leng
·THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the contention in this case. The | what kind of a box it was How could by saying that the point was of an ordinary character, but the defendant have known that, how could involved a very egard to both points there was no evidence he have given that information, if he had not | dastardly act to get t tent and they did not come within the rule | himself been the sender of the box? His friend and a chum for rred to by his learned friend as being the explanation about the box was an utterly futile involving him in a her consequence of the letter. In old woman's tale and the story was utterly the jury thought that ard to the third point counsel sub- absurd. It did no credit to himself in invent-proved it was their duty to find mitted that the consent of the partying such a story and in trying to make the guilty, although they might sym had first of allto be obtained. It jury believe it. Counsel asked the jury to in the scrape in which he had got was not the natural consequence of ask return a verdict of guilty against the defendant the other hand, if they thought inga favour that it would be granted, on both counts.
reasonable doubt in the case they and there was no case where an attempt to
prisoner the benefit of it and acquit 1 do a man an indirect injury of this sort by
The jury, after an absence of a few a means of a false document had been held to
returned a verdict of guilty be forgery. Take away the opium and there was no fraud whatever in the instrument.
and
45
His Lordship Charles McKinley, you have been found guilty on very clear evidence s I am very sorry that a respectable and in- telligent man like you should have let your evil passions carry you so away. I have not to award hard labour; you must go to prison for fifteen months.
A JURYMAN'S FINE
His Lordship said he hay ITTED,
received a letter from Mr. H. 8. Cooke, the juryman who was fined $5 for not attending the court. The letter gave explanations and his Lordship had decided to give Mr. Cooke the benefit of the doubt and to remit the fine;
}
THE NAVY LEAGUE AND THE NAVAL ESTIMATES:
The following letter from the head office of the Navy League has been handed to us by the Secretary of the Local Branch ---
The Navy League,
Mr. Robinson, for the defence, said that the defendant was guilty of an intent only against Raymond or was not guilty at all. Practically speaking, the learned counsel for the prosecu- sion did not contend that the defendant's in- His Lordship, without calling upon Mr. tent was to defrund the owners of the Hanoi. Francis, decided that there was a case to go But where was there a tittle of evidence to to the jury and explained that, in regard to the prove that the defendant uttered the letter or first point raised by the learned counsel for forwarded the box? There was only this the defence, it had occurred to him whether that the letter is in the handwriting of the the suggested intents in this case were such defendant, and therefore when he uttered it as brought the case within the definition of he knew it was false. If the jury could forgery at common law, and he had therefore, lay their bands on their hearts and say Yes, having felt a difficulty on the point, carefully the defendant wrote that letter," then he was examined the authorities with a view of deter-guilty; they need not consider anything else. mining the question himself beforehand. 'He Counsel then spoke about the making of the had arrived at an opinion in the matter and the box and contended that the evidence of the learned counsel's argument had not shaken witnesses as to the date it was made was not that opinion. He thought that the intents reliable enough to justify the contention of the at any rate two of them-were such as to prosecution that the date was before the 3rd bring the case within the definition of Uctober, when a box was sent on board the Hanoi. fergery. He would when addressing the As to the motive for giving information the jury explain the question of intent defendant had never disguised it. His motive therefore would not do so now. Of course it was to injure Raymond, because Raymond had had to be borne in mind that it had been wronged him crnelly by taking away the mother decided it was not necessary to give proof to
of his child. But because a man has a motive defraud any particular person. It was quite to injure another it did not follow that he would
13, Victoria Street, London, S.W. sufficient if the jury were satisfied that by injure him. Raymond had smuggled opium
27th November, 1896. means of a false document the prisoner's intent for the past six months and no doubt in order
Dear Sir,-By last week's mail I forwarded was to defraud generally, although it might be to divert suspicion he carried innocent letters two Daily Chronicles of the 3rd and 5th that ne person was defranded or could have been with him such as the one which it was suggested November, and would draw your attention to defrauded. In regard to the first point, that the defendant wrote. Counsel contended that the letters of Mr. H. W. Wilson, the Editor of this document was not, under the circumstances, the writing in the letter was more like the the Navy League Journal and the author of capable of sustaining the information, his Lord- writing of a Frenchman than of an English-Ironclade in Action," and also to that of Sir ship said he had listened to what the learned man. He did not think Raymond wrote it, but Charles Dilke. counsel had said and to the cases be quoted, and he he got someone in Haiphong to write it in order thought there could be no doubt thata letter was a to free himself. document within the meaning of the definition. The counsel had also suggested that the document and the parcel must be taken together and that therefore there was, no document in which forgery stood by itself and could be charged in the information. In regard to that his Lordship took this view: if the letter were a forgery, a false document, then it produced a certain state of things to the prejudice of Raymond and the box was not connected with the letter so as to affect the question of forgery of the letter in itself. It was true that the box went with the letter, and it was true that it formed part of the scheme which was, to Baume for the moment, in the mind of the writer; but the letter produced a certain effect to the prejudice of the prosecutor, and in point of law his Lordship thought the letter was clearly a document capable of being forged. The case therefore must go to the jury.
