1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 5th January

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

THE BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN AND THE STRAITS, LTD. v.  PURCELL.

   This was a sitting in connection with a judgment summons against Mr. Charles Harris Purcell, for £1,317 11s. 9d. in respect of calls upon 1260 ordinary shares of the above bank. An order was made against the defendant for the sum named on the 16th of October. Mr. J. C. Hanson (Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) for the defendant.

   Mr. Hanson informed his Lordship that since the judgment summons had been taken out a receiving order in Bankruptcy had been served on the plaintiffs.

   Mr. Nelson applied that under these circumstances the judgment should be struck out.

   His Lordship said there was no reason why the judgment summons should be struck out, as that would imply it was improper to issue it, which could not be, as it was before the receiving order.


 

North China Herald, 15 January, 1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 11th January

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

IN RE CHARLES HARRIS PURCELL.

   This was a sitting for the public examination of Mr. Charles Harris Purcell, who, on his own petition, was adjudged a bankrupt on the 20th of December last.    

.  .  .  

[Not transcribed.


 

North China Herld, 15 January, 1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th January

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

R. v. HAMILTON.

   William Hamilton, belonging to the Prometheus, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday and with assaulting Police constable Donaldson in the execution of his duty.

   Police constable Donaldson said that shortly before midnight on Saturday the accused and another man were misbehaving themselves in Broadway, when he remonstrated with them. Upon that they knocked him down, and the prisoner became so violent that another constable had to come to witness' assistance.

   Police Constable Rumboldt corroborated, adding that Hamilton was very violent and several times assaulted the last witness. Two more policemen arrived and the prisoner was taken to the station.

   His Worship said the case was a serious one and the accused would have to go to prison for a week. Subsequently it transpired that the accused's ship was leaving almost at once, and his Worship imposed a fine of $5 instead of the imprisonment.

.  .  .  

12th January

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman, unemployed, of no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the North Szechuen Road on the previous night.

   Police constable Rumboldt said he found the accused helplessly drunk in an alleyway off the North Szechuen Road, and took him to the station.

   Accused strenuously denied being drunk and declared he had fallen down in a fit.  He had left the Hospital and now wished to be medically examined.

   His Worship said the accused had been released when previously charged with a similar offence. He would now go to prison for three days', with hard labour, or pay a fine of $5.


 

North China Herald, 22 January, 1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 18th January

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

R. v. MURPHY.

   Patrick Murphy, fireman on the s.s. Romney, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Boone Road on Sunday night.

   Sikh police constable No, 80 proved the charge, and

   His Worship sentenced the accused to three days' hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 29 January, 1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 23rd January.

 Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

 IN RE G. B. REA.

 This was a sitting for the public examination of Mr. G. B. Rea.  Mr. T. L. Bullock (Official Receiver), was present, and Mr. F. Ellis (Messrs. Browett & Ellis) appeared for the debtor.

   The debtor, being sworn, in reply to the Official Receiver, said he was an apprentice pilot, getting no pay, and had not kept any books. He had become bankrupt from lack of employment and debt on account of calls on Bank of China shares. He bought the shares in December,1893 - 600 for himself and 450 for a friend, paying $1.50 each. He bought them with his own money, and did not merely take them over from anybody else.

   The Official Receiver having no objection,

   His Lordship ordered the public examination of the debtor to be closed.


 

North China Herald, 29 January, 1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 25th January.

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

SUN MOW & CO. v. CHINA MUTUAL S.N. CO.

   This was a claim by Sun Mow & Co. against Mr. George Sutherland, as the agent of the China Mutual Steam Navigation Co. for $99.99 in respect of the value of one case of goods, alleged to have been shipped by the s.s. Pakling, and not delivered.  Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the defendants.

   A Chinaman, the representative of the plaintiffs, having been sworn, explained that three cases of goods had been ordered to arrive by the Pakling but only two had been received.  The value of the missing case was Tls. 70.

   Mr. Nelson, in reply to a question from his Honour, said his answer to the case was that there was no ground of action, and that he suspected a conspiracy.

   Plaintiff then went on to explain that he was not claiming against the China Mutual S.N. Co. but against Mr. James Alexander Harvie, through whom the goods were ordered. He went to the British Consulate with Mr. Harvie, imagining that he was obtaining a summons against that gentleman, but instead of that, it appeared that a summons had been issued against the China Mutual S.N. Co. (Laughter.)

   His Honour said the mistake was unfortunate.

   Mr. Nelson then applied for costs on the higher scale, but

   His Honour said he would allow the ordinary costs and non-suit the plaintiff.


 

North China Herald, 29 January, 1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 25th Jauary

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

R. v. REYNOLDS AND QUAIL.

   Frederick Reynolds and Henry Quail, both unemployed, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and damaging property to the value of $1 in a Chinese restaurant in the Tiendong Road.

   The keeper of the restaurant gave evidence that at 10 p.m. on Sunday the accused and some other men entered his place, and after being served with refreshments began a disturbance, whereupon the police were called in.

   Police coonstable Rumboldt having given ecvidence regarding the arrest,

   His Worship ordered Quail to be discharged, and sentenced Reynolds, who admitted the offence and whom against there were two previous convictions, to one months' hard labour.

.  .  .  

26th January.

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

R. v, JEWHAR SINGH.

   Jewghar Singh, a Sikh watchman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Bubbling Well Road on the previous evening and assaulting Mrs. W. H. Anderson.

   Sergeant Prest said the accused was brought to the Louza police station in a drunken state by a native constable., whereupon he created a disturbance and pulled up a rose bush which was growing in the garden. He was detained, and subsequently a complaint was received that he had assaulted a lady on the Bubbling Well Road.

   Mr. P. Cawasjee Pallanjee deposed to seeing the prisoner knock against a lady as she was walking along and then strike her in the face.

   Sergeant Prest said the lady had declined to attend the Court.

   His Worship sentenced the accused to three weeks' hard labour.

.  .  .  

28th January

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

R. v. TOFIEL AND WOOD.

   Adolph Tofiel and Thomas Wood, boatswain's mate and boatswain on board the Alice A. Leigh, appeared to a summons charging them with having assaulted Edwin Jeffery on board that vessel.

   The prosecutor said that on Tuesday he left off working in the hold and went to the forecastle to get a drink of water, when Tofiel, after speaking to him, struck him and, knocking him on to a chest, bit his cheek.  Prosecutor complained to the captain who advised him to go to the Consulate. When he was about to do so Wood interfered and struck him.

   Evidence was given by three shipmates, and Wood, who pleaded guilty, was fined $5, while Tofiel, who denied the charge, was fined $7, the defendants to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 12 February,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 9th February.

Before Sir Nicholas H. Hannen, Chief Justice.

   This was an application made by Mr. C. H. Purcell, debtor, for discharge in bankruptcy.

[Not transcribed.]

.  .  .  

  His Lordship said that all Mr. Nelson had said with regard to the debtor Purcell was approximately true; but it was not a small thing - it was a very great thing, and men - especially young men -  should be warned in the same way, that they should not indulge in that kind of speculation. He did not think any great blame was attached to Mr. Purcell's action, but at the same time he had done a thing which had placed him in a position which would probably interfere with his prospects in life;  and for his sake and that of other young men in Shanghai some notice should be taken of the case.  He should like to suspend the discharge for something like two years and three months, and he thought that before he received his discharge he should pay $600.

   Mr. Nelson asked whether his Lordship could suspend the discharge, and order so much to be paid as well.

   His Lordship reserved judgment.

.  .  .  

10th February.

.  .  .  

   My judgment is, therefore, that the bankrupt be discharged on his consenting to the Official Receiver entering judgment against him for the sum of $700, a part of the unpaid balance of the  debt, and that the manner in which this judgment shall be satisfied is by payments of not less than $25 monthly until the whole sum of $700 is paid off.


 

North China Herald, 19 February,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th February

Before H. F. Brady. Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BAGAT SINGH.

   Bagat Singh, a Sikh employed in the Sanitary Department of the Municipal Council, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Carter Road.

   Sikh Constable No. 125 said that on Sunday evening, shortly after eight o'clock, Sergeant Kelly met him in the Carter Road and directed him to arrest the prisoner, who was lying in the road drunk and incapable.

   Sergeant Kelly said the case was brought to his notice by a gentle man reporting at the police station that a man was lying dead in the roadway. Witness went there and found the accused helplessly drunk, lying in the middle of the road. The man had previously been taken to the police station, but had not been before the Court before.

   His Worship said as the accused had not been charged before he could be released on payment of a fine of $4, or in the alternative seven days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 26 February,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 19th February

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. WATTS.

   JAMES WATTS, alias JAMES JOHNSTON, belonging to the British ship Alice A. Leigh, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous day, and also with being absent from his ship without leave since the 17th inst.  Accused admitted the charge and pleaded drunkenness.

   Captain John Alexander Rookes, the master of the Alice A. Leigh, identified the prisoner as James Watts, who left the vessel on the 17th, and for whose arrest a warrant had been issued.

   His Worship ordered the accused to forfeit six days' wages, to undergo one weeks' imprisonment, and to pay the Court expenses and also the expenses of being put on board his ship.

.  .  .  

22nd February.

R. v. MIAH SINGH.

   Miah Singh, a Silk watchman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Fearon Road on Saturday.

   Sikh Police Sergeant No. 59 said that at 3 p.m. on Saturday, when walking along in plain clothes, he saw the accused drunk in Fearon Road in company with another Sikh, who was also somewhat drunk. As the witness approached the prisoner spoke to the other man, telling him to catch hold of witness. Accused then did so, with the intention of fighting him apparently. Witness reported the matter at the police station and was instructed to arrest accused. He went with a native constable, and found the prisoner making trouble with a Sikh watchman at a filature in the new Milner Road. Witness arrested the accused, who struck him on the way to the station.

   Detective George Wood said he saw the accused when brought into the charge room at the station.  He was drunk, incapable, and very violent.

   Prisoner asked to have the case remanded as he wished to obtain assistance.

   Inspector Ramsay said the accused had been before the Court on two previous occasions and had been frequently locked up and released.

   His Worship refused to adjourn the case, but imposed a fine of $4, or seven days.

.  .  .  

R. v. FINLAYSON AND ROTHWELL.

   Sam Finlayson, A.B. and West B. Rothwell, cook, belonging to the British ship Alice A. Leigh were charged with being absent from their ship without leave, Finlayson since the 11th inst., and Rothwell since the 15th inst. Both the accused admitted the charge.

   Captain Rookes, the master of the ship, said he expected to be clearing about Thursday.

   Mr. Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, informed his Worship that Finlayson, after deserting, signed on to the American ship Luzon, and witness advanced him $20 on his note.

   Finlayson admitted this but added that he wanted to get away from the cold weather.

   His Worship ordered Rothwell to forfeit ten days' wages, Finlayson 14 days' wages, and to refund the $20. They were also ordered to go to prison for seven days, or to be put on board in the event of the ship leaving earlier, and to pay all expenses.


 

North China Herald, 5 March,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th February

Before C. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. ANDERSON.

   Mr. A. L. Anderson appeared to a summons, taken out at the instance of the Captain-Superintendent of Police, alleging that contrary to Municipal Regulations he was using a private jinricksha on the evening of the 221st of January, not having a lighted lamp. Chief Inspector Howard watched the case on behalf of the Police.

   Sikh police constable No. 114 gave evidence that at about 6.25 on the evening in question, he stopped the jinricksha in which the defendant was riding in the direction of the Settlement a few yards on the west side of the temporary Loongfei Bridge. The coolie was carrying a lamp, but it was not alight. Mr. Alexander became very angry, and, as far as the witness could make out, called him a "black nigger." A foreign constable then came up, and after some conversation the defendant walked over the bridge with the 'ricksha.

   Police constable Johnson gave similar evidenced, and stated that he did not know whether the coolie lit his lamp just after crossing the bridge.

   Mr. Alexander said the peremptory manner in which the Sikh constable caught hold of the 'ricksha annoyed him very much, and provoked him to say that he did not mind being stopped by a foreign constable, but he did object to such conduct by a "black nigger." He regretted having used the expression, but at the same time, he contended that he had not broken the Regulations as he was outside the Settlement. After giving his card to the foreign constable he walked over the bridge into the Settlement, and then saw the coolie light the lamp before continuing his journey.

   Chief Inspector Howard said the Bubbling Well Road was a Municipal thoroughfare, but, at the same time, he thought it would be as well not to raise the question whether it was under the Regulations in the present case. The Police had brought the case into Court with considerable reluctance, but it had been thought necessary.

   His Worship said the defendant had committed a technical infringement of the Regulations, by the 'ricksha not having a lighted lamp when it actually entered the Settlement. The Police had difficult duties to perform, and they were entitled to expect the co-operation of residents. The case would be met by imposing a fine of $2.50 and costs.

.  .  .  

R. v. PERINOT.

   Perinot, A.B. on board the British ship Glenholm, was charged with refusing duty on the 25th of February.

   Captain Adamson, the master of the Glenholm, said that on Thursday the chief officer informed him that some six or seven of the men were in their bunks saying they were sick and refusing to work. Witness went forward and told the men to come aft. They did so, accused being among them. They were asked if they would turn to, and did so, but accused declined.  Witness warned him he would see the Consul if he persisted in his obstinacy. He took no notice, but asked for his discharge, and said he would not work when the ship got out to sea.

   Accused said he was sick and that the steward was told by the doctor to give him some quinine, but declined to do so.

   Captain Adamson said the men had all they were ordered to have, but they went ashore, got drunk, and, as a consequence, were unable to turn to and do their duty when requested.

   Accused was fined $2, ordered to pay Court fees, and to be put on board his ship.

.  .  .  

3rd March.

BAGHAT SINGH.

   Baghat Singh, an unemployed Sikh, was charged with being drunk and incapable in a licensed 'ricksha on the previous day.

   Sergeant Prest said the accused was brought to the police station on the previous afternoon, by a 'ricksha coolie. On the 15th of last month he was fined $4 for being drunk, and was then discharged from the Sanitary Department where he had been employed. 

   His Worship ordered him to pay $8, and costs.


 

North China Herald, 12 March,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th March

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. MACE.

