Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases 1898

North China Herald, 7 January,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 5th January.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

GAILLARD JEUNE AND CO. v. PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL S.N. CO.

   This was a further hearing of a case arising out of a claim for $17.50 for shortage and damaged cargo ex s.s. Manila.

   Mr. E. A. Hewett,. Agent of the defendant Company in Shanghai, stated that the contention was one more of principle than of the actual claim, hence the application for the production of the invoices, but the plaintiff held that he was not bound to produce then in open court as they would disclose his business.

   Sir Nicholas Hannen called for the invoices and perused them himself, without reading then in open Court. He held that the claim was an equitable one and accordingly gave judgment for the full amount for the plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 7 January, 1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th January

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

R. v. BHACAN SINGH.

   Bhacan Singh, police constable, was charged with assaulting Wang Ah-san, by striking him with his truncheon on the Yangtzerpoo Road on the 3rd instant.

   According to the complainant's story he had driven to opposite the Ewo Cotton Mill on the afternoon of the 3rd, forr the purpose of delivering an order, when the defendant came up and said he had no right there. Complainant said he would be in that position for a few minutes only, and declined to go over to the other side of the road, as it was wet there. Defendant then struck him on the side with his truncheon, pulled him from the van and again struck him, this time using the whip. Defendant took the van and ponies to the police station, and complainant returned and reported the occurrence to his employers.

   By Inspector Reed - Defendant did not take hold of the reins to lead the pony on to the other side of the road, but dragged them from the complaint's hand. Complainant did not strike defendant with the whip.

   Defendant said complainant's van was in the middle of the road, contrary to regulations. Complainant did not move in response to defendant's orders, which were repeated several times, and defendant himself took the reins in order to shift the pony. Complainant thereupon swore at defendant and struck him several times with his whip. Defendant took the whip from him, and complainant then jumped from the van and ran off, upon which defendant took the van and pony to the police station.

   Ah Sung, an employee of the Aquarius Co. of which complainant was a mafoo, said he was on the van on the day in question, when an order was being delivered at the Ewo Cotton mill. Defendant struck the pony with the whip, and upon complainant demurring, struck him also, using his truncheon. Complainant was dragged from the van and then returned to the Aquarius works and reported the matter, the van being taken to the police station.

   Yu Tze, coolie in the Aquarius works, corroborated the last witness.

   Shen Singh, watchman at the Ewo Cotton mill, said the van took up a position in the middle of the road. Complainant refused to move when ordered by the constable, who was struck with the whip by complainant. The constable took the whip from him, and complainant then jumped down and ran away.

   Jent Singh, mounted constable, said the cart was in the middle of the road at the entrance to the Ewo Cotton Mill, which was at the end of his beat. Witness called defendant's attention to this, but the complainant would not move. Witness saw nothing more, for he proceeded on his beat.

   The case was dismissed, costs to be borne by the complainant. 

 

North China Herald, 14 January,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th January

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

R. v. BROADFOOT.

   S. Broadfoot was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Saturday afternoon.

   Police Constable Thompson said that at about three o'clock on Saturday afternoon he saw the accused outside the Astor House having an altercation with a 'ricksha coolie. He was drunk, so witness took him to the station.

   His Worship discharged the accused with a caution.

 

North China Herald, 14 January,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 11th January.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

PAPPS v. MURRAY.

   This was a sitting for the hearing of a judgment summons, the amount owing by the defendant, R. Gordon Murray, being $70, balance of $156 for board and lodging. Judgment was given originally on the 21st of August last.

   Defendant said he had no money, but admitted having received a sum of Tls. 100.

   His Lordship pointed out that the defendant was rendering himself liable to be committed to gaol, and ordered him to pay Tls. 10 before 3 o'clock.

   Defendant in the afternoon obeyed this order.

 

North China Herald, 28 January,1898

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 27th January.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General.

R. CONNOLLY, a seaman belonging to the American sailing ship Luzon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Garden Bridge on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved, his Honour sentenced the prisoner to ten days' imprisonment and to pay a fine of $5 and costs.


 

North China Herald, 28 January,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 26th January.

Before H. P. Wilkinson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

ORLEY v. CUNNINGHAM.

   In this case G. T. Orley sued A. Cunningham & Co. for $18.50 balance due as commission on advertisements procured for the Shanghai Daily Press.

   Plaintiff said part of his commission had been paid, and seeing an advertisement that all claims on defendant were to be sent in, he sent in his claim for the balance of the commission due to him. The claim was sent back to him marked "Returned with thanks." He had previously made application for payment, which was refused. He did not attend a meeting of creditors. He was engaged by defendant as shipping reporter and proof reader. Was then made foreman, and afterwards canvasser, in which capacity he was promised 15 per cent on advertisements, but was only paid 10 per cent.

   By defendant -He had not rendered an account, and had no letters in his possession to show that he had obtained the advertisements on which he claimed commission. The claims related to some time in 1896. Had no document to show defendant's indebtedness to him.

   Alfred Cunningham said plaintiff entered his employ as a compositor in September, 1896, and was after a time told that if he could get any advertisements he would get a commission of 10 or 15 per cent; witness could not remember the exact rate. Plaintiff remained in his, defendant's, employ until he was dismissed in October,1896.  He secured one advertisement, for which he was paid commission. (Defendant put in his cash book to support his evidence.) Plaintiff made no claim, verbal or otherwise, on him until the other day. Most of the advertisements alleged by plaintiff to have been secured by him were secured by letter.

   Plaintiff said he had called at defendant's office two or three times and asked for the balance of the commission due to him. He had not sent in any written claim.

   His Lordship - Judgment in this case must be for the defendant, the reason being that the claim was not made until after a lapse of over wo years, and I shall not give judgment on the evidence before me.

.  .  .  

LO AH-CHI v. CUNNINGHAM

   This was a claim for$13.95 for overtime in November and December,1896.

   Lo Ah-chi, plaintiff, said he was engaged by defendant at a salary of $20 a month, and 25 cents an hour overtime. Had worked 93 hours overtime, for which he was paid in part, and he now claimed the balance, $13.95. The foreman compositor kept an account of the overtime.

   The Court adjourned for half an hour for the production of the foreman compositor.

   Upon resuming, Wang Ah-fat, foreman compositor, said no overtime was worked in November and December,1896. Plaintiff worked 89 hours overtime in September, and received $9 in part payment.

   Plaintiff said he had asked for payment of his claim, but was not paid.

   His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff for $13.95, costs for defendant.

.  .  .  

AH YUEN v. CUNNINGHAM.

   Amount of claim, $15.75, for overtime.

   Ah Yuen, plaintiff, said he was engaged by defendant as compositor and worked overtime, for which he was paid $13 on account; was now claiming balance.

   Wang Ah-fat, foreman compositor, proved the overtime, and the amount due to plaintiff, $15.75.

   Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 14 February,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.' SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 9th February.

Before H. P. Wilkinson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

PAPPS v. MURRAY.

   Mrs. H. W. Papps, plaintiff, said that defendant had promised the Court to pay all that he owed her in three months. This he did not do and there was yet the balance of the sum, for which the order was made.

   Defendant said he had previously made a statement that he was in receipt of salary, but his compradore, who was an Australian Chinese, who had had mining experience in Australia, who was in the business which he (defendant) had in hand. 

   His Lordship - What is his name?

   Defendant - I do not know his Chinese name. Tom Pao, I called him. Since the compradore died defendant had been working on commission for a form of Chinese. All this evidence, he said, he had given before.

   His Lordship - Did you earn any commission?

   Defendant - No, I have not. When the plaintiff made the statement that I would pay up in three months it was not the case. I said I hoped to get $1,000 within three months in certain contingencies, which have not come off. I said if I got that money then I would pay. I would like to add a rider to the statement, for when I made it I had no witnesses at all, now I have two witnesses.

   His Lordship - Are they in Court?

   Defendant - No, your Lordship. What I mean is this, I am going to take legal action against the plaintiff about this case. If she wins the case against me then I will stick to the original agreement about the $1,000.

   Plaintiff - It was Mr. Mansfield that said that Mr. Murray had to pay the balance, and not Mr. Murray at all.

   Defendant - That is making a statement.

   His Lordship - I am quite capable of conducting the business of this Court. Your position at present is a very unsatisfactory one for you. I will adjourn the case until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, and unless this balance due by you is paid I shall have to take pretty severe action.

.  .  .  

10th February.

PAPPS v. MURRAY.

   This was a case adjourned from the previous day, in which defendant was summoned to show cause why he had not complied with an order of the Court to make payment under a judgment summons.

   Mrs. Papps, the plaintiff, was called and stated that she had not received any money since the previous day.

   Mr. Smith, manager of the Central Hotel, was called to prove that defendant had been in possession of money since Wednesday.

   His Lordship sentenced the defendant to undergo five days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 14 February,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 7th February

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

 R. v. HARVEY.

   G. Harvey was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway.

   His Worship discharged the prisoner with a caution.

.  .  .  

9th February

R. v. RYAN.

   Thomas Ryan was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway yesterday, and also with assaulting Inspector Reed.

   Inspector Reed, sworn, said on Tuesday afternoon he saw Ryan in Broadway behaving in a most disgraceful manner. He was also very drunk. Witness requested him to conduct himself more decently.  He answered, "I will not. I am out of your jurisdiction, I'll do what I like." Witness took him into custody, but he resisted violently. A native constable came to witness' assistance and Ryan was got towards the Yuenfong Road. At the corner, he succeeded in throwing himself clear of his captors and cried out, "Englishmen to the rescue." He struck out at witness and kicked him on the lower part of the body; as witness stepped back quickly the kick was not so serious in its results as it might have been. Witness was, however, partly disabled for the moment. Ryan then stooped down and put his head between witness' legs and tried to throw him over his shoulder. A native constable came to witness' assistance and he was released from the prisoner, who then threw himself on his back and kicked out. He was hoisted on to his feet again and was immediately got to the station.

   Corroborative evidence was given by a native constable and a Sikh, but Ryan offered nothing in extenuation.

   He was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

11th February.

R. v. CURRAN.

   William Curran was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway and with using threatening language to P.C. Dahl, on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved,

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to undergo two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

12th February.

R. v. HAGGERTY.

   John Haggerty was brought up in custody charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in Broadway on the previous evening. Evidence having been given in support of the charge it transpired that prisoner had been previously convicted.  He was now mulcted in the sum of $10, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 21 February, 1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th February.

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

R. v. RICHARDSON.

   Joseph Richardson, seaman of the British sailing ship Manchester, was charged with attempting to murder on the high seas, on the 3rd of December last, Arthur Herbert Simmonds, chief mate of the same vessel.

   Sherwood Forrest, master of the Manchester, was sworn and stated that on the date in question about half-past eleven in the forenoon he received a complaint from the steward concerning certain reprehensible conduct in the forecastle. At the time he was in latitude 46 35' south and longitude 120 44' East. Witness told the mate to investigate the matter, and a short time later he heard Simmonds accusing the prisoner of being the offender.  Prisoner at the time had just taken up his position at the wheel. A scuffle took place between them and witness who at the time was in the chart toom rushed out on deck and saw prisoner attacking the mate savagely. The mate at the time had hold of the wheel so witness relieved him. Several blows were then exchanged between Simmonds and the prisoner and both fell to the deck. The mate got up and allowed Richardson to do the same, when the last-named suddenly drew his knife - an ordinary sheath knife, - and rushing at Simmonds stabbed him. The two closed again and prisoner made several attempts to stab the mate, in the neck. Witness let go the wheel and went to the assistance of the mate, succeeding in getting the knife out of the prisoner's grasp. He shouted out for the fourth mate to bring the irons and prisoner was handcuffed, whereupon he foamed at the mouth, wrestled furiously, and tried to bite those near him.  He also made use of abominable threats. They eventually overpowered him, tied his feet together and secured him to a stanchion in the lazarette. Later in the day witness released him, but he kept him in irons on and off for a fortnight.

   They searched him to see if he had any matches in his possession as the ship was laden with paraffin oil, and witness thought that he might possibly make an attempt to fire her. Subsequently he was found in possession of pipes, matches, and tobacco, which he accounted for by saying that he took them out of his other clothes which had been passed to him. When they commenced to get into warm weather witness transferred him to one of the state rooms, keeping him there under lock and key. He allowed him to smoke in the stateroom but refused to let any of the crew communicate with him. He permitted him also to walk about the poop in the evening under observation.

   Prisoner, sked if he wished to put any questions to the captain, alleged that he was 21 days in irons instead of a fortnight, only being allowed unmanacled on two Sundays when he washed his clothes.

   His Worship intimated that at a future time he would have an opportunity of making a statement.

   Forrest added that if the mate had been laid up the ship would have been without an officer as the second and third mates were ill, whilst the fourth mate was uncertificated.

   The further hearing was adjourned until Wednesday afternoon at two o'clock.

16th February.

R. v. RICHARDSON.

In this case, Joseph Richardson .  .  .   was again brought up.

    The first witness was Simmonds who practically corroborated the testimony given on Tuesday by the captain, Sherwood Forrest.  He stated that when he discovered in the first place that the prisoner was the cause of the trouble in the forecastle he ordered him forward. At the time the prisoner was at the wheel and witness took hold of the wheel so that he might obey his order. Immediately he did so prisoner set upon him in a savage manner. The captain cane to his assistance and witness over-powered the prisoner and threw him on the deck. He got up, however, and drawing his knife stabbed witness behind the left shoulder with a ferocious lunge. The blow cut through his coat and vest but caused no wound. Directly afterwards he stabbed him again in the left side the knife penetrating his clothes and causing a slight wound. Prisoner went for him again and was about to stab him in the neck when the captain who was in charge of the wheel intervened and took the knife away from him. The ship was running eight or nine knots at the time with squared yards, so that with no one in charge the ship and crew were in danger. The captain shouted out to the fourth mate and the sailmaker and after some difficulty they put him in irons. Prisoner used abominable threats both to witness and the captain, and they had to tie his feet and lash him to a stanchion in the lazarette to restrain his violence. 

   They took all his matches away from him on account of having a kerosene oil cargo, but getting wind that there was some underhand work going on amongst the crew to supply prisoner with matches and tobacco, he subsequently again searched him and found him to be in possession of matches which he took away. After about a fortnight they transferred him from the lazarette to a cabin where he remained under lock and key until their arrival in Shanghai. On one occasion he had to chide prisoner for breaching cargo, but otherwise there could be no animus between them.

   Prisoner by cross examination sought to show that he could never have been removed from the lazarette but that the mate wanted to broach the cargo. His Worship on appeal by the witness said that this question did not enter into the case. It was not true, the witness continued, that he blasphemed the men every day.  He said that rather than be a common sailor he would jump over board, and so he would. When the captain took the knife away from the prisoner he struck him on the forehead with the butt end of it.

   Charles Rippon, fourth mate of the Manchester, and Geo. Knight, steward, and Charles Neilson, sailmaker, were called and spoke to assisting to secure the prisoner. They were not present when the disturbance commenced. The last named said the captain took out his handkerchief and threatened to gag the prisoner of he did not desist from using abusive language.

   The prisoner in defence said that when questioned by the mate as to the forecastle incident he admitted being the offender whereupon the mate said, "Only for your having hold of the wheel, I would wipe the deck with you." He replied, "I don't think you will," when the mate attacked him, and seizing hold of the collar of his coat ordered him away from the wheel. They then commenced to fight and the mate getting him down on the deck, knelt in him and pummelled him with both fists. When he got up he saw in addition to the skipper and the mate, the steward and the three other officers on the poop. He had the knife in his hand. Thinking hews going to be "double-banked" he closed with the mate with his arm but did not strike with the knife. He was overpowered and the captain taking the knife away from him struck him heavily over the left temple with it causing his head to bleed pretty freely. While he was down, the master and the mate hammered him continually. 

   He alleged that during the tine he was in the lazarette, the irons were only removed on two occasions and then only for brief periods.

   Wm. Burley, seaman, was called in behalf of the prisoner. He said he was called to take the wheel after the captain had left it. When he got on the poop he saw the mate and the master holding the prisoner down on the deck, but did not see them strike him.

   Prisoner, after this witness had left the box said he did not wish to call any more evidence.  His Worship then committed him for trial.

.  .  .  

17th February

R. v. CHRISTIE.

   John Christie, municipal cattle inspector, appeared to answer a charge of assaulting Dong Ah-sing by kicking and striking him, with his fists, at, or near, the Municipal bullock sheds on the 14th instant. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

   Complainant stated that he was in the employ of Mr. Hall, cattle dealer and butcher of Shanghai, as a cattle drover. On the 14th inst. he was ordered to take a number of beasts from French town to the Municipal cattle sheds. There were altogether twenty bullocks in the charge of himself and five other coolies. They arrived at the sheds about four o'clock but Mr. Christie was not there. When he arrived he questioned complainant as to the ownership of the cattle, and on being informed that they were Mr. Hall's the defendant struck and kicked him. He also struck him in the back. Complainant exhibited bruises and a slight abrasion as proof of the violence he had been subjected to. The coolies afterwards went to the Hongkew Police station, wither they were directed by a native employee at the sheds. On arriving there the inspector in charge asked witness to whom the beasts belonged, threatening that if he did not tell the truth he would lock him up. He told him they belonged to Mr. Hall and afterwards the bullocks were branded at the sheds. He now told His Worship that in consequence of the assault he was at present incapacitated, and unable to follow his ordinary employment.

   Yao Fung-chau, a coolie, spoke to accompanying the last witness to the sheds with the cattle.  He corroborated his evidence as to what took place at the shed with regard to the ownership of the cattle. He himself was forced to go upstairs, where he was kept for some time. When he came down again he was told to go to the police station and on refusing to go was kicked by the defendant. In reply to the defendant the witness said defendant got hold of his queue when he assaulted him.

   Chun Mow-sung, one of the party of coolies in charge of the cattle, gave similar testimony, adding that he himself was struck across the face with a broomstick, and otherwise assaulted.

   The first witness recalled in answer to a question from Mr. Hall, said he took a memorandum to the shed stating to whom the cattle belonged.

   Mr. Hall went into the witness box and spoke to sending his cattle to the sheds. They were his own bona fide property. The cattle had been sent to the sheds to comply with the Municipal Regulations. They were Tanying cattle and came via the Soochow Creek - the usual channel.

   The defendant, in denying the charge, said he never assaulted them at all. It was a false charge made up against him. He admitted putting two of the coolies in a top office but he did not push them upstairs or use any violence. The reason he put them up there was to isolate them with the view of obtaining the truth as to where the cattle came from. Since the first of the year he had had a great deal of trouble with cattle sent there from Pahsienjao, a prohibited place under the Municipal regulations. The head man, a Chinaman, at the shed, knowing the cattle in question came from Pahsienjao, detained them until he came. When he arrived the coolies admitted that the animals had come from Pahsienjao, having been taken from there to Mr. Hall's palace, branded with his mark, and sent down to the sheds. Mr. Hall had been evading the Municipal regulations and on the previous day defendant had rejected these very cattle. Mr. Hall then sent them down a second time - this being the 14th instant, when he again refused to admit them. He wished to call the headman who was present the whole of the time and he would state that he never committed an assault.

   Wong Kwei-ching, the headman referred to, accordingly was sworn. He denied that Mr. Christie assaulted the men,. Five of the coolies said that the cattle were from Pahsienjao but Mr. Hall's servant did not support the statement, refusing to say where they came from. Witness alleged that the cattle belonged to a Chinaman, that they hailed from a prohibited area, and were sent down in the name of Mr. Hall. Examined by the defendant, the witness had heard that Mr. Hall was anxious to see defendant dismissed.

   The Defendant.: I ask that question, your Worship, to show that Mr. Hall is actuated by personal animosity and that it is a trumped-up charge.

   Mr. Hall proceeded to question the witness as to the marking of the cattle, stating that he wished to drive at something else.

   His Worship, however checked him by reminding him that that was not the place for exposing his personal grievances. He said he did not think the charge of assault was proved and he should dismiss the case.

.  .  .  

18th February.

R. v. PEARCE.

   Frederick Pearce, a young man of respectable appearance, was charged with conspiring with two others, not in custody, to obtain board and lodging from Chotura Khitiwa with intent to defraud.  Prisoner in pleading not guilty stated that at the time he ordered the refreshments he had no money on him, but one of his companions guaranteed to go security for him.

   Prosecutor, who lives at 18 Nanzing Road, stated that the prisoner and two others came to his place and ordered food. They were supplied and afterwards two of them absconded, leaving the prisoner who stated that he had no money. The amount due to him was $5.30.

   Inspector Ramsay said that during the last month they had received several complaints from proprietors of semi-foreign hotels of having been defrauded in this way.

   His Worship - If they will give credit to strangers they must run some risks.

   Prisoner, who promised to pay today, was discharged. His Worship reminding him that unless he kept his word he would be again brought up.

 

North China Herald, 21 February,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 15th February.

Before H. P. Wilkinson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

BROADWAY DRAPERY CO. v. R. GIBSON.

   Plaintiffs claimed $18.65 for drapery goods supplied to the defendant and $2.75 for interest. The account, it was explained had been owing since 1895. The defendant not putting in an appearance judgment went to the plaintiff by default, for the amount of the claim, the interest not being allowed.

.  .  .  

18th February.

LO AH-ZOON v. CURTIS.

This was a claim for $79 alleged to be due to the plaintiff for wages, etc. There being no appearance by the plaintiff the case was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on the following day.

19th February.

   This case involving a claim of $79.20 for wages due, etc., had been adjourned from the previous day owing to the non-appearance of the plaintiff.

   Mr. Curtis keeps a boarding house at No. 8 Canton Road, and the plaintiff had been in his employ for the last three and a half months as butler. He was engaged at $12 a month, the defendant keeping to hand 15 days' pay. He had asked for his wages that were due to him but had not received them. On the 14th inst. he had to submit an account of the crockery which showed that six glasses had been broken, five of them being broken by customers. Mr. Curtis told him that he must replace them, whereupon he replied that he could not until he was paid his wages. Mr. Curtis then struck him and ordered him out of the house. With regard to the rest of the claim, the balance was due to other servants who were engaged by him. Tis last matter was agreed to by Mr. Curtis at the time of the engagement by the defendant; he was authorised to hire the other boys.

   Mr. Curtis was sworn and gave his version of the case, admitting that the boys were in his house. He did not send them away, a fact he was in a position to prove. The rate of wages was correct, but it was distinctly understood that when the inventory was taken on the 14th of every month plaintiff was to be held responsible for all breakages and deficiencies the amount of which he was to stop out if his own and the other boys' wages respectively. 

   The first month plaintiff acted as butler he got on very well and although there was a deficiency amounting to some seven dollars, witness did not stop anything, believing that he was really trying to do his best. The next month however he became very careless, and came very late in the morning - an example which the other boys were not slow to follow - and refused to take notice of anything that was said to him. He became so careless that the guests at his house had to complain and his behaviour was furthermore having a marked influence upon the others. After receiving a complaint from a gentleman, he made up his mind to reduce plaintiff and employ another butler. He had no intention of discharging him or in fact any of the staff. 

   On the 15th of the month the day he paid the wages he called the plaintiff into the office and spoke to him about the deficiencies, ordering him to make them good. Plaintiff then said to him, "What fashion, you belong thief, you want to steal my wages?" With that witness boxed his ears. The other boys were in the office at the time and plaintiff saying something to them in Chinese the whole lot left the place in a body. The other boys had no cause whatever for complaint but were obliged to go because it was customary among the Chinese for all to leave if one did. The result was that he was put to the greatest inconvenience.

   Plaintiff addressing the witness, "I never speak you thief, you liar."

   His Lordship said it was clear that there was an arrangement that the plaintiff should pay the other boys and he should allow them to sue on their behalf. He found that the plaintiff was entitled to a month and a half's wages and the other boys to a month's wages. The plaintiff, however, would have to make good the deficiency on the stock, etc., to the defendant and also pay the costs of the hearing, as he was not present yesterday when the matter came in the list.

   He further advised Curtis to let the affair drop.

 

Straits Times, 24 February 1898
The sailor who attempted to set fire to the American ship Luzon on fire at Shanghai has been sentenced by the U.S. Consular Court to two years' penal servitude.

 

North China Herald, 28 February,1898

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

Shanghai, 25th February.

Before H. P, Wilkinson, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

LAL SINGH v. D. AHMED.

   In this case, plaintiff, a Sikh watchman sued the defendant for the recovery of two sums of fifty dollars, due on promissory notes. Plaintiff sued in behalf of a friend, employed as a warder in Victoria Gaol, Hongkong, and the case which was before the court a fortnight ago was adjourned to enable him to produce a written authority from his friend entitling him to sue. He now told the Court that he had written to his friend but as yet had received no reply.

   Defendant admitted having signed the notes payable to bearer, but he disclaimed any connection with the plaintiff.

   His Lordship was not satisfied that the plaintiff had a locus standi, and gave judgment against him on the present issue, at the same time reminding him that he could institute fresh proceedings on proof of title from his friend.

.  .  .  

BROADWAY DRAPERY COMPANY v. GIBSON.

   The plaintiffs made application for leave to distrain on the goods of the defendant, Miss. R. Gibson of Yangtzepoo. It appeared that the plaintiffs obtained judgment against her for $22.65, being the amount of claim for goods received and costs.  Mr. Macdonald, Usher of the Supreme Court, attempted to serve the judgment upon her, but she refused to see him, or accept service. Subsequently an order for substituted service was made and the summons served upon an adult woman living in the same house.

   His Lordship acceded to the plaintiffs' application and an execution order was issued.

 

North Chinas Herald, 28 February,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd February.

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

R. v. OMAR SINGH.

   Omar Singh, a Sikh watchman, was charged with assaulting Chinese Policeman 445, and also with taking his watch and chain. The evidence showed that the parties had a quarrel at the Hupeh Road Theatre, where they were on duty. Both seemed to have been [to] blame and the watch was lost in the [????].

   His Worship dismissed the case.

DAMAGE TO THE NEXT PART OF THIS COLUMN.

23rd February.

R. v. STANLEY AND OTHERS.

 Chares Stanley, William Clarke   ..........

All five pleaded guilty.

   Sherwood Forrest, Master of the Manchester, was sworn and said that despite distinct orders to do their duty the prisoners stoutly refused to do so. He examined them separately as to their reasons for refusing, when they told him that they wanted to join the Russian or American navies, and gave other excuses. The long and short of it was they wanted to be paid off, someone having told them that because he had paid off the second mate he had broken the articles. They would not, however, get paid.

   The prisoner Clarke said he had been going to sea for 49 years and had never been so much abused in all his life as he had been on that vessel. He was afraid to go to the wheel and he never knew when he might be knocked down by one of the officers. Stanley also complained that the mate had struck him in the presence of the Captain.

   This statement Forrest emphatically denied.

   His Worship addressing the prisoners said they had entered into an agreement in New York to serve the ship for three years and they could not expect to be paid off at this port. They had not shown further that they had any right to be so treated. They would all have to go to gaol for four weeks, with the understanding that they would be put on board should the ship sail sooner.

.  .  .  

24th February.

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, unemployed, and of no fixed abode, was charged on a warrant with obtaining goods to the value of $6.60 from a native shop, No. 152, Nanking Road, by means of false pretences. There was another charge of the same nature against the prisoner but this was not proceeded with.

   Che Hing-pong, cautioned, said he was a book-keeper in the Tong On shop. On the 21st accused and another man came to the shop and bought sixteen shell fish, a box of cigars, one tin of pears, and a tin of apricots, the whole of the value of $6.60. The goods were put in a basket and the accused and the other man got into 'rickshas and went away. Accused promised to pay for the goods. Witness received the chit. The chit produced was the one.

   Leong Ah-san, an assistant in the Tong On shop, gave similar evidence.

   Thomas Jespersen, P.C. 47, said he was on duty in Nanking Road about 8.30 a.m. on the 21st. Saw accused and another man come out of a shop, No. 152, Nanking Road.  Witness knew the accused and knew his nane, but did not know the other man. He went into the shop and asked the proprietor if the men bought anything. He was told they had, and they had signed a chit for the goods, and told the proprietor to go to their office in Hongkew on the next day for the money. Witness was shown a chit, which he recognised as the one produced in Court.

   Inspector Ramsay said that the accused was known to the police. He served for about two months as a constable and has since been several times locked up for drunkenness and on one occasion was sent to the British Court. He had no fixed residence and for some time the police had found it necessary to keep an eye on him and others.

   Accused said that on the 21st he was out with a friend and they bought some stores, but to the best of his recollection they were paid for. He did not remember signing any chits.

   His Worship committed the accused for trial on a charge of obtaining goods by false pretences.

.  .  .  

R. v. THOMPKISS AND OTHERS.

   John Francis Thompkiss, William Fisher, Charles Stetson, and Alfred Potter, seamen of the sailing ship Manchester, were charged with wilfully disobeying the orders of the master and refusing duty. The prisoners who pleaded guilty said their conduct was justifiable.

   Sherwood Forrest, master of the Manchester, was sworn and spoke to the men refusing duty. The case was reported to him by the chief officer on the 22nd. Previously to refusing duty, they had all asked for their discharges which he would not give them.

   The prisoners complained bitterly of the treatment they had received from the skipper and the mate, who they alleged called them most opprobious names throughout the voyage.

   His Worship said the fact of being called names did not palliate the offence with which they were charged. They had signed an agreement to serve the ship for three years and they could not be discharged unless the owners or master agreed. They would have to go to prison for four weeks, but would be put on board the ship if she sailed before the expiration of the period.

 

North China Herald, 7 March,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 1st March.

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

R. v. LAWRENCE.

   Victor Lawrence, a coloured man, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in the Hongkew Coffee House, and with using abusive language to the manageress.

   Max Ulbricht, sworn, said his wife was manageress of the Coffee House. On the previous afternoon witness had to tell the accused to leave the house, as he was intoxicated and was making a disturbance. He returned in the course of the evening, still more drunk, and used most disrespectful language to witness' wife. Witness pushed him outside and tried to take him to the police station, but he resisted and witness then sent for the police.

   Prisoner said he went to the house to get $2 which the witness' head "boy" owed him. He admitted being drunk, but knew what he was doing.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5 with the alternative of a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

2nd March.

R. v. SMITH.

   Charles F. Smith was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and refusing to quit the Central Hotel when requested to df so. He pleaded not guilty.

   William Weston Clifford, licensee of the Central Hotel and Manager of the Central Stores, Limited, deposed that on Tuesday night one of the bar checkers complained of the prisoner's behaviour in the bar where he was creating a disturbance and challenging another checker out to fight. Witness ordered the police to be sent for and himself went into the bar where he saw prisoner with his coat off standing in a fighting attitude. Two Sikh policemen came in and he instructed them to remove him. Prisoner however talked them over and he had to send for a foreign Policeman to eject him. He could not say whether the prisoner was drunk, but he was very excited. Prisoner was lately in the employ of the Company but resigned on the 11th ultimo, but was living in the hotel free until February 28th. He was formerly a clerk on probation, and had a claim against witness in that court for wages.

   Prisoner - We were shaking for lottery tickets at the same table, and I was not drunk.

   Witness - I never said you were.

