390
intention by taking a sampan from the steps at the bottom of Bonham Strand West. There were two other sampaus there, and the one that Gundersen took contained the two prisoners and a two or three years old baby. He never again set foot on the shore; he was not put on board the George F. Maason, and the vessel left on the 21st October. On the night in question the ship was lying in the merchant shipping anchorage, about a mile from Old Pedder's Wharf, and between Stonecutter's Island and Yaumati, and about half a mile to the west of the torpedo depot at Kowloon. The owners of the other two sampans would say that & European left in the prisoners' boat, and that Leung Kau was told to go to a three-masted vessel. Nothing further was seen of Gunder- sen until the 9th October, when his body was found floating off Kau-i-chau. His head had been terribly hacked, and the suggestion was that the prisoners had murdered him, and then thrown him overboard after taking his watch. At midnight on the following Tuesday a district watchman was on the Praya when he spoke to the male prisoner and asked him what time it was. The prisoner pulled out a watch and answered the question. The watch man then asked him where he got the watch from and he said he bought it two or three days previously for 82. The witnesses would say it was mert unusual for a boatinan to have a watch. When the prisoners were arrested their boat was searched and a couple of choppers, one of which was without a handle, were found, but it was only right to say that no blood marks were found upon them, although a most care. ful analysis was made by the Government analyst. The prosecution contended that the prisoners murdered the duecase, and when before the Magistrates they had maintained a discreet silence. No our could tell better than they what they did with Johann Gundersen, and according to the Hongkong law his Lord- ship could question the prisoners.
His Lordship Is it necessary to address the jury about that?
The Attorney-General I do not think that fact is generally known, and I mentioned it in the interests of the public.
His Lordship It is a matter which I can decided upou later. I cannot say yet whether I shall exercise my power or not. I have exercised
it in other cases.
Witnesses for the prosecution were then called.
At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution his Lordship said he should ask the male prisoner on or two questions, which, how- ever, he need Lot answer.
His Lordship-Do you remember taking at European off to a sailing vessel :
Prisoner-We did not take off that Euro-
pean.
His Lordship Did you ever have a watch? Prisoner I had a watch which I bought as long ago as two or three years.
His Lordship-Have you got it now ? Prisoner-No.
His Lordship-What has become of it? Prisoner-In using the boat, the watch fell into the water.
His Lordship-When was that? Prisoner About the 20th.
His Lordship Is it true you showed it to the watchman on the Praya?
Prisoner-It is true that I did not.
His Lordship Is it true that you had a watch at all, or is it that you are only explain- ing away the evidence that you have been seen with a watch?
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
wharf about-the 6th October. It was a common thing for drunken sailors to be taken off after eleven o'clock at night and there was no evi- dence whatever that Gundersen took the pri-
soners' boat.
The Attorney-General summed up the evidence and submitted that the case was a clear one against the prisoners.
are
[November 21, 1895.
The prisoner, in a long statement, said the maid servant had falsely accused him because he had told her schoolmistress that she had not been to school. Ife had sworn before the joss that he had a clear conscience, and he suggested that the maid servant and others in the pro- secutrix's house were in league against him. He had admitted having the jewels because he was threatened.
His Lordship-I feel inclined to take notice of this recommendation because of the ease with which you induced the girl to hand you the jewels and also because of your youth.. Under those circumstances I think the justice of the case will be met by a sentence of two years' imprisonment.
This concluded the business of the sessions.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
LAU KAN YU . HOPKINS, CUMMING AND CO. Plaintiff sought to recover $1,000 alleged to have been déposited as security with the defend- ants. Mr. Mounsey appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant Hopkins conducted the case for the defendants.
His Lordship asked what the defence was, and the defendant said that the writ had not been served jointly. This objection was overruled by his Lordship. There were two other defences- that the money was deposited by Lan Kan Yu, not as security as compradore, but as a share in the partnership; also that the agreement provided for three months' notice. which had not been given, and the money could not be withdrawn until such notice was given.