   Mr. V. T. Mace appeared to a summons, taken out by his wife, for assaulting her on Thursday, the 4th inst.

   Mrs. Emily Mace's statement was to the effect that she had a separation order from her husband which stated that the furniture at No. 60 Yuchang Road belonged to her. She received a note from the landlord, Mr. P. Rey, and also her husband, requesting her to remove the furniture from the house. Some she took away the forenoon of Thursday, and in the afternoon went back to see to the removal of the remainder. Her husband's Chinese boy was there and began pushing her about. Mr. Mace then came up, caught hold of her, and threw her against the fence, at the same time striking her on the head. She gave him no provocation.  She went to No. 26, in the same road for protection, where her husband followed her and pushed her down on the verandah. Her son and daughter also witnessed the assault. A Mr. Davidson came out and took her home, and though he had promised to attend the Court that morning he was not present. She desired to call him as a witness, and wished the case adjourned for his attendance.

   C. F. Perkins, who was in Court, at the request of his Worship stated what he knew of the case. He said he was at No. 26 Yuchang Road with two friends, whilst another was sleeping, when Mr. Mace came into the room and said to Davidson, "For God's sake send that woman away." Davidson went out and got her away. Witness heard no angry words between the defendant and prosecutrix prior to that, and in fact he and his friends were too much engaged in their conversation to pay much attention.

   Defendant admitted pushing his wife down on the verandah at No. 26, because she was abusing him, but he denied striking her.

   His Worship, at this point, adjourned the case for the attendance of other witnesses.

   Upon resuming in the afternoon,

   Joseph Gibson Davidson said he was at No,. 26 when Mr. Mace came into the place, followed by Mrs. Mace. The defendant asked witness to put her out, and he did so. There were some words on the verandah between the two, but witness did not see what actually happened and he thought it was not his business. He saw Mrs. Mace fall on the verandah, but he did not see her struck.

   William Williams, a boy of fourteen, the son of Mrs. Mace, said he saw his step-father strike his mother at No. 60, and pull her down on the verandah at No. 26. Witness and his sister interfered to protect their mother.

   The defendant said he went to No. 69 to see the furniture removed, accompanied by his Chinese servant. Mrs. Mace attacked the boy with a bamboo, and then he (defendant) interfered to protect him. He pulled her away. His wife, and her son and daughter, followed him to No. 26, which was about sixty yards away, and there he pushed her down.

   Defendant's servant corroborated his master as to Mrs. Mace attacking him, but as he persisted in trying to talk about irrelevant matters His Worship said his testimony was not of much use to either side.

   His Worship, in giving his decision, said the defendant must know that he was not justified in taking the law into his own hands.  To assault a person it was not necessary to actually inflict a blow, and there was no doubt that the defendant threw his wife down. Under the circumstances the defendant would have to pay a fine of $20, or in the alternative, a fortnight's imprisonment. He would also have to enter into his own recognisances, in the sum of $100, to keep the peace for three months.

.  .  .  

R. v. PRIODET SINGH.

   Priodet Singh, an unemployed Sikh watchman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Kweichow Road on the previous evening.

   From the evidence of Police Constable Marshall and a native constable, it appeared that the accused refused to pay a 'ricksha coolie, and walked off with a cushion. He was continually getting drunk.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $8, or a fortnight's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

Shanghai, 8th March

R. v. COX.

   Edwin Cox was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous afternoon.

   Accused admitted the offence and expressed contrition, and the evidence showing that he gave no trouble,

   His Worship discharged him with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. WASSOON SINGH, NUDAN SINGH AND BAGHWAN SINGH.

   Three Sikh watchmen were charged with assaulting another named Shan Singh.

   His Worship, after hearing the complainant's story, dismissed the case.


 

North China Herald, 12 March,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 5th March.

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

MAU LI-CHANG v. HART

   Mr. Stephen Hart appeared to an adjourned judgment summons.

   The plaintiff stated that three months had elapsed since the defendant promised to pay the money.

   The defendant said he had written to his brother at home in the hope of raising the money, but had received no answer. He was not earning any money, and had no property.

   His Honour again adjourned the case sine die.


 

North China Herald, 19 March,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th March

Before H. F. Brady. Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. JEWAR SINGH.

   Jewar Singh, an unemployed Sikh watchman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Sinza Road on the previous day.

   The evidence of a Sikh constable was to the effect that the accused, who had previously been before the Court, was found incapably drunk in a compound in the Sinza Road.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $4 or seven days' hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 26 March,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 20th March

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KINSELA, O'NEIL, AND ROGAN.

   Thomas Kensila, A.B., Maurice O'Neil, A.B., and William Rogan, A.B., belonging to the British ship Claverdon, were charged with various offences on board, the first named with assaulting the carpenter, and refusal of duty; the second with assaulting the mate, and the third with threatening the mate with his knife.

   His Worship, after going into the case very fully, sentenced Kinsela to a month's imprisonment for the assault and to forfeit two days' pay for refusing duty; and O'Neil and Rogan a week's imprisonment each.


 

North China Herald, 26 March,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 19th March

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

IN RE G. B. REA.

.  .  .  

His Lordship said that in the absence of the Chief Justice it would be necessary to adjourn the case. After some conversation it was agreed that the application a should be made on Thursday net.

25th March.

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

IN RE G. B. REA.

. . .

Mr. McNeil, in reply, urged  that it was not right that the debtor, because he happened to have no regular income should be able to escape at once from the consequences of his speculatuion, and he suggested that judgment should be entered for $500 or, at any rate a sum should be fixed and the bankrupt should be obliged to furnish a statement of  his income from time to time.

   His Lordship said he certainly was of opinion that it was necessary that people should be reminded that they could not enter into speculations, and then relieve themselves of their liabilities by simply going to the Bankruptcy Court. He therefore ordered the discharge to be suspended for two years, and that the  debtor should consent to judgment for the payment of $400.


 

North China Herald, 2 April,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 26th March

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. AJAB SINGH.

   Ajab Singh, a Sikh, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Hanbury Road on the previous afternoon.

   Chinese Police-constable No. 234 having proved the charge, stating that he found the accused helplessly drunk and took him to the station,

   His Worship ordered the accused to pay the costs of the Court.

.  .  .  

29th March.

R. v. HARTMANN.

   William Hartmann, A.B.,of the s.s. Anapa, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway at 4 o'clock on the previous afternoon.

   Sikh Police-constable No, 144 proved the charge, adding that the accused was assaulting a 'ricksha coolie in the Tiendong Road.

   His Worship discharged the prisoner with a caution, and ordered him to be put on board his ship.

.  .  .  

31st March.

R. v. PERRIN DETTA.

   Perrin Detta, a Sikh watchman, was charged by Inspector Reed with being drunk and incapable in the Yangtzepoo Road on Tuesday.

   Prisoner admitted the offence and his Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $8, with the option of a fortnight's imprisonment. Prisoner paid the fine.


 

North China Herald, 15 April,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 9th April

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. MIERS AND WOODS.

   John Miers and Thomas Woods, both belonging to the British ship Clarendon, were charged with being absent without leave. They pleaded guilty. Captain Kelway said the men were all right at sea, but had been very troublesome while the vessel was in Shanghai. They came aboard with liquor which the mate would not allow them to retain. They slipped off while the officers were at breakfast.

   His Worship said the conduct of the men on the Clarendon seemed perfectly absurd. The ship had only been three weeks in port, yet he had a long list of defaulters. It was perfectly astonishing to him. He ordered the two defendants to pay the costs of the Court ($4.50 each), and to forfeit eight days' pay.

.  .  .  

12th April

R. v. MIERS, WOOD AND RICHARDS.

   Thomas Miers, John Woods, and Thomas Richards were charged with absenting themselves from the British ship Clarendon without leave.

   His Worship, after the offence had been proved, sentenced Miers and Woods to seven days' imprisonment and ordered Richards to pay the expenses of the Court.

.  .  .  

13th April.

R. v. GOOD AND JOHNSEN.

   William Good and Eric Johnsen, the former belonging to the British ship Stronsa, and the latter to the British shop Musselcrag, were charged with being drunk and incapable.

   His Worship ordered them to pay the costs of the Court, and discharged them with a caution.

.  .  .  

14th April

R. v. McDONALD AND HOULEN.

   John McDonald and John Houlen, belonging to the British shop Stronsa, were charged with being absent from their ship without leave.

   His Worship, the offence having been proved, ordered the men to forfeit two days' pay, to pay the costs of the Court, and to be put on board their ship.


 

North China Herald, 23 April,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 17th April.

Before F. Seitz, Esq., First Secretary.

   ULRICH SCHNEIDER, MARTIN JOHNSEN, AND ALBERT SCHUTZ, stewards belonging to the German mail steamer Bayern, were charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting a 'ricksha coolie, and throwing his 'ricksha into the river. They were further charged with assaulting two watchmen at the China Merchants' Lower Wharf, and with assaulting the Police.

   The charge having been proved the prisoners were each sentenced to pay a fine of nine marks, with the option of three days' imprisonment, and were also ordered to pay the sum of $9  damages.

 

North China Herald, 23 April,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 5th April

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GOOD AND RICHARDS.

   William Good, of the British ship Stronsa, and Thomas Richards, of the British ship Claverdon, were charged with being absent without leave.

   His Worship sentenced Good to three days' imprisonment and Richards to seven days.

.  .  .  

19th April

R. v. GOOD.

   William Good, belonging to the British ship Stronsa, which left on Saturday, was charged with desertion and being drunk and incapable. Mr. Rivero, of the Shipping Office, said a warrant was issued for the prisoner's arrest on the 27th

 Inst. and Inspector Bourke informed his Worship that the accused had been before the Court on two occasions for being drunk and incapable and for absence without leave.

   His Worship pointed out to the accused, who had nothing to say, that by his desertion he had forfeited his wages and any clothes he had on board. Moreover, he was liable to forfeit any wages he might earn in his next ship, so that if the Board of Trade enforced that when he got home he would find he had had a very expensive "spree."

   Sikh police constable No. 81 having proved the charge of drunkenness,

   His Worship dealt with the two charges at once and sentenced the accused to three weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 30 April,1897

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

Shanghai, 29th April

Before James Scott, Esq., Assistant Judge.

CHANG SUEN-SUNG v. MARKS.

   Chang Suen-sung, employed by Mr. S. Marks as a bar-boy at the Skating Rink, sued the latter for $11, balance of wages due.

   The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that he was engaged by defendant as bat-boy for $14 a month, of which he had only received $3.

   Siao Yung-dong, butler at the Astor House Hotel, said Mr. Marks asked him to get some boys for his bar at the Skating Rink, and he introduced the plaintiff and some others. The defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $14 a month, but he did not do so, and there were some other boys who had not been paid.

   Defendant said he agreed to pay $12 a month and admitted owing only $5, the plaintiff having collected chits for which he had nit accounted.

   His Honour said he must decide the case on the evidence before him, and on the basis of the boy's wages being $14 he found for the plaintiff for $6, without costs.

.  .  .  

JOHNSON v. BANNERMAN.

   Sam Johnson, native boarding-house master, claimed $44 from John Bannerman for board and lodging. The plaintiff did not attend, but the defendant admitted the  debt and agreed to pay $4 a month.


 

North China Herald, 30 April,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th April

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. OXENHAM.

   Frederick Oxenham, A.B. belonging to the British ship Ancona, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous night. The evidence was to the effect that the accused was found by a native constable lying in the Broadway, near the Chaufing Road.

   His Worship dismissed him with a caution.

.  .  .  

28th April

R. v. O'NEILL.

   James O'Neill, an unemployed seaman, living at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Tuesday night.

   Accused admitted the offence, and was discharged with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 7 May,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 4th May.

 Before H. F. Brady. Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Woosung Road, on Monday night.

   Native P.C. No. 335 proved the charge, and Inspector Bourke having informed His Worship that prisoner had been several times convicted for the same offence a sentence of one week's hard labour was imposed.


 

North China Herald, 14 May,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th May.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. JAMIESON, FISHER, AND PITCHER.

   A. Jamieson, H. Fisher, and C. Pitcher, unemployed seamen, were charged with being drunk and incapable in the Broadway on the previous day. They admitted the offence, and Pitcher, who was given a good character, was released, the others being sentenced to one day each.


 

North China Herald, 21 May,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th May

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GILLEN.

   John P. Gillen, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Sailors' Home on Thursday.

   Mr. Eveleigh said he knew nothing about the present charge, but gave prisoner a bad character and said he had given a lot of trouble since he had been in the Home.

   Prisoner admitted the charge and His Worship imposed a fine of $4.

.  .  .  

R. v. POWER.

   William Power, an A.B. belonging to the Musselcrag, was charged with being drunk and incapable in a licensed 'ricksha at the Hongkew Police Station on Friday morning.

   P.C. No. 9 proved the charge and the prisoner admitting the offence was fined $1 and ordered to be put on board his ship.

.  .  .  

17th May

R. v. CREMAR AND ANDERSON.

   J. Cremar and Peter Anderson, belonging to the Clan Buchanan, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Travellers' Hotel on Sunday.

   Prisoners were both sent to gaol for a week.

.  .  .  

R. v. NELSON AND LONGFIST.

   A. Nelson and P. Longfist, also belonging to the Clan Buchanan, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and were fined $5 each, with the option of seven day's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. HICKMAN.

   Charles Hickkan, belonging to the British ship Commonwealth, was charged with being absent without leave.

   Prisoner was sentenced to a week's imprisonment.

.  .  . 

R. v. BOOH SINGH.

   Booh Singh, a Sikh, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Chekiang Road.

   Prisoner was fined $2, with the option of four day's imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 28 May,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th May.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. VINCENT.

   Percy Vincent was brought before the Court for the purpose of obtaining a remand, the prisoner having been arrested in consequence of a telegram received from Hongkong.

   His Worship granted a remand of one week, pending the arrival of a warrant from Hongkong.

 

North China Herald, 4 June,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 31st May.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BAUGH SINGH.

   Baugh Singh, unemployed, and having no fixed abode, was charged with assaulting Indian P.C. 91 whilst in the execution of his duty in North Shanse Road at 10.40 a.m. yesterday. The charge having been proven,

   His Worship ordered the accused to pay a fine of $2 or go to prison for three days.