   Prisoner - You know the friendly feeling existing between yourself, and the bar checkers. You are perfectly aware that a certain charge was made against me at the Board Meeting.

   Witness - That has nothing to do with the case.

   His Worship - You are not cross-examining him upon the evidence, and you must confine yourself to that.

   Michael Statopolo, a bar checker said, prisoner came up to him, and throwing off his coat wanted to fight him without his giving the least provocation. He considered the prisoner must have been drunk.

   Prisoner in cross-examination alleged that the last witness had stolen some of his chits and that lead to his taking off his coat.

   His Worship said he must not introduce outside matter.

   Moses Rappaport, assistant manager of the hotel, spoke to the disturbance caused by the prisoner and to his ultimate ejection from the premises.

   P.C. Head, who was called to the hotel, gave evidence as to taking prisoner to the police station and charging him. He should say he was under the influence of rink. He did not hear Mr. Clifford say he would withdraw the charge if prisoner would promise not to come to the hotel again or the prisoner say that, as a shareholder, he had a perfect right there.

   Inspector Matheson who was passing the Central Hotel when the row was going on said he advised that the prisoner should be summoned. He refused however the opportunity given him of going away, and said that as he was charged he must go to the police station. Witness considered he was drunk.

   Sergt. Ralph Bourke spoke to receiving the prisoner at the police station, and stated that after the prisoner gave him his name and address he told him he might go. He would not leave the station and commenced to create a disturbance by thumping the counter and dock.  He wanted a doctor to be sent for and then asked to be allowed to use the telephone. Witness told him that he was at liberty to fetch a doctor but he still refused to go away. He then went up to him to try and persuade him to leave when he pushed witness and he accordingly locked him up. The reason he said he wanted to be locked up was that he had an action pending against Mr. Clifford and he was going to get thirty thousand dollars out of him.

   P.C. Head was recalled and substantially corroborated the evidence given by the Sergeant, remarking in response to a question from the accused that he was quite sure that prisoner hustled the last witness.

   Prisoner in defence said he should like to call evidence. His dispute with Mr. Clifford had been coming on since he resigned from the hotel on the 11th of February. If his Worship remembered on that day he was subpoenaed to give evidence against Howard Gordon Murray much against Mr. Clifford's wishes.

   His Worship - I don't think you need mention that. I don't want a history of your relations with the Stores.

   Prisoner, continuing, alleged that the present case was brought against him out of spite. After he went to the hotel, where he sat at the same table as Clifford shaking dice for drinks which Clifford lost, he called a "boy" when the witness Statopolo saiod something to him with the result that the boy did not obey the summons. He then went up to Statopolo and said to him, "I think you have done enough." He was referring to the time when Statopolo stole his chits and he took his conduct on Tuesday night as direct insult. He was not drunk, but he admitted taking off his coat and challenging him to a fight. This man had taken his chits and Mr. Clifford was aware of it because it was brought to his notice, but he never so much as gave him a chance. He would swear that the constables were not doing him justice. He was bringing an action against Mr. Clifford for three thousand dollars (the matter was in the hands of solicitors in Shanghai) and that was the reason he was charged. He had not a reputation for drunkenness.

   Mr. Clifford referring to the charges made by the prisoner against Statopolo said he thought they were improper statements.

   His Worship agreed that they were. He found the charge proved against the prisoner and fined him $10 or 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.


 

North China Herald, 14 March,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 7th March.

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

R. v. ASSA SINGH.

   Assa Singh, watchman, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour and also with committing an unprovoked assault upon a Chinese woman.

   The evidence adduced, went to show that the prisoner in a drunken state entered a house in the Yangtzepoo Road and went into a room in which the woman in question was sleeping, and assaulted her. Her son, 20 years of age, sleeping in the same room, went to her assistance on hearing her screams and grappled with the prisoner. Further assistance arriving the prisoner was removed to the police station. In addition to the woman, three other witnesses were called, and spoke to the prisoner's violence.

   The prisoner admitted being under the influence of drink but denied having committed any assault.

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

.  .  .  

8th March.

R. v. BHAGHAT SINGH.

   Bhaghat Singh was charged with being drunk and incapable in the Foochow Road on the previous day.

   Police Sergeant Aiers proved the charge, and there being seven previous convictions recorded against the prisoner, His Worship imposed a fine of $10.

.  .  .  

10th March

R. v. MACKENZIE.

   Kenneth Mackenzie, seaman, was charged with being drunk in the Fearon Road on the previous night.

   Sikh P.C. 80 said that on the previous night at about 10.30 he saw the prisoner in Broadway. He was very drunk, and turned up the Fearon Road and went into a Chinse teashop. Witness was called and saw the prisoner in the shop. He was so drunk that he fell off the seat on which he was sitting. He had to be carried out of the shop and put into a 'ricksha and taken to the station.

   Prisoner denied the charge, but His Worship considered it proved and sentenced prisoner to pay a fine of $5 or go to prison for a week.

.  .  . 

12th March.

R. v. WRIGHT.

   William Wright, sailmaker of the British ship Dalcairne, was charged on a warrant with absenting himself without leave from his ship since the 9th instant. The case was proved by the Master, Evan Jones, from whose evidence it appeared that the prisoner went on shore to make some complaints to the Consul about some of his shipmates and afterwards refused to go on board again. His Worship committed him to prison for four weeks, with the understanding that he should be put on board if the ship sailed sooner.


 

North China Herald, 14 March,1898

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 8th March

Before Sir Nicholas Hannan, Chief Justice.

R. v. RICHARDSON.

   Joseph Richardson, able-bodied seaman, was indicted for feloniously attempting to murder one Arthur Herbert Simmonds, Chief Officer of the sailing ship Manchester, while on the high seas on December 3rd last by stabbing him. He was further indicted for malicious wounding.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, prosecuted, and Mr. F. Ellis appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty.

   Mr. Robert Macgregor, who had been summoned in the jury, failed to answer to his name and His Lordship fined him $50.

   The jury was constituted as follows: Messrs. F. A. Sawyer, Augustus White, W. P. Lambe, Chambers, and R. Phillippo.

.  .  .  

[Not transcribed.]

His jury then retired to consider their verdict and after a brief absence from Court returned with a verdict of "Guilty of unlawful Wounding."

   His Lordship addressing the prisoner said - The jury have, I think, taken a very lenient view of your offence. I dare say your life on board ship is a hard one, but one of the things that Englishmen ought not in any conflict to do is use a knife. The sentence that I shall pass upon you is that you be uimprisoned and kept to hard labour for three months.

   His Lordship on rising complimented Mr. Ellis on his able defence, and thanked the jury for their patient hearing.


 

North China Herald, 14 March,1898

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

Shanghai, 11th March

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SHANGHAI GAS CO. v. FEARON.

   This was a claim by the Shanghai Gas Company against Mr. J. S. Fearon for $42 for gas supplied during November and December,1897.

   Mr. H. Parkes appeared for the plaintiffs and the defendant was represented by Mr. A. P. Stokes (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master.)

   The defendant admitted liability to the extent of $30 and paid that sum into Court.

   Mr. Stokes applied for an adjournment with the view of calling further evidence and for the purpose of having the case tried before a jury, but his Lordship ruled that he had no power to grant the application.

   Mr. Parkes then opened the case for the plaintiffs and proceeded to call witnesses in support of the claim.

   Mr. G. R. Wingate, Secretary of the plaintiff Company, said that the bill for November was sent in due course to the defendant, but he refused to pay. On his refusal the Company decided to wait until the December account was presented and see what defendant would do. On the 16th of December, a European fitter was sent to Mr. Fearon's house to examine the fittings and meter, and he reported that they were in perfect condition. The December bill was sent to defendant and he refused payment. Witness was not in the habit of making deductions from consumers' bills unless a mistake on the Company's part was proved.

   Cross-examined - The Company had no agreement with anyone as to the quality and illuminating power of the gas supplied, except with the Municipal Council with regard to the street lamps. The Company could supply any kind of gas it chose. The Company could supply its own tests as to the testing of meter. There was no independent test supplied. They had complaints of meters not registering properly, perhaps 10 or 12 a month, but in only about ten cases during the past three years had any reduction been made from customers' bills on that account.

   J. Chatham, foreman fitter in the employ of the Company, said he was sent to examine the gas fittings in defendant's house on the 18th of December. Witness tested them and found no leaks. He went again on the 15th of January and took away the meter to the Company's works, where it was found to be registering properly. The meter was changed. The one taken out had since been put into another house and no complaint had been made as to its accuracy. Some new burners were put into Mr. Fearon's house in October; they would burn fuel on about 11 feet per hour; for a good light, say 8 feet. There were 35 burners in the house, of different kinds. Witness thought $20 a reasonable sum for a month's supply of gas to a house with that number of burners.

   Cross-examined - Ordinary burners consume about 5 feet per hour. The Alexandra burners of which four were put in, could burn 8 feet; the incandescent burners consumed about 4 feet per hour. In testing a meter the tap was left open and the fitting closed, and then if there was any leak the meter would work.

   By. Mr. Parkes - The meter was level. If tilted either way it would make a slight difference on either side, accordingly as it was tilted backward or forward.

   Mr. H. King Hillier, engineer of the Gas Company, said he examined the meter in question at the works on the 14th of February. The usual tests were applied and the meter found to be absolutely correct. The meter was about two years old and bore Government seals, showing that it had been tested in London and found to be up to standard. A meter could be tilted so as to show a little for or against the consumer.

   Cross-examined -  A meter by tilting could be made to show as much as six per cent for or against the consumer, but it would be very bad workmanship to put in a meter anything but level. 

   Witness then described the method of testing meters. It made no difference to the registering of the meter whether the gas that passed through it was pure or impure. If common or sulphuretted hydrogen were passed through the meter and fittings they would rot. The gas made in Shanghai was as pure as at home. The mains and pipes used to get foul, but for the last three years that had not been the case. They had purifying plant for a million cubic feet per day, but they only made about half a million. He bore out what the last witness had said as to the amount of gas consumed by the different types of burners.

   Mr. W. Goodfeliow said he had had 35 years' experience in gas business. He was in business for himself in Shanghai. On the 19th of February, he tested the meter in question, which registered quite correctly. The meter was only about two years old, and the Government seals were intact. He regarded $20 per month as a very reasonable charge for 35 burners.

   Mr. C. W. Thomas, assistant engineer to the Gas Co., said he tested the meter in question on the 15th of January and found it to be quite correct.

   Ivor Thomas, meter inspector, said he inspected the meter in Mr. Fearon's house on the 22nd of October when it indicated 20,100 feet. On the 22ndNovember it read 31,000 feet and on the 22nd of the following month it was 41,100 feet. On the 22nd   October a coolie watered the meter under witness' supervision.

   This concluded the case for the plaintiffs.

   Mr. Stokes, having opened the case for the defendant, called -

   Mr. J. S. Fearon, who said he had used the Company's gas, much to his sorrow., for some years. He only used gas when absolutely compelled to do so, as he found it almost utterly useless. He was unable to obtain light, other than gas or kerosene. There were only two incandescent burners occasionally used in the drawing room. There were eight burners in the room but only these two were used, on an average twice a week.  There were four or five oil lamps in the room, which he found gave a much better light. There was one light in the hall, besides kerosene lamps. There was one burner in the kitchen and one on the back stairs, which burned probably for about five hours a night. In the dining room he had two incandescent and four argant burners, but only three were in use. They usually burned on an average for two hours a night.  There were two incandescent burners in witness' bedroom, which were alight for about two hours a night. He always went to bed at 10 p.m., and all lights in the house were out at that time. Witness always saw to the lights himself and was particularly careful about them. 

   His attention was first called by the November bill. The previous month the gas bill was only $12 or $13, and again in January, after the meter was changed, it was $11.69. The November bill was $20.80 and the December bill $20.20.  On receipt of this last bill witness wrote to Mr. Wingrove that he was satisfied there was something wrong with the meter and in the meantime deferred payment. Her wished to wait for the January bill on receipt of which he again wrote that he as perfectly satisfied there was a leak somewhere and refused to pay. In January witness kept down the consumption of gas all in his power to satisfy himself that there was no waste, but even then there was a difference of $1.60. He was perfectly satisfied that between these two months there was very little difference in the amount of gas consumed. The February bill was $12.50. This bill was now lying on his desk unpaid.

   Cross-examined - Witness was summoned for not paying his gas bull in 1895. He was on the point of leaving for home and was summoned to appear on the morning the steamer left, so he paid up.

   Mr. Parkes - Have you read this clause in the bill?

   Witness - No. I am not bound by that. I have signed no contract.

   Mr. Parkes - Oh. but you are. I have cases here to prove it. You are fighting for $12?

   Witness - No. I am fighting for a principle.

   Mr. Parkes - Oh, you are a martyr to the cause. Do you entertain much?

   Witness - No, Sir. I do not entertain.

   Mr. Parkes - When you give dinner parties?

   Witness - I don't give dinner parties.

   Mr. Parkes - What, never?

   Witness - No, Sir.

   Mr. Parkes - Ah, well, I am sorry I accused you of so much hospitality.

   Witness continuing, said he never used gas in the morning, he always used candles. He was trying to get up a private electric light company to supply the houses near the race course and then he hoped to be able to get a decent light.

   Mr. Stokes called Mr. F. Souter and Mr. Buschmeister who gave details of the amount of gas consumed on their premises and the Court adjourned until the following morning.

12th March.

   Mr. Stokes called Mr. Fearon's houseboy, who said that every evening Mr. Fearon rang the bell for him to put out all the lights at about 9.30 or 9.45.

   Cross-examined - The gas was lit at a quarter or twenty minutes to six in the evening, never earlier. Mr. Fearon never gave dinner parties at all.

   Mr. Henry Morriss, sworn, said he had some experience of the Gas Company's bills. In September his bill was $15.40, and in December $20.40. During the greater part of the latter month he was up country and very little gas could have been used.  He had been charged $1.80 for the gate lamp, which was not used.

   Cross-examined - He knew nothing about the amount of gas consumed by Mr. Fearon.

   Mr. Stokes having addressed the Court for the defendant,

   His Lordship said it was not necessary for Mr. Parkes to address him. Evidence had been given that the meter registered the amount of gas claimed for, and unless there had been perjury on the part of the Gas Company's witnesses, the bills could not be objected to, and other people's grievances had no bearing on the matter. In the face of the expert evidence he was obliged to give judgment for the plaintiffs, with the costs of the Court.

   In reply to Mr. Parkes, His Lordship said he should not allow counsel's costs but simply Court costs.


 

North China Herald, 21 March,1898

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

Shanghai, 12th March.

Before Sir N. J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SHANGHAI GAS COMPANY v. FEARON.

   This was a claim by the Shanghai Gas Co. against Mr. J. S. Fearon for $42 for gas supplied during November and December,1897.

   Mr. H. Parkes appeared for the plaintiffs and the defendant was represented by Mr. A. P. Stokes, (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master.)

   His Lordship, in giving judgment, said that the only point in which it would have been necessary for Mr. Parkes to address him would have been the provision on the back of the bill; but in the view which he had taken of the case it would not be necessary for him to determine that point, which he was very glad of, for the condition appeared to him to be of the "heads I win, tails you lose" order. By this provision a meter was to be taken as a test against the consumer and not against the Company. With regard to that the gas Company had proved that a certain meter registered a certain amount of gas as having passed through it. They had proved that the meter had been taken away and tested, and that when it was tested it was placed on a level table. They had in evidence that the meter was level in Mr. Fearon's house, and by the tests which were applied when the meter was placed on a level table it was found to register correctly. Unless he found that the Gas Company's witnesses had committed perjury, he could not get out of finding as he did. It was not for him to say how the extraordinary difference in the consumption of gas could be explained, and the Gas Company were under no legal obligation to explain it either.

   At the same time he thought there must be some explanation for the extraordinary difference, and he would advise the Gas Company, both in their own interests and in those of their customers, to look for some explanation of these extraordinary discrepancies.  As the case had been presented to him, he could see no way but to hold as he did. To prove that forty other people had been charged less for the same consumption as Mr. Fearon proved nothing, and Mr. Fearon was unable to work out how his consumption was so much, and he was driven to find for the company. He therefore, found for the plaintiffs for the full amount of the claim and the costs of the Court.


 

North China Herald, 21 March,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 15th March.

Before Sir Nicholas Hannen, Chief Justice.

SMITH v. CENTRAL STORES.

   This was a claim for $450 for one month's salary, one month in lieu of notice, and for board and lodging.  Defendants admitted liability to the amount of $177.20 and paid that amount into Court.

   Charles Fowle Smith, the plaintiff, sworn, said, when he first joined the Stores he wrote an application to which he had had no reply. He met Mr. Clifford in Nanking Road, and he said he wanted to see witness. Witness went to the office and Mr. Clifford said he was to take stock of the goods and make himself conversant with the business. In the afternoon he received a letter, to which he replied, but did not keep a copy of the reply. It was to the effect that he would accept the terms offered which were a probationary engagement terminable at a week's notice. Witness joined the Hotel on the 1st of September. The first payment was made on the 12th of September, by compradore order. Mr. Clifford said he would give witness $100 a month as he was likely to be valuable to the Hotel. In October he asked for an increase of salary, and received in reply a letter, (produced), giving an increase to $125. 

   At the time of the Autumn Races, race lotteries were started, and a number of people witness did not know signed the lists. After the races witness did his best to collect all outstanding sums on account of the lotteries, but a certain amount did not come in. On Christmas Day witness asked Mr. Clifford if the Company would give him an agreement. Mr. Clifford said, "When I engaged you I thought you would make a friend of me, but you have made a friend of the customers."  Mr. Clifford. "That is entirely false." Some further conversation passed between them and wit ness resigned on the 11th of February. Since then witness received a letter from Mr. Clifford.

   His Lordship said he should not call upon the defendants to give evidence, as he was quite satisfied from the evidence given and the documents put in that the contract between the parties was a temporary one, terminable at a week's notice, and gave judgment for the defendants.

 

North China Herald, 21 March,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th March.

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

R. v. HANSON.

   John Hanson was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting native constable 204, in Broadway, on the previous afternoon.

   Native constable 204 said he was on duty in Broadway at about half-past three on Sunday afternoon, when the prisoner, who was drunk, came up to him and without any provocation struck him in the chest. Witness obtained the assistance of another constable and took the accused to the station.

   Native P.C. 403 corroborated.

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to two weeks' hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. HUGHES.

   Willian Hughes was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway at 3 p.m. on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved,

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

.  .  .  

R. v. MCLAUGHLAN.

   Patrick McLaughlan was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Broadway on the previous evening. P.C. 26 said he was on duty in Broadway at about 8,30 on Sunday evening, and saw accused outside the Cleveland Hotel with a knife in his hand, which he was flourishing about. Prisoner was not struggling with any one. He had been drinking, but was able to walk straight.

   His Worship sent the prisoner to gaol for three weeks, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

15th March.

R. v. GRANT AND ANDERSON.

   John Grant and Geo. Anderson, sailors of the British ship Deccan, were charged with being absent without leave during the past week. The Master, Mr. Borrett, said the prisoners went ashore last Monday week without leave and had not returned.

   The offence was admitted, but Anderson said he was an invalid and unfit for duty.

   His Worship committed each of them to prison for two weeks and to forfeit twelve days' pay. They would however be put aboard, if the ship sailed before the expiration of their sentences.

.  .  .  

R. v. THORNE.

   Charles Thorne, sailor also of the Deccan, was charged with drunkenness in Broadway on Monday afternoon. P.C. Kensberg found the prisoner lying in a helpless state of intoxication on the sidewalk outside the Cleveland Arms. Prisoner, whose head was badly cut, alleged that he had been assaulted by the police.

   P.S. Wood said prisoner was brought to the police station on Saturday charged with creating a disturbance and smashing windows in Broadway. As the parties would not charge him, he was let out on paying for the damage.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5 or a week's imprisonment, remarking that if he had any injuries he would be attended to in gaol.

.  .  .  

16th March.

R. v. BHAGHAT SINGH.

   Bhaghat Singh was charge with being drunk in the Cemetery Road on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved, and this being the prisoner's tenth appearance before the Court,

   His Worship imposed a sentence of two weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

17th March.

R. v. HALL.

   H. E. Hall, butcher carrying on business in the French Concession, was summoned for selling meat on the 13th inst., in the foreign settlement, north of the Yangkingpang, without having a licence authorising him to do so.

   Mr. Blake appeared for the defendant who denied the charge.

   Inspector Ramsay prosecuted and called,

   Sergeant John Gibson, who stated that about noon on the day in question he saw the defendant's horse and cart driven by a coolie stop opposite one if the houses in Boone Road. The coolie got out of the cart with a piece of meat in his hand. Witness spoke to him and he said that the meat was for No. 13, Boone Road.  He pointed out to him that the meat had not got the stamp of the Municipal Council, when the coolie said that it had got Mr. Hall's chop. Witness took him to the police station and in searching the cart found some sheep's kidneys and also a couple of pass books in the names of Mr. Remedios and Mr. John Prentice.

   Mr. Remedios of Boone Road, was called and spoke to having ordered the meat. It was the first time he had ordered meat from Mr. Hall but he had dealt with him for milk for some years. He was disappointed that the meat was not delivered. (Laughter.)

   Mr. John Prentice stated that he had dealt with Mr. Hall for some considerable time. He had always found that the meat had been satisfactory in every way. His wife ordered the meat and he never saw the pass-book produced. Some time ago he told his wife to give up dealing with Mr. Hall as he had lost his license, but as she continued to deal he thought Mr. Hall must have made it up with the council. He knew Mr. Hall had a shop in the French Concession.

   For the defence, Mr. Blake called Chang Ling-sun, book keeper to Mr. Hall, who spoke to receiving the orders and entering them in the Day Book. They did not solicit orders in the English Settlement and all business was transacted in French Town. Another coolie was called wh was out with the cart when the sergeant stopped him, but his evidence was quite immaterial.

   Mr. Blake in his address to the Court said his defence was very simple but the issue perhaps was somewhat important. He submitted that as the defendant since the 1st of March had kept his business entirely in French Town and had closed his shop in the English Settlement where he neither sold nor exposed meat for sale he could not be convicted on the form of the summons as made out, which clearly defined a sale in the settlement north of the Yangkingpang.  The orders which were entered in the pass books did not reach Mr. Hall until they got to French Town. He also submitted that the very fact of this cart being used to carry the meat round did not in any sense constitute a sale. He quite agreed that if he had had his shop open in the English Settlement he would be liable, because he did not have a proper municipal license, but the meat was never offered or exposed for sale in the English Settlement. Mr. Hall had not done anything to jeopardise the interests of his customers and were His Worship onto convict him on the charge the reductio ad absurdum in this case would be that any person who wished to buy meat from Mr. Hall - perhaps having been served by him for many years - would have to go to his shop in French Town, buy the meat and carry it home or send one of his servants for it which would be ridiculous and could not be expected to be done.

   His Worship - It is admitted that the defendant has had been licensed since the 1st of March?

   Mr. Blake - Yes.

   His Worship - I hold that the manner in which this meat was ordered and delivered does constitute a sale in this Concession and I convict him of a breach of the by-laws. He will have to pay a fine of $50 with the costs of the Court.

   Mr. Blake - I will ask your Worship to state a case.

   His Worship - I suppose you are conversant with the rules of the Court. You can make an application in writing in the usual way. I cannot take it now.

   Inspector Ramsay - Will your Worship make an order with regard to the meat found in the cart?

   His Worship - No. I make no order with regard to that.

.  .  .  

R. v. BRUER AND JOSEPHSEN.

   Two Scandinavian seamen named Bruer and Josephsen were charged with absenting themselves without leave from the British ship Dalcaitne and were sentenced to four weeks' imprisonment, it being stipulated that they would be put on board should the ship leave before the end of that period.

.  .  .  

18th March.

R. v. HAYNES AND OTHERS.

   Neville Augustus Carmichael Haynes, quartermaster on the P. and O. s.s Thames, was charged with being absent from is ship without leave since the 17th inst.

   Capt. Bartram stated that the prisoner went on shore during his watch between twelve and four in the morning, taking his box and clothes with him. He had asked for his discharge and had been to see the Company's agent. Witness refused afterwards to talk to him on the subject, having been ignored as commander. When he joined the ship in Bombay he was described as a very good man, but "too smart for a cargo ship." When he first joined the ship he brought three bottles of brandy on board, for which he was fined by the Customs and the spirit confiscated.

   Prisoner said he had no fault to find with the ship but left having an idea that he could better himself.

   He was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment his Worship stating that he would be put on board if the ship sailed sooner.

   John Petersen, seaman of the British ship Dalcairne, and John Davies, fireman of the s.s. Ailsa Craig, were also charged with absenting themselves from their respective vessels without leave. They were remanded until today.

.  .  .  

R. v. PATTERSON.

   Geo. Patterson, carpenter of the P. & O. s.s. Thames, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct on Broadway and also with violently assaulting Sikh constable 123.

   The constable stated that he saw the prisoner holding a Chinese constable and he thinking that he was enquiring his way somewhere went up to him. Prisoner then struck him violently in the face and after he had been taken into custody he became extremely rough and they were struggling for fifteen minutes in Minghong Road.

   The Chinese constable referred to gave corroborative evidence and said prisoner was arguing with a 'ricksha coolie and refusing to pay his fare. He was very drunk and had been kicking the coolie. He also turned the 'ricksha over, smashing the splashboard.

   Prisoner alleged that the coolie turned him out of the 'rickha and caused him to fall on his head. He denied both the assault and the drunkenness.

   Having received a good character from the Commander of his ship the prisoner was fined $5.

.  .  .  

19th March.

R. v. DAVIES AND PETERSEN.

   The two seamen, John Petersen and John Davies belonging to Dalcairne and Ailsa Craig respectively, who were remanded on Friday, charged with absenting themselves without leave, were again brought up. Petersen was sent to prison for a month, to be put on board should the ship sail sooner, and Davies was discharged.


 

North China Herald, 4 April,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 28th March.

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

R. v. HOGSON AND OTHERS.

   William Hogson and Samuel Peebles, able seamen of the British ship Oweensee, were charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour and damaging property in Broadway on the previous day. The prisoners in a state of intoxication went into a Chinese shop and commenced fighting. In the scuffle a quantity of glass ware was broken. P.C. Konsberg having stated the facts of the case, the prisoners were committed to prison for two weeks each with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. HANSON

   John Hanson, a sea man belonging to the Dalcairne, was in custody charged with being drunk and incapable in Kiangse Road on the previous day. The offence was admitted and a fine of $5 or a week's imprisonment was imposed.

.  .  .  

30th March.

R. v. KHAN.

   Adam Khan, an elderly Afghan, was summoned for creating a disturbance and causing a nuisance in Canton Road on the 25th instant. The evidence of two native constables went to show that the defendant, who resides at No. 25 Canton Road, was at his open window creating a disturbance. He afterwards threw a quantity of filth into the street, bespattering several passers-by.

   When the constables ordered him to desist he flung a heavy stick at them and made use of threatening language.

   The defendant, who denied the offence, and alleged that it was a case of mistaken identity, was mulcted in the sum of $5.


 

North China Herald, 11 April,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 7th April.

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

R. v. BALLA SINGH AND ATTAR SINGH,

   Balla Singh and Attar Singh, two Sikh watchmen, were brought up on a charge of violently assaulting a 'ricksha coolie on the previous day.

   The prosecutor, a decrepit and miserable-looking fellow, whose face was cut and his left eye completely closed, deposed to carrying the prisoner Attar Singh in his 'ricksha into French Town. On the completion of the journey prisoner refused to pay and assaulted him in the most violent manner. The other prisoner came up and *also assaulted him, both using their walking canes vigorously. He had some clothes under the seat of the 'ricksha which were taken by someone, but he could not accuse either of the prisoners. The prisoners were afterwards arrested by the French Police.

   Evidence as to the assault was given by a French Constable, who stated that at the police station the prisoners alleged that they had lost some money in consequence of their turbans, where they kept their money, having been knocked off. Attar Singh lost $15.

   In defence it was stated by the prisoners that the coolie received a dollar to get change, but came back with eighty cents alleging that it was all that it was worth. He refused to give up the difference and called on a lot of Chinese who came round and assaulted them. In the scuffle the money was lost. They denied the assault.

   The prisoners, who were stated to have been much the worse for drink at the time, were fined $5 each, or a week's imprisonment in default of payment.


 

North China Herald, 11 April,1898

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 6th April.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul General.

U.S. v. ASHLEY.

   C. J. Ashley, sailmaker, was charged with driving a pony and trap without lights at 6.45 p.m. on the 3rd instant, and with refusing to light up when requested by P.C. 43. The sun set on the day in question was at 6.29 p.m.

   Defendant's defence was that it was not dark at the time, but Mr. Goodnow said that it was the duty of every law-abiding citizen to assist the police in carrying out the regulations. If there was anything wrong in the manner of carrying them out the aggrieved parties had the right of complaint to superiors. He should in this case only administer a severe reprimand and order the defendant to pay the costs of the Court.


 

North China Herald, 18 April,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT .

Shanghai, 15th April.

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

R. v. RUTTA SINGH AND OTHERS.

   Rutta Singh, Bhagwan Singh, and Ghain Singh, Sikh watchmen, were summoned for unlawfully assaulting Khan Singh at Pootung on the 9th inst. Mr. Blake appeared for the complainant who stated that on the day in question he met the defendants who asked him to have a drink with them. He refused on the ground that he had not time and was proceeding on his way when Ghain Singh struck him on the head with a piece of wood. The other two then forcibly held him whilst he was further assaulted. The blow was extremely violent and he had to go to the Hospital, where he remained three days.

   The defendants stoutly denied the offence and stated that the complainant who was drunk and creating a disturbance struck Ghain Singh with his stick.

   The case was dismissed.

 

North China Herald, 2 May,1898

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

Shanghai, 26th April.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

CURTIS v. HOUSTON.

   This was a case in which William Curtis, proprietor of the Shanghai Grill Rooms, Canton Road, sued J. A. Houston, lately manager of the Shanghai Daily Press, for $51.15, being the amount due for board and refreshments, supplied at his request from the 23rd March to the 15th of April this year.

   The defendant admitted the liability but pleaded inability to discharge it. At the present time he was out of employment, but he was expecting shortly money from India, and on its receipt would be able to meet the claim. He was extremely sorry he could not pay at the present time.

   The plaintiff said that if Mr. Houston intinmated to him that he was not in a position to pay at present he would not have taken the trouble to have placed the matter in Court.

   His Lordship said there must be a verdict for the plaintiff with costs. The plaintiff could use his discretion as to enforcing it.

.  .  .  

28th April.

TING YU-SENG v. COOPER; AND VICE VERSA.

   In this case the plaintiff, a mafoo, sued Dr. W. A. D. Cooper for $33.67 on behalf of himself and two other mafoos, being 22 days' wages plus pony food. Plaintiff was in the employ of Dr. Cooper and alleged that he was dismissed wrongfully and without being paid what was due to him.

    Dr. Cooper said he dismissed the man peremptorily on account of the disgraceful condition in which he found one of his ponies.   

   By the Bench - He had seen the bill produced and supposing he had had no reason to dismiss him the items were correct.