រ
The Court then adjourned until 1.45 for luncheon.
On his Lordship returning to Court Chan Teung Fat, one of the jurors, was absent and he did not return until 2.10.
His Lordship Mr. Chan Tsung Fat, why are you so late?
Chan Tsung Fat-I understood the Court adjourned until a quarter-past two. I made a mistake.
J50C
His-Lordship How is everybody else here atia quarter to two and you are not here till 2152 -Chau Tsung: Eat-I made a mistake, my Lord i fuumu.
Hi Lordship I cut doubt your word. but you are very careless
!
not a
"
11
2
The former deals with the all important question of the manning of the fleet. The latter is a review of the return issued by the House of Commons last August on the " and the fleets of Great Britain and other Countries." This Parliamentary return 64d., can be obtained from any bookseller.
As the naval estimates are now in con preparation and Mr. Goschen and Sir Hicks-Beach, the Chancellor of the Excheque have expressed their opinions in favour of reduction of those estimates next year, my Committee think it most important that an expression of opinion should come from every branch of the Navy League (and we hope from every town in the United Kingdom)Lurging Government to lay on the table of the House of Commons next March naval estimates – which shall be adequate to the needs of this great Empire and which shall ensure for us in the year 1899 a fleet of sufficient magnitude to be able to cope satisfactorily with those of any probable combination which might be brought against us.
His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out at some length the legal bearings of the case and read from text books various definitions of
intent to defraud,” which was the chief in- gredient of the offence of forgery. He did not know of any case on all fours with the present case, but he thought, after consideration, that the case fell within the proposition of law laid down in regard to the question of the intend to defraud. In speaking of the facts of the case his Lordship said that during the two days' trial they had not breathed a very healthy moral air in this matter. They had heard of men keeping concubines, then quar- relling and backbiting one another, and, as far as the defendant was concerned at any rate, engaging in smuggling opium. All this was very pleasing, exhibition of human nature. In regard to the words Yours fraternally in the letter, the jury had to decide whether anyone not a mason would use such a term as that. If the defendant did write that letter it was a sad thing, because, masons had always been reputed as having the greatest loyalty and good will to one another, and it seemed a base thing to use a term like that in order to entrap a brother mason. His Lordship also commented upon the fact that the defendant in his statement at the Police Court gave no explanation about the box. The witnesses had identified the box as having been made at the request of McKinley and it was quite clear that it was sent to Haiphong. The defendant had admitted having had a box made, but said that it was for a friend in Manila and had been placed in a lumber room. But the defence had not suggested that two boxes were made nor were the witnesses asked if they had made two boxes for the defendant, and the jury had to consider that matter and say whether the defendant's explanation was a reasonable one. If the jury believed that when the Customs officers saw the box in the drawer and ex claimed That is what we want," that evidence would show that the person who gave in formation to the French Consul undoubtedly know what kind of Lordship concluded our Branches on ti
of a box was used for the
Mr. Francis then addressed the jury and at the outset commented upon the statement made by the prisoner, who had practically confessed hất, owing to 'quarrel about a girl, he sent letter and the parcel out of a spirit of enge and with a desire in some way to punish ymond and get even with him. In regard the box, how did the customs officers, who on said ““ That's what we want" know was the particular box if the mformation to the French Consul
and if he did not know | carriage of the opium,
ording togthe
I shall therefore be obliged if you can arrange for a meeting in your town at an early date, from which a resolution, shall emanate to the above effect. However, if this be not poss I trust you will see your way to calling meeting of the members of the Branch in yo locality, and that a resolution will be expressing dissatisfaction with the strength of our navy, and demanding adequa naval estimates in the coming year
It is abundantly clear," ac opinions of our highest naval experts, including such well-known names as Lord Charles Here ford, Admiral Lord Hood of Avalon, Admiral Sir Vesey Hamilton, the last two of who for three years First Sea Lord of the Ad and the latter is now a member of on Committee, that at the present t on is not strong enough to meet an bination which might be as we have not enough a dozen (built and build far short of the and men to men th
There is an add anxious to ret an
Page 10Page 11