5 -
appellant and which res lan believed by the learned judge, pro
contained in his judgaent.
So much for the direct evidence. There was clso, as we
shall see, much indir et evidence but it was contended that
nonetheless the conspiracy had not been proved.
In this connection iir. Scrivener conjured up the analogy
of a wheel without a rim the persons at the outer ends of the spokes
of such wheel not moving each other or erch other's purpose. The
persons Mr. Scrivener so invoked in imagination were the gaming-house
keepers, the brothel proprietors and those others outside the law
who were paying prot.ction money; 2,000 a day in the case of one
gaming stall; $11,000 every five days in the case of another. Το
these people he applied the euphemism "stallholders" and that euphemism I shall adopt for the sale of convience. But the analogy is false,
for no single stallholder was amongst the conspirators added to the original charge. So far as the charge was concerned, the spokes simply did not extend to the stallholders but stopped with (apart from Krs. Cunningham and the English bank managers) the collectors of the
bribe money.
With then ond the spokes envisaged in the charge and between the lies the rin.
What then is the position of the collectors vis-a-vis
ench other?
Before considering that, let me revert to the analogy of
allegedly
-
the stallholders as standing at the end of the spokes without any attaching rim. It is useful to consider that analogy
since the learned judge found that the stallholders were part of the conspiracy. In fact there was a connecting rim between the stallholders.
(1) In A. v. lieyrick 2. v. Ribuffi Lord Hewart, C.J., speaking of the Soho district of London, referred to its relatively small geographical rca and said that there were clearly facts upon which a jury could come to the conclusion that the night club proprietors in the district well know what was happening generally in relation to the police. That ron rit is equally epposite to the gaming house and brothel keepers the North Point and Causeway Bay area of Hong Kong.
To recurn to the position of the collectors, they were
(1) (1929) 45 .L.R. 421; 21 Cr. App. R. 94, C.C.A.
Page 90Page 91