Maitland suggested that in seemed rather unfair that both victimizer and victimized epuld be in Shanghai together, and yet the vie sizer be allowed to go free because is crime was committed in England.
The Magistrate arked Mr. Mait-and to look at the position from the point of view of the other man. Why should he be charged out here for an offence he was alleged to have committed in England. Pro-ably all his evidence for his own defence would be in England, so that he could only refute by his own tongue any allegations that might be preferred against him. The knife cut both ways.
Mr. Maitland—I take it, then, that you will not proceed with this charge, your Worship?
The Magistrate—No, we will proceed with the others.
Chief Det.-Inspector Reeves state ed "that "he. apprehened - the prisoner at 1 Carter Road at 8.15 yesterday morning, on a warrant, He read the charges over to him, and Haynes replied that he did not know the bankruptcy applied in Shanghai, He said nothing else.
Hotel Manager's Evidence."
Mr. Henry Wilton Hoppell, manager of the Palace Hotel, stated that defendant engaged a room on monthly terms at the Palace Hotel towards the end of March.
Prisoner—It was March 22, Witness went on to say that he remained at the Hotel till Saturday last when witness locked the door of his room and refused to allow Haynes to re-enter it,. Haynes paid his account for March, but since then he had only paid $100 on account of his wine bill after being pressed. He owed the Hotel $438. 72, and witness locked him out because he believed him unable to pay.
Asked whether he was able to find bail prisoner replied that he could not, but he wished to be let free so that he could obtain his papers from his office to. answer the charges. He know very few people in Shanghi The Magistrate—There is no danger of his running away T suppose?
Mr. Maitland—Well, we understand he has a passage booked.
ner' denied this. He stated that Thomas Cook & Son had had instructions from his father to provide him with a passage, but they had not done so. He had no intention of absconding and was willing to surrender his passport.
Haynes was his own recogni The Case Dismissed The Magistrate (Mr. G. W. King) refusing to take jurisdiction in Shanghai for offences based on an alleged bankruptey in England, the charges against Leslie Haynes were dismissed in the British Police Court on Wednesday, and the prisoner di charged.
Mr. E. T. Maitland again appear-prosecute for the police.
The charges originally preferred against Haynes were that he obtained credit from the Palace Hotel without informing the management he was an undischarged bankrupt, and aleo that he engaged in busi ness in Shanghai under a name other than that under which he was made bankrupt, without disclosing to the persona with whom he had dealings that he was an undisechargbankrupt.—Yesterday a fourth charge was added, viz. that he did, fon or about March 20, 1924, at Shanghai, being an undischarged bankrupt, obtain credit for upwards of £10, to wit $145, from Y. Sing Yee, without informing him that he was' an undischarged bankrupt.
One Charge Withdrawn, Mr. Maitland, before proceeding with the evidence, said he wished to withdraw the' charge against Haynes of carrying on business under a name other than that under which he was declared bankrupt, without informing his clients. His reason for this was that Mr. Hart man was to have been the chief witness on the charge, to give evidence of certain transactions in regard to which the Magistrate had refused to take jurisdiction because they took place in England. Furthermore, the other witness on that particular charge could not be found.
The Magistrate recalled that he had intimated on the previous day there would be some difficulty as to the jurisdiction of the Court in all these cases. He would ask Mr. Maitland to show him that the Court did possess jurisdiction.
Mr. Maitland replied that jurisdietion was obviously granted by the Order in Council, Article 35/2, which provided that the jurisdiction of that Court should be exercised, subject to provisions in the Order in Council, in accordance with English Law. The offences with which the prisoner was charged were offences committed under the Bankruptey Act of 1914, which Act applied in Shanghai as' well as in England.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.