At the Mixed Court on Monday morning, before Mr. Kuan (Magistrate) and Mr. Blackburn (British Assessor), a case came up for hearing, adjourned from Saturday last, in which the @ourt's decision was sought with regard to the liability of the owner or the pawnbroker for the amount for which a lost or stolen brooch had been pawned with the latter.
Mr. J. E. Lemiere, who appeared on behalf of the pawnbroker, said that the matter had been before the Court last Saturday, when Capt. Ferrajolo, the Italian Assessor, had adjourned the case because British interests were involved, the owner of the brooch, Mr. Rees, objecting to make payment to the pawn broker for property which was his own.
The evidence showed that on the 22nd instant the loss of a.diamond and platinum brooch, valued at $900, was reported to the Police and on the 25th instant a circular was issued to the pawnshops giving particulars of the missing brooch. On the day that this circular was issued the pawnbroker, who held a first-class licence for his shop in Sinza Road, reported to the Police that the brooch had been pawned with him on the 13th instant for the sum of $30. The pawnbroker had since been confronted with the servants of Mr. Rees' household, but could not identify any one of them-as being the person who pawned_ the brooch.
Mr. Recs stated that he did not see why he should be compelled to pay for his own property. It must have been quite evident to the pawnbroker that the brooch was of foreign make and not likely to be the property of a Chinese. He pointed out the difference between the amount of the loan made by the pawnbroker and the value of the brooch, and suggested that the pawnbroker be questioned' as to why~he did not take steps and make more careful inquiry as to the actual ownership of the brooch before receiving it in pawn, The pawnbroker was examined by the Court, after which it was auk nounced that each party would have to pay half of the amount for which the brooch was pawned ($25 each), the Assessor explaining the difference between the British and Chinese law with regard to pawnshops and pointing out that in this case there was no evidence to show that the pawnbroker had guilty knowledge that the brooch was stolen property.
The Assessor later remarked that in a charge in which foreign interests were claimed and it was desired that it should be' tried before the Assessor of the foreign nationality claimed, application for such trial must be made before the case came on for hearing.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.