   Defendant added that he defended the suit as a matter of justice.  While standing on his verandah a short time ago he noticed the plaintiff pass along with one of his ponies which had a large scar upon its back, five inches long. He stopped the mafoo and examined the pony, when he found an open suppurating wound on the back, ulcerated in certain parts whilst other parts were evidently old dried up cicatrices. This was the first time he knew anything was wrong, the harness hiding the wound when driving. He went over to the stable and found a brown pony also suffering, while a small pony had a large abscess on its back which had evidently been there some tome. As none of the injuries had been reported to him he dismissed the mafoo there and then. Replying to a question from his Lordship, he said he paid the mafoo a lump sum which included the wages of the other men.

   His Lordship remarked that because the head mafoo did something wrong it was hardly fair that the others should suffer for it.

   Dr. Cooper, continuing, said the plaintiff had been master of the stable and was responsible for the state the ponies were in. He considered the others were responsible to the head mafoo.

   His Lordship said her must give a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, less his own wage. He considered Dr. Cooper was justified in dismissing him and justified in cutting him the whole of his wages.

   Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, less $6.60 the proportion of his wages included in the claim. 

   The counter-claim was then proceeded with, Dr. Cooper seeking to recover $75 for damage to his ponies. His estimate of the damage was based upon the fact that he would gave to employ other ponies; employ a veterinary surgeon, place his own ponies out to open grass for at least a couple of months, whilst the value of the ponies was lessened by the scars.

   His Lordship said that in this action he should require the evidence of a veterinary surgeon, and he should adjourn the case for a week.


 

North China Herald, 2 May,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 29th April.

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

R. v. CONWAY AND NUNERST.

   James Conway and Max Nunerst, able seamen of the sailing ship Helensburgh, were charged with absenting themselves from the vessel without leave from the 17th instant. The master, Mr. Joseph Jefferson, having given evidence, His Worship committed them to prison for four weeks each with hard labour, ordering them to be put on board should the ship sail earlier.


 

North China Herald, 9 May,1898

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

Shanghai, 6th May

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice

COOPER v. TING YU-SENG.

   His Lordship resumed the hearing of this case, which originally came before the Court as a counter claim. Dr. Cooper summarily dismissed the mafoo on account of finding that his ponies had been grossly neglected. The mafoo sued Dr. Cooper for wages for himself and two other stablemen, the claim amounting (with an item for pony food) to $36.67. His Lordship on the 28th ult. held that Dr. Cooper was justified in dismissing the man without paying his wages for the month, but that he was not justified in cutting the amount due to the other mafoos or the sum due for pony food. A verdict was accordingly given against the doctor for $29.07 being the amount claimed less the proportion die to the plaintiff. Dr. Cooper then put in a counter claim for $75 damage sustained in consequence of the ponies' inability to work.  His Lordship on that occasion adjourned the case for the production of a veterinary surgeon.

   Dr. Cooper now put in a certificate from Mr. S. W. Pratt. M.R.C.V.S. which was handed to His Lordship.

   His Lordship - But a certificate won't do. I said I wanted the evidence of a veterinary surgeon. If you desire it I will adjourn the case again, for though that certificate may be perfectly correct yet there are many questions which might arise upon what he says and explanations forthcoming which would alter my opinion altogether.

   Dr. Cooper - Under the circumstances I don't think I need take up any more of your valuable time.

   His Lordship - Then judgment will be given against you for $29.07, without costs.


 

North China Herald, 9 May,1898

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

Shanghai, 6th May

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice

YU AH-KWA v. MAITLA ND.

   This was an action on which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. Harry Maitland, the sum of $57.67 for wages due and in account of grain, barley, straw, etc., provided for defendant's horses at his request.

   Mr. Nelson appeared for the defendant and pleaded that the claim was excessive by $34, part being for wages which the defendant had paid and the other part was deducted from his bill on account if his having starved the ponies. He should be able to prove that the plaintiff had been ribbing his master for a very long time.

   His Lordship - If you charge him with having stolen something your action should be a criminal one.

   Mr. Nelson - Perhaps my remark was not a very happy one, but he had charged us with a certain amount for barley and bran and we  say he has not supplied as much as he claims.

   The plaintiff went into the box and said he entered the service of the defendant on the 3rd of February last as head mafoo, and remained in that capacity until the 1st of April, when he was dismissed. He had supplied all the items for which he now sued, and had fed the ponies properly and according to the instructions of his master.

   Cross-examined - He purchased the corn and charged Mr. Maitland with it. It was not true that a fortnight before the closing of the entries for the last races, the ponies were in bad condition. He remembered the Doctor taking Sammie out into the country for a drive some time in March, and when he returned complaining that the pony was in bad condition. That, however, was not because the pony was starved, but because it was tired. He had had 26 years' experience of racing stables and always liked to see the ponies under his care win. He would not starve or hurt any pony.

   Mr. Nelson said the ponies had been starved in consequence of the plaintiff not giving the ponies the amount of food he was ordered to do. His conduct might have endangered the life of the jockey who rode him, through being weak. During the time this man was engaged by Mr. Maitland the ponies got into very bad condition. It was a critical time for the defendant, being close to the time when they should have been entered for the race and they discovered through one of the other mafoos rounding on him that the plaintiff had starved them.

   Mr. Harry Maitland then entered the box and said he was part owner of the stable in question, and had been interested in ponies for the last 17 years. About the middle of March he noticed that the ponies were in bad condition, but could not make it out. He rested them, but as they got no better he called in the Doctor who said they must be starved. He thereupon dismissed the plaintiff and appointed another mafoo, with the result that in a very short time the ponies returned to form and did their work satisfactorily. With regard to the excessive amount charged for straw, etc., the plaintiff had been charging him a dollar a month too much per horse. He recited instances where the plaintiff had charged him for straw which had never been used, a small litter of fresh straw having been scattered over bedding which must have been ten days old.

   Art this stage the case was adjourned till Tuesday, it transpiring that the witness who rounded in the plaintiff was not present.


 

North China Herald, 9 May,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 3rd May.

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

R. v. DAHL AND STANTON.

   K. K. Dahl and J. R. Stanton, A.B.s of the British ship Forrest Hall, were charged with being absent from their ship without leave since the 22nd of April and that they had taken away their clothes.

   Prisoners complained of ill-treatment and refused to work if sent back to the ship.

   His Worship sentenced them to four weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, and to be put on board their ship.

.  .  .  

R. v. KISHEN SINGH.

   Kishen Singh, watchman, was charged with attempting to commit an indecent assault on the complainant, in the Municipal stone yard off Woosung Road, on the 2nd instant, and also with assaulting the complainant by berating her with a stick at the same time and place.

   Prisoner denied the charge.

   Complainant said she was employed as a stone breaker by the Municipal Council and was working in a yard off Woosung Road, on the 3rd inst. At about half-past eleven they left off work to go home to tiffin, but she was detained by the prisoner who assaulted her and did not allow her to go home until the others returned at about half-past twelve.

   Other witnesses gave similar evidence.

   His Worship remanded the case until ten o'clock this morning to allow the police to make further enquiries.

4th May.

   In this case Kishen Singh was brought up on remand from the previous day on a charge of attempting to commit an indecent assault on a Chinese woman at the Municipal stone yard off Woosung Road on the 2nd inst. After taking the evidence of a Chinese watchman, His Worship decided  that the evidence was insufficient to commit the prisoner and the case was dismissed.


 

North China Herald, 16 May,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 10th May.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

YU AH-KUAI v. MAITLAND.

   This was an action, adjourned from Friday, the plaintiff, a mafoo, suing for wages and money expended in pony keep in the defendant's behalf. Defendant, Mr. Harry Maitland, alleged that the bill was excessive and that the plaintiff has starved the ponies. Another mafoo who had rounded on him as to squeezing the ponies' food, failed to appear at the last hearing and the case was put back so that he might be called.

   Mr. Nelson who represented the defendant, now apologised for the fact that he was not able to bring the Chinaman who made the statement, but in the interest of sport and the public generally Doctors Keylock and Pratt who had seen the ponies had volunteered to give evidence.

   Mr. Maitland was recalled and examined briefly. He spoke to the method of feeding the ponies and the quantity of corn allotted to each.

   Mr. Sidney W. Pratt, M.R.C.V.S., said that he had been in the habit of riding the ponies in question. In the month of March he saw them and noticed that they were in very poor condition. He thought at first there was disease in the stable but on examination he found that this was not the case. Their condition was due to one of two reasons. They were either doing too much work or not getting enough food. He knew however of his own knowledge that they were not over-worked and the amount of corn ordered by Mr, Maitland, fifteen pounds a day for Sammie and twelve pounds a day for the others, was ample if it had been served out to them. He had to treat them for weakness and put them on a proper feed, with the result that they speedily recovered and were able to do their work satisfactorily.

   Plaintiff sought to show that it was not to his interest to starve the ponies inasmuch as it was the custom of every owner when he won a race to make a present to the mafoo. The improved condition of the ponies  after his dismissal  was due to the fact that towards the end of the training season they were given oats, beans. etc. As the head mafoo it was an honour to him when the ponies won.

   Mr. Henry Keylock, M.R.C.V.S, next gave evidence. He was acquainted with the defendant's stable and had ridden most of the ponies. When his attention was called to the condition of the ponies in the middle of March he at once came to the conclusion that they were not having sufficient food.

   By the Bench - Supposing the ponies had been given as much food as Mr. Maitland ordered they could not have got into such a condition. They all showed symptoms of starvation and all recovered when the plaintiff was dismissed.

   His Lordship said he had before him the plaintiff's account stating that certain amounts were suppled and whether they were supplied or not, Mr. Nelson had to connect the two.

   Mr. Nelson said there was no doubt that the plaintiff had been starving the ponies and robbing his master for some time. If His Lordship thought on the evidence that anything was due to the plaintiff he would ask him to withhold his judgment and he would sue the plaintiff in the Mixed Court for damage done to the ponies. It was not a question of amount with Mr. Maitland at all. He brought the case in the interest of sport and to prevent if possible other foreigners being imposed upon.

   Plaintiff again denied starving the ponies and called a mafoo who had charge of a lady's pony kept in the same stable. The witness stated that the ponies were all fed according to orders received.

   His Lordship reserved judgment.


 

North China Herald, 16 May,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 12th May.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

DOCTER v. SYLVA.

   This was an action in which Alexander Docter, trading as the Mercantile Collecting Agency, sought to recover from the defendant, J. A. Sylva, of 12, Canton Road, the sum of $66.90 on a debt due to a Chinese butcher which had been assigned to the plaintiff.

   Defendant said he owed some part of the account but would like to see the foreign pass book.

   His Lordship (addressing plaintiff) - I see this is an assignment to the Mercantile Collecting Agency but I shall want proof that you are the agency.

   Plaintiff - I am the only member of the firm.

   His Lordship - You must prove that to me before I can allow you to proceed. This is evidently a debt to Tsin Tseng.

   Plaintiff - It was.

   His Lordship - Have you paid for it?

   Plaintiff - Yes.

   His Lordship - The assignment is made to the Mercantile Collecting Agency and the summons is taken out in the name of A. Docter. Therefore I dismiss the summons and you must take out another. There is no reason whatever why Tsin Tseng should not bring the suit himself.


 

North China Herald, 16 May,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 12th May.

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

R. v. BROADFOOT.

   Samuel Broadfoot, un employed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on Broadway on the previous day.

   Sikh constable 91 spoke to seeing the prisoner rolling about the road followed by a large crowd of Chinese. He was very drunk and witness put him in a 'ricksha and took him to the police station.

   Prisoner now said he was not drunk but was suffering from the effects of an overdose of chlorodyne which he had taken for dysentery.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5.


 

North China Herald, 23 May,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 17th May.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

YU AH-KUEN v. MAITLAND.

   Judgment was given in this case, which was last before the Court on the 10th inst.  after an adjournment, the plaintiff, a mafoo, suing Mr. Henry Maitland for $56.57 for wages and money expended in connection with the defendant's racing stable.

   At the previous hearing Mr. Nelson appeared for Mr. Maitland.

   His Lordship in giving judgment said: This is a case in which a mafoo sues Mr. Maitland for sums which he says are due to him on various heads, and it was stated by Mr. Nelson on behalf of Mr. Maitland that he was fighting it as a matter of principle more than for any other reason. For that reason I have given as much attention as I possibly could to this case, which though for a very small amount is somewhat troublesome to work out properly. 

   No doubt this Court is instituted here to see that the defendants, British subjects, should have justice done, in every way, but it is also instituted in order that plaintiffs who are not British subjects always should have equal justice done to them, and it is necessary for the purpose of administering justice that certain rules should be followed and it is necessary that there should be evidence and convincing evidence on everything which it is necessary to find by the Court. It will not do, of course, to say that mafoos, like many people connected with horses in other parts of the world in this particular capacity, are unworthy of trust and what they say is to be prima facie disbelieved. I am not at liberty to take that view when I am sat here in Court. I must take the ordinary rules which guide the Court with regard to what is proved and disproved.

   Now I will take this claim under three separate heads, one for food, one for sundries and straw, and the other for wages. Now taking the first item for food, of course, it is the plaintiff's business to prove his case. He comes forward and says - in a way which in regard to the Chinese must be taken to amount to an oath, having been properly cautioned - that he really has supplied all these amounts for food, and he brings forward a witness to say that on two or three occasions when the mafoo was not present, he supplied the food; well, that is prima facie evidence that the food was supplied. Now comes forward the defendant and he brings his own testimony and that of two independent expert witnesses to say that it was impossible under the circumstances which existed that the amount of food was supplied. This evidence has convinced me of the fact, and I therefore hold that the prima facie proof of the plaintiff that the amount of food was supplied has been rebutted, and I feel myself at liberty to say with regard to that food that he has not supplied the amount which he says he has. Therefore I strike out $23.10 which he claims upon that account.

   In this account was for sundries and straw. Nothing was said about the sundries, therefore I imagine those sundries really were supplied. With regard to the straw exactly the same thing happens as happened with regard to the food. So far as the plaintiff is concerned he says he supplied that amount of straw and the defendant says he does not think it was possible that that amount of straw could have been used. The method in which the straw was used appears to have been as both parties explained, that is to say, there was some old straw underneath and fresh straw on the top. They agree as to this, but there was no expert evidence to show that the amount of straw had not been used in the way it was said. Mr. Nelson offered to call another witness to confirm Mr. Maitland, but I dispensed with that for this reason, that it was evidence of the same sort as Mr. Maitland's and could not possibly have been called expert evidence. I therefore come to the conclusion that I cannot disallow that amount.

   Coming to the claim for wages I don't think it is possible to deprive any of the under-mafoos of their wages because the head mafoo has misbehaved himself. The others therefore will be entitled to their wages, and the man is entitled to that amount as I suppose he has made himself responsible to them. At any rate, if the amount to be paid to this man the individual mafoos will not have any claim against Mr. Maitland. With regard to his own wages I consider he behaved in such a way in not giving the proper amount of food as justified Mr. Maitland in discharging him and depriving him of his wages. I therefore deduct $12 from the $56.57 so that altogether $35.10 will be deducted from the total claim.

   Mr. Nelson said that if there was any  amount found due to the plaintiff he should apply to the Mixed Court  in order to prove against the mafoo for damage which had been done to the ponies through his conduct. If Mr. Maitland intends to carry out that course I am prepared to suspend the execution of this judgment for a reasonable time to allow him to bring his suit in the Mixed Court. Do you desire me to do that, Mr. Maitland?

   Defendant - No, my Lord.

   His Lordship - The ordinary time is twelve days and within that time if, by any chance you should come to the conclusion that it is desirable to proceed in the Mixed Court you can apply to this court for further time for the judgment to be suspended. There will accordingly be judgment for the plaintiff for $21.47, and under the circumstances of the case there will be no costs.

   Defendant - As I am leaving for home shortly I don't desire to proceed with the case any further. I am perfectly willing to pay the whole amount of the claim into your hands for you to give to some deserving charity. My defence was not a matter of money at all.

   His Lordship - Of course you can do what you like with the remainder of the money, but I don't think this Court ought to have anything to do with charities.

   Judgment was then entered for plaintiff for $21.47 without costs.


 

North China Herald, 23 May,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 20th May.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

DOCTER v. SYLVA.

   This was a suit brought by Alexander Docter, otherwise the Mercantile Collecting Agency, against J. A. Sylva of Canton Road for the recovery of $66.90 on a bill due to a Chinese butcher which it was stated had been assigned to the plaintiff. A similar action was entered a short time ago and the plaintiff non-suited on an irregularity in the form of the summons.

   Plaintiff now pressed his claim and produced a detailed statement of the claim.

   His Lordship - Have you given notice that this was an assignment?

   Plaintiff - I presume the defendant was aware of it by the summons being served upon him.

   His Lordship - Did you attach this assignment or a copy of it to the summions?

   Plaintiff - The summons being served upon him, I took it, would be sufficient notice of the assignment.

   Defendant in reply to the Bench said he had received no notice that the assignment had been made.

   His Lordship - In English Common Law a debt is not an assignment and the Act of Parliament says that no debt can be sued for as an assignment unless express notice shall have been given to the debtor. I cannot understand why you should go to all this trouble when the man can sue for it himself, and if he wants he can pay the money over to you afterwards he can. I cannot proceed with the case, as you have not given express notice in writing, and I must dismiss the summons.


 

North China Herald, 30 May,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 23rd Maty.

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

R. v. FERGUSON.

   George Ferguson, a man of colour, was charged with begging on the Bund on Saturday night.

   P.C. Sterling deposed to seeing the prisoner stopping foreigners on the Bund and soliciting alms. He was the worse for liquor so witness locked him up. At the police station begging letters were found in his possession, and about $1.40 in money.

   Prisoner said the money was the proceeds of the sale of his pants. He was destitute and was trying to get a little money to get out of the place with.

   His Worship said prisoner was liable to imprisonment but on this occasion he would discharge him. He must not however come before him again or he would be  severely dealt with.

.  .  .  

24th May.

   Antonio Ansaito, an A.B. belonging to the Queen Victoria, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Scott Road on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved His Worship imposed a fine of $5, with the option of a week's hard labour.

.  .  ,.  

26th May.

   Antonio Asaito was charged with being drunk on Tuesday night.

   Sikh constable 99, who proved the case, said the prisoner was very drunk and chasing 'ricksha coolies.

   Prisoner, who was before the Court on a similar charge the day previous, was sent to prison for a week with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. BLAKE.

   James Blake, a sailor out of employment, was summoned for assaulting a Chinese servant in the Sailors' Home, Broadway, on the 23rd instant.

   Complainant stated that on the day in question prisoner came into the Sailors' Home and a sked for something to eat. He did not stay there and when told he could not be served helped himself to some cold meat and bread. The mistress told the "boy" to fetch the superintendent, when the prisoner swore at him and assaulted him, striking him with his fist.

   Joseph Daly and John Johnson who are staying at the Home corroborated, and said the prisoner helped himself with his fingers from the dishes.

   The superintendent of the Home, Mr. J. H. Worth, stated that the "boys" had instructions to supply food to nobody unless they were staying in the Home.

   The Magistrate said there was no excuse for the prisoner's conduct whatever, and he would go to gaol for two weeks with hard labour.

.  .  . 

26th May.

R. v. KHAUM SINGH.

   Khaum Singh. Watchman at the Electric Light Works, Yuhang Road, was charged with violently assaulting a Chinese woman by striking her on the head with a stick on the 25th inst. He denied the charge.

   The prosecutrix whose head was bandaged and her clothing very much blood besmeared, said she was sitting at her door on Wednesday night when the accused, who was very drunk, came up and struck her a violent blow over the head with a heavy walking stick. He afterwards further assaulted her and then ran away. She went to the police station and gave information about the prisoner, subsequently being taken to a doctor who dressed her wounds. She had never seen the prisoner before but was quite sure he was the man who struck her.

   Corroborative evidence was given by a Chinese girl, but the prisoner stoutly denied the charge, asserting that it was a case of mistaken identity. He left off work about half-past nine and went home.

   His Worship convicted the prisoner and ordered him to pay a fine of $5.


 

North China Herald, 30 May,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 27th May.

 Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

R. v. CANCE.

   William Arthur Cance was indicted for unlawfully and knowingly, by certain false pretences, obtaining various goods from the store of Tom Pow Ching, 156 & 157 Broadway, with intent to defraud.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown and prisoner pleaded guilty. The gentlemen who had been summoned on the jury were accordingly discharged.

   It appeared from the indictment that on the 28th of February prisoner went to the store in question and obtained a bottle of gin, a bottle of bitters, a pound and a -half of chocolate and six lemons, signing a chit in the name of J. Johnson, third engineer of the steamer Pekin. He subsequently by means of the same device obtained from the same shop a bottle of whisky, a bottle of vermouth, a tin of cigarettes and a tin of lobster. He was arrested and at the police court hearing offered no defence. He now had nothing to say why sentence should be passed upon him according to law.

   His Worship in passing sentence said: You have been indicted for obtaining goods under false pretences and to that indictment you have pleaded guilty, and this is the second time you have been convicted before me. I have before now expressed my opinion with regard to this kind of offence, and, as in the present instance, you have committed the offence almost immediately upon your release from prison it will be neither for the good of the community nor for yourself that you  should remain here any longer, I therefore sentence you first of all to three months;' hard labour,  and at the expiration of that time  you will have to find security for your future good behaviour in the sum of one thousand dollars. If you cannot find that security you will be deported to Hongkong.

 

North China Herald, 6 June,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 30th May.

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

R, v. L. OLSEN.

   Loues Olsen, 31, seaman of the British ship Australia, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour on the previous day and also with entering a Chinese house 215, Fearon Road, and damaging property there to the extent of $4. The house in question is of low repute and prisoner went there very drunk and was refused admittance. He commenced his disorderly behaviour in the street by flogging a jinricksha coolie whom he refused to pay. He then forced his way into the house and broke up a few articles of furniture and also a window.

   P.C. Grant deposed to being called to eject the prisoner, whom he afterwards took into custody.

   Prisoner who denied the charge was fined $5 and ordered to pay $3 compensation for the damage or in default two weeks' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R.  v. J. OLSEN.

   Jacob Olsen, seaman of the British ship Queen Victoria, was charged with being absent from his shop without leave from the 22nd inst.

   The Master, Robert Logue, Said the prisoner went ashore without permission on the 22nd and had not been back since.

   The offence was admitted, and His Worship sentenced him to four weeks' imprisonment, ordering him to be put aboard his shop if she sailed before the expiration of his sentence.

 

NORTH CHINA HERALD, 13 JUNE,1898.

SERIOUS CHARGE OF MILK ADULTERATION.

   A licensed dairyman named Loong Chang, proprietor of a dairy in Li Hongkew, was charged at the Mixed Court on Friday with selling adulterated milk. By the Health Officer's report of his analysis of samples of milk obtained from the defendant's dairy, the case will be seen to be an especially bad one, constituting a serious menace to the health of the Settlement. 

   The defendant confessed that he adulterated his milk with water taken from a filthy creek, close to his dairy. The creek in question is really too filthy for description; but it is sufficient to mention in that on the banks are numerous piggeries, which drain inti the creek, and constitute the most savoury of the pollutions to which it is subject. All these sources of pollution are situated below the dairy, and as the water for adulterating purposes was only drawn from the creek on the flood tide, the result may be better imagined than described.

   A number of these licensed dairymen are in the habit of procuring milk from unlicensed dairies outside the Settlements, which enables them to sell at a cheaper rate that some of their competitors, and for this reason they have the supplying of the Clubs and other places in which the catering is in the hands of native stewards. If this s so the sooner the matter is looked into by the managements of these places the better.

   The Court imposed a fine of $100, as it appeared that the prisoner was not the owner of all the cattle on his premises.

.  .  .  

The following is the result of the analysis made by Dr. Stanley of a sample of milk taken from this dairy.

The specimen of milk sealed "Loong Chang" received here on the 4th of June has been duly examined, and I have to report the following:


 

 
Average good milk

 

Specific gravity1.0131.032

                                                     


 

 
Percentage

 

Cream310
Fatty Solids1.23.7
Nin-fatty solids7.18.2
Ash0.3780.7
Total Solids9.612.6

 

Reaction: Markedly acid.

Taste: More like water than milk.

Bacteriological examination: 10,000,000 bacteria to the cubic centimetre, many of which were putrescent organisms.

   In my opinion this sample of milk is adulterated with an equal quantity of water. It is, moreover, infit for human food by reason of the filthy quality of the water used for adulteration.

ARTHUR STANLEY. M.D., B.S. Lond. D.P.H. Health Officer.


 

North China Herald, 13 June,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 8th June

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

R. v. STRONSEN AND OTHERS.

   Ernest Stronsen, seaman of the sailing vessel Nellie Troop, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in Broadway on the previous day. He admitted the offence and was ordered to pay a fine of $5 or go to prison for a week with hard labour.

.  .  .  

PETER MURPHY, also of the Nellie Troop, was found guilty on a charge of drunkenness om Broadway on Tuesday. He was discharged with a caution.

.  .  . 

ANTONIO SCHMERSEN, A.B. of the Australia, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway on Tuesday. He admitted the charge and it appeared that this was his second appearance in the last few days. His Worship fined him $5, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

9th June.

R. v. LUDERVICKSEN.

   John Ludovicksen, a sailor, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in Broadway on the previous day. Two Sikh policemen gave evidence and said that the prisoner was in company with two other men and creating a great disturbance in a shop in Yuenfong Road. Prisoner commenced to fight with another man but the constables separated them and told them to go away, but prisoner refused and continued to be disorderly; he was put into a 'ricksha and taken to the police station. The offence was admitted and prisoner was sentenced to a week's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. OMMUNDSEN.

   Otto Ommundsen, also a sailor, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway on Wednesday.  P.S. Cumming spoke to seeing the prisoner outside the Cleveland House  in a very intoxicated condition. He assumed a fighting attitude and commenced to hammer on the window sill of the tavern. He was taken into custody.

   Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was committed to prison for a week with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. PHAL SINGH.

   Phal Singh, a Sikh watchman, was summoned for unlawfully assaulting and beating a Chinese in the Mohawk Road on Sunday last.

   Complainant stated that he was a pancake baker and was employed at a ship in the Sinza Road. At half-past seven on Sunday night he was going home with a couple of coats on one arm and a parcel in his other hand, when the defendant who was under the influence of drink came up and demanded to know how he  came into possession of these things. Before witness had time to reply the defendant struck him violently in the eye and also across the legs with a walking stick he was carrying. Complainant, who had a very bad black eye, showed his legs to the magistrate and they bore signs of violent treatment. In consequence of the assault he could hardly walk.

   Complainant's wife was called and stated that she was informed that her husband had been assaulted and on going out found him on the ground with the defendant holding him down and ill-treating him. A Chinese crowd gathered round and a Chinese servant employed by a foreigner assisted in taking the defendant to the police station. The last named stated that the defendant on the way to the station  gave him a key and two dollars and told him to say that he (defendant) had lost them in the struggles.

   Defendant now, through his interpreter, gave quite a different version of the case. He said that he had been told by Mr. Dowdall in consequence of a large number of robberies having been committed in the neighbourhood to keep a special lookout. He accordingly secreted himself in the garden of a house in course of erection and presently saw two Chinese come in and steal a quantity of wood. They perceived him and he at once gave chase, succeeding in capturing the complainant whom he saw carrying some of the stolen property. He was at once surrounded by a crowd of Chinese who proceeded to grossly ill-use him, pulling his hair and whiskers and otherwise assaulting him. During the struggle he lost a key and a handkerchief containing money. He denied assaulting the complainant.

   His Worship said that an assault had been committed and mulcted the defendant in a fine of $5 with costs.


 

North China Herald, 20 June,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 13th June.

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

R. v. ELLSWOOD AND OTHERS.

   Austin Ellswood, James Thomas and John White, coloured seamen of the British ship Australia, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police in Canton Road on Sunday afternoon.

   The evidence of native constable 282 went to show that the prisoners were riding in 'rickshas having come from French Town. They were all strongly under the influence of drink and were ill-treating the coolies. The last named called upon witness to assist them, and when he took their part he was badly assaulted. A Sikh watchman came to his assistance followed by an Indian constable when the prisoners continued to behave in the most disorderly and riotous manner. Two European constables and other aid were forthcoming, and after some difficulty they were removed to the police station seven constables and the watchman referred to, forming the escort.  The prisoners, one of whom had a very nasty cut over the right eye made no defence, and His Worship  committed them to orison for four weeks with hard labour, promising that they would be put aboard their ship should she sail before the expiry of their sentence.

.  .  .  

   JOHN THOMAS, sailor of the Nivelli, was charged with drunkenness and assaulting a Chinese woman in Seward Road on Saturday afternoon. The evidence adduced showed that the prisoner must have been nothing short of bereft of his senses. The attention of P.C. Delaney was drawn to the prisoner whom he observed running down Broadway gesticulating and behaving in the most eccentric manner. He was closely followed by a Chinese woman and her husband, and from what they said the constable arrested the prisoner in the Cleveland House. It then appeared that the woman accompanied by her husband and child, had set out from the Old Ningpo Wharf to Shanghai on a wheelbarrow and whilst on the way were intercepted by the prisoner. Thomas, with the assurance born only of the strong waters of the Frank, wanted to ride in her lap, and because she refused he upset the wheelbarrow - man, wife and child mingling in the gutter. He then heroically ran away, a proceeding which attracted Destiny's notice and led to his ultimate arrest. He now professed unconsciousness of the entire business but His Worship refusing to regard the statement as in anyway extenuating sentenced him to a fortnight's durance vile.

.  .  .  

HARRY LYNN of the Nelly Troop, is of the quarrelsome type of pugilist. His appearance before the Magistrate yesterday elicited the fact that rather than pay a very small sum for 'ricksha hire he preferred to "bilk" and ill-treat his coolie. Fortunately the police were soon in evidence and he was removed to Hongkew Police Station. He now had nothing to say in answer to the charge and His Worship intimated that a week's imprisonment with hard labour was an adequate expiation of his offence.

.  .  ..  

Wm. McGEE charged with drunkenness in Broadway on Sunday evening pleaded guilty. He was found by a constable lying incapable on the pavement near the Sailors' Home. As this was this first offence he was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

 RICHARD RASMUSSEN, a young sailor on the Australia, whose head and face betrayed traces of unusual violence, appeared to answer a charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct on Broadway. P.C. Rose spoke to seeing the man in a semi-helpless condition rolling about the street. He fell several times and cut himself, and as he was not in a positon to look after himself the officer took him into custody. His Worship, taking into consideration the fact that he had suffered materially through his own foolish conduct, dismissed him with a severe reprimand.

.  .  .  

14th June.

R. v. WILSON.

   John Wilson was charged with absenting himself without leave from the British sailing ship Australia since the 27th inst. The master having given evidence prisoner had no defence to offer.

   His Worship committed him to prison for four weeks, ordering him to be put on Board his ship should she sail earlier.

.  .  .  

16th June.

R. v. BOURNE.

  Thomas Bourne was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous evening.

   P.C. Cumming proved the charge, but as this was the prisoner's first appearance His Worship discharged him with a caution.

