Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor cases, 1899

North China Herald, 9 January, 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 6th January

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

(Sitting in Chambers.)

IN RE JOLY v. THE SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

   Mr. H. P, Wilkinson, on behalf of the plaintiff, made an application that Mr. Leigh Hunt of Shanghai, formerly of Chemulp, be examined in regard to the above suit now pending.

   Mr. Stokes represented the defendants and the application which was heard in private was granted.


 

North China Herald, 9 January,1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 31st December.

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

R. v. GUEDES.

   George A. Guedes, 24, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct and assaulting a Chinese in Kiukiang Road on the previous day. The evidence went to show that the prisoner who was very drunk and noisy committed a most unprovoked attack on a ship's conpradore. When arrested he renewed his violence and at the lock-up assaulted a constable.

   He now confessed his guilt and was mulcted in the sum of $15.

3rd January.

THOMAS QUINN, sailor of the Kenmore, was charged with absenting himself without leave from his ship.

   Prisoner admitted the charge and pleaded "the holidays." He came ashore to see a tailor but got drunk instead.

   He was ordered to be put aboard his ship and to forfeit two days' pay for each day he had been absent from his vessel.

4th January.

   Richard Tourney, lately second engineer of the China Merchants' steamer Feiching, was brought up on remand charged with the attempted murder of Arthur Eveleigh, Augustus Barrier, and Louis Finceca by shooting at them with a revolver whilst on board the vessel referred to, on Christmas Day. The case was remanded a week ago for the testimony of Barrier and Fonceca, but both are still detained in the General Hospital.

   H.L. Oliveira was called and said - I am an apprentice at Messrs. S. C. Farnham & Co.s works. In the evening of Christmas Day I was invited to dinner in the Feiching. Whilst at dinner prisoner came in, and the second officer Barrier gut up and left the saloon followed by the prisoner. I heard some confusion outside and when I went to discover the cause I saw Mr. Tourney coming back, Mr. Barrier having gone to his room. Eveleigh and Tourney had a few words of an excited character. I went back to the saloon and sat down to dinner again when immediately afterwards prisoner walked in with a loaded revolver.

   Eveleigh jumped up and prisoner fired twice at him. Barrier in the meantime had returned and in attempting to wrest the weapon from the prisoner he fired a third time. Mr. Fonceca and I rushed upon him and got him to the ground, and while in that position he discharged two more shots.  Fonceca was wounded and I picked him up, put him in a ricksha and took him to Dr. Cooper's. I went back to the ship and Eveleigh was taken to the doctor's. 

   Fred. Harrison, assistant engineer in the employ of the China Flour Mills Company, said - I was on board the Feiching for dinner on Christmas night and while seated at dinner Truney came in whereupon Mr. Barrier got up and went out. There was some sort of excitement outside and thinking there was a fight or a quarrel going on I went out to quell it. When I arrived on the scene the difference, whatever it was, appeared to have been settled and with the exception of Mr. Barrier all went back to dinner. 

   A couple of minutes later I went out on deck and spoke to Tourney; while so doing Eveleigh and Barrier came up and Tourney fell on the deck. I picked him up to prevent any fighting and prisoner went to his cabin. We resumed dinner, but two minutes later prisoner came into the saloon with a revolver and fired twice at Eveleigh. I took Eveleigh to the doctor's and know nothing of what transpired afterwards.

   By Inspector Howard - My object in going on deck to speak to Tourney was to advise him to make up his difference with Barrier and come to dinner. Prisoner was not very sober at the time.

   Inspector Howard at this stage asked for a further remand, and His Worship adjourned the hearing for a week, prisoner being remanded in custody.

 

North China Herald, 16 January,1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 11th January.

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

R. v. TOURNEY.

   Richard Tourney, lately second engineer of the China Merchants' steamer Feiching, was brought up on remand charged with the attempted murder of Arthur Eveleigh, August Barrier, and Louis Fonceca, by shooting at them with a revolver, on board the vessel above referred to, on Christmas Day. The case was remanded a week ago for the testimony of Barrier and Fonceca, but both are still detained in the General Hospital, and, upon the application of Chief Inspector Howard, the accused was again remanded.

R. v. MORGAN.

   William Morgan, a blue jacket on board H.M.S. Iphigenia, was fined $5 or seven days for assaulting Sikh constable No. 96 on Nanking Road at 5 p.m. the previous day.

 

North China Herald, 23 January,1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 16th January

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

R. v. DEVELLIN.

     Thomas Devellin, unemployed, was charged with drunkenness and incapability in Woosung Road on the previous afternoon. The evidence of a constable went to show that the prisoner was lying helplessly drunk in the gutter in an alleyway.

   He pleaded guilty, and it appeared that he had been previously convicted. Fined $5 or a week's imprisonment.

18th January.

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

R. v. NELSON.

   Edmund Nelson, solicitor, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with assaulting native constable 200 on the night of the 16th instant outside the Shanghai Club, and further with damaging his uniform to the extent of $2.

   Defendant admitted both charges, and his Worship said it would be unnecessary for him to go further into the evidence than he did on the issue of the summons.

   Defendant then said he desired to apologise to the Council for having touched any of their servants. In extenuation he would urge that it had been the custom for rickshas to go on the pavement on wet nights outside the Club, and on the night in question the constable was very officious and interfered with him, whereupon he lost his temper.

   His Worship reminded Mr. Nelson that even if the officer was executing an illegal order he had no right to commit an assault on him.

   Inspector Matheson said the constable was stationed there for the very purpose of of preventing ricshas from going on the footpath. They were not allowed on the sidewalk by the Police Regulations except in cases of inability or sickness.

   Defendant said it was not his intention to raise that question as a defence.

   His Worship was satisfied that an assault had taken place and imposed a fine of $15, also ordering defendant to pay the amount of the damage.

 

North China Herald, 23 January,1899

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

Shanghai, 17h January.

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

LOK CHAN v. MAITLAND.

   This was an action brought against the defendant, Mr. Frank Maitland, to recover $65 for meat supplied.

   Liability in the matter was not denied but the defendant required a statement showing the extent of his indebtedness, certain vouchers having it was stated been lost.

   The case was adjourned for a week for the production of the plaintiff's books showing the daily transactions.

 

North China Herald, 23 January,1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 16th January.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General.

U.S. PEOPLE v. MONRO .

   Frank Monro, seaman of the American sailing vessel E. K. Wood, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday in Broadway.

   The case having been proved, prisoner was ordered to be put aboard his ship.

 

North China Herald, 23 January, 1899

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SHANGHAI RESIDENT.

   On Thursday afternoon in the British Police Court before Mr. Burrows, sitting for the first time as Police Magistrate, Mr. J. W. H. Burgoyne, formerly of Messrs. Dodwell, Carlill & Co. was brought up on a charge of obtaining from the Russo-Chinese Bank the sum of Tl. 85,000 on false pretences.

   Mr. A. P. Stokes (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master) appeared for the prosecution, and from his statement and the evidence called, it appeared that the false pretences consisted in the accused having obtained the sum stated on four godown orders, which he gave to the Bank, representing that the cargo mentioned in the godown receipts was in certain godowns, whereas during the period and up to the present time there was not and had not been since any such cargo. The witnesses examined consisted of Mr. Speelman, of the Russo-Chinese Bank, who proved that the accused obtained the sum of Tls. 85,000 on the representations; Mr. O. Meuser, of the firm of Messrs. Dodwell and Conmpany, Ltd., and two godown men, who were called to prove that Mr. Burgoyne did not have between the 26th of March and the 10th of October,1898, the dates in question, or up to the present time, any such cargo as was referred to, which was represented as being skins and piece-goods.

  In answer to the statutory caution the accused replied he had nothing to say beyond the fact that he was guilty. He was then committed for trial. He was admitted to bail in the sum of Tls. 10,000 - himself in Tls. 5,000 and two other sureties in the sum of Tls. 2,500 each.

   The unusual hour at which the case was called, half past two o'clock in the afternoon, and the subsequent difficulties in ascertaining what actually took place, are the cause of this case not having been noticed on Friday morning. Almost invariably cases in the British Court are held in the morning, and in the ordinary course of their duties the newspaper representatives attend there.  In the event of a case being set down for the afternoon, which is very seldom, an intimation to that effect has before now been given, but, in the present instance, nothing of the kind was done and the proceedings were not heard by any newspaper reporter. On Friday, when this matter had become more or less common talk, application was made, in the first instance, to Mr. Burrows, for information as to the proceedings, but beyond giving the name of the accused, the bare charge, and the fact of the committal for trial, he declined to go, and Sir Nicholas Hannen on being seen supported him, saying that the depositions were in the hands of the Crown  Advocate.

   When it was pointed out that the sitting of the Court at such an hour was unusual and extremely likely to escape publicity, Mr. Burrows observed that it was within his discretion, under the Order in Council, to hold the enquiry within closed doors, but he had not done so. But as the matter has been generally talked about in Shanghai, there was really no valid reason for secrecy.

 

North China Herald, 6 February,1899
LAW REPORTS
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 1st February.
Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.
DONG ZUNG v. H. E. HALL.
  The plaintiff, described as the proprietor of two establishments  in the French Settlement for the sale of  horse and cattle provender, sued the defendant for the recovery of $471.30 and $240.64, amounts due to the respective places of business for goods supplied.
  Mr. H. Browett appeared for the plaintiff whilst the defendant conducted his case in person.
  The managers of the two shops gave evidence and spoke to having supplied the bran, straw, etc., to defendant's order. They had done business with him for some time. One witness stated that the goods were supplied through a pass book which Mr. Hall had retained possession of, whilst a second witness representing the larger claim said that the defendant after offering $150 to settle, increased the offer to 80 per cent of the claim.
  Defendant denied having had any dealings with the plaintiff whatever and said that he had receipts for the past six years showing his dealings with Chinese in respect to the keeping of his ponies and cattle. He called a couple of coolies to testify that it was his custom to pay ready money when obtaining provender and alleged that the statements of the witnesses for the plaintiff were false.
  He had a contract with Mrs. Chu Tze-tze (who had figured so prominently in the numerous actions brought against him and is now deceased), in regard to cattle and their requirements. With regard to the offer to settle with the witnesses it was after her death and he owed her more than a month's supplies. He did what he could for them at the same time denying any personal liability.
  His Lordship, as in the previous case, pronounced his intention to reserve judgment in order to carefully peruse the evidence in this particular matter as distinctly separate from any former claims against the defendant.

 

North China Herald, 9 February,1899
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 7th February.
Before Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Assistant Judge.
PAYA v. BAWL.
  The defendant in this case produced a letter from the Insurance Company declining to pay his claim as the risk did not extend to bicycles belonging to customers.
  His Honour - Well, Mr. Paya, you see that the Insurance Company declare that they are not responsible for the bicycle. The only thing you can do is to sue the Company through Mr. Bawl and you will have to bear the legal expenses.
  Mr. Bawl having offered to let the plaintiff see the policy,
  The case was left to the parties to arrange with the Insurance Company.
.  .  .  
YUEN SING PAU v. H. E. HALL.
  This claim was for $74.45 for cotton seed cake supplied during the years 1896, 1897, 1898.  The case was dismissed, after evidence had been called.

 

North China Herald, 9 February,1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 7th February.
Before Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, Esq., Assistant Judge.
R. v. LAIDLER.
  F. Laidler, unemployed, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in Hongkew Park on the previous night. It appeared that the prisoner was fighting with another foreigner. A Sikh constable attempted to arrest him when he became most violent and it was only with the greatest difficulty that he was taken to the lockup.
  The accused who had nothing to say was fined $10, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment.
8th February.
Before Mr. E. H. Burrows, Police Magistrate.
R. v. HARRIS.
  Walter Harris, of the China and Japan Trading Company, was summoned by a Chinese tailor for assaulting him on the previous day. The evidence if the complainant was t the effect that he called on Mr. Harris to collect a sum of $7.20 for clothes supplied. Mr. Harris assaulted him and pushed him against a glass door cutting his face somewhat severely.
  In defence Mr. Harris stated that when the man called in the morning he told him, that at that moment he had not the account with him but that he if he could call later in the day he would settle the claim. Shortly afterwards the complainant returned and becoming abusive said he would not leave the office until he got his money. Witness threatened to eject the man if he did not leave quietly but he renewed his objectionable conduct and had to be put out. Complainant fell against a glass folding door, his arm going through it. The falling glass caused the injuries to his face.
  Mr. D. Thomas, also of the China and Japan Trading Company spoke to witnessing the affair and said that Mr. Harris used no more force than was absolutely necessary.
  His Worship dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 9 February, 1899
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 7th February.
Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.
REVISION OF JURY LIST.
  Augustus White applied for exemption from service on juries on account of age. His name not being in the jury list the exemption was granted.
  H. E. Hall applied for exemption on the ground of failing health. Failing to produce a medical certificate, he was informed by his Lordship that he would be exempt from service if he produced one when next summoned to serve on a jury.
DONG ZUNG v. HALL.
  Mr. Browett (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) appeared for the plaintiff and the defendant appeared in person.
  This was a case in which plaintiff claimed the sum of $711 for cattle food supplied. The case was considerably delayed by the interference of Mr. Hall, calling from His Lordship the remark that if he did not behave he should most certainly stop the case. Mr. Hall laid great stress on the fact that he was a British subject and produced registration papers dated from the sixties onward. He was registered, he said, in his Lordship's consulate and they had taken his money for the papers. His Lordship said he should refuse to go on if Mr. Hall did not behave properly. In the end judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount with costs assessed at $100.

 

North China Herald, 20 February,1899
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 15th February.
Before Mr. E. H. Burrows, Police Magistrate.
R. v. CLARKE.
  A. J. Clarke, second pilot of the s.s. Tatung, was summoned for assaulting a Chinese boy at Hankow.
  Complainant stated that Clarke rang the bell for some coffee. He left to execute the order when on his return defendant struck him and made his nose bleed. He believed he was assaulted because he accidentally banged the door. The case would have been heard in Hankow but there was not time.
  Defendant denied striking the boy and said he only took him by the jacket to ask what he meant by deliberately slamming the door and being disobedient.
  His Worship came to the conclusion that a trivial assault had been committed, but dismissed the case, merely ordering the defendant to pay the costs.

 

North China Herald, 27 February,1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th February.
Before E. H. Burrows, Police Magistrate.
R. v. SHIORT.
 John Short, 64, described as a civil engineer, was brought up on a charge of drunkenness and disorderly behaviour on the previous day.
 Inspector Bourke deposed to seeing the prisoner in an intoxicated condition knocking at doors in Boone Road, Hongkew. He called a constable and sent him to the lock-up.
 Poisoner now expressed contrition for his foolish conduct. He was extremely weak and suffered a great deal from insomnia. He had been in the Government service in Australia and came here for the benefit of his health. He had never been in such an unfortunate position before.
  Inspector Bourke said that on the morning of the same day prisoner was released from Hongkew where he had been taken drunk overnight.
  His Worship sent him to prison for a week.
.  .  .  
25th February.
R. v. SOUSA.
  Paul de Sousa, a Goanese, employed as a butcher on the P. & O. s.s. Formosa, was charged with refusing duty.
  Captain Cubitt and the chief steward Mr. George Frost spoke to the conduct of the prisoner. He had been drunk for several days and kept going to and from the ship without leave. Prisoner who was sent aboard in Bombay had signed the articles for twelve months. The Captain asked that he might be discharged otherwise his pay would be going on all the time and he would cause no end of trouble.
  His Worship said he had no power under the M.S. Act to discharge him but he felt it was necessary to protect the people of Shanghai from such men being left adrift here. He would send him to gaol until Tuesday and leave it to the Board of Trade to send him back to Bombay.
R. v. SCHMIDT.
  N. Schmidt, sailor of the Belmont, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The evidence went to show that the prisoner had been creating a disturbance in a tavern in Broadway and refused to go away. After he had been ejected by the police he returned and continued the disorderly behaviour.
  His Worship sentenced him to a fine of $5, or a week's imprisonment with hard labour.
R. v. MULREADY.
  Charles Mulready, an old offender was charged with drunkenness in the Soochow Road on the previous night.
  He admitted the charge but pleaded that he went quietly. He expected to get away from Shanghai next week.
  His Worship sentenced him to a month's imprisonment with hard labour.
R. v. JUNDA SINGH.
  Junda Singh, a watchman, was charged with extorting money from Chinese.
  Inspector Wilson said the prisoner was employed to prevent people from looking through the windows of a Chinese theatre while the performance was in progress, but instead of driving them away, he had been extorting thirty cents from each man he caught.
  A Chinese boy said he was looking through a window of the theatre when the prisoner pulled him by the queue and demanded money. Three other Chinese witnesses testified to a like effect.
  Det. Serght. Gilfillan spoke to being on duty at the theatre and receiving a complaint regarding the prisoner. He at once took him into custody.
  Prisoner who denied the charge was sent to prison for one month with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 6 March 1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 27th February.
Before H. E. Burrows, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. BELLEW.
  Pierre Bellew, sailor, but now unemployed, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct in North Szechuen Road on Saturday afternoon, also with wilfully damaging the uniforms of two native policemen.
  Native Constable 493 stated that on Saturday afternoon he saw the prisoner in a drunken condition in North Szechuen Road arguing with a crowd of Chinese. When he told him to move on prisoner struck him in the face, snatched his whistle, threw it away and then tore his uniform.
  Native constable 496 spoke to going to the assistance of the last witness when prisoner used violence towards him and also seriously damaged his uniform.
  Prisoner, who admitted the charge, was ordered to make good the damage and in addition pay a fine of $5 with the alternative of a week's imprisonment.
.  .  .  
28th February
R. v. McCONNELL
  John McConnell, unemployed, was charged with begging on Messrs. Jardine Matheson & Co.'s premises on the previous day.
  Mr. Duncan McNeil prosecuted and spoke to the nature of the offence.
  Prisoner who admitted the charge was sentenced to a week's imprisonment with hard labour. His Worship thanked Mr. McNeil for his public spirit in bringing the matter to the attention of the police.
R. v. KEELAN.
  John Keelan, seaman on board the P. & O. str. Parramatta, was charged with refusal of duty. Prisoner in defence said he objected to working with "niggers."
  He was committed to prison for a week with hard labour.
R. v. HARKINS.
  James Harkins, formerly second mate on one of the river steamers, but now out of employment, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct and assaulting the police.
  Prisoner denied the charge, but admitted having had a little drink. He had been to see a friend away in the tender and took a 'ricsha intending to go home. He felt a little drowsy and the coolie took him all over the Settlement. At last he paid him and discharged him resolving to walk home. The coolie thereupon called a native constable who took him into custody. He did not assault the officer.
  A fine of $5 was imposed.
.  .  .  
1st March.
R. v. QUIN.
  Charles Quin, 51, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous day.
  The evidence of an Indian constable went to show that the prisoner was lying helplessly drunk in Broadway. After he was taken into custody he attempted to enter the premises of the Old Dock.
  Prisoner who pleaded guilty and said he expected to get a ship during the course of the week was fined $5; in default of payment to go to prison for four days.

 

North China Herald, 6 March 1899
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 28th February.
Before F.S.A. Bourne, Esq., Deputy Judge.
STEWART v. JOHNSON.
  This was a claim brought against E. P. Johnson engineer, by Mrs. Stewart, dressmaker and milliner of Kiukiang Road for the recovery of $31.50 the value of goods supplied to defendant's wife.
  Defendant alleged that the goods were purchased without his knowledge or consent. He had been away for a year trying to do his best for his wife but had failed owing to her expensive habits.
  Mr. Bourne said the items set down in the claim were such as a wife could reasonably order and her husband was responsible. There would be judgment for plaintiff  for the full amount claimed, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 6 March 1899
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 28th February
Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.
SHANGHAI HORSE BAZAAR CO., v. COLLINS.
  In this case the plaintiffs who were represented by Mr. H. Symons sued Henry B. Collins of the Rue Montauban, French Concession, for Tls. 152 due in respect of the keep and stabling of certain race ponies.
  Defendant who had not filed an answer admitted the claim and consented to judgment. He asked, however, for a fortnight in which to satisfy the judgment.
  His Lordship entered judgment for Tls. 192.19, defendant agreeing to the additional amount to that in the claim, which had been incurred in the meantime. He also had to pay the costs.
.  .  .  
2nd March.
YUNG SING CHANG v. MANN.
  Mr. H. Browett (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) appeared for the plaintiff, who is a tailor and outfitter in Broadway, and the defendant Mr. F. Mann, manager of the Kiangsu Acid and Chemical Works, was sued for $1258.10 alleged to be due in respect of goods supplied to his order.
  Plaintiff entered the box and said that the accounts produced amounting to $159.10 were correct and that they had been rendered to the defendant.
  Cross-examined - He presented his bill the year before last China New Year and had been to the defendant on several occasions since.
  Defendant said he had entered into a contract with the plaintiff in respect of some other goods which the plaintiff had not completed. When the bill was presented he told him he could not settle until he had carried out the contract.
  His Lordship said that was another matter and he could sue the plaintiff in the Mixed Court in regard to it.
  Defendant said the amount was really $58 and handed His Lordship two receipts of $50 each which should have been deducted from the amount claimed.
  The receipts were then shown to the plaintiff who identified them as his.
  Defendant said that in the second account these two receipts were not allowed for, and when it was pointed out an amended account was submitted in which credit was given for these two payments but two others were added which had been also paid. He had his books with him to prove the payments.
  Mr. Browett contended that it was a question of wrong dates.
  His Lordship at this stage adjourned the case for half an hour to permit the parties to come to some arrangement as to the accounts.
  On resuming, Mr. Browett said he had checked the accounts with Mr. M ann's books and all the items appeared to be entered. He was sorry that this should have occurred, but he might state that on the 15th February he wrote to Mr. Mann in regard to the accounts but he chose to ignore it and refused to supply any information. Had he taken the trouble to reply this time would have been saved but as he understood from his client that they were correct he had no option but to proceed with the case. The sum of $58.10 had been paid into Court by the defendant.
  His Lordship gave judgment for the defendant but made no order as to costs. The amount paid into Court would be paid out to the plaintiff.

 

North China Herald, 6 March 1899
U.S. CONSULAR COURT.
Shanghai, 27th February.
Before Mr. John Goodnow, Consul-General Acting Judicially, and the Rev. Dr. Hykes and Mr. C. C. Bennett, Associates.
U.S. v. WILKINSON.
  J. P. Wilkinson, describing himself as a doctor of medicine from Baltimore, and recently employed as a stenographer and typist, who on a former occasion pleaded guilty to forging the names of Mr. Montague Ede and Mr. Goodnow, whereby he obtained $40 from Messrs. [Bernanlie] Bros. and $10 from the manager of the Sailors' Home, was brought up for judgment.  He had nothing to say, and
  His Honour sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, with labour, in the Consular gaol.

 

North China Herald, 20 March 1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 15th March
Before E. H. Burrows, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. NEWMAN.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Norris Newman, editor and part proprietor of the Shanghai Daily Press, appeared to answer a summons charging him with having assaulted Charles Vigar, a reporter, on the 13th inst.
  Defendant pleaded guilty to a technical assault but alleged provocation.
 Complainant stated - I am a journalist and was recently engaged on the staff of the Daily Press. Last Monday afternoon I engaged a 'ricsha and rode to the office in Peking Road. On reaching the office I told the coolie to wait for me while I went upstairs. I did not pay the fare. A few minutes later the coolie commenced to kick up a row and I struck him. When I got upstairs Col. Newman, the defendant, asked me if I had struck the coolie, and I replied: "Yes" He then got hold of me and took me to the top of the stairs, and hurled me with all his force down the first flight, following that up by striking me on the third stair. He then followed me down the stairs, struck me again and knocked me in the back with his fists. A young man, named Enright, was there and he said: "Don't strike him again, Sir."  I then ran out into the alleyway and called for the police. A Sikh came up and Col. Newman gave me in charge and I was taken to the police station. At the station the Sergeant on duty asked me why I was there, and I said: "I don't know." He then telephoned to Colonel Newman and I was at once liberated. I then came here and took out a summons. The Sergeant said there was nothing wrong about me. The coolie said I owed him thirty cents which I paid. The coolie made no complaint beyond this.
 Cross-examined - I am not in the habit of coming to the office drunk, and when drunk, assaulting and refusing to pay 'ricsha coolies.
 Defendant - I ask whether that is your constant custom or not? - No, it is not.
 Defendant - Have I not had to complain about you hiring 'ricshas, bringing them to my office, and after refusing to pay them, striking them? - No.
  Defendant - Have you been at my office in a state unfit for duty and been warned by me not to come back? - No.
 Defendant - Did I not find you at eleven o'clock on Sunday night outside my room after I had gone to bed and turned you out of the place in the presence of the foreman and the other workmen? - You did, but I can explain that. I went to the office in the ordinary course of my duty to read the last proof of the leading article which I write in the morning.
 Defendant - When I asked you why you were kicking up such a row I ordered you off the premises? - You flung open the door and pushed me downstairs.
 Defendant - Quite right. I did. After being engaged a week in trial you were given a three months' agreement, but that has been since reduced to simply a weekly contract? - It has.
  Defendant - Why was that course adopted? - Complainant made an explanation, on which
  His Worship objected to irrelevant matter being introduced.
 Complainant - I am leading up to the answer. Afterwards Col. Newman said he could dispense with my services and that he could take a certain report out of the Shanghai Mercury. I said: "If you do, I will go to Mr. Cunningham, the manager, and tell him of it."
  His Worship - All this appears to be the result of a personal difference and not of what took place on the 13th instant.
  Defendant - As he denies these points I should like my manager, Captain Tindall, to be called to show the reason why the engagement was reduced to a weekly one. It is because he is entirely unreliable.

