416
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The jury were-Messrs. Chan He Wan, J. M. de Rozario, D. F. C. de Roza, L. R. Ruchwaldy, Louis Keu Chee, H. McPhail, and P. E. Silva,
The Attorney-Generál, as soon as he made the important discovery, mentioned the fact in Court. He added that neither Mr. Gedge, the prisoner's solicitor, nor the prisoner himself knew anything about the decision being reversed; Mr. F. M. Guttierrez was called as a juryman in fact no one knew anything about it and the but on the application of Mr. Robinson he fine had not been remitted.
was asked to stand aside as he was connected Mr. Slade said that he knew nothing what-with the North, British and Mercantile Fire ever about the previous decision being reversed. Insurance Company. and the application for the appeal had not been withdrawn.
His Lordship said the fact that the prisoner had been acquitted of the charge of being in unlawful possession very much lessened the likelihood of his offering a bribe. Why should he offer a bribe to the police if he was in nocent ?
After some discussion between the Attorney General and Mr. Slade His Lordship said that the Attorney-General had better go on unless he thought that his case had been weakened by the fact that the accused was discharged. The Magistrate ought certainly to have had the parties before him when he reviewed his deci- sion.
The Attorney-General replied that he would continue with the case. The fact that the man had been found not. guilty did not prove that he did not offer a bribe to the constable.
The case then proceeded and lasted until after five o'clock, the result being that the prisoner was unanimously found not guilty and he was discharged.
Mr. Slade asked for the return of the prisoner's money and the application was granted. He then asked for the return of the sugar.
$
In regard to the sugar the Attorney-General said that if the Magistrate reviewed his decision while the application for appeal was pending he did what he had no business to do.
His Lordship replied that he had nothing to do with the sugar and therefore could not make any order in regard to it.
21st May.
BOLTED,
When the case against a Chinaman for coun- terfeit coining was called on the prisoner, who had been allowed ont on bail, did not answer to
his name.
Hon. W. M. Goodman (Attorney-General) My Lord, this case was fixed for to-day owing to the indisposition of Mr. Robinson. I saw Mr. Robinson this morning, and he informs me
that the fee promised to him has not been paid and he does not appear for the man now. Не also informed me that he has reason to believe that the accused has absconded. The man was let out on bail and, so I am informed by Mr. Seth, he deposited certain securities at the Magistracy, namely, $500. Probably it pays a man of this description, possessing a consider- able sum of money, far better to hand over the $500 than to stand bis trial. $500 is a very small sum as bail in a case of this sort; it is not £50, and the fact that he does not appear corroborates what I have said, that he has probably run away. I ask that the money be estreated and I also apply
for the Bench warrant.
His Lordship ordered the money to be estreated and granted a Bench warrant for the man's apprehension.
The Attorney-General said there were no other cases for that day. It was rather unfor- tunate, as the arson case might have been taken; but this was the result of all the arrangements one was asked to make by Counsel on the
other side.
The Court then adjourned.
26th May.
THE CHARGE OF ARSON.
Wong Lin Kang was charged with felo- niously, unlawfully, and maliciously setting fire to a dwelling house at 99, Jervois Street, there being at the time three persons in the house, on the 21st April,
[May 29, 1897.
that the letter which was alleged to have been addressed to the prisoner from Shanghai by the principal partner in the shop, was inadmis- sible on the ground that there was no proof from whom the document came. Mr. Robinson, for the prisoner, raised the question as to the admissibility of the letter and quoted cases ·in support of his contention.
20th May.
IN SUMMARY JurisdicTION.
W. JACKSON v. A, PREDDLE. Walter Jackson, manager of Bell's Asbestos Agency, brought an action against A. Preddle, manager of the East Point Dairy Farm, to recover a bull terrier dog and $50 damages for illegal detention.
!
Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Mr. Wilkin son) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. J. Hastings for the defendant.
Mr. Šlade said the plaintiff was in the habit of breeding bull terriers and the dog in respect to which this action was brought was one of a litter of nine and was born last April twelve months. The dog was the only one which was kept and in January last he went astray. About a
| The Attorney-General explained that the -ground and second floors of the premises at 99, Jervois Street, were occupied by a dealer in bird's nests and theirst floor was occupied by a dealer in piece goods. The pièce goods shop BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE Judge.) was occupied by the master, the accountant, and an apprentice, all of whom were suffocated in the fire. At the time of the firo the master of the bird's nest shop was at Shanghai and the accountant was at Canton; the prisoner being left in charge of the place. The goods on the ground and second floors were insured for $7,000, but as a matter of fact at the time of the fire they were not worth as many hundreds as they were insured for thousands, and it would be proved that two or three days before the fire two or three boxes of bird's nests were sent away from the premises' to Macao. The fire, which was a very sharp one, was very quickly put out, and after the firemen had finished tins containing kerosine were found in such situations and under such circumstances as to give rise to the conclusion that the fire was caused intentionally and not by accident. In cases of arson it was very difficult to bring home the guilt to the culprit. In many instances the fire lasted so long that all proofs of the manner by which it was caused were destroyed, and as a rule the police had to rely on the evidence of the people in the shop, and if the circumstances were very suspicious indeed and there was likely to be a prosecution the people in the shop went out of the jurisdiction of the colony unless they were arrested. In that case the police were in the awkward position that they could not ask the apprehended persons any ques- tions. Particulars had to be ascertained and how on earth could they be ascertained except from the persons in the shop? They had to be let out one by due and put in the witness box to say what they pleased, and as a rule they were far from friendly to to prosecution. It would be proved that the prisoner slept in the accountant's room on the ground floor, where a tin of kero- sine, which had a hole in it, some matting, and some paper torches were found. The defence might be set up that the fire originated on the first floor, where the three men were suffocated.