.  .  .  

R. v. REILLY.

  Patrick Reilly was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Nanzing Road on Wednesday night.

   The charge was proved by native P.C. 473 and His Worship sentenced the prisoner to a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .

R. v. STEWART.

   William Stewart, A.B. was charged with being absent from his ship the Helga since the 31st of May.

   Captain Mackintosh said the prisoner had been absent from the ship on and off since the 31st May. He had only done one day's work since that date.

   Prisoner had nothing to say and His Worship sent him to gaol for two weeks, to be put on board if the ship left earlier.

.  .  .  

R. v. MARTINI.

   Antonio Martine, A.B. belonging to the British ship Australia, was charged with being absent without leave since the 28th of May.

   Captain Ludwig Korff, master of the Australia, said prisoner went on shore on the 29th of last month, and had not returned to the ship since that date.

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to a month's imprisonment, to be put on board if the ship sails before that date.


 


 

North China Herald, 27 June,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 20th June.

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

R. v. DRYER.

   Bertrand Dreyer, a Scandinavian seaman, was charged with absenting himself from the Australia since the 2nd inst. without leave. He admitted the charge but it appeared that the vessel in question had now left taking all the prisoner's clothes and belongings. His conduct further meant that whatever pay was due to him, was forfeited. His Worship discharged him.

.  .  .  

23rd June.

R. v. KNIFFEL.

   Thomas Kniffel, sailmaker of the sailing ship Nivelle, was charged with assaulting the steward of that vessel by striking him.

   Evidence having been given in support of the charge, His Worship considered it proved and sentenced the prisoner to a month's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

24th June.

R. v. SCHMIDT, MCMULLAN, AND JENKINS.

   John Schmidt, John McMullan, and Edward Jenkins, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous day.

   The charge was proved by P.C.56, and His Worship imposed a fine of $5, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment, on each of the accused.

.  .  .  

MARTIN CORCORAN, a seaman from the British ship Penthesilan, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway in Friday night. His Worship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment, without the option of a fine.

 

North China Herald, 13 June,1898

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

Shanghai, 9th June.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

DOCTER v. SYLVA.

   This case which has been before the Court twice previously and dismissed for irregularities in form of procedure, again came before His Lordship. The action involved a claim of $66.90 which was due by the defendant, J. A. Sylva, of Canton Road, to a Chinese butcher, the last named having sold the debt to the plaintiff who carried on a business under the style of the Mercantile Collecting Agency.

   Plaintiff now said the debt had been assigned dated May 30th, and he sought a verdict for the payment of the amount. The defendant had practically acknowledged his indebtedness.

   Defendant produced certain letters and it appeared that he had made an offer agreeing to liquidate the debt by monthly payments of $10 in addition to paying $6 costs.

   Plaintiff in reply to the Bench said he was quite prepared to accept this offer provided defendant would give him an assurance that the payments would be kept up regularly.

   Defendant undertook to do so, and an order was made to this effect.

   His Lordship said - Mr. Docter, I wish to want you. In consequence of the defendant having admitted this debt there is an end to it, but the rule of this  Court is that the plaintiff must sue in person or employ some one who has been admitted to practice in this Court.  Therefore I shall not allow to be done by any side wind - by a mere colourable assignment of a debt - what cannot be done openly, and if I had ascertained during the course of this procedure that it had been assigned to you for the purpose of recovery in this Court I should never have allowed it. It is no use you trying to get over the rule. 

   The rule of the Court is that the plaintiff must come and sue in person, but if he wants anyone else to appear for him he must get a duly admitted practitioner in the Court. You cannot come here and do it by a side wind and if you attempt it, I shall find means to stop it in another way. In the present case I shall allow no costs. There will be an order for the payment of the claim by $10 a month, the first payment to be made on the 17th.

 

North China Herald, 4 July,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th June.

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

R. v. HARVEY AND OTHERS.

   Alfred Harvey, of no fixed abode, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Sicawei Road on Sunday afternoon. P.C. Eek deposed to being called to the Sicawei Road where he found the prisoner lying in the road. He was very drunk and quite unable to stand. Prisoner who had nothing to say and only came out of prison recently after serving a sentence for fraud was fined $5.

   JAMES BLAKE, out of employment, whose face was horribly cut and bruised was brought up on a similar charge. P.C. Thompson said that at midday on Sunday he was called to a godown in Broadway and on going there found the prisoner lying drunk on a bamboo settee with his face badly cut. He was incapable but with assistance witness got him to the Police Station, but not however without some little trouble; prisoner turning violent and damaging witness' uniform. He pleaded guilty and was fined $5.

   FREDERICK PEARCE, a young man of respectable appearance, was charged with drunkenness whilst in a licensed jinricksha in North Honan Road on Saturday. The prisoner was drunk and refused to pay the coolie. A constable who came up tried to find out where he wanted to go but he was not in a condition to inform him. Prisoner was fined $5.

   OLAF MALMBERG, seaman of the Buckingham, admitted being found drunk and incapable in Broadway on Sunday afternoon. P.C. Cumming proved the case and prisoner who expressed his sorrow for what had happened was discharged with a caution.

   HERMAN CEDERCALL, seaman of the Nellie Troop, was charged by a Sikh constable with drunkenness and assaulting a 'ricksha coolie in Broadway on Sunday. The offence was admitted but prisoner alleged that the coolie tried to get more money out of him than was due. His Worship sentenced him to a week's imprisonment, to be put aboard his ship if she sailed earlier.

   JOHN THOMPSON, a puny-looking individual belonging to the Penthesilea, was placed in the dock charged with drunkenness and creating a disturbance in Broadway on Sunday. According to the evidence of a Sikh constable it appeared that the prisoner hired a 'ricksha, and when asked for his fare assaulted the unfortunate coolie. He was arrested and take into the police station and with all the impudence in the world showed fight to the officer. He was ordered to undergo a week's imprisonment without the option of a fine.

   ROBERT W. BRADBURY, a sailor of the ship Creedmore, was charged by P.C. Cumming with a like offence in Broadway on Sunday evening. The prisoner in company with others ordered drinks in the Cleveland Tavern and refused to pay for them. He also broke a glass. The attention of the officer was called three times earlier in the day to the prisoner's behaviour and he was cautioned. He now pleaded guilty and was fined $5.

   GEORGE STONEMAN, an elderly man, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness and indecency in Broadway on Sunday evening about seven o'clock. A Sikh constable gave evidence and the conduct of the prisoner was shown to be of the most disgusting character. He was very drunk. Prisoner who is the chief officer of the sailing ship Penthesilea was ordered to pay a penalty of $10.

   THOMAS WARD, sailor of the Creedmore, was charged with being guilty whilst drunk of disorderly behaviour on Wednesday. Prisoner who was very drunk had been creating a disturbance in the Hwa-kee joss-house. He went out in the street and continued his disorderly conduct. P.C. Thompson stated the facts of the case and prisoner who denied the charge said somebody had stolen his hat and he went into the Joss-house to try and find it. He was discharged with a caution.

   JOHN BURNS, sailor of the Penthesilea, charged with drunkenness in Hanbury Road on Sunday night, pleaded guilty and was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

28th June.

R. v. BOYLES.

   James Boyles, 28, donkeyman of the s.s. Adana, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway on the previous night, and further with assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty at the same time and place. The evidence of a Sikh constable went to show that a number of men were ejected from one of the grogshops in Hongkew for creating a disturbance within. The prisoner was one of the number and the officer ordered them to go away. All took his advice but the prisoner. He was very much under the influence of drink and becoming very violent assaulted the officer. A European constable came to his assistance and with difficulty the prisoner was conveyed to the lock-up. 

   P.C. Powell gave corroborative testimony and stated that the prisoner also assaulted him by kicking him in the stomach. 

   Prisoner now denied the charge and asked that he might be allowed to instruct an advocate to defend him. He was in a position to call witnesses to prove that he was not drunk.

   His Worship, in imposing a fine of $5 with the option of a week's imprisonment, said the case was clearly proved.

   On being asked by the Gaoler, Constable Brun, if he was going to pay the money, prisoner scornfully replied, "Do you think we came shore without money?"

.  .  .  

30th June.

R. v. QUAIL AND FOGARTY.

   Henry Quail, seaman of the Largo Bay, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway and assaulting two constables in the execution of their duty.  Nicholas Fogarty, also a sailor of the above named vessel, was charged with attempting to rescue Quail from custody and with assaulting the officers.

   Sikh constable 59 deposed to seeing a crowd of sailors obstructing the roadway in Broadway and he went up to disperse them. The prisoner Quail was very drunk and creating a great disturbance. He had to take him into custody whereupon he turned very rough and struggled hard to release himself. The constable stuck to him and was badly assaulted. The prisoner Fogarty tried to get him away resisting the Sikh in every way he could. Assistance, however, was forthcoming and a European constable who came to his aid was knocked down by Quail.

   P.C. Rose spoke to assisting the last witness. He said the prisoners with others not in custody were causing a great disturbance and when asked to desist they started hustling the Sikh. Quail then rushed at witness and knocked him down, the force of which coupled with his inebriated condition caused him also to fall. Witness held him down and whilst doing so was struck and kicked. He blew his whistle and two foreign constables came up with the result that after some difficulty prisoners were taken to the station. Fogarty was sober.

   Quail declared that they only came into port the previous day and he went ashore and got drunk. He was not so drunk as some of his companions and was endeavouring to get them aboard their ship when the officers interfered.

   Inspector Bourke said Broadway owing to the conduct of these men was like a pandemonium. They were more like a couple of madmen than anything else.

   His Worship sentenced each of them to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

2nd July.

R. v. MALREADY.

   Charles Malready, 28, out of employment, was brought up charged with drunkenness and assaulting a native constable in Nanking Road at an early hour on Saturday morning.

   Evidence having been given in support of the charge, the prisoner made no defence and was sentenced to a week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 11 July,1898

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

Shanghai, 5th July.

Before Sir Nicholas Hannen, Chief Justice.

HEWETT & CO. v. THE CHINA MUTUAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.   This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, merchants and agents of Peking Road, for the recovery of Tls. 30 damages alleged to have been caused to certain packing cases entrusted to the defendant company for delivery at Shanghai.

   Mr. H. J. Such, one of the directors of Messrs. Hewett & Co. conducted the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Stokes (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) defended.

Mr. Such in opening the case stated that certain cargo was ordered by his firm and on arrival at the wharf in Shanghai it was found that a number of packing cases had been damaged in transit. They sent a clerk to the office of the defendants seeking a reasonable return in consequence, but they denied all liability and said the cases were not strong enough to carry the weight contained in them. His firm were in a hurry to tranship the cargo and had the cases repaired sending a formal claim, to the defendants on March the 19th. The agents in reply pointed to a notice which had been published in a local newspaper to the effect that all claims against the company should be presented before the 28th of February, and repudiated the claim.

   Mr. Stokes remarked that this latter statement was no part of the defence.

Mr. Such, continuing, said that out of 120 cases only 46 were damaged which he concluded was satisfactory evidence as to the stability of the cases and their ability to carry the weight. As to the packing cases not being secure enough it was a well-known fact everywhere that if, when loading goods, the mate of the vessel was not satisfied with the substantialness of the packing cases, it was his duty to make a note to the effect on the mate's receipt. That he was satisfied was evidenced by the fact that they were presented with a clean bill of lading. He might mention also that a similar claim was paid by the China Mutual on the 6th of March,1897, whilst on another occasion they paid for the repair of certain cases.

   His Lordship - Is there any dispute as to the facts?

Mr. Stokes said there was no dispute as to the actual facts except that the wharfinger, in his report, stated that twenty cases were damaged. As to the balance of 26 cases they had had no notice of it until this claim was brought forward.  He should call Mr. Chambers, the wharfinger, to speak on the point. As to the general facts, they were as stated.

   His Lordship - Supposing you are liable is there any dispute as to the amount.

Mr. Strokes - Inasmuch as we say there could only be twenty that he can claim for. But apart altogether from this aspect we claim exemption on the bill of lading. I may also mention that we don't know anything about paying previous claims: Mr. Graham has always refused them.

   His Lordship - I don't think that has anything to do with it. I imagine Mr. Stokes you are fighting this as a matter of principle?

   Mr. Stokes - Entirely.

   His Lordship - Therefore it seems hardly worth while arguing whether there were 20 damaged or 46. It is a question whether you are protected in the bill of lading.

Mr. Stokes proceeded to first of all establish his point as to the weakness of the packing cases one of which was brought into Court and exposed to the view of the learned President. He explained that the reason the company laid stress on this point was because goods of the character in question - galvanised iron - invariably arrived in packages quite insufficient to carry the weight.  It was the custom to pack them in very frail case, known as skeleton cases, and Mr. Chambers whom he should call would say that there were always a great many of them damaged in the course of taking them out of the ship, and the invariable rule was for the consignee to repair therm. Mr. Grattan would tell the Court that when these claims were made they were never paid. This was the first point on which he thought that the plaintiff should be non-suited because the burden of proof with regard to negligence lay with the plaintiff, who might say that it was gross negligence on their part that caused the damage, apart from the insufficiency of the packing.

   His Lordship - But they deny that it was insufficient.

 Mr. Stokes - Yes, my Lord. Counsel referred to another clause in the bill of lading under which he claimed exemption whereby the owners were exempted from liability through the negligence or default of master, pilot, mariners, engineers, stevedores, labourers, etc., whether in the employ of the owners or not or whether at sea or on shore. The defendants, however, would not take advantage of such a clause, unless they had good grounds for it, in connection with what they said concerning the insufficient packing and the customs of the trade. This clause however, as his Lordship would see existed in the bill of lading and, he contended, entirely put the plaintiff out of Court. He quoted Stretton on Charter Parties and Bills of Lading, in support of the contention. If his Lordship upheld this clause it would be unnecessary for him to call evidence.

   His Lordship said he should have to take time to consider that.

   Mr. Stokes then called,

  Capt. Grattan, the acting agent of the China Mutual Steam Navigation Conpany, who said it was usual for this class of goods to come in frail skeleton cases. All that he had seen in their ships did. They were made of narrow boards fastened with one nail or with tin bands. In his opinion they were not sufficiently strong to hold the cargo. He did not know whether they had had any claims of the kind before, but if they had they had never been paid. If he thought the ship was to  blame he would not take advantage of the clause regarding negligence.

   Mr. Such - A claim of a similar nature was paid some time ago but it was entirely owning to a ship.

 Mr. P. A. Chambers. Warehouseman at the Hongkew wharf, deposed to having looked up the particulars regarding the cargo in question on its arrival. On March7th they sent in a landing account showing 20 cases damaged. He never heard anything about the claim until recently. The cases referred to were of the ordinary kind and he never expected them to last, secure. It was a very average percentage of breakage. It was customary for the consignees to do the repairing.

   Mr. E. A. Hewett, resident agent for the P & O S.N. Co. said he was acquainted with the make and strength of skeleton cases which were distinctly insufficient to pack heavy goods in. His Company never paid these claims although they had been called upon to pay them.

   His Lordship said that on the evidence before him, it was clear that the goods were not sufficiently packed, whilst the clause in the bill of lading exempted the ship owners from liability. Therefore he must give judgment for the defendants.

 At the same time he would like to point out that it seemed only fair to the consignees of the goods and to other purchasers when they arrived here that they should have some notice either on the bill of lading or in the mate's receipt. Nevertheless he did not think that this would affect the legal liability in this case.

   Mr. Stokes asked for costs, but

   His Lordship reminded him that there were no costs in summary cases.

 

North China Herald, 11 July,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 4th July.

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

R. v. CORCORAN.

   Martin Corcoran, 33, sailor, was charged on a warrant with violently assaulting John Davidson on Saturday last.

   Davidson entered the box and said he was the chief officer of the sailing ship Penthesilea and the prisoner an A.B. on the same vessel. On Friday night the prisoner came on board and commenced to kick up a row. All through the night he was singing and shouting on the decks waking and annoying everybody. The next morning witness sent for him and told him quietly to go ashore. He turned very violent and used a lot of obscene and threatening language. He then rushed at witness and although he knew the witness was in great bodily pain, practically crippled, he struck him a fierce blow in the face causing his nose to bleed freely and also blackening his eye. Prisoner had been away from the ship more or less since the 24th inst. and the only occasion on which he had been on board he had made himself offensive.

   Wm. Henry Mott, steward of the Penthesilia, gave corroborative evidence. After prisoner had struck the mate witness and the second officer ran up and dragged him away.

   A Chinese stevedore also spoke to seeing prisoner assault the prosecutor.

   Prisoner now said the mate abused him first and grabbed him to assault him. He then struck him in the face, when the mate closed with him.

   His Worship said it was a very serious thing to strike an officer. He should sentence him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, but he would  be put aboard his ship if she sailed before the expiration of the sentence.

.  .  .  

7th July.

R. v. WILSON.

   John [A or H] D. Wilson, a sailor, was charged with assaulting John Davidson, chief officer of the Penthesilea, on the 4th inst.

   Prosecutor said that on Monday evening after work on the ship had stopped he advised the accused not to go ashore for any more liquor. Without making any reply he pulled witness off the grating on to the deck bruising his legs. He fell a distance of six feet. Shortly afterwards prisoner went aft with a number of clothes (his own property) which he was intending to take ashore to get more drink with. The second mate took the clothes off him to prevent him selling them, then he fetched one of his companions, and assuming a fighting attitude demanded his clothes back, which were given to him. The mate wanted to prevent the men getting the samshu which was sold at the oil works. Prisoner then  went ashore and returned in about an hour with  more drink. He afterwards committed a nuisance on the deck. In reply to the prisoner witness said that he did not catch hold of prisoner by the throat.

   Wm. Ritchie Jamieson, acting second officer of the ship, spoke to hearing a disturbance and on going on to the deck found the mate lying on the deck, and he helped him to rise. He did not see the prisoner assault the mate. He took the clothes from him believing that he was going ashore to sell them to get drink with. The mate complained of being hurt. In reply to the prisoner witness could not say whether prisoner was as drunk as the mate or that the mate was as drunk as he was. (Laughter). He could not say that the mater had been drinking but the prisoner was very drunk.

   Wm. Henry Maitt, steward, spoke to hearing the prisoner tell the mate that he was going ashore to get some whisky, with that he pulled the mate off the top of the grating on to the main deck. The mate was practically a cripple, suffering from a very bad foot.

   By the prisoner - He could not say that he was lacking in respect to his officers before Monday. But then the 4th of July had nothing to do with an English ship. (laughter).

   James Dabinett, sailor, was called for the prisoner. He said that when prisoner told the mate he was going ashore the mate made a grab at him to prevent him going down the gangway. Wilson pushed his arm away and the mate fell on to the deck. Witness was sitting on a spar outside the forward house, about 35 yards away. In reply to the prosecutor witness admitted that he was not sober.

   Charles Pinder, sailor, also spoke on behalf of the prisoner but his evidence was immaterial. He said he saw the mate on the deck but how he got there he could not say. Witness was quite sober but he could not say by the look of him that the mate was.

   Prisoner in defence said that on Sunday he had permission to go ashore and he admitted having too much drink but he went aboard early so as to be able to turn to in the morning. He had a "sore head" and wanted to go ashore the following day for a "cure." He did not assault the mate but pushed him when he grabbed him. The mate was under the influence of liquor. He had been 13 months in the ship and had always tried to do his duty.

   His Worship said it was clear that he had committed an assault on the mate and being under the influence of liquor it was possible that he did not know what he was doing. He would have to go to prison for three weeks with hard labour, but he would be out aboard his ship if she sailed earlier.

.  .  . 

R. v. PINDER AND OTHERS.

   Charles Pinder, James Dabinett, and William Kingsbury, seamen of the Pentheseilea, were charged with refusing to obey the lawful commands of the mate John Davidson.

   Davidson said that Dabinett and Pinder refused work on the 28th ult. and had not done any work since the ship had been in port, having also been absent without leave. On the 4thof July all three prisoners positively refused duty. Kingsbury was drunk and witness believed her was dragged into it by the other two, as hitherto he had always behaved himself. On Monday they were kicking up a row on the Wharf and the Manager came and complained to him about their conduct. His Worship committed them to prison for two weeks with hard labour, ordering them to be put aboard if the ship sailed before the termination of the sentence.

.  .  .  

8th July.

R. v. HARVEY, PEARCE, AND DOWLE.

   Arthur Harvey, 22, Frederick Pearce, 24, and Charles Dowle, 42, all unemployed, were brought up in custody charged with obtaining food, liquors, cigars and cigarettes to the amount of $6 by means of false pretences, from a Chinese hotel and restaurant.

   Wong Shi-hai, a waiter at a Chinese restaurant in Foochow Road, said that on the previous day the three prisoners came to the house of his employer and ordered food, etc., to the amount altogether of $6. After they had finished witness presented the bill when Harvey and Dowle asked to be allowed to sign chits, which they did, but the proprietor refused to accept them, and sent for the police. An officer came up and the three were removed to the police station. Pearce told witness that Dowle was the skipper of the Meifoo.

   Harvey interposing said they intended to pay in the evening.

   Ho Ting-fah, owner or the proprietor of the restaurant, said they did not deal with foreigners as a rule and he did not understand English. When the chit as brought to him by the waiter he told him to insist on payment and when they could not pay he ordered the police to be fetched.

   His Worship at this stage dismissed the charge saying there was no evidence of false pretences. The proprietors appeared to have given them credit and their only remedy was to sue them for the amount due.

   The prisoner Dowle was then charged with assaulting Sergeant McIntosh in the execution of his duty at the Central Police Station.

   The officer stated that after he had received the prisoners into custody and taken the charge he proceeded to place Dowle in the cell. He offered some resistance and catching hold of witness's arm severely scratched him.

   P.C. Head corroborated the evidence.

   Prisoner now said in regard to the previous case that he was invited by the other two to the restaurant and understood they were going to pay. He was merely objecting to being locked up on the ground that he had done no wrong. If he did scratch the Sergeant it was by accident.

   The Magistrate sent him to prison for a week.

   A further charge against Dowle of deserting his ship was withdrawn.

.  .  .  

R. v. THOMAS.

   John Thomas of the British ship Nivelle, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway at an early hour of the morning of the 3rd instant, and with assaulting P.C. Lightfoot in the execution of his duty at the same time and place.

   The Constable stated that at ten minutes past one on the morning in question he was called to the Union restaurant and coffee house in Broadway where he saw the prisoner sitting at a table. He was told that the prisoner had run up a score of a dollar and a-half which he refused to pay, and whilst creating a disturbance would not leave the premises. Eventually he paid and went out, but as soon as he got into the street he pushed his hand through two panes of glass cutting his arm very badly. Witness at once arrested him when he became very violent and struck witness a savage blow in the mouth.  With the assistance of another constable he was put into a 'ricksha and taken to Hongkew Police Station. He was from there removed immediately to the Hospital where his injuries were attended to. He was only able to leave that institution this morning.

   Prisoner, whose arm was bandaged and in a sling, looked extremely ill. He had no answer to make to the charge.

   His Worship said he had apparently suffered a good deal for his freak, and he should only fine him $5, and the costs of the proceedings. He further ordered him to be put aboard his ship.


 

North China Herald, 18 July,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th July.

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

R. v. MULREADY.

   Charles Mulready, 23, described as out of employment, and living in Woosung Road, was charged with begging and menacing pedestrians in French-town on the 1st inst.

   Lucien Weber, whose evidence was interpreted by Mr. Meyer, said he was a mechanic on the Eclaireur, and on the 1st

of July in company with three others he was walking between the first and second bridges on the Yangkingpang. The prisoner and another man came up in 'rickshas.  Prisoner then called out to witness, "French sailor, give us some money!" Witness replied that a man dressed like he was ought not to be in want, and refused. Prisoner then used some violent and threatening language and said that if there had not been four of them he would do for him. Witness gave information to the police and the prisoner and his companions went into the English Settlement. Prisoner who was perfectly sober at the time got out of the 'ricksha when he made his demands.

   Constable Andree, of the French Municipal police, spoke to having seen the prisoner in the Concession shortly before the last witness complained. He heard that prisoner had threatened to strip the last witness of everything he had. There were ten or a dozen men like the prisoner who came to the Yangkingpang every night begging for money for drinks and creating disturbances. They would also come in 'rickhas, from say Hongkew, get off at the French bridge and go into the Concession without paying the coolie hire. The prisoner was arrested on Saturday might and he recognised him as the man he saw on the 1st inst.

   Inspector Dejoncour of the French police also spoke to the trouble caused by men like the prisoner around the Yangkingpang. The English, French, German, and Italian sailors who frequented this neighbourhood were constantly pestered by them asking for money for drinks. He also said that they frequently refused to pay 'ricksha fares. In fact they were a danger to the settlements, as they would threaten violence if relief was refused.

   The prisoner denied that he had ever begged from Weber or that Weber had ever seen him. He had only been in Shanghai this time about three weeks and had only been to the French Concession on one or two occasions and not every night as one witness had stated. Besides on the night of the first he was in custody.

   His Worship said prisoner was before him on the 2nd inst. but he was not arrested until some two hours after the offence was alleged to have been committed. He would have to go to prison for a week.

.  .  .  

R. v. WATSON.

   James Watson, an elderly sailor, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on Sunday night.

   Inspector Bourke said the prisoner had been twice taken to the police station for being drunk since his ship had been in port, but released the next day without being brought before the Court.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and said his ship was going away about Thursday, and he did not want to miss her.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5, or a week' imprisonment, but ordered him to be put on board his ship if she sailed before his time was up.

.   .  .  

14th July.

R. v. MAHOMET.

   William Mahomet, a youth residing in Woosung Road, who claimed British protection on the ground that he was born in Singapore, was charged with unlawfully cutting and wounding Ying Zah at midday on Wednesday.

   Prosecutor, a 'ricksha coolie, said that he was hired on Wednesday by the prisoner to take him from Nanking Road to Woosung Road. On arriving at his destination he paid with thirty cash through a small child. He complained that it was too little and held it out to him in his hand. Prisoner then hit him, and drew a small pocket knife with which he stabbed witness in the lower part of the arm. He was taken to St. Luke's Hospital where the wound was dressed. After prisoner had cut him he offered him 40 cents not to go to the police station and report it. He would not accept it, however, as he was unfit to work afterwards. The affair took place in Woosung road and he at once went for the police who took him to the hospital. In reply to the prisoner he denied using any slang to prisoner's little sister when she paid the money.

   A native constable spoke to hearing the prosecutor screaming out for the police and on going up to him was told that he had been stabbed. He afterwards took him to the hospital. The wound was bleeding very much. When witness came up prisoner ran away.

   Sergeant Woods said prisoner was brought to the station on Wednesday by his brother.

   Prisoner in defence denied using a knife at all. The coolie used a lot of bad language to his sister and he struck him on the arm with the walking stick produced. He called his little sister who did not speak English, but who through the interpreter said the coolie wanted ten cents when she paid him.  She would not give him so much when he used bad language to her. She called the prisoner who then struck him with a stick.

   Foukin Mahomet, prisoner's brother, spoke to going into the street when he heard the trouble. He then saw the accused with a stick in his hand, and he ran away when he saw witness for fear he might do something to him. He heard the coolie telling a native constable what to say at the Police Station. At the time he asked for five dollars not to report the case at all.

   His Worship said it was evidence that the prisoner did assault the coolie and he would have to pay a fine of $5 or undergo as week's imprisonment.

.  .  .

R. v. PICTON.

   David Picton, sailor of the s.s. Dimsdale, was charged with being frunk and incapable in the North Soochow Road on the previous night. A native constable said the prisoner had refused to pay for a 'riksha ride from the Yangkingpang to Hongkew. He was helplessly drunk, and was taken into custody. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was discharged with a caution.

.  .  .  

15th July.

R. v. MONTGOMERY.

   Charles Montgomery, sailor of the s.v. Dimsdale, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous day. Indian constable 162 spoke to seeing the prisoner in a very drunken condition in a 'ricksha. He was rolling about and quite unable to take care of himself. Witness took him to the hospital in an ambulance and afterwards locked him up. 

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and it being his first offence he was let off with a caution.


 

North China Herald, 18 July,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 15th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

REY v. HOUGH.

   This was a claim by Mr. P. Rey of the Shanghai Silk Filature against Mr. R. Hough of the Shanghai Club, for the recovery of $30, being two months' rent of a house alleged to be due to the plaintiff.

   Plaintiff said that early in the year Mr. Hough went to his brother, while he (plaintiff) was away at home, and engaged one of the houses on the Middle Road Extension near the Electric Light works. Defendant agreed with his brother to take the house provided that it was thoroughly cleaned, and this was done. Witness came back to Shanghai about the end of April and on the 16th of May wrote to the defendant and told him that the house was ready for occupation.  To that letter he received no reply, and he at once concluded that it was all right. Her afterwards went up country and on his return discovered that the house was still unoccupied. He accordingly communicated with the defendant on the 15th of June, asking what he intended to do, when the defendant answered denying liability.

   In reply to the defendant plaintiff said he had no paper or document from him to show that he had taken the premises.

   Defendant said he was not liable in that the house was not put in such habitable condition as was agreed.

   By His Lordship - He did not answer the plaintiff's letter of the 16th of May because he thought it was from plaintiff's brother and considered that he had behaved very badly towards him. He afterwards forgot about the letter until he received the second epistle in June.

   His Lordship - In this case I must give judgment for the defendant as there is no evidence that Mr. Hough took the house. In an English Court of Justice it is not competent for any man to give evidence of what somebody else said, and the only proof you, Mr. Rey, have is what your brother said to you. If your brother had been here to prove what he told you the case might have been different. As it is there is no proof that Mr. Hough took this house and there must be judgment for the defendant.


 

North China Herald, 25 July,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 18th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen.

R. v. FOGARTY, AND OTHERS.

   Nicholas Fogarty, Henry Morgan, Irvine Ray, and Henry Quail, able-bodied seamen of the Largo Bay, were brought up charged with absenting themselves from that vessel without leave.

   Francis Adam, master of the S.V. Largo Bay, said the prisoners went ashore without leave at different times. They had been away almost continuously since the ship came into port some weeks ago, going aboard perhaps for an hour or a day. In reply to the prisoners witness denied promising to pay them off or stating that he did not want them aboard. He had not said that he could get better men in Shanghai for £3 a month.

   Prisoners who denied the charge were sentenced by His Lordship to two days' imprisonment, it being intimated that their ship was ready to sail on Wednesday.

.  .  .  

R. v. DOWLE.

   Charles Dowle, a sailor, was charged with vagrancy in the Foochow Road on Saturday.

   Mr. Laidler deposed to meeting the prisoner in an intoxicated condition in Foochow Road. He was quarrelling with a 'ricksha coolie about his fare and afterwards asked witness for money. This was refused and the prisoner was taken into custody.

   Dowle however denied the charge and  said that after paying the coolie he demanded more. He never begged and as a matter of fact he had two dollars in his pocket. That afternoon he was to sign as one of the crew of a sailing ship in port. If His Lordship would overlook the matter he would undertake to sign in and leave the place.

   His Lordship said he would adjourn the case until Tuesday and if he signed on and left the port all would be well for him.