.  .  .  

2nd June.

R. v. GOOD.

   William Good, A.B. unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous afternoon. He admitted the charge. Sergeant Ballantyne stated that it was his third offence.

   His Worship imposed a sentence of eight days' imprisonment.

   Good was then charged with deserting from the ship Clam Mackenzie; he also admitted that offence.

   Mr. J. Eveleigh, Manager of the Sailors' Home, stated that he cashed an advance note of $30, or £3, for Good, and in consequence of his failing to join the ship he (Mr. Eveleigh) had lost $20. He asked that should an opportunity occur Good be liberated to be put on board a ship.

   This was granted by his Worship, who sentenced Good to six weeks' imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently and to carry hard labour.

. . .  .  

3rd June.

R. v. VINCENT.

   Percy Vincent, formerly employed as storekeeper in the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. in Hongkong, was brought up to answer a charge of having stolen two boxes on the 28th of May, some cups and saucers, and a quantity of glassware, the property of his employers.

   Sergeant John Holt, of the Hongkong Police, who had been sent up from the colony, produced a warrant for the accused, whom he identified.

   Accused made no statement, and said he would reserve anything he had to say.

   His Worship committed the accused to prison, adding that he would not be surrendered fort ten days, so that if he liked, he could move for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.


 

North China Herald, 4 June,1897

MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 2nd June

Before Mr. T'o Tso-lun, Magistrate, and Mr. James Scott, Assessor.

   JOSEPH O'NEILL was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining board and lodging under false pretences.

   Evidence was given by Mrs. Kirk to the effect that the prisoner had resided in her house for four months from the 26th September last. He paid $40 in advance, which was all witness had received from him, and he still owed $260. He had repeatedly been asked for payment, but always evaded a settlement by saying that he expected money from home.

   Mrs. C. E. Seitz said the prisoner had lived in her house for a month or six weeks prior to the 28th of April last. She had not received any money from him. When pressed for payment he made certain statements about money which he said he had in the bank, which were afterwards found to be false. He owed witness a sum of about $95.

   Inspector Bourke said prisoner owed $28.85 to Mrs. Johnson, of Quinsan Road.

   Prisoner said he would be only too glad to pay his creditors, had he the means. His names was Joseph O'Neill, although he might sometimes have signed chits with other names.

   Mr. Scott requested the prisoner to sign his name on a piece of paper, which was done, prisoner signing "Joseph O'Neill."

   Mr. Scott - You sign this name now, and yet the other day you came to my office and signed the name "Neil."

   Prisoner - Oh, I intended to change my name at that time to Neil. I found it convenient to dispense with the "O" on account of my debts.

   Inspector Bourke asked that the prisoner might be deported to the Straits, and after Mr. Scott had consulted with the magistrate, he was sentenced to be deported from China, failing the production of satisfactory security for the payment of the debts and a guarantee for the future.

 

North China Herald, 11 June,1897

MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 7th June

Before Mr. T'o Tso-lun, Magistrate, and Mr. James Scott, Assessor.

EVANS v. SU PAU-SUN.

  This as an action to recover the sum of Tls. 39,886.65, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, on account of the purchase money of certain goods supplied to the defendant.

   Mr. D. MacNeill (Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson) represented the plaintiff, and the defendant appeared in person.   Mr. Evans detailed the causes which had led up to this action and put in various papers relating to the case, after which the hearing was adjourned for a fortnight, in order to give the defendant time to go over the accounts.

 

North China Herald, 11 June,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 4th June.

 Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BURCHILL.

   J. Burchill, a steward on the P. & O. steamer Rosetta, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night and striking a Sikh constable.

   His Worship fined him $1 for being drunk, $3 for assaulting the policeman, and ordered him to be put on board his ship.

.  .  .  

7th June.

R. v. FARLEY.

   Edward Farley, A.B. of the ship Brodick Castle, was charged with bringing liquor on board, and refusing to work the ship when asked to do so by the mate and second mate, and with disobeying the lawful commands of the master on the 16th of January, and further with assaulting the mate on the 5th of March.

   Captain Ferguson having given evidence bearing on the charges, the prisoner was committed to prison for six weeks.

.  .  .  

R. v. O. ANDERSEN, L. ANDERSEN, HOGGETT, AND BROWN.

   O. Andersen, K. Andersen, J. H. Hoggett and J. Brown, A.B.s belonging to the Brodick Castle, were charged with refusing to obey the lawful command of the master and with mutinous conduct.

   His Worship fined Brown two days' pay and sent the other three to gaol for a week each.

.  .  .  

R. v. NEWTON.

   William Newton, A.B. of the same ship, was charged with bringing liquor on board and refusing to obey lawful commands on the 16th January.

   He was sent to prison for a week and ordered to pay the costs of the case.

.  .  .  

R. v. ROSS, ANDERSEN AND FARLEY.

   John Ross, Oscar Andersen, and Edward Farley, of the Brodick Castle, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, together with a number of men not in custody, on the previous evening and assaulting Sikh P.C. 132 and Native P.C.s103, 266, 451, and 465, and damaging their uniforms to the amount of £3. 

   Prisoners were fined $2 each and ordered to pay $1 each damages.

   Ross was then further charged with cutting and wounding P.C. 465 with a knife while in the execution of his duty, at the same time and place.

   The injured constable was cautioned and testified that he saw a knife in the prisoner's hand, and that the prisoner stuck him with it on the head and hand.

   Inspector Bourke handed up the constable's hat for his Worship's inspection, calling attention to a punctured hole, evidently made with some sharp instrument.

   The prisoner denied having used a knife in the scuffle, and the case was adjourned until the afternoon, in order that medical evidence might be produced.

   Upon the case being resumed,

   Walter Loh, assistant surgeon at St. Luke's Hospital, was called. He said that on the previous evening the constable came to the Hospital. He had two wounds on his head, and another on his hand, which were all bleeding profusely. There were also bruises on the head. Witness dressed his injuries and sent him back to his station. Witness was of opinion that the wounds had been inflicted with a sharp pointed instrument. They could not have been inflicted with a stick. The constable said that the injuries were caused during a fight in Broadway.

   The prisoner was asked if he had any questions to ask the witness, but replied in the negative.

   His Worship said he had a doubt as to whether a knife was the weapon used and would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and treat the case as one of aggravated assault. He thereupon sentenced the prisoner to six weeks' hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. JENSEN.

    Olaf Jensen, A.B. belonging to the Brodick Castle, was charged with refusing duty on the 5th of March.

   His Worship dismissed the charge.


 

North China Herald, 11 June,1897

H.B.M.' CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, 4th June.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

TIEN SU-DING v.  HOLLAND.

   Mr. C. J. Holland appeared to a summons taken out by a Chinese boy, Tien Su-ding, claiming $13 for wages and services rendered from the 1st to the 26th of May.

   Plaintiff said he was employed by the defendant as boy at $10 a month and to employ a coolie at $5. On the 26th of May his master complained of a box bring dirty, struck him, and turned him out. Last Tuesday he was offered $5.

   Mr. Holland said the boy kept him for ten days without another coolie, and when he (defendant) obtained another coolie they both left. He admitted owing $6, from which he had cut $1.

   His Honour found the plaintiff entitled to $6, but ordered him to pay his own costs.

.  .  .  

SHING DAH v. HEATH.

   Shing Dah, a livery-stable keeper, sued Mr. P. Heath for $3 hire of carriage and $3 for damage done to same.

   The evidence for the plaintiff was that the defendant engaged a two-pony carriage on the 23rd of May, at about 4.30 p.m. and it came back at half past nine with a window and window frame broken. He had refused to pay. When hiring the carriage the defendant did not say he wished to go to Woosung, and when the mafoo had driven as far as Kongwan, he refused to go any further.

   Defendant said he told the plaintiff he wanted to go to Woosung when hiring the carriage, and as the mafoo did not carry out the contract he refused to pay.

   His Honour said it seemed rather improbable that the plaintiff would let a carriage with two ponies to go to Woosung and back with four people for only $3, and he ordered the defendant to pay $3 for hire, $1 for the damage, and $3 costs.

.  .  .  

8th June.

SUNT SINGH v. AHMED.

   This was a claim for $40, for value received, on the 29th of January,1895.

   The plaintiff produced a promissory note for $40, signed by the defendant, which had been handed to him by his nephew in Hongkong.

   Defendant admitted the debt, stating that he had borrowed the amount from the person in Hongkong referred to. He said he was at present employed at the Central Hotel, and was in receipt of $22 a month.  He was a married man, and had six children.

   Judgment was given for the plaintiff and an order made for payment at the rate of $2 a month.


 

North China Herald, 18 June,1897

A BRITISH SUBJECT IN CHINESE HANDS.

(From Sport and Gossip.)

A CONSULAR SCANDAL.

   With considerable reluctance, for many reasons, we have to call attention to a remarkable case in which a British subject has been brought before the French Mixed Court, released on bail, re-incarcerated, handed over to the tender mercies of the Chinese city authorities, by then returned to the French Police, and then surrendered to the British Consular officials. The facts, we venture to state, constitute a grave reflection upon the British representatives in Shanghai.

   Without going fully into the circumstances of the case, we may say that it is another instance of cherchez la femme. For an alleged assault in the French Concession Mr. Spencer Tseng Laisun was arrested by the French Police. He at once asserted that he was a British subject, but, presumably on the ground that he had not registered since 1894, the British Consul-General is said to have simply replied to the French Consul-General that the mam was not a British subject. Thereupon, Mr. Laisun, who, like many other British subjects, also holds Chinese official rank, was hauled before the French Mixed Court, and after what looked like the recital of a story of the cock-and-bull order he was sent into the native city. He was not there more than a night, as the City Magistrate seemed afraid to deal with the matter in the face of the accused's claim to be a British subject, but several dollars had to be spent among the underlings to escape some of the incidents of Chinese prison life. Then once more he was in the hands of the French police, who, it must be said, treated him with consideration. Heavy bail was offered, but it was refused, and nothing appeared likely to happen until next Tuesday, when he would be again arraigned before the French Mixed Court. 

   However, Mr. Laisun's friends set out to see if something could not be done for him. The matter was placed in the hands of Mr. F. Ellis, of Messrs. Browett and Ellis, and simultaneously the British authorities began to dexterously climb down. The absolute nonsense in their contention that Mr. Laisun was not a British subject was made still more apparent when it was pointed out that two years ago Mr. Ellis' firm proved in the British Consulate here the will of Mr. Laisun's father. On Friday afternoon, therefore, Mr. Laisun was taken over by the British consular officials who issued to him a certificate of registration, and, as the alleged accuser said he had no charge to prefer, he was at once released.

   Section 114 of the Order in Council 1865, upon which the British officials based their action, says:

Any person failing to register himself or herself, and not excusing his or her failure to the satisfaction of the Consular Officer, shall not be entitled to be registered or protected as a British subject, etc.

But would it be believed, that before disowning the Chinaman the British Consulate took no step to ascertain whether the man could excuse his failure to register, even to the comprehension of a Consular Officer?  Such, however, is the case.

   Further, we would like to call attention to Instructions to Her Majesty's Consular Officers in China and Japan on the mode of conducting Judicial Business, &c., by Sir Edmund Hornby, Kt., formerly Chief Judge of Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan; edited and revised by Sir Richard Rennie, Kt.  Commenting upon the section we have quoted from, the learned author justly remarks that "motives of humanity forbid us to leave our fellow subjects, simply because they have not registered themselves, to the tender mercies of the native authorities!  Later on he says: "It seems hardly necessary to add that although non-registration may render the recalcitrant British subject liable to certain penalties, it will not in any way give him or his property immunity from British jurisdiction and that the Consuls must in all cases take jurisdiction when they have reason to believe that the individual against whom or whose property proceeding are to be taken is actually a British subject."

   The case is one that cannot be allowed to drop. It illustrates very strongly the disinclination of the present-day British Consular authorities to protect their nationals in a case which may not be free from complications. In the present instance, we understand, the curious statement was made that the consular people did not want to be mixed up with such a case. Good heavens! What are they here for? Not simply to draw their salaries, and avoid as much "bother" as possible until they can quietly retire from China on a liberal pension. They are here to do work, and the sooner they recognise that it has to be done, however "troublesome," or however much "bother" it may be, the better.

   We make no comments upon the merits of the charge against Mr. Laisun, but that a person who is most assuredly a British subject should be dragged before Chinese Magistrates and kept in the custody of yamen riff-raff is a gross scandal, and we shall take an early opportunity of acquainting the Editor of Truth with the facts of the case. Moreover, if the matter is not mentioned in Parliament it will not be the fault of SPORT AND GOSSIP.


 

North China Herald, 18 June,1897

MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 15th June

Before Mr. T'o Tso-lun, Magistrate, and the Rev. E. T. Williams, U.S. Assessor.

The case of Mr. Emens' mafoo, about which there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, was finally disposed of.  The mafoo was originally summoned for obstructing the Yantzepoo Road, and it was asserted, among other mis-statements with regard to the case, that the U.S. Consular authorities had refused to stamp the summons. At a previous sitting of the Court, the Mafoo was fined $10 for the obstruction and for failing to appear on the day the summons was returnable. It was to give an opportunity for Mr. Emens to explain the reason for the mafoo's non-appearance, and to clear up other points in question that the case again cane before the Court.

   Mr. Williams said that he wished to correct a mistake that had been made in connection with the case. It had been stated that the magistrate had said at the trial a few days ago, that he (Mr. Williams) had visited the magistrate in company with Mr. Emens and had informed him that the mafoo was innocent. 

   He (Mr. Williams) had written to the magistrate and enquired if that were true, and the magistrate had denied it. He had been misunderstood, he said, and Mr. Williams had never gone to see him to say the man was innocent nor to make any other defence of the mafoo.  He (Mr. Williams) did not wish to make any complaint against the interpreter who had acted that day but he would say that he had been mistaken in what the magistrate had said. On the Thursday when he sat in his official capacity he had stated that Mr. Emens had expressed a desire to be present when the case came up, and that was all.

