regard to the law touching these cases he would deal with the first count first, and the first obser- vation he would make was that the word "mali- ciously." mentioned in that charge, had not the same meaning as it would have in an ordinary prosecution. For instance, it did not mean that the defendant bore any personal ill will to the complainant. He took the word as used in this charge as meaning that the prisoner fired the revolver and that the natural result of his firing was that he hit the complainant. The Acting Attorney-General then quoted cases which, he contended; proved that if a man intentionally does a certain act he must be held responsible for the natural consequences of that set. Applying the principles laid down. it was the contention of the prosecution that if the jury found that the prisoner intentionally fired off the revolver and the natural consequence was that this man was injured, he was guilty of the charge of unlawfully and maliciously wounding. With regard to the second charge, that of assaulting and wounding the complainant and thereby causing him actual bodily harm, he presumed that the defence would be that there was very great commotion on board this ship and that it was necessary for the protection of the lives of the Europeans on board that this revolver should be fired; but it would be for the jury to say whether the pri- soner used any unnecessarily violent measures in firing the revolver, and whether it was really necessary for him to fire in the interests of self- defence. It was not the contention of the pro- secution that the prisoner deliberately fired at this man, but that he went recklessly shooting about.
Witnesses bearing out counsel's opening statement were then called and the case for the prosecution had not concluded when the Court
rose.
24th July.
Further witnesses were called and the case for the prosecution closed.
and were
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
have lost their lives or would have been very | seriously wounded. If the jury were satisfied that the shots were fired to save the lives of the two men, his Lordship would doubtless tell them that the defendant was justified in firing to prevent the commission of the crime of wil ful murder.
After hearing some evidence for the defence the Court adjourned.
25th July.
Further evidence for the defence was called.
Mr. Francis, in his final address to the jury, submitted that the defendant was perfectly justified in the action he took, as the lives of the second officer and the third engineer were in danger, and he fired the shots in order to prevent the crime of murder from being committed. He fired four of the shots into the winch, but as these had no effect on the coolies he fired B couple amongst them. It was by his conduct alone that the second officer and the third engineer were re- leased from their perilous position.
The Acting Attorney-General replied for the Crown.
Jnly 30 1898
$250 damages for assault and wrongful arrest.
Mr. Grist appeared for the plaintiff, and M Robinson defended.
His Lordship said he did not understa term "wrongful arrest, Did imprisonment P
Mr. Grist said that the plaintift was in prison for the time being, but he wrongful arrest; it was not a malicious arrest Mr. Robinson said he had intended to address his Lordship on that point.
that
ad
Mr. Grist then said the term “false imprison- ment" was better than "wrongful arrest.
The plaintiff was called and he he was a merchant carrying on business Bonham Strand, and also at 32, Queen's West. He sometimes slept at the latter place; On the 5th inst., at 1 a.m., he rode up Queen's Road West in a ricksha. While the door of the house was being opened defendant, came up and asked him for his pass. Witness produced his annual pass and showed defendant, who then asked for his light. He then, struck witness twice and dragged along the Street. Near the Man On Insuran Company's office witness asked to
His Lordship, in summing up, explained the take a chair, but his request allowed
refused and he was taken to the Police Station Ho explained matters to the Inspector, who then told him to go, after asking him three or four times if he wished to sue the policeman.
By Mr. Robinson-It was not at the corner of Lower Lascar Row and East Street that witness first produced his pass; he produced it when asked outside his own door.
On Cheung, plaintiff's coolie, and Kenng San, buyer, gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Robinson, for the defence, said the de- fendant totally denied the statement of the plaintiff.
principles of law on the subject and said that if the jury were satisfied from all the circumstances of the case that the lives of the second officer and the third engineer were in imminent danger and that a possible felony was going to be com. mitted, and that the defendant believed the only way that injury to life or body could be pre- vented was by acting in the way he did, and that he had reasonable ground for forming that opinion, then the jury would be justified in ac- quitting him. If the jury did not think there P.S. Robinson spoke to the plaintiff being, was any danger to life and that the means em-
taken to the Central Police Station. As the ployed were not necessary then they would have pass was produced no charge was made. In. to convict the defendant. Speaking of the origin cross-examination witness said the defendant of the disturbance his Lordship said-I must had been in the force over six years. His speak in strong terms of the origin of this affair.character was good. To my mind nothing could have been worse than the conduct of the second officer. We have been in this court three days, your time has been taken up, and the owners of the ship have probably suffered great inconvenience because of the rough, brutal, and violent conduct of the second officer. He acted by that coolie in a way which was certainly not justifiable. He as- saulted him in the first instance and he assaulted him in the second instance. The shipowners probably know their business better than I, but if I were a shipowner and an officer acted like that second officer acted he would not remain in my service a moment longer. I have relieved my mind on this matter. It is a mercy the de- fendant is not standing his trial for murder; it is a mercy he was not the death of two persons all on account of the second officer's violence. I can only hope that so long as he and others like him come into this harbour they will remember that the Chinese are under the protection of the law of this colony, that they are not slaves to be driven as in a slave caravan in Egypt. You will recollect that the second officer fold us it was his custom to treat coolies in the way he did. If that is his custom and it continues much longer, some day he will get what he deserves.