   Prisoner who promised to carry out his word was released on his own recognisances.

.  .  .  

22nd July.

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

R. v. TURTON.

   Frederick Turton, 44, out of employment, was charged with stealing two silk jackets, a pair of silk pants, and a cotton jacket, value $10, from, 118x Boone Road; also assaulting a Chinese woman in Boone Road.

   Prosecutrix, who lived in a brothel on Boone Road, Hongkew, said [and] at nine o'clock on Thursday morning prisoner wanted to get into the house in which she lived. The cook attempted to resist his entrance when prisoner burst in the door and struck witness with a heavy stick (produced). He was afterwards arrested by the aid of a native and a Sikh constable.

   Another female witness was called and said the prisoner was drunk and smashed some partitions. She saw him strike the prosecutrix.

   His Worship asked if there was any evidence with regard to the theft of the clothes.

   Inspector Bourke, on behalf of the police, expressed the opinion that the Chinese witnesses had been "got at" on the point. There was evidence if they liked to testify.

   Native Constable 249, spoke to being called to the scene of the disturbance where he found that the door had been broken in and heard that a prostitute had been assaulted. He also received a complaint that the garments mentioned in the charge had been stolen but he did not see them in prisoner's possession. The accused was much under the influence of drink.

   The evidence for the prosecution having been closed,

   His Worship said there was nothing before him on which to convict the prisoner for robbery.

   Prisoner denied the stealing but with regard to the assault said "the language" the woman "turned out" was enough to exasperate any man under the influence of drink.

   His Worship was not satisfied that sufficient proof had been put forward of the prisoner's guilt and dismissed the case.


 

North China Herald, 25 July, 1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 21st July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

SUNG WAI-KEE v. ROBEY.

   This was an action, brought by Sung Wai-kee, ladies tailor of 111 x North Fukien Road, against Mrs. Ruby Robey, of 18 Nanzing Road, for the recovery of $98.30 alleged to be due for work done, et.

   There was no interpreter present and the case was conducted in pidgin English.

   Defendant - in reply to the Bench said she disputed the bill on the ground that the dress did not fit. The dress was produced wrapped as a parcel but not exhibited.

   His Lordship - Does this bill refer to one single dress?

   Defendant - To one single dress.

   His Lordship (to plaintiff) - You hear what Mrs. Robey talkee - no fit.

   Plaintiff - Mrs. Robey catchee dress say b'long proper fashion - belong number one. Just now she say no can pay, no belong proper fit, no can catchee money.

   Defendant - I am willing to pay for it if he can alter it to my satisfaction. At the same time I consider the price exorbitant. I have an estimate of the cost of the dress from another tailor which is very much less.

   His Lordship - Suppose you can make it proper she can pay.

   Plaintiff - Long time ago she say b'long proper, just now no can pay.

   His Lordship (to defendant) - How much do you say is a proper price?

   Defendant - I would willingly give him $50 but not any more. I have already paid him $15?

   His Lordship - You would be willing to pay him $50?

   Defendant - Yes, and give him the dress back again for I can't wear it, It think it is an impossibility to so alter it that it could be worn. He did not bring it to me to even try on, but delivered it made up. I can't possibly wear it, but I will give him the dress back and pay him so much a month until $50 ha been paid.

   His Lordship (to plaintiff) - More better you do that. Suppose you like she pay you dress back and $20 one ninth, till $50 have got.

   Plaintiff - No can do. That dress b'long very good dress.

   His Lordship - If belong good dress why not take back and $50 cash. You have catched $15 that make $65. I think that belong number one.

   Plaintiff, after some slight misgivings, agreed to defendant's offer and took back the dress it being stipulated that $20 a month was to be paid into Court until $50 had been paid.


 

North China Herald, 1 August,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 25th July.

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

R. v. KUMBAGO.

   Abdallah Kumbago, an Arab, employed as a stoker on the P. and O. s.s. Coromandel, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in Durpoe Road on the previous day and further with damaging a door at 89 Durpoe Road, to the extent of $2.

   A native who said he was a cloth dealer spoke to seeing the prisoner in a very intoxicated condition creating a disturbance in Durpoe Road. He deliberately smashed the door. A Chinese constable came up and attempted to arrest the prisoner but he was unable to do so single-handed and a European constable was sent for. On his arrival prisoner went quietly to the lock-up.

   Native constable 417 who was called by the last witness to arrest the prisoner said several complaints were received as to the prisoner annoying pedestrians.

   P.C. Delany who assisted to arrest the prisoner also gave evidence, and said the prisoner was very drunk.

   Prisoner who had nothing to say in defence was fined $5 and ordered to pay $1 for the damage or undergo a week's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. KAMISH.

   Sunga Kamish, an Arab fireman from the s.s. Australia, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Minghong Road on Sunday evening.

   P.C. Delaney who proved the case said the prisoner who was drunk was assaulting a number of coolies who had crowded round him.

   He made no defence and was mulcted in the sum of $5.

.  .  .  

26th July.

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, 24, unemployed, and an old offender, was brought up in custody charged with stealing on the previous day a quantity of food from 10A Markham Road, the property of Mr. R. W. Lambuth.

   A servant in the employ of the prosecutor said that at half-past seven on Monday night the prisoner came into the kitchen of his master's house and demanded mutton, ham and bread. Witness told him his master was out and he could not give him anything. Some fish and poultry had been prepared by the cook and was ready for dinner on a dresser to which the prisoner helped himself. He followed witness into the dining room, and although they attempted to prevent him he forced an entrance. Mr. Lambuth returned and told witness to call the police, which he did and prisoner was taken into custody. Her thought the prisoner had been drinking but he was not very drunk.

   In reply to the Bench witness said he tried to prevent him helping himself to the food but he could not prevent him, the prisoner eating it with his hand.

   A coolie in Mr. Lambuth's service said that he was pulling the punkah at his master's house when he saw the prisoner come in and help himself to the food.

   Mr. R. W. Lambuth said prisoner came into his dining room and he ordered him out. He asked for a sandwich. He seemed under the influence of drink but could control his movements and talk intelligibly. From what the boys told him, he had him arrested.

   Prisoner who elected to be tried summarily in preference to going before a jury said he did not remember anything about it. He had some money sent him in the morning and he went out and got drunk and did not know what he was doing. He had $22 on him at the time and was quite willing to pay for what he had done.

   His Worship said if he thought it was merely a mad freak he might treat the case leniently but considering what he knew of him he would not. He had had every chance of bettering his condition and every opportunity had been given him of recovering his position, but he had neglected to take it. He would have to go to prison for a month with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. MULREADY.

   Charles Mulready, a frequent visitor to the Court, was charged with absenting himself from the sailing ship Creedmore. The prisoner alleged that when he joined the ship the mate abused him in the most uncalled-for manner, and threatened that if he did not go ashore he would "dump" him as soon as they left port.

   His Worship said the captain had taken out a warrant against him, but had left no authority to prosecute. He could not do otherwise in the circumstances than to dismiss the case.

.  .  .  

R. v. NORAN SINGH.

   Niran Singh, a watchman, was charged with drunkenness and creating a disturbance at the British Consulate on the previous day.

   Mr. S. F. Mayers, of the Consulate, said that on Thursday afternoon prisoner came to his office in a drunken condition and commenced to make a disturbance. Witness with some difficulty got him downstairs and into the garden where he gave him in charge of the Indian gatekeeper. He refused however to go away and assaulted the porter with the result that the police were sent for and he was taken into custody by a couple of native constables. He was so violent that he had to be conveyed to the lock-up in a wheelbarow.

   Prisoner who made no defence was ordered to pay a fine of $5.

.  .  .  

R. v. RYAN.

   Frank Ryan, sailor, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous evening.

   Indian constable 74 spoke to finding the prisoner lying helplessly drunk in the gutter near the Sailors' Home at 11.20 on Thursday night.

   Prisoner who pleaded guilty and expressed contrition was ordered to be put aboard his ship immediately, which it was stated was ready to sail.


 


 

North China Herald, 1 August,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 28th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

CHITTA SINGH v. SUNDER SINGH.

   In this case the plaintiff is a native of the same Indian village as the defendant and he claimed $50 for food and clothing from the 1st of June,1897, to the 31st of January this year.

   Defendant denied the claim alleging that he had paid the money.

   Plaintiff stated that when defendant arrived in Shanghai he had no money and lived with witness eight months, being also provided with wearing apparel. He reckoned defendant had cost him, $40 for food and $10 for clothing. Defendant promised to repay him as soon as he got employment; he succeeded in getting a station and three months afterwards witness went to him and asked him for the money. He replied "Wait two months more." At the expiration of that period when he again demanded payment defendant said "I don't owe you anything at all." He had paid $15 since, which sum had to be deducted from the amount of the claim.

   Jahad Singh, watchman in the employ of Hall and Holtz, Ltd., spoke to a knowledge of the circumstances and heard defendant say he would pay when he got a station. Other witnesses were called who spoke to the same effect.

   Defendant at present out of employment stated that he only lived six months with the plaintiff, and it was arranged between them that he should pay $3 a month for board and lodging. He had paid £18 and contended that the account was square. He added that when in the Punjab the plaintiff owed him money. After he left plaintiff's house the last named withheld a quantity of clothing and cooking utensils which he had brought from the Straits Settlements.

   His Lordship in giving judgment, said it was very difficult for him to arrive at the truth of this matter. He did not consider that the clothes had been given up to the defendant when he left the house of the plaintiff, and therefore he should strike that amount out of the claim. It appeared that the defendant had stayed seven or eight months with the plaintiff and from the amount of the clam it would seem that $5 a month was the amount agreed upon for board and lodging. Taking the time at seven months he should allow the plaintiff $35 which with the $15 already paid would mean a verdict for the plaintiff for $20. He should also allow plaintiff the costs of the summons and the expenses of one witness.


 

North China Herald, 8 August,1898

AMENITIES OF THE MIXED COURT.

RUNNERS' RAPACITY DESERVEDLY REPROBATED.

   The questionable administration of the Mixed Court heretofore, together with many of the disgusting irregularities in which the minor officials participate, has been freely commented upon in these columns, but it is satisfactory to note that with the recent change in the magistracy there is now a fair prospect of securing justice for the unhappy wretches who appear before this tribunal.

   A shocking state of things was brought to light on Wednesday, but it is gratifying to be able to record that the offender was punished severely by Mr. Cheng, the magistrate. The facts of the case show almost incredible inhumanity. It would appear that some time ago a native in the employ of the Shanghai Gas Company was arrested on a charge of stealing one thousand feet of gas-piping the property of his employers. The charge was fully proved and the delinquent sentenced to receive 200 blows and a month's imprisonment. As soon as his time had expired one of the Mixed Court runners who was responsible for the safe custody of the prisoner, visited him in his cage and told him that unless he (prisoner) paid him $2 he could not be released and he would have to be again imprisoned for another week. In vain the prisoner protested his inability to pay such a sum, and in vain were his requests to be released received by the rapacious runner and his confederates. Later in the day some friends of the unhappy captive visited him outside the bars of his prison and he communicated to them the runner's demands.

   One of them accordingly went up to the office of the Gas Company asking for $2 to get the man freer and explaining the circumstances. This led to an investigation and Inspector Wilson was notified of what was proceeding. The runner hearing of the action of the European police released the prisoner at ten o'clock, at night, having kept him without food a day beyond the expiration of his sentence. He was subsequently arrested and on Wednesday brought before the Mixed Court magistrate. On the facts being revealed Mr. Cheng spoke in strong terms of the conduct of the prisoner whom he sentenced to receive 300 blows and three months' imprisonment, and to be dismissed.

   Later in the afternoon the prisoner, a cruel-looking fellow with an ugly cut right across his face, was brought into the Court to receive the blows, it having been stipulated that the punishment was to be inflicted in the presence of the Court to prevent the prisoner squaring the other runners. He immediately commenced to howl and moan, but the assistant magistrate, Mr. Liu, refused to listen to his pleas for leniency and he was there and then soundly and deservedly flogged, the cowardly wretch screaming and rating all the time. He was removed in custody to the Central Police Station to undergo his term of imprisonment, the assistant magistrate dismissing the memorial of the other runners that he should be detained in the Mixed Court. 

   Summary action of this kind is wholesome in connection with these unscrupulous officials, and a little more of it would doubtless be the means of removing many of the abuses at present perpetuated on the Maloo in the name of the Law.

 

North China Herald, 15 August, 1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 8th August.

Before Mr. W. P. Ker, Police Magistrate.

R. v. ANDERSON.

   Frank Anderson, able-bodied seaman of the Benledi, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct on board his ship, and assaulting several members of the crew on the 7th inst.

   John Drake, second officer, stated that on Sunday afternoon prisoner was behaving in a riotous manner on the deck and fighting with several members of the crew. Witness went up to try and stop it when prisoner drew his hand across witness's face and also used threatening language. He called the boatswain to assist him and the third engineer went for the police. While they were securing the prisoner he butted the boatswain and cut his face.

   In reply to the prisoner, witness said he did not kick and strike him while he was down. All he did was to hold him whilst they got him secure.

   William Taylor, chief engineer, said he was lying in his room when he heard the prisoner on the deck challenging any one on the ship to fight. He persisted in fighting one of the crew who was quite peaceable. He corroborated the evidence of the last witness who said he did not use any undue violence.

   Alexander Blair, boatswain, whose head was bandaged, spoke to being requested by the second officer to assist in securing prisoner who rushed at witness with his head, like a maniac, severely cutting him over the eye and necessitating the calling in of a doctor to stitch the wound.

   J. H. McDonald, seaman, said prisoner who was drunk struck him without the least provocation and he defended himself. This was what led to the disturbance.

   In defence, prisoner alleged that he was ill-treated by members of the crew who both kicked him and struck him. If they had let him alone the affair would never have happened.

   His Worship ordered him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two weeks, but to be put on board his ship should she sail earlier.

   Captain Farquhar said that they were to sail at daylight on Wednesday morning and this would hardly be an adequate punishment. He wanted the prisoner to know that he could not do such things aboard with impunity.

   His Worship said that in the circumstances a day's impris0nment would not be sufficient punishment. He would accordingly alter the sentence to a fine of $10.

.  .  .  

R. v. MACKAY.

   John Mackay, a young man, was brought up in custody charged with unlawfully refusing to obey the commands of the master of the ship of which he was one of the registered crew.

   Francis Norman said he was the Master of the s.s. Indravelli which lately arrived in Shanghai from New York. The prisoner was shipped as chief steward but was incompetent. On Saturday last he took the prisoner, at his own request, before the Consul to see if he could be paid off. The Consul refused to sanction his being paid off and witness ordered him aboard the ship. Owing to his incompetency and the numerous complaints he had all along received from the members of the crew as to the way their food was served he dis-rated the prisoner from chief to assistant steward. He ordered him on Saturday to clean out the chartroom but he refused point blank to do so, or indeed anything other than chief steward's duties. He defied all authority and refused to do anything at all on the ship.

   Prisoner now said he would not do anything on the ship until it was proved that he was incompetent.

   His Worship pointed out that the captain was within his rights in dis-rating him if he considered him incapable, Prisoner would have to go to prison for a week but would be put on board should the vessel sail before the expiration of that period.

.  .  .  

12th August.

R. v. RICHARDS.

   Thomas Richards, quartermaster of the Indravelli, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly behaviour in Broadway on the previous afternoon. P.C. Delaney deposed to seeing the prisoner who was very drunk creating a disturbance. He used obscene language and refused to pay a 'ricksha coolie whom it appeared he had kept running for about three hours. He was inclined at first to resist being taken to the lockup, but on another constable coming up he went quietly.

   Prisoner, who pleaded guilty, was fined $3 or a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. SWANSON AND OTHERS.

   Abel Swanson, Carl Wistrom, and William McKibbie, seamen of the Wiscombe Park, were charged with being guilty while drunk of disorderly and riotous behaviour in Bradway on Thursday. P.C. Ellison said that he had seen the prisoners in the street all the afternoon behaving more or less in a riotous manner. They were hustling Chinese and pulling their queues. He arrested them with the help of another constable and when in Minghong Road he was assaulted by Wistrom. The man then called upon his companions to draw their knives.

   These were produced in Court - ordinary sailors' knives.  Inspector Ramsay informed his worship that it was an offence against Police Regulations to come ashore with them.

   The constable added that Swanson gave no trouble.

   Swanson was fined $5 or a week, and the others were sentenced to a week's imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine.

 

North China Herald, 22 August,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Before F.S.A. Bourne, Esq., Assistant Judge.

CHITTA SINGHH v. SUNDA SUNGH.

   In this case the plaintiff, a watchman, had obtained judgment against the defendant for the payment of $27, claim and costs, but the order of the Court had not been complied with.

   Defendant now urged that he was out of employment and could not discharge the claim. When he got work he was willing to pay whatever he owed.

   Plaintiff contended that defendant was not without means and that a Sikh police sergeant was holding $40 of his money.

   Defendant in reply to the Court denied that this was so or that he had property.

   The Assistant Judge - If you tell lies, you will have to go to prison.

   Plaintiff said an Indian police sergeant (number 55) had the money. He was told do by other Indians. The sergeant was at Yangtsepoo.

   The case was adjourned till Friday and a summons was ordered to be served on the sergeant referred to. Plaintiff was also advised to try and gather more information as to the defendant's real position.

19th August.

   This was an adjourned action for the recovery of $27 on a judgment summons obtained by the plaintiff. When the case was before the Court on Tuesday last, plaintiff made a statement to the effect that defendant had $40, which he had given to a Sikh police sergeant to hold for him. Defendant denied it, but the Court adjourned the case in order that the sergeant might be summoned to appear.

   On resuming yesterday morning, the sergeant in question, No. 55, entered the box. He said that he had no money of the defendant's. He did not have any.

   Plaintiff said the defendant had been telling various Indians that he had money.

   Defendant was sworn and pleaded inability to pay on the ground that he was out of employment. He asked his Lordship to make an order for him to pay one or two dollars a month. He had temporary employment at present for which he expected to receive a dollar a day, but this would only extend to four or five days.

   The Court ordered him to pay $5 a month until the debt is discharged.

 

North China Herald, 22 August,1898

UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 17th August.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General, and the Rev. J. R. Hykes, Associate.

U.S. PEOPLE v. FLANIGAN.

   Flanigan, late chief engineer of the Annapoora, was brought up on a charge of being drunk and creating a disturbance at the Family Hotel on the night of the 13th inst. He was further charged with cutting and wounding Nesbitt, boilermaker of the same ship.

   The first witness called was the prosecutor, who detailed the circumstances of the assault.

   It appeared from his evidence that the prisoner, who was drunk at the time, had some trouble with Nesbitt, and they came to blows. In the course of a struggle which ensued the prisoner struck him on the lip with a sharp instrument, said to be the razor produced. The mate, Mr. Wetherall, took the razor from him. Witness and the prisoner had not been on speaking terms for the last two weeks but there had been no trouble between them at any time. Prisoner had given evidence against him in Yokohama when he (witness) was summoned for absence from the ship without leave, but it had caused no trouble.

   In answer to the prisoner, witness denied trying to strike him with a whip or a chair. He had never on any occasion threatened to "do him up."

   Mr. J. A. Jackson, proprietor of the Family Hotel, said that between 12 and 1 o'clock on the night in question he was awakened by a disturbance, and on going out to ascertain the cause he found the prisoner, who was quite nude, struggling with several men. Witness recognised the razor produced, which he said was taken from the prisoner by Mr. Wetherall and handed to wit ness. The razor was closed when witness saw it first. He (witness) sent for the police and had the prisoner arrested.

   Several other witnesses were called for the prosecution, and gave corroborative evidence.

   Prisoner was sworn, and made a statement to the effect that on Saturday night he was in bed asleep, when he was awakened by  some one violently shaking the bed. He then heard footsteps leaving the room. He got up, and took a walking stick and his razor, and went out to see who it was. He heard Nesbitt and the mate talking and laughing over the "fright they had given old Flanigan." He went to Mr. Wardrop's door to ask them not to annoy him, when Wardrop rushed at him and knocked him down. The rest interfered and there was a struggle, in the course of which he struck Nesbitt in the mouth with his head, which caused the wound on the prosecutor's lip. He denied using the razor at all.

   Prisoner for the defence called the Captain and super cargo of the Annarapoora, who both said that the prisoner had met with a good deal of persecution at the hands of the other officers and crew and gave him a very good character, describing him as of a peaceful and retiring disposition, even when in drink.

   His Honour, who did not believe that the wound on Nesbitt's lip had been caused by an open razor, sentenced the prisoner to thirty days' imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 22 August,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th August.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. DANNY.

   Charles Danny, A.B. of the Atalanta, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Boone Road on the previous day.

   Native constable 332 said that the prisoner who was very drunk went to a shop and attempted to snatch some bean curd from a little girl who was in charge. He afterwards drew a knife and threatened to stab the child. Witness took him into custody. He gave no trouble on the way to the station.

   Prisoner now said he was very sorry for what had happened. He was "stupid drunk" at the time or he would never have acted so foolishly.

   He was sent to prison for two weeks with hard labour, but the magistrate ordered him to be put aboard should his ship sail earlier.

.  .  .  

R. v. SHIRES.

   Squire Shires, lately employed as third engineer on the s.s. Amarapooria, was charged with being drunk and incapable at the Family Hotel on Sunday night.

   Mr. J. A. Jackson, proprietor of the hotel, stated that his attention was called to the prisoner about a quarter past six when he was on the hotel premises drunk and disputing with a 'ricksha coolie. Witness ordered them away but some two hours after prisoner came back minus his pants and behaved in such a way that he was obliged to send for the police and have him arrested.

   Prisoner, who pleaded guilty and said he was very sorry, was fined $1 with the alternative of three days' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

17th August.

R. v. BHAGAT SINGH.

   Bhagat Singh, out of employment, residing at Pootung, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund on the previous day.

   Native constable 234 said that about half-past eight on Tuesday night he found the prisoner asleep on a seat on the Bund foreshore. Witness tried to wake him up but he was helplessly drunk and refused to move. He got a 'ricksha and took him to the lockup.

   Prisoner now said he had been all right for the last six months but got too much on Tuesday. He would leave the case to His Worship's mercy.

   His Worship - This is by no means your first appearance here and you will have to pay a fine of $20 or go to prison for two weeks with hard labour. 
 

North China Herald, 27 August,1898

MIXD COURT.

Shanghai, 18th August.

Before Mr. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. E. T. Williams, U.S. Assessor.

CHU v. PU TZE-HSING.

   This was a complicated case, arising out of an increase in rent made by the plaintiff, who is the owner of certain property in the native city adjacent to the Chinese Bund, part of which was occupied by the defendant as tenant.

   It appeared that the defendant when he received notice of the proposed increase objected on the ground that the rents of adjacent properties were not to be raised in proportion. The defendant carried ion business as a dealer in salt pork, and had occupied the premises in question for about ten years, and would have consented to pay the increased rent if the matter had not unfortunately got into the hands of a concern called the Mercantile Collecting Agency, of which a man named Docter, whose name has been before the public in connection with similar matters on several previous occasions, was the agent.

   It seems that Docter lodged a complaint with the Mixed Court magistrate through the U.S. Consul-General with the effect that the defendant Pu refused to giber up the premises.  Pu was accordingly ordered to appear before the Mixed Court on the 9th inst., when he was arrested and had been in custody since. He applied for bail which was refused, the magistrate saying that he could only grant bail with the consent of the U.S. Consular authorities. Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the defendant, and Docter, representing the Mercantile Colleting Agency, appeared in support of the claim.

   Mr. Nelson objected that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case, as the premises out of which the claim arose were outside the Settlements and within the jurisdiction of the city magistrate.

   Docter contended that as the case had been referred back to the Mixed Court by the city magistrate the Court had jurisdiction.

   Mr. Nelson then objected that it was a purely Chinese case and that neither the U.S. Consulate nor Docter had anything to do with it. This was simply an attempt to extort money and such a state of things should be put a stop to at once. If Docter, as he stated, was agent for the estate, he (Mr. Nelson) said that the case had been taken away from the city magistrate by false representations. 

   He understood that an agreement had been come to between the plaintiff and the defendant, which through the intervention of Docter had not been carried out. The magistrate held that as this was a case which was purely Chinese, it was not necessary for either party to be represented by foreigners. He could hear the case without an assessor, or refer it to the city magistrate for his decision.

   Mr. Nelson concurred in this law, and the magistrate directed that the plaintiff should bring his action in a regular way, when it would be heard either by himself or the city magistrate; and the defendant was then released.

 

North China Herald, 29 August,1898

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

Shanghai, 24th August

Before F.S.A. Bourne, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

SOBA SINGH v. UTTAM SINGH.

   The parties in this case were Indian watchmen, and the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of $92 due on a promissory note, dated September 16th, 1897. Plaintiff lent the money to the defendant when he was in difficulties, who promised to repay it by monthly instalments of eleven dollars. He had paid eighteen dollars but would not continue the agreement any further.

   Defendant was sworn and in reply to the Bench admitted the debt. He said he was at present in receipt of $15 a month wages, but expected to be out of employment in about two months. He asked the Acting Chief Justice to make an order on him for the repayment of the money by monthly instalments, to take effect from the time he had discharged a prior claim.

    By the Court - He was recently sued by another Indian in the Court in respect of another debt and judgment was given for the plaintiff, witness being ordered to pay $5 a month. It would take him seven months to terminate this. He was willing to liquidate plaintiff's claim by similar payments.

   Plaintiff now alleged that the defendant was well able to pay. He had been seven years in Shanghai, and plaintiff knew that he had been sending money down to Hongkong.

   Defendant questioned by the Court denied this, or that he had means.

   Plaintiff said that a few days ago defendant bought a draft from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank which he sent away.

   Defendant again denied the truth of the assertion, but on being informed by His Lordship, through the interpreter, that they could easily find out from the  Bank if such was the case, and that by committing perjury he was liable to a heavy term of imprisonment, he admitted that he had purchased from the Bank in question a draft. The document was for $25 on Hongkong in favour of an Indian with whom he formerly lived. The money was for "chow. This man also stood security for the other debt.

   The Acting Chief Justice said it seemed to him that sending this money away was rather suspicious and he should give judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, to be paid by monthly instalments of $5.

   Plaintiff asked that the instalments might be paid into Court, and an order was made to that effect.

 

North China Herald, 29 August,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 25th August.

Before F.S. A. Bourne, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

R. v. CANCE.

   In conformity with the sentence passed by Sir Nicholas Hannen, the gaoler produced William Cance, convicted by a jury in May last of fraud. The prisoner, described as of no regular employment, was charged with fraudulently obtaining goods from various tradesmen and signing chits in other people's names. At his trial he pleaded guilty to a second indictment to a previous conviction for a similar offence. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour and ordered, on the expiration of the sentence, to either find security for $1000 for his future good behaviour or be deported to Hongkong. His sentenced having now expired he was unable to find the necessary security.

   His Lordship ordered him to be kept in custody, pending the arrangements for his deportation.

 

North China Herald, 29 August,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COUIRT.

Shanghai, 22nd August.

 Before Mr. W. P. Ker, Police Magistrate.

R. v. BROUSE AND RASMUSSEN.

   P. Brouse and L. Rasmussen, A.B.s, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous evening.

   The charge was proved by P.C. Leighton and native P.C. 528.

   Prisoners had nothing to say, and his Worship ordered Rasmussen to pay a fine of $5, and discharged Brouse.

.  .  . 

R. v. ROBERTSON.

   Hugh Robertson was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway and with assaulting P.C. 39 whilst in the execution of his duty.

   From the evidence of P.C. 39 it appeared that on the previous night prisoner was drunk and creating a disturbance at the corner of Broadway and Fearon Road. When the constable ordered him to desist and move on he refused, so he was taken into custody. He then became very violent, and it was with considerable difficulty that he was taken to the station.

   His Worship imposed a sentence of one week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. TURTON.

   Frederick Turton, seaman, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance and with breaking a lamp, valued at 90 cents.

   Evidence was given in support of the charge by the proprietor of a hot water shop and by P.C. 450.

   Prisoner said he had no money to pay for the damage, and his Worship sent him to prison for a week.

.  .  .  

25th August.

R. v. GEARGIS AND KOCH.

   Paul Geargis, 30, and Adolf Koch, 25, seamen of the British sailing vessel William Law, were charged with unlawfully assaulting Captain W. A. Abbott, master of the ship named.

   The evidence went to show that the prosecutor was coming out of the office of the Standard Oil Company, on Wednesday morning, when the prisoners who were standing on the pavement outside in company with another man, rushed at him and assaulted him. Geargis struck the captain with his fists, and his companion hit him with a stick. The prisoners were arrested and taken before the magistrate on Wednesday afternoon, when the prosecutor gave evidence of the assault, and the prisoners were remanded in custody until yesterday.

   On resuming yesterday, a Sikh constable and a  'rickha coolie gave evidence, both deposing to witnessing the assault. After he was assaulted the Captain went back into the office and the men were arrested.

   Prisoners, who alleged that the Captain had assaulted them first, had no witnesses. They wanted to call the man who was with them, named Marries, but it was stated that he was on board.

   Inspector Matheson said every facility had been given them to call whatever evidence they wished, but they told him that they did not want any.

   His Worship in sentencing them to a week's imprisonment each, with hard labour, reminded them that had the assault been committed on board ship the punishment would have been much more severe.

.  .  .  

26th August.

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, an old offender of no fixed abode, and out of employment, was charged with being drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha in Broadway on Thursday night.

   Native constable 349 stated that at half-past nine on Thursday evening he found the prisoner asleep in a 'ricksha in Whangpoo Road. He was very drunk and unable to say where he wanted to go. He got him as far as Broadway and then had to take him into custody.

   Prisoner, who pleaded guilty but made no defence, had been seven times previously before the Court.

   His Worship imposed a penalty of $5 or a week's imprisonment in default.

.  .  .  

27th August.

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, out of employment, was charged with drunkenness in the Public Garden on Friday night. Prisoner was found by a native constable asleep and Incapable on a bench.

   Prisoner who pleaded guilty had been many times previously convicted and was only before His Worship on a similar charge the previous day.

   He was fined $20 or a fortnight's imprisonment in default of payment.


 

North China Herald, 29 August,1898

IN THE MIXED COURT.

   Mr. Cheng (Mixed Court Magistrate) and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne (British Assessor), were occupied the while of yesterday afternoon in the disposal of a number of nisi prius and other cases of more or less public interest. A well-dressed native appeared at the instance of Mr. E. E. Porter, Manager of the China and Japan Telephone Company, to answer a charge of absconding from the service of the Company and breaking a contract which he had undertaken to fulfil. The man was employed as an operator in the Call Office but without giving the least notice absented himself. His action caused the greatest inconvenience in the office. Mr. Porter sent after him but his mother and the friends with whom he lived could not say where he was or why he had left work. He now told the Court that he was too ill to attend to his duties. The magistrate said that he should have sent word that hr was unfit for duty. Mr. Porter in reply to Mr. Bourne said the Company no longer required his services. He was ordered to forfeit a month's wages.

