R. v. Brow:
W. Brown was charged with having on the Sth instant assaulted one Tsang Ying-li, contrary to the Statute 24 and 5 Victoria, cap. 100, sect. 42.
The defendant did not appear.
'T. Macdonald, usher of the Court, sworn, stated that he served the summons on the defendant personally in Kwangse Boad, at 11 a.m. on Friday last, the 1th instant.
His Worship said that he was obliged to issue a warrant for defendant's arrest.
The hearing of the case must therefore be postponed until 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
The hearing of the case was resumed at 2 p.m.
His Worship told defendant that owing to his non-appearance in answer to the summons it had been necessary to issue a warrant.
Defendant replied that it was mistake on his part. He came to the Court at half-past ten that morning, thinking, that that was the proper time. He ha not read the summons since receiving it.
His Worship said that he had been put to the additional trouble through his own carelessness.
Complainant, cautioned, said that he was a boy in defendant's employ. At a arter past two in the afternoon of the Sth instant, after the washerman had handed over the clean clothes to defendant, the latter sent for him and asked him about some stockings. Witness said that he did not know anything about them and then defendant slapped him. He ran out of the room and defendant chased him down to the kitchen. Then defendant caught hold of him by the queue, held him down on the floor and kicked him. Shortly after this assault, witness was sitting down in the kitchen when defendant came in, and seeing that witness looked weak, told him to go and lie down. Witness took this opportunity to come to the Consulate and take a summons out against defendant. He had been in defendant's employ for 23 days. His wages, together with those of the coolie, were $18 per month. The cook told him that there was a vacancy for a boy and on the strength of a letter of recommendation from Mr. Derbs, of the American Consulate, ho was engaged by defendant. On another occasion, when he was sent by the compradore to defendant's office, he was assaulted by defendant. Since' the assault of the 8th instant he had been afraid to return to his work, He was not strong enough to do his work now. A Chinese doctor had been attending him. He had not received his wages.
The defendant's cook was then called and gave corroborative evidence of the assault in the kitchen. He stated that he had been in defendant's employ for 34 days. He had not received all his wages. His wages were $12 per month and he had only received $4. He had left defendant's employ because he was afraid to stay any longer. He was an old man and could not stand much knocking about. During the 34 days that he had been in defendant's employ there had been five boys there. Some only stopped a day or two. Defendant was always striking them.
Defendant's coolie was also called and corroborated the previous evidence as to the assault in the kitchen. He had now left defendant's service. His wages were $8 per month; they had not been paid. He was engaged by the boy. He had not witnessed any previous assaults, but defendant had slapped him once before.
Defendant said he had never seen this coolie before.
In reply to his Worship, the witness said that he had been working every day at defendant's house, No. 23, Kwangse Road. There were three brothers, of whom defendant was the eldest. Defendant was away at his office each day but returned every evening.
"Defendant said he had some witnesses to call for the defence, and called John Williams.
This witness stated that when the washerman came on the Sth inst. there was some talk about some socks having been changed. The boy was called up and was very impudent. He swore at Mr. Brown. Witness know a little Chinese so understood what the boy said. Defendant then chased the boy and got hold of him by the queue. Finding that the boy had hurt himself defendant, let him go. Witness did not know how the boy hurt himself. He ran after them. He was living in the house.
Complainant, recalled, said that the last witness was not in the kitchen at all; he was upstairs at the time. After the assault the defendant told this witness what had occurred.
Witness, continuing, said that he saw no kick or blow. He was in the passage and could see into the kitchen.
The next witness for the defence was the washerman, the stated that on the 8th inst. he took defendant's clean clothes back and when he was taking up the dirty clothes he heard defendant call for the boy. The boy came in very violently and slammed the door so hard that it made the bell ring. Defendant pulled the boy into the room by the arm. He thought he heard the boy swear, but could not tell what words he used. There were no clothes missing, but he had brought the wrong socks. Ho had since taken tha right lot to the defendant; it was witness's own mistake, Defendant, sworn, said that he was a commission agent. On the 8th instant when the washing came back he found that his socks were not there. He called the boy to ask him about the matter. The boy came in and on being questioned said that it was not his "pidgin." The boy then muttered something in Chinese which defendant understood. He caus tioned the boy not to say it again and might have threatened to hit him if he did. The boy then went out and slammed the door so hard that the clock nearly fell and the bell rang. He (defendant) then followed him out and caught him by the queue. The boy looked very white and frightened so he let him go. Later in the afternoon he wished to offer a gentleman a cup of tea, but found that the cook, boy and coolie had all cleared out. It was untrue that he had had five boys during 31 "ays. They had never applied for their wages. If they came for them they would be paid. The house belonged to, and the servants were engaged by, Mr. Williams who was now in Tientsin, Young Mr. Williams would pay the wages.
His Worship said that he understood that a summons had been applied for by mant to recover his wages through the Civil Summary Court.
Mr. Macdonald handed to his Worship a letter which he had received from young Mr. Williams, in which the writer stated that if the boy was applying for a summons to recover wages he had better be told to go to the American Consulate, and there would be a counterclaim for $28 for articlea missing.
His Worship said that ho was not at all satisfied on the matter.
Defendant denied that the boy had ever applied for his wages, but his Worship reminded him that a few days previously he himself had advised defendant to pay the boy. who was there at the same time.
His Worship said that ho was convinced that defendant had committed an assault. He would have to pay a fine of $2 and $5 compensation to the complainant.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.