Defendant said he met the plaintiff walking in the road and not riding in a 'ricksha ness asked him for his pass and he refused show it, and therefore he was taken into custody At the corner of East Street plaintiff prodnood the pass and then said he should complain of witness's conduct. Witness then told him he had better go to the police station and make the complaint.
His Lordship said he believed the plaintin and his witnesses, and as he had simply brought the action to clear his character and as the de fendant was a poor man the damages would be only 850.
HONGKONG, CANTON AND MACÃO STEAMBOAT CO., LIMITED.
The following is the report of the Board of Directors to the ordinary half-yearly meeting of shareholders, to be held at the office of the Company on Friday, the 31st July, at 12 o'clock
поод:-
Mr. Francis, in addressing the jury for the defence, said it was a subject for congratulation that the results of the shooting were not more serious than those spoken of in the evidence. The revolver was used because the second officer and the third engineer were at the moment in grievous peril of losing their lives. They were being most ferociously attacked by nearly a hundred coolies on the boat; the coolie gang crowded in fore and aft; there were shouts of "Ta, Ta;' and coolies from the cargo boats swarmed the deck ot assist the other coolies. The captain of the ship, the chief officer, the second officer, the third officer, the chief engineer, and the third engineer would be called to prove the facts. However wrongful may have been the act of the first or second officer, or both, in cuffing or ill-using one or more of the coolies at the time the shower of rain came on, when the hatches were ordered to be covered in ortler to save the rice, the result of what they did was that the whole of the coolies, excited by the cries, came rushing forward to where the two officers
attacked them with pieces of wood. handspikes, basins, and everything they could lay their hands on. About a hundred coolies attacked the second officer and the third engineer, who were beaten down and were completely at the mercy of the infuriated Chinamen. It was then that the defendant, who had nothing whatever to do with the commencement of the disturbance, went on deck, saw that the second officer and the third engineer were grievously beset, went back to his cabin, returned with a revolver, and fired four shots into the winch. Finding that these reports had no effect on the mob he fired two shots amongst the crowd and injured two of them. Then they all rushed off the vessel and the deck was left clear except for the presence of broken basins, pieces of wood, and other things they had used as missiles. The police signal had been flying two hours, but it was not seen, because no one was on the look out, and an officer had to be sent to the Water Police BEFORE ME. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING annual docking and overl Station before police assistance arrived. When the defendant fired the moment was a critical one. There was no one to relieve or release the two officers from the danger, and if the shots had not been fired at the time the men would
I
The jury retired at 4.15, and after an absence of twenty minutes returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority of six to one.
His Lordship considered that the jury had not considered their verdict for a reasonable time and asked them to retire once more.
The jury again retired and at 5.15 returned with the same verdict and with the same majority.
The Acting Attorney-General said he did not propose to proceed with the other charge concerning the second coolie, and a nolle prosequi was entered.
The defendant was thereupon discharged.
23rd July.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
PUISNE JUDGE.)
HUNG MAN YUK V. LALL SINGH. Plaintiff brought an action against the de- fendant, a police constable, No. 609, to recover
The Directors beg to submit to the shareholders the report and statement of accounts for the half-year ending 30th June last,
て
insurance, repairs and all other out-goings, there After paying running expenses, salaries, premia of remains, including $5,064.36 brought forward from last account, the sum of $143,302.02 at cre profit and loss account. From this am Directors' recommend that a dividend for year of 8 per cent cn capital, or $96 shareholders, and that the balance carrie forward to new account.
the
Except on the Canton-Macao line, where ev. show a slight falling off, the ear compare favourably with those six months of last year, and
sult will no doubt be considered satisfactory
During the period undergone considerable being the renewing of changing of the port paddle
mair
necessary to order from Eng paddle shaft for this steamer, w fitted at an early dale.s the customary annual dockin however, call for no special
tems
44