His Lordship. in the course of his sum- ming up, said Gentlemen of the jury, the The jury after a ten minutes' consultation prisoners are jointly charged with the murder returned a verdict of guilty, and added a recom- of this man Gundersen on the 6th October last, mendation of mercy because the prisoner was and it has been suggested to you that if Gunder-led into the robbery by the woman.. sen went on the poisoners' boat on that night it is absolutely certain that both these prisoners must be found guilty of this murder. Now, gentlemen, I do not say that if you satisfied that he did go on the boat that evening it is not a fair inference that he was murdered but I must pause before I go into the general question involved in the case and draw your attention to what I conceive to be a difficulty which might exist apart from the main question. By English law nobody can be convicted unless the jury are satisfied upon the BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). evidence without reasonable doubt that the prisoner is guilty. That applies to each in- dividual. however many there may be conjointly indicted. Now suppose Gundersen did go on the boat. Here are the man and woman who are jointly charged. Take the woman's case. Is it absolutely certain, even if Gundersen was on the bout and even if he was murdered on the boat, that the woman was a party to the murder? It is not enough that she must be present, but you must be satisfied that she was present and aiding and abetting in the commission of the murder. She is a small creature as you see, and that would be a question as regards whe- ther you are satisfied upon the evidence that she must necessarily have taken a part in the murder-supposing the murder was committed on the boat at all. The same question might be put. though perhaps with less force, as re- gards the man. However, I pass over that. It is an initial difficulty, but of course it is not the main question in this case. Now I do not sup- pose that you will have any doubt but that this poor man Gundersen was murdered; but I must ask you in the first place not necessarily to assume that he was murdered afloat because he was found in the water. It is not an impossible thing I make this suggestion only for what it is worth-- it is not an impossible thing. suppos ing you think the evidence is not of a satisfac. tory nature, that he was murdered ashore by some people unknown and pitched into the water afterwards. That might have been the result of his wandering amongst brothels and other places in a state of intoxication. His Lordship then commented upon the fact that, although bloodstains were exceedingly difficult to obliterate none were found in the hoat or upon the prisoner clothing, and the strong probability was that if the man had been hacked either in the boat or while holding on to the gunwale after being thrown overboard there would have been marks of blood upon their clothing.
His Lordship said he had previously decided that Lau Kan Yu was not a partner.
Defendant--I was not a party in that suit, and I can bring fresh evidence.
His Lordship You swore as a witness that Lau Kan Yu was a partner, and I said he was not. I have already stated that your evidence was not trustworthy. However, you are entitled to bring fresh evidence, because the parties are different, but I cannot go on with the case to-day.
The case was thereupou put into Friday's list, and a day will then be fixed for the hearing.
COLONIAL COURT
ADMIRALTY.
19th November.
OF
BEFORE SIR FIELDING Clarke (Chief JUSTICE), AND HON. COMMANDER W.
C. H. HASTINGS (ASSESSOR).
LAI PO ON J. THE STEAMSHIP "AGAMEMNON.'
The plaintiff claimed $1,400 damages for loss of his junk, which was run down by the defen-
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoners were discharged.dant steamship.
19th November.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
THEFT OF PEARLS.
Leung Kam was charged with stealing $3,000 worth of pearls belonging to the seventh con- cubine of Chan Tung Shang, director of the
Prisoner-I really had a watch. His Lordship-Do you wish to say anything National Bank of China. more ?
Prisoner--No.
His Lordship asked the female prisoner if she wished to say anything, and she said that she took off three foreigners oue Friday to a vessel, which left on Sunday morning, the 6th October. No one went in her boat on the night of the 6th October.
Hon. Ho Kai then addressed the jury for the defence. He said the prosecution had shown no evidence to prove where the man went to after he left the corner of Queen Street anl Queen's Road. The only really weighty evidence against the prisoners; taken at the very best, was that a European was taken off from the
The Attorney General (Hon. W. M. Good- man) prosecuted, and prisoner was undefended.
The following gentlemen composed the jury Messrs. P. M. N. Silva. A. Kuhn, V. Č. Č. Herbst, P. N. Sequeira, J. M. Gomes, A. S. Manuers, J. J. dos D. Barros.
The prosecutrix, whose name is Ho Tsat, resides in a house in Praya Central, and she missed the jewels on the night of the 19th October. It was found that a maid servant in her employ had been persuaded by the prisoner to take the jewels from a drawer and hand them to him. He thereupon handed them to a woman who pawped them and he went to Canton, where he spent a portion of the money.
Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Holmes) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. H. E. Pollock (instructed by Mr. Gedge) appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Pollock said he had a preliminary objec tion. According to the endorsement on the writ the plaintiff was "the owner, master, and crew of the fishing junk or boat On Lee." It was quite obvious that the plaintiff as & single person could not be the "owner, master,
and crew.
His Lordship agreed with the objection, and the words and crew were struck out, Mr. Robinson making no objection to the amendment.
Mr. Robinson said the plaintiff was the owner. and master of the sailing boat On Lee, and he claimed $1,400 from the steamship Agamemnon. Counsel proceeded to read the preliminary act of both the plaintiff and defendant. The time of the collision was about six o'clock on the 4th January last. The plaintiff states that the place of collision was off Kwo Chan, and the defendant states that it was off the South Ninepin; but it was agreed that Kwo Chan was the Chinese name for the South Ninepin. Ac.. cording to the plaintiff the wind was North and