  His Worship - You will have an opportunity of making a statement to the Press afterwards if you wish it.
 John Enright was then called and spoke to witnessing the circumstances of the assault. - Col. Newman ordered Vigar off the premises. I saw plaintiff go to the top of the stair and, as he was going down, the editor pushed him. Subsequently I heard Col. Newman give Vigar into custody for assaulting the coolie.
 Cross-examined - I prevented Vigar from further assaulting the coolie. I should say if the editor had pushed him he would have fallen. On Saturday last Vigar was in the office in a maudlin state. He had been drinking. I have seen complainant have trouble with 'ricsha coolies before.
 Complainant intimated that he was in a position to call a gentleman with whom he dined on Sunday night and who could testify to his sobriety.
  The defendant then said - I am editor and part proprietor of the Daily Press. On Monday afternoon I returned after lunch and I saw a 'ricsha coolie at the bottom of the stairs, doubled up and crying, and a lot of my compositors round him, apparently commiserating with him. I was told that Vigar had been knocking him about and would not pay him. I was surprised to hear of him being there after having been discharged on the Sunday for his incapacity.
  His Worship - Did you pay him up?
  Defendant - His week was up on Tuesday when my manager paid him his wages.
  Complainant - Yes, and I am a weekly servant from Tuesday to Tuesday.
  Defendant (continuing) - It was in consequence of his daring to come back that I committed this technical assault. I am a hasty man, and ordered him downstairs when he confessed to having struck the coolie.  I pushed him but he did not fall. I said to him:

"Get off the premises at once, or I shall give you in charge for assaulting the coolie and not paying his fare."  When the Sergeant telephoned to me, would I prosecute, I said: "No." When the Sergeant said there is nothing wrong with the man, he meant the coolie. That is the whole case. The man has been upsetting the office for a long time. I nay say that if I had struck him he would have gone down the stairs very much quicker than he did.
His Worship - I think it is a most unfortunate affair that it should have been necessary to go into all these difficulties that have taken place and I hope the whole thing will be settled without any of the parties coming up here again. There has been an assault committed and a fine must be paid. The fine in this case will be $10, $5 of which I shall hand to the plaintiff for his costs.
 There is another matter which has been brought up which has left a very bad impression on my mind and that is the fact that that this man who was charged with assault was taken through the streets by a policeman. That is a power which ought to be exercised by the police with the greatest caution. As we all know each other in Shanghai so well, if a man is so exposed it might seriously prejudice him. Mr. Newman was to a certain extent responsible for that, as he told the Sikh to effect the arrest, an arrest which he subsequently carried out. If instead of a Sikh, it had been a foreign policeman, I should have taken a very much more serious view of the matter.
  I wish to draw the attention generally of constables to the fact that they render themselves liable in this Court to very serious proceedings for malicious arrest and false imprisonment in cases of this sort.  If there is a breach of the peace a constable can effect an arrest if he has reasonable apprehension that there will be a renewal of the disturbance, or in cases of felony and other offences, but here was a man known on the spot, and he should not have been arrested. I must say I consider very strongly that he ought not to have been subjected to what occurred in the matter and taken to the police station only to be discharged.
.  .  .  
16th March.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. OGILVY.
  T. W. Ogilvy, of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, was summoned for riding a bicycle in the Nanking Road on the 10th instant, after sunset without a light.
  His Worship remarked that as this was a case where notices to the public had to be proved and the police regulation on the subject was a new one and not contained in the book of regulations, he should like another time to have the copy of the Supreme Court and Consular Gazette which contained the notice, produced in Court.
  Two constables gave evidence as to the circumstances, one of them, a Sikh, alleging that the defendant rode on after being called upon to stop.
  Defendant in evidence stated that he rode down the Maloo on the evening in question under the impression that it was sufficiently light to dispense with a lamp. He heard a Sikh constable say something about having no light but he rode on without taking any notice of him. An English constable shortly afterwards called upon him to stop and he did so. He gave the last named his card and walked home without mounting the machine.
  His Worship said this was the first bicycle question that had come before the Court. The Municipal Council had power under the Land Regulations to constitute a watch or police force and it was obvious their officers must be given certain directions foe the maintenance of public order. These directions were embodied under a particular regulation which had been notified to the public by advertisements in the papers and therefore the knowledge of its existence might be fairly presumed. He did not take a very serious view of this particular case and was satisfied that the defendant walked home but he regretted that the defendant did not pay more attention to what the Sikh said to him. A fine of $2 would be imposed without costs.
.  .  .  
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. BENJAMIN.
  Maurice Benjamin, a youth, was summoned for driving a horse and trap in the Foochow Road on the 13th instant in such a manner as to endanger the lives and limbs of passengers there.
  The evidence of a couple of native constables was taken and showed that the defendant was driving in a most reckless manner.
  Defendant denied breaking the law and alleged that the pony which was very hard-mouthed suddenly became unmanageable. When called upon by the second constable to stop he did so and offered his name and address. The constable who had known him as a resident of Shanghai for the past twelve years insisted in him going to the police station with him. He objected at first but afterwards accompanied him.
  His Worship said that the remarks he had made in the previous case applied exactly to this. A Chinese constable naturally was at a disadvantage in securing the name and address of a foreigner, not understanding English. The regulation in question was framed with the object of making life in the Settlement tolerable, and mitigating such nuisances as could be reasonably dealt with. Defendant would have to pay a fine of $3 and costs.
.  .  .  
17th March.
R. v. SHORT.
  John Short, an old man, described as a civil engineer, was charged with drunkenness and incapability in Broadway on the previous night.
  A Chinese constable spoke to finding the prisoner asleep in the roadway after ten o'clock at night. He ordered a 'ricsha and took him to the police station.
  Prisoner, who was before the Court a fortnight ago when he underwent a week's imprisonment, pleaded that he was in a very weak state of health. Soon after he went to prison medical assistance was required for him and since his release he had been in the hospital. He asked to be treated leniently in order that he might find work.
  His Worship said that in the prisoner's condition he was not likely to obtain employment. He was better in gaol than sleeping in the public streets after ten o'clock at night. Prisoner would have to go to prison for a week. If on his admission he was found to be ill, medical aid would be summoned.

 

North China Herald, 27 March 1899
LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.
Shanghai, 24th March.
Before F. S. A. Bourne, Deputy Judge.
WOODS v. MANN.
 G. A. Woods, shipwright and engineer of Yuen Fong Road, sued Mr. F. Mann, manager of the Kiangsu Acid Works (on behalf of Messrs. Major Brothers), for Tls. 45.50 the value of an oven ordered by the defendant.
 Plaintiff said that at about the end of last year, some time in December, the defendant called on him and asked him to make him a wrought-iron and cast-iron oven. He did not care about undertaking the job as he had done a lot of work for him before and always had trouble. No price was mentioned but he told him he would do it as cheaply as possible.
The first casting they made cracked and he told Mr. Mann he would have to make another. Mr. Mann replied, "All right," and as witness had not the iron in stock he offered to get a piece of wrought iron. When the work was finished he telephoned several times to the defendant to have it take away but not getting anything but abrupt answers he sent one of his assistants named Milley with a letter to the defendant informing him that the oven was ready. He told Mr. Milley to tell witness to send it along, and if it suited him he would have it.
 William Milley spoke to having taken the letter and delivering the reply plaintiff had stated.
 Defendant admitted ordering the oven and said he went on several occasions to the plaintiff's works to see it. On one occasion he found plaintiff had put a cracked front on and when he pointed that out, plaintiff undertook to repair the defect. Witness said, "Well, when it is ready send it round and I'll pay for it." He had not sent it, neither had he rendered any bill for the wor.
 Mr. Bourne said the defendant could hardly expect the plaintiff to send such a cumbersome piece of work to him for inspection. It was clearly his duty to go to Mr. Woods' works to see it. He would adjourn the case for a week and in the meantime defendant could refer the matter to some independent person to decide whether it was a workmanlike job or not. If it was shown to be so, the defendant, having ordered it, must pay for it.

 

North China Herald, 27 March 1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 20th March.
Before E. H. Burrows, Esq., Police Magistrate.
R. v. HALFORD.
 Robert Halford, butcher on board the British steamer Chusan, was summoned for assaulting J. R. Allen, a quartermaster of the same vessel by striking him with his fist, on Saturday the 18th inst. on board the Chusan.
  Defendant denied striking the complainant but admitted hitting him with the back of his hand.
 J. R. Allen said that he was a quartermaster on board the Chusan and on Friday last was in duty at the gangway. On Friday night two A.B.s  came to the gangway to go on shore and when he stopped them he was accused by the butcher of being a bully and a spy. One of the men on Saturday came up with the butcher and when off his guard the latter struck him with his closed fist knocking him down and at the same time told him to go and tell the chief officer and he would give him another dose like it.
 W. G. Garry, writer on board the Chusan, stated that he saw the blow. Accused struck the complainant with the back of his hand.
 His Worship was satisfied that an assault had been committed and imposed a fine of $5 and costs.
R. v. QUIN.
  Charles Quin, unemployed and an old offender, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Minghong Road on the previous day.
  Sergt. McGregor stated that he was on duty in the charge room when the prisoner was brought in. He was drunk and incapable and had to be brought in a ricsha.
  The constable who effected the arrest not being present to give evidence, His Worship dismissed the prisoner with a caution.
R. v. SMITH AND BULAR.
  Augustus Bular, second mate, and Nelson Smith, A.B., of the British ship Belmont, were charged with creating a disturbance and assaulting the French Municipal Police in the Yangkingpang on the 19th instant. A third man having been hurt in the melee was taken to the Hospital. The case was remanded until 10 a.m. today.
.  .  .  
21st March.
R. v. BURGESS.
  James Burgess, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Broadway on the previous day.
  Prisoner, who pleaded guilty, had been previously convicted, and he was now sent to prison for a week with hard labour.
R. v. SMITH AND BULAR.
  Augustus Bular and Nelson Smith, of the sailing vessel Belmont, were brought up on remand charged with creating a disturbance and assaulting the police on the French Settlement on Saturday. Both were ordered to pay $3 for damage to the uniforms of the officers and to undergo a week's imprisonment. They would, however, be put aboard their vessel should she sail in the meantime.
.  .  .  
22nd March.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. ADAMSON.
  James Adamson, of the Yah Loong Cotton Mill, was summoned for allowing a Japanese poodle to be at large on the Yangtsepoo Road on the 19th March without being muzzled, contrary to the regulations of the Municipal Council.
  Inspector Reed produced a number of the N.C. Daily News containing a copy of Municipal Notification No. 1,339 dealing with the question of dog muzzling in the interests of the public safety.
  A Sikh constable proved the case and deposed to capturing the dog near the Yangtsepoo Police Station.
  Defendant admitted the offence. He said he had been particularly cautious with the dog, and on the day in question he missed it for about a quarter of an hour. He went in search but the police had already the matter under notice.
  His Worship said it had been notified to the inhabitants of Shanghai that, in the opinion of the authorities here, the possession of an unmuzzled dog was considered to be a public danger at present, and it was therefore necessary to assist the Municipal Council in enforcing the regulation in mitigation of the evil. This was the first case that had come before him but if any other summonses were taken out the matter would not be dealt with so leniently.  In this case the defendant would have to pay a fine of $5 and costs.
.  .  .  
23rd March.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. LITTLE.
  Mr. Robert W. Little was summoned for allowing an unmuzzled dog to be at large on the Bund foreshore on the 10th instant, contrary to Municipal Regulations.
  A Sikh constable stated that on Monday morning he was on duty in company with two native dog-catchers who were employed by the Council to seize all unmuzzled dogs and take them to the Police Station. They saw a dog on the foreshore without a muzzle and they at once captured it. On the way to the station they met the defendant at the corner of Kiukiang Road who asked him to release the dog, but he told him he had orders to take all unmuzzled dogs to the station. After the dog had been seized a coolie came up and wanted to take possession of it but he refused to allow him to do so.
  Two coolies in the employ of the Council spoke to catching the dog in question with a string and a bamboo. They had secured it when the coolie came up and attempted to put a muzzle on.
  Mr. Little said he made it a point to muzzle his dog himself but on the morning stated he for a moment forgot to do so. The dog could not have been out of the house more than five minutes when he remembered that it had no muzzle, and he at once sent his coolie after it.  The coolie came running back saying that the police had seized it. He ultimately got the dog back from the Station on payment of 50 cents.
  A coolie in the employ of Mr. Little spoke to being sent to find the dog. He saw it on the foreshore and began to put the muzzle on it to take it back to his master. The dog-catchers came up while he was attempting to put the muzzle on and he was struck by the Sikh, and prevented.
  His Worship said there was no doubt that there was an unmuzzled dog at large, but there was a very great difference between the conduct of people who deliberately flew in the face of the regulations and the present case which amounted to little more than a technical breach of the order. At the same time there was a dog at large and the defendant must pay the costs of the summons, in addition to a fine of $2.
  He found it impossible to ignore the great part the defendant had taken in waking up the public to a sense of the extent of the danger in the matter of unmuzzled dogs, and he did not see that the present case made his private actions at all inconsistent with his public ones.
.  .  .  
25th March.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. CANNING.
  Mrs. Norman Canning was summoned for allowing s dog to be at large, insufficiently muzzled, to the common danger.
  Mr. H. T. Nelson of Messrs. J. W. Gande & Co. said that, while proceeding to his business on his bicycle, on the 18th instant, a collie flew at him and bit his leg. He had the wound cauterised but although the bite broke the skin there was no sign of blood at the time.
  Inspector Matheson who prosecuted produced a muzzle which the dog in question was wearing at the time. It was a bogus one and the police had instructions to capture all dogs wearing them.
  Mrs. Canning spoke to seeing the dog jump at Mr. Nelson but did not see him bitten. The dog was very playful and jumped on people for fun. The muzzle produced she bought in a Chinese shop in the Nanking Road at a place recommended by the Council, in November or December last.
  His Worship did not think the public would appreciate very much the theory of the dog jumping ay them for fun. If the Council had recommended certain shops for the purchase of muzzles it was only to assist the public. He would only inflict a fine of $1 and costs and the dog which had been retained by the police would be returned to her on payment of 50 cents, the summons having been issued prior to the issue of the order increasing the payment for the return of captured digs to $10.

 

North China Herald, 3 April 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 28th March.

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

R. v. HOPKINS.

   Reginald George Hopkins, a young man, was charged with the larceny of $1,000, at the instance of the Hongkong Police.

   Captain Pattison, Chief of the Local Police, spoke to receiving a telegram from Hongkong as a consequence of which he gave instructions for the arrest of the prisoner.

   Chief Inspector Howard deposed to going on board the Austrian mail steamer Maria Valerie when she arri8ved at the lower limits on Monday.  He at once recognised Hopkins as the man wanted, but no actual arrest was made until the steamer arrived at the wharf at Hongkew. When the vessel was made fast to the wharf he instructed Detective Sergeant Wood to follow the prisoner on his landing and ask him certain questions. This was done and satisfied him that the prisoner was the man wanted. Prisoner was afterwards arrested and admitted that his name was Hopkins. He made no reply to the announcement that he had been arrested on information from Hongkong for stealing $1,000.  His property was afterwards confiscated, two loaded revolvers being found amongst his property. Prisoner was remanded for a week pending the arrival of certain documents from Hongkong.

30th March.

R. v. HOPKINS.

   Reginald George Hopkins was brought up on remand charged with the larceny of $1,000 by fraudulent means at Hongkong.

   Chief Inspector Howard informed the Court that the police had not as yet received any instructions from Hongkong and he applied for a further remand.

   His Worship granted the adjournment asked for.

 

North China Herald, 24 April 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 18th April.

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

R. v. HOPKINS.

   Inspector Moffatt of the Hongkong Police made an application in the matter of Reginald George Hopkins, now lying in the British Gaol, in Shanghai, awaiting his trial in Hongkong on a charge of embezzlement. The prisoner was committed under the Fugitive Offenders' Act, which demands his detention for fifteen days, and Inspector Moffatt asked if his Worship could give him any idea as to when he would be likely to proceed with his prisoner to Hongkong.

   His Worship said that under the Fugitive Offenders' Act the warrant for extradition had to be signed by the Minister in China and Japan and they were expecting that warrant at any moment. As soon as it arrived, of course, after the lapse of the necessary 15 days had expired, the prisoner could be handed over, and he would notify Inspector Moffatt directly it arrived. The prisoner was not entitled to ask for his release until a month after his commitment. His Worship had no doubt that the warrant was on its way.

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. MAITLAND.

   William Maitland, of the China Paper Mill, was summoned by Inspector Reed for allowing an unmuzzled dog to be at large on the Yangtsepoo Road on the morning of the 14th instant.

   Native constable 3111 proved the case.

   Defendant denied the ownership of the dog and said he gave it to a Chinese three months ago. It was true that the dog hung about his premises, but so did numerous others. He asked His Worship's permission to shoot the dog.

   His Worship did not think that the ownership of the dog had been clearly proved. The defendant must realise that if dogs were seen upon his premises the law must recognise them as his dogs. Mr. Maitland must be extremely careful in the future, for it was a reasonable supposition on the part of the police that dogs surrounding or frequenting his premises were his property. In this case, however, the summons would be dismissed.

.  .  . 

20th April.

R. v. WALL AND ELLIOTT.

   Alexander Wall and John Elliott, seamen of the Brunhilda and Moel Tryvan, respectively, were charged with absenting themselves without leave from their vessels. The evidence went to show that the prisoners had been absent from their ships for several days.

   Both men admitted the charges and were ordered to be put aboard their ships.

R. v. GANACOPULUS,

   Andrew Ganacopulus, aged 40, a Greek, and one of the quartermasters of the P. & O. s.s. Ballarat, was brought up, charged with feloniously cutting and wounding two British sailors named Alfred Thomas Cornell and Percy George Potter, both of H.M.S. Bonaventure, with intent to do them grievous bodily harm, on Wednesday night in the French Concession.

   T. F. Holmes, a seaman of the Bonaventura, was called by Inspector Matheson, who prosecuted on behalf of the police, and stated that on the previous evening he was in the Globe Hotel, on the Yangkingpang Creek, in company with numerous others. The landlady was standing at the door of the hotel shortly after 9 o'clock, when the prisoner came up and became offensive. She said she did not wish to speak to him, whereupon he used abusive language and struck her on the head with an umbrella. She started screaming, and the men Cornell and Potter at once rushed out accompanied by others. Potter called the man a coward to strike a woman, and a melee ensued, in the course of which witness saw the prisoner flash a knife, and both Cornwell and Potter were afterwards found to have been stabbed.

   A. F. Burke, also a seaman of the Bonaventura, gave corroborative evidence. He spoke to seeing the disturbance and a knife in the prisoner's hand, but he could not swear that the knife produced was the actual weapon.

   Messrs. O'Callaghan and H. Peters, stokers, and F. Bright, a corporal of marines, all of the Bonaventura, testified to a like effect, and said that they chased the prisoner into the Columbia Hotel. They could not find him, however; but the matter was reported to the police, and prisoner afterwards gave himself into custody.

   Dr, Macleod, one of the surgeons of the General Hospital, was called and deposed to receiving a telephone message from the police to attend the wounded men at the Hospital. He proceeded to the Hospital without delay and saw the man Potter. On examination he found that he was suffering from a punctured wound a little below the front part of the left haunch bone. The wound was three quarters of an inch long and two inches deep, down to the bone; and had it been an inch higher it would have punctured the abdomen.  While looking at Potter, the man Cornell was bought in on a stretcher. The last named had evidently lost a great deal of blood from two wounds. One of these over the left shoulder blade was three quarters of an inch in length and nearly two inches deep. The other one was below the fifth rib below the nipple, and a slight change in the direction of the weapon inflicting the wound would have pierced the lung or the heart, or perhaps both. So far there was no sign of any important structure having been wounded, but so far it was impossible to say whether there was any danger from the wounds having been poisoned. It would be impossible to determine this point for a few days. In reply to Inspector Matheson, Dr. Macleod said that the stains on the knife produced were not rust and looked like blood, but he could not say that they were blood without making a closer examination.

   P.C. George, of the French Municipal Police, spoke to being on duty in the vicinity of the Yangkingpang about nine o'clock on the previous evening. He heard a disturbance and saw the prisoner and a number of bluejackets. Prisoner afterwards gave himself up, and he was taken to the Central Police Station. The knife produced prisoner showed to witness and said he had been hardly treated by a number of British bluejackets, and he used it in self-defence.

   Sergeant Smith said he was on duty at the Central Police Station on Wednesday night, when a seaman named Williams reported that one of his shipmates had been stabbed on the Yangkingpang Creek. Shortly afterwards the prisoner was brought in by the last witness, who was accompanied by several other French policemen whose names he did not known. The prisoner was charged and duly cautioned, and said that he used the knife produced, after having been badly treated, and that he was acting in great provocation. Witness afterwards telephoned Dr. Macleod and asked him to attend the wounded men at the Hospital.

   Inspector Matheson applied for a remand for one week and asked that the depositions of the men Potter and Cornell might be taken.

   His Worship granted the remand, but in regard to the application that depositions might be taken, said he would refer to the evidence of Dr. Mcleod and communicate with Inspector Matheson if he considered it necessary to take the depositions of the wounded men.

.  .  . 

21st April.

R. v. BAVTAVA SINGH.

   Bavtava Singh, a watchman employed at Pootung, was charged with being drunk and incapable at an early hour on Friday morning.

   The evidence of a native constable went to show that the prisoner was helplessly drunk on the Foochow Road jetty and narrowly escaped falling into the water.

   He admitted the offence and was ordered to pay a fine of $2.

 

North China Herald, 24 April 1899

LAW REPORT.

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

Shanghai, 17th April.

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

STEWART v. WILLIS

   This was an action in which C. F. S. Stewart, described as an advance agent and representative of the Vivianne Dagmar Comedy Company, sought to recover from Lionel Willis, general manager of the company, the sum of $99.99 being the value of clothing belonging to him detained in defendant's possession by his order or the order of his agents.

   Plaintiff said his luggage had been detained or arrested by the Messageries Maritime Company for non-payment of passage money. His passage from Hongkong to Shanghai had been paid but the action referred to his passage from Batavia to Hongkong.

   Mr. Bourne: Then it is not Mr. Willis who has detained them. You mean he owes you money?

   Plaintiff continuing said Mr. Willis had paid him all that was due with the exception of one small bill but as he had not paid the passage from Batavia to Hongkong the steamship company had detained his effects.

   Mr. Bourne: The question is whether he owes you that passage money or not.               Can you show a letter or any documents to prove that he owes you that passage money because if you can we can very quickly settle this case?

   Plaintiff produced a telegram which he sent to Mr. Willis, then at Singapore, requesting him to wire him money as he was absolutely destitute in Java. Mr. Willis answered the message telegraphing that he had forwarded a remittance and ordering him to proceed immediately to Hongkong.  Witness enquired at the banks and also at both the city and suburban post offices in Batavia to see if anything was waiting for him but no money had been sent. He then went to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and asked for an advance but they refused to give him one on the ground that the company was unknown. He then went to the manager of the Chartered Bank, a man of great experience in the East and explained his case. The last named told him that it was an utter impossibility to wire money except through a Bank. In reply to the bench plaintiff stated that he was engaged on a verbal contract and it was agreed that he should receive five per cent of the total drawing of the various performances and fifty per cent on advertising contracts arranged for the programme. He was formerly in the employ of Messrs. Barnum and Bailey at San Francisco but joined the defendant at Mandalay.    His passage was paid from there to Rangoon and from thence to Penang and afterwards to Batavia where he got stranded.

   Mr. Bourne said it seemed to him that the defendant was bound to pay plaintiff's passage and he ought to settle the claim of the Messageries Maritime in order that plaintiff might regain possession of his property.

   Mr. Willis said the whole business had been a mistake.             When he received Mr. Stewart's telegram from Batavia about money he forwarded through the Dutch Trading Company the sun of ninety guilders but the amount was returned to him at Shanghai last Saturday morning plaintiff never having called for it.

   Mr. Bourne remarked that the defendant was not in any way to blame for the mistake and suggested that Mr. Willis should deposit the amount of the claim into Court, for which a receipt would be given, and the plaintiff must give a letter for the baggage to be delivered to defendant's order.

   Defendant argued that as he was now out of the company Mr. Willis certainly ought to make him some recompense for having waited so long, and to enable him to subsist.

   Mr. Willis produced a bill which plaintiff had run up in Batavia for $75 without even succeeding in engaging the theatre as an instance of capability.

   Mr. Bourne said he could not go into that.

   It was eventually decided that Mr. Willis should proceed to the office of the Messageries Maritime here and settle the claim. The luggage would then be forwarded from Hongkong and lodged in the Supreme Court where the parties could obtain their respective belongings on it being shown that the amount due to the steamship company had been paid. Failing this there would be judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and the defendant must pay the costs.

 

 

North China Herald, 1 May 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 24th April

Before John Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially, and the Rev. D. Hykes and Mr. C. C. Bennett, Associates.

KOEHLER v. LEVEY.

   This was a suit by Mr. Frederick Koehler against Mr. S. J. Levey for the repayment of a sum of Tls. 1,000 alleged to have been advanced at Tientsin by the former to the latter on the 7th of February last. Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Stokes and Platt) for the defendant.

   According to the evidence of the plaintiff he was employed by Messrs. Spitzel & Co. to keep their books in Tientsin, acting also as a skin buyer. Early in the year, there was a favourable opportunity for purchasing skins for cash and he wired down to Mr. Sturman, who was in Shanghai, asking for a remittance of Tls. 1,000 for the skins, and handed Tls. 1,000 to Mr. Levey, who was manager of Spitzel & Co. in Tientsin, on the understanding that it would be repaid from the proceeds of certain watches. Witness entered the amount in some rough accounts of Messrs. Spitzel as a credit to Mr. Sturman. The money was advanced to Mr. Sturman in connection with the business.

   His Honour, after looking at the accounts said that from that, and also according to the plaintiff's own testimony, the money was not advanced to Mr. Levey as a personal loan, but on account of Spitzel & Co. or the Chinese Corporation.

   Mr. Levey, being sworn, said he held a power of attorney from Mr. Spitzel, who was the Managing Director of the Chinese Corporation, after the firm was taken over by the latter concern.

   His Honour eventually dismissed the case, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 8 May 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 6th May

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

R. v. SCOTT AND OTHERS.

   Charles Scott, William Belshaw, and William McLelland, able seamen of the P. & O. steamer Paramatta, were charged by Alfred Symons, Commander of the vessel, with being under the influence of liquor on the 19th ult. and consequently endangering the safety of the steamer.

   Captain Symons said that, as far as one of the defendants (Scott) was concerned, the ship was leaving Hongkong harbour, and witness, not having heard the lead going, looked over the rail and saw Scott leaning on the rail, and the lead not in use. He then ordered accused to obtain a cast of the lead, as the ship was then near the right-hand bank and was passing close to a reef, but accused made a pretence of casting and proclaimed 10 fathoms; there was no such sounding at that place. Witness considered such conduct on the part of the accused sufficient to endanger the safety of the ship, and stated afterwards he found that the defendants were drunk.