Hon, W. M. Goodman (Attorney-General), | instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys (Crown So--|· licitor), prosecuted, and Mr. E. Robinson (in structed by Mr. V. H. Deacon) defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty.
It would be proved, however, that the fire did not originate there. Police Sergeant Macaulay, who was the first on the scene, would say that when he got there the fire was burning fiercely on the ground floor, princi. pally near the counter just outside the accountant's room, It was perfectly true that three tins of kerosine were found under the bed on the first floor; one was full of oil, an- other was partly filled, and the third was empty. But the fire could not have originated there as while the head of the bed was burnt the bed boards above the tins were not burnt at all. found on the first floor only one cash was found Another curious fact was that while $169 was on the ground floor. In conclusion the At- torney-General said that an important letter was found in the prisoner's room. This letter was from the master of the shop to his two partners, Wing Sing (the accountant) and Wong Lin Kang (the prisoner), and was dated Shang- hai, April 8th. The letter concluded "Your letter of to-day's date says that the insurance has been renewed. Now you are in the shop you must devise means to save me and I shall be deeply steeped in your generosity. Business, when prosperous, is very easy to manage, but when failing it is very difficult to tell others. I sincerely hope that you two will consult together and act when opportunity offers. That will do, there is no necessity for further orders.'
Evidence was then called in support of this statement.
The case for the prosecution had not closed when the Court adjourned.
The case was continued on the 27th May, but the prosecution was not closed when the Court adjourned. The most interesting point in the day's proceedings was the ruling of the Judge
fortnight ago plaintiff was riding a horse at the Happy Valley when he saw his dog in the company of a man named Touleman. Plaintiff said "That is my dog." Tonleman said. “Oh, no, it is not; I bought it from a soldier." Plain.
It is my dog all the same; tiff replied
I recognise the mark on the root of the tail. The horse knows the dog and the dog knows the horse." Touleman then said "I believe it is your dog and I am willing to give it to you back, but I have given it away." Plaintiff said "Very well, you will let the man know.". The result of this meeting was that plaintiff communicated with the defendant, who had the dog, and asked him to return it. Defendant refused and later the plaintiff went down to the East Point Dairy Farm, where the defendant was engaged, and asked him for the dog. The request was-re- fused and plaintiff said he would put the mat- ter into the hands of the police. Afterwards the plaintiff again saw the dog in the house and called him "Dick" and the dog came but like a shot. Plaintiff called him “Dick” and the defendant called him "Joe." The result of the defendant's refusal to return the dog was that plaintiff put the matter into the hands of his solicitor.
His horse also
Plaintiff was then called and he said that he recognized the dog (which was produced in court) by a black spot at the root of his tail and a scar on the shoulder. recognized the dog at the Happy Valley, As a rule the horse hit an unknown dog with his foot, but on this occasion he smelt Dick and put his head down and stroked the dog's back.
In answer to Mr. Hastings plaintiff said he was sure that he lost the dog in January last. He would be surprised if Captain Touleman had had the dog in his possession since De- cember, last,
The defence was that the dog was not one of the litter belonging to the plaintiff.
After hearing a considerable amount of evidence his Lordship gave a verdict for thể defendant with costs.
Among the passengers leaving Shanghai by the Coromandel on the 15th May, says the N. C. Daily News, was Mr. A. Wasserfall, who was formerly captain of the German Company of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps. A guard of honour of about 30 men, under Lieuts. Beck and Rohde, were drawn up on the P. and O. jetty to accord military honours to their ex-captain, who is proceeding to Hong. kong by the Coromandel, and from thence to Europe by the Prinz Heinrich. Mr. Wasser- fall has left China permanently, intending to join the Hamburg house of Messrs. Siemssen & Co., whose manager in Shanghai he has been for some time. He has been very popular both with his own countrymen and foreigners of English and other nationalities, and the cheers which were given him as the tender cast off from the pontoon but faintly expressed the esteem in which he has been heli̟.