- 3-
bell, and that when the proprietor opened the door, all three of them rushed in together. This does not agree with the evidence given by the proprietor, Mr. CHEUNG Kwong-ping, nor the evidence of WONG Pang-yuk. The prisoner went on to say that the proprietor resisted them and they went forward with the intention of subduing him and that in the commotion the proprietor and others were stabbed and wounded. He said that at the time he did not know that the wife
of the proprietor had been stabbed. If this is correct I do not know what he meant in his statement when he said that the proprietor
and others were stabbed and wounded because from all the evidence
the proprietor and his wife were the only two persons attacked.
He said that it was only after seeing a report in the newspapers
that he was aware of the fact that the proprietor's wife had been severely wounded and had died.
The prisoner's defence was one of alibi. He said that
he had never met his co-accused before he was arrested. The Crown
called an independent witness, Madam CHAN Pik-chu, who had seen the prisoner and his co-accused on the evening of the 23rd August, she said that they were together and that they did know one another. The prisoner said that at the time of the incident he had been in a
dance hall with a girl friend. The girl friend was called to give
evidence by the Crown in rebuttal, and she said that although sho
knew the prisoner she was not with him anywhere on the night in
question. The prisoner said that his statement had been invented
by the police and he had been forced by beatings to sign the statement.
Medical evidence was given that soon after his arrest the prisoner was
medically examined and there was no mark of violence on him which there
certainly would have been if he had been beaten as he alleged.
from the contents of the statement it was clear that it could not have
been invented by the police as alleged by the prisoner.
Also
The jury, in my opinion perfectly correctly, disbelieved the evidence of the prisoner and on the evidence adduced by the Crown
found the prisoner guilty of murder. I imagine that the reason why the jury only found the prisoner's co-accused guilty of manslaughter
is that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his
intention was to kill or to cause really serious bodily harm to the
deceased and that he arrived at the scene a little later than the