   In defence Scott said the vessel was travelling too fast for soundings to be taken. He had been a leadsman in the P. & O. Company for three years and had always given satisfaction.

    Captain Symons stated that Scott was unfit for work as he was under the influence of liquor.

   Scott said that it was impossible to obtain a sounding of 4 to 5 fathoms when the vessel was travelling at a speed from 10 to 11 knots.

   Capt. Symons said this statement was not true.

   Scott stated that he had given satisfaction when he had been in the British Navy and that he had now served 3 ½ years in the P. & O. Company, and that Captain Symons, on account of this one mistake of his, strove to make out he was incompetent. He (witness) could return to the British Navy at any time and obtain the same rating as when he left. He admitted he had been drinking a little lively, but he had not done so for years before.

   The Captain started in regard to McLelland that he came to the wheel when the ship was clear of the land, and was then staggering. A number of junks were in the vicinity at the time and seeing the accused's condition, he at once ordered him away. At 10 o'clock that night the third officer had the same experience with accused.

    McLelland admitted he was then drunk, but said the Captain gave him the chance. The Captain asked the surgeon whether McLelland was drink and the surgeon replied that the accused was under the influence of liquor, but not  drunk, and he (the accused) defied both the Captain or the Chief Officer to prove that he was intoxicated.

   Captain Symons stated that Belshaw kept watch with the other defendant and it was apparent to him (witness) that Belshaw was also drunk, as he was unable to bring the ship to a course. He told the accused that he was unfit for work and ordered another man to take his place. The men on board his ship were in receipt of £4. 10s. a month, which was as much if not more than the Navy paid.

   Belshw said that when he went to the wheel that morning he was accused by the Captain of being drunk and was sent away. He admitted he had partaken of a few drinks, but denied he was incapable. The Captain sent him to the surgeon who said he was only under the influence of liquor but not drunk.

   His Worship sentenced the three defendants to one week's imprisonment, without the option of a fine.

.  .  .  

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. H. WILLIAMS, A. VANAKAR, AND J. WARNER.

   Harold Williams, Alphonse Vanakar, and Joseph Warner of the ship Thornhill, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police.

   PO.C. 45 stated that as he was passing Broadway yesterday, he heard the prisoners, whilst they were walking on the pavement, using obscene language. He endeavoured to prevent this conduct when defendants assaulted him. Some Chinese constables who came to assist him were also assaulted. Two of the prisoners held witness down on the ground to prevent him blowing his whistle.

   P.C. 361 confirmed this statement and said there were about ten sailors engaged in the disturbance.

    Defendants said the police assaulted them first and that the trouble was caused through the (the police).

   His Worship fined them $5 each.

.  .  .  

MUINICIPAL COUNCIL v. DOST MAHOMED AND CHANDAT SINGH.

   Dost Mahomed and Chandat Singh were charged with feloniously and wilfully allowing three Chinese convicts to escape from the Municipal Gaol.

   Chief Inspector Howard stated that with reference to this case, that last evening three convicts escaped from the Municipal Gaol.  The two defendants were locked up for the night, but one of them had a key.  In addition to the usual cell doors there were other doors in the corridors, etc., which were all closed. It appears that two doors were afterwards found open. He understood that the defendants in their defence would allege that they had been overpowered by the convicts. One of the escaped convicts had been re-arrested but was unable to appear.

      Mr. Mears, head gaoler, deposed that the two prisoners were warders in the Municipal Gaol and up to Friday evening were on night duty. Replying to His Worship witness said that the convicts in question were in custody for theft and burglary one of them being sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Continuing Mr. Mears said the prisoners went on duty at half-past five on Ftriday evening. He visited them at about 6.30 and at that time everything was all right. One man lay down upon a guard bed while the other walked about the corridors, and both of them took their turns at patrol. When he visited the Gaol at 6.30 Mahomed was on duty armed with carbine, ammunition, and bayonet. Witness after seeing that everything was all right went to his quarters, and at about ten minutes after seven the alarm bell rang. He had just taken off his jacket, and immediately he heard the alarm he hurriedly put on his coat and rushed into the gaol. Seeing both of the prisoners there in the dock he questioned them as to the cause of the alarm, and they said that about fifty of the prisoners had got out of the gaol, that they had beaten them and had taken the ladder and got over the wall.

   He (witness) asked Mahomed how it had happened, and the latter stated that he was walking up and down the corridor when he saw the three convicts coming down. They got him down, took away his keys, and then unlocked a great number of cells. Witness then went and counted the number of convicts in order to see how many had escaped, and he found that only three were missing. He found also that there were only two cells unlocked. Mahomed said that the escaped convicts had taken away all the ammunition, and he making enquiries, found that both of the present prisoners had between them six rounds, and their carbines and side-arms.

   Witness then went into the yard, and found that the ladder which was usually kept in a corridor, was against the wall. It was then that he sounded the general alarm to the police stations within the Settlement.  [Chundah] Singh said that at the time of the occurrence it was his turn to lie down, and when he was in that position twenty convicts came with one swoop upon him and held him. As neither of the prisoners then in the dock appeared to have been in a struggle or were hurt in any way, he (witness) came to his own conclusions upon the matter, and acted accordingly. He thought it was impossible for the convicts to get out from the inside of the cells, and as nothing was broken, he locked Mahomed up in one of the cells as a prisoner.

   In answer to Captain Mackenzie witness stated that when he visited the prisoners at half-past six he examined every door and found all secure. It was impossible for anybody inside to open the doors of the cells and only somebody in possession of a key from the outside could have opened it. By the prison regulations a turnkey could only unlock a cell door after the convicts had been locked up for the night in the presence of the head gaoler.

   His Worship having taken the evidence of Mr. Mears as to the position of the ladder at the time of the escape, remanded the prisoner for a week.

 

North China Herald, 15 May 1899
H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.
Shanghai, 8th May
Before E. H. Burrows, Esq., Police Magistrate
R. v. VAUGHAN.
  Joseph D. Vaughan, a commercial traveller, was brought up on remand charged with misrepresenting goods and using the name, unlawfully, of Messrs. Stubbe and Wentzensen while in their employ, in consequence of which he had defrauded the firm to the extent of $100 or thereabouts.
  Mr. Wentzensen wished to correct his previous testimony and said that he had discovered that the man to whom the burners, etc., were supplied was not Ah Kew but Ah Kee.
  Ah Kee stated that he was a fitter in the employ of the Shanghai Gas Company. The accused came to him and said that he had burners and other gas fittings to sell and offered witness five per cent commission if he could introduce business. He sold two dozen burners on two occasions and a dozen once. The accused gave him the order on the office of the prosecutors and received the money in respect thereof. He paid the money to the prisoner.
  Mr. Wentzensen's compradore gave evidence and spoke to having received no money from the prisoner on account of Ah Kee. Prisoner had been in the employ of the firm about two months.
  Mr. Wentzensen again entered the box and spoke to having handed to the prisoner a number of samples of burners, mantles and shades, the greater part of which had not been accounted for.
  His Worship addressing the prisoner asked if he wished to plead. In the event of his pleading guilty His Worship had power to decide the matter under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, but otherwise the case would have to be determined by a jury.
  Prisoner pleaded guilty, admitting having not accounted for certain of the goods entrusted to him, but asked for time in which to amend the defalcation.
  His Worship said that of his own knowledge he could state that the prosecutors had exercised great forbearance and been reluctant to proceed against the prisoner. He should sentence him to the full term of six months' imprisonment with hard labour.  .  .  .  
9th May
R. v. McDONALD.
  John McDonald, an engineer on the Leeyuen, was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct on the Bund on the previous evening, and further with assaulting a Sikh constable in the execution of his duty at the same time and place.
  Indian constable 165 said that on Monday evening at half-past ten, a 'ricsha coolie complained that the prisoner, who was drunk, would not pay his fare. Witness told him to pay, but he refused, and got into another 'ricsha. Witness then went after him, whereupon the prisoner struck him a violent blow in the face with his fist, and spat on him.
  P.C. Bert spoke to seeing the Indian constable assaulted, and so witness assisted to take the prisoner to the station. He then became very violent and attempted to further assault the constable.
  Prisoner now pleaded guilty, and said he ought to have sailed at ten o'clock this morning.
  His Worship said it was a most disgraceful assault, and had it been committed in England he would be liable to a very severe penalty. He should order the prisoner to pay a fine of $10 and costs, and pay the coolie fifty cents. If he appeared again he would not get off with a fine.
R. v. LOHMANN AND FREMKE.
  H. Lohmann and R. Fremke, of the str. [O??????] were charged with refusing to go on board, creating a disgraceful disturbance in the British Shipping Office, and using filthy language. They were sentenced to a month's imprisonment , with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 22 May 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 15th May.

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

R. v. RANG SINGH AND KIRN SINGH.

   Krang Singh and Kirn Singh, watchmen employed at the Electric Light Works and the Railway, were charged with drunkenness and creating a disturbance in Miller Road at an early hour on Sunday morning. The evidence went to show that the prisoners, in company with others not in custody, created a disturbance in a brothel, breaking various articles of furniture. When they went away they took a clock and two small looking-glasses. They admitted the offence, and were each ordered to pay a fine of $10.

R. v. CHUNDAT SINGH AND DOST MAHOMED.

   Chundat Singh and Dost Mahomed, warders, were brought up on remand from Saturday on the charge of allowing three Chinese prisoners to escape from the Municipal Gaol., on the 5th inst.

   Inspector Wilson said the police had no more evidence to offer, whereupon the magistrate read over the evidence offered by the witnesses for the prosecution which was translated to the accused.

   In defence, the prisoner Dost Mahomed said he was on duty at half past five in company with the other prisoner. They saw the sergeant on duty, Abdel Rahman, who served them out five rounds of ammunition. Chundat Singh went to sleep, whist he walked the corridors. At half past six Mr. Mears, the chief warder, visited them and saw that everything was in order. Later on witness saw two convicts on the verandah, and on going  up to them he was surrounded by others, and it was only with great difficulty that he wrested a hammer from one of them.  As it was he was assaulted. One of the convicts had possession of a master-key, and opened the doors of the cells. He called for help, which was forthcoming, but not before three of the prisoners had made good their escape. He was in no way guilty of the charge laid against him.

   Chundat Singh said that he went on duty on the day in question at half past five in the evening. He was in company with Dost Mahomed, and the sergeant on duty served them out the usual amount of ammunition. Dost Mahomed kept the first watch, and he went to bed. At half past six Mr. Mears came and saw that everything was in proper order. Immediately afterwards he went to sleep and was suddenly awakened by four or five convicts who had surrounded him. They dragged him off the bed on to the floor, and he was seriously maltreated. Two of them took hold of the ladder and went outside. He succeeded in releasing himself from the grasp of the convicts and drew his sword. He prevented any further escape from the cells. Shortly afterwards, in response to his call for assistance, he was relieved, and further escape rendered impossible. Three prisoners had got away over the wall. If he had not stood in the corridor with his carbine raised many more prisoners would have escaped and this he told Mr. Mears.

   His Lordship said he had carefully considered the evidence offered for the prosecution, and had come to the conclusion that he could not commit the prisoners for trial. The charge was of feloniously and wilfully allowing the convicts to escape while the prisoners were on duty, but with reference to that charge he was of opinion that the evidence had not disclosed a prima facie case. He had also examined the evidence in relation to kindred crime, i.e. prisoner-breach and negligent escape. As to the former the same remark applied, viz., that no case was disclosed. As to the latter, which from the nature of the evidence adduced appeared more probable, it would for some reasons have been satisfactory to him to review the very remarkable evidence and its bearing from a legal point of view on that offence.  But he had come to the conclusion that such a course would not be in the best interests of the public nor assist those on whom the task of further investigating the matter. He would therefore simply discharge the prisoners.

18th May.

R. v. BREEN.

   James Breen, fireman of the s.s. Ramazan, was brought up on a warrant, charged with drunkenness on board his ship, on the previous day.

   Inspector Ramsay said that the prisoner, in company with another fireman named Clarke, was arrested on board the steamer on Wednesday. The two men had been fighting and Clarke was found to have sustained such injuries that he had to be taken to the Hospital, and the doctor would not allow him to appear at present.

   His Worship said he would deal with the case as far as he was concerned when he was in a fit condition to appear.

   Captain Howlett of the Ramazan said that, at half-past nine, on Wednesday, the prisoner was on board drunk and refusing to do his work. Witness went and spoke to him, when he flatly refused to do any work. While he was on deck talking to the man now in Hospital, who was also drunk, prisoner came up to him and commenced arguing, at the same time assuming a menacing attitude.

   Detective sergeant Johnson spoke to executing the warrants. He found the prisoner asleep on the deck. He was then drunk. Witness put him on board the launch and took him to the Hongkew Police Station. On the way prisoner used obscene language, quarrelled with the other prisoner, and behaved generally in a disorderly manner.

   Prisoner now admitted being drunk, but denied any refusal of duty.

   Captain Howlett, in reply to the Bench, said prisoner had been in the ship for about three years, and up to about six months ago had given every satisfaction. Since then, however, he had taken to drink and had given a considerable amount of trouble. He expected to sail at daylight on Tuesday morning.

   His Worship fined the prisoner two days' pay and ordered him to be put aboard his ship. He would also have to pay the costs.

19th May.

CHENG TSENG-TSIEN v. RENNISON.

   George Rennison was summoned for assaulting a mafoo on the Bund on the 13th inst. by striking him with a driving whip.

   Mr. F. Ellis (Messrs. Browett & Ellis) appeared for the complainant, and the defendant, whilst pleading guilty, urged that the assault was committed under great provocation.

   Mr. Ellis in opening the case, said that at about a quarter to ten on Saturday morning, the complainant was driving Mr. Kladt on the Bund, and was just drawing up near the German Bank as a 'ricksha with no fare in it rushed up, coming from the opposite side of the road. Just then a carriage came along going northwards and the 'rickha apparently, in trying to avoid the vehicle, collided with Mr. Kladt's carriage and striking the pony, caused him to shy, which resulted in a collision with a 'ricksha carrying the defendant. 

   He thought it would be proved to his Worship's satisfaction that all that really happened was that the defendant was suddenly placed on his feet and not actually thrown out of the 'ricksha. Mr. Kladt got out of the carriage and wished to make every apology for what had happened, and he thought it would be proved satisfactorily that it was a pure and simple accident. 

   The defendant seemed to have thought that in cases of this sort he could take the law into his own hands, and seizing the whip struck the mafoo three or four times across the back. The complainant although holding only a humble position was entitled to protection, and if he had done any wrong should have been taken before the proper authorities and not served in the way the defendant served him.

   The mafoo bore out this statement and said he was not driving fast at all, but in the act of pulling up when the accident occurred.

   Mr. J. G. Kladt also gave evidence, and  said the whole occurrence was pure accident. When he offered his apologies to the defendant for what inconvenience he may have suffered, defendant replied: "You ----- brokers are always riving furiously, you think you own the road." The mafoo who was in the employ of Mr. George Dallas was not driving furiously.

   Defendant stated that in company with two friends, he was riding along the Bund going north. One of his friends was in a 'ricksha slightly in front of him, there being a difference of about twenty feet between each 'ricksha. When near the German Bank he saw Mr. Kladt's carriage drive up at a furious rate and his friend very narrowly escaped being run over. The first 'ricksha, however, got clear, and the pony ran into the one in which he was riding, the pony's neck being only a few inches from witness' face. He alighted on his feet and admitted that on the spur of the moment he did strike  the mafoo twice across the back.

   William McAllister, a marine engineer, spoke to a like effect, and alleged that the mafoo was driving at a very fast pace.

   By Mr. Ellis - He had a knowledge of brokers and their bad habits. As a rule they all drove furiously, but in this case the pony was travelling more furiously even than usual.

   His Worship said he was satisfied that Mr. Kladt at once made it clear as to how the accident occurred, as common courtesy dictated between foreigners here. That being so, Mr. Rennison had no business to take the law into his own hands. If he had a charge to make, the proper course was to have given information to the police. He would be fined $10 and costs.

CHEN TSIA-YUEN v. BOOBAH SINGH AND BISHIM SINGH.

Boobah Singh and Bishim Singh, watchmen, in the employ of Messrs. Boyd and Company, were summoned for assaulting a coolie named Chen Tsia-yuen at Pootung on the 10th inst. causing him to lose $8, and also with trespassing on the premises of the International Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited.

   The complainant is employed at Shanghai, but resides at Pootung. On the night in question, he was going home after having borrowed $8 for his family, and when hr got to Messrs. Boyd's gate, the defendants caught hold of him and demanded money from him. There were two other Indians with them at the time. He refused to give them money, whereupon he was assaulted by three of them, and $8 was taken out of his pocket. He screamed out and two Chinese watchmen in the employ of the International Cotton Manufacturing Company on whose premises the assault took place, came to his assistance.

   The two Chinse watchmen were called and deposed to witnessing the assault.

   The defendants denied the charge, and said they were on duty at their proper stations some distance away and could not leave them. They called a Chinese witness to show that at the time of the assault was committed the defendants were on duty.

   The case was adjourned until this morning. His Worship could not consider, he said, the question of trespass, but he would transfer it to the Assistant Judge's list in the Civil Summary Court.

20th May.

   This was a charge of assault and robbery against two Sikhs, adjourned from the 19th. His Worship said he had visited the scene of the alleged assault and had decided that, upon the evidence, the charge had not been sustained, and the prisoners would be discharged.

R. v. COLLINS.

   William Collins, a donkeyman of the s.s. Undaunted, was charged with refusing duty on board the above vessel on the 19th inst.

   The Captain said that after breakfast prisoner was intoxicated, abused witness, and refused to do anything except to lie down in the forecastle head of the ship.

   Prisoner in defence said he had performed all he was supposed to do, in fact, more than he was entitled to do. He received £5 a month as his pay.

   His Worship fined prisoner two days' pay, and ordered him to be placed on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 29 May 1899

U.S. POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 25th May.

Before A. H. White, Esq., Deputy Consul-General Acting Judicially

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. ASHLEY.

   Mr. C. J. Ashley was summoned for driving a pony and trap on the wrong side of the Szechuen Road at about 4.30 p.m. on the 23rd inst.

   Inspector Matheson started that, at about 4.30 p.m. on the 23rd inst., defendant was driving a pony and trap on the wrong side of the Szechuen Road at a considerable distance from the corner of Foochow Road. Sikh constable No. 64, who was on duty at that place, signalled defendant to go to the left, but defendant took no notice and persisted in driving on the wrong side. The constable ran after the trap and asked Mr. Ashley to put his name and address in his (The constable's) notebook. This was refused by defendant, who then left the trap, which was brought by the constable to the Central Police Station. Shortly afterwards defendant arrived and said he could not see why he should drive round the constable or give his name and address.

   Inspector Matheson produced in Court the Municipal rules and regulations under which the Police acted.

   Foreign sergeant No. 2 and Sikh constable No. 64 corroborated the above statement.

  Defendant admitted saying that he could not see why he should drive round the constable, but denied refusing to give his name and address. He could not very well keep to the left as a string of 'rickshas were there, and he had to take the wrong side of the road to avoid a collision.

   His Worship said it was proved that defendant was on the wrong side of the road and had refused to stop when signalled to do so by the constable, therefore defendant would be fined G$5 and the costs of the Court.

 

North China Herald, 29 May 1899

U.S. POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 22nd May.

Before A. H. White, Esq., Deputy Consul-General Acting Judicially.

U.S. PEOPLE v. MARTIN.

   Thomas Martin, seaman, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 21st inst. The constable who made the arrest stated he saw accused kicking up a row with some Chinese on Broadway, at 7.45 p.m. on the day in question. Accused went to the station very quietly. Prisoner pleaded guilty, stating he had no money or place of abode, but that some other sailors had treated him and he had got intoxicated. His Worship sentenced him to 10 days' imprisonment, but if a ship could be found he was to be out on board before that time.

 

North China Herald, 5 June 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 30th May.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice, and Messrs. W. D. Little, S. Bownes, Brenan Atkinson, F. A. Sampson, and J. H. Osborne, Jury.

R. v. GHOOLAB HASSAN.

   Ghoolab Hassan, an ex-warder at the Municipal Gaol, was arraigned on an indictment charging him that under cover of his office he obtained from one Zee Ah-kung, a convict, money and jewellery to the value of $10 as bribery.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson, Crown Advocate, prosecuted, the prisoner being defended by Mr. E. Nelson (Messrs. Stokes & Platt).   Upon coming to the book to be sworn, Mr. A. B. Trodd, who had been summoned as a Juryman, was challenged by the Crown Advocate and excused from attendance.

[Not transcribed.]

Counsel then addressed the Jury, and his Lordship summed up. Without leaving the box the Jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," and the accused was discharged.

 

North China Herald, 5 June 1899

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

Shanghai, 30th May.

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

CANNING & CO. v. LAURANCE

   This was a suit in which the plaintiff Canning and Co. claimed $76.45 from S. Laurance which he averred was balance of rent due.

   Defendant, on being sworn, stared that in the 28th of February last he took plaintiff's house, furnished, at a rental of $45 per month, for two years, payable monthly in advance, and that if rent were not paid by the 15th of each month, the agreement was to be considered broken. The agreement was entered into by correspondence. Wishing to give up the house fresh arrangements were submitted, to which Mr. Canning agreed. He admitted his responsibility for one month's rent to April, but protested against paying full rental for the current month, as the plaintiff had taken possession, inasmuch as he had moved the furniture and set painters to work on the inside of the house.

   Mr. N. Canning admitted sending the painters, as defendant had given up the house.

   His Honour decided that, as plaintiffs had taken possession of the house, they could not expect a full month's rent. Defendant was, therefore, ordered to pay rent for the month of April, and for half of the current month, together with costs.

SCHIRMER v. HARVIE & CO.

   Mr. A. Schirmer lodged a claim for $53 against the firm of Harvie & Co. being balance of monies due.

   Mr. H. S. Cook, manager for defendants, on being sworn, denied the liability. He stated that plaintiff bought of the firm in an ordinary business transaction goods to the value of $117.75, and that they had failed to get payment for same. The purchases were made between the 18th of August and the 15th of October last year.  Against that transaction Harvie & Co. bought goods to the value of $51.75, leaving the sum of $66 still owing. 

   On the 20th of March, after having tried to obtain payment in various ways, a letter was written demanding payment which was not acknowledged. After writing that letter he, the manager, was advised that plenty of others were in similar straits regarding the plaintiff, and consequently he sent an assistant to get delivery of cargo as security for debts. This the assistant did, and obtained goods which were invoiced at $119. Later on the plaintiff wrote to defendants requesting payment of the balance he maintained was due. On the 16th of May he, the manager, wrote to plaintiff that the goods received remained packed as sent, and that they would be given up on payment of money due, namely $66.

   His Honour - But did you not purchase the goods, Mr. Cook?

   In our letter the word bought was written within inverted commas, thereby indicating that the transaction was not a purchase.

   His Honour - You will have to prove to the hilt that the plaintiff gave you the goods as security and not as a purchase.

   Mr. Schirmer, on being sworn, stated that the defendants' assistant, Mr. Withington, came to him and bought the goods for himself, stating that they were for his mother, and were to be sent to England; consequently he wanted them carefully packed. The assistant said he had been to Kuhn and Kronor's and had been unable to get the articles at the price. The goods supplied were two tea-sets, a cabinet, and two pictures. Mr. Withington also requested that the goods should be sent to Messrs. Harvie & Co.'s before 10 o'clock the same morning.

   His Honour to Mr. Cook - If you think this statement is not correct I will adjourn the case for the appearance of your assistant.

   Mr. Cook - I dare say my assistant made some such statement; he was instructed to obtain goods to cover plaintiff's liability.

   His Honour - I will give judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 5 June 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 29th May.

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

R. v, FORDHAM. [Also Fordman.]

   Frank Fordham, fireman on board the steamer Palatina, was charged with being drunk and brandishing a razor in the Cleveland Tavern, Broadway, on the evening of the 27th.

   John Nerry, bar-tender, deposed that the prisoner came to him in a half-drunken condition and demanded two drinks for 10 cents. On refusing him, the prisoner took off his coat and started to fight; he also took a razor from his pocket when somebody shouted, "Look out, he has got a knife." Witness called a policeman and gave him into custody.

   Sikh PO.C. 124 stated on the evening in question he was called to arrest prisoner, and when he arrived complainant and prisoner were struggling. The former had a big club in his hand. He separated them and then the complainant took from the prisoner's pocket a razor. The prisoner was somewhat under the influence of liquor. In reply to his Worship the constable stated that he did not see  the complainant actually use the club; the prisoner, however, showed him [were] he had been beaten with the sane weapon.

   Prisoner, on taking the oath, admitted being a little the worse for drink, but denied having used the razor. He stated that his ship was on the eve of sailing and that he had two pairs of boots in pawn for $3, and as he did not have sufficient money to redeem the pledge, he took a razor with him, hoping to be able to sell it. On his way he entered the Cleveland and called for a drink, but complainant pushed him from the bar. At this time, there were some drunken women quarrelling in the house and it was on account of this that the complainant would not serve him. He had nothing whatever to do with the quarrel.

   Inspector Ramsay stated that he would not have kept the prisoner in custody only complainant persisted.

   His Worship - There appears to have been a lot of people present yet no-one is here to corroborate the statements made.

   Inspector Ramsay hereupon assured his Worship that he had sent the complainant a letter requesting him to appear at 10 o'clock sharp and bring the necessary witnesses with him.

   His Worship - There seems to be absolutely no proof that the prisoner was brandishing the razor, but he admits being the worse for liquor.  (To prisoner) - You will be fined $1.30 - namely, the amount found in your possession, and I dismiss you with a caution.

R. v. CHANT.

   R. Chant, Boatswain of the P. & O. steamer Japan, was charged by the Master of the said steamer with refusing duty.

   Defendant pleaded not guilty.

   Captain Wright, being sworn, stated that the defendant had been ordered to join the Company's steamer Japan, trading between Bombay and Shanghai, and had refused to make the transfer.

   Defendant in giving evidence stated that the man appointed to succeed him was junior to him. That he was 58 years of age and had served the Company for 26 years, out of which he had already served some fifteen years on the coast, and that he now wanted to remain on the home route.

   The Chief Officer of the Japan corroborated the evidence given by the Master.