   Mr. Emens said the main reason for his desire that the case should be brought up again was simply that justice should be done to the mafoo, who, he believed, had been punished the other day for disobedience of the summons.  He (Mr. Emens) had made a request in the first instance that the summons should be made returnable on a Tuesday or a Thursday. This request had been granted, and he had been informed that the case would be brought up on some Tuesday or Thursday. On the Tuesday following the granting of this request Mr. Williams had been absent from Shanghai, and the speaker had sent an explanation with his card to the Court.

   On the Tuesday following the Court had been closed, and in the next Thursday the case had not been called, although the mafoo was present on both days, and at last, on the next Friday, the mafoo had been arrested and charged with contempt of Court in not obeying the summons. Mr. Emens' idea all along, after the granting of his request, was that the case would be heard on a Tuesday or Thursday, and he had instructed the mafoo to appear accordingly. That was the manner in which the misunderstanding as to the appearance of the mafoo had come about, and he hoped that the court would take into consideration what he had said, and mitigate the mafoo's sentence accordingly.

   Inspector Reed said the fine of $10 had been paid.

   Mr. Emens said he did not want the case of obstructing the road re-heard, but simply wished to make his explanation. He was prepared to abide by the decision of the Court in the obstruction case.

   The magistrate ordered that $9 of the fine should be returned to Mr. Emens.

   Mr. Williams said the magistrate was quite satisfied that the statement that the endorsement of the warrant had been refused by the U.S. Consular authorities was untrue. He had dismissed the runner to whom the origin of the statement was due. As far as the German Consul-General was concerned, that official had yesterday sent a dispatch to Mr. Jernigan saying he had signed the warrant under a misapprehension, supposing that, Mr. Jernigan being absent from Shanghai, those in charge had given their consent, whereas that had not been obtained.


 

North China Herald, 18 June,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th June.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. UTTUM SINGH.

   Uttum Singh, a Sikh policeman, was charged with assaulting a 'ricksha coolie and damaging his 'ricksha on the Yangtzepoo Road near the Shanghai Engineering Works, on the 4th inst.

   The evidence for the prosecution was that the complainant was waiting for a fare, who had alighted, when the accused struck him and also damaged his 'ricksha. Another constable saw the accused striking the man whilst on the ground.

   Accused, who had no witnesses to call, denied the charge, and as he bore a good character,

   His Worship adjourned the case for a day to enable him to produce evidence, if possible.

.  .  .  

16th June.

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance and damaging property to the amount of $2.50 in the Family Hotel on the 15th inst.

   Mr. Jackson, the proprietor of the Family Hotel, said that on the previous evening he was told the accused was creating a disturbance in a room occupied by another man. Witness went there and saw the prisoner and the occupant of the room. It looked as if there had been a scuffle, and various articles were broken.

   Accused denied being responsible for the  damage, which he saiod was the result of an accident.

   Sikh constable No. 16 said the accused was drunk when he took him into custody.  He went quietly to the station.

   His Worship said the prisoner had been before the Court three times in about three weeks, and ordered him to pay $5 and $1.50 costs, or seven days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 25 June,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th June.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GILLEN.

   J. P. Gillen was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous evening.

   The evidence was to the effect that the accused, who had evidently been falling about, had signed on to go on board the Brodick castle and was brought to the Hongkew police station very drunk.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $2.

.  .  .  

R. v. GOOD.

   William Good, who had previously been before the Court, was charged with being drunk and incapable.

   His Worship ordered him to go to prison for a week, or to be out on board his ship, the Brodick Castle, in the event of her leaving earlier.

.  .  .  

R. v. UTTOM SINGH.

   Uttom Singh, a Sikh police constable, was charged on remand with assaulting a 'ricksha coolie.

   His Worship, although doubting that the assault was as serious as had been alleged, said an offence had certainly been committed, and the accused would have to pay a fine of $30, or go to prison  for three weeks.


 

North China Herald, 25 June,1897

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

Shanghai, 24th June.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

JOHNSON v. BANNERMAN.

   J. Bannerman appeared on a judgment summons taken out at the instance of Sam Johnson, a boarding-house keeper, to be examined respecting his ability to pay $47.40, for which the plaintiff recovered judgment on the 29th of April last.

   The defendant, having been s worn, in reply to his Lordship, said that he had not been able to comply with the judgment of the Court. In May he won $257 in the Manila Lottery and banked it. From time to time he had drawn from this, and a few days ago, after he had been fined in the Police Court he went to the bank to draw out the balance, as he was coming so frequently for small suns and accordingly he took out what remained, about $80; he had "a few drinks" in the Central Hotel, and showed that he had the money.  On his way home that evening he was struck with either a club or a brick, his coat torn, and the money taken from him. He was now without any means and until he managed to get something to eat in the British Consulate grounds the previous day had been without food for two days.

   His Lordship pointed out that the defendant since the judgment had been in possession of ample means to pay his debt. Instead of which he had gone about squandering his money. He had rendered himself liable to imprisonment and if the plaintiff demanded it he would be sent to gaol.

   Plaintiff, on being informed that whilst the defendant was in prison he would be liable for his maintenance at the rate of thirty cents a day, said he would agree to wait a while.

   Defendant added that he expected some money under his father's will about October, and would then pay.

   His Lordship warned the defendant that if he came into possession of any money he must pay the judgment. It was a very bad case, and if the defendant wasted any more money before paying the plaintiff, the Court would at once commit him and not put the plaintiff to the expense of his keep. If the defendant only behaved himself he could get employment.

   The case was then adjourned.

 

North China Herald, 2 July,1897

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 29th June.

Before T. R. Jernigan, Esq., Consul-General. ROBERT JOHNS, a seaman belonging to the Monocacy, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police at the Central Hotel on Monday afternoon.

   He was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment and ordered to pay all expenses.


 

North China Herald, 2 July,1897.

[See below.]

North China Herald, 9 July,1897

CHINESE COURT OF ENQUIRY.

Shanghai, 7th July

Before Taotaio Tsai Chiun, President of the Board of Foreign Affairs at Nanking, and Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, H.B.M.'s Consul-General.

BENNERTZ v. THE KIANGNAN DEFENCE AND PAY DEPARTMENT.

   This was a resumed sitting of a Court constituted under the provisions of Article 17 of the Tientsin Treaty of 1858, and Section2, Sub-section 3,, of the Chefoo Convention 1870, to enquire into the claim by Messrs. Bennertz and Co. against the Kiangnan Defence and Pay Department.

[Not transcribed.]

.  .  .   adjourned until 10.30 on Friday morning.

North China Herald, 16 July,1897

Resumed Sitting.

North China Herald, 23 July,1897

Resumed sitting.

  North China Herald, 30 July,1897

29th July. .  .  .  .  At this stage the Court rose for the day.


 

North China Herald, 9 July,1897

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

Shanghai, 8th July.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

MAU LI-TSZA v. HART.

   Stephen Hart appeared to show cause why he should not be punished for disobedience to the order of the Court on the 23rd of November,1896, for the payment to the plaintiff of $76.46, and the order of the Court of the 17th of June,1897, to appear.

   Defendant, having been sworn, said he was out of employment, and living with a friend who gave him food. A friend who had promised to satisfy the debt by instalments had gone to Peking, but he was expected back by the end of the month.

   His Honour adjourned the case to the 31s., and warned the defendant that if he, in the meantime, did not pay some of the claim he would be committed.


 

North China Herald, 9 July,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 8th July.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BUSBY.

   Alfred Frederick Augustus William Busby was charged with being drunk and incapable. The charge having been proved he was fined $5.

 

North China Herald, 16 July,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 9th July

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ABDUL MAKO.

   An Indian named Abdul Mako was charged with stealing a number of articles, valued at $35, from Willison's Circus, where he was employed. Prisoner admitted the charge in part, saying that he found some of the articles. Mr. B. Willison said he identified the property found in prisoner's possession as belonging to various members of the company. Prisoner was stopped at the circus gate with a bundle under his coat, containing some of the stolen articles. Prisoner's box was searched and a number of other missing articles were found in it. Prisoner had been in his (Mr. Willison's) employment for about two years, and he (witness) had an idea there was someone in the circus who had put the prisoner up to stealing the things.

   Mr. A. Vuiret deposed that a purse (produced) was his property. It was taken on Wednesday night, there were over $20 in it. Witness left it in his pocket in the dressing room at the circus.

   Prisoner said that he only found $8, a five dollar note and three dollars, in the purse. He said he found the purse the following morning. Had he found it on the night previous hr would have returned it.

   Mr. W. Silveni, sworn, said he recognised the revolver and bunch of keys produced as belonging to him. He missed the revolver about three nights previous, but suspected no one in particular. Witness was present when the revolver and keys were found in prisoner's box.

   Prisoner said that one of the horse men, named George, gave him the revolver and kept one himself.

   Witness said that the man referred to by prisoner was the head groon, a Malay. Another revolver was missed at some time previous to the theft of the one produced.

   Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily and his Worship sentenced him to be imprisoned for one month, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

12th July.

Befire R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. WALKER AND NEAD.

   Jospeh Walker and Henry Nead, coloured, were charged with creating a disturbance in the Yienfing Road, and wounding a baby by throwing a stone.

   The child's mother deposed that the child was in her shop, when one of the prisoners threw a stone though the window and struck the child over the eye.

   Ta Chou-kuai,  barner, said that the prisoners broke a lamp globe and a wash basin in his shop.

   P'ang Lung, wife of the previous witness, said that at 5 p.m. on Sunday, prisoners came into the shop. Walker had a large stick, with which he broke the articles described.

   The prisoner Walker said he  ran into the shop for refuge from a number of people who were pursuing him, and denied having a stick in his hand.

   Native P.C. 512 said he was on duty at Seward Road and saw a crowd outside a house and was told there was a foreigner inside creating a disturbance. Witness  went inside and arrested Walker. The house was in  Chaufiing Road. Prisoner was not violent when arrested. He (prisoner) had had a cut in the head. The other prisoner was arrested by some bystanders and handed over to witness subsequently.

   Walker said that the cut on his head was caused by a basin, which was thrown at him in the barber's shop.He  said he did not throw any stones.

   His Worship ordered prisoners to pay $2 as compensation to the parents of the injured child and $1 damages.

 

North China Herald, 16 July,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 13th July

Before Sir Nihcolas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SASSOON v. BENNERTZ.

   This was a claim for one month's rent of offices by Messrs. David Sassoon, Sons & Co., against Messrs. Bennertz & Co. Mr. J. E. Judah represented the plaintiffs and Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the defendants.

   Mr. Wilkinson said he was prepared to admit judgment, but he asked his Lordship to take into consideration the fact that the rent claimed was due in advance.

   Mr. Judah said that the rent was due in advance on the 15th of every month, and the defendants had sub-let some of the property.

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

   Mr. Judah asked if he would have to make another application for execution.

   His Lordship said he must do that, by and by, in due course.

 

North China Herald, 23 July,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 19th July

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ROSS.

   Murdoch Ross, quartermaster, belonging to the Chingwo, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Public Garden at 11 p.m. on the 17th instant, and with assaulting the police.

   Prisoner admitted having been under the influence of drink, but pleaded that he was not aware of his own actions.

   P.C. 100, Sikh, said that at about half past ten on Saturday night prisoner was creating a disturbance with a gentleman on the grass plot outside the Gardens. Witness attempted to arrest prisoner at the request of the gentleman. When witness made the attempt, prisoner struck him and then ran away, not being arrested without considerable trouble.  A Chinese constable had to render assistance.

   Inspector Matheson said that he was in the charge room at the time that prisoner was brought into the station. Whilst being searched, prisoner was very violent.

   Prisoner was fined $2 for the first offence, and $5 for the second.

.  .  .  

R. v. HEYETT.

   Palidor Heyett, a French Canadian belonging to the British ship Wilderspool, was charged with obtaining food to the value of 40 cents from the Broadway Café, and refusing to pay for same, on Sunday.

   Prisoner said he had been taken to the Broadway Café by a friend, who had promised to pay for him. His friend tendered a dollar, which was found to be a bad one, and he then left, saying he knew where he could get money, but he did not return. He (prisoner) had 30 cents in his pocket at the time.

   H. D. Grant, sworn, said he was manager of the Broadway Café.  He said accused had come into the Café in company with three other sailors and ordered eatables to the value of $1.65, and when they had finished one of the men tendered a brass dollar. Prisoner at this time was still sitting at the table. The account against him was 40 cents, but he had denied having any money on him. He had accordingly been given in charge. Witness explained that it was not so much in consideration of the money that he was prosecuting, but it was for the sake of making an example of the prisoner, in the hope of preventing a continuance of the practice in question.

   His Worship ordered prisoner to pay the amount claimed, with the costs of the Court.

.  .  .  

21st July.

R. v, RASHA SINGH.

   Rasha Singh who had been detained for some days under observation as a wandering lunatic, was again brought up. A letter had been received from Dr. Henderson stating that the man was now apparently sane, and Inspector Reed informed the Court that the accused had been quiet since being locked up. Upon a brother of the man promising to take charge of him and send him home to India, his Worship ordered him to be discharged.

.  .  .  

R. v. JENDAH SINGH.

   Jendah Singh was charge with being drunk and incapable. He admitted the offence and was ordered to be discharged.

 .  .  .

22nd July.

R. v. DONAHUE, MACFARLANE, AND BROWN.

   Stephen Donahue, lamp-trimmer, John MacFarlane and Joseph Brown, firemen, belonging to the steamer Devonshire, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night.

   Prisoners admitted the charge.

   PO.C. Ziehm said that prisoners were drunk and knocking 'ricksha coolies about and using most filthy language.  When arrested they were very violent and witness had to call two native constables to his assistance. On the way to the station they were very noisy. They did not assault witness, but called him filthy names.

   Inspector Ramsey said the prisoner Brown made use of the most filthy language in the cells that he ever heard in his life.

   His Worship fined the prisoners $2 each.

.  .  .  

R. v. RAMFORD.

   William Ramford, A.B. belonging to the Wilderspool, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous day.

   Inspector Ramsey said he did not wish to press the charge against the prisoner and His Worship discharged him, on the understanding that he should go on board his ship at once.

