Chang Yun, fireman of the str. Hudeos was d ed with assaulting "ud consi grievous bodily harm 10 one Woo Ab-foo, another fireman on board the same steamer.
The dofoudant pleaded not guilty.
The complainant stated that when he and the other firemen were having tiffin on deard the steamer on Monday, witness wax joking with the defendant, whereupon the latter threaten: d to bit him with a Shortly afterwards the defendant pie up a bowl and hit witness with it across the head, inflicting " deep cut. Until on, witness and defendant had been on friendly terms and had never quarrelled.
The defendant said he did not wish to ask any questions. The complainant's evidence was true.
Fong T", No. 1 fireman on board the str, Hudsvo, said tint complainant and defendant sat at the same table for tiffin on Monday, and wine-s sat at another table, Previously the complainant and defendant had been on frien ly terms a d had often joked with each other, On this occasion, however, the defendant warned the complainant' to stop joking or he would hit him with a bowl. The plainant remarked that he did not bel the' defendant would do such " thing. Thereupon the defendant and threw it at the camp! broke on the complagasn In reply ce his Worship, the master of the str. Hudson said he was not on board the steamer when the incident occurred. The chief officer was on board at the time and sent for a doctor to attend roth" complainant, The latter had a dee) wound vu the head, which required six or seven stitches Witness had never hei avy tronbe with the men before. They received $14 each per month wages.
His Worship said that as the defendant had hit the complainant, he would have to pay hit con peusati o." A more serious view mizht have been taken of the matter, in which case the defendant might have deen sent te prison, As it was, the defendant would have to pay a fine of $7, which would be paid to the complainant as compensation for his injury. 5
K.C,, Mr. Rufus Issacs, K.C., and Mr. G. F. Hart for the defendants, C. A. Moreing and Bewick, Moreing, and Ca; and Mr. Huldane, K.C., Mr. W. F. Hamilton, K.C., and Mr, Vernon for the defendant company.
Mr. Moreing was further cross-examin-od by Mr. Lovett-as to the raising of the £54 ventures. Ho said that capital. Ho did not think the difference tween raising it by the issue of shares and by the issue of debentures was appreciated out there. Ho arrived in Tientsin at the end of 1899. He thought Detring had in his mind at that time the raising of working capital by the issue of shares. He returned to Bogland in Muy of the same year, and in August received the telegram from Hoover announcing that he had succeeded in getting the agreement signed. Ho sumed that the £100,000 mentioned in the telegram was to come out of capital. (A report purporting to be made by Hoover for the defendant company was put to the witness. The report state ed that the inspection was made in June, 1900. It gave the value of the coal which might be won as £8,125,000 taken at 6d. per ton.) That report was not]
ade for the company, but only xs explaining its position on behalf of the Oriental Syndicate. No doubt it was intended that the working capital was to ital. It was thought possible at the time, but had proved impossible. The property was no doubt worth, perhaps, £10,000,000 if capital could have been found to work it properly. At the time of the agreement of July 30, 1900, it was intended to raise £100,000 working capital by the issue of shares. Witness accepted that agrosment in October, 1900. He was then under the impression that he would be able to raise the £100,000. He had free hand to do what was best for the company. The agreement did not prevent the raising of the £100,000 by debentures. Hoover had only been in England " day or twowlen witness wrote to Lord Salisbury, on October 10, 1900, informing him that his firm bad entered into a contract to transform the old company into an English limited liability company. On the face of the documents it was the contract of the firm. It was immaterial whether it was the contract of the wi His firm had nothing to do with it, in fact. Witness first consulted with Mr. Davis and Mr. Turner as soon as he received the telegram. He left the financing of the company to the Oriental Syndicate. He could not say when he first knew of the int. tion to issue debentures. His profit worked out at £43,000 in the company. That did not include the shares he got in respect of the conversion of the old debentures, If the Oriental Syndicate made a large profit out of financing the company, it did not affect the company. The investment of the money in the company was what made it valuable. Witness was advised that the agreement of July 30, 1900, required alteration soon after he got it. Witness could not understand why the provisions for carrying out the memorandum of February 19 wore not put into the articles. There was no agreement or promise by the Oriental Syndidute that they should go in, (Witness was then severely cross-ox-amined upon his letter to Detring dated November 9, 1900.) He said that he knew at that time the Oriental Syndicate wore to get 1,000,000 shares to finance what profit they ime that the whole capital was to be issued as paid up. He could not say whether, if he bad told Detring the true position, Detring would have gone on. He had not deceived Detring. Cross-examined xs to the necessity of raising money by debentures, witness said that it was very ranch to the advantage of the company. It was true that the bankers' balance to the credit of the company years than £200,000. 4 wito never been less during the past throe
nion that money ought to have b in sinking fresh mines. It was owing to difficulties raised by Chang Yon-mao that additional pits had not been sunk, The raising of the money by debentures was advantageous to the company, and was an able piece of finance. Cross-examined as to certain agreements entered into between himself and the Oriental Syndicate, the witness ied that they were fictitious. They wore the legal machinery for carrying out the transactions relating to the business in question. Witness became director of the company in July 1901. He did not remain off the board purposely until these matters had been carried through. He had from the first consistently endeavoured to get the provisions of the memorandum loyally carried out. The Chinese are holders had equal rights of voting. The difficulty was that their shares were bearer shares. That was a difficulty which was appreciated all over the world. Referred to resolution passod by the shareholders for an increase in the directors' remuneration, the witness admitted that the Chinese shareholders had not been consulted as to that, and that he himself had not objected to it. Witness agreed that the company had not carried out the memorandum as Chang Yor mao understood it, but they had tried to carry it out as it ought to be understood. Some of the directors took the view that the memorandum was not vital; but they still endeavoured to carry it out. It was true that the majority of the board took the view that the memorandum had no legal effect, but witness had always dissociated himself from that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hamilton on behalf of the defendant company, the witness seid. that his view of the memorandum was that there was nothing
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.