   Captain Wright produced in Court the articles that had been signed by defendant, which included a clause agreeing to transfer when necessary. This clause had been approved by the Board of Trade, and had been enforced by Magistrates before whom similar cases had been tried, and he therefore asked that the defendant should be made an example of, because the Company were always having trouble of this sort.

   His Worship sentenced the defendant to 2 weeks' imprisonment.

31st May.

R. v. Fordham

   Frank Fordham, fireman on board the steamer Palatina, was charged with being absent without leave from the 23rd of May.

   Captain Simmons, mater of the Palatina, stated that the prisoner had been absent from duty since the 23rd of May, and had been ashore most of the time. He thought he saw the prisoner on the 24th, but not since.

   Prisoner, in reply to his Worship, who reminded him that he had been charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Cleveland Tavern, on the 29th, said he wanted to get clear of the vessel as there were two or three men on her who would not do their work, and others had to do it.

   Captain Simmons said the vessel was leaving on Friday, and he would like the man put on board.

   His Worship directed that the prisoner should be kept in custody and put on board before the departure of the ship.

2nd June.

R. v. REDMAND, M'CLANDLEY AND KNOX.

   John Redman, R. M'Candley, and Thomas Knox, seamen on board H.M.S. Hermione, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police in the French Settlement yesterday at 8 a.m.

   Inspector Matheson stated that the prisoners were handed over to the Municipal police  in this Settlement by the French police at 8.30 a.m. They were charged as above; the disturbance occurred in the Yangkingpang. Warrants from the Captain of the ship had been issued for their arrest.

   Police constable Martin, sworn, said he was a constable in the French Police Force, and saw prisoners making a disturbance and on speaking to them they wanted to fight him. He went to the Police Station for assistance and effected their arrest, after their repeatedly refusing to go quietly on board their ship.

   Inspector Mascarelli of the same Force corroborated the above evidence.

   Prisoners having no questions to ask, His Worship told them they must learn to behave themselves better, and inflicted a fine of $5 each.

 

North China Herald, 5 June 1899

THE MIXED COURT.

   At the Mixed Court on Monday morning before Mr. Chang, (deputy magistrate) and Mr, Mayers (British assessor), a mafoo was charged with unnecessarily beating a pony with a whip on the 29th ult. Mr. E. A. Hewett gave evidence and accused was fined $15.

   A well-known character who had been the complainant in a former assault case, but had failed to prosecute, was brought before the Court on a charge of abducting a young girl from her parents, and retaining her in the city against her will. He received a sentence of 300 blows and one year's imprisonment. The perpetrators of the assault received a similar sentence.

   For throwing fine sand into women's eyes for the purpose of robbing them of their hairpins, ear-rings, etc., a native was awarded 300 blows.

   On Wednesday morning before the magistrate Mr. Weng, and Mr. Mayers, the British assessor, a native proprietor of a tea-shop in the North Honan Road was charged with allowing indecent performances to take place on his premises on the 27th and 28th inst. Fined $50.

   For assaulting complainant in Li Hongkew on the 14th inst. and extorting the sum of $2.50 from him by means of threats and the use of a knife, a man was awarded 500 blows and twelve months' imprisonment.


 

North China Herald, 12 June 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 5th June.

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

R. v. REILY.

   Ralph Reily, seaman of the sailing ship Semantha, was charged with creating a disturbance and assaulting complainant with a knuckle-duster, whilst in the execution of his duty at 12.30 a.m. on the 4th inst.

   Inspector Matheson informed his Worship that the prisoner had been handed to him by the French Municipal Police at 8.30 a.m. on the 4th, charged with assault. Prisoner had been treated by Dr. Miller for three light scalp wounds and taken to the General Hospital where he has been confined until brought before the Court. Dr. Miller certified that the wounds were not dangerous.

   French P.C. 18, on being sworn, deposed that the prisoner with three others knocked at the door of the Globe Tavern, Yangkingpang, at 12.30 a.m. on the 4th inst., and as they could not get admittance commenced to knock the 'ricksha coolies about. He then asked them three times to desist and move on, when prisoner struck him on the left cheek. As there were four men he summoned another constable and got him to assist in arresting the prisoner.

   French P.C. 5 stated that, at the time mentioned, he was summoned by a police whistle and found P.C. 18 surrounded by four men and trembling. He was told to look out as the prisoner had something in his hand. He asked what the matter was and then took the knuckle-duster from the prisoner's hand and arrested him on his attempting to run off. The other men got away.

   Prisoner, who appeared to have been badly mauled, having been sworn, admitted possessing the knuckle-duster but stated that the constable took it from his pocket. He would not swear to not having used it, as he was under the influence of liquor. He, with his companions, left the Prince of Wales Tavern at closing time and were then pulled about by the 'ricksha coolies. One of his companions resented this and knocked a coolie down, when the police came on the scene. He then stepped in to prevent trouble.

   His Worship - I will not send you to prison this time. You are fined $5, or in default, a week's imprisonment.

6th June.

R. v. LOFTUS.

   Bernard Loftus, A.B. of the sailing ship Arracan, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Hwakee Road on the 5th inst.

   Sergeant Wilson stated that the prisoner was found by native constable 129 lying down in the roadway asleep, also that it was the prisoner's first appearance in Court.

   Prisoner declared that throughout his career he had never had to appear before a Court for drunkenness.

   His Worship informed the prisoner that the law dealt a week's imprisonment for a first offence of drunkenness, but that it was customary in Shanghai, owing to the men probably having been pent up on a long voyage and liable to lose self-restraint on coming ashore, to let them off with a caution. He therefore dismissed the prisoner with a warning that, if brought up again, he would get a week's imprisonment, and perhaps more than a week.

8th June.

R. v. SINGH.

   Rutter Singh, Indian, unemployed, was charged with assaulting and wounding complainant, Hernam Singh, on the Foochow Rad, on Wednesday night.

   Sergeant Champion stated that the complainant had been taken to the hospital and was very weak through loss of blood, also that he had been treated by Dr. Miller who stated that he was unable to say how long the complainant would be detained as the wound was of a serious nature.

   Kung Kuang-shun stated that he was in charge of the Lock Hospital on the Foochow Road and that at about 7 o'clock on the previous night he heard a noise, and, thinking there was a fire, he left his premises to see what was amiss, when he observed two Indians. One, the accused, had a bottle in his right hand, and another, the complainant, had his back all covered with blood. The accused was endeavouring to assault the wounded man but was advised not to by two of the Indians. The fifth was with the complainant. He did not see the accused inflict the wound or strike him, but saw him threaten to strike with the bottle he held in his hand.

   Native constable 104 was next called, and stated that he did not witness the fight, but he saw the Indian with his back covered with blood. When he arrested the accused, the man said it was all right and that the injured person was an old friend of his.

   Sergeant Champion then produced fragments of the broken bottle which had been picked up at the scene of the disturbance.

   His Worship remarked that there was no direct evidence to show that the accused inflicted the wound, that there were the other Indians who had not come forward to give evidence, and, consequently, he would have to remand the case. 

   The case would be remanded until Monday, to await the complainant's appearance; the accused to be kept in custody until then; but, as there was no very strong evidence against the prisoner, he would be allowed out on bail, in the sum of $200 - himself in $100, and another surety of the same amount.

 

North China Herald, 12 June 1899

THE MIXED COURT.

   At the Mixed Court on Thursday morning before the deputy magistrate Mr. Chang, and Mr. Barchet, American Assessor, a native constable in Hongkew District was charged with having in his possession a hard, box-wood facsimile of the iron stamp used for stamping public 'rickshas for the quarter ending August of this year, with intent to use the same for the purpose of defrauding the Municipal Council. Inspector Ramsay, who prosecuted, desired that exemplary punishment be meted out. Prisoner was sentenced to receive 100 blows and a month's cangue, the latter to be divided into 10 days at each of the three principal police stations.

   On Friday morning before the deputy magistrate Mr. Chang, and Mr. Mayers, the British Assessor, a native shop-keeper in the Kiukiang Road was charged with forging the trade-mark of Messrs. A. R. Burkill & Sons on several bars of soap, and selling the same at Chinkiang, Ningpo, and here.  Detective Inspector Wood stated that there was a quantity of soap on the premises of the accused and about three boxes of bar soap with the chop mentioned, besides the box then in Court. Several wooden stamps were produced, and among them was one bearing a very close resemblance to that of the American Trading Company. Mr. Burkill, who prosecuted, was quite willing to accept the decision of the Court, providing the shop-keeper was prevented from using his firm's trade-marks again. Prisoner was fined $100, and all soap bearing the chops were confiscated. Four boxes were brought to Court, two of which bore on the outside the Chinese mark of the American Trading Company, viz. Mou-sing, foreign hong.

   A mafoo was charged with carelessly driving a pony and carriage on the North Szechuen Road on the 8th instant, thereby colliding with and damaging complainant's (Mr. J. C. Shea's) bicycle to the extent of $15. Fined $20 damages.

   Two actors and a music-hall proprietor were charged, the former with reciting and singing immoral songs, etc., in a music-hall, No. 306-7 Foochow Road, on the evening of the 5th instant, the latter, being the proprietor, for allowing such to take place on his licensed premises. Inspector Wilson stated that the way they were found out was through the Chinese newspapers mentioning the fact, and in consequence detectives were placed there. The actors were fined $10 each, the owner $20.

   Mr. P. Sys brought a civil case against a native carpenter named Yung Kee, for breach of contract regarding the making of some small medicine boxes with compartments for holding a dozen bottles each. Mr. Sys stated he had made a contract with Yung Kee to make about 200 boxes as own sample shown, at the rate of Tls. 10 per 100 boxes. Defendant had made one box, and that being satisfactory, he had told him to make the rest; defendant did so, and placed them in Mr. Sys's godown without his knowledge, although Mr. Sys paid him Tls. 20 for the 200. Some time after, upon seeing them, Mr. Sys was much surprised to notice that they were not up to the sample, being so badly made that it was impossible to place bottles in them, and defendant refusing to fulfil the contract he had brought him before the Court. Defendant was ordered to pay Tls. 10 in compensation to complainant, and to take 100 boxes back.

 

North China Herald, 19 June 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 12th June.

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

R. v. LOFTUS.

   Bernard Loftus. A.B. of the sailing ship Arracan, was brought up charged with being drunk and incapable on the Tiendong Road on the 10th inst. He was also charged by the master Captain Donald, with being absent without leave since the 31st ult.

   Sergeant Gilfillan, on being sworn, deposed that at 8.15 a.m. on Saturday the accused was found lying in a garbage heap drunk and incapable, with neither shoes nor hat, and that some twenty Chinese were standing around him. There was a warrant out for his arrest.

   Captain Donald said that the prisoner was an A.B. on board of his ship and that he had taken out a warrant for his arrest, as he had been absent since the 31st ult. The vessel would sail in about eight or nine days and he wanted the prisoner kept in custody until they were ready for sea.

   His Worship - We don't keep men in custody unless an offence has been committed.

   In reply to his Worship, prisoner admitted having nothing to say in defence, but that he had been on a foolish drinking bout.

   His Worship to prisoner - The prison is the best place for you.

   Inspector Ramsay laid a claim for sixty cents before the Court, stating it was for prisoner's food, as he was too drunk to be brought up on Saturday.

   His Worship ordered prisoner to be locked up until his ship was ready for sea and to pay all expenses incurred by him.

R. v. RUTTEN SINGH.

   Rutten Singh, unemployed, and of no fixed abode, was brought up on remand with wilfully and maliciously cutting and wounding Hernan Singh, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, off the Foochow Road at 8.30 p.m. on the 7th inst.

   Inspector Wilson asked that the case be remanded as Dr. Macleod certified that the complainant would not be able to appear for another week.

   Tota Singh was then called as a witrness and stated that accused and complainant at the time mentioned were both very drunk. That he was behind then and saw them putting hands on each other. The complainant had in his hand a glass bottle. Through intoxication the complainant fell with the bottle under him. Afterwards the police came up.

   His Worship - It is necessary to have a remand.

   Inspector Wilson informed his Worship that on the previous hearing the Chinese witness deposed there were five Indians in all. He (Wilson) had since learnt that the remaining two Indians came on the scene after the affair and consequently knew nothing about it.

   His Worship - I must remand this case for a week, namely, until the 19th nst., on the same terms allowed by the Assistant Judge at the previous trial.

   Prisoner was again released on bail.

13th June.

R. v. OMAN AND GRAVEER.

   Oscar Oman, A.B. and Robert Graveer, A.B. of the British sailing-ship Muskoka, and Semantha, respectively, were charged with being under the influence of liquor and with wilfully damaging a private 'ricksha to the amount of $10 on Broadway on the 12th inst.

   Both of the accused denied the charge if drunkenness, but admitted breaking the 'ricksha.

   P.C. 39 sworn, said that, at 6.30 the previous evening, he apprehended the prisoners on Broadway, on the Chinese owner of the 'ricksha giving them in custody for breaking the vehicle. They were under the influence of liquor but went quietly with him to the station. Both shafts were broken through one of the prisoners tipping backwards in the 'ricksha, it having no spar behind. Both went away after the accident.

   The 'ricksha coolie stated that he left the vehicle in the road while he got a drink of tea in a shop, and during his absence the prisoners broke both shafts. He caught hold of one of the accused, who threatened to strike him. At the same time one of the shop apprentices called the police.

   The prisoners stated that the damage was accidentally done, and that they did not know to whom the 'ricksha belonged.

   P.C. 39 said the accused had 60 cents in their possession when taken to the station.

   His Worship ordered them both to be put on board of their respective vessels and to pay between them $3 damages.

14th June.

R. v. REILLY.

   Ralph Reilly, A.B. of the sailing ship Semantha, was charged with being absent without leave since the 6th inst.

   Detective Gilfillan deposed having arrested the prisoner on warrant.

   Captain Crowe stated that the prisoner had been absent from the vessel without leave since the 6th instant and that he wished him to be put on board as the ship was on the eve of sailing.

   Prisoner, who had nothing to say in defence, was fined six days' pay and ordered to be out on board.

17th June.

R. v. SIMPSON.

   William Simpson, A.B. of the steamer Robert Anderson, was charged on a warrant with being absent without leave from his ship since the night of the 14th inst.

   Captain J. Morgan, master of the above vessel, deposed to the man being absent.

   Prisoner was fined six days' pay and ordered to be put on board of his vessel.


 

North China Herald, 19 June 1899

COURT OF ENQUIRY.

Shanghai, 15th June.

Before E. H. Burrows, ES., Police Magistrate.

   The Magistrate sat to hold an enquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act on a complaint issued by two of the seamen of the Muskoka of mal-treatment received by them from the officers of the vessel; also on behalf of the Captain in charges against the seamen.

William Baker, sworn, stated that he was an American and that he had nothing to say against the Captain but lots against the mate. On one occasion on a stormy night the mate hit him when aloft furling the upper topsail. The mate had some trouble on deck, and whether he was mad or drunk he could not say, but whilst he was reaching over for the gasket at the yardarm the mate kicked him three times in the ribs, and had he not caught hold of the lift he must have fallen to the deck. Another time he was taking a capstan bar out of the rack and in doing so accidentally knocked the mate. He apologised to the mate, who then knocked him down on the deck, kicked him in the head and jumped upon him. (Witness pointed to scar received through the kick.) He then stated that he had been subjected to kicks and abuse throughout the voyage. 

   In reply to the Magistrate he said he knew nothing about a sailing ship having previously been an apprentice on board of American steamers. He shipped in New York as an A.B. and at the time affirmed he was no sailor, but was told that he would be all right and he would have the opportunity to learn seamanship.

   Captain Crowe, in reply to His Worship, affirmed that the man had signed as A.B. and had had his pay reduced to $1 per month as he knew not a quarter of the ropes on board, and was as ignorant of seamanship as his (the Captain's) boots.

   Baker replied that those who shipped him knew that beforehand.

   His Worship - You say the Captain knew of your incompetency when engaging you?

   Baker - Yes, sir.

   Captain - When the old crew were paid off and new men shipped, I was sick - in fact I had been sick most of the time in New York. I sent an order with the Shipping Master as I was ill in bed at the time.

   His Worship - You say you had no means of judging their capabilities?

   Captain - They were represented to me as A.B. they are screwed up to declare themselves as such.

   Baker than avowed that he went to a Mr. Williams and asked him for a ship. The vessel was a Nova Scotian and could not get a crew. The boarding master stated it would be a good chance for him to learn seamanship, and the British Consul put him on the articles as an A.B.

   Hans Kopperman, an A.B. was next sworn. He said he had served 11 years at sea and stated that immediately on going on board and before he had a chance to put his clothes away the mate came to the forecastle door and ordered him to sweep the snow off the decks. He protested, and the mate then kicked him down on deck and jumped upon him. The mate assaulted him because they (the crew said they could no work just then. On another occasion when the vessel was running before the wind the mate accused him of being a point and a half off the course and then struck him three times with a broom-shank, and another time when sick and wanting to go off duty he (the mate) kicked him.

   Juke Veschoere, sworn, stated that when on the topsail yard furling sail the boatswain kicked him and also that the captain struck him with his fist when steering.

   Captain - I have several times been exasperated, and once threw him away from the wheel.  We have had a lot of trouble with the men.

   Veschoere added that, in connection with the furling of a royal staysail, the mate struck him with his fist and knocked a tooth out.

   Capt. Crowe was then sworn and said regarding the charged against himself and the officers, that he knew nothing about the men when they came on board, but that from the moment they arrived they were continually thieving and fighting amongst themselves. As for the charges against the mate he, like himself, had been repeatedly exasperated. He (the Captain) had forgotten the circumstances concerning the alleged striking with his fists.

   His Worship - Do you admit striking the men with your fists?

   Captain - I may have given them a slap.

   His Worship - Men don't usually administer a slap, or hit with the open hand.

   Captain - The mate and one of the men had a row, and the mate hit him, but what the row was about he could not say. He also noted that one man had stabbed one of his mess during the voyage.

   His Worship - This is a serious affair; I am surprised you have not reported it to the officials here.

   Captain - The man stabbed the other in the region of the heart and I have the dagger on board. They were continually fighting amongst themselves. The man also cut the boatswain in the hand and in the back. I warned the fellow and entered the occurrence in the official log-book.

   His Worship - I want to ask you how these men came ashore when they were taken on board yesterday by the constable; their statement is that you told them to go ashore.

 This the master denied.

   Baker then affirmed that he had not been on board all night as the mate cursed him and threatened that if he came back he could punch his brains out. On that account he did not return to the ship.

   An old Italian seaman said that the Captain told him to go ashore when standing by the poop, and that he (the Captain) threatened he would not give him a cent.

   His Worship (to Mr. Brun, constable) - When you put the men on board who did you see?

   Mr. Brun replied that some of the men when on board commenced to work quietly. As he was getting into the sampan he was called back by one of the men, who stated that the boatswain was at the forecastle wanting to fight. He spoke to the boatswain and told the men so long as the boatswain did them no harm they were to remain on board.

   His Worship - Captain Crowe, we are not going to have any of this trouble on board of your vessel. It must be thoroughly understood with yourself and your officers that if there is any more of this I shall deal with them and any further ill-treatment will be at their peril. From information received from Mr. Brun a bad impression has been left on my mind. My warning to the officers of the vessel is as serious as it can be. In case of fresh ill-treatment and the men have a charge, they must be given every facility to come ashore and prefer it. If they have a charge they must bring it to Mr. Carvill, who will now see to the paying off of those men the Shipping Act permits. The remainder of the crew must go back to the ship and do their duty.

 

North China Herald, 19 June 1899

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 15th June.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

HORSE BAZAAR CO., LTD. v. COLLINS.

   This was a claim against Mr. H. B. Collins for Tls. 68, balance of account in respect of the purchase of certain ponies.

   Defendant admitted liability and offered to pay $20 at once, and the balance by monthly instalments of a like amount.

   His Lordship ordered the defendant to pay $20 now, to give a guarantee for payment of the balance by instalments, and adjourned the case for a week.

16th June.

CHANG KEE v. GOLDSTEIN.

   This was a suit in which the plaintiff, Chang Kee, claimed $100, the balance of a promissory note given him by the defendant, Marcio Goldstein.

   His Honour stated that the bill was not a promissory note and he could not deal with it as such, and that a bill had to be under $100 to be taken before the Civil Summary Court, but if the plaintiff would lessen the amount to $99.99 he could go on with the case.

   This the plaintiff agreed to.

   His Honour - Mr. Goldstein, you have given the plaintiff a note promising to pay after the removal to your entire satisfaction of the graves from the land you purchased from him on the 8th of March, 1899, the sum of $150, and plaintiff has already received $50 from you. Have the said graves been removed?

   Defendant - Yes, sir.

   His Honour - Then you will have to pay him.

   Defendant - I am not saying I will not pay. I am willing to pay, only I have not received the amount of land I purchased.

   His Honour - You say the graves have been removed, and here is a clear case of a promise to pay on removal of the graves. If you don't pay I shall make an execution against you.

   Defendant - I have not the amount of land.

   His Honour - I want to see the proof of that in writing.

   Defendant - I have not got it in writing. I trust to my Chinese broker who talks English. I cannot read Chinese, so I left the transaction with him.

   His Honour - I will adjourn the case until Tuesday morning, and (to the interpreter) inform the plaintiff that the defendant says he has not received the quantity of land he contracted for, and that I have given Mr. Goldstein until Tuesday to prove that.

   Defendant - If I were able to pay the sum of $2,286 I could easily pay another $100. I have no agreement and I have no European documents. I trusted to my broker to act as a gentleman and make the purchase for me.

   His Honour - I should say you owe the money and that you had better pay.

 

North China Herald, 19 June 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 12h June.

Before A. H. White, Esq., Deputy Consul-General (Acting Judicially),

THE U.S. PEOPLE v. WINNE.

   James Winne, seaman, of the U.S.S. Monocacy, arrested on a warrant, was charged with absenting himself from his ship on the 10th inst., also with assaulting P. Sgt. W. Ross whilst in the execution of his duty in the charge-room at the Central Police Station, at 2 p.m. on the same date.

   The charge being proved,

   His Worship pointed out to prisoner the seriousness of the charge and said that he was liable to twelve months' imprisonment, but in this case he would fine prisoner G.$5 and costs, and to be sent on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 26 June 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 19th June.

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

R. v. SINGH.

   Rutten Singh again answered to his bail charged with assaulting and wounding Hernam Singh on the 7th inst.

   Inspector Wilson asked for further remand as the complainant was too ill to attend. 

   The case was remanded for one week.

21st June.

R. v. NORMEA.

   John Normea, A.B. belonging to the British ship Karoo, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway on the previous day and assaulting a Sikh constable in the execution of his duty.

   His Worship, after hearing the evidence, ordered the accused to be out on board his ship.

 

North China Herald, 26 June 1899

THE MIXED COURT.

   At the Mixed Court on Monday morning, before Mr. Weng (Magistrate) and Mr. Mayers (British Assessor), a native was charged with having 10,000 spurious cash in his possession in Fearon Road on the 16th inst. Prisoner was arrested by a native constable, whilst on his way from the steamer by which he had arrived from Wenchow. He was handed over to the City magistrate.

   A woman a short time ago petitioned the magistrate to punish some men who, she said, had robbed her of about $250 in jewellery, etc. A man was in consequence arrested who stated the loss was through gambling, but the amount was not so great as made out. The case came on for a second time yesterday and the man was given 300 blows; while the woman (an amah) is to be kept in custody until the arrest of the others implicated in the gambling, which took place in the British Consulate compound among the native servants employed there.

  On Wednesday morning, before Mr. Mayers (British Assessor) and Mr. Weng (Magistrate), a native was charged with steaking a box containing a quantity of gold, silver, jade, and pearl jewellery, valued at $1,600, the property of complainant, from 298 Hankow Road, on the 1st inst. and another man with unlawfully receiving about $$200 of the jewellery, well-knowing same to have been stolen. The latter had sold some pearls worth $200 to a gold shop in Honan Road for $65, besides some gold bracelets, and the shopkeeper making no appearance at the Court as ordered, a summons was applied for by the police, and granted by the Magistrate. The thief had formerly been charged on three occasions at the Mixed Court; once with stealing $2,000 of jewellery, being punished with 50 blows and two weeks. The magistrate now sentenced him to receive 500 blows and six months', his accomplice receiving two months'. 

   In the afternoon a complicated case of a ginseng transaction amounting to Tls. 35,000 between Chinese and Coreans came before the Court, and as the arbitrator appointed by the defendants (Coreans) was not satisfactory the case was proceeded with and judgment given in favour of the plaintiff, for whom Mr. T. Morgan Phillips appeared. The sum to be handed over to plaintiff is about Tls. 3,000.

   On Thursday morning before Dr. Barchet (U.S. Assessor) and Mr, Weng (Magistrate), a respectably dressed unemployed native was charged with extorting money from a woman by means of threats.  Complainant started she had given him $6 on the 1st of April, and he had demanded on the 20th of May last a further sum of $30, threatening, unless she complied, to inform her husband that she was unfaithful. Prisoner was sentnenced to 500 blows and six months' imprisonment.

   On Friday morning before Mr. Chang (deputy magistrate) and Mr. S. F. Mayers (British Assessor) a mud contractor employed by a Parsee firm was charged by Inspector Mellows with filling up an enclosure on the foreshore after having been ordered to stop. A fine of $30 was imposed.

   Six notorious rowdies were charged with others not in custody, with banding themselves together for the purpose of extorting money from persons, and also with being concerned in feloniously shooting at and doing grievous bodily harm to a man on the North Soochow Road on the 22nd inst. by Detective Wood and two native detectives. Inspector Ramsay prosecuted, and said one of the men was well-known. Photos were produced in Court of several other men concerned but not yet arrested. He hoped soon to have about 20 more men arrested, when perhaps it could be shown that, among the number, were those who had perpetrated the murder in Sinkiang Road on the 25th of last May. The injured man was unable to attend, being at present in St. Luke's Hospital. The case was remanded.

   Two men belonging to the Yi Ta Steamboat Co. were charged on suspicion with stealing $1,230 worth of jewellery. The prosecutor stated that, while on the journey from Shanghai to Soochow, the boat they were in sprung a leak when near Quinsan, consequently she was run ashore and the cargo and luggage landed and then transferred to another boat. Noticing one of his trunks had been broken open, on examination he found a small box missing which contained his jewellery. The loss was reported to the Shroff of the boat and to the Company's office at Soochow, when a disabled boat was met with and, upon enquiry, the box was produced containing some mountings, the stones of which were missing. The magistrate held the Yi Ta Company responsible and ordered them to compensate plaintiff to the value of the property stolen, sentence to be passed on the two men when the money is recovered.