   Mr. J. C. Hanson made an application for judgment against a Chinese for an amount aggregating from four or five thousand dollars for breach of contract. The action arose out of the sale of certain shares, defendant having broken the contracts he had signed. It was understood that the claim was not disputed, but owing to a little informality the case was ordered to stand over for a week.

   A case of a very complicated nature was then taken in which Mr. S. H. Bhala, an Indian merchant, was the plaintiff and Ho San-kai was the defendant who appeared in custody.

   The parties became associated in Hongkong where both were engaged in business. The defendant went in for some fairly extensive speculations in respect of which plaintiff advanced large sums of money. He subsequently absconded and remained in hiding for some time in Canton.  A short time ago he came up to Shanghai and commenced in some sort of business under the name of Ho San-kai.  Plaintiff got to hear of his presence in Shanghai and at once came to Shanghai and instituted proceedings. Mr. Nelson now represented the plaintiff who, it was stated, had already wiped out a debt of the defendant's for six thousand dollars. An arrangement had been sought to be arrived at whereby the defendant should pay the sum of $500 down and $5000 in the course of a year. Plaintiff was willing to dissolve his claim (which he said was something like $17,000) if this agreement was kept. But in the event of its not being kept the whole debt was to revive.  An agreement had been drawn up to this effect when defendant proposed the immediate payment of $500 which he had and the payment of $5000 in a year, and offered the security of a man named Geddes. The plaintiff however refused the security and complained of the shuffling conduct of the defendant.  After some considerable argument defendant was released for a week to enable him  to raise the balance of $250, wherewith to pay the $500 due, he agreeing to the arrangement made by the plaintiff as to the other part of the contract.  Mr. Bourne told him that in the event of his not paying the $500 by that day next week he should probably have to ask the Magistrate to hand him over to the Municipal Police.

   A Sikh sued a native for $30. He lent the money to the defendant, the consideration being a bottle if milk per diem interest. It appeared that the defendant had carried out this arrangement for quite a long time and suggested a compromise. In the result judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $15.


 

North China Herald, 29 August, 1898

UNITED STATES CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd August.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General.

U.S. PEOPLE v. HARTMAN.

   Charles Hartman, a seaman belonging to the Paul Revere, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on the previous night.

   Prisoner admitted the offence. Inspector Ramsay said he did not wish to press the charge, and His Honour fined the prisoner $5 and ordered him to be put on board his ship and not to be allowed ashore for ten days.

.  .  .  

26th August.

U.S. PEOPLE v. CALLOW.

   Robert Callow, a seaman belonging to the sailing ship Paul Revere, was charged with refusing duty.

   After hearing evidence in support of the charge, His Honour sentenced the prisoner to undergo a week's imprisonment.

 

North China Herald, 5 September,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 29th August

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. READ.

   Charles Read, unemployed, was charged with assaulting native P.C. 202 by striking him with a stick, and further with causing damage to his uniform to the amount of $3.

   Native P.C. 202 said he was on duty in the Kiangse Road at about 4 a.m. on Sunday, when he saw the accused come out of No. 54.  Several 'ricksha coolies made a rush for him and he assaulted and chased them. Witness went after him and desired him to desist, but he turned on the witness and struck him on the head and other parts of the body with a stick (produced). Witness blew his whistle and two other native constables came to his aid, followed by a foreign policemen who took the accused to the station.

   Native P.C. 491 gave corroborative evidence.

   P.C. Powles said he was on duty in the N. Soochow Road at the time mentioned in the charge. He heard a police whistle in the Kiangse Road, and going across the bridge, he saw prisoner struggling with three native policemen. Prisoner asked witness if he were a foreign police officer, and on his answering in the affirmative said he would go to the station with him, but objected to being taken by Chinese. Prisoner was quite sober and went to the station quietly.

   Prisoner made a statement to the effect that the native constables had attempted to "squeeze" him, demanding 50 cents each, and when he refused they assaulted him, and in striking P.C. 202 he only acted in self-defence.

   His Worship sentenced the accused to go to gaol, with hard labour, for a week, and to pay $3 for the damage done to the constable's uniform.

.  .  .  

31st August.

R. v. P RICE.

   James Price, A.B. belonging to the ship Dunfernline, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved by Sikh constable 109, His Worship sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine of $2 with the alternative of a week's hard labour.

.  .  .  

1st September.

R. v. BITHREY.

Not transcribed. See Case in Supreme Court.

.  .  .  

3rd September.

R. v. PRICE.

   James Price, A.B. of the British ship Dunfernline, was charged with drunkenness and begging at the German Post Office. The attention of an Indian constable was drawn to the prisoner who was drunk and begging from the foreigners and Chinese inside the Post Office. The officer receiving a complaint as to his behaviour took him into custody, when he became very violent and it was only with considerable difficulty that he was take to the lock-up.  Prisoner, who had nothing to say and had been several times in trouble previously, was fined $10 or fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 5 September,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 29th August

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. READ.

   Charles Read, unemployed, was charged with assaulting native P.C. 202 by striking him with a stick, and further with causing damage to his uniform to the amount of $3.

   Native P.C. 202 said he was on duty in the Kiangse Road at about 4 a.m. on Sunday, when he saw the accused come out of No. 54.  Several 'ricksha coolies made a rush for him and he assaulted and chased them. Witness went after him and desired him to desist, but he turned on the witness and struck him on the head and other parts of the body with a stick (produced). Witness blew his whistle and two other native constables came to his aid, followed by a foreign policemen who took the accused to the station.

   Native P.C. 491 gave corroborative evidence.

   P.C. Powles said he was on duty in the N. Soochow Road at the time mentioned in the charge. He heard a police whistle in the Kiangse Road, and going across the bridge, he saw prisoner struggling with three native policemen. Prisoner asked witness if he were a foreign police officer, and on his answering in the affirmative said he would go to the station with him, but objected to being taken by Chinese. Prisoner was quite sober and went to the station quietly.

   Prisoner made a statement to the effect that the native constables had attempted to "squeeze" him, demanding 50 cents each, and when he refused they assaulted him, and in striking P.C. 202 he only acted in self-defence.

   His Worship sentenced the accused to go to gaol, with hard labour, for a week, and to pay $3 for the damage done to the constable's uniform.

.  .  .  

31st August.

R. v. P RICE.

   James Price, A.B. belonging to the ship Dunfernline, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund on the previous day.

   The charge having been proved by Sikh constable 109, His Worship sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine of $2 with the alternative of a week's hard labour.

.  .  .  

1st September.

R. v. BITHREY.

Not transcribed. See Case in Supreme Court.

.  .  .  

3rd September.

R. v. PRICE.

   James Price, A.B. of the British ship Dunfernline, was charged with drunkenness and begging at the German Post Office. The attention of an Indian constable was drawn to the prisoner who was drunk and begging from the foreigners and Chinese inside the Post Office. The officer receiving a complaint as to his behaviour took him into custody, when he became very violent and it was only with considerable difficulty that he was take to the lock-up.  Prisoner, who had nothing to say and had been several times in trouble previously, was fined $10 or fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 5 September,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 1st Sept ember

Before F.S.A. Bourne, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

TSUNG WAI-HING v. J. D. VAUGHAN.

   This was a claim for $46 alleged to be due plaintiff by defendant for certain furniture supplied to the latter by one Chou Chu-sing, for payment of which plaintiff had stood security.

   The parties appeared in person.

   Defendant denied being indebted to the extent of $46. He had hired the furniture at the rate of $3.60- per month, the first instalment of which he had paid, but having lost employment through his employer, Mr. W. von Milchling, closing his offices he was unable to pay any more. The furniture was in the house at North Szechuen Road and was being held by the landlord, another furniture dealer, for his rent, $9, which he was unable to pay. He had asked plaintiff to pay the $9 and remove the furniture, promising that when he obtained work, he would refund the money. He had only used the furniture one month, for he had gone to Soochow to open an agency of the Stuttgart Insurance Co. there, and upon his return he found that his principal, Mr. von Milchling, had closed. He was now suing the latter in the German Court. He had only been in possession of the house and furniture for one month.

   Plaintiff expressed his willingness to receive the furniture from defendant, as Chou Chu-sing was continuously bothering him about the matter.

   His Lordship remanded the case till 10.30 a.m. on Saturday to enable defendant to pay the $9 due as rent and return the furniture to plaintiff.

3rd September.

.  .  .  

This was a case adjourned from Thursday. The plaintiff claimed $46 for certain furniture. Defendant alleged that he hired the furniture for $3.60 a month and that at the present time it was being held by the landlord for rent, which he had not been able to pay on account of losing his employment.

   His Lordship decided that the plaintiff had no right to sue the defendant and that he would have to sue the landlord for the return of the furniture. The case was therefore dismissed.

 

San Francisco Call, 10 September 1898

The wreck of the American ship Baring Bros., was sold at auction ...The burning of the ship is shrouded in mystery, as the consular court of inquiry threw no light on the subject whatever.

 

North China Herald, 12 September, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 5th September.

Before U. K. Cheng, Esq., Magistrate, and the Rev. E. T. Williams, U.S. Assessor.

7th September

Before Mr. U. K. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

BARRETTO U& CO. v. YUAN HSIAO CHAN AND CHEN CH'I SHENG.

   This was a complicated suit in which Mr. Browett (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) appeared for the plaintiff. It appeared that some time ago the plaintiff's compradore took possession of a cargo on behalf of the plaintiffs and sold the bill of lading to the proprietor of a grog shop in the Yangkingpang. He was sued in respect of this and plaintiff obtained judgment in this Court for $2,300 so long ago as October 15th last year. The money was not paid and it was now sought to recover the money through the defendants, who stood security. Mr. Browett said that several applications had been made to induce the security men to pay but without avail.  The compradore was imprisoned but released some time ago on account of being ill. He had however been seen very recently in Foochow Road, apparently e joying good health.

   The magistrate remarked that the man was released on the suggestion of Mr. Scott who advised him to give him an opportunity of paying the money in a month and if he could not then pay to have him imprisoned in the Municipal Gaol for six months. At first he was transferred to the Louza Station, where he had to mix with criminals, and as this was a civil case it was not thought fair and he was removed to the Central Police Station. Some days after that he attempted to hang himself in the Police Station. Mr. Bourne expressed the opinion that it was no use going on against the man, as he had no money. Mr. Browett then pressed for payment from the security men, when it transpired that there was only one security paper in existence. The whole case was that complicated, the compradore being secured by one man and the last named also secured by a third party. It was agreed that the bondsmen must pay something and they were given the opportunity of paying a thousand dollars in ten days to settle the case.

.  .  .  

NOEL, MURRAY & CO. v. LI CHING HUA.

   Mr. Hanson (Messrs. Dowdall, Hanson and McNeil) appeared for the plaintiffs, who sought judgment for Tls. 5,400 due on the sale of a number of shares in the Shanghai-Langat Tobacco Co., Ltd. The whole liability was admitted, and it was stated that arrangements were being made for a proper adjustment. Mr. Brodie Clarke informed the Court that the matter would be settled in the course of a short time. The defendant was ordered to be detained pending the settlement.

.  .  .  

MORRISON AND GRATTON v. CHUN AN FI AND ANOTHER.

   In this case it was sought to recover a thousand taels rom two men who had gone security for a shroff employed by the plaintiffs, for whom Mr. J. C. Hanson now appeared. The Shroff in question was found guilty of embezzling the sum of Tls. 4,500 from the plaintiffs and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He, however, only served a few months, being released on account of being stricken with paralysis. One of the security men was stated to possess property at Souza and it was urged that both men were in a position to fulfil the terms of the bond. The magistrate ordered an investigation into theirs, and also directed the houses to be closed until a satisfactory solution had been arrived at.

.  .  . 

STYAN v. HU T'AI SHENG AND KAO T'AI SHENG.

   Mr. F. W. Styan was the plaintiff, and the claim arose out of a transaction in feathers amounting to Tls. 269. Certain money had been paid into Court and the parties were given two days to furnish the remainder.

.  .  .  

ALLEGED ARSON.

   Mr. Browett made an application for bail on behalf of Yu Tung-yuen, who is in custody awaiting his trial for arson in connection with a recent fire in the Honan Road. He is to be charged with making four separate attempts to burn his premises. Mr. Browett produced a document signed by a person undertaking to produce the prisoner when the trial came on.  Mr. Bourne advised the Magistrate not to grant the application  as it was one of these cases which should only be bailed out in the face of extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Browett had been given to understand by Inspector Howard that if the Magistrate saw fit to grant bail the police who were prosecuting would not object.  Mr. Bourne advised His Worship not to let him go unless he received a letter direct from Mr. Pattisson to the effect that the police offered no objection. This was an important case and one in which various insurance companies were concerned.  Mr. Browett quite appreciated the gravity of the charge made against the prisoner. Mr. Boune added that in the absence of a written request from Captain Pattisson he would not recommend His Worship to accede to the application.

   It was decided to hear the case next Wednesday on the conclusion of the civil cases and with regard to bail only on the receipt of a letter from Captain Pattisson offering no objection should the application be entertained. Even then the prisoner would be required to find sureties for Tls. 1,000.

.  .  .  

EVANS v. SU PAO SAN.

   This was an ex parte application.  The case which had been before the Court to a considerable time had been decided in favour of Mr. A. M. A. Evans, who had obtained judgment for two thousand dollars against the defendants. The last named now sought to show that M r. Evans was indebted to him to an appreciable extent on account of salary, commission, etc., and this he wished the Court to rule should be regarded as a set-off to the judgment.

   The Court declined the application and gave the defendant to understand that if he had any claim against Mr. Evans he must make it by way of the British Court.

 

North China Herald, 12 September,1898

MISCELLANEOUUS.

THE MIXED COURT; AND THE LAND OFFICE.

The following valuable official notes on the modes in which business is hereafter to be done in the Mixed Court and the British Consular Land Office have been courteously handed to us for publication:

Mixed Court: Police Cases. - The assessors of the Foreign Powers have arranged with the Mixed Court magistrate and with the Municipal Council that all Police cases in which foreigners are concerned whether as prosecutors or as witnesses, will be taken every morning at ten o'clock punctually in the following order as regards the Police Station from which the cases come, namely, Central Station, Hongkew, Louza, Yangtsepoo, North Fuhkien Road, and Carter Road. These arrangements will begin on Wednesday the 7th instant.

Mixed Court: British Civil Cases. - These cases will be taken every Wednesday afternoon at two. The hearing list for the day will be published in the N.-C. Daily News every Wednesday morning.

BRITISH LAND OFFICE.

[Not transcribed.]

 

North China Herald, 12 September, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 5th September.

Before U. K. Cheng, Esq., Magistrate, and the Rev. E. T. Williams, U.S. Assessor.

7th September

Before Mr. U. K. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

BARRETTO U& CO. v. YUAN HSIAO CHAN AND CHEN CH'I SHENG.

   This was a complicated suit in which Mr. Browett (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) appeared for the plaintiff. It appeared that some time ago the plaintiff's compradore took possession of a cargo on behalf of the plaintiffs and sold the bill of lading to the proprietor of a grog shop in the Yangkingpang. He was sued in respect of this and plaintiff obtained judgment in this Court for $2,300 so long ago as October 15th last year. The money was not paid and it was now sought to recover the money through the defendants, who stood security. Mr. Browett said that several applications had been made to induce the security men to pay but without avail.  The compradore was imprisoned but released some time ago on account of being ill. He had however been seen very recently in Foochow Road, apparently e joying good health.

   The magistrate remarked that the man was released on the suggestion of Mr. Scott who advised him to give him an opportunity of paying the money in a month and if he could not then pay to have him imprisoned in the Municipal Gaol for six months. At first he was transferred to the Louza Station, where he had to mix with criminals, and as this was a civil case it was not thought fair and he was removed to the Central Police Station. Some days after that he attempted to hang himself in the Police Station. Mr. Bourne expressed the opinion that it was no use going on against the man, as he had no money. Mr. Browett then pressed for payment from the security men, when it transpired that there was only one security paper in existence. The whole case was that complicated, the compradore being secured by one man and the last named also secured by a third party. It was agreed that the bondsmen must pay something and they were given the opportunity of paying a thousand dollars in ten days to settle the case.

.  .  .  

NOEL, MURRAY & CO. v. LI CHING HUA.

   Mr. Hanson (Messrs. Dowdall, Hanson and McNeil) appeared for the plaintiffs, who sought judgment for Tls. 5,400 due on the sale of a number of shares in the Shanghai-Langat Tobacco Co., Ltd. The whole liability was admitted, and it was stated that arrangements were being made for a proper adjustment. Mr. Brodie Clarke informed the Court that the matter would be settled in the course of a short time. The defendant was ordered to be detained pending the settlement.

.  .  .  

MORRISON AND GRATTON v. CHUN AN FI AND ANOTHER.

   In this case it was sought to recover a thousand taels rom two men who had gone security for a shroff employed by the plaintiffs, for whom Mr. J. C. Hanson now appeared. The Shroff in question was found guilty of embezzling the sum of Tls. 4,500 from the plaintiffs and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He, however, only served a few months, being released on account of being stricken with paralysis. One of the security men was stated to possess property at Souza and it was urged that both men were in a position to fulfil the terms of the bond. The magistrate ordered an investigation into theirs, and also directed the houses to be closed until a satisfactory solution had been arrived at.

.  .  . 

STYAN v. HU T'AI SHENG AND KAO T'AI SHENG.

   Mr. F. W. Styan was the plaintiff, and the claim arose out of a transaction in feathers amounting to Tls. 269. Certain money had been paid into Court and the parties were given two days to furnish the remainder.

.  .  .  

ALLEGED ARSON.

   Mr. Browett made an application for bail on behalf of Yu Tung-yuen, who is in custody awaiting his trial for arson in connection with a recent fire in the Honan Road. He is to be charged with making four separate attempts to burn his premises. Mr. Browett produced a document signed by a person undertaking to produce the prisoner when the trial came on.  Mr. Bourne advised the Magistrate not to grant the application  as it was one of these cases which should only be bailed out in the face of extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Browett had been given to understand by Inspector Howard that if the Magistrate saw fit to grant bail the police who were prosecuting would not object.  Mr. Bourne advised His Worship not to let him go unless he received a letter direct from Mr. Pattisson to the effect that the police offered no objection. This was an important case and one in which various insurance companies were concerned.  Mr. Browett quite appreciated the gravity of the charge made against the prisoner. Mr. Boune added that in the absence of a written request from Captain Pattisson he would not recommend His Worship to accede to the application.

   It was decided to hear the case next Wednesday on the conclusion of the civil cases and with regard to bail only on the receipt of a letter from Captain Pattisson offering no objection should the application be entertained. Even then the prisoner would be required to find sureties for Tls. 1,000.

.  .  .  

EVANS v. SU PAO SAN.

   This was an ex parte application.  The case which had been before the Court to a considerable time had been decided in favour of Mr. A. M. A. Evans, who had obtained judgment for two thousand dollars against the defendants. The last named now sought to show that M r. Evans was indebted to him to an appreciable extent on account of salary, commission, etc., and this he wished the Court to rule should be regarded as a set-off to the judgment.

   The Court declined the application and gave the defendant to understand that if he had any claim against Mr. Evans he must make it by way of the British Court.

 

North China Herald, 19 September,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 12th September.

Before Mr. W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KELLY.

   Frank Kelly, an A.B. belonging to the British ship William Law, was charged with being absent from the ship without leave, since the 26th of August.

   Captain Abbott, master of the William Law, said the prisoner went ashore on the 26th of August without permission.

   Prisoner's defence was that he left the ship to see a doctor, as he was not well.

   His Worship sentenced prisoner to four days' hard labour, to be put on board of the ship left earlier.

.  .  .

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha in the Woosung Road, on the previous night.

 Police Constable Thompson proved the charge, and there being several previous convictions against the prisoner, His Worship fined him $20 with the alternative of a month's hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman was brought up on a charge of being drunk and disorderly in the Boone Road at 11 o'clock on the previous night.

   Police Sergeant McGregor said that on the previous night prisoner was in an alley-way off Boone Road, trying to force his was into a lodging-house.

   A native constable tried to persuade him to go way but he refused. The people living in the house complained of his annoying them, so witness took him into custody. Prisoner was drunk.

   Prisoner said he lived in the house, and was trying to wake the people up in order to go in.

   There were several previous convictions against the prisoner, and His Worship ordered him to pay a fine of $5, or go to prison for a week, with hard labour.

.  .  .  

13th September.

R. v. NABOB SINGH.

  An unemployed Sikh named Nabob Singh, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance at a native lodging house on Woosung Road, on Monday evening.

 An old Chinese woman, proprietress of the house in question, said that on Monday night just as it was getting dark prisoner entered her house, threw down a dollar on the table and attempted to drag her upstairs. She was frightened and screamed out, when the prisoner, who was drunk, became very violent, smashing a lamp, several chairs, and the door of one of the rooms. The damage, together, she assessed at $3.

Native constable 405 deposed to being called to the house when he saw the prisoner holding the old woman's arm and behaving very roughly towards her. He took him into custody.

Prisoner who said he had only been in Shanghai a few weeks told the magistrate that if he had committed himself he was very sorry. He had had a little too much drink on the previous evening, but if His Worship would deal leniently with him he would not repeat the offence.

   He was ordered to pay a fine of $2 and also $3 the amount of the damage. The money was paid.

.  .  .  

16th September.

R. v. HINNAN AND MALONEY.William Hinnan and Edward Maloney, A.B.s belonging to the ship Perseverance, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway. The charge having been proved, His Worship sent Hinnan to gaol for a week with hard labour, and ordered the other prisoner to pay a fine of $3 or go to prison for a week.

 

North China Herald, 19 September, 1898.

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 16th September

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

R. v. BITHREY.

   Charles Bithrey, cook of the s.s. Dunfernline, was indicted for the attempted murder of Edwin Poole, mate of the same vessel, while lying in the harbour of Shanghai on the 30th of August last, and further wounding, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The Jury was sworn as follows, Mr. R. W. Shaw, Mr. W. J. Tyack, Mr. E. H. Casey, Mr. A. Wright, and Mr. C. Mayne. Mr. J. Mousa and Mr. H. E. Hall were called but challenged.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, prosecuted, and Mr. T. Morgan Phillips defended.

[Not transcribed.]

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after the lapse of a short time returned into Court the fireman stating that they had found the prisoner guilty on the second indictment.

   Prisoner when asked if he had anything to say protested his innocence and said he could not tell how the chopper got into the cabin.

   His Lordship said prisoner had been convicted after a very careful trial, and he had been very kindly defended and very ably defended of the crime of intending to do grievous bodily harm. He would be sentenced to one year and eleven months' imprisonment, and to be detained in Shanghai after the expiration of his sentence until a ship could be found for him to go away.

   Addressing Mr. Phillips His Lordship said: I must thank you for your very great kindness in undertaking prisoner's defence. It was done in a very able manner and you have said all there was to say about it.

See also North China Herald, 12 September, Police Court.


 

North China Herald, 19 September,1898

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

Shanghai, 13h September.

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Acting Chief Justice.

SORABJEE v. HOOSEIN.

    Mahommed Hoosein was the defendant in this case and he was sued by Framjee Sorabjee, store-keepers, of Nanking Road and Broadway for $120.69 for goods supplied.

   The claim was not disputed, but defendant said at present he was out of a situation and had not had any employment for the last five or six months; but when he got work he was willing to pay.

   The Acting Chief Justice, in entering judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, told the plaintiff that when he found the defendant was able to pay he could apply for a judgment summons.


 

North China Herald, 26 September,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 19th September.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. RYMAN.

   Abdul Ryman, watchman, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Soochow Road, on Saturday night.

   A native constable deposed to seeing the prisoner in a drunken condition interfering with and assaulting 'ricksha coolies. He took him into custody, but on arriving at the police station he attempted to assault witness with a stick; but was prevented from doing so by Sergeant Bourke. Prisoner now denied the charge, but was ordered to pay a fine of $5 or undergo seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. PRICE.

   James Price, carpenter of the Dunfernine, who has several times been in trouble previously, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct on the Garden Bridge in Saturday.

   P.C. Stapleton deposed to seeing the prisoner drunk and incapable about six o'clock in the evening. He took him to the lockup.

   Prisoner now pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine of $10 or two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  . 

R. v. MACMULLAN.

   David Macmullan, a sailor of the sailing ship Perseverance, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway, on Sunday afternoon. Prisoner was trying to get into the same 'ricksha with another drunken sailor, and when told by a native policeman that it was against the law he hustled the officer and commenced to make a disturbance. He was arrested and locked up with the assistance of a Sikh constable. Fined $2.

.  .  .  

R. v. MULLANY.

   Edward Mullany, an A.B. of the Perseverance, was charged with a like offence in Seward Road on the previous day.  Prisoner who it was stated went into a Chinese shop, lay down and refused to go away, pleaded guilty, and now said he was very sorry for what had occurred. This being his fourth offence within a very short time he was fined $5 or a week's imprisonment in default.

.  .  .  

R. v. CLAUSEN.

   Jacob Clausen, a German sailor of the Indravelli, was brought up upon a charge of drunkenness and also with wilfully damaging a door at a brothel in Fearon Road on the previous day.  The case was fully proved and the prisoner who said he remembered nothing about it was mulcted in the sum of $3.

 

North China Herald, 3 October,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th September

Before W. P. Kerr, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. PATTERSON.

   William Patterson was charged with being drunk and incapable on the Bund on the previous morning.

   The charge was proved by P.S. Bourke, and his Worship ordered prisoner to pay the costs of the Court and to be put on board his ship (The Perseverance).

.  .  .  

28th September

R. v. BHAGAT SINGH.

   Bhagat Singh, an old offender, was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in Swatow Road on the previous day.

   Evidence having been given in support of the charge, His Worship sent the accused to gaol for a month with hard labour.

.  .  .  

1st October.

R. v. SALVESEN.

   Oscar Salvesen, seamen of the Perseverance, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Broadway on Friday. P.C. Leighton deposed to seeing the accused in a drunken state. Witness was then called to eject him from the "Travellers" Tavern and he afterwards wandered into the Old Docks. A Chinese shop keeper had complained of the prisoner going into his shop and stealing a bottle of beer. Witness arrested him, but at the Police Station the shop keeper refused to charge him with respect to the beer.

   Prisoner who now said he did not remember anything about it, was fined $5, or a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. MUILLANY.

   Edward Mullany, also of the Perseverance, was charged with a like offence in Broadway on the previous day.

   Prisoner who  now pleaded not guilty said if a man had been locked up once or twice in Shanghai the police would not allow him to pass along the streets. He coould always take care of himself and did not wish to interfere with anybody, but somehow or other he could not pass a policeman without being locked up.

   His Worship decided to convict and said the prisoner had been there three times in the last two weeks. He would have to pay a fine of $10 or go to prison for two weeks.


 

North China Herald, 10 October, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

THE WORK OF THE SHANGHAI S.P.C.A.

   The Shanghai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals obtained their first conviction before the Mixed Court on Friday. A cook employed by Mr. Curtis, of Canton Road, was summoned by Mr. F. J. Maitland, the Secretary of the Society for wanton cruelty to a number of rats by pouring hot water upon them.

   Mr. Gulich said that on Saturday week he was seated at breakfast when he heard the rats squeal. He got up and went to the window and saw four or five natives sitting round a cage containing three rats. One of them was pouring hot water over them from a kettle, and all seemed to be enjoying the fun. He (Mr. Gulich) called the attention of Mr. Curtis to the proceedings and he immediately put a stop to it.

   Mr. Curtis made a statement in defence of the prisoner to the effect that the noise was caused by the rats biting each other.

   The Court considered the case proved and imposed a sentence of 100 blows in addition to a fine of $20.


 

North China Herald, 17 October,1898

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 13th October.

Before F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Assistant Judge.

GOLDSTEIN v. ROSE.

   In this case George Henry Rose, a constable in the employ of the Municipality, was the defendant and the plaintiff, actually, was a boy in the employ of Marco Goldstein, who keeps the Cleveland House in Broadway. The boy it appeared delivered two "chits" to the amount of $21, which the defendant retained and it was alleged did not pay for. It was now sought to recover the bills, the question of liability in the paper not appearing.

   Mr. Bourne held that the boy could not appear on behalf of his master, rule 240 substantiating this view, in the absence of a Power of Attorney or other legal authority. The boy had no right of action and his master must sue himself. He, therefore, dismissed the case.

   Mr. Goldstein who was in Court then came forward and His Lordship informed him that the boy had no right to sue on his behalf in a Court of Justice.

   The Court held that the chits (one of which it seemed was quite independent of the defendant) must be returned to Goldstein. Whether the amount specified thereon was due or not, was quite a subsequent matter.

   The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the case.  

.  .  .  

TABAQUERIA FILIPINA, AND SING TAI v. W. A. MORGAN.

   Summonses had been taken out by the Tabaqueria Filipina of Nanking Road and Sing Tai, a tailor of North Szecheun Road, against W. A, Morgan, lately in the Indoor Staff of the I. M. Customs. The amounts sued for were $38.60 and $73 respectively, but the defendant did not put on an appearance. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in each case.


 

North China Herald, 17 October,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th October.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. HANLON.

   John Hanlon, a Scotchman residing at the Sailors' Home was charged with receiving and disposing of stolen property. The evidence went to show that two men named Skittlethorpe and Johnson returned to the Home on Wednesday last and missed clothes from the bottom of the bed.  The matter was reported to the police and the clothes were recovered from a native second-hand dealer and identified by the owners. The prisoner it was proved pawned them for eighty cents.

   Prisoner now said that a man named Hinman came to him while he was lying drunk in the Home and asked him to pledge the clothes for him. Hinman told him they were his own and prisoner sold them for him.

   Inspector Bourke said there was a charge of theft to be brought against Hinman at the American Court that morning.

   His Worship could not see any guilty knowledge on the part of Hanlon.

   Hinman who was in Court also refused to say anything to implicate the prisoner.

   The man Hinman was subsequently brought up at the American Court which refused to recognise him. The case was transferred to the British Court where it appeared that he had been discharged from the British vessel Perseverance. He stated that he was an American and the U.S. Vice-Consul intimated that in view of other proceedings in the Mixed Court the U.S. Consul-General would recognise him and prevent his appearance as a foreign nondescript.


 

North China Herald, 24 October,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th October

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., PoliceMagistrate.

R. v. HANLON AND HINMAN.

   John Hanlon, remanded on Saturday on a charge of unlawfully disposing of certain clothes stolen from the Sailors' Home, was again brought up. 

   Another man named William Hinman in custody charged with the actual theft had been taken before the American Consul who refused to recognise him on the ground that he was registered in his last ship's articles, the British s.v. Perseverance, as a native of Finland. He, however, claimed to have been born in the State of New York. The case was accordingly referred back to this Court and both men were put upon their trial.

   Detective Sergeant Wood spoke to arresting Hinman and charging him with the theft. He at first denied it, but later on admitted stealing the clothes. He sought to shield Hanlon who he said did not know they were stolen when he sold them.

   His Worship sent Hinman to gaol for a week with hard labour and gave Hanlon the benefit of the doubt, advising him, however, to be more careful in the future.

.  .  .  

R. v. HARVEY.

   Arthur Harvey, unemployed and of no fixed abode, was charged with drunkenness in the Peking Road at an early hour on Sunday morning.