 

Boston Evening Transcript, 25 July 1897 [Google News Archive.]

TRIED TO POISON FIVE.

Chinese Cook Arraigned at Shanghai for a Fiendish Attempt at Murder.

San Francisco, Jan 25. - The steamer Gaelic brings these advices from Shanghai.  On Dec 17. A diabolical case of attempted poisoning was brought before the mixed court, when a Chinese cook on the British bark Omega, was arraigned for attempting to poison the master, the mate, two European passengers and the Chinese carpenter.  The Omega was at New Chwang in July last, when the offence was committed.  She had on board two lighthouse keepers, Drew and Dasher, who were being transferred from one station to another.  When off New Chwang the master of the bark was seized by violent fits of vomiting and excruciating pains.  This lasted for two days and a half, when the pains abated.  The mate, Drew and Ficher were also seized in the same way, and the carpenter complained ort severe internal pains.  Suspicion fell on the cook, who had incited the rest of the crew to frequent insubordination.  Finally it was discovered that when he mixed the coffee he introduced a deadly poison, a bean largely used for destroying dogs.  The master explained that the delay in bringing the charge arose through his being unable to leave his ship.

 

North China Herald, 30 July,1897

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

Shanghai, 28th July.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

NORAIN SINGH v. KIRPAL SINGH.

   This was a claim for $26, money handed to defendant for safe keeping.

   Plaintiff said the money was handed to defendant in the Yangtzepoo Road, outside the Laou Kung Mow cotton mill.

   Nurrin Singh, a police trooper, said the plaintiff gave him $26 to keep for him, on the 10th of June. On the 21st of June plaintiff sent him a message asking for the money, and on the following morning witness and another trooper came up from Yangtzepoo to the Central Station. On the way witness gave the money to plaintiff.  The defendant was present, and plaintiff handed the money to him. Sungut Singh was called and corroborated the previous witness' evidence.

   The defendant. Kirpal Singh, was then sworn, and said that he had no papers to show that plaintiff owed him any money.

   His Honour gave judgment for the amount with costs.

 

North China Herald, 30 July,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd July.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. RYAN.

   Richard H. Ryan, quartermaster, belonging to the P. & O. steamer Thames, was charged with causing the death of Chuang Ping by pushing him into the river on the 16th inst. Mr. H. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the prisoner. Prisoner denied the charge.

[Not transcribed.]

   His Worship committed the prisoner for trial on a charge of manslaughter, and consented to allow bail in two securities of $500 each.


 

North China Herald, 6 August,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 2nd August

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

 R. v. WILSON.

    Robert Wilson, an unemployed seaman, was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Sailors' Home on Saturday. Prisoner admitted the charge.

   James Eveleigh, superintendent of the Home, said the prisoner was discharged from the Helen Brewer and had never given any trouble before.

   His Worship dismissed the charge.

.  .  .  

4th August.

R. v. PERERAM DATTA.

   Pereram Datta was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Yangtzepoo Road on the previous day.

   Inspector Reed said this was prisoner's fifth appearance before the Court.

   Sikh P.C. 58 proved the charge, and

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to seven days' imprisonment, with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 6 August,1897

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

Shanghai, 3rd August.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge,

CHOU-POON v. A. CUNNINGHAM AND CO.

   This was a claim for $28.75 wages and overtime due.

   The plaintiff was called and said he had been employed by the defendants as a compositor. On the 13thof May he received a letter from Canton saying that his father was ill and wished him (plaintiff) to come home. He gave notice to the foreman and to Mr. Cunningham that he wished to leave at the end of the month. He gave notice in writing to Mr. Cunningham, however, and said that Mr. Cunningam had no objection to his leaving. He asked Mr. Cunningham for his wages and was told that he would be paid later on. His claim was for $21.10 wages for May last, and the balance for overtime in September. He had been in defendants' employ ever since they started business, during which time he had been absent in Canton for more than a month.

   Mr. A. Cunningham, sworn, said that the plaintiff had been employed by his firm as a news-compositor. Just before the end of May plaintiff came to him and said he wished to go to Canton for a holiday. Witness spoke to the foreman about it, who advised him not to let the plaintiff go without a month's notice, as they were short-handed. Witness then informed the plaintiff that if he wished to leave without proper notice he must find a substitute. Plaintiff left on the 28th of May without witness's knowledge. Some time in the first week of June he came to witness for his wages and was informed that as he had left without proper notice he would not be paid. Mr. Cunningham said that in September,1896, a similar claim was made against his firm before Mr. Jamieson, who decided that if a servant left without proper notice he was not entitled to his wages for the month in which he left, and witness's firm had treated that decision as a precedent.

   His Honour said that he should uphold Mr. Jamieson's decision that a servant could not leave his employer without proper notice, and that if he did so he was not entitled to his wages.

   Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants, with costs.


 

North China Herald, 13 August,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. JANDAH SINGH.

   Janndah Singh, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund foreshore this morning. Prisoner admitted bring drunk. P.C. Gamble proved the charge, and His Worship sentenced the prisoner to a week's imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

7th August.

R. v. TAYLOR AND FORD.

   Edward Taylor and Patrick Ford, seamen, were charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway on the previous day.

   His Worship ordered Ford to pay a fine of $3, and discharged the other prisoner with a caution.

.  .  .  

12th August.

R. v. FORD.

   Patrick Ford, boatswain of the British ship Troop, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Woosung Road on the previous day.

   Prisoner admitted the charge. Native P.C. 393 said that at 11 a.m. on the previous day he saw the prisoner on Woosung Road. He was chasing the Chinese about. Prisoner was drunk, and witness tried to arrest him, but he resisted, and witness had to get the assistance of a Sikh constable to take him to the station.

   Sikh constable 139 corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine of $5 or in default seven days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 20 August,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 13th Aug.1897

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate

R. v. JACOBSEN, HOLMBURG, AND QUINN.

   John Jacobsen, Adolf Holmburg, and Charles Quinn, seamen belonging to the British ship Troop, were charged with being absent from the ship without leave; the two first named since the 7th inst., and Quinn since the 3rd inst.

   Edward Fritz, master of the Troop, gave all the prisoners a good character. Witness had not engaged substitutes. The ship would probably be leaving some time next week.

   Jacobsen and Holmburg were sentenced to forfeit two days' pay and to go to prison for ten days and Quinn to forfeit six days' pay and to go to prison for 14 days, all the prisoners to be put on board the ship in the event of her leaving before the sentences expired.

.  .  .  

16th August.

R. v. LYNCH.

   John Lynch, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Hanbury Road on the 14th inst. Prisoner admitted the charge. Native P.C. 447 proved arresting the prisoner, who was very drunk. He was not violent.

   His Worship discharged the prisoner with a caution.

.  .  .  

17th August.

R. v. GORNSON.

    Gornson, ordinary seaman, on board the ship Edenballymore was charged on a summons with assaulting Mary Ann Thomas, on board the Edenballymore on the 6th inst.

   The defendant failed to answer when called.

   Thomas Macdonald, Usher of the Supreme Court, said a summons was issued on the 14th inst. against the defendant, which witness served personally on the same date. Witness believed, from information received, that defendant had left the ship.

   His Worship said that a warrant for defendant's arrest would be issued.

 

North China Herald, 20 August,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 13th August.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

DOH AH-LI v. KEELING.

   This was a claim for $19.43 for wages due from the 27th of April to the 1st of June.

   Plaintiff said he was engaged by the defendant as cook. He left the latter's service on the 1st of June, after dinner, as he was sick. On the 23rdof May he became ill and gave notice to Mrs. Keeling that he would have to put a substitute in his place, but she would not allow him to do so, and he then gave notice of his intention to leave. After dinner on the 1st of June he told Mrs. Keeling he was going and she told him to come on the 19th for his wages. His pay was $14 a month. 

   Questoned by Mr. Keeling plaintiff denied that defendant told him on the 1st of June that if he left before the 2nd he (Mr. Keeling) would not pay him any wages. Plaintiff told Mrs. Keeling when he was engaged that if he were paid $16 a month he would provide a second cook, otherwise she would have to pay. It was customary in both hotels and boarding houses for the employer to pay the second cook.

   Mr. Keeling, sworn, said that the evidence given by the plaintiff was false. Witness engaged the man himself. The real reason for the plaintiff's leaving was that on the 30th May he broke a lemon squeezer; witness spoke to him about it and told him he must buy a new one. Next morning he informed witness that he was going away, and was told that if he went away he would not be paid a single cash but he said "maskee," and left. On the 10thof June he came back for his wages, which witness refused to pay. Witness never at any time employed a second cook.

   His Honour adjourned the case until 10 o'clock the next morning, in order that Mrs, Keeling's evidence might be taken.

.  .  .  

17th August.

CHANG SHO-QUAI v. ANDERSON.

   This was a claim for $55.50 for wages due and food supplied from 1st July to 5th August,1897.

   Plaintiff said he was a cook in the employ of Mr. A. L, Anderson.  Last month the defendant wanted to cut his wages$25. There was a verbal agreement that plaintiff should supply food, inclusive of wages, to three gentlemen for $92 a month. This had always been paid regularly until last month, when the defendant had been unwell and had not had his fod in the mess.  Plaintiff had, however, to supply him with beef tea and other things. Plaintiff received $50 for July, leaving a balance of $42. There was also $13.59 due for August. Mr. Anderson offered him $29.60 in settlement of the account.   

   Mr. A. L. Anderson, sworn, said that [defendant] had been paid in full for June, though one of the members of the house was ill. During July all three were laid up, and plaintiff was given notice that the contract was finished, and that witness would not pay him so much. This was told him in the presence of the houseboy, on three successive mornings. Plaintiff did not make any objection, though no definite reduction was mentioned. Witness intended to pay him $70 for the month, but he raised objections and witness finally agreed to pay him $80. During the month witness had advanced $50 to plaintiff and had paid bills to the amount of $10.90 besides $3 for a vegetable dish which plaintiff had broken. Witness offered to pay the balance of $16.10, which plaintiff declined to accept.

   With regard to the claim for August, witness said that he had not intended to dispute it, but now that the matter had been brought into Court, he thought that as plaintiff had left him with no food in the house and two invalids on his hands, he did not think he was legally obliged to pay it.

   Chao Chuin-san, defendant's houseboy, said that he was present when Mr. Anderson told the cook that the gentlemen in the house were all ill and living chiefly on milk, he would not pay the full mess money for the month. The plaintiff answered, "all right." This was about the 10th of the month.

   Plaintiff, recalled, acknowledged the correctness of the sums mentioned by Mr. Anderson.

   His Honour gave judgment for £36.60, without costs.


 

North China Herald, 27 August,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 21st August.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

PAPPS v. MURRAY.

   This was a claim by Mrs. H. W. Papps against R. Gordon Murray for $150.20, for board and lodging, etc.

   The plaintiff was called and swore to the correctness of the amount claimed, but did not produce any detailed statement and had no witnesses.

   Defendant said he kept no accounts, and therefore did not know the amount actually owing. He had no witnesses.

   His Honour adjourned the hearing of the case until Thursday, to allow the plaintiff time to prepare a detailed statement of the claim.

.  .  .  

24th August.

   This was the adjourned hearing of a claim by Mrs. Papps against R. Gordon Murray for $156, for board and lodging, etc.

   A detailed statement of the claim was handed in by the plaintiff.

   Plaintiff was sworn and in reply to a question put by defendant, said that he (defendant) had over $9 worth of refreshments between the 1st of May and the 2nd of June.

   His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for $110.10, with costs.


 

North China Herald, 27 August,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 21st August.

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

R. v. WARREN AND HENDERSON.

   W. Warren and W. Henderson were charged with being absent from their ship, the Troop, since the 3rd instant.

   Capt. Fritz proved the prisoners' absence but gave them both a good character.

   His Worship sentenced both prisoners to a weeks' imprisonment, and to be put on board the ship if she left before the expiry of the sentences.

.  .  .  

25th August.

R. v. BHAGAT SINGH.

   Bhagat Singh, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Yangtzepoo Road on the 24th inst.

   Sikh P.C. 56 proved arresting the prisoner, who was in a 'ricksha, and very drunk.

   Wang Fung-lai, a 'ricksha coolie, said that prisonner was riding in his 'ricksha for some considerable time, and did not pay the fare. He was very drunk.

   His Worship remarked that this was prisoner's third appearance before the Court this year, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonmnet, and ordered him to pay $1 to the coolie.

.  .  .  

26th August.

R. v. MURRAY.

   James Murray, A.B. belonging to the ship Bencon Rock, was charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship without leave since the 16th instant.

   Mr. Hughes, Master of the Bencon Rock, said the prisoner left the ship on the day of her arrival, and took all his effects with him.

   Prisoner made a long statement, alleging ill-treatment on board, and

   His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment and to be put on board the ship after completing his sentence.

.  .  .  

R. v. BERG.

   Charles Berg, A.B. of the ship Troop, was charged on a warrant with being absent without leave since the 13th instant.

   Mr. Ribeiro, sworn, said that the ship left on the 24th. A warrant for prisoner's arrest had been issued from the shipping office before the ship's departure. The prisoner had no wages due, but was in debt to the ship.

   Prisoner - That's a lie. I had $15 coming to me.

   His Worship sentenced prisoner to a week's imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. CATLING.

   William Catling, a seaman belonging to the Bencon Rock, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous day.

   P.C. 21 said he was on duty at 11 o'clock on the previous night when he heard police whistles blown. Witness ran to the corner of Fearon Road, where he saw the prisoner in the custody of two native constables. Prisoneer was violent and broke away from them. Witness then arrested him and took him to the station. He was violent on the way and attempted to strike the witness.

   His Worship ordered the prisoner to be put on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 3 September,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th August.

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

R. v. FORD.

   Patrick Ford, boatswain of the ship Troop, was charged on a warrant with being absent from his ship without leave since the 5th instant.

   Mr. Riveiro, of the Shipping Office, said that the Captain of the Troop applied for a warrant for prisoner's arrest on the 10th inst.

   Prisoner had been to the shipping office, previous to the issue of the warrant, and had been warned to return on board, but failed to do so. The ship left on the 24th instant.