   A civil case - J. A. Harvie v. Chung Kee, - was settled in favour of the former, Chung Kee being ordered to pay the promissory note, produced, for Tls. 200, for cargo received by him in 1897.

 

North China Herald, 26 June 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 19th June.

Before J. Goodnow, Esq., Acting Judicially.

U.S. PEOPLE v. PETERSEN.

   Olaf Petersen, A.B. on board the U.S.S. Monocacy, was yesterday charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway, at 11.15 a.m. on the 18th inst. also with damaging a window in the Hongkew cells to the amount of 50cents on the same date.

   His Worship imposed a fine of $5 (Mex.) and 50 cents damage for the window, also prisoner to bear costs of arrest and being put on board.

 

North China Herald, 26 June 1899

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

Shanghai, 20th June. 

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

CHANG KEE v. GOLDSTEIN.

   This was a suit on remand in which the plaintiff, Chang Kee, claimed $100, the balance of a promissory note given him by the defendant, Marcio Goldstein.

   His Honour to defendant - You apply at the Registry for a piece of land measuring 3 mow 3 fun to be put in your name, and you say because you have not a piece measuring 3 mow 7 fun you withhold the money. I cannot understand you.

   Defendant - I stopped the $100 because I saw the thing was wrong. I am quite willing to pay the money, only I want the piece of ground for which the Chinese have no papers.

   His Honour - You will have to sue them in the Mixed Court. I must give judgment with costs for the plaintiff and if you have any claim, if you can make out that you have suffered in any way, you must take your case to the Mixed Court and tell Mr. Mayers and you will get justice. 

 

North China Herald, 26 June 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 16th June.

Before J. Goodnow, ESq., Acting Judicially.

IN RE SHUFELDT.

   Mr. Nelson, (Messrs. Stokes & Platt) on behalf of Ching Ching, the landlord of No. 13 Miller Road, applied to the Court for an order that his client, as the landlord, should be admitted as preferential creditor in the estate, and that he should therefore be paid in full. In the course of a long and able argument the learned Counsel quoted Statute 8, Chapter 14, which was still unrepealed and in force at the time of the severance of the connection between the United States and Great Britain.

   Mr. Goodnow held that English common law before the severance applied.

   Mr. A. B. Ross, as the holder of a Bill of Sale, contended that he was entitled to priority. It appeared that the goods were sold under an execution, and that the auctioneer had notice.

   Mr. Goodnow reserved judgment, and ordered that the creditors should be notified in order that they might wish to raise objections.

20th June.

   Mr. Goodnow decided that, after small payments to Chinese and the fees of the Court, the rent must be a preferential claim. He adjourned the discussions as to whether the execution creditor, the Bill of Sake holder, or the ordinary creditors, were next for preference.

23rd June.

   Another sitting in this case took place, Mr. Hanson, for Mr. A. B. Ross, the holder of a bill of sale on Mr. Shufeldt's private effects, contending that his client's claim had priority.

   As to another claim by Mr. G. W. Bennett for $350, it was stated that M. W. S. Collins, of the firm of Shufeldft, Boeck & Co., had admitted the liability, but Mr. Shufeldt disputed it, and the case was adjourned for the production of evidence as to whether Mr. Bennett was a partner.

 

North China Herald, 3 July 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 26th June.

Before John Goodnow, Esq., U.S. Consul-General. 

IN RE SHUFELDT.

At the resumed hearing of the above, His Honour held that Mr. A. B. Ross' claim of Tls. 800 for an advance on mortgage could not be sustained as a preferential claim and that as Mr. W. S. Collins' confession of judgment would not hold in that Court, Mr. W. S. Collins being a British subject, and Mr. Shufeldt denying the claim, Mr. G. W. Bennet would have to push his case again but in a different form. His Honour gave Mr. Hansin (who appeared for Mr. A. B. Ross) the usual 24 hours of he wished to appeal.

 

North China Herald, 3 July 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 26th June.

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

R. v. MURSA SINGH.

   Mursa Singh, coal-trimmer of the steamer Mazagon, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and behaving in an indecent manner on the Whangpoo Road at 4 p.m. on the 24th inst.

   Native constable 355 deposed to arresting the prisoner in the condition charged and added that he refused to go to the station quietly.

   Prisoner, having admitted being drunk, was ordered to be put on board his vessel.

R. v. RUTTEN SINGH.

   Rutten Singh, unemployed, again surrendered to his bail, being charged with wilfully and maliciously cutting and wounding Hernam Singh on the 7th int.

   Inspector Wilson informed his Worship that the complainant, Hernam Singh, was not discharged from the Hospital  but he was able to appear and give evidence.

   Hernam Singh stated that on the night of the 7th inst., he and the accused had been drinking; they quarrelled, and in the scrimmage the accused  knocked him down and he fell on a bottle which had dropped from his hand and broken in the fall. He knew Tota Singh who had previously given evidence.

   His Worship - I am quite satisfied  with the disclosures from the evidence given, and have come to the conclusion that the wound resulted from a drunken brawl; there is no evidence that the injuries were inflicted by the accused. The evidence of Tota Singh was that they were both drunk and  that the fall was the cause of the accident. I must discharge the accused.

27th June

R.  v. MACDONALD.

   This was a case of trespass and assault bright by a Japanese woman, Ema Nouunien, against Eldina Macdonald, a British subject.

   Complainant stated that two sailors  came to her house to buy a bicycle about 6 p.m. on the 24th inst., soon afterwards they went away promising to return  in two or three days with the purchase money. An hour later the defendant came and accused her of sending two sailors to her house. She denied this, whereupon the defendant knocked her down and assaulted her. Complainant screamed for assistance and a Japanese woman came and separated them. She, the complainant, sent three times to the police station; finally the sergeant on duty sent a constable to make inquiries. The constable gave defendant's name and address to enable her to take out a summons.

   Moji Makato, Japanese, said she knew both parties slightly, she also corroborated complainant's evidence.

   Defendant deposed to going to the Japanese woman's house as she was told  the woman there was the one who sent the sailors to her house. The Japanese invited her in, and bowed profusely. She asked the woman why she sent the sailors round; as the woman denied doing so, she smacked her face for telling a lie.

   Defendant's Chinese cook made a similar statement.

   In the cross-examination both complainant and defendant lost their self-control and had to be silenced on three occasions by the usher.

   His Worship to defendant - I must fine you $10 and costs.

R. v. TAKA SINGH.

   This was a case of drunkenness and disorderly conduct against Taka Singh, Indian watchman.

   P.C. 310 stated that at 10 o'clock on the previous night in the Soochow Road he saw a crowd collected round the prisoner who was drunk and striking he Chinese with a bamboo cane. He tried to arrest him but had to get the assistance of another constable. Prisoner would not go to the station.

   Inspector Wilson stated he was in the charge room when the prisoner was brought in. The accused was very drunk.

   Prisoner admitted being drunk and hoped the magistrate  would be lenient as he was a new arrival having been in Shanghai only a few days.

   His Worship - I shall fine you this time and not send you to prison. You are guilty of most disgraceful behaviour in the streets. You are fined $5 and costs, or the alternative, a week's imprisonment.

28th June.

R. v. HALL.  

    This was a case in which the defendant's mafoo was arrested by the police on the 26th inst. and charged at the Mixed Court with working a pony whilst  in an unfit condition. The case against the mafoo was dismissed as the defendant at the Mixed Court took all responsibility on himself and demanded  that proceedings should be taken against him in this Court.

    Inspector Matheson said the defendant, Mr. H. H. Hall, was charged with causing a pony to be worked in a cart while in an unfit condition, it being lame on the near fore leg and in a very poor condition, and consequently unfit for work, on the 26th inst. at about 8.30 a.m.

   Sergeant Spottiswoode, sworn, stated that while on mounted duty on the morning in question he saw the defendant's pony in a milk-cart on the Hongkew side of Garden Bridge coming from the Yangtszepoo direction. As it was in a lame condition he followed it up and finally arrested it and took it to the Central Station, where the animal was immediately unharnessed and examined.

   Cross-examined by the defendant the Sergeant stated that he did not hail the mafoo at the Garden Bridge but followed him to the Nanking Road to make sure the pony was lame. He kept the animal at the Central Station until it was time to go to the Mixed Court, which was at 10 a.m. He had the animal washed and rubbed down. He did not give it any water as it would not be politic to do so while in a heated condition, neither did he give it any food as he supposed it had been fed before leaving.

   Mr. S. W. Pratt, M.R.C.V.S., sworn,  deposed that about 1.30 p.m. on the 26th inst. he examined the pony and found it lame on the near fore leg and in a very poor condition. He gave a certificate to that effect. The pony was at least 14 or 15 years old.

   Cross-examined by defendant he stated  that he examined and trotted it and simply found the pony was lame, and that its general condition was poor.

   Inspector Matheson informed his Worship that the defendant's mafoo had had his attention drawn by a foreigner to the condition of the pony about ten days previously.

   The mafoo, cautioned by the Court, said the pony was in good condition when it left in the morning and that only on returning from Yangtszepoo was the lameness noticed. He drove it slowly after that. He denied being previously spoke to by a foreigner on its condition. When the animal was bought about three years previously it showed a defect when kneeling.

   Mr. Hall, sworn, stated he had had the pony about three years in his service. It was naturally a slim built and nervous animal, and did not carry much flesh. It had a lameness produced by an old set-fast in the joint caused by a fall. There was no pain connected with it. The complaint was common with 'bus horses. He saw the pony leave on that particular morning and it was in its usual form. Afterwards he found it in the Mixed Court in a horrid state and standing in the sun. He did not get the animal home until 3.30 p.m. and then it was a pitiable sight.  It was properly treated by him. His mafoo had no whip. It had no sores anywhere.   There was no reason for him to stint it of food as there was always plenty of fodder loose on his premises. He generally left about 5 a.m. and returned at 8 a.m. On the morning in question he was late in returning and the mafoo was driving it slowly on account of its lameness.

   Cross-examined by Inspector Matheson, he said the animal hurt its knee about three years previously, that he  treated the complaint as he had been doctoring horses for years. He had no Vet certificate but he had doctored horses for years until there were so many experts about. It was only of late that Shanghai had had professional talent. His mafoo did not report ten days previously that a foreigner had pointed out the lame state of the pony.

   His Worship to defendant - I am satisfied from the evidence given by the Police and by the veterinary surgeon that the animal was lame. The maximum penalty for working an animal in an unfit state is [£5], but as this is your first offence I will fine you $15 and costs with a strong caution against further cruelty.

 

North China Herald, 10 July 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 4th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

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

This was an action to enforce a Judgment of the High Court of Justice in England in respect of unpaid calls on certain shares, the defendant being Mr. S. Bowness. Mr. J. C. Hanson (Messrs. Dowdall, Hanson & MacNeil) represented the plaintiffs, and the defendant speared in person.

   Mr. Hanson stated that the judgment was for £617 2s. 2d., together with £4 14s. 0d. taxed costs. Presumably the same course of procedure had been adopted in the present case as in some others before the Court in October,1896. He put in a copy of the original writ and an office copy of the judgment.

   Mr. J. W. R. Taylor, Manager of the Bank of China and Japan in Shanghai, said he held a power of attorney from the liquidator in the present suit. The defendant had paid some money on account, which left £617 2sd. 10d. due, exclusive of interest.

      Mr. Hanson, in reply to his Lordship, said the amount due was £617 2s. 10d., plus £7 8s 8d. and interest on the judgment from the 2nd of September,1896.

   His Lordship remarked that as it was a home judgment it was usual to allow only 4 per cent.

   Mr. Bowness said that he was served with the writ when in London, and instructed a solicitor to act for him, since when he had heard nothing of the case.

   His Lordship said that according to the judgment no appearance had been entered. If there was anything wrong, the defendant would have his remedy against the solicitor, but in face of the judgment of the High Court he (His Lordship) had nothing to do but enforce it.

   Mr. Hanson observed that it was entirely Mr. Bowness' fault that he had been brought there for he had not replied to any letters written to him or offered to make any arrangements.

   Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 July 1899

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

Shanghai, 4th July

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

BHAGET SINGH v. ABDOOL RAHMAN

   In this case the plaintiff, Bhaget Singh, claimed $16.20 from the defendant, Abdool Rahman, for two tins of ghee.

   Defendant denied owing the amount, not having received the ghee.

   Plaintiff stated he delivered the ghee personally to the defendant on the 2nd of June, the defendant gave no written receipt for the ghee but promised to pay at the end of the month.

   Two witnesses for the plaintiff were called, both of whim admitted seeing the ghee handed to the defendant, but differed as to locality, one stating the ghee was delivered at the Municipal Gaol and the other at the plaintiff's house.

   The case was adjourned until Friday for the evidence of one of the Gaol warders.

7th July.

JORGENSEN v. MARTEL.

   Originating out of a summons against Joseph Martel, mate of the s.s. Muskola, alleging that he caused injury to Harold Jorgensen, A.B. on the vessel, whilst on a voyage from New York to Shanghai, his Honour had before him this case, in which Captain Crowe, master of the ship, was also concerned.

   His Honour (to plaintiff) - I understand you to say that you are suing for money damages against the captain and mate? 

   Plaintiff - Yes, sir.

   His Honour - In this suit the complainant comes here claiming damages against the master and mate, so I shall have to take it as a civil suit, but before going into that I should like to say that it appears from that evidence given yesterday that there was a strong presumption of cruelty on board this ship on the part of the master and mate towards the men. I do not say that it was proved, but there was certainly a presumption that the men had been treated in an indifferent, if not a cruel, manner. If that was so I should like to point out that facts of that sort are very difficult for a magistrate to judge of. But the law provides a proper remedy.  A Naval Court might have been summoned. The master or the men can go to a Consul or the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships at any time and ask for a naval court to be held, and if they satisfy the naval officer of the Court that there has been cruelty a naval court will be summoned.  A naval court is a very competent tribunal to enquire into such a state of things.

   In the present case the crew, I believe, are separated and gone; there are very few of them left. The ship ought to have left this morning, and I cannot take the responsibility of stopping her now for that purpose. I asked the captain if he had logged the injury to the man in the present case and he said no.

(To the mate) - Will you look through the log-book and see if the case of frost-bite is entered?

   The mate looked through the book and said it was not entered.

   His Honour - It ought to have been logged. The man has evidently suffered a severe injury, and I shall fine the captain $20 for not logging it.

(To the complainant) - Have you got any medical evidence?

   Complainant produced a medical certificate from Dr. Milles.

   His Honour said the certificate was to the effect that the complainant had been suffering from necrosis of the end bone of the finger; the small bone had been removed, and the finger was now nearly well.  Evidence would now be taken.

   William Baker, formerly on the Muskola, and now wearing the uniform of a United States bluejacket, was then called and sworn.

   His Honour - It is said that when the ship was at New York and you were lying out in the harbour there you had very hard weather. Just tell us what happened with regard to the treatment of this man Jorgensen.

   Witness - He froze his finger up aloft and when he came down he was sent up again by the mate.

   His Honour - Howe long was he up again?

   Witness - I think he went up until dinner time - twelve o'clock. He was up about half-past nine in the morning. The riggers had just come on board. I had no idea how long he was up there after he had shown the mate his frozen hand, but it was, perhaps, about an hour.

   His Honour -  Do you remember that his right hand was very bad and that he had to rub it all night to keep it alive?

   Witness - Yes, I remember that.

   His Honour - What was the condition of the man's hand after a week; was it recovered?

   Witness - No, it was in pretty bad shape. Before we sailed he wanted to go ashore to go and see a doctor, but he was refused the privilege.

   His Honour - The Captain would not let him ashore?

   Witness - No, sir.

   His Honour - After you has got off and into better weather, was his hand still bad?

   Witness - Yes, very bad.

   His Honour - What was done for him then?

   Witness - All that I saw done was for him to get a little salve for the first four weeks, and then he did not get anything after that.

   His Honour - Did he do any work?

   Witness - Yes, he worked the whole trip.

   Captain Crowe, who had a little while before entered the Court, said he would like to ask a question.

   His Honour (to the Captain) - I have just had to fine you $20 for not entering the injury in the log book.  Of course you know that any personal injury that happens on board must be entered in the log.

   The Captain - How did you know that he asked for permission to go ashore and see a doctor? You said I refused.

   Witness - I said that he told me.

   His Honour - It is quite clear. He says that the complainant told him, that you refused him permission to go ashore. That is evidence; he can say that the plaintiff is in court.

   The mate - At what hour *did you turn to?

   Witness - I do not remember. It was after breakfast, which is at eight o'clock.

   The mate - Did you see me drive the man aloft again?

   Witness - Yes.

   The mate - The man says he was aloft in the afternoon from one to four.

   Witness - So he was. He was up aloft in the afternoon again.

   His Honour - I have already referred to what might have been done in the matter of general charges of cruelty on board. That has not been done, and the plaintiff who has come here has elected to come into the Civil Court and claim damages against the captain and mate. There is nothing that appears to be a felony here. I do not see a felony can be made out. Therefore the plaintiff is at liberty, if he chooses to pursue his civil remedy for damages. There is no doubt that the man was sent aloft, and it appears to me he was ordered by the mate, to say the least of it in a very inconsiderate and recklessly indifferent manner. He had a bad hand, and it was necessary he should give his hand a rest to recover, and he was sent aloft again. 

   With regard to the captain there is no doubt the man ought to have been sent ashore. The man is going to live, perhaps, another thirty years or more. It is very hard that for want of proper medical attention he should lose the end of one finger. There is no doubt the captain and mate were exercising their functions, in sending this man aloft and in keeping him on board, in a recklessly indifferent manner with regard to his life and health, and they are liable for that. He suffered an injury in consequence of their recklessness. 

   The only question is what damages the man ought to get. It is a remote connection I acknowledge between what has happened four months ago and what had happened to his finger, but I shall give judgment against the captain and mate for $20 each, damages to be paid to the plaintiff.

   The Captain - May I ask you that my sister who is in the Shipping Office may be called with reference to his statement yesterday that he requested three or four times medical attendance. It is simply absurd, and my sister is here who helped to dress his finger, and to whom he made no such request whatever. I have witnesses.

   His Honour - I have settled this case. I cannot go into anything afresh. I have got the doctor's certificate and the evidence of two men, and I have got ample evidence that the man was not treated in a reasonable manner. You and the mate were responsible, and if you do not get any further results than what happened on this voyage, in my opinion you are getting off very lightly. You can go to a lawyer and to the Vice-Consul, but that has nothing to do with me. You will have to pay the amounts of $20, and the Mate will also have to pay $20.

   The Captain - My ship has already been detained a day, and I shall have to make an explanation to my owners.

   His Honour - You can do that, but I have told you what my decision is.

.  .  .  

BHAGET SINGH v. ANDOOL RAHMAN.

   This case, in which the plaintiff Bhaget Singh claimed $16.20 from the defendant Abdool Rahman for two tins of ghee was concluded.

   Warder 5 of the Municipal Gaol was called and stated he saw the plaintiff deliver two tins of ghee to the defendant at the Municipal Goal, the defendant receiving same as a purchase.

   Judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs.

 

North China Herald, 10 July 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai. 6th July.

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

R. v. JOSEPH MARTEL.

   This was a case in which Harold Jorgensen, A.B. of the Nova Scotia sailing ship Muskola, charged the chief mate, Joseph Martel, with causing him bodily harm.

   Capt. Crowe, in reply to His Honour stated that he had done all he could for the man, also that the case has not been entered in the Official Log.

   Harold Jorgensen, sworn, said that on the 10th of February he went on board of the Muskola, then lying in the stream at New York. He, along with the crew, was mustered aft to answer to their names. After the mustering he wanted to step aft to speak with the boarding master when the 3nd mate, who was drunk, set upon him and kicked him. He went forward, when the mate took a belaying pin and assaulted him with it. The following day, they (the crew) were set to work aloft. The weather was bitterly cold and he got his fingers frost-bitten. He came down on deck to rub his hands with snow, knowing from several experiments that to be the only remedy. The mate then ordered him aloft refusing to allow him to rub his hands with the snow, and as he had seen the mate assaulting his shipmates with a belaying pin, not wishing like treatment, again took to the rigging. The mate dared him to come down until he had finished his task, which lasted until 4 p.m., namely, over two hours. When he came down his whole hand was frozen. A shipmate rubbed his hand for him the best part of that night. The next morning he went to the Captain who gave him some salve. On the following day he again went aft and asked the Captain to go ashore to see a doctor and have his finger dressed, but his request was denied him. Finally the vessel sailed, and he was kept working all the time, having to do the same as the other men. On arrival in Shanghai the doctor ordered him to the hospital, where he still remained. In the hospital they found it necessary to amputate the finger.

   Capt. Crowe denied that the complainant ever asked to go ashore in New York.

   Complainant stated he had proof such was the case, unfortunately most of his comrades had left the port in another vessel but he still had two witnesses, one of whom had joined the Monocacy.

   Max Zschaber, witness, sworn, confirmed the principal statements made by the complainant, also that the mate used the vilest language towards him.

   Joseph Martel, mate, denied having sent the man aloft in an unreasonable manner.

   Capt. Crowe said the men had not been badly treated. They were fourteen days doing eight hours work, that he had employed a gang of riggers giving them £1 a day to do the crew's work, most of the time the men were in the forecastle keeping themselves warm by the fire.

   His Honour remanded the case to the following day in order to get a doctor's certificate. As the vessel was to sail at daylight he ordered her detention. Complainant was permitted to bring his other witness.

7th July.

R. v. HAYES.

   James Hayes, stoker, belonging to H.M.S. Hermione, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Hongkew Coffee House, and also assaulting Police constable No. 161, Indian, and Police constable No. 249, native, whilst in the execution of their duty.

   The evidence was to the effect that after being taken into custody the prisoner kicked and struck out at the constables. He admitted striking them, but said they were handling him very roughly.

   His Worship, as it was his first offence, fined him $5, which was at once paid.

 

North China Herald, 10 July 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 4th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

IN RE THE SHANGHAI SILK FILATURE CO. LTD., IN LIQUIDATION.

   This was a case in which Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for Messrs. A. C. Hunter and Paul Brandt, the Liquidators of the Shanghai Silk Filature Co, who asked the Court to determine whether Messrs. E. Iveson, A. S. Rankin, R. H. Artindale, and W. C. Ward are entitled to prove as creditors under conditions set out in the following petition and answer.  Mr. Platt (Messrs. Stokes and Platt) appeared for the persons claiming as creditors.

[Petition and Answer not transcribed; detailed accounts.]

His Lordship said it was quite plain from the clause set out in the petition that it was lawful for the lessors to re-enter upon the property and hold the same as if no indenture had been made. If they made the re-entry as a consequence of liquidation it was plain that the only remedy would be for breaches previous to their re-entry. It was plain that the terms upon which the Company had to give it up must be fulfilled, and the amount of the damage claimed by the new state of things would have to be a claim in the liquidation. 

   It appeared to His Lordship that when Messrs. Iveson & Co., wrote the Company might do certain things upon certain conditions, and it proceeded to do those things, that it must be taken as agreeing to the conditions. Therefore it must be taken as an agreement and the natural consequences would follow, the matter being referred to Chambers for the assessment of the amount.


 

North China Herald, 24 July 1899

LAW REPORTS.

J.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 17th July.

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

R. v. ROGERS.

   James H. Rogers, cook of the British sailing vessel Manchester, was charged with attempting to stab one of the crew, also with threatening to poison the crew.

[Alternative version of another report; not transcribed.]

   Prisoner - I deny all the accusations brought against me and would ask to be allowed legal advice. I want to take out a summons against the captain, officers, and crew for maltreatment, assault, and battery.

   His Worship said it was quite clear the prisoner had threatened the crew with violence but on the other hand he might have something to say in defence, so he would bind him over to keep the peace himself in $50 and another surety in like sum. The master had brought the men here and he would not be allowed to leave him on the community. The case was adjourned for one week to enable the prisoner to get the legal advice he requested.

Shanghai, 20th July.

R. v. MACKINTOSH.

   John Mackintosh, A.B. on the British sailing ship Crown of Germany, was charged with assaulting a 'ricksha coolie with his fists, also with threatening him with a knife on the Ewo Road on the afternoon of the 19th.

   The complainant stated he took the prisoner down to the new jetty in Yangtszepoo in his 'ricksha. When he asked for his fate prisoner refused and struck him; then prisoner pulled out his sheath-knife so complainant ran away. A Sikh policeman came up and arrested the sailor.

   Prisoner in defence said he was working aloft on board his ship when he was hurriedly called, along with a number of his shipmates, to go to the Shipping Office. He simply put on a coat to go ashore in, and, like the others, forgot he was carrying his sheath-knife.

   Another 'ricksha coolie gave evidence that the prisoner struck the complainant and also that he threw the witness' 'ricksha into the water and wounded witness in the hand with his knife.

   Inspector Ramsay informed the Court that the wound in the witness' hand could not have been inflicted by the blade of the prisoner's knife, it being simply an abrasion of the skin and might easily have been caused by the handle of the knife.

   Sikh constable 14 said he was on duty at 3.15 p.m. on the 19th at the corner of the Ewo Road when he saw a disturbance on the jetty. On going there he saw the accused had a knife in his hand which he took away from him. He arrested the prisoner, who appeared to have been drinking.

   Prisoner denied the accusation of drunkenness, also of brandishing the knife.

   His Worship said there was no doubt the prisoner had assaulted the complainant and drew his knife; it was a very serious offence, and he would sentence him to as fortnights' imprisonment with hard labour and to be put on board his ship when sailing. He would have to make some allowance to the 'ricksha coolies for loss of time, and he ordered that a dollar should be paid to each out of prisoner's wages.

21st July.

R. v. COTTIER.

   W. P. Cottier, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway at 4.30 p.m. on the 20th.

   P.C. 46 stated he found the accused sitting in an alleyway off Broadway drunk and incapable. A crowd of Chinese had collected round him and were making fun of him.

   Prisoner, who had been previously convicted, was fined $10 or in default fourteen days' imprisonment.

R. v. BUSBY.

   Alfred Busby, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and with damaging property at a lodging-house, 234 Dixwell Road, on the afternoon of the 20th inst.

