- 5 -
appellant and which was also belicvod by the learned judge, are contained in his judgment.
So much for the direct evidence.
There was also, os we
shall see, auch indir ct evidence but it was contonded that nonetheless the conspiracy hd not been proved.
In this connection iir. Scrivener conjured up the analogy of a wheel without a rim th. persons at the outer ends of the spokes
The of such wheel not knowing each other or each other's purpose. persons Mr. Scrivener so invoked in imagination were the gaming-house keepers, the brothel proprietors and those others outside the law who were paying protection money; 2,000 a day in the case of one Το gaming stall; $11,000 ovory five days in the case of another. these people he applied the euphemism "stallholders" and that euphemism I shall adopt for the sake of convenience. 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 stopoed with (apart from Mrs. Cunningham and the English bank managers) the collectors of the
bribe money.
With them ond the spokes envisaged in the charge and
between them lics the rim.
each other?
hit then is the position of the collectors vis-a-vis
A
Before considering that, let me revert to the analogy of the stallholders as standing t the end of the spokes allegedly
without any attaching rin. 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 R. 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 voll knew what was happening generally in relation to the police. What remark is equally apposite to the gaming house and brothel kocpers of the North Point and Causeway Bay area of
Hong Kong.
.
To return to the position of the collectors, they were
(1) (1929) 45 I.L.R. 421; 21 Cr. App. R. 94, C.С.Á.