   His Worship sentenced him to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

30th August.

Before RF. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

R. v. CHITTENDEN, VOGT, AND KALTMAN.

   George Chittenden, George Vogt, and Uhan Kaltman were charged with being drunk and disorderly and violently assaulting P.C. Lindquist and native P.C. 306, together with others not in custody.

   Native P.C. 396 said that on Sunday at about 3.30 p.m. prisoners were ejected from a tavern in Taiping Road. Witness was outside the door, and the prisoner Chittenden struck him twice in the chest. Witness blew his whistle, and two native policemen and a foreign constable came to his assistance. Prisoners were all drunk. There were several other men with the prisoners.  Some one struck the foreign constable with a stick, but witness could not say whom.

    Inspector Ramsay said he intended to apply for a remand, as the  foreign constable was in hospital.

   Witness, continuing, said that prisoner Vogt had a stick, but the two others had none. The three prisoners were arrested and taken to the station, but the other men made off.

   His Worship remanded the prisoners until Wednesday.

.  .  .  

R. v. COHEN.

   Edward Cohen, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Woosung Road.

   Inspector Ramsay said he did not wish to press the charge, as it was prisoner's first offence, and

   His Worship discharged the prisoner with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. SHOWELL.

   George Showell, a quartermaster on the Rohilla, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and using threatening language to another quartermaster on board the Rohilla

   Mr. G. Jackson, chief officer of the Rohilla, said a complaint was made to him that prisoner had thrown another man's clothes about and threatened to take his life if he remained on board the ship. Witness saw the prisoner, who repeated those words before him in a most determined manner. Witness sent for the police and had the prisoner arrested.

   Louis Lancien said the prisoner and himself had some disagreement during the week and on the previous evening prisoner went into witness' cabin and tore down pictures, and pulled all the clothes out of the drawer. He also broke a meerschaum pipe. Witness came off watch at 8 o'clock and seeing what had been done went and asked prisoner if he had done it. Prisoner replied in the affirmative and said that if he (witness) did not leave the ship he would take his (witness') life. Prisoner was the worse for liquor at the time.

   Prisoner admitted being drunk, but said he had no recollection of threatening Lancien.

   His Worship ordered the prisoner to pay a fine of $5 and $4  damages.

.  .  .  

31st August.

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

R. v. MAHOMET.

   John Mahomet, a Malay quartermaster on board the Pechili, was charged with cutting and wounding the boatswain and the compradore of the ship, on Monday afternoon.

   Ch'en Ah-sze said he was compradore's boy on board the Pechili. While the steamer was in Nicolaievsk the compradore advanced the prisoner ten roubles. When the crew were paid in Shanghai the amount was deducted. Prisoner said he had drawn the money, not for his own use, but for the boatswain, and having a knife, threatened the compradore with it. The boatswain interfered, and prisoner stabbed him in the left side.  He then stabbed the compradore, and then again stabbed the boatswain. The compradore ran away and as he ran the prisoner stabbed him in the thigh.

   Inspector Ramsay said that both the injured men were in hospital, but only suffering from flesh wounds. The knife could not be produced as it had been thrown overboard.

   His Worship remanded the prisoner for a week.

.  .   .

2nd September

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R.  v. BOAFFIER AND HOLMBURG.

   Bernard Boaffier and Adolf Holmburg, A.B.s on board the British ship Troop, were charged with absence from the ship without leave since the 20th of August.

   Prisoners pleaded guilty, and Holmburg admitted having been imprisoned fourteen days before, also for being absent from his ship.

   Mr. E. T. Riveiro, of the shipping office, said a warrant was issued in the 12th of August for Holmburgh's arrest, he having then been absent from the Troop for some time. He was put on board, but he returned a second time ashore without leave, and a second warrant was issued on the 20th of August. The ship left on the 24th without either of the prisoners on board, substitutes being shipped.

   Prisoners complained of bad food and ill-treatment on board.

   His Worship pointed out that their course in that event was to complain to the proper authorities, and not to desert.

   Holmburg was sentenced to three weeks' and Boaffier to two weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 10 September,1897

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

Shanghai, 6th September

Before Dr. ZIMMERMANN and Messrs. Justus Lembke, G. Melchers, F. F. Lembke, and Count Butler.

   Mr. Voerkel, of Messrs. Voerkel and Schroeder, appeared to answer a charge of causing the death of Wilfred Arthur Chambers by negligently substituting strychnine for santonine in a prescription dispensed by him.

   Evidence was given by Dr. Scholvien as to the results of the analysis made by him, and a report of the Hongkong analyst was read to whom the powder, and the bottle which was used for containing the santonine in Messrs. Voerkel and Schroeder's store, had been sent. The report confirmed the result of the analysis made by Dr. Scholvien of the powder. The bottle contained santonine in the proportion of one part to nine parts of sugar of milk.

   Dr. Zedelius also gave evidence, and a statement was made by Mr. Voerkel, who said he could in no way account for the unfortunate mistake made.

   The defendant, Mr. Voerkel, was then sentenced to undergo four weeks' imprisonment and to pay all costs incurred in connection with the case.


 

North China Herald, 10 September,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd September.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. CHALMERS.

   John Chalmers, second mate of the ship Elginshire, appeared to a summons charging him with assaulting Richard Purdy, first mate of the same vessel, on the 28th ult.

   Complainant's evidence was to the effect that the ship was coming to the inner anchorage at Woosung under the charge of the pilot, when the defendant came forward to witness, who was on the forecastle head, and threatened to throw him over board and used abusive language. The defendant was intoxicated, and after being removed by the apprentices, returned and persisted in causing a disturbance. The captain was on shore, and witness was in charge of the ship. He ordered the defendant away, but he refused to go and struck witness in the face. Witness defended himself and after the ship had come to an anchor had the irons put on the accused who was placed in his room.

   Defendant admitted being under the influence of drink at the time, and represented that he was exasperated by the complainant having "rummaged" the room.

   Complainant admitted looking into the room to see if there were any empty liquor bottles there, but denied going into it.

   Henry George Sutton, pilot, who was bringing the ship to her anchorage at the time, said he saw the defendant strike the complainant. The ship was actually in danger at the time.

   His Worship remarked that this settled the case, and the defendant would have to go to gaol for four weeks, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

4th September.

R. v. CRANE.

   John M. Crane, first mate of the ship Lord Rosebery, was summoned by M. J. White, steward of that ship, for assaulting him on the 25th of June, while the ship was on the high seas; and also on the 1st instant.

   Defendant - I admit the charge, for the man was the most insolent to me; and ever since we left New York he has never given me a civil answer. As for the assault on the 1st instant, I plead provocation.

   White stated that on the 25th of June, he rang the breakfast bell and the mate did not respond. Complainant went to him on the pop and told him the captain was at breakfast, but he replied, "what the ---- have I to do with the captain? Why did you not ring the bell on the poop?" Complainant stated that the mate "hauled off" with knuckle dusters and struck him in the face, badly cutting him about the head. Witness never quarrelled with the mate nor gave him any insolence.

   Defendant flatly contradicted using knuckle dusters; in fact he had forgotten all about it.

   Captain John Barrow, of the Lord Rosebery, said he saw the steward bleeding from the nose and head a little and there was a scar left. He could not say whether the blow was with the open hand or not. Witness a sked for an explanation and complainant said the mate had struck him.

   His Worship - Did you hear of any quarrelling before?

   Witness - No.

   Did you log it? - No, the steward did not complain, and I did not enter it.

   Is that not a breach of discipline, and if so, ought you not to have entered it in the log book? - No; I did not enter it. I told the mate not to do I again as I would not have any fighting on board the ship.

   His Worship then dealt with the second assault.

   Complainant said on the 1st of September the defendant sent the second mate for some  soda, but he declined to give any as he only had a small quantity.

   His Worship - Was it in your discretion to give it? - Yes, but I only had a little.

   Where was the ship lying? - Off the Standard Oil Co. Wharves. The defendant came himself and asked for it, and I told him the same. He replied, "You need not be too saucy over it. I have done you once and I'll do you again." He went for me in the pantry and then I went for him, and which of the two struck first I do not know; but I knew he was going to strike me and I struck him. We both fell and he got me down and kicked me. He kicked me once on the nose and once on the head. I had two stitches put in my nose and my head bandaged by the ship's doctor.

   Was the captain on board? - He came on the scene just as we were winding up.  I said nothing to annoy the mate and was perfectly civil to him.

   Defendant - Did you strike me first, or did I strike you? - I don't know.

   What weapon did you have? - I did not have any.

   Did you now have a can opener and stab me with it? - No, I had a can of milk and may have struck you with that.

   His Worship - Is this affair "logged," captain??

   Captain Barrow - No.

   You do not seem to make much use of your log book? - I did not know who struck who.

   But you do know when it may be required.  Here it is now in Court. However, what did you see? - Both men were fighting in the pantry and were pretty well used up.

   Crane stated that he was struck by some weapon and he had to strike back.

   His Worship - What do you think of one man kicking another?

   I should take that as "kinder mean."

   Suppose you saw one man kicking another what would you think? - Well I'd think it real mean. There is no doubt about it.

   Captain Barrow said he heard a noise and went out to see what it was. Both men were covered with blood and struggling together. He saw no weapon or anything. The floor was covered with blood.

   Defendant - Well, it's like this, when a man insults me I cannot stand it. It is not the way I'm built. I must defend myself.

   His Worship - You admit the charge then? - Well, yes, I suppose so.

   The defendant was sentenced to undergo one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. PLESS.

   H. Pless, cook on board the Lord Rosebery, was summoned for assaulting the above complainant on the 25th of April.

   After hearing the evidence His Worship dismissed the case.

.  .  .  

7th September

R. v. MAHOMET.

   . . .   

   Police Sergeant Ballantyne stated that the two men who were injured were still in the hospital and unable to leave. He therefore applied that the case should be further remanded.

   His Worship remanded the accused for another week, but to be brought up earlier in the event of the compradore being well enough to appear.

.  .  .  

8th September

R. v. NIELSEN AND BERNASKY.

   John Bernasky and A. Nielsen, belonging to the British ship Lord Rosebery, were charged with refusing duty.

   Captain John Barrow, master of the vessel, said that the men refused duty at 6 a.m. on the previous day, first of all saying they wanted to join another ship, and then that they wished to see the Consul. He told them that they had been seeing the Consul all the previous day. When they joined the ship Nielsen had an advance of $50 (gold) and Bernasky $40 (gold.) When on board they knew nothing of the work of a sailor and their wages were reduced.

   Bernasky stated that he was asked if he wanted work by a man in a saloon in New York, and upon replying yes, he was offered $16 a month. He said he had been a iner, and, imagining the Lord Rosebery to be a steamer, thought he would be put to shoveling coal.

   Captain Barrow said the man, before being shipped, replied to a question that he had been a sailor.

   His Worship, after pointing out that the accused had deceived the captain, remanded them until the afternoon to communicate with their Consul, when he sentenced them to six days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

9th September.

R. v. WALL.

   Augustus Wall, A.B. belonging to the British ship Troop, was charged with being absent without leave since the 13th of last month.

   Mr. Ribeiro of the Shipping Office said that a warrant was issued for the prisoner's arrest on the 13th ultimo, but it could not be executed before the ship left on the 24th, and another man had been shipped in the prisoner's place.

   Accused in reply to His Worship, as to how he had been living for a month, said he had been in the country on the Pootung side. He had parted with some clothing and the natives supplied him with food from time to time.

   His Worship sent him to prison for four weeks, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. MASON.

   William Mason, belonging to the British ship Bencon Rock, was charged with being absent from his ship since the 7th inst.

   Accused admitted the offence and was quite willing to go on board again.

   His Worship ordered him to forfeit two days' pay.

.  .  .  

R. v. PINISKROFFSKY.

   J. Piniskroffsky, a German subject, fireman on the British ship s.s. Morven, was charged with having threatened to assault the second engineer with an iron spanner, and also with being absent from the ship without leave since the 7th inst.

   John Macfarlane, the second engineer, said that on the 2nd instant he told the defendant to draw the flue and damp the ashes. Accused drew the fires but he did not put water on the ashes, and witness spoke to him sharply. The accused then took up an iron spanner and was about to strike witness when he knocked him down.

   The defence of accused was that the second engineer struck him first. There was very little fire amongst the ashes, and it was not until after he was struck that he took up a spanner.

   His Worship dismissed the charge of attempted assault, but ordered accused to forfeit two days' pay for being absent without leave.

.  .  .  

R. v. HERSHUM.

   Jesse Hershum, an American citizen, was charged with refusing duty on the 8th inst. on board the British s.s. Morven and also with assaulting the master.

   Captain Alexander Ellis, the master, said that on the morning of the 8th the accused was loafing, and would not do any work unless watched. Witness spoke to him, and he said he would not do any work. He was very insolent, and approached witness in a very threatening manner. Witness then "went for" him, struck him, and put him in irons.

   John Alexander, first officer corroborated.

   Accused's defence was that he was feeling very unwell from drink, and  went forward to sleep.

   His Worship sent him to prison for four weeks with hard labour, and ordered him to pay the expenses.

.  .  .  

R. v. GLENDON.

   John Glendon, A.B. on the British ship Lord Rosebery, was charged with being absent from his ship, without leave, since the 4th instant.

   Captain Barrow, the master of the ship, proved the charge.

   His Worship sent the accused to prison for six days with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 17 September,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.]

Shanghai, 10th September

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. PERRY.

   Henry Perry, belonging to the ship Lord Rosebery, was charged with being absent from that vessel without permission since the 4th inst.

   Prisoner said he was frightened to go on board the ship. He asked if he could be paid off.

   His Worship cautioned prisoner against attempting to bully the Captain by deserting, and dismissed the case.

.  .  .  

11th September.

R. v. O'CONNOR AND WILSON.

   William O'Conner and Alfred Wilson, A.B.s of the ship Eskasoni, were remanded until Monday on charges of being absent from their vessels without leave.

.  .  .  

R. v. SULLIVAN AND INMAN.

   Daniel Sullivan and William Inman, from the ship Bardovie, were sent to gaol for 14 days for a similar offence.

.  .  .  

13h September.