   Complainant, a Chinese, stated she kept the lodging-house and prisoner had been staying there. She asked for payment, when he slapped her face. He was sober at the time. Afterwards he damaged property in the housed to the extent of one dollar. Prisoner owed 80 cents for lodging. She sent for the Police.

   Another Chinese, nephew of the complainant, was called, who said he witnessed the assault and the  damaging of the property.

   Native constable No. 542 said he was on duty at the Hongkew Bridge when the woman came to him and asked him to put a foreigner out of her house. Complainant did not want to press the charge when prisoner was taken to the station and prisoner was released. The prosecutrix came a second time and complained and witness had to call the aid of another constable to take him to the station. Prisoner did not seem drunk.

   Prisoner stated he was boarding with the complainant. At 3.30 p.m. he gave a coolie three or four cash to get a pot of tea when the house boy struck him over the head and arms with a club. He also said the constable who arrested him struck him in the face and a missionary witnessing the assault had laid a complaint with the Police Superintendent. He asked, when he was released, to be allowed to go back for the few things he had in the boarding house. Prisoner denied striking the complainant.

   His Worship said where there was no fire there was no smoke. The Chinese were not the sort of people to strike their lodgers on the head with clubs, that was not their way of doing business. He thought it was more than probable that the prisoner struck the woman, and the prisoner having been so many times before the Court, raised a decided presumption against him. Prisoner was sentnence to a week's hard labour and to  be made to pay for the damage done.

22nd July.

R. v. BRIANT.

   Henri Briant, A.B. of the British sailing vessel Crown of Germany, was charged with being absent from his ship without leave.

   John McIlgorm, master of the Crown of Germany, stated the prisoner had been absent from his ship without leave since the 18th inst. On the 19th he came on board at 8.30 a.m. and demanded his breakfast and created a disturbance with the cook. The Captain ordered the man to be kept on board but he went ashore immediately afterwards, and was not seen until brought on board by a detective on the evening of the 21st.

   Prisoner was fined eight day's pay and sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment and to be put on board his ship if leaving.

   There was also a charge of stabbing against the prisoner which was remanded until Wednesday.


 

North China Herald, 31 July 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 24th July.

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

R. v. SALMON AND KERRY.

   John Salmon, A.B., and Thomas Kerry, 3rd mate of the British sailing ship Crown of Germany, were charged with fighting with each other and creating a disturbance on Broadway at 9 p.m. on the 22nd.

   Sikh constable 186 stated that he saw the two men fighting on Broadway, and that a crowd of Chinese had gathered round them.

   Prisoners were fined $5 each and ordered to be put on board their ships.

25th July.

R. v, HAXTON AND HEALY.

   John Haxton and Fred Healy, A.B.s on the British sailing ship Crown of Germany, were charged with being absent without leave.

   John McIlgorm, master of the Crown of Germany, said the prisoners had absented themselves without leave during the recent typhoon, thereby endangering the ship. Prisoners, in defence, stated they wanted to go on board of their vessel but the sampan men demanded $2 each to take them on board and they could not afford the sum.

   Capt. McIlgorm informed the Court that four others of the crew had been ashore the same time and were able to return to the vessel.

   Prisoners were sentenced to a week's hard labour without the option of a fine.

R. v. COPE.

Mr. W. Cope, of Lane, Crawford & Co., was summoned by the Municipal Council for having an unmuzzled dog at large.

   Inspector Kelly stated that on Sunday morning the 16th inst., at about 1.30 o'clock two dog-catchers arrested the defendant's dog, which was unmuzzled, on the Markham Road near the Boat-house.

   The two dog-catchers deposed to finding the animal unmuzzled, to taking the same to the Police Station, and that the same morning the dog was sent to the Hongkew Station.

   Sikh constable 52, in charge of the dog-cart, corroborated the previous statements.

   Mr. Cope said the dog was an imported animal and during the hot weather he had kept it within an enclosed wire fence previously serving as a chicken run. At 10.30 on Saturday night the dog was safely secured and on Sunday morning at 8 o'clock the boy informed him the dog was missing. He telephoned to Inspector Kelly who replied that the dog had been caught and sent to Hongkew Station. He went to the Station and was informed  he would have to pay a fine of $10 in order to get the dog. He tendered a compradore's order under protest, but the sergeant in charge stated he had not the power to accept the same. He then asked for Inspector Ramsay, who met him very civilly in the matter and finally agreed to take the money order under protest. He had since been given to understand by the best advice that the Police had no power to impose the fine, consequently he refused to cash the compradore order.

   The dog had only been in the custody of the police a few hours and he thought $10 a most unreasonable charge; had $2 been demanded he would not have taken it amiss. He took every possible care of the animal and since the day it was imported it had never been in the Settlement. He thought he had done everything in his power to prevent the dog violating the Municipal Regulations. When the animal was caught it could not, by the evidence of the police, have been a dozen yards away from his house. In reply to his Worship the defendant admitted having received the dog without paying the fine.

   Inspector Ramsay produced an I.O.U. and handed same to his Worship.

   Defendant declared it had been his intention to pay the fine to the Police, only he had been told on no less an authority than the British Consul that the Police had not the power to inflict a fine on a foreigner. If fined it would have to be by the Court and not by the Police.

   In reply to His Worship, Inspector Ramsay said he received the I.O.U. in good faith as he knew Mr. Coper to be a reputable man, and added that he would as soon take the compradore's order from him as a $10 bill.

   His Worship, in giving judgment, said that it was not in the province of the Court to decide the power of the Municipal Council, and if the defendant wished to find out the extent of the Council's jurisdiction there was for that purpose the Court of Consuls. He said he felt bound to speak strongly against the action of the defendant. The Council had dealt with leniency in the matter. Whereas he, the defendant, had by his action dealt a blow at the good faith 

which it was essential to maintain in the Settlement, between the Council and foreigners. He considered defendant's action did him no credit.

   Defendant was fined $10, with costs.

26th July.

R. v. LOVELL AND ROUTLEDGE.

   John Lovell and James Routledge, late firemen of the Chinese steamer Haitien, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the evening of the 25th inst. in Broadway.

   In answer to the charge the men said they were sitting on the grass opposite the Sailors' Home out of the way of any one when they were arrested by the Police.

   Native constable 159 said that at 7. 15 p.m. on the 25th inst. the men were fighting one with the other. He ordered them to move when one of them threatened to strike him. He blew his whistle and a Sikh and a native constable came to his assistance.

   A foreign constable showed that one of the accused was taken out of The Travellers (public house) drunk by a Sikh constable in the morning.

   A Sikh constable deposed that the two men were drunk and lying down.

   Prisoners said they were staying at the Sailors' Home having been discharged from the Chinese cruiser and were to leave Shanghai by the next German mail. They had no money.

   His Worship - I must sentence you to a week's imprisonment, I would give you the option of a fine but you say you have no money.

R. v. WARD.

   Frank Ward, late greaser of the Chinese steamer Haitien, was charged with assaulting and obstructing P.C. 159 whilst in the execution of his duty in Broadway on the 25th inst.

   P.C. 159 said the accused was with the previous prisoners and was the most troublesome. He was drunk and attempted to strike another native constable.

   Prisoner said, in defence, he was an invalid with two broken ribs and under medical treatment. He was unable to strike anyone as he could barely wash his face.

   Sikh constable 187 stated that the prisoner was making a disturbance and had drawn a large crowd round him.

   Prisoner was fined $5 or in default a week's imprisonment.

R. v. BRIAND.

   Henri Briand, A.B. of the British sailing ship Crown of Germany, was charged with wilfully stabbing G. L. Dumoss, cook of the same vessel.

   Inspector Matheson informed the Court that the prisoner, who was charged with committing the deed on the 19th inst. was arrested on a warrant on the 21st.

   G.L. Dumoss, cook, stated that on the morning of the 19th he gave the men their breakfast, when at 8.30 the prisoner came to the galley and demanded something to eat. Complainant told the man to go forward as the food had already been served out to the crew. Prisoner then pushed his way into the galley; cleared the stove, broke three saucepans, and knocked him on top of the hot stove thereby burning his arm, after which the prisoner took a soup kettle of water and threw it over him. Complainant rushed on deck with the prisoner following who struck at him with a knife which fortunately was arrested by the buckle on his braces. Complainant stated the prisoner wanted to kill him, and that a Chinese blacksmith, who was working on board, witnessed the whole affair.

   Inspector Matheson here produced the braces worn by the complainant at the time and showed the Court the mark of the knife on the metal buckle.

   In reply to the Inspector complainant said he was in his galley when the prisoner assaulted him, and that after he was knocked down on the deck he was too dazed to remember anything. C. L. Nelson, seaman, was next called. He stated he saw the man go to the galley but did not hear what was said; saw him throw the pans about and knock the cook down on deck;, when he saw the prisoner draw his knife and hold it over the complainant. He coould not say the prisoner was very drunk.

   In reply to Inspector Matheson witness stated the prisoner had a long narrow sheath knife in his hand.

   Prisoner pleaded ignorance of the English language and Mr. T. G. Carvill, of the Consulate, interpreted for him.

   Prisoner stated he went to the galley for something to eat when the cook abused him in the foulest manner. The cook was a bad character, incapable at his business, and always creating trouble. On three occasions the complainant had chased people on board with a knife. He admitted having the knife in his hand but did not think he struck the complainant, he certainly struck him with his fist.

   James Butler, carpenter, said he saw the prisoner hit the cook on the deck and saw him hold a knife over the complainant. He had never seen the cook threaten anyone. He saw the prisoner strike with his hand.

   Zee Chung, blacksmith, started he saw the prisoner come on board about 9 a.m. and create a disturbance at the galley. He saw the prisoner draw his knife and strike the complainant. Prisoner, who was a little drunk, struck complainant on the buckle of his brace with his sheath knife.

   A Chinese boatman gave like evidence, but also said after the prisoner struck at the cook he, the witness, got scared and cleared out.

   Inspector Matheson informed the Court that the knife had not been found on board and that the prisoner had not one on him at the time he was arrested.

   Captain McIlgrum said he had witnessed nothing of the occurrence. The boatswain, carpenter, and third mate reported the matter to him aft, and he then called the accused and asked him the reason he committed the assault. Prisoner seemed to make light of the matter. He thereupon gave orders that the prisoner was not to leave the ship while he, the master, went to town and enquired of the Consul what steps he had better take. The Consul ordered him to take out a summons against the prisoner.

   Prisoner joined the ship in New York and he had never heard any complaint against him, previous to this. Prisoner had always done his work. He had also heard no complaint whatever against the cook .

   Prisoner, in defence, said the steward had chased three of the crew. Two of the men, namely, Joe MacInrosh and Alfred Healy, were now in the British gaol and could corroborate his statement. He had never had a dispute with any one on board. The Captain had given him a good character and he had never had any trouble in any ship he had sailed in.

   His Worship said it was quite clear the prisoner drew his knife, and struck at the complainant and he might have inflicted a serious blow on him. He would make some allowance for him as the Captain had given him a good character, and he would therefore sentence him to one month's imprisonment with hard labour. He did not think it right the community should be burdened with him, it was to the public interest that he went away in the ship, so he would order that the prisoner be put on board of his ship should the vessel sail before the expiration of his sentence.

27th July.

R. v. BUSBY.

   Alfred Busby, unemployed, was charge with failure to pay distress.

   His Worship was informed by the Court Constable that prisoner had just completed a week's imprisonment with hard labour and that he had not paid for the damage as ordered in the judgment.

   Prisoner said he was destitute and starving in the streets; he had sought hard for employment without success; he was not afraid of work and was willing to put his hand to anything although he was an engineer by trade. He further stated that there was a probability of his shipping on a sailing ship shortly as donkey-man.

   His Worship - I will give you a month in which to get employment, if you do not succeed I will send you to prison for a month with hard labour, and I will take special pains to see that you have the hardest labour you can get.

28th July.

R. v. BUSBY.

   Alfred Busby, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Broadway on the 27th inst.

   P.C. 46 said he saw the prisoner at Hongkew bridge capsize a wheelbarrow and assault the Chinese on the road. Prisoner was drunk.

   Prisoner denied the charge. His Worship informed the accused he had given him one more chance to get employment and pay for the damage he was charged with, and this was the result of his leniency towards him.

   Prisoner was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour.

R. v. ROGERS.

   James H. Rogers, cook of the British sailing-ship Manchester, was brought up on remand, having been charged on the 18th of July with attempting to stab one of the crew, also with having threatened to poison the crew.

   William Gorman, A.B. said the prisoner attempted to cut his head off with a carving knife and also threatened another member of the crew with the galley axe. He further stated that, when attacked, he drew his head away and the knife made a mark on the iron beam above him.

   In reply to prisoner Gorman said he was in the sail-locker sewing sails when he heard the altercation in the galley between the prisoner and one of the crew.

   Prisoner assured the magistrate that owing to the construction of the ship, it was impossible to hear what was said in the galley from where the complainant was working. Prisoner also stated the complainant had threatened to murder him.

   C. Nelson, sailmaker, said he did not know much about the affair but he recognised the cook to be a dangerous character who was in the habit of drawing his knife on anybody. He also heard prisoner threaten to poison all hands. Accused did not say how he would poison them.

   Prisoner reminded the sailmaker that before he was arrested, the sailmaker, said he had nothing against him. - Witness denied this.

   Witness stated that when the prisoner was locked up he heard him threaten to poison all hands, including the Captain and his wife. In reply to the magistrate witness said the prisoner had never drawn a knife on him.

   Prisoner enquired of witness whether he considered him, sane or insane, to which the witness replied that he was not a doctor and could not tell the condition of his head. As to whether the witness thought the prisoner was in possession of poison he could not say.

   An apprentice, named Goldsworthy, said he never saw the accused do anything violent, but the accused did try to poison him by putting some white stuff which tasted bitter on his bread. He only tasted it and was sick two days afterwards.  At the time he thought the substance was sugar. On challenging the cook the man said it served him right and he was sorry he had not eaten all of it - then there would have been an end to him.  He did not know any particular reason why the prisoner should wish to poison him. He had seen the prisoner draw his knife on two occasions but never saw him strike.

   Questioned by the magistrate, witness admitted taking the bread from the galley himself. Prisoner had threatened to poison all the apprentices; but he, the witness, could give no reason why the threat was made.

   J. Alcock, 3rd mate, said he had not seen the cook use the knife as alleged but he had heard him threaten to put the knife through one of the men. Prisoner had the knife in his hand at the time. Witness did not interfere. He was walking past the galley when he heard the threat. He heard the prisoner threaten to poison all hands in the ship before he got to Shanghai. He informed the Captain of the threat.

   Prisoner, who cross-questioned witness, asked whether he did not think it was necessary, as the lives of all on board were threatened, to investigate the matter and ascertain whether he, the accused, had poison in his possession, and why did he, the witness, not speak to the Captain and other officers. Witness said he thought prisoner was a dangerous character.

   S. Forrest, master, in reply to the magistrate, said the entry in the Official Log-book of the 5th of June last was written by him when the cook was put in irons. When the complaint was lodged by the crew, the prisoner, when called aft, admitted the charge and said he would do it again. He told the mate to put the poisoner in irons. The latter refused to be in irons and used the most disgusting language in the hearing of his wife and family, who were in the cabin below, consequently the prisoner was gagged, handcuffed, and put down in the lazarette. Witness then went forward to the crew and thoroughly investigated the several cases of threatened violence and wrote the charges in the log-book. The hands were then called aft and had the entries in the Log-book read to them; they were then told that anyone who wanted to sign the book might do so. The signatures were all voluntary.

    Prisoner, in defence, stated at the beginning of the voyage he was sick and unable to work, the Captain thereupon called him names, said he was an impostor and a consumptive loafer, that he only came on board to loaf and not to work. The Captain accused him of being diseased whereas he had never had any disease in his life; the Captain said he knew he was consumptive as he had passed for a doctor. One time he, the prisoner, sent for medicine, the Captain told the boy to tell him to go to h---. The Captain stated he would have him examined by a doctor when he got to Shanghai to see if he were not consumptive. Prisoner said he eventually got better and wanted to work, but the Captain would not let him as he was diseased. The Captain told the Chief officer he, the prisoner, was a "white elephant" to him. Afterwards he was allowed to work, and then he was continually missing things from the galley. The first complaint he made to the Captain he was advised to break the men's necks if he caught them stealing, to which he replied he was unable to break the necks of twenty men. He informed the Captain that the cooks in other ships received protection but the was receiving none from his ship. When he found the Captain would not protect him he made a resolution he would protect himself. On one occasion Hartley came to the galley and demanded pancakes, this was after dinner.  He replied that he had given out the allowance and he, Hartley, would have to wait until the next meal. Hartley then threw a bucket of dirty water on his face. He, the prisoner, then got in a position and took up a knife to frighten him. Another time Gorman struck him on the shoulder with an iron bar from three to four feet long and an inch and a quarter thick. He, the prisoner, then took up the axe and told Gorman if he entered the galley her would open him with it. The men were always committing raids on the galley, even to stealing a ham for the cabin. The whole watch once threatened to murder him. Prisoner stated the Captain handcuffed him, gagged him, and lashed him to a stanchion in the lazarette a place that was wet and cold and without proper ventilation.  He was without food for six days. Afterwards he was locked up forward in a small room where the heat, through the sun beating on the iron side, was so intense as to melt some sealing wax that was in the bunk. He took dysentery through the ill-treatment. He was allowed only one bottle of water a day. He had only two biscuits a day with tea and coffee, the Captain said prisoners were not allowed other fare.

   The magistrate then informed the prisoner he could bring a counter charge against the Captain and officers if he could get proof, to which the prisoner replied the men were all against him.

   The Captain informed His Worship that the room where the prisoner had been confined was certified by the Board of Trade as a hospital; he also said the prisoner was allowed his food.

   His Worship then informed the prisoner that he had given him every opportunity to proceed against the captain and crew and he had done nothing. It was now for him, the magistrate, to find whether he, the prisoner, was guilty of the charge brought against him.

   Prisoner asked whether the witnesses signed the Logbook of their own free will.

   The witnesses consequently were called up and all acknowledged their signatures as voluntary.

   Prisoner stated one man on board had admitted signing the Logbook contrary to his convictions as he knew he would get into trouble by not doing so. Prisoner therefore reprimanded him for letting his honour go to grass when the man said if he, the prisoner, would call him into Court he would give a truthful account.

   His Worship then remanded the prisoner in custody until the following day.

28th July.

   James H. Rogers, cook of the British sailing-ship Manchester, was brought up to receive sentence on a charge of attempting to stab one of the crew.

   His Worship - I consider the charge against you has been established. I also find that you have had every opportunity of ascertaining whether evidence could be obtained from the crew in support of you, but it was not forthcoming. I am clearly of opinion you merit severe punishment, and I think it will be necessary for me to send you to prison for a term which will prevent you from sailing in the ship. I would say to the Captain were he here that I don't do this because of his statement and of the officers, and crew that they will not go to sea with you; such statements could not be attended to by the Court. We in Shanghai cannot allow captains to leave two or three bad characters to burden the community. An ungrateful task is entailed upon the Shipping Office in transferring men to other ships. You must go to prison for one month with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 7 August, 1899

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

Shanghai, 4th August.

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

SCHIRMER v. FOWLER.

   Mrs. Fowler was sued for $48.50 by A. Schirmer for goods supplied during April last. Defendant did not appear, and proof of the service of the summons upon her having been given His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

 

North China Herald, 7 August 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 31st July

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

R. v. WARD.

   Frank Ward, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable at 3 a.m. On the 30th instant.

   Sikh constable 108 said he found the defendant lying on the Wuchang Road jetty drunk and incapable, whereupon he put him in a 'ricksha and conveyed him to the station.

   Defendant stated he was an electrician and had been paid off from the Chinese cruiser Haitien. He was very sorry that he had committed himself and was thankful the authorities had taken charge of him.

   His Worship - You were here on the 22nd instant on a similar charge; this time you will be fined $10 or a week's imprisonment.

   Defendant maintained that this should be his first offence as a gentleman of good standing in Shanghai was ready to show he had committed no offence when he was previously arrested.

R. v. DOWLING.

   Mr. H. W. Dowling was summoned for having fired a revolver at two Municipal watchmen with the intention of intimidating, also with appropriating lumber from the West Jetty of the Yangtsepoo Plague Hospital.

   Inspector Reed said he had been instructed by the Captain Superintendent to apply for an adjournment until Thursday as Mr. Hanson, who would appear for the Council, would not be ready until them.

   In reply to his Worship, the Inspector said he had a verbal agreement with the defendant to that effect.

   His Worship stated that would necessitate a fresh summons.

   The case to be adjourned until Thursday.

R. v. HARRIS.

   Mr. W. F. Harris was summoned for allowing his dog to be at large, unmuzzled, on the morning of the 24th instant.

   Inspector Matheson conducted the case and pressed for the full penalty.

   P.C. 57 stated that Sikh constable 169 drew his attention to a dog running on the foreshore without a muzzle at 9.15 a.m. on the 24th inst. He whistled to it when the dog came and jumped on his legs. He then had it arrested and taken to the Station.

   Sikh constable 169 said that on the morning in question he saw the dog running without a nuzzle on the Bund foreshore in the vicinity of the Club. He reported the same to the previous witness and the dog was captured and taken to the Station.

   Defendant stated he had taken every reasonable precaution to prevent the animal getting out without a muzzle. About 8.30 a.m. on the 24th the dog was unmuzzled for its breakfast and when the boy's back was turned it managed to escape, the front door being left open.  Before the boy could catch the animal it was in the hands of the Police. He went to the Central Station and at 9.45 a.m. found the dog.

   In reply to the defendant His Worship said he did not wish to hear the boy's evidence, the master was responsible for the dog. Defendant was fined $5 and $3 costs, half of the latter to go to the Police.

4th August.

R. v. BANNERMAN.

   John Bannerman, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the North Soochow Road on the afternoon of the 3rd instant.

   A Sikh constable stated he saw the prisoner in a very drunken state, unable to walk, and with blood flowing from his face, he consequently took him to the Station.

   Prisoner denied the charge, but admitted taking two or three drinks of gin; his condition he attributed to the sun.   

   Sergeant Gibson said he could get the evidence of the officer who took the charge, also that of another witness if his Worship desired to remand the case.

   His Worship remarked a remand was not necessary and reminded the prisoner he was an old offender.

   Prisoner was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment.

R. v. MATHESON.

   Frederick Matheson. A.B. pf the British ship Manchester, was arrested on a warrant charged with being absent from his ship without leave  since the 23rd ult.

   Sherwood Forrest, Master of the Manchester, stated the prisoner had been absent from his ship since last Sunday week. Prisoner had complained about bad eyes and he, the Captain, had got medical advice for him. The prisoner had not done a day's work since the vessel had been in port.

   Sergeant-detective Gilfillan informed his Worship he arrested the prisoner over at Pootung.

   Prisoner asked for his discharge on the plea of ill-health. In reply to his Worship, the Captain said he did not know what the prisoner had due him; it was impossible for a master of a ship to remember the individual finances of a ship's company. The vessel would probably sail next Thursday.

   His Worship informed the master it was his duty to ascertain the prisoner's finances before coming into Court, he had both time and opportunity.

   Prisoner was sentenced to a week's imprisonment, fined two days' pay, and to be put on board his ship when leaving. He was also told he would have medical ad vice in prison if necessary.

 

North China Herald, 7 August 1899

IN THE GERMAN CONSULAR COURT here on Thursday Dr. Knappe gave judgment in a case in which Dr. Scholvein sued Mr. F. A. W. Ellert for damages for defamation of character. It appeared from the pleadings that four or five years ago the plaintiff was engaged to superintend the manufacture of smokeless powder at the mills at Lunghua. He did turn out powder of good quality, but on account of the insufficiency of the plant, as it is alleged, the quantity was insufficient. The powder was used in both large and small arms and found satisfactory. About a year ago, as the plaintiff complained, the defendant said to a third party in Shanghai that the expert who had been engaged for the purpose had failed to turn out proper powder, and that a Chinese had afterwards to be engaged. This was the defamation complained if. 

   In giving judgment the Court held that the defendant had been guilty of defamation, but as it was without malice, and having regard to the length of time which had elapsed since the words were spoken, the case would be met by the defendant being ordered to pay $5 and costs. Moreover, Dr. Scholvein could rest satisfied that his reputation as a chemist had not suffered.

 

North China Herald, 7 August 1899

   THE JUDGMENT given by Mr. F. S. A. Bourne, Acting Chief Justice, will approve itself to those who are pleased to see men in a comparatively humble position get their rights. It is not only sound common sense, of which Law is supposed to be the perfection, but the facts and arguments are put with the most commendable clearness and terseness, and it is a pity that the defendant and his principals allowed the case to come into Court at all.

 

North China Herald, 7 August 1899

FOR JACK AND HIS MASTER.

   Scanning the columns of our dailies and under the heading of H.B.M.'s Police Court one can often find in trials between Jack and his master that the strict letter of the law is thrust aside or, properly speaking, is made subordinate to the fancied interests of Shanghai, thus lowering Justice from the pedestal on which we, as Britishers, have so proudly placed her, and to which we are ever ready to point. How often do we read of a shipmaster being told by one of his men, probably some worthless vagabond reared in the slums of London, has committed an offence that merits a heavy punishment, but as the vessel will probably sail in ten days or a fortnight, the said culprit will not be able to expiate his crime to the full, for Shanghai must not be burdened with the bad characters a shipmaster, who, by the way, has often no choice of a crew, ready for sea, has unfortunately engaged. The ship ready for sea, the captain has to receive the blackguard on board, perhaps the one man who, cunning enough when sober to keep outside the pale of the law, has it in his power to make the ship during a long tedious sailing voyage little better than a floating hell. Ask any experienced 'salt,' whether a bad cook or a forecastle bully, as well as a tyrannical master or mate, cannot upset a ship's company and yet commit no breach of the law. The influence of one ill-conditioned "sea-lawyer" is as fatal to a ship's harmony as the discordant instrument is to an orchestra. The captain may protest, the blackguard must leave the ship that brought him.  On the other hand, the master or his officer may be the transgressors; their crimes may not be such as to force the hand of the Crown Advocate, no-one had been brained, shot, or kicked overboard, therefore it is not for "R. versus a to take the initiative. The men man [may?] be a weak and useless cosmopolity."

