Jacobs (U. S. Assessor), a shopkeeper, part proprietor of a store Nos. 2656-7 East Seward Road, was charged with having on November 16 stored on his premises a quantity of kerosene oil in excess of that allowed by Municipal Regulations.
Det.-Insp. Reeves stated that on November 16 a fire broke out at the premises Nos. 2656-7 East Seward Road—a double shop, of which there were five or six proprietors. The upper portion of the premises was burnt out and, after the fire had been extinguished, 37 cases of kerosene oil were found in a storeroom at the back of the shop. According to Municipal Regulations, only 10 cases could be stored in one shop, and only 20 in a double shop. In the case of the outbreak of fire under notice, it was fortunate that the oil did not catch fire. Cigarettes, fireworks and matches were on sale in the shop.
The accused said that he was not in the shop at the time of the fire. The oil had been put. there by the shroff of a kerosene oil company. The employees of the shop did not know it was wrong to store the oil and thought that it had been ordered.
A fine of $5 was imposed.
Breaches by Motor-Cyclists of Municipal Regulations At the Mixed Court on Wednes-before Nagistrate Yui and Mr. Davidson (British Assessor), a Chinese coppersmith was charged with having at 10.90 a.in. on Novem ber 97, on Nanking Road, in charge of motorcycle No. 2029, driven the same without having obtained a driver's licence issued by the Municipal Council.
P.-C. Eaten said that on November 27 he was proceeding along Nanking Road in a tram-car when he saw the defendant riding a motor-cycle bearing licence No. 2029 going along the road. About two days later the defendant was arrested in Wayside district and was identified by witness as the man he had seen riding the motorcycle in Nanking Road.
Chief Inspector Kinipple said that this was an aggravated case, in that the defendant had made use of a licence plate that was not his property. Defendant. was frst reported to the Police last July, and again about two months later. Tt was then decided to prosecute the holder of the licence, a Mr. Lopes, and the latter was taken before Mr. G. W. King, H. M. Police Magistrate. Mr. Lopes proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that he was not riding the motorcycle at the time stated in the charge, and the case was dismissed. On November 5, 27 and 29 it was reported that the cycle was being ridden. The defendant was a coppersmith at Yangtzepoo and had evidently been using the licence plate instead of a trade plate. The Inspector asked for the full penalty—a fine of $100.
Defendant said that he bought the motor-cycle from a foreigner, when it was broken and out of order. Defendant repaired it and a Japanese took it out from the shop without defendant's knowledge and rode it. Defendant did not ride it.
'A fine of $15 was imposed.
Before Magistrate Tsang and Mr. Hutchison (British Assessor), a Chinese contractor was charged with having at 11.30 a.m. on the 7th instant, near the junction of Chapoo and North Soochow Roads, ridden a motor-cycle without having first obtained a permit; secondly. with having failed to obey police signals at the same time and place; and further, with having carelessly and negligently caused injury to a Chinese coolie.
S.'P. C. 409 stated that when on duty near the junction of Chapoo and North Soochow Roads, at 11.30 a.m. on the 7th instant, he saw five coolies pulling a handcart over the Chapoo Road bridge, going from South to North. At the same time there was a tram-car going along North Soochow Road, and accused was on his motor-cycle following about five yards behind the tram-car. Witness signalled for the tram to stop and it did so, but accused did not stop. The latter passed between the train-car and the Soochow Creek, collided with a handcart coolie, and knocked him over. Witness stopped accused and asked him for his permit to drive a motor-cycle. Accused id he did not possess one, and witness took him to the Station. The coolie, who was injured, was taken to the hospital.
The injured coolie gave evidence corroborating the constable's statement.
The accused said that he did not see the Sikh constable's signal. His motor-cycle was new and he had a licence, but no permit to drive it, as he did not know that was necessary. He was going from East to West at the time of the accident. If the Sikh constable signalled, he did so wrongly. it was the handcart coolie who ran into accused. Accused tried to avoid an accident.
For having no permit to drive, accused was ordered to pay a fine of $10, and for the injury to the coolie he was ordered to pay the latter $2 compensation. The charge of having failed to obey police signals was dismissed, and the charge sheet was endorsed with a recommendation that it would be better, when possible, for the man on point duty to cross into the middle of the road on which ne wished to stop the traffic,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.