R. v. O'CONNOR AND WILSON.

  William O'Connor and Alfred Wilson, belonging to the British ship Eskasoni, were charged on remand with being absent without leave.

   Captain Townsend, the master of the vessel, said O'Connor had been absent since the 4th inst., and Wilson since the 6th.

   His Worship ordered the accused to go to gaol for four days, and to pay the costs. In the event of the ship leaving earlier they were to be put on board.

.  .  .  

14th September

R. b. MAHOMET.

   John Mahomet, the Malay quartermaster of the s.s. Pechili, was brought up on remand charged with stabbing the compradore and boatswain of that steamer, but as it appeared that the injured men would not be able to stand for several days, he was again remanded.

.  .  .  

R. v. JOKE AND PERRY.

   Anastartro Joke, of the British ship Elm Branch, and Henry Perry, of the Lord Rosebery, were charged with being absent without leave. The former was ordered back to his ship and the latter was sent to prison for a fortnight.


 

North China Herald, 24 September,1897

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 20th September.

Before W. Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General.

   JOHN MURPHY and CHARLES HOWARD were charged with being drunk and disorderly and creating a disturbance at the Sailors' Home, on Sunday.  Mr. Eveleigh proved the charge, and

   His Honour sentenced Howard to ten days and Murphy to five days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 24 September,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 22nd September

Before R. W. Mansfield, Assistant Judge.

PAPPS v. MURRARY.

   This was a sitting in connection with a judgment summons taken out by Mrs. H. W. Papps against R. Gordon Murray, in respect of an amoi8nt for $110.10.

   Defendant said he had made an offer to the plaintiff, but it had been refused.  He had been up to Nanking in connection with some native coal mines, from which he was in receipt of Tls. 100 a month. He hoped, in a few months, to receive commission due to him, and, in the meantime, offered Tls. 10 a month.

   His Honour made an order for the payment of Tls. 10 a month, until the defendant received the commission referred to, when he must pay the balance.


 

North China Herald, 24 September,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 20th September

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

   Four seamen named JOHN GLENDEN, ATKINSON, JAMES PRICE, AND JAMES DOYLE, were charged by Mr. Eveleigh, manager of the Sailors' Home, with being drunk and creating a disturbance at the Home. There were two other men implicated, but as they were from an American ship they were referred to the Consul-General for the United States.

   The accused admitted drunkenness, but denied having committed a disturbance.

   Mr. Eveleigh said that on the [previously] the Sailors' Home was like a mad-house all day, from morning to night. He tried to quiet the men but all his efforts were of no avail, and he was forced to call in the police. He did not know which man was the worst; one appeared as bad as the other.  They were all drunk, and he took from them three bottles of cheap whisky.

   In reply to Mr. Brady, Mr. Eveleigh said the men were not supplied with liquor at the Home but they took it there themselves. The disturbance had been going on all day, and increased so much between 8 and 9 p.m. that he was obliged to send for the police. The prisoners were joined by four American sailors who had been discharged from the S. D. Carleton.

   In reply to the magistrate Mr. Eveleigh said that the Lord Rosebery would ship the men.

   The magistrate fined each of them $2.50.  The fines were paid by all except John Glenden, who was sent to prison in default for 3 days.

.  .  .  

HENRY BARNES and GEORGE TYNDALL were charged by Inspector Ramsay with being drunk and incapable. They were discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

21st September.

R. v. MAHOMET.

   John Mahomet was brought up on remand, charged with cutting and wounding the boatswain and compradore of the s.s. Pechili. The boatswain was in Court, having been discharged from the hospital, but the compradore was still unable to appear.

   Detective Wood applied for a further remand of a week, which was granted.

.  .  .  

R. v. HOMBOLOTH.

   A fireman, named Homboloth, belonging to s.s Lady Furness, was charged with absence without leave.

   The prisoner's defence was that he had been dismissed by the chief engineer, but His Worship pointed out that that was not in the power of the chief engineer, and asked the prisoner if he was willing to go on board again if he was leniently dealt with.

   Prisoner did not appear to understand the question, but said he could not go on board, having been dismissed by the engineer.

   His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment, and to forfeit eight days' pay. He would be put on board in the event of the ship leaving before his sentence expired.

 

North China Herald, 1 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th September.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BHAGAT SINGH.

   Bhagat Singh, an unemployed Sikh, was charged with being drunk and incapable for the sixth time. The charge having been proved,

   His Worship imposed the full penalty of $20, with the alternative of one month's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. SCHLISS AND HEDGECOCK.

   Max Schliss and J. Hedgecock, belonging to the Elginshire, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous day, at Yangtzepoo, and Schliss with also assaulting a 'ricksha coolie. Schliss was fined $2 and ordered recompense the coolie, while Hedgecock was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

28th September

R. v. MAHOMET.

   J. Mahomet, quartermaster on the s.s. Pechili, was brought up charged with feloniously cutting and wounding the boatswain and the compradore of the same ship.

   Inspector Ramsay asked for a remand until Friday, and Detective Wood said he saw the compradore that morning and he thought he would be able to attend in a few days.

   Chen Ah-fing, the boatswain, said that on the 30th of August the compradore was settling up with the crew, and asked the accused to refund ten roubles he had advanced him up north. Accused denied having received the money,  and declared that the money was given to witness. In course of the altercation the accused threatened both the witness and the compradore. He drew his knife, and upon witness interfering stabbed him inside the left arm, and, attacking the compradore, stabbed him in the stomach. He then turned upon witness and stabbed him again in the right side of the body. Accused next pursued the compradore, who was running away, and wounded him in the right thigh. Witness went to the hospital, where he had been for twenty-five days, and the compradore, who had also been there, was taken away by his relatives last Tuesday.

   Chen Ah-sze, whose evidence had been taken on a former occasion confirmed it; ad Li Ah-chi corroborated the evidence of the boatswain as to the using of the knife.

   Accused, who had no questions to ask, was again remanded.

.  .  .  

R. v. PERRAM DETTA.

   Perram Detta was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous day. Accused said that a friend at Pootung was willing to pay his passage to Hongkong, , and, for the attendance of this individual the Court was adjourned until the afternoon. It then transpired that the friend was not inclined to do so, whereupon his Worship imposed a fine of $2.

.  .  .  

29th September

R. v. MAHIOMET.

   J. Mahomet, the quartermaster of the s.s. Pechili, was again brought up charged with feloniously cutting and wounding the boatswain and the compradore on the same ship.

   Additional evidence having been given by a Chinese sailor in support of the charge, and Sergeant Bannatyne having deposed to arresting the accused, when the knife could not be found,

   His Worship cautioned the prisoner and said he would be committed for trial.

   Accused said the boatswain received the money in dispute. He (accused) had no opportunity of using it. He took the money from the compradore and handed it to the compradore at Nicolasievsk.  This was three months ago. The captain told the compradore to pay the money due to accused and settle the matter afterwards. This was done, but a few minutes afterwards the compradore followed him and demanded the $10, threatening to assault him, and while folding up his sleeve preparatory to striking him, the boatswain interfered. When paid he had $24 in his pocket, but the boatswain took $12 out of them and the   compradore set three other Chinese upon him at the same time. Then he took out his knife, and when they saw it the three Chinese sailors ran away, leaving the compradore and the boatswain. Accused felt exasperated by the boatswain's conduct, and stabbed him. The compradore interfered and pulled accused's hand out of his coat pocket causing the money to scatter about the deck. The witness stabbed the compradore. The boatswain then came with a boatswain's chair and struck at him with it. Witness stabbed him and then the captain and the second and third engineer came up and stopped the fighting, and the police arrived shortly afterwards.

   Prisoner was committed for trial.

.  .  .  

R. v. BUSBY.

   William Busby, a draughtsman, living in Boone Road, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and creating a disturbance, breaking a window and doing other damage to the extent of $3 at the house of a Chinese, 61 Yuhang Road.

   The complainant stated that on the previous afternoon the accused, who was unknown to him, entered his house and when witness tried to eject him he forced his way inti the bedroom, where his wife was lying down. She ran out of the door screaming, and his children were terrified. Witness went to the police station for assistance, and on his return he missed a pair of pearl earrings, a water pipe, and found two panes of glass broken and a kong, tea pot and flower pot smashed. Believed that the pipes and earrings might have been taken by coolies who gathered round at the disturbance and forced their way in. 

   Inspector Ramsay said that Busby was searched at the Station, but nothing was found on him but a few papers.

   A Chinese witness was examined and testified as to the damage being done by Busby, who was drunk at the time.

   Accused said he had no idea of the incident and could not understand how he got into Yuchang Road. He admitted that this was his third appearance. He was ordered to pay $2 damages and was sent to gaol for three weeks.

 

North China Herald, 8 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai,1st October

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. COYLE AND MARTIN.

   James Coyle and William Martin, of the British ship Willieburn, appeared to a summons charging them with having assaulted Thor Waldquist, on the high seas on or about the 1st of August, and with ill-treating him since the 10th of May. Coyle arrived in Court in an intoxicated condition, whereupon he was arrested, and the case against him was deferred for a day.

   The evidence of the complainant was to the effect that he was keeping a look-out when the two defendants assaulted him without provocation.

   James Winchester, first officer, said he did not witness the assault, but, hearing something going on, he went forward and found the prosecutor  with blood coming from his mouth and nose. In his opinion Coyle committed the assault, but both the men were logged.

   His Worship concluded he would not deal with that charge so far as Martin was concerned, but would go into the other assault, which Martin had admitted.

   Martin said he had beaten the prosecutor, but it was because he was loafing.

   His Worship said that it was plain Martin had committed a serious offence, on his own admission. Moreover, last year he was before that Court in connection with an assault upon a Sikh policeman, who was injured in the affray so much that he was still in the hospital. The accused would have to go to prison for three weeks, and pay the expenses.

.  .  .  

4th October.

R. v. COYLE.

   James Coyle, belonging to the British ship Willieburn, appeared on remand on a charge of assaulting Thor Waldquist on the 1st of August, and ill-treating him since the 10th of May last. He was also charged with assaulting and threatening with a knife, Oscar Kleiman, on the 30th ult.

   After hearing a good deal of evidence, His Worship said he was convinced that accused had behaved in a systematically cruel and over-bearing manner. For assaulting Waldquist he would have to go to prison for a month, with hard labour, and for the offence against Kleiman  he would have another month - two months in all.

.  .  .  

5th October.

R. v. SMITH AND McGLORE.

   W. Smith and John McGlore, belonging to the British ship Willieburn, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Broadway on the previous afternoon. The evidence was to the effect that they were fighting.

   His Worship sent them both to prison for a fortnight, with hard labour.

.  .  .

6th October.

R. v. BAGLEY.

   John Bagley, belonging to the Willieburn, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway, and assaulting Police Constable No. 40.

   Prisoner was sent to gaol for a week with hard labour.
 

 

North China Herald, 15 October,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th October

Before H. F. Brady, Esq, Police Magistrate.

R. v. MURPHY.

   William Murphy, unemployed, living at the Sailors' Home, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway. He admitted the charge, and was released with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 15 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 11th October.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SUNT SINGH v. HEARD

   This was a claim by a Sikh money-lender against R. H. Heard for $150, money lent. Defendant admitted the debt, which was contracted in February of last year, and in respect of which he had paid $80 interest.

   His Lordship said there was a sum of $24 in the hands of the Consul which would be handed over to the plaintiff. He would then make an order for the payment of the balance, $126, with interest at 7 per cent from date.

 

North China Herald, 15 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 9th October.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

D. SASSOON & CO. v. H. BENNERTZ & CO.

   This was an action to obtain possession of premises situated at 57 Rue Montauban, and for mesne profits.

   Mr. Nelson said that Mr. Wilkinson and himself had practically come to an agreement, on the terms set forth in the petition, which was one for ejectment and mesne profits. The defendants having paid to plaintiffs the sum of Tls. 250 on account generally, he (Mr. Nelson) asked that an order be made as prayed, mesne profits to be assessed and defendants to have fourteen days in which to vacate the premises.

   His Lordship made an order as prayed, and fixed the costs at Tls. 50, plus the Court fees.

 

North China Herald, 20 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 18th October

Before H. F. Brady. Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman was charged with being drunk in Broadway on Sunday. He was fined $10 or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

19th October.

R. v. PERRAM DATTA.

   Perram Datta was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Yangtzepoo Road. 

   His Worship sentenced him to undergo a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 29 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 27th October.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice, and Messrs. A. Cushny, W. M. Dowdall, Geo. Peebles, John Quick, and James Jones, Jury.

R. v. MAHOMET.

   John Mahomet, a quartermaster on board the s.s. Pechili, was arraigned on an indictment charging him on two counts with feloniously wounding Tsa Ying-tson, compradore of that vessel, and also with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, Acting Crown Advocate, prosecuted the prisoner, who pleaded "Not Guilty," being defended by Mr. D. McNeill (Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson.)

   Upon the names of the gentlemen who had been summoned as the Jury being called, Mr. E. Gumpert and Mr. O. Middleton were challenged by Mr. NcNeill and they were told to stand a side. Mr. Joseph Welch and Mr. H. Symons, who did not appear, were fined $50 each.

[Not transcribed.]

   His Lordship in summing up said it was plain the prisoner used a knife and inflicted a severe wound, but he (his Lordship) felt bound to agree with Mr. McNeill that the whole circumstances of the case, the nature of the wound and the nature of the weapon, did not bear out the accusation that the accused intended to murder the complainant. The Jury woould have to decide whether the accused stabbed the man with intent to murder him, or to do him grievous bodily harm, or whether he simply unlawfully wounded him. The Jury, without retiring, found the prisoner guilty of unlawful wounding, and he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. His Lordship thanked Mr. McNeill for having undertaken the prisoner's defence.

.  .  .  

28th October.

[As above.]

R. v. MAHOMET.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, Acting Crown Advocate, attended to enter a nolle prosequi on behalf of the Crown in the case of John Mahomet, charged with stabbing a Chinese boatswain on board the Pechili. It will be recalled that on the previous day the accused was convicted on another indictment of unlawfully wounding the compradore of the same vessel.

 

North China Herald, 29 October,1897

H.B.M.' s POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 26th October.

Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. COLLINS.

   James Collins was charged with being drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $4, or in default 7 days' hard labour.

 


 


 

North China Herald, 12 November,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th November.

 Before H. F. Brady, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. FORD.

   Patrick Ford was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous night.

   The charge having been proved by Sikh P.C. 33, His Worship sentenced the prisoner to 14 days' hard labour.

.  .  .   

R. v. AKEST.

   Charles Akest was charged with being drunk and incapable.

   He was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. ANDERSON.

   Charles Anderson, watcher, I.M. Customs service, was charged with taking and carrying away £322, the property of other members of the I.M. Customs staff on the 1st instant.

   Mr. E. V. Brennan, Deputy Commissioner, said he was the custodian of the fund belonging to the Customs' quarters outdoor-staff mess. The money due from the members of the ness was customarily paid to one man. On this occasion it was the accused. His duty, after collecting the money, was to have handed it into witness. He had collected from twelve different members of the mess, including himself, $322.71. The amount named should have been handed to witness on the 1st instant but accused had disappeared after collecting the money. He had attended the muster of the Customs outdoor staff at 6 a.m. on the 1st, had then returned to the Customs quarters, changed from his uniform into private clothes, and had not been seen since.  He had not obtained leave.

   Percy Jonhston, member of the Customs outdoor staff, said he had paid his mess account to the accused on Saturday last, and had received a receipt signed by him.

   Eben Jones, another member of the Customs outdoor staff, had paid his mess account on Saturday last to the accused, and had received a receipt (produced) for it,.

   Johann Siezmer member of the Customs outdoor staff, gave similar evidence, and produced a receipt.

   Detective Armstrong deposed to having arrested the accused at 1.30 o'clock in the morning. Accused, on being asked to read the warrant, said, "I don't need to. I know all about it." When searched at the police station accused had no money at all on him.

   The case was remanded until Monday morning at 10.30, to enable accused to avail himself of the assistance of counsel.

.  .  .  

8th November.

R. v. PRICE AND AKERST.

   Janes Price and Charles Akerst were charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Saturday.

   His Worship sent both prisoners to gaol for two weeks, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. COLLINS AND LARSEN.

   James Collins and E. Larsen were charged with being drunk and incapable on Sunday.

   Both prisoners admitted the charge.

   His Worship discharged Larsen with a caution and sentenced Collins to three weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. ANDERSON.

   Charles Anderson, watcher, I.M. Customs Service, was charged on remand with taking and carrying away $322, the property of other members of the I.M. Custons staff, on the 1st instant, with intent to steal the same.

   Edward Brewer, sworn, said that he paid his mess account to the prisoner on the 30th of October. Witness saw the prisoner about 9.30 on Monday morning.  He was not in uniform, and said that he had obtained leave from Mr. Brennan. He also told witness that he had paid the mess money in to Mr. Brennan. That statement was made voluntarily. He further said that the account was $1.50 short, which he had paid out of his own pocket.

   Prisoner said that he had told witness he was going to see Mr. Brennan, not that he had already seen him, but witness was most positive that his own statement was correct.

   Percy Johnston, recalled, spoke to having seen prisoner at muster on the Monday morning, at about 6.30. He was then in uniform.

   Thomas Hill, sworn, said that after muster on Monday morning, he went back to the Customs quarters. Prisoner came shortly after and witness asked him what duty he was on. Prisoner replied that he was on duty at Hunt's Wharf, and then proceeded to change his clothes. He also said something about the mess accounts being $1.50 short, but witness did not pay much attention to what he said. Prisoner told him that he had had a day's holiday to allow of his getting the mess accounts squared up.

   Chun Ah-sum, a Cantonese woman, recognised the prisoner. She first saw him on the 30th ult. He had not given her any money, but had twice taken her out driving. Prisoner gave her a pair of bangles (produced) on the 31st ult.

  Chief Inspector Howard produced the jeweller's receipt for $31 paid for the bangles.

   Prisoner elected to have the case dealt with summarily and His Worship sentenced him to imprisonment, with hard labour, for three months.

.  .  .  

11th November.

R. v. GAMBLE.

   Richard Gamble, police constable was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Central Police Station on the 9th inst. and assaulting P.S. Macintosh and P.C. Lawrence and causing serious injury to the latter's hand. There was also a charge against the prisoner of assaulting P.C. Spottiswood on the 10th inst.

   P.C. Arthur Lawrence, s worn, said that on Tuesday evening he was in the mess room at the Central Station when the prisoner came in and commenced to throw the meal utensils about. Witness asked him to desist, and he came round and struck the witness. Witness went down stairs and the prisoner followed, caught hold of him and pushed him through a glass door, severely cutting his hand and arm. Prisoner was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

   P.S. Macintosh said that at about 7.30 on the evening of the 9th inst. he was at dinner in the sergeants' mess at the Central Station, when he heard a crash. He went out to see what was happening and saw the last witness, who was bleeding from several cuts on his arm. Lawrence informed witness that the prisoner had pushed him through a window. Witness took hold of the prisoner, who struck him in the left ear. Sergeant Culshaw came to witness's assistance and the prisoner was conveyed to the charge-room. Prisoner had been drinking heavily for some days, and was then under the influence of drink. He had been about nine months in the force.

   P.C. Spottiswood said that at about 6.35 a.m. on Wednesday he was in the wash-house at the Central Station when the prisoner came in and struck him on the eye. Witness was on good terms with the prisoner, and they had no words. Prisoner was under the influence of drink.

   His Worship said he should not deal with the first charge, that of being drunk and disorderly, but the prisoner would have to go to gaol for two weeks on each of the other charges. He accordingly sentenced prisoner to undergo imprisonment for four weeks, with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 19 November,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 16th November.

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

R. v. BOLGAN.

   John Bolgan, belonging to the British ship Pyrrhus, was charged with being absent without leave since the 19th inst.

   The offence having been proved, he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. BAGHAT SINGH.

   Baghat Singh was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Yangtzepoo Road on the previous day. Several previous convictions were recorded against prisoner, who was fined $20.


 

North China Herald, 26 November,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 24th November.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

HAI KEE v. W. DAVY.

   This was a claim for Tls. 453, balance due on repairs for the s.s. Konasu.

   The evidence of plaintiff showed that he contracted to repair the boiler of the said steamer for Tls. 190. Tls. 150 had been paid, but the balance was still owing. The plaintiff had to buy iron from plates instead of steel for the job, which had cost more.

   Defendant stated that Tls. 40 was due to the plaintiff, but against that there was a set-off of $160 for penalty of delay in execution. Plaintiff took the contract and did not deliver the steamer until 10 days after contract time. There was a loss in consequence of this delay and the contract (put in) specified that a fine of $10 a day would have to be paid by plaintiff if he did not finish the work in time. This he agreed to.  Then a man had to be sent to Ningpo, whither the steamer had gone, as the repairs had not been properly effected, and this cost Tls. 20.

   Plaintiff stated that the delay arose through the engineer-surveyor insisting on an iron plate being put into the boiler instead of steel; and not only was there a delay, but also extra outlay on that account.

   His Honour non-suited plaintiff, as it was proved that under the contract his indebtedness to defendants exceeded their indebtedness to him.


 

North China Herald, 26 November,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 24th November.

Before H. E. Fulford, Esq., Police Magistrate.

   FREDERICK CRONLEY, late boatswain of the barque Lydgate, was charged with desertion.

   E. T. Riveiro, shipping clerk, stated that Cronley had been to the British Shipping Office wanting to be paid off, but the captain of the Lydgate refused to do this as he could not get another man to take his place. The Lydgate sailed on Monday last, but the captain had instructed witness to act for him in the case.

   Prisoner said he had been ill-treated and wanted to be discharged, but the captain would not pay him off.  He also said he hoped to get away in the Cambrian King or the American ship St. Katherine.

   Seven days hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 10 December,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd December.

Before H. E. Fulford, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. ASSA SINGH.

   Assa Singh was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Garden Bridge on the previous day. Sikh Constable No. 123 having proved the charge,

   His Worship took into account the fact that it was the accused's first offence and discharged him with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. MURRAY.

   R. Gordon Murray failed to appear to answer a charge of being drunk and disorderly in the Central Hotel and assaulting the manager, Mr. Smith. Inspector Matheson stated that the accused had been let out that morning on a promise to attend at that Court, but he had not done so.

   His Worship directed a summons to be issued against him.

.  .  .  

6th December

R. v. Santa Singh.

   Santa Singh, a watchman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Yangtzepoo Road on the previous day. The evidence was to the effect that the accused was drunk and asleep in a 'ricksha proceeding along the Yangtzepoo Road when he was stopped by a Sikh constable, and as he became noisy was taken to the station. There he snatched off the constable's cape.

   His Worship, as it was the accused's first offence, discharged him with a caution.


 

North China Herald, 17 December,1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 13th December

Before H. E. Fulford, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. DORAN.

   Robert Doran was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Sailors' Home on the 11th inst.

   Mr. James Eveleigh, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, said the accused was drunk lying in the floor, shouting, and generally creating a disturbance. Witness had him taken to the police station in a 'ricksha.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5, with the alternative of a week's hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 17 December,1897

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 13th December.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

PAPPS v. MURRAY.

   This was a judgment summons against R. Gordon Murray for an amount of $91.28. Plaintiff did not put in an appearance.

   Defendant, sworn, said circumstances had altered since judgment had been delivered in the case, and he was now unable to pay. He was living at 59 Rue Montauban. He was in business, and was now depending on commission. Until he received a certain commission he would not be able to pay the instalment due on the judgment. He had no property that execution could be given on.

   Since judgment had been given he had received $3,000 commission on paper, but his receiving that amount depended on the issue of the Bennertz case, and whether the British authorities enforced a contract made with the Chinese. He had earned nothing in hard cash since he was last before the Court. His personal living expenses were being found by some Chinese for whom he was working, but a clause in an existing agreement disallowed the payment by the Chinese of witness's back debts. Witness was incurring no debts at all.

   His Honour adjourned the hearing sine die.

.  .  .  

FRAMJEE, SORABJEE AND CO. v. MURRAY.

   This was a judgment summons for $20.17,. against R. Gordon Murray.

   Mr. Framjee said he had made application to defendant for the payment of the amount for which judgment had been given. Defendant had frequently put witness off on such occasions, and payment had not been made.

   Defendant said the present debt had been incurred when an understanding regarding salary had expired between him and a former compradore, now dead. He would be unable to settle the debt until Chinese New Year, after which he could settle.

   His Honour adjourned the hearing sine die.

.  .  .  

WOO SAN-ZAY v. BIDWELL.

   This was a claim against G. D. B. Bidwell, for $6.90, wages due for twenty-six days in October, and $16.18 for goods supplied.

   Witness said he was defendant's cook and claimed twenty-six days' wages for October past, having left defendant's employ on the 16th of October on account of some business which required his presence at home. He provided a substitute and told defendant he was going, having previously obtained leave, which was granted. $16.18 of the amount claimed was for marketing. Defendant's "boy" had told witness that a substitute would not be required.

   Ching Chao, cautioned, said he was an assistant cook at the Club Concordia. Had gone to defendant's house on the evening of the 26th October, when he was told by defendant's "boy" that his services would not be required, and the "boy" refused to take him to defendant.

   Defendant said plaintiff had asked for three days' leave, which was granted on condition that he supplied a substitute. No substitute appeared, and defendant was absent for exactly a fortnight. The marketing bill witness did not dispute.

   His Honour said leave of absence had apparently been obtained by plaintiff, but the evidence of plaintiffs "boy" would have to be obtained on the point as to whether admission to a substitute was refused.

   Plaintiff said he had obtained leave for three days, but had remained at home for twelve days. His home was at Ningpo.

   His Honour said that on plaintiff's own evidence regarding his taking more leave than was granted, and as the substitute evidently had taken no trouble to see the defendant, judgment would be given for the defendant, the marketing bill, however, being admitted to be due to him.


 

North China Herald, 31 December, 1897

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 29th December.

 Before H. E. Fulford, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. GAMBLE.

   Richard Gamble was charged with attempting to commit suicide by jumping off the Garden Bridge into the river on the 16th inst.

   Prisoner said he remembered nothing about it.

   Police Constable Kunsberg said he was on duty in Broadway in the 16th inst. and saw a number of people on the Garden Bridge looking into the water. Witness ran on to the Bridge and saw the prisoner in the water. A native boat was coming up, and witness hailed her. The junk's people got hold of the prisoner as he was passing. Witness went down the Garden foreshore and hauled prisoner ashore. Witness first took him to the Station and then to the hospital. When witness took him ashore he said several times; "Let me stop here, let me die." Prisoner did not appear to be drunk.

   Inspector Bourke said that prisoner had been detained at the hospital until Monday, when it having come to his knowledge that he was to be charged, he made good his escape. Her was arrested on Thursday in Broadway, and was then under the influence of drink

   His Worship remanded him in custody for a week, in order that further enquiries might be made.


 

North China Herald, 31 December,1897

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

Shanghai, 29th December.

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

GAILLARD JEUINE v. P. & O. S.N. Co.

   This was a claim for $17.50 for short and damaged cargo ex Militia.

   After hearing evidence for the plaintiff, His Lordship adjourned the hearing for a week, for the production of invoices.

.  .  .  

YU TAI v. BENNETT.

   This was a claim against M. E. Bennett for $71.125 for clothing supplied during the current year.

   Defendant admitted owing $66.15 and plaintiff agreeing to accept that sum in settlement of the claim, His Lordship gave judgment for $66.15 and costs.


 

North China Herald, 31 December,1897

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 24th December.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General, and Messrs. C. C. Bennett and A. W. Danforth, Assessors.

MACKENZIE & Co. v. WOODWARD.

YENG DA-CHENG v. WPOODWARD.

   Claim, Tls. 344.66, for packing and shipping cotton. Defendant A. Woodward confessed judgment for the amount.

.  .  .  

YENG DA-CHENG v. WOODWARD.

   Claim Tls. 5,755.56 for cotton purchased.

   Defendant A. Woodward confessed judgment for the amount with legal interest from the 3rd of August, 1897, and with cost

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