 

North China Herald, 7 August 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 1st August.

Before J. Goodnow, Esq.

Consul-General (Acting Judicially)

U.S. v. GRAHAM.

   Mr. W. W. Graham appeared to answer a summons for allowing an unmuzzled dog to be at large contrary to the Municipal Regulations. Inspector Ramsay prosecuted.

   The evidence of a Sikh constable was to the effect that he found the dog in the North Szechuen Road, near the Wuchang Road, and took it to the station.

   Mr. Graham said he had only had the dog one day and when being fed with another dog, for which purpose it was unmuzzled, it escaped. The boy quickly found that it had left and applied for it at the police station, where $10 was demanded.

   His Honour said the defendant was responsible for the carelessness of his servant. All here were interested in puting down any possibility of rabies, and in carrying out the regulations. The defendant would be fined $5 and costs.

U.S. v. MUSTARD.

   Mr. R. W. Mustard was also summoned for a like offence.

   Inspector Ramsay said a foreign constable met the defendant's coolie leading a dog, and as it was unmuzzled he took oy from the coolie and gave it to a Chinese constable to take to the kennels. On the way the dog slipped the collar and escaped back to its master.

   Mr. Mustard said the coolie was on his way to have the dog fitted with a muzzle. As he had already lost six muzzles he was anxious to have one to fit. He had also heard from a neighbour's servant that one of the Municipal dog-catchers had stolen the muzzle from the dog, but although he had promised to attend the boy was evidently too frightened.

   His Honour said that whilst possibly there had been a technical breach of the regulations, the defendant in sending his dog to be fitted with a muzzle was doing his best to obey them. He had been punished enough by being brought before the Court, and the case would be dismissed.

4th August.

   John Andrew, quartermaster on the U.S.S. Monocacy, appeared to a summons for allowing his dog to be at large, without a muzzle, on the 1st

 instant, contrary to the Municipal Regulations. Inspector Ramsay prosecuted.

   Native police constable No. 331 gave evidence to the fact that he saw the dog run out of a house near the Hongkew police station without a muzzle, at about half-past six in the morning, and caught it.

   Inspector Ramsay said he saw the dog running about at the back of the station at about half-past seven, and had it captured.

   Defendant said he let the dog out from his house in the Boone Road at a quarter to six on the morning in question, after himself putting on its proper muzzle. As it did not return he went to the station later and was told that it had been brought in there at a quarter to six that morning.

   His Honour pointed out the inconsistencies in the times given by the witnesses, and Inspector Ramsay admitted that the dog he saw might not have been the defendant's.

   The case was adjourned for the production of further testimony.

5h August.

U. S. v. ANDREW.

   The hearing of this case was resumed.

   Inspector Ramsay said the dog was found at large unmuzzled and defendant was responsible.

   His Honour said that as far as he could understand, defendant and his witness swore positively that the dog was muzzled when sent out, and that as they were men of good character and he knew them he was inclined to believe them. He also believed the version of the Police that the dog was found unmuzzled. The muzzle was got rid of by fair or foul means in the mean time. He did not see his way clear to fining the men except for the amount, if any, which the Police might assess, subject to his discretion, for the maintenance of the dog during its confinement. He asked Inspector Ramsay how much was paid to the dog-catchers for each dog captured.

   Inspector Ramsay stated they had ceased rewarding the men and paid them only a daily wage; the cost of the animal's food would be about a  cent and a half a day, perhaps less.

   His Honour said it was a difficult problem. It was difficult to keep unmuzzled dogs off the street, but when persons used all precautions in buying muzzles and putting them on the dogs he did not see his way clear to punish them. If he thought there had been the slightest carelessness he would fine the defendant, but knowing defendant and his witness he could believe their story, and he therefore dismissed the case.

 

North China Herald, 21 August 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th August.

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

R. v. SHIELDS.

   Frederick Shields, A.B. of the British sailing ship Queen Victoria, was charged with being drunk and incapable.

   Prisoner stated that after his previous visit to the Court he went straight back to his ship when the mate assaulted him.

   His Worship informed the prisoner that had nothing to do with the charge of being drunk.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he did not want to go to prison.

   His Worship fined him $5 or in default a week's imprisonment.

R. v. HARKINS.

   J. R. Harkins, Municipal Sanitary Inspector, was summoned by Chang Yen-yuen, marine store proprietor, for assault.

   Complainant, cautioned, said he was a dealer in rags and bones. Five days previously the defendant came and told him he must remove his store into the country. His business was carried on at 250 Seward Road. The following day the defendant came and struck him because he was moving his things slowly. Afterwards the rent collector came but he, complainant, refused to pay it because he thought the rent collector asked the Council to turn him out.

   Mr. W. J. B. Carter (Messrs. Morrison and Gratton), who was watching the case on behalf of the landlord, informed the Court the Council ejected the complainant on its own initiative.

  Defendant's interpreter was then put in the box. He said the defendant had a stick in his hand on the second morning but he did not strike anyone. Defendant ordered the complainant to remove the bones and feathers. On the third day defendant told complainant to throw some water and Jeyes' Fluid about the place to clean it. Defendant did not go into the house on the 10th as alleged.

   His Worship (to witness) - Did you, as interpreter, tell the complainant to get out of the house bag and baggage, or only to remove the things that smelt?

   Interpreter - Only to remove the offensive matter.

   Defendant then called Ying Tao-tah, wine merchant, who lived next door. Witness said he did not see the alleged assault in the morning of the 10th. He saw the defendant on the first day tell complainant to remove the things, and on the second day the defendant told complainant to hurry up. He never saw him commit an assault. He learned that the complainant had received notice from Mr. Morrison to quit and that he, the bone merchant, had bribed the shroff with money to let him stay on. At the beginning he made complaint to Mr. Morrison 's shroff about the stink and thereby his loss of customers. The rent collector advised him to report the matter to the Sanitary Inspector and the shroff said he would assist him.

   After the second day the rag merchant accused him of being the cause of his removal, and said if he had to remove he would set fire to witness' premises. He knew that complainant went to the 

neighbours' houses and told them he had gone to the Consul and that if they helped him to get the Inspector dismissed they would be able to throw their garbage out at any time.

   James Henry May, Chief Sanitary Inspector, stated that on receiving a complaint he went on the afternoon of the 9th inst. to the complainant's store. There he saw altogether a cartload of bones and in a small room behind a like quantity; the smell arising therefrom was unbearable. He told the Inspector and Interpreter that they must be removed at once. The complainant agreed to do so within twenty-four hours, whereupon he (witness) left the premises. Witness gave no special instructions to the Inspector as he knew the routine thoroughly.

   In reply to His Worship, witness said he had not had a parallel case in Shanghai but he had had such in England coming under the Public Health Act of 1876. This case was a decided nuisance.

   John Allison, Assistant Inspector, stated that at 7 a.m. on the 10th he wanted to see Inspector Harkins on business. He met him on the Seward Road Bridge and accompanied him to the complainant's house. Defendant gave orders to the complainant but did not go inside his house. He saw a quantity of offensive stiff lying about, but did not pay particular attention to it. He saw no assault. There were fifty or sixty Chinse around the door.

   Chief Inspector May informed the Court it was not usual for the inspectors to carry sticks when in uniform.

   Defendant was then sworn, and stated that he was a Sanitary Inspector of the Hongkew District. About 2.40 on the afternoon of the 9th instant he went in company with the Chief Inspector to complainant's store at 250 Seward Road. The Chief Inspector gave orders that the complainant's stuff, which was a nuisance, must be removed, and told him, the Inspector, to see the order carried out. On his way the following morning he met the Assistant Inspector and together they visited complainant's premises.  He told his Interpreter to tell them to hurry up, as they were very slow. He saw several baskets full removed whilst standing outside the premises. He then left in company with Mr. Allison. He did not assault anyone as alleged. He called the next afternoon at 2.40 and told the complainant, as the place was fairly well cleaned up, he could get some Jeyes' Fluid from the Municipal sanitary cart when he passed to wash the premises with. He possessed a stick with a carved handle but not with a brass top as one witness stated. He did not, however, carry a stick when in uniform.

   His Worship said he was now willing to hear Mr. Carter.

   Mr. Carter asked the Court whether the Council had any right to eject their tenants or to allow its Inspectors to cause the ejection of any of its tenants. Complainant owed them a couple of months' rent and he might have moved out without their knowledge. It was customary at home to notify landlords or their agents in cases of this sort. It was also easy at home to trace a tenant, but with the Chinese it was difficult. As regards the charge against their shroff  - that had been sprung upon them.

   His Worship objected to the latter statement, and said that it was impossible to anticipate all the evidence in a case.

   Mr. Carter declared had he known beforehand the Shroff would have been brought into Court. The complainant appeared to be under the impression  that he had to leave the house without giving due notice.

   Chief Inspector May said no such instruction had been given.

   His Worship stated he appreciated the point raised by Mr. Carter on behalf of the landlords. It would certainly be a great hardship if the tenant had been evicted and the landlords lost the rent. It was quite clear, however, to him that the Sanitary Inspector had no intention to eject the complainant neither did he think  there was any fear of the officers causing an ejection as they knew their business too well for that. It was well the landlords had raised the question, but it was not for that Court to give an opinion on that point. 

   As regards the assault the evidence of the Chinese was exceedingly weak and he would therefore dismiss the summons without costs.

16th August.

R. v. HARVATT.

   F. Harvatt, A.B. of the British sailing ship Manchester, was bought up on a warrant charged with deserting his ship on the 11th instant.

   Detective-Sergeant Gilfillan informed the Court that the ship had sailed and that the Captain had left instructions to prosecute, consequently a warrant had been taken out for defendant's arrest. He, the detective, received the warrant on Saturday and the ship cleared the same day. Prisoner was arrested yesterday in Smith's Restaurant on the Woosung Road and taken to the Station.

   Prisoner - I deserted the ship on Friday night as I did not want to go in her. She was not to my liking; everything seemed to go wrong. I was ill-treated by the crew, and reported the same to the Captain who said nothing in the matter. I was twice laid up sick and the men pulled me out of my bunk and said I was not sick. They knocked me about whenever they got the opportunity.

   His Worship - When did you get wages last?

   Prisoner - I got $2 the Saturday before last.

   His Worship - You know under the Merchant Shipping Act for being  guilty of desertion you are liable to forfeit your effects, all your wages, and your earnings until you return to the United Kingdom, and in addition to that you can be sent to prison for twelve weeks. What do you intend doing here?

   Prisoner - I have been trying to ship on the Queen Victoria.  It is not because I am afraid to work that I left the ship.

   His Worship - Are you an Englishman?

   Prisoner - Yes, sir.

   His Worship - And you waited until the day before your ship sailed to leave her? You took no steps to have your complaint investigated. You knew if you had a grievance you could bring it to me, but you preferred to do nothing.

   Prisoner - I did not want to cause any trouble. I asked the Captain to pay me off and he would not.

   His Worship - How do you think the Captain could get his ship back if all the men behaved as you have done? If you sign articles you must carry out your agreement.  The law looks upon this as a very serious offence, and I must send you to prison for one month with hard labour.

 

North China Herald, 21 August 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 15th August

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

BAESSLER v. DEACON.

   This was a claim by Mr. John Baessler, against Mr. S. Deacon, for $200, money lent on the 9th of September,1898.

   Defendant did not appear, and evidence of personal service upon him of the notice of hearing having been given,

   His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.

 

North China Herald, 28 August 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

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

R. v. SINGH.

   Pertab Singh, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the morning of the 23rd instant.

   Sikh constable 53, cautioned, stated he saw the prisoner on the Bund at 10.45 a.m. on the previous day drunk and tumbling about; prisoner eventually collapsed, so he put him in a 'ricksha and conveyed him to the police station.

   His Worship sentenced the prisoner to a fine of $5, or in default a week's imprisonment.

25th August.

R. v. BALLANTYNE.

   David Ballantyne, fireman of the British ship Avala, was charged with being drunk in the Central Hotel on the night of the 24th inst., and being absent without leave from his ship since the 11th instant.

   Sikh constable 165 stated he arrested the prisoner who was in a drunken condition near the Central Hotel. He knew he was drunk by his quarrelsome manner, also by the way he walked. He had been in the Hotel throwing cartridges about.

   Detective Johnstone stated that when the prisoner was brought to the station he was at once recognised as being the man for whom a warrant for desertion had been issued, and he was consequently placed under arrest. His vessel had sailed.

   Prisoner, in reply to His Worship, said he left the ship because the engineers quarrelled with and abused him. He had been too sick to work and he wanted food.

   Prisoner had in his possession when arrested a small iron trunk containing part of a gentleman's apparel, also a number of Martini-Henry rifle cartridges, and one of Porter's Improved Patent Portable Horizons by Cary of London, on the side of which was stamped "Geographical Society 13;" the instrument, which was comparatively new, was in a leather case which bore the initials J. F. R. Prisoner had been trying to dispose of the articles in question.

   When asked to account for the property in question, prisoner said he had previously been in the employ of one W. B. Colman, a tea-planter in Ceylon. His master had taken him to London and there discharged him. The gear he possessed had been given him by his master, named Campbell, with the understanding that he might dispose of them to his own advantage.

   His Worship said that the charge of drunkenness against him did not seem to be serious, but he had been guilty of desertion and he would have to go to prison for two weeks. An investigation would be made regarding the property.

 

North China Herald, 28 August 1899

   A Postal clerk at the JAPANESE CONSULATE-GENERAL was charged in the 27th ult. with wilfully cutting and wounding a Chinese. The charge was dismissed and the defendant ordered to pay $5 compensation.

 

North China Herald, 28 August 1899

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 22nd August.

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

YU TAI v. BENJAMIN.

   The plaintiff Yu Tai, tailor, claimed $44.25 from Maurice Benjamin as balance due for clothing supplied as per account.

   Plaintiff stated the money was owing him, that the defendant had cut the bill to $40, which he, the plaintiff, had agreed to, but the defendant would not now even pay that amount.

   Defendant declared he had not paid as the clothes did not fit.

   His Honour reminded the defendant that if that were the case he should have returned them. In reply to his Honour, defendant stated he could not pay the sum until the 1st of September.

   Judgment was given for plaintiff. Defendant to pay into Court $40 with costs on the 1st of September.

 

North China Herald, 28 August 1899

 AN ARGENTINE SEAMAN named Jose Gomez, who was recently paid off from the Nova Scotian sailing ship Muskola, on account of his knifing propensities, he having managed throughout the voyage to hold the ship's company fore and aft in awe, and on one occasion actually stabbed the boatswain, managed to run amok on Friday. According to the evidence of a Malay boarding-house keeper, where the man had been staying, he had been drinking heavily for some days. Shortly before noon when the boarders were about to dine, the man, who fancied in his semi-drunken condition he had been slighted, started to quarrel and at once made for a knife lying in the table. Fortunately the boarders, a number of able-bodied Manila men, pounced on the fellow, securely lashed his hands with a rope, and handed him over to the Police.

 

North China Herald, 4 September 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'s POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 28th August.

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

R. v. TAYLOR.

   Geo. Taylor, chief mate of the British steamer Pilgrim, was charged with assaulting Francisco Feneck, trimmer, whilst on the voyage from Port Said to Shanghai.

   Complainant stated that, when off Borneo, he was taking a drink of water from out of the funnel standing on the water-cask aft when the carpenter kicked him and caused him to drop the funnel. The carpenter reported the act to the chief mate who came aft and struck him on the head with his fist and called him vile names.   An ordinary seaman, called Mike, and another answering to the name of Bill gave evidence to the effect that the mate had assaulted the man. The cook of the vessel also gave similar evidence.

   The mate said the carpenter was serving out water according to instructions. He saw the complainant threatening to strike the carpenter with the wooden funnel. He therewith pushed the man away. 

   Defendant was fined $5 with costs including 50 cents for travelling expenses to each of the witnesses who had been subpoenaed.

R. v. RUBEN AND MICHAEL.

   Sassoon Ruben and Stephen Michael were charged with assaulting J. Bunder, silk dealer.

   Complainant stated that on the previous night he went to an Indian constable's house, and there he received a little drink.  Shortly afterwards the man Michael entered and asked him to visit his house. Immediately after this Ruben entered the house and by friendly words enticed him into theirs the defendants' premises. Five minutes later, they locked the door and then robbed and maltreated him. He was set upon by the whole family.  Complainant alleged that Ruben's real name was Jabbouri, and that he had served two years' imprisonment in Kobe.

   In reply to his Worship complainant stated they had stolen $10 from him in notes.

   His Worship informed the defendants the charge was a very serious one and it was necessary that enquiries were made.

   Detective-sergeant Glfillan asked for two days, and his Worship adjourned the case until Monday, the summons to stand over.

2nd September.

R. v. BALLANTYNE.

   David Ballantyne, late fireman of the British steamer Avala, and now undergoing imprisonment in H.B.M.'s gaol for desertion, was charged with larceny of goods to the value of $100 from H.B.M.'s Consulate.

   Detective-Inspector Armstrong stated that when the prisoner was brought to the Central Station and charged with desertion he had in his possession a tin trunk containing an artificial horizon and other articles. He had previously disposed of a leather case containing tools to a bar-tender at the Central Hotel.

    Mr. C. W. Campbell, Vice-Consul, identified the box and its contents, and stated he missed the things on the 28th of August.

   The Consulate compradore said he placed Mr. Campbell's trunk, etc., outside of his office in the corridor.

   Sergeant Bourke said he was in the charge room at the Central Police Station when the prisoner was brought in. He identified the box.

   Samuel Schwartz, bar-tender at the Central Hotel, admitted buying the leather case containing the tools for $6. He returned the things to the Police Station when they came for them.

    His Worship then informed the prisoner that the charge against him was one of larceny, and that if he pleaded guilty he would be prepared to deal with him in the Court, and the sentence would be six months' with or without hard labour. If he went before a higher Court, and before a jury, he would be liable to severer punishment, and it was for him to decide which course he would pursue.

   Prisoner said, in defence, that he met a sailor who asked him to go with him to the Consulate. He did go and was given a box to take away. The sailor afterwards sold him the box and its contents for $3. He also said had it not been that he was drunk he would never have got into trouble.

   His Worship remanded the case until Wednesday.

R. v. CAMERON.

   Richard Cameron, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable. 

   P.C. 31 stated he arrested the defendant in the Seward Road in an incapable condition.

   Sergeant Aiers informed the Court that it was not the prisoner's first offence and that he was formerly in the Police Force and had been dismissed for not appearing on duty.

   Prisoner asked to be let off as he could get a ship and expected to sign on the Articles at any moment.

   His Worship dismissed the case with a caution.
 

North China Herald, 11 September 1899

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

4th September

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

R. v. KOCK.

  G. F. Kock, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable.

   Sikh constable No. 119 stated he found the accused drunk and incapable in a 'ricksha on the Broadway on the 3rd instant and took him to the station.

   Prisoner was dismissed with a caution.

R. v. COTTIER.

   Philip Cottier, unemployed, was again charged with being drunk and incapable.

   Chinese constables Nos. 377 and 471 said the prisoner was drunk and incapable on the Tiendong Road on the 3rd instant and was by them taken in charge.

   Prisoner, who is an old offender, was fined $30, or in default 3 weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

R. v. McWILLIAMS.

   High McWilliams, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and incapable.

   Sikh constable No. 75 gave evidence as to the prisoner's condition.

   Prisoner was dismissed with a caution.

R. v. RUBEN AND MICHAEL.

   Sassoon Ruben and Stephen Michael appeared on an adjourned summons charged with assaulting J. Bunder, silk dealer.

   Complainant stated, as previously, that the man Ruben came and persuaded him to visit his house. Complainant did not want to converse with the man, but as Ruben entreated him in a friendly and brotherly manner, and as he, the complainant, was slightly under the influence of drink, he went. On arriving at the house he took a chair beside the table, and Ruben's wife shut the door, when the other man Michael, whose alleged name was Jabbouri, struck him in the eye, and also stole from him some $150 in notes.  Complainant wanted to leave but Ruben's wife set upon him and scratched him. He cried out for help in English, and eventually pulled open the door and got away. He then reported the affair to the Police.

   Complainant, in reply to his Worship, said he had been 17 years in Bangkok, and brought the money with him. He changed the notes for local ones with a Chinese. Since the 23rd of May he had gone to Japan, thence to Hongkong, Bangkok, and back to Shanghai, and had now been here some fifty days.

   Dhuleep Singh, complainant's witness, said he was in the employ of the Municipal Council. Four days ago he went to Sassoon's house to get some milk. Whilst he was there complainant broke open the door and came inside, he then took up a table knife and attempted to stab one of the defendants. Witness took the knife away. In the struggle complainant's coat got torn.  He saw the complainant take some money in notes out of Michael's pocket.

   Witness, cross-examined, said he belonged to a different caste and what he said was true and saw himself.

   Sassoon Ruben, cautioned, said that on the night of the 3rd he was at dinner when the complainant burst open the door and took up a knife. He got frightened and told his servant to fetch the Police. He then went to the police station and took a piece of the broken door with him. He could give no reason why the complainant committed the assault, but ten days previously, having heard the complainant was a bad character, he told him he was not wanted at the house.

   The wife of the defendant Ruben admitted she was implicated in a case brought before the Court in May last. She corroborated the evidence of her husband and added that the complainant threatened to cut Michael in pieces. Complainant formerly took his meals at their house.

   The husband here said something in his own language and complainant informed the Court the defendant was giving his wife tips.

   Stephen Michael professed he knew but Arabic and finally gave evidence half in English and half in Hindustani, similar to that given by the other defendant and his wife. He said the complainant stole $55 and his watch.

   Sergeant Ross said on the 3rd of August the complainant came to the station and charged defendants with assault and with stealing $150 in notes. Complainant, who was the worse for liquor, had his face covered with blood and his right sleeve torn off. The Sergeant told the complainant to clean himself, instead of which he rushed off to the Hongkew Station. In the meantime the two defendants laid a counter charge against the complainant, stating he had robbed them of $55 and a silver watch. He sent the detective sergeant to enquire into the case.

   Sergeant Eck informed the Court that when on the way to investigate the trouble the complainant offered him $20 if he would "fix" the defendants.

   Complainant denied this.

   His Worship - You came up here in May with a similar charger which you did not prove and again your case is not proven. I am convinced you go to their house for some reason or other. You have also not proved the charge of theft. On this occasion you have also attempted to bribe the Police and I must punish you, but I will give you the option of a fine. I fine you $40, five of which will go to Ruben, with costs - in all $43, or in default you will go to prison for a month with hard labour. Your summons against the defendants is dismissed.

5th September

R. v. KERFOOT.

   James Kerfoot, manager of the Ewo Cotton Spinning and Weaving Company, was summoned by Shen Yung-zung for assaulting and arresting him without a legal warrant on the 24th of August and detaining him when imprisoned from the morning of the 24th until 4p.m. on the 25th ultimo.

   Mr. A. S. P. Whiter-Cooper (Messrs. Drummond, Phillips and White-Cooper) appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Duncan McNeill (Messrs. Dowdall. Hanson and McNeill) for the defendant.

   Mr. White-Cooper stated on behalf of the complainant that the charge against Mr. Kerfoot was one of assault and false imprisonment. The complainant who is in the employ of the likin farmers was on duty on the night of the 22nd of August patrolling the river. About 11 o'clock he saw three boats coming. He told them to stop but only two did so. He boarded them and asked to see their passes. The man L. Cho-ping was in the boat and declined to show his pass. The boats were consequently taken to the likin station. On the morning of the 24th of August complainant went to the likin office and found a foreigner with his interpreter had just arrived. It appears that Mr. Kerfoot drove to the office and demanded the goods. Complainant asked for Mr. Kerfoot's authority when he was told the defendant would not allow the goods to be improperly detrained. None of the likin farmers were in the house. Defendant was in a great hurry and demanded $40 for each hour he was detained. He the defendant, then searched the office and took some of the yarn outside. Complainant, being pointed out as the man who made the seizure, was then seized by M r. Kerfoot by the queue and dragged into the carriage, the interpreter assisting. They then drove to the Ewo Mill and he was then handed over to the Sikh watchman. He was tied to two upright poles from then until noon when he was given some rice. He was again tied up until 6 p.m. and finally was locked up in a small room for the night with neither light nor furniture. At 4 p.m. on the following day he was taken to the Yangtsepoo station. On the Monday he was taken to the Mixed Court and charged with illegally detaining some yarn. Complainant was fined $100.

   Counsel stated it was a most aggravating case for a foreigner to go intro Chinese territory and seize a man who was an employee of the likin farmer. Complainant, who was not responsible, should not have been treated in that manner, and he hoped the Court would impose such a penalty as to mark its disapproval of such a proceeding.

   Complainant, a boatman in the likin service, stated he was on patrol duty on the 22nd of August when three boats passed. The first boat he missed as it was tearing along with a string flood, but he stopped the other two and asked them to show their passes. As they had none, complainant wanted them to go to the office, but their boatmen jumped on board of the likin boat and prevented them going there. A man called Lu Cho-ping was in charge of the two boats that were seized. He jumped into the likin boat, but refused to go to the farmer's office. Witness handed the cargo over to the accountant as customary. On the 24th of August about 8 a.m. witness left his office to take delivery of some cotton yarn, and when passing the likin farmer's office he was arrested. A foreigner belonging to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., an interpreter and Lu Cho-ping had arrived there in a carriage. By the interpreter he was told he would have to pay $40 per hour for detention. They demanded the goods and insisted on seeing the likin farmer. He was then seized by the queue by the foreigner and dragged out of the office, shoved into the carriage and driven to Yangtsepoo to the Ewo Cotton Mill. On arriving there he was handed over to the Sikh watchman. The foreigner went into the mill and afterwards came out, spoke to the Sikh, who tied him up with his hands behind his back to a stand used for the securing of thieves. He was kept in that position from 9 a.m. until the afternoon when the men left work. Mr. Kerfoot saw him in the afternoon and witness begged to be released. He was then taken into the Mill and locked up. At noon he got a cup of rice. He was locked up in a small room all night and at 4 p.m. the next day was handed over to the Police. At the station he was locked up in a cell and treated in the usual manner. He had never been charged at the Mixed Court before.