   Sergeant Ross said the prisoner was bought to the Central Police Station asleep in a 'ricksha. He was very drunk.

   Prisoner now said he had a chance to leave Shanghai this week if His Worship would give him a chance. He is a very old offender and was only recently discharged from gaol.

   His Worship in ordering prisoner's discharge threatened him with condign punishment should he again provoke a breach of the peace. He would, however, do what he could to obtain him employment.

.  .  .  

R. v. SCHUTE.

   John Schute, a seaman of the Brodrick Castle, was charged with drunkenness and assaulting two constables in the execution of their duty on Broadway on Sunday night; also with carrying as sheath knife contrary to regulations.

   The evidence adduced by a couple of Indian officers went to show that the prisoner was very inebriated and was quarrelling with a coolie in respect of 'ricksha hire. A Sikh sergeant interposed and advised prisoner to pay, when he became very violent and wanted to know whose business it was - witness' or his? He followed up these remarks by striking the Sikh with his fist and offering other violence. Another constable was called upon to assist and he was likewise assaulted, the accused climaxing the racket by breaking the 'ricksha. After being conveyed to the Police Station he was promptly ushered into a cell previously occupied by two foreigners. Once inside, his possession of the knife, concealed at the rear of his person became evident, and it was stated by Inspector Bourke, who had charge of the case, that he attempted to use it on the unfortunate delinquents already incarcerated.

   Prisoner now professed absolute ignorance of what had occurred. He was sorry, and could only add that the knife was carried for cutting tobacco. He had no knowledge of the fact that it was against the rules of the port.

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

.  .  .  

R. v. PEARSON.

   John Pearson, unemployed, was charged with inebriety and creating a disturbance in Broadway on Sunday.

   P.C. Leighton deposed to seeing the prisoner outside the Sailors' Home. He was very drunk, very disorderly, and attempting to force an entrance into the Home, to which the Superintendent had refused him admission.

   Prisoner, who Inspector Bourke said twice been locked up and released was now ordered to undergo a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

R. v. JOHANSEN.

   Emanuel Johansen, seaman of the Brodrick Castle, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness and illegally carrying a sheath knife in the Settlement.

   A Chinese constable spoke to finding the accused asleep in Broadway at half-past seven on Sunday night.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty.

   His Worship said that he might have over looked the fault had it not been for the possession of the sheath knife. In the circumstances he would have to pay a fine of $5 or go to prison for a week.

.  .  .  

R. v. MIDGEE.

   Alexander Midgee, a young and respectably dressed  man, described as steward of the Laura Birch, was placed in the dock on a charge of drunkenness and creating an affray in Broadway on Sunday.

   An Indian police officer spoke to seeing the prisoner quarrelling with another man, whom he assaulted. The last named refused to give him into custody. Witness proceeded to apprehend him on the charge when he became exceedingly violent and resisted him in the execution of his duty, but with assistance he was taken to the Hongkew Police Station. Prisoner who pleaded oblivion was mulcted in the sum of $3 with the option of seven days' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 31 October,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th October.

 Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. DOYLE AND DOUGLAS.

   Michael Doyle and Arthur Douglas, seamen of the British sailing ship Brodrick Castle, were charged with being absent from their ship since the 17th inst.

   Richard Morton Ferguson, master, said that the vessel arrived on the 17th inst. and prisoners deserted the same night. They had been on board once or twice at night to see some of their comrades but had not done any work. They left on Friday (today).

   Prisoners, who admitted the offence, were ordered to be put on board at once and to forfeit two days' pay for each day they had been absent.


 

North China Herald, 7 November,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

   At the Mixed Court in Monday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Twyman (British Assessor) Tsang Ah-sue, a stable keeper on Tiendong Road, was charged with cruelly ill-treating a number of ponies in his stable by not giving them sufficient food on various dates. Mr. E. J.  Batty, inspector of livery stables, said that he had spoken to the prisoner on several occasions in regard to the poor condition of the ponies. Dr. Keylock said that he could testify to the ponies being starved. 

   Mr. Maitland, who appeared on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said that one pony was so weak he was only just able to walk. The magistrate asked if the pony might not have been sick and unable to eat. Dr.  Keylock said there was no sickness. Mr. Maitland added that when he visited the stables on Wednesday there was not a bit of straw in the place, and when food was brought the ponies made a rush for it. The prisoner said the pony had been away in the country for some time and had only just returned to his stable. This statement was denied by Inspector Batty, who observed that he had continually seen the pony in the stable and had spoken to accused about it. In answer to the Magistrate Dr. Keylock said it would take at least a month to put the ponies in good condition, and in the worse cases about six weeks. Mr. Maitland asked for this case to be made an example of, as there were lots of similar cases in the settlements. This one, however, was proved; there was the evidence of Dr. Keylock and nothing could be more conclusive than that. He urged the imposition of a heavy fine.  The magistrate did not consider there was any proof of the ponies having been starved and decided that the prisoner should be given one month and bound in the sum of $40 to improve the condition of the animals within that period.

   On Friday morning six natives were charged with being concerned together in unlawfully removing from complainant's stable, 469 Foochow Road, and detaining 11 carriages, 13 ponies, and six sets of harness, value $3,285, on the 1st instant. It appeared from the evidence that complainant had become entangled in business difficulties  and the six prisoners were his creditors and had gone to the stable during his absence and taken possession of the above. Inspector Wilson explained to the Court that the case of debt had nothing to do with the present charge of taking possession of the complainant's property. Three of the prisoners were fined $10 each while the other three were dismissed on account of their having a claim on the property. The carriages to be detained in the police station pending the settlement of a civil charge made against the complainant.

   A man was charged with working a pony whilst in a starved and unfit condition, on the Bubbling Well Road on the 3rd instant. A fine of $10 was imposed.

   A native was charged with stealing $300 from No. 44 Foochow Road on the 4th of August. He was sentenced to 200 blows and two months' imprisonment.

North China Herald, 7 November,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 5th November.

Before W. P. Ker. Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. HEWETT.

   James Hewett, unemployed and of no fixed abode, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by drowning.

   Native police constable 437 said he was on duty in the vicinity of the Hongkew Creek on the previous evening when he was informed by a sampan man that a foreigner was trying to drown himself in the Creek. Witness went with the man and saw prisoner, who was wet through and had evidently been in the water. Prisoner was drunk, so witness took him into custody.

   The sampan man was called and said that Hewett jumped into the water, and as he rose caught hold of witness' sampan and he (witness) helped him out of the water, with considerable difficulty.

   Prisoner, in defence, said he had no intention of committing suicide, and walked into the water accidentally, in the dark.

   His Worship said he would give prisoner the benefit of the doubt as to his intention of committing suicide, but as this was his second appearance before the Court, he would be fined $10, with the alternative of fourteen days' imprisonment, for being drunk. If employment could be found for him in the meantime he would be liberated before the expiration of the sentence.


 

North China Herald, 14 November,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

At the Mixed Court in Monday morning two coolies were charged with having matches in their possession whilst at work in the Yah Loong Cotton Mill contrary to regulations, and also with wilfully attempting to set fire to a quantity of cotton at the same time and place on the 4th inst. Prisoners were sentenced to a month's cangue each.

   Two coolies were charged with stealing a quantity of cotton from the E-Wo Cotton Mill on the 6th inst. They were sentenced to 200 blows and a month's cangue.

 

North China Herald, 14 November,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 9th November.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq, Police Magistrate.

R. v. MAYNE.

   James Mayne, A.B. of the P. & O. steamer Chusan, which left on Thursday with the English mail, was charged with absenting himself without leave from that vessel since the 5th inst. He pleaded guilty and informed the Court that he expected to get employment here almost immediately. He was allowed to go on the understanding that he attempted to get work. Otherwise the case would be continued.

.  .  .  

12th November.

R. v. LINDSTROM.

   Frederic Lindstrom, seaman of the British sailing ship Andelana, was charged with absenting himself without leave from the vessel since the 10th inst.

   Captain Starling stated that the prisoner deserted on the eve of the ship's departure for sea and took away his effects.

   Prisoner who admitted the charge was ordered to be put on board and to forfeit fourteen days' pay.

 

North China Herald, 14 November,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

.................................................................

  On Wednesday morning sixteen natives were charged with public gambling with dice in a wine shop off Kiukiang Road on the 8th inst. The keeper of the house was fined $50 and the remainder $10 each.

   On Wednesday afternoon Mr. U. K. Cheng (Magistrate) in conjunction with Mr. F. S. A. Bourne (British Assessor) disposed of a small calendar of British civil cases, most of which had been   before the Court previously.

.................................................................

The action brought by the Central Stores against their compradore Hsu Yu-tien was resumed. At the previous hearing the defendant was ordered to pay $500 and restore to the plaintiff such vouchers or receipts as he might have in his possession. Mr. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master)  now appeared for the plaintiffs and stated that the judgment of the Court had been ignored and that a number of vouchers had not been accounted for. 

   Defendant was secured in a bond by a respectable Chinese for $3,000. Defendant alleged that all the vouchers had been restored to the Manager of the Hotel through the medium of the Court. 

   The Court upheld the previous judgment for $500, failing immediate compliance with which the "security man," Tsu Ping-chien, would be summoned.

.................................................................

Messrs. Butterfield and Swire sued Chen Feng for Tls. 3,335.71 stated to be overdue on two contracts in respect of the delivery of certain goods. The defendant did not appear, and his exact whereabouts were not known to the plaintiffs who were of opinion that he was hiding in Shanghai, despite the expressed belief of a native witness that he was in Soochow. In the latter event the Assessor was prepared to put himself in communication with the British Consul there. In the result decision in the action was adjourned pending the appearance of the defendant.

...............................................................

CHENG SHIH SHAN was sued by Messrs. Cushney and Smith, house agents, for non-payment of $60 rent for certain premises in Wuhu Road. The sum of $20 had been paid into Court and the balance promised at the end of the month. The Court agreed to the terms offered.

.........................................................................

Other causes were called on which had been either settled out of Court not withdrawn.

   On Thursday morning seven natives were charged with forcibly taking complainant from a tea-shop in Foochow Road and detaining him in a lodging house in the French Settlement for the purpose of extorting money from him on the 8th inst.  From the evidence it appeared that the complainant was the occupant of a house in Shantung Road which was burnt in a recent fire, and for the loss of the contents he had received from an insurance company $400. The prisoners, he alleged, had forcibly taken and detained him in a house in the French Settlement with a view to extorting a portion of the above sum. One of the prisoners was fined $10 and the remainder were discharged, the evidence against them not being sufficient to warrant conviction.

   A native was sentenced to 200 blows and a week's cangue for stealing a quantity of bamboos, the property of the Municipal Council,  from the Old Rifle Range on the 8th inst.

.....................................................................

   On Friday morning a coolie was charged with stealing a quantity of scrap ironfrom the premises of the Shanghai Engineering Works, the property of complainants. He was sentenced to 200 blows and two weeks' cangue.

   On Saturday morning two native women  were charged with depositing garbage in front of the residence of Mr. Hyndman, who had on several occasions warned the landlord of the nuisance without any apparent effect.  Fines of $5 and $1 respectively were imposed. The sanitary inspector was ordered to institute proceedings against the landlord.

 

North China Herald, 14 November,1898

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 11th November.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General.

U.S. PEOPLE v. BLOM.

   Moritz Blom was charged with assaulting J. Bunne on Miller Road, at about 7 a.m. on the previous day, by throwing a quantity of pepper in his eyes and threatening to shoot him with a revolver. From the evidence adduced it appeared that the trouble arose over a family dispute. The prisoner was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment, fined $20, and ordered to pay costs.

 

North China Herald, 21 November,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

  At the Mixed Court on Monday morning the proprietor of the Tian Sien Theatre No. 77 Fuhkien Road, was charged with showing an indecent play to be performed in his theatre at 10.30 p.m. on the 9th inst. Inspector Wilson said that the accused was proprietor of the theatre and also held a position as runner to the Mixed Court, and that but a short time ago he had petitioned the council for permission to play a certain play which was forbidden by the native authorities. A fine of $100 was imposed.

   A native (cook) was charged with cruelty to two rats on the Foochow Road on the 4th inst. Mr. J. Walther who appeared as prosecutor said that as he was riding along Foochow Road he saw the prisoner with the two rats tied together by the legs, with a piece of string and throwing them from one side of the road to the other among the passing 'rickshas. The legs of the animals were bleeding. Prisoner was fined $2 or thirty days' imprisonment.

   A native police constable was charged with stealing a brass watch and chain value $3 from the native quarters of the Louza Police Station on the 7th of August. He was sentenced to 200 blows and two months' cangue.

   On Thursday afternoon before Mr. U. K. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne (British Assessor) the case of Evans and Co. v. Su Pao-sun, their late compradore, was resumed. 

   Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Morgan Phillips defended.

   The defendant was cross-examined by Mr. E. Nelson at great length chiefly on the question of accounts, and in the end the case was again adjourned.

   On Wednesday morning before Mr. U. K. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. S. F. Mayers (British Assessor) an old offender was charged with stealing from No. 78 Mohawk Road a silver tray value $50, the property of Mr. G. D. Coutts. Prisoner was sentenced to 200 blows and three months' imprisonment.

   A native contractor was charged with causing a nuisance by filling in a pond in West Hongkew with garbage collected from the streets on the 12th inst. A fine of $20 was imposed.

   Seven carpenters were charged with causing an obstruction with a quantity of bamboos on the Soochow Creek on the 15th inst. Prisoners were fined $20 each.

   A licensed livery stable keeper of No. 397 Foochow Road was charged with keeping his stable in a dirty and insanitary condition after being repeatedly warned by the inspector of livery stables. The prisoner was given one week to put it in order during which time the case would be remanded.

   On Wednesday afternoon before Mr. U. K. Chang (Magistrate) and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne (British Assessor) an action brought by the Central Stores against their compradore Hsu Yu-tien was resumed. The defendant had been ordered at a previous hearing to pay the sum of $500 and to deliver up certain vouchers amounting to about $300. After considerable discussion on the part of the defendant in which he claimed that he had given up the vouchers, the case was again adjourned for a week, the defendant to be handed over to the Municipal Police pending enquiries.

   Mr. G. R. Wingrove brought action against Wong Mai-sheng in respect of a broken contract in regard to the sale of certain land. Deeds appertaining to six mow had not been delivered to plaintiff and the Court after a short hearing ordered the defendant to produce them within a month.

 

North China Herald, 21 November, 1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th November.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. Bogist.

   Carl Bogist, 21, was charged with creating a disturbance in Broadway on the previous day; further with assaulting a native constable. There was also a charge against him of being absent without leave from the sailing ship Andelana since the 10th inst.

   The evidence of Native Constable 462 went to show that the prisoner was making a disturbance and refused to go away. He then struck the officer and knocked his hat off. With the aid of another constable prisoner however was arrested.

   He had nothing to say and was sent to prison for a week with hard labour, whilst for being absent from his ship he was ordered to undergo a further term of two weeks' imprisonment. 

.  .  .  

R. v. McKNIGHT.

   James McKnight, 54, A.B. of the British ship Drumeltan, was brought up in custody on a charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway on Wednesday night.

   Prisoner was found asleep outside the Sailors' Home and when roused by a constable he was found to be in such a drunken condition that it required the assistance of three policemen to convey him to Hongkew.

   This was his fourth appearance and His Worship sentenced him to three weeks' imprisonment with hard labour but to be put aboard his ship should she sail before the expiration of the sentence.

.  .  .  

19th November.

R. v. JOHNSON.

   Charles Johnson of the Queen Elizabeth was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous day. A fine of $2 was imposed.

.  .  .  

R. v. BRION.

   Frederick Brion of the Drumeltan was also fined $2 for having been drunk and incapable on the previous day.

.  .  .  

R. v. DORSEY.

   William Dorset of the Drumeltan was charged with wilfully damaging property at the Police Station. He was sentenced to one week's hard labour and to pay the costs amounting to $2.50.


 

North China Herald, 28 November,1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd November.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. JOHNSON.

   Charles Johnson, A.B. of the British s.v. Queen Elizabeth, was charged with being drink and incapable in Broadway at an early hour in Tuesday morning. The evidence of a foreign constable went to show that the prisoner was drink though able to walk. He asked witness to take him to the police station as he had nowhere to go. He had been refused admittance to the Sailors' Home.

   Prisoner who had nothing to say, and had been previously in trouble, was fined $5 or a week's imprisonment with hard labour.

.  .  .  

R. v. MURPHY.

   William Murphy, a seaman of the British sailing vessel Ancyra, was charged with a similar offence in Broadway on the previous day. 

   An Indian Constable said the prisoner, who was drunk was staggering and falling about the pavement. He advised him to go away but instead of doing so he turned into the Cleveland House. Shortly afterwards he was ejected by the proprietor and given into custody for drunkenness and creating a disturbance.

   Prisoner, who said he knew nothing about it, had been before the Court on a previous occasion. He was now ordered to pay $5, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 5 December, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 30th November.

Before Mr. U. K. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL ARREST.

Mr. P. Wilkinson drew the attention of the Court to a flagrant act of oppression on the part of the city authorities. He appeared on behalf of one Shang Yu-Shang, who it was stated was sought to be arrested in the Settlement on a warrant issued by the City Magistrate, without the sanction of the Senior Consul.

  Mr. Wilkinson in explaining the situation said that in 1895 his client was the defendant in a suit brought by the Deutsche-Asiatische Bank. The principal witness against him was one E. Pinger, but the case was decided in favour of Shang Yu-shang. Mr. H. S. Wilkinson on that occasion appeared for him so that Counsel was not personally conversant with all the details, but in the records of the Court and in the Chinese newspapers would be found a record of the fact that Shang Yu-Shang won that case. At the same time Shang Yu-Shang had a native law suit against E. Pinger and judgment was given in favour of the first named. The former Shanghai hsien, Huang, sat in the Mixed Court and it was before his Court that the civil case was heard, and everything finished. Through an oversight when the new Shanghai hsien came into his office he found the old case still on the file and issued a warrant. On Sunday an attempt was made by the runners to take him into the city. He however took refuge in the Central Police Station and the police refused to give him up on the ground  that the warrant was not signed by the magistrate of the Mixed Court or the Senior Consul.  He had communicated with the police in the matter and although their lawyer was not present he was sure he would agree with him that the man could not be taken to the city on a warrant issued in respect of a civil suit in so irregular a manner. The Mixed Court rules, Mr. Wilkinson continued, gave the Magistrate absolute jurisdiction between Chinese and Chinese resident in the Settlement, and foreigners and Chinese resident in the Settlement.  He did not believe that the German Bank knew anything about it.  - Mr. Bourne considered that the police had done quite right in refusing to hand the man over in the circumstances. In the end Shang Yu-Shang was removed to the Police Station pending an explanation to the city authorities of the true facts of the case. 

 

North China Herald, 5 December,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 30th November.

Before Mr. U. K. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

BARLOW & CO. v. YU FU-CHI.

   This was a case partly heard last week wherein the plaintiffs had sold to the defendants a quantity of goods of which four cases had not been taken delivery of. The defendant proved that his contract had been transferred to another native who he alleged was responsible. 

   Mr. W. J. Tyack appeared for the plaintiffs and explained the circumstance under which the goo ds were sold. In the end the defaulting sub-contractor was ordered to find security or take delivery in three weeks failing which he would be imprisoned.

.  .  .  

POSTPONED.

   Several other cases had been put down for hearing but were postponed for various reasons.

.  .  .  

3rd December. 

McELROY v. CHINA STEAM NAVIGATION CO.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T. Morgan Phillips for the defendants.

   Mr. Wilkinson after summarising the evidence given at the previous sitting proceeded with the examination of Mr. McElroy who produced an official notification addressed to the captains of the defendant company informing them of the rise in salary, also a certificate as to character and ability dated 29th of October,1892, which read as follows:

"The s.sd. Chiyuan. - I hereby certify that Mr. McElroy has served as Chief Engineer from the 13th of July,1897, to date, and that he is a sober and reliable man and first-class in every way. Signed, C. Neil, Master."

This testimonial was given to the plaintiff subsequently to the difficulty complained of. Plaintiff produced copy of the Repair List dated 23rd of September,1892, showing the repairs done by Boyd & Co.; also the time occupied - five days. Mr. McElroy said he made another voyage in the vessel and the following letter written by Mr. Weir was handed to him in 1892:

"Mr. McElroy.

Dear Sir, - owing to your leaving your steamer on her last trip below the harbour limits before she had completed her voyage, when it was not absolutely necessary for you to do so, and further because you left no instructions with the 2nd engineer, etc., your salary will be reduced from the 1st of November,1892, to $150 per mensem."

On receipt of this he stayed back in order to appeal to the Director, Mr. Shen Nang-hai.

   By the Assessor - Did you in writing appeal to any one when you were discharged in October 1897? - Yes, to H. E. Sheng in the 2nd of October, and mentioned increase in pay and hoped he would reinstate me at £200 per month and that I would serve them faithfully as I has done for the 17 years past. This letter was sent in Chinese and English. H. E. Sheng shortly afterwards sent a letter to the Directors at the office to the effect that my case should be reconsidered.  I got a reply in the 1st of March 1898, which stated that as chief engineer of the str. Leiyuen I had twice spoilt the machinery, that I had demanded a separate mess, and that my ability was but ordinary.

[Not transcribed.]

Judgment reserved.

.  .  .     

   At the Mixed Court on Monday before Mr. Chang, (Magistrate) and Mr. Carvil (Assessor):

   For loitering in Broadway for purposes of felony, and assaulting P.C. 376, 200 blows and one month.

   27 'ricksha coolies were fined the customary 50 cents for touting for hire to the annoyance of the public.

   A Chinese was sentenced to one month for stealing eight small jars of chocolate, value $3, from the scene of the fire at Hall and Holtz.

   And two coolies received 200 blows for stealing four chickens from some person unknown on the 26th.

.  .  .  

   On Tuesday for returning from deportation, a coolie received 200 blows and was sent to the city refuge.

   For stealing a bridle bit from 142 Foochow Road, 100 blows and one month.

   Two watchmen of the Shanghai Mercury were sentenced to three days for stealing three tins of butter. 

   Two men received 100 blows each and were made to pay $5 damages for assaulting a native constable at Smith's Market.

   A destitute Chinese was charged with attempting suicide by taking opium in the Bund was released.

   On Wednesday before Mr. Chang (Magistrate) and Mr. Carroll (Assessor):

   A press warehouseman was charged with falsifying accounts to the extent of 16 bales. A receipt for 10 bales was found and a coolie testified to the whereabouts of a bale. Defendant stated that his stock was correct. Case remanded.

   Sung Ah-chin, a coolie of no fixed abode, was sentenced to 200 blows and three months; for committing petty thefts to the value of $20 from houses in the Bubbling Well Road.

   For furious driving two mafoos were fined $5 each.

    For plying for hire with an unlicensed  'ricksha thereby defrauding the Council,  Fined $3.

   For stealing 10 cents from the person of a child and assaulting complainant a coolie was sentenced to 50 blows.

   A coolie was charged with removing a strap value $1 from a passenger's luggage on board of the Sendau Maru and feloniously hiding same. Case dismissed.

   Two unemployed collies were sentenced to 200 blows each and one month's cangue for extorting the sum of $2 in a teahouse in Seward Road.

   For stealing a silk table cloth and a couple of silver ornaments value $22 from his employer at No. 2, Chapoo Road, between the 2nd and 29th of November, 200 blows and two weeks' imprisonment.

.  .  .  

On Friday before Mr. Chang (Magistrate) and Mr. Carroll (Assessor):

   An unemployed was sent to the Refuge for attempting suicide by hanging himself  to a door in an alleyway off the Canton Road.

   Kung Ah-sai was fined $20 for receiving Chinese type value $40 knowing same to have been stolen.

   A house thief Yang Chang-sun was arrested on the night of the 25th ult. For being on enclosed premises with unlawful intent. On him was found property to the value of $28. He is also charged with petty thefts, the property of Mrs. Bidwell and Belbin, and Messrs. Murphy, David, Volker, Steiner, Munch, Solomon, Hartling and Henderson, also of five Chinese householders, amounting in all to the value of $187 and dating from the 5th of May. Three hawkers and a woman were charged for receiving the above property. The cases were remanded.

   A coolie was sentenced to a month for creating a disturbance at 117, Chapoo Road.

   For obtaining $200 under false pretences Sing Chu-sai and Zing Chu-fai were sentenced to two months' and the property confiscated in favour of plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 5 December, 1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd Nov., 1898

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. KINDA SINGH.

   Kinda Singh, a thin and delicate-looking individual was brought up on a charge of drunkenness in Woosung Road on Monday afternoon.

   The attention of a native constable was directed to the prisoner who was disorderly and attempting to strike a 'ricksha coolie. He was so drunk, however, that he fell all his length in the roadway and could not rise. He was in such a helpless state of drunkenness that witness had to take him to the lock-up in a 'ricksha.

   Prisoner said he had only just arrived here from India. He was taken ill on Monday morning and took a couple of glasses of spirits to relieve the pain. After that he remembered nothing more.

   How Worship allowed him to go with a caution as to his future conduct.

.  .  .  

28th November.

R. v. PERRY.

   Henry Perry, 36, seaman of the ship Queen Elizabeth, was charged with drunkenness and committing a nuisance on the Bund on Sunday afternoon.

   P.C. Strongwhist having given evidence, prisoner, who said he remembered nothing about it, was ordered to pay a fine of $3.

R. v. HENRI.

   Clarence Henri, a French boy, was charged with deserting from the British ship Queen Elizabeth. The accused, who was arrested on a warrant, pleaded guilty and was sent to prison for a week.

R. v. DEVELLIN AND MULREADY.

   Thomas Devellin and Claude Mulready, described as out of employment, were charged with drunkenness in Markham Road in the previous day.

   A native constable deposed to finding the prisoners asleep in the road. They were drunk and incapable, and he had to send for assistance to convey them to the lockup.

   Detective-sergeant Woods informed the Court that previous to their apprehension the men had been fighting and creating a disturbance.

   Mulready, an old offender, appeared with his face horribly cut and bruised. He stated that the injuries were due to a fall against the kerb. Devellin who had not been in trouble before, had told the police that he was a deserter from Hongkong.

   Mulready was sentenced to three weeks and Devellin to one week's imprisonment with hard labour.

R. v. CLIFFORD.

   Thomas Clifford, an elderly sailor of the ship Galgate, was charged with being found drunk in Broadway at an early hour on Monday morning.

   P.C. Leighton spoke to finding the prisoner helplessly drunk and sleeping on the sidewalk outside the Sailors' Home.

   He now pleaded guilty and asked to be put aboard his ship.

   His Worship on being told that the vessel had sailed ordered him to be imprisoned for a fortnight.

.  .  .  

29th November.

R. v. SUN SINGH.

   Sun Singh, until recently a constable in the employ of the Municipality, was charged with the theft of a silver watch value $8, the property of a fellow constable at the Hongkew Police Station.

   Mr. E. J. Blake, who appeared for the prisoner, asked for an adjournment stating that he had only that morning been instructed and was not prepared with the defence.

   His Worship without taking evidence remanded the prisoner in custody till Wednesday.

.  .  .  

30th November.

SUN SINGH, ex-policeman, was brought up, on remand, charged with the larceny of a silver watch, value $8, the property of a Sikh constable at the Hongkew Police Station.

   Indian constable No. 163 recognised the watch produced as his property. It was stolen from his bed some months ago just after he had come off duty. He did not make any complaint as to his loss because he was only a newcomer and did not wish to cast suspicion on any of his comrades. He next saw it on Monday morning in the possession of the prisoner and he immediately complained to his sergeant. The last-named took the prisoner to Hongkew Police station where he was charged with the theft of the watch.

   Indian sergeant 80 deposed to receiving the complaint from the last witness and reporting the matter.

   Prisoner, who elected to give evidence now said that he purchased the watch from an Indian watchman three months ago for $6.50. The man from whom he bought it shortly afterwards went back to India and had not returned.

   Prosecutor, recalled, stated that although he made no complaint to his superior officers at the time he lost the watch, he told several of his friends about it, and they could testify that it was not more than two months ago.

   His Worship thought it might be a case of recollection as to the time which had elapsed since the property was stolen, and on the application of Inspector Ramsey further remanded the case until Friday, for the appearance of the constables to whom the prosecutor had mentioned the matter.

1st. December.

   This prisoner remanded on two occasions again came before the Court. The case was adjourned from the previous day to enable the prosecutor to call certain witnesses to whom he alleged he had mentioned the loss of his watch and who he stated would be able to testify to the date of the communication.

   Prisoner had said that he bought the watch from an Indian watchman five months ago whereas prosecutor had sworn that it was only two months since he lost it.

   Mr. E. Nelson now appeared for the prisoner and submitted - that there had been no evidence adduced connecting the prisoner with the robbery.

   His Worship adopted the same view and discharged the prisoner.

   Inspector Ramsay - I presume I am justified in handing over the watch to the rightful owner?

   His Worship - Yes, I think so, but I shall make no order as to that.

 

North China Herald, 5 December, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 30th November.

Before Mr. U. K. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL ARREST.

Mr. P. Wilkinson drew the attention of the Court to a flagrant act of oppression on the part of the city authorities. He appeared on behalf of one Shang Yu-Shang, who it was stated was sought to be arrested in the Settlement on a warrant issued by the City Magistrate, without the sanction of the Senior Consul.

   Mr. Wilkinson in explaining the situation said that in 1895 his client was the defendant in a suit brought by the Deutsche-Asiatische Bank. The principal witness against him was one E. Pinger, but the case was decided in favour of Shang Yu-shang. Mr. H. S. Wilkinson on that occasion appeared for him so that Counsel was not personally conversant with all the details, but in the records of the Court and in the Chinese newspapers would be found a record of the fact that Shang Yu-Shang won that case. At the same time Shang Yu-Shang had a native law suit against E. Pinger and judgment was given in favour of the first named. The former Shanghai hsien, Huang, sat in the Mixed Court and it was before his Court that the civil case was heard, and everything finished. Through an oversight when the new Shanghai hsien came into his office he found the old case still on the file and issued a warrant. On Sunday an attempt was made by the runners to take him into the city. He however took refuge in the Central Police Station and the police refused to give him up on the ground  that the warrant was not signed by the magistrate of the Mixed Court or the Senior Consul.  He had communicated with the police in the matter and although their lawyer was not present he was sure he would agree with him that the man could not be taken to the city on a warrant issued in respect of a civil suit in so irregular a manner. The Mixed Court rules, Mr. Wilkinson continued, gave the Magistrate absolute jurisdiction between Chinese and Chinese resident in the Settlement, and foreigners and Chinese resident in the Settlement.  He did not believe that the German Bank knew anything about it.  - Mr. Bourne considered that the police had done quite right in refusing to hand the man over in the circumstances. In the end Shang Yu-Shang was removed to the Police Station pending an explanation to the city authorities of the true facts of the case. 

 

North China Herald, 12 December, 1898

H.B.M.'s Supreme Court.

Shanghai, 8th December.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

CHANG GHE-CHING v. F. F. FERRIS.

