THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4TM FEBRUARY, 1880.
MINUTE BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR ON C.S.O. 1606 or 1879, TO THE ACTINg Attorney-General.
113
1. It is clear from the evidence and documents published by the Contagious Discases Commission. t pretices of this kind have prevailed unchecked, or almost unchecked, for many years past, in this
my.
2. Last year I drew the Attorney General's (Mr. PHILIPPO) attention to a petition from a father se the restoration of his child, but Mr. Pirro, before whom the papers were laid, did not seem ed to enforce the rights of the father on the ground that he had sold the child. It would be well. get the l'etition and read the minutes on it.
3. I did not agree with Mr. PHILIPPO's view of the law.
4. If the Acting Attorney General thinks he can obtain a conviction in the case to which the Chief Justice now calls attention, or any similar case, my wish is that the Law be strictly enforced.
(Signed,)
Note.-Governor HENNESSY left for Japan on the 31st of May, 1879.
J. POPE HENNESSY. 30th May, 1879. :
The Colonial Secretary, Mr. W. H. Marsh, administered the Government till the Governor's return, 6th of September, 1879.
MINUTE BY THE HONOURABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR ON THE GOVERNOR'S MINUTE.
I think the Magistrate who committed for trial in these two cases should have an opportunity of perusing the Chief Justice's letter and of explaining why he discharged the two persons whom it is how suggested should be prosccuted. Refer to him accordingly. ·.
(Signed,)
W. H. MARSH. 9th June, 1879.
REPORT BY THE ACTING Police Magistrate.
Regina v. Soo A-sú and another.
In this case the druggist Lau Pak-cheung was not discharged, he only appeared before me as a iness for the prosecution.
Regina v. Mak Loi-hi.
It appeared to me that Mak Loi-hi, who, according to the evidence, found the child crying in the tt and under the pretence of finding and restoring her to her mother, took her about and offered hr for sale, was the chief actor in the crime, and as I considered that the unsupported evidence of the chill was insufficient to secure her conviction, I discharged the 4th defendant, and made her a witness at the request of Inspector LINDSAY who believed that froin the inquiries he had made she had purchased the girl on the supposition that the latter had been sold with her father's consent.
4. When recalled the child herself stated that she told the 4th defendant, that this was the case
because 1st defendant told me to say so."
To obtain a conviction under paragraph 50 and 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1865 it must be proved that the child was detained,
1. With intent to sell him or her or to procure a ransom or benefit for his or her liberation.
2. "With intent to deprive any parent, guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge
of such child of the possession of such child, or
3. With intent to steal any article upon or about the person of such child" and I considered that while the evidence of a criminal intention was very slight in the case of the 4th defendant, she would be an important witness against the actual kidnapper of the girl.