   Cross-examined, complainant stated his instructions were, when patrolling the river, to arrest all boats without passes; those with oases could proceed. Of the boats in this case, one contained 22 packages of yarn, and the other, 62 packages of Japanese and Ewo Yarn; the latter were on bobbins. An hour and a half elapsed from the time he visited the likin farmer's office until he was taken away. When at the Mill nothing was said the first day about going to the Police station. He did not write to the farmer, but he was complaining to himself that he was not treated justly and someone overheard him, who may have written to the farmer.  He did not remember saying to a man who wrote a letter to the farmer to put it "strong" neither did he advise his writer to state that his hands were tied behind his back. He admitted having his meals at the regular hours. A man called Nee Tsze-yu, clerk in the likin farmer's office, visited him in the forenoon, but no-one else came.

   His Worship - Mr. McNeill has questioned the witness regarding the patrol duties; do I understand that every boat with goods has to be stopped by them?

   Complainant - Every boat whether bound in or out.

   Wong Sing-tien, clerk in the likin farmer's office, said that on the morning of the 24th ultimo he went to the likin office when he noticed a carriage coming. He was told the occupants were a taipan of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co. and his interpreter, and that they had come to fetch the yarn. He then left to fetch one of the likin farmers. On his return complainant was talking to the foreigner, who afterwards took him by the queue and pushed him into the carriage.

   Han An-chu, likin servant, said the goods were arrested in the ordinary way, and the foreigner told him he cared for nobody and wanted the goods back at once. They tool 20 packages forcibly.

   His Worship - Does he say by force, was resistance offered?

   Witness - There was no force used; the goods were taken away without permission.

   Witness (cross-examined) - They did not take the goods away altogether. They took then out of the office and left them outside by the creek. In the evening the likin men put them back again. The packages contained the bobbins.

   Ni Soo-yu, clerk in the likin account department, said he was sent to the Ewo Mill on the 24th ultimo about 3 p.m. and there saw the complainant with his hands tied behind him. The Sikh prevented him from talking with the complainant. The Company's interpreter invited him into the office and told him if he would bring back the yarn and give him $40 he would release the complainant.

   Ting Tse-kung, likin farmer, said he was connected with the other likin farmers and that they carried on business conjointly. Complainant had been in his employ 13 years and was a good servant. It was complainant's duty to patrol and watch for boats. The firm ordered the examination of all boats, to see if they contained goods liable to duty. It was customary to take such goods if they had no pass to the likin office. He was only the farmer, the goods were handed over to the likin officials.

   Cross-examined, witness stated information was always given, if asked, at the likin office regarding the duty on goods. This was the first case of duty being paid for yarn on bobbins since the likin office had been farmed out. The farming out took place over a year ago, but he had only been connected with it about one month. Duty was only charged in the yarn, not on the bobbins.

   His Worship - What authority have you for collecting the duty and how is it made known?

   Witness - The authority is by proclamation, and the proclamation is posted outside the likin office and on the outside of the likin boats. It gives them power to arrest the boats, but not the persons. Any disputes are settled by the likin officials. The likin is an Imperial Government tax.

   Mr. McNeill stated for the defence he was able to show that the summons would fall through as he could prove that - firstly, the complainant was not dragged out of his office and forced into the carriage; secondly, that his hands were not tied behind his back; and thirdly, that the man was not kept a prisoner against his wish. The shipper of the cotton yarn left the Mill at 9.30 p.m. on the 22nd ultimo with the cotton and crossed over to a creek on the other side. Soon after his boats were stopped by the complainant and the whole of the shipment was arrested. He then reported the matter to Mr. Kerfoot at the Mill.

   On the 24th Mr. Kerfoot with his interpreter went over to settle the business. When they arrived the likin farmer walked out through the back of the likin office in order to avoid an interview. They waited an hour and a half, but no one appeared. The complainant was then told if his employer did not return he would have to go back with them to the Mill. The man then got up and Mr. Kerfoot followed, holding the small end of the man's queue.  At the Mill Mr. Kerfoot handed the man over to the watchman and ordered him to see he did not escape. Finding no overtures were made for his release complainant begged to be kept on the premises instead of being handed over to the police. As the scheme proved abortive the man was given in charge on the following day at 4 p.m. and he was taken to the Mixed Court on the Monday following. At the Mixed Court the man stated he was the principal agent in the likin station and the Magistrate evidently believed him as he was fined $100 and ordered to return the goods. Counsel said there was a warrant issued at the Mixed Court showing an illegal detention of property.

   He also argued strongly that Mr. Kerfoot's action was the only possible one seeing that the likin farmer refused to meet him face to face. On Sunday, Mr. Kerfoot and one of the Mill Directors were interviewed by a likin official who promised to return all the bobbins on the following day, but the agreement was not acted up to.

   Inspector Reed, Yantsepoo Station, said the complainant was given in custody on Friday afternoon charged with illegally detaining a shipment of yarn on bobbins, and he was taken to the Mixed Court on Monday. Complainant made no complaint, although he asked him if he had any. He (complainant) stated he was the No. 1 likin man. He afterwards said he was employed by the likin farmers and that he had charge of the boats.

   Cross-examined - Inspector Reed said he understood the man to be in charge of the likin boats.

   In reply to his Worship, Inspector Reed stated it was a very difficult matter for Chinese detectives to secure a native after he once got away into the Chinese city or elsewhere. He knew nothing about complainant personally.

   James Kerfoot, manager of the Ewo Mill, said he had had the management since the starting of the Mill some 24 years ago. He had often dealt with Lu Cho-ping and had never known yarn to be confiscated before. The likin was farmed out about a year or fifteen months ago. He went over to the likin station on the morning in question accompanied by his interpreter, and there learnt that the No. 2. Farmer had cleared out by the back exit on their arrival. 60,000 bobbins had been seized by the likin farmers. He told those in the office he could not stop there all day and informed the complainant if the bobbins were not returned he would have to go with them to the police station. He was in the likin office from 9 to 10.30 a.m. by his watch. The man then got up and proceeded to his carriage. No violence was used but he held the small end of his queue to prevent the man escaping. When they arrived at the Mill he told the Sikh watchman to see the man did not run away. Complainant was provided with a seat near the water house. At 4 p.m. as no one came he visited complainant who begged that he might be left at the Mill all night rather than go to the Police station, so after consideration he had him locked up in a room adjoining his office. The room was lighted by electricity. At 10.30 that night three men called at the Mill and on hearing that he had gone  to bed told the watchman to report their visit the following morning when they would settle the matter at once. The following afternoon complainant was given over to the Police. He knew well if the coolie got away there was little chance of redress. He was not aware that the prisoner was tried up whilst at the Mill.

   Cross-examined, defendant said he understood through his interpreter that complainant was the head boat-coolie and by arresting him did not see how he was assisting the likin officials in detaining the bobbins. He knew that the boatmen got a share of the proceeds of confiscated goods. He did not see how a man in complainant's position could detain the goods. Having the man in custody he reckoned his master would settle the affair at once. The likin officials had no right to the Company's bobbins. Past experience guided him in his actions. He naturally thought the boatman was the proper man to take, and he would not have arrested him if he had not thought it necessary. Complainant was treated as well as any of the collies who worked on the premises. He was not aware he made the arrest on Chinese territory as he did not know the boundary line. At 4 p.m. he was determined to give the man in charge but he begged to be kept on the premises. However, the following afternoon he handed him over to the Police. The reason why he arrested the man in particular was because he took the cotton in the first place.

   Dowa Singh, watchman, said complainant was given in his charge on the day mentioned. He gave him a seat and did not tie him up. Later, having to go about other business he tied one of the complainant's arms to the chair fearing otherwise he would escape. He had no instructions to that effect, but he was afraid he would be held responsible for the man's safe custody. He did not see the manager afterwards, but his interpreter, who told him to keep the man safe.

   The interpreter was then called, and cautioned, said the complainant stated he could not write and therefore asked him to write to his master. He wrote as dictated. Complainant told him to write it "strong" and his master would come "Chop chop" and not let him go to the Police Station. Afterwards complainant wrote a letter himself although he said he could not write.

   The Magistrate in giving his decision said - On the technical point I am against the defendant. On the general charge of assault I consider the defendant had good reason to think that an unwarrantable act had been committed by a man calling himself a likin official. Accordingly he took what he considered were the best steps in his employers' interests to bring the offender to justice. I am of the opinion that he should have at once handed him over to the Chinese or Municipal Police. The Chinese Court have already shown their willingness to punish the offender by their judgment and warrant issued, and I believe they would have been grateful if such a clear offender had been delivered over to them. As to what took place at the Mill previously the manager is of course responsible. But the evidence makes it clear that the man met with but little ill0-trenatment.

   This is one of the cases where Chinese often prefer to settle their differences with foreigners without recourse to their own Courts, and it is evident that the complainant's mind had undergone a change on that point since he was at the Mill, which induced him to come here for redress. This he has a perfect right to do. The defendant will be fined $10 and costs.

6th September

R. v. BALLANTYNE.

   David Ballantyne, late fireman of the British steamer Avala, and now undergoing imprisonment for desertion, was brought up on remand charged with larceny of goods to the value of $100 from H.B.M.'s Consulate.

   Prisoner pleaded guilty and begged the Court would be lenient with him. It was his first offence.

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

   Samuel Schwartz, bar tender at the Central Hotel, asked that he be refunded the $6 he had paid for the stolen gear.

   Hi Worship informed the petitioner that, under the Act, he could make out an order refunding the money if he were satisfied that petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, and a bona fide purchaser was one about whom no shadow of suspicion existed; but in this case he was unable to make the order.

9th September.

R. v. REID.

   Mr. Charles Reid, unemployed, answered  to a summons to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace toward Mr. J. A. Jackson, complainant.

   Mr. Jackson, sworn, stated he was the proprietor of the Family Hotel, and that about 1.45 p.m. on Thursday he was talking in the lobby with Messrs. G. B. Rea and McDonnell when the defendant came in and looked at the Visitors' book. Thinking to be of assistance he approached the defendant and asked him if he were looking for anyone. Defendant rudely demanded who he was and on being informed, "roughly" rounded on him, abused him with the most disgusting language, and finally lifted his hand in a threatening manner. Complainant to avoid further insult left the premises.

   In reply to his Worship complainant said he could give no reason whatever why the defendant should behave in the manner stated; he knew him by sight only and had never had any transactions with him.

   Mrs. Jackson, sworn, said she was, on the afternoon in question, resting in her bedroom when she saw a strange man come though her husband's office and go into the bath-room. She asked whom the defendant wanted to see and ordered him out of the room, telling him if he wanted anyone he could ring the bell. Defendant was in a very excited condition and spoke to her in a very rude and insulting manner.  Her rooms were private and had "private" painted on the doors.

   Defendant, on oath, said he went to the Hotel to see a friend. It was dark and he could see no boy, so he shouted for one, whereupon the complainant told him not to make such a noise. He then asked the complainant what he meant by talking to him in that manner. He afterwards saw his friend and on coming down stairs, looking for the shroff, he inadvertently walked into the bath-room. He wanted to see the proprietor of the Hotel again regarding what had previously transpired. When he saw Mrs. Jackson he left hurriedly.

   Complainant then asked that the case be adjourned as one of the witnesses, Mr. G. B. Rea, had promised to attend the Court at 10 o'clock and had failed to do so.

   His Worship informed the complainant he had had plenty of time to prepare his case and that he had not availed himself of the right of subpoenaing his witnesses, consequently he did not think it would be fair to the defendant to order an adjournment.

   Defendant, in reply to his Worship, said he only knew the complainant by sight and he denied using bad language towards him. He was certainly "put out" but could not remember threatening the complainant.

   His Worship bound the defendant over to keep the peace, without sureties, reminding him it would be very unpleasant for him if his future conduct caused a breach. 


 

North China Herald, 18 September 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 14th September

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

R. v. PARKINSON.

   W. Parkinson, A.B. of the Killarney, was brought up on a warrant charged with being absent without leave.

   According to the evidence the accused signed the articles of the Killarney and received a month's advance. He failed to go on board, however, and was next seen in the shipping office of the Consulate, where he was arrested.

   Defendant pleaded that the advance note was handed to the Sailors;' Home, and that he did not go on board as he was unprovided with blankets and other things suitable to a cold country.

   His Worship said if the accused had explained things in a straightforward way everything could have been arranged. He would have to go to prison for six weeks, with hard labour.

16th September

R. v. MORGAN.

   Edwin Morgan, recently a member of the Municipal Police Force, was charged with violently assaulting and beating complainant, Le Chau-sun, in the Louza Police canteen at 7 p.m. on the 14th instant. He was also charged with violently assaulting and beating complainants, a man and a woman, servants in a Chinese brothel on the Chekiang Road at 1.30 a.m. on the 14th instant.

   Inspector Wilson informed the Court that the prisoner was first served with a summons, but, anticipating a flight, a warrant for his arrest had been taken out for his arrest. A ticket bearing the name McLeod per Kobe Maru for Japan was found in his possession. There were two common assaults and one aggravated assault against the prisoner. The woman in the first case was still in the Shantung Road Hospital, and unable to appear, so he asked only that the common assaults be dealt with.

   The complainant, bar boy at the Louza Station, said that on the night of the 14th he was attending the bar. A number of constables were in the canteen off duty. Prisoner came in and passed inside of the bar.  He, complainant, spoke to him, whereupon the prisoner assaulted him. When the other constables left the canteen prisoner again assaulted him. Finally complainant ran into the charge-room and made a complaint before Sergeant Oliver and Inspector Wilson.

   In reply to his Worship, complainant stated that a Mr. White witnessed the second assault.

   Mr. John White, of the Municipal Sanitary Department, sworn, said that on the evening in question he went into the Louza Canteen.  There were seven or eight constables in the room at the time.  There had been a row between the prisoner and the bar boy and those present had stopped it. They all left shortly afterwards, but the prisoner came back and asked for the bar boy. Prisoner caught hold of the bar boy by the queue and licked him. He tried to stop the assault and went round into the charge-room to report to the Sergeant on duty.

   Sze Zun-ching, bar assistant, said that the bar boy remonstrated with the prisoner for "sky-larking" with witness and for going inside the bar. On this the prisoner slapped the bar boy in the face. Prisoner then left. Inspector Wilson entered the canteen and all the constables left the mess.

   Inspector Wilson, in reply to his Worship, stated that the complainant gave the same reason at the charge-room for the assault as he had done in Court. Complainant had both of his eyes blackened by the accused, who, although under the influence of liquor, knew what he was about. Prisoner came off duty twenty-five minutes before the assault occurred. He did not know the prisoner's antecedents but believed he was paid off from a ship a few months ago.

   Prisoner stated he went into the canteen and told the small boy, the canteen assistant, to get him something to drink. The boy refused, so he pushed him inside the bar. The complainant pushed the boy out and struck him, the prisoner, on the mouth, with his hand. Prisoner lost his temper at being hit before the other foreigners, and struck the complainant. He then went to the mess room and sat down for dinner.  Seeing the complainant passing on the verandah he went out and struck him again.

   In reply to his Worship, prisoner said he had never seen the complainant strike any of the other constables. Complainant at times gave a lot of "cheek" when told to do anything. He, prisoner, had been three months in the force, and had never been in any police service before.

   His Worship - No, or you would have learnt the first duty of a policeman, which is not to raise your hand  against any one under any circumstances. You are fined $20 or in default two weeks' imprisonment.

   Ning Zea-sun, complainant in the second charge, a coolie employed in a brothel on the Hankow Road, stated at 1.30 on the 15th instant , he was awakened from his sleep by a scream  from one of the women. He got up and saw some amahs had hold of the prisoner. Prisoner pushed one amah down the stairs. The women of the house had run into their bedrooms  and locked the doors, and the amahs were trying to prevent him getting in. Complainant made signs to the prisoner not to go near the rooms, whereupon prisoner slapped him in the face. Complainant went down stairs and found the amah with her leg broken. He then went out and called for the Police. A native constable entered the house and ordered the prisoner to come down stairs.  At the bottom of the stairs prisoner caught hold of the complainant by his queue and kicked him on the head. Complainant stated he fell down senseless.

   Native P.C. 280 said he was called to the brothel at the corner of the Chekiang and Hankow Roads on the night in question. He found the place all dark so lit a lamp and went upstairs. Water was dripping from the upper floor. Prisoner was standing on top of the stairs and witness told him to come down. Whilst the complainant was relating the trouble to the witness the prisoner caught complainant by the queue, held his head down and kicked him. Witness was then told a woman was hurt. He found her lying at the bottom of the stairs; he asked her to stand up but she could not, so he put her in a 'ricksha and had her taken to the Hospital. He could not say whether the prisoner, who was in uniform, had been drinking.

      Sergeant Robinson said he was on duty when the constable brought a man and a woman to the charge room. A few minutes afterwards Morgan entered. He asked prisoner how the affair occurred, who said he saw a crowd in the Chekiang Road, and on approaching, he saw a woman lying in the road, who accused him of kicking her. The sergeant stated that the complainant was bleeding from a cut on the forehead, and that the prisoner appeared sober.

   Prisoner, sworn, pleaded guilty. He said that between 1 and 2 a.m. on the 15th he saw a crowd on the Chekiang Road. It dispersed and he caught hold of a girl who went into the house, which was a brothel. He followed her upstairs. He fell, and believed he was tripped by the complainant, so he struck him two or three times and went downstairs. He then saw a woman lying on the floor who accused him of kicking her. This he denied. The Chinese constable said they had better go to the Police Station so they went.

   In reply to his Worship, prisoner said he struck complainant at the bottom of the stairs because he lost his temper.

   His Worship - Within a few hours, Morgan, there is a second case of your giving way to temper, as you admit, and of laying violent hands upon people. In a Municipal Police Force it is a most disgraceful act, and in this case a most brutal one. In the former case I gave you the option of a fine, but in this case I shall not. Youi will go to prison for two weeks, and in the event of your not paying the fine in the former sentence the two sentences will be cumulative and not concurrent.

   Regarding the third charge of violent assault Inspector Wilson handed in a doctor's certificate showing the woman was too ill to appear, and he asked that the case be remanded for at least a week.

   His Worship remanded the case for one week.

 

North China Herald, 18 September 1899

LAW REPORTS.

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

Shanghai, 15th September.

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

KAIR SINGH v. MADAR.

   The plaintiff, Kair Singh, claimed the sums of $99.99 and $50 on two promissory notes, dated September 1896 and August 1898, respectively, from the defendant S. Madar.

   Defendant acknowledged both claims, and judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs.


 

North China Herald. 25 September 1899

H.B.M.'S POLICE COURT.

Shanghai, 18th September.

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

R. v. CAMERON.

   Richard Cameron, unemployed, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Broadway on the 17th instant.

   A Sikh constable gave evidence that the prisoner was drunk and refused to pay his 'ricksha fare. He also pushed the 'rickshaw over and broke the splash-board, consequently witness arrested him.

   Prisoner, whose second offence it was, begged to be let off, stating he had offered the 'ricksha coolie 40 cents for the damage, which was refused. In reply to his Worship prisoner stated he was looking for a ship but had been unsuccessful. He admitted, however, he had not applied at the Shipping Office for one.

   Prisoner was ordered to pay the damages to the 'rickha, namely, 10 cents, and was fined $5 or, in default, a week's imprisonment.

19th September.

R. v. KALLAH SINGH.

   Kallah Singh, watchman at 35, Seward Road, was charged with assaulting and beating the complainant, Ho Moh-chang, on the 18th instant.

   Complainant stated that at 3 p.m. on the 18th instant he was intending to collect $1.70 from the contractor who was putting up some houses on the Seward Road, when the accused without saying anything struck him with a stick and eventually broke it over his arm. The accused also struck him on the nose with a thick piece of wood.

   Complainant then reported the matter to the Police Station.

   He returned to the house when the accused assaulted him a second time in the presence of a native constable.

   Inspector Ramsay informed the Court that the accused was employed by the owner of the property to prevent people coming within the enclosed area and stealing material.

   Native P.C. 558, said he saw a crowd collected on the Chaofoong Road. Complainant was lying against a fence. He saw the complainant struck with a billet of wood.

   Accused stated the complainant, who was very drunk, came with two others who were a little drunk within the enclosed premises. He ordered them out, when the complainant answered him back with filthy language and also assaulted him with an umbrella; accused was held by the hair and complainant's nose came in contact with the fence.

   Complainant denied having any one with him.

   His Worship stated the evidence on either side was not sufficiently satisfactory for him to do anything but dismiss the charge.

23rd September

R. v. MORGAN.

   Edwin Morgan, now undergoing sentence of imprisonment for assault, was brought up on remand charged with violently assaulting and beating a woman in a Chinese brothel in the Chekiang Road at 1.30 a.m. on the 15th instant.

   Inspector Wilson informed the Court that the injured woman was still unable to appear but he had brought two witnesses who could give evidence.

  In reply to his Worship the Inspector stated he had no medical certificate, but the woman's lower limbs were paralysed and she had evidently sustained injury to her spine.

   His Worship - I can't leave the charge indefinitely hanging over the prisoner's head. I think after hearing the evidence I must decide whether it would not be necessary to consider seriously whether the evidence of the woman herself ought not to be taken in the form of a deposition at the hospital.

   Ning Zea-sun, a coolie employed in the brothel, stated he was asleep when he was awakened by the screams of the amah and a woman in the house. He told the amah to tell the prisoner to go down stairs. He saw the prisoner kick the amah, causing her to fall down. Prisoner, thereupon, slapped him in the face. After the assault witness went down stairs and called for the Police.

   In reply to hi Worship, witness stated that he had been employed in the house two months and had never before seen a foreigner visit it.

   Lok Shun-ching, an inmate, stated that she and several other women were sitting outside the front door when the prisoner accosted them. The others ran upstairs but she was unable to and then the prisoner caught hold of her. She commenced to scream and prisoner let her go. She ran upstairs and locked her bed-room door, but the prisoner followed her and burst it open. The amah interfered and told him, to let go of witness. He thereupon slapped the amah in the face, and kicked her, causing her to fall down stairs. A crowd immediately collected outside and the previous witness called the Police, after which they all went to the Police Station.

   His Worship - Where was the coolie when the amah was kicked? - Witness - The coolie was sleeping in the back part of my room. 

   His Worship - But the coolie has just said in his evidence that he was present on the top of the stairs.  Where was he when the prisoner burst open your door?

   Witness - The coolie was in the back part of my room.

   Inspector Wilson explained to the magistrate that the so-called rooms were but a partitioned apartment.

   His Worship remarked that the evidence was contradictory and confusing.

   At the request if the Inspector the case was remanded until Friday,  the 29th instant.


 

North China Herald, 25 September 1899

U.S. CONSULAR COURT.

Shanghai, 18th September.

Before J. Goodnow, Esq., Consul-General (Acting Judicially).

U.S. PEOPLE v. ANSMITH AND ANDERSON.

   Jacob Ansmith and John Anderson, A.Bs. of the American sailing ship Manuel Llaguna, were charged with being drunk and disorderly on the Scott Road shortly after noon on the 17th instant.]

   Prisoners pleaded guilty and were fined G. $5 each with costs, and ordered to remain on board of the vessel.

22nd September.

Before A. H. White. Esq, Deputy Consul-General (Acting Judicially).

U.S. PEOPLE v. GEESFIND.

   D. Geesfind, boatswain of the sailing ship Manuel Llaguna, was brought up on a warrant charged with being absent from his ship without leave.

   Prisoner was fined G$5, including costs, and ordered to be put on board his vessel.


 

North China Herald, 25 September 1899

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

Shanghai, 19th September

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

BASSETT v. BURKILL.

   Mr. T. Bassett here claimed the sum of Tls. 15 from the defendant Mr. A. W. Burkill, for damages sustained to his carriage by the defendant's mafoo on the 29th of June last.

   Mrs. Bassett, sworn, stated that about 5.30 on the afternoon of the 29th of June she was driving through Love Lane towards the Bubbling Well Road when Mr. Burkill's mafoo was driving down Love Lane at a furious pace and collided with her brougham. It was impossible at the speed the mafoo was going to pull up in time to avert a collision. Her pony's off foot was cut and the left shaft was broken.

   Mr. F. Ellis (Messrs. Browett and Ellis) informed his Honour that his client, Mr. Buirkill, was quite willing to accept the bill if his Honour decided against him. His client contended that the accident was due to the carelessness of Mrs. Bassett's mafoo. His client's mafoo was on the right side of the road and was going at an ordinary pace. The evidence of Mrs. Bassett and her mafoo, by the plan, showed quite clearly that the complainant was entirely in the wrong. Mr. Burkill on learning of the accident went carefully into the case and being quite satisfied that his mafoo was in the right thought it his duty to repudiate the claim.

   Traffic Inspector Collins was called and stated that the traffic on the main thoroughfares had the right of way and that the mafoos knew this.

   Mr. Ellis said the evidence showed that the complainant's carriage ran into his client's.

   His Honour said, judging from the evidence given, it was quite clear to him that the defendant's mafoo was on the right side and the plaintiff's on the wrong side, and, from the Traffic Inspector's statement defendant's mafoo was allowed to drive more quickly than plaintiff's, and, consequently, he gave judgment for the defendant without costs.


 

North China Herald, 25 September 1899

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

Shanghai, 22nd September

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

 KAIR SINGH v. MADAR

   The plaintiff, Kair Singh, again appeared for the recovery of sums $99.99 and $50 on two promissory notes from the defendant S. Madar.

   Defendant stated he had already paid $25 but the plaintiff demanded the whole sum, which he was unable to pay. He admitted making arrangements with the Clerk of the Court for the payment of $20 per month which plaintiff declined to accept.

   His Lordship ordered that the defendant pay into Court the sum of $20 per month.


 

North China Herald, 25 September 1899

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

Shanghai, 22nd September

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

YAH CHING v. STEWART.

   Yah Ching, washerman, claimed $24.64 from the defendant C. F. S. Stewart, chief steward of the Shanghai Club, for washing.

   Defendant stated his uniforms and shirts were found by the Club and the washing of the same under the contract the washerman had with the Club.

   Plaintiff showed that his contract did not include the washing of the steward's or secretary's clothes.

   His Lordship said it was a case that ought to have been settled by the secretary of the Club and not brought into the Court.

   Plaintiff declared that he washed the defendant's private effects, such as under flannels, and they were not included in the Club contract.

   Defendant said it was impossible that his wash-bill totalled to 300 pieces per month.

   His Lordship adjourned the case until Tuesday and informed the defendant the man had no doubt washed his private effects and he (defendant) would have to show that the Club would pay for the washing, or else judgment would be given against him.

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