   This was a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover from Frank F. Ferris, managing editor of the Chinese daily newspaper Sinwenpao, Tls. 2,140, balance of a sum of Tls. 2.740 advanced as compradore, Tls. 600 having been repaid on the 4th of March.

   Mr. F. Ellis - I appear, my Lord, for the plaintiff and as far as I can see the defendant is not present. I will therefore ask that Mr. Macdonald is sworn to prove the formal service of the petition.

   Mr. T. Macdonald worn, said - I am an officer of this Court. I served the petition at 7 p.m. on the 8th of November personally on the defend ant, and the notice of hearing on the 25th of November at four o'clock in the afternoon.

   Plaintiff was then called and examined by Mr. Ellis. He said: I identify the account produced signed by me as also by the defendant. The account was witnessed by Mr. Porter, clerk to Messrs. Browett and Ellis, and was signed as correct. The amounts stated in that account, Tls. 2,140, are what Mr. Ferris owes me.

   Mr. Ellis - That is not including interest as asked for in the petition, if your Lordship should give me judgment. The account was signed on the 24th of August.

   Mr. J. C. Porter said - I witnessed Mr. Ferris sign the account produced.

   Mr. Ellis - That is my case and I will ask for judgment for the amount claimed with interest from the date of the signing of the account.

   His Lordship - Can you give me any explanation as to why Mr. Ferris does not appear?

   Mr. Ellis - No, my Lord.

   His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with interest and costs.

 

North China Herald, 12 December,1898

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

Shanghai, 8th December.

Before Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, Deputy Judge.

DOCTER v. SYLVA.

  This was a case in which Alexander Docter had obtained a judgment against the defendant in June last, defendant being ordered to satisfy a certain claim by monthly instalments of $10. Defendant however was in arrears and it was now sought to enforce the order of the Court.

  Plaintiff stated that under the order four payments had been made and two were now due. Defendant came to him last month and offered to pay a sum of $10 which he refused as it was not in accordance with the order of the Court. At the present moment a sum of $20 was due to him.

   His Lordship asked why plaintiff did not accept the sum offered last month.

  Plaintiff replied that he had allowed the October instalment due on the 17th to stand over till the 1st of November; defendant however did not meet it until the 18th when he refused the money. He angered him considerably by appearing to have plenty of money to go to the races with whilst he would not live up to his agreement. He only accepted an order of $10 a month on the understanding that the instalments would be regularly paid.

   Defendant entered the box and admitted the debt, but complained of a letter which was sent to him recently in the name of the Mercantile Collection Agency.

   Mr. Bourne reminded him that so far as the suit was concerned they knew nothing about the Agency. Defendant owed $28 and he would recommend him to pay it.

  Defendant on the suggestion of His Lordship agreed to pay $10 into Court and further to pay the balance of $18 by the end of the month. He repudiated the plaintiff's contention that he had been gambling, and remarked that even if he was at the races it was no business of Docter's. 

  His Lordship stated that there had been no allegation as to his gambling at the races, but if it was true, defendant had rendered himself liable to imprisonment. Unless defendant carried out his undertaking to settle the account by the end of December it would be his duty to go strictly into what he had been doing with his money.


 

North China Herald, 12 December,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Before Mr. Cheng, Magistrate, and Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, British Assessor.

H. E. HALL v. FAN I-LUNG.

 Complainant put in a claim for $133.60 and the accused entered a counter-claim of $400 alleged to have been received by Mr. Hall at different times as security money.  Mr. Hall denied receiving the amount and said that the accused had had dealings with a Chinese woman who was in his employ some years back, but who had since died. Mr. Cheng advised accused to pay the $133.60, and then sue complainant at the British Court for the $400, if he thought it desirable.

.  .  .  

NATIONAL BANK OF CHINA v. YEH SSU-HSIEN.

   Accused stood security for the Bank's compradore who had defaulted to the extent of Tls. 22,400 and was willing to pay $13,000 down and the balance at the end of the year, but the Bank demanded immediate payment of half the amount. Judgment was given for $15,000 and the remainder at the end of the year.

.........................................................................

   At the Mixed Court in Monday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Dr. Ranke (German Assessor):

   For assaulting and beating complainant and intimidating a number of workmen at No. 125 Peking Road on the 3rd inst., Hong Ah-nue and Hong Ah-dah were sentenced to 200 blows each.

   A ricksha coolie was charged with reckless running and colliding with complainant's carriage and injuring the pony. 100 blows and to pay Tls. 6 (damage) to owner.

   A shoemaker Chu Zee-zung was charged with stealing a pair of silver bangles and a pair of silver ear-rings, value $11 from No. 15 Wuhu Road on the 9th inst. and was given 200 blows.

   For stealing an opium pipe and other articles value $2 from 39, Wuhu Road a coolie was sentenced to 200 blows and one month's cangue.

.  .  .  

   On Tuesday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Barchet (American Assessor):

  The Rev. Me. Davis of the American Seventh Day Baptist Mission School, West Gate, appeared as plaintiff to recover the sum of $120 from defendant, an amah in the employ of Mr. E. P. Wickham. Mrs. Davis, the wife of the Rev. Mr. Davis, appeared on behalf of the Mission and Mr. Francis Ellis for defendant. Mr. E. P. Wickham attended the Court to answer the charge of contempt of Court brought against defendant.

  On Mrs. Davis showing a reluctance to stand before the Bench a chair was allowed her by the side of the Assessor. Mrs. Davis stated that the amah had withdrawn her son from the school after having made a contract by putting her mark against a written agreement dawn up by a school assistant, and that the proceedings had to be taken otherwise they would have no hold of the remaining pupils.

  Mr. Ellis asked that the document be produced and also endeavoured to acquaint himself as to who witnessed the alleged mark.  The Assessor, apparently forgetting his position and assuming the role of prosecutor, here stated that the case was all right and that he himself had seen the document which was kept at the Consulate. 

  Mr. Ellis retorted that he was at the Court to see that the defendant's rights were respected, and added, that he thought the sum of money ($120) was most extortionate, specially coming from a charity school. Also that a poor, illiterate woman in her position could never be expected to make good such a sum, and alluded to the fact that there had been no mention of a payment by small instalments.

  Mrs. Davis allowed that if the boy, who had been kept at the school four years, were returned and the contract observed, no claim would be made, and that for breaking the said agreement a charge of $30 per annum (rice money) had to be made for the four years.

  Mr. Ellis then drew attention to the action of the plaintiff, that the defendant and her employer, who had been put to a lot of inconvenience, had fully prepared the defence, whereas the plaintiff appeared at Court without one iota of evidence.  On Mr. Cheng suggesting that the case be remanded, the Assessor became somewhat heated, and again playing the role of prosecutor, said an adjournment was unnecessary as he knew of the document and was thoroughly acquainted with the facts of the case.

  Mr. Wickham alluded to the charge of contempt of Court and assured the Bench that such was not the plaintiff's intention, that as the summons was illegally served he had instructed her not to acknowledge the same, and that he would go as security for her re-appearance.

  On the closing of the Court an explanation was offered Mr. Wickham by Mrs. Davis which was courteously declined as he evidently desired a thorough, and judicial examination of both sides. The case is remanded to Tuesday the 13th inst.

........................................................................

   On Wednesday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor):

   For gambling in the North Honan Road, three men were sentenced to 200 blows and three months, and three men to 200 blows and two months.

   A notorious thief was sent to the city to be tried for wholesale stealing during the last two months.

   Woo Ching-sai was fined $100 for allowing an indecent play to be performed at his theatre, the "Ching Loh," 180 Canton Road.

  Two coolies were sentenced to two months' cangue for stealing lead from Hunt's Wharf. The recipient of the stolen property living in the French Settlement was fined $50 or three months.

  On Wednesday, the judgment given in the case of the National Bank of China v. Yeh Ssu-hsien was "that Tls. 7.500 be paid within a week and that a further Tls. 7.500 before the 31st December, failing this the whole claim of Tls. 22,400 will, be recovered."

.  .  .  

On Thursday before Mr. Cheng, (magistrate) and Mr. Barchet (American Assessor):

   For stealing articles of clothing, value $1, from a clothes-line on the North Szechuen Road, a thief was given 200 blows.

   For stealing a sedan chair from an alleyway off Fuhkien Toad and also attempting to extort $10 from the complainant, two men were sentenced to a fine of $10 or a month each.

   A coolie was charged with stealing an ingot of lead, value $2, from the Hongkew Wharf; 200 blows.

   For stealing old iron value $10 from Boyd's Dock, 200 blows and a week's cangue.

.  .  .  

   On Friday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor):

   Two men received 200 blows and 2 months' cangue for fraudulently obtaining by means of forged notes, from Butterfield and Swire, 26 bags of cabbages, value $35.

For stealing a brass tap from the str. Hydaspes, two men were sentenced to a month. 

For stealing a brass kettle, value $1, from 58 Tiendong Road, 200 blows.

  Dai Sung-pow, a Chinese clerk, was charged with fraudulently obtaining the signature of Barretto & Co. to certain bills of landing for shipping 15 bales of cotton by str. Dagmar to Newchwang. Case remanded.

   The press warehouseman who was charged on the 30th ult. with falsifying accounts relating to 16 bales of cotton was again brought up. Owing to the complainants having been compensated, Inspector Reid had considerable difficulty in proving the case. A fine of $100 was imposed.

.  .  .  

   On Saturday before Mr. Cheng (magistrate) and Dr. Franke (German Assessor):

   For gambling with dice in an alleyway off Nanking Road, a man was punished with 200 blows.

   A man was fined $5 for recklessly driving a carriage on the Nanking Road and damaging a 'ricksha.

   For receiving $194 from a man already in custody well knowing same to be stolen, a man was given one month with a view to refunding the money.

   Sun Ah-chih, a thief, returned from deportation, was sentenced to 200 blows and to be re-deported.

   For stealing 28 feet of satin, value $20, from a shop at 29 Szechuan Road, 200 blows and a month.

   A case of stealing numerous articles of clothing and cotton quilts, vale $200, from 287 Seward Road, was left to the magistrate.

 

North China Herald, 12 December, 1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 10th December.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. McDONALD.

   James McDonald was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Broadway on the previous night.

   A native constable deposed to being called to a tailor's shop where the plaintiff who was drunk had gone in and smashed some windows.

   He had been previously in trouble and was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 19 December, 1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 13th December.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice (sitting in Chambers).

In re OLIVIER DE LANGENHAGEN & CO. v. JARDINE MATHESON & CO.

   Mr. Browett appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. C. Dowdall fir the defendants, who are the local agents of the United States and China and Japan Steamship Company.

   Mr. Dowdall applied for a postponement of the above suit for a period of two months to allow the master of the steamship Indrapura to be present. A similar application had been granted before and it was material to the defendants;' case that the evidence of the Captain should be take, the cause having been entered after the departure of the vessel.

   Mr. Browett opposed the application on the ground that the Master's evidence was not material, whilst as it would only be oral evidence, according to the rules of evidence it could not be admitted. The particular rule bearing on this point was to the effect that parole testimony could not be admitted to vary written instruments. He admitted that the contract was contained in the bill of lading and the defendants were bound by that.

   His Lordship said that as the suit appeared to be one of principle and not of amount he thought the question of time would not affect it. It would be better to postpone the arguments as to the admissibility or otherwise of the captain's evidence until the hearing, when he could be present.

   The application was granted, costs to be costs in the cause.

 

North China Herald, 19 December, 1898

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 16th December.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. MORLEY AND OTHERS.

   James Morley, James Burgess, Peter Anderson and Michael Sinclair, seamen of the British ship Iverna, were charged on warrants with being absent without leave from their vessel on various specified dates.

   The men were remanded in custody till today in order that the Master of the ship might be present.

.  .  .  

R. v. BOYLE.

   Christopher Boyle, A.B. of the British s.s. Ancyra, was charged with being absent without leave from his ship since the 12th instant. He pleaded guilty and was ordered to be imprisoned for a week, but to be put on board his ship should she sail before the expiration of that period.

.  .  .  

R. v. McKNIGHT.

   James McKnight, unemployed, was brought up charged with drunkenness and icapability in Broadway at an early hour that morning. The evidence of a native officer went to show that the prisoner who was very drunk was trying to get into the Sailors' Home. It was, however, much too late to obtain admittance.

   Prisoner, previously known, was fined $5 or a week's imprisonment.

.  .  .  

17th December.

R. v. MORLEY AND OTHERS.

   James Morley, James Burgess, Peter Anderson and Michael Sinclair, seamen of the Iverna, were brought up on remand charged with absenting themselves from their ship without leave.

   The Master having given evidence, Burges, who had been in trouble previously, was ordered to forfeit two days' pay for every day he had been absent from his ship, whilst all were ordered to be imprisoned for one week.

 

North China Herald, 19 December, 1898

THE MIXED COURT.

   On Tuesday morning before Mr. Cheng, magistrate, and Dr. Burchet, American assessor, the adjourned case in which the Rev. D. H. Davis of the Seventh Day Baptist Mission School, West Gate, sought to recover $120 from an amah, who it was alleged had broken a contract in respect of her son, a pupil of the school, was concluded. Mr. Francis Ellis defended the amah on behalf of Mr, E. P. Wickham, her employer. A letter was read from Mr. Davis regretting that on account of illness he was unable to be present. He, however, stated that a contract was entered into by the defendant and by taking the boy away and breaking the contract she had rendered herself liable for the amount claimed. 

   This contract which was similar to what was extracted from all parents who sent their children to the school as, until recently, in his possession, but he afterwards deposited with the U.S. Consul. Somehow or other it had mysteriously disappeared but he forwarded a number of similar agreements and a book in which the transaction was entered. He added that the school was not a charitable organisation; nor was it their intention to make paupers of the Chinese who attended, the present action being brought in order to protect themselves in regard to the remaining pupils.

   Mr. Ellis contended that there must be evidence of this contract. He could not take the evidence of a letter like that, he wanted to see the contract, and ask Mr. Davis certain questions about it. In reply to the Bench the defendant alleged that she was not in Shanghai at the time the contract was alleged to have been signed. Miss Burdick, an assistant at the school, said she was in charge when the boy  was brought there by a Chinese woman who was in court. The contract was drawn up by a Chinese teacher under witness's direction and the defendant, who could not write, attested the same with her mark. She understood her liability under the document. It was their invariable custom to draw up such contracts, as they had had experience of parents taking their children before their education as completed. The school was not supported by charity, and the children were brought there by their parents voluntarily. Mr. Wickham agreed that some sort of a contract was signed but argued that the defendant was an unwilling agent and did not understand the meaning of it.

   Mr. Ellis said they did not deny that the boy went to the school, but he submitted that they ought to see the document. It was essential that they should see the document. It appeared to him that Mr. Davis ought not to have the power to penalise such contracts and take advantage of ignorant people.

   The magistrate was convinced that some contract was signed and that the woman was aware of its nature. She would not have sent her boy there without making enquiries. Dr. Barchet spoke to having seen the contract. 

   Mr. Wickham: We want this matter to be dealt with in a Christian and humane manner and not to see this woman persecuted. 

   Mrs. Davis: I think you know very well what our object is and your taking up this case is most extraordinary.

   The Magistrate expressed the opinion that Mr. Davis was not bringing the case for the sake of the money. Mr. Wickham stated the defendant had been away in Japan with his wife and on her return the boy had left the school. She afterwards sent him back when he was refused admission. He was convinced there was something behind the scenes for it was not until two months afterwards that this case was brought on, apparently when they got to know that the boy had been sent to another school, Mr.  Davis had written that he was unable to be present through illness. Well, he had been in bed for the last five days and got up that morning to come to the Court. He expected to meet a man and not two women, consequently he was not prepared to say what he intended. Miss Burdick said that it was not true that the boy had been sent back and refused and the woman appeared to have misrepresented matters.  So far as she was concerned she had no knowledge that he had been to another school.

   His Worship considered the defendant had broken the contract and ordered her to pay $60 in monthly instalments of $10.

.............................................................................

   At the Mixed Court on Monday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British assessor) -

    Chu Zang-sun, King Zang-sung, and Sung Kiang-sun, three well-known loafers, were charged with being a source of danger to the peace and sentenced to be deported.

   For selling butcher's meat in the Pakhoi Road without a license, and contrary to Municipal Regulations, Chung Yun-loong was fined $100.

   A well-known thief was sentenced to 200 blows and two months; for stealing planks value $4.

   Sung Ah-sun, Shroff, for attempting to defraud complainant by uttering a counterfeit dollar in a cash shop at 462, Lloyd Road, was fined $100 or 3 months.

   Chui Ah-shui and Yun Ah-sun with four other men not in custody were charged with extorting $3, and clothing value $1; also with assaulting complainant by stabbing him in the hand with a sheath knife in a boat on the Yangkingpang creek. 300 blows and six months.

   For stealing clothing value $45 from a tailor's shop, 466 Lloyd Road, 200 blows and a month.

   An assistant was charged with carelessly leaving live charcoal ashes on the wooden floor of an opium shop at 802 Fuhkien Road, thereby causing nine houses to be burnt, and was fined $100 or three months.

   A lodging-house keeper was accused of wilfully setting fire to his house, 805 Fuhkien Road, during the fires at 802, with intent to defraud, being insured for Tls. 600. The case was remanded until Wednesday for the evidence of the firemen.

   On Wednesday, before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor) -

   The lodging-house keeper Chu Zah-sing was again brought up for trial for wilfully setting fire to his house No. 805 Fuhkien Road, on the 12th instant. Messrs. S. King and J. Jackson of the Mih-holoong Brigade gave evidence supporting the charge. Mr. Jackson deposed to having entered the house previously (while on duty) and found no sign of a fire, whereas shortly afterwards Mr. King discovered a broken-down bed covered with loose straw in flames. Prisoner was on the premises at the time. He was insured in the Phoenix for Tls. 600. The case being proved he was fined $100 or 100 days' imprisonment.

   For stealing rope value $10 from a boat at East gate and for bringing a false charge of cruelty against the detective, 300 blows and 3 months.

   King Hai-sum, a vagrant, was charged with stealing from the person of complainant's son, a child aged 5 years, a pair of silver bangles, value $1.50, in the Peking Road and was sentenced to 200 blows and a month's cangue.

   For recklessly driving a pony carriage along the Nanking Road and colliding with a 'ricksha, damaging same and overthrowing a foreigner, a mafoo was fined $10 and ordered to pay complainant $2 compensation.

   A unemployed was sentenced to 200 blows for stealing articles of clothing value $4 from the British Consulate.

   For stealing a deck chair from the May Queen off Garden Bridge jetty, two months'. 

   Three boatmen were ordered 300 blows each for assaulting and wounding complainant at North Soochow Road.

   Two well-known characters, concerned with three other men not in custody, were charged with sealing clothing value $2 and extorting by means of threats $1 from complainant, and sentenced to 300 blows and six months.

   Tsung Sin-sun was arrested on suspicion of being concerned with another man not in custody in stealing wearing apparel and jewellery, value $7, from 574 Dongkaloong, and was ordered to find security.

   On Thursday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) abnd Mr. Burchet (American assessor) -

   Wong Suh-pao, a Ningpo loafer, recently deported was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and redeportation.

   For stealing clothing, etc., value $10 from 308 Shanse Road, 200 blows and deportation.

   For stealing a silk hood from the person of a child of six years, Chang Fuh-sai, an unemployed, received 200 blows and a month's cangue.

   Chang Tai-she, with five other men not in custody, for attempting to extort the sum of $10 from complainant by means of threats at 405 Kiangse Road. Case remanded.

   Sun Tzung-ching, a burglar, was brought up for having broken into and entered the premises of Sennet Freres, 111 Honan Road, and stealing 125 silver watches, 72 metal watches, 3 pairs of opera glasses, 12 pairs of spectacles, 38 cigar holders, 12 card cases, total value $1,529, on the 5th of April last; also on the 5th of May having broken into the same premises and stolen 1 opera glass, 3 dozen pairs spectacles, 80 cigarette holders, 1 white marble clock, etc., etc., value $400. Remanded for a week. ...

...............................................................................

  On Friday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor) -

   An unemployed man received 200 blows and 3 months for stealing 18 pieces of silk, value $54, from a ship in Hongkew.

   For unlawful possession of 3 fowls, value $1.50, a coolie was sentenced to 200 blows.

   Chu Wong-ton, a young married woman, was charged with stealing the sum of $40 from her husband and was ordered 200 blows on the face and was sent to the City Refuge. 

  Four mechanics were brought up for extorting the sum of $5.70 from complainant by means of threats. The ringleader was sentenced to 200 blows and three months and the others to 200 blows and one month.

 

North China Herald, 24 December,1898

THE MIXED COURT.

Shanghai, 21st December.

Before Mr. Chang (Magistrate) and Mr., F. S. A. Bourne, (Assessor).

McELROY v. THE CHINA MERCHANTS' STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

JUDGMENT.

   Judgment in this case was presented. Mr. Bourne who had translated the Magistrate's decision said he did not consider it necessary to read it on account of its length, but remarked that the purport of it was that Mr. McElroy had no legal claim against the defendants, but at the same time he made out a strong case showing that they had scarcely treated him with consideration or perhaps fairness. If he would write to them they were prepared to make him a present and to admit that the allegations as to his spoiling the engine of the Leiyuen were not true.

[Not transcribed.]

   Although McElroy has no legal claim, I think he has been very hardly treated by the Company and this I feel sure the Directors will see when the case is represented to them. I think that in consideration of the above facts and of his long service the Company will come to the conclusion that they should give McElroy a gratuity of $500 or more, and that they should cause a letter to be written to him stating that he had performed his duties in a competent manner and that the allegations that he had spoilt the engine of the Leiyuen  were untrue. 

   Unless this is done by the Company it will be my duty to bring the facts to the notice of Her Majesty's Consul-General who may pursue the matter by the diplomatic channels.

F. S. A. Bourne. H.B.M. Consul, Assessor.

.  .  .  

At the Mixed Court on Monday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. S. F. Mayers (British Assessor):

     Two natives were charged with stealing the following articles: A marble clock, value $50, from No. 6 The Bund, on the 7th of November, and two articles of silk clothing, value $123, from 116 North Shanse Road on the 21st of September. One of the thieves was sentenced to 200 blows and three months' imprisonment and the other who had already been sentenced to 200 blows and three months on a previous occasion was given an extra month. Two men who received the above property well knowing it to have been stolen were fined $10 each.

   A coolie was charged with being concerned with another man not in custody in attempting to extort a sum of money from complainant by means of threats, on the North Shanse Road, on the 18th instant. Inspector Bourke said that the prisoner had gone to complainant's shop and demanded eighty cents; he was told to call later and he could have it. But when he made his second call a detective was waiting for him. Prisoner was sentenced to 300 blows and one month's imprisonment.

   A native was charged with stealing four articles of silk clothing, value $90, from 628 Dingkaloong, on the 19th of October last. Also with stealing a silver watch, value $24, at the same time and place. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

   Three mafoos were fined $5 each for furious driving in the Bubbling Well Road on the previous day.

.  .  .  

On Tuesday morning before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Dr. Burchet (American Assessor.):

   Two native women were charged with being concerned together in cruelly ill-treating a little girl and keeping her without sufficient food, thereby causing her death, in No. 220 Tsepoo Road, between the 19th of October and the 14th of December. According to the evidence it appeared that the father of the little girl owed one of the women the sum of $94 and that she had taken the child as a security for the debt and placed her in the charge of the other prisoner who was to receive $3 a week for her keep. On the 14th inst. the child was taken home where she expired a few days later, death being apparently due to starvation and cruelty. The prisoners were ordered to be locked up, pending an inquest.

   On Wednesday before Mr. Chang (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers, British assessor):

   Four boatmen were charged with stealing a ton of coal and were sentenced to 100 blows and their boat confiscated, while two others were fined $10 each for receiving, knowing the same to have been stolen.

   The burglar who broke into Sennet Freres on the 5th of April and the 5th of May last and stole stock to the value of $1,929 was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

   For receiving goods value $420 by means of false pretences on the 10th of October, Ka Veh-sing, a broker, received 200 blows and was remanded until Friday.

   Mrs. Anderson of 37 Broadway charged her mafoo with leaving her employ without notice and annoying her for 6 days' wages. She stated he was a desperate character and that she was in fear of it; 200 blows and 7 day's cangue.

   Chee Fah-fon, an old deported thief was sentenced to 200 blows, three months, and to be re-deported.

   Mr. Hall charged his cowherd with wilfully disobeying his orders and thereby causing the death of a valuable cow. The Court remanded the case in order to obtain the evidence of a veterinary surgeon.

.  .  .  

On Friday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor):

   A loafer was sentenced to six months for loitering in the Peking Road for unlawful purposes.

   Two men were charged with gambling on the North Honan Road and were ordered 200 blows.

   For stealing a satin suit, value $3, from No. 20 The Bund, Chen Ah-sing got 200 blows and three months.

   A tailor received 200 blows and a month's cangue for molesting females.

   Fir stealing 3 boxes of books and maps, value $50, from a jetty in Soochow creek.  200 blows and three months.

   Two mill workers, widows, were sentenced to 200 blows on the hand each for stealing cotton, value $2, from the Ewo Cotton Mill. 

   Inspector Bourke brought to light a counterfeit municipal 'ricksha stamp which had been used by the coolie to avoid paying quarterly licence fee. Fined $10 and 'ricksha confiscated.

   Mr. Hall, whose case was remanded on the 21st inst., appeared attended by a veterinary surgeon. The latter asserted that the cowherd had ignorantly handled the animal thereby causing its death. A charge of culpable neglect with no malicious intent was proved and the defendant was ordered to pay Tls. 50 compensation, the cow being valued at over $350.


North China Herald, 24 December,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 19th December.

Before W. P. Ker, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. BRYS.

  F. Brys of the British sailing vessel Ancyra was charged with having been drunk and assaulting P.O. 477 on Broadway on the previous day. The charge was proved by the police and the prisoner who had nothing to say was sent to prison until the ship would be ready to leave when he would be put on board.

.  .  .  

R. v. PERRY AND NILSEN.

   H. Perry and N. Nilsen A.B.s of the sailing ship Iverna, were charged with being absent from their ship without leave. The case was adjourned until 10 a.m. today for the appearance of the captain.

29th December.

   H. Perry and N. Nilsen, A.B.s of the sailing ship Iverna, were brought up on remand from the previous day charged with having been absent from their ship without leave. Nilsen who pleaded sickness said he had remained on shore on that account. He was ordered to forfeit two days' pay and to go to prison until the ship was ready for sea. He would receive medical attendance while in prison.

   Perry pleaded that the watchman at the Dock gate would not allow him to pass. He was also sent to prison until the ship was ready for sea.

 

North China Herald, 31 December,1898

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 27th December.

Before W. P. Kerr, Esq., Police Magistrate.

R. v. McCONNELL.

   John McConnell, A.B. of the sailing vessel Irby, was borough up on remand, charged with being absent without leave. Was ordered to be out on board his ship, she being on the point of sailing.

 

North China Herald, 31 December, 1898 

THE MIXED COURT. 

  At the Mixed Court on Wednesday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British assessor), a loafer, one of a gang, was charged with assaulting and wounding with a knife complainant, a factory girl, on the Sinza Road and was sentenced to 500 blows and a month's cangue. 

  For burglariously breaking into a godown, No. 11 Szechuen Road, and stealing 11 pieces pf cotton cloth, value $40, a thief was given 300 blows and six months' imprisonment; and Koong Sze-sum, a second hand shop keeper, was fined $40 for receiving same knowing it to have been stolen. 

  Two barbers were changed with stealing50 cents from the person of a girl 13 years of age and with illegally detaining her from the lawful custody of her parents. Case left to Court. 

   For stealing a hat value $2 from a house, 200 blows. 

   For stealing clothing value $4, 200 blows and a month. 

   Two masons received 300 blows and 3 months' each for stealing goods, value $7, from Tsue Hing Pang. 

   For cruelly ill-treating a pig by fastening it to a wheelbarrow so as to cause it to bleed, a fine of $5 was imposed. 

   A desperate character who had to be brought to Court manacled, charged with escaping from the Shantung Road Hospital where he was receiving treatment while undergoing a term of imprisonment, was ordered 300 blows and to be kept in chains. 

   Wong Ah-ting, constable, received four weeks' cangue for allowing a prisoner to escape from his custody. 

   Mah Chung-sun, a foreman of the steamer Ichang, was arrested on a warrant for insubordination. Case remanded to Wednesday. 

   Wang Hung-fah was charged with assaulting Police Constable 204 whilst in the execution of his duty on Sunkiang Road, and given 200 blows and ordered to be deported. 

   For stealing an electric globe, Vale $1.50, from the str. Kutwo, 100 blows. 

   A boatman received 200 blows and a month for stealing a chain cable, value $10, from a boat on the Soochow Creek. 

   Wong Szu-suing, a cook, was charged with stealing a quantity of crockery-ware, etc., value $18, from 274 Broadway between the 6th November and the 28th inst., and was ordered 200 blows and two months. 

   An unemployed was accused of four petty thefts, value $6.50, from houses in the Fearon and Seward Roads, and received 200 blows and one month. 

   A boatman got 200 blows and two months for stealing two cases of kerosene, value $8, from a boat on the Soochow Creek. 

   On Thursday before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Barchet (American Assessor) - 

   For stealing 12 articles of clothing from the late fire on the Amoy Road, 200 blows. 

   Loh Ah-kew was charged with fraudulently obtaining by false representation 2 tables, 8 chairs, and a bedstead, value $18, and was sentenced to 200 blows and 3 months'.  

   Shan Ah-shu and Wong Ah-fing, shopkeepers, for attempting to extort $40 from complainant by means of threats were fined $10. 

   An unemployed got 200 blows and a week's cangue for stealing a quantity of bamboo fencing from 263 Hongkew. 

   Sze Chuing, a brothel keeper, was fined $100, to be paid to the Shantung Road Hospital, for allowing noises and disturbances in his premises, 321 Shantung Road, and not abating same when warned by the police. 

   Zing Zing-lu, boatman, was arrested for stealing 29 tons of coal, value $300, the property of the Shanghai Gas Co., from a boat on the Soochow Creek, and Dze Ting-zang, coal merchant, Louza, was charged with receiving same knowing it to be stolen. Cases remanded until Friday. 

   A house thief was brought up for four petty thefts, value $13, and received 200 blows and three months'. 

   For fighting in the cells at the Central Police Station, two convicts were given 300 blows each. 

   An unemployed was charged with being in unlawful possession of 22 pieces of jade stone and other articles, value $50. 200 blows and a months' imprisonment. 

   On Friday, before Mr. Cheng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British assessor) - 

   Two soldiers, who were charged, with an old offender, for gambling in the enclosure of the joss house on the North Honan Road, brought a fake charge against the Indian constable who arrested them. The braves were stationed there by the Taotai to prevent such nuisance whereas it was proved they encouraged the same. A fine of $15 or a month's imprisonment was inflicted on them and a term of six months on the gambler. 

   Ka Veh-sung, the broker, who was sentenced to 200 blows on the 21st for receiving goods value at $420 under false pretences and whose case was remanded, was again brought up and sentenced to three months.

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