COST OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD gave notice of the following question:-In view of Your Excel lenoy having received several applications for an increase of salary from officers in the service of the Government and your proposal to refer these to a Committee for consideration and report, will the Government lay upon the table a statement showing the total cost of or expen- diture on the administration of the Govern ment, including pensions, exchange compensa- tion, and all other allowances, during the years 1895 and 1896 separately P
THE LATRINE ORDINANCE.
may
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND and amend the laws relating to the protection of women and girls. It will be within the recollection of hon, members that when this Bill was in Committee I said that in regard to the third sub-section of section 3 I might have to add a proviso. I have since carefully con sidered the matter and have shown the proviso to the learned member Dr. Ho Kai, who agrees with it. I therefore ask that the Council resolve itself once again into Committee to consider the clauses 2 and 3.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded. Council went into Committee on the Bill. After a slight alteration had been made in clause 2 the ATTORNEY-GENERAL said-The difficulty in sub-Section 3 of clause 3 is that knowledge had to be proved. A girl is sold and then brought to Hongkong and taken to a brothel for proposes of prostitu- tion. If the person who brought her down knows she was sold, it is an offence. It is ex- tremely difficult to prove what a man knows, and the latest scheme is as follows:-A buys a girl and sends her to a brothel in Hongkong. If he brought her here the case would be plain, but he hands her over to B at the steamer, B is really the confederate or why should he bring a girl of whom he knows nothing to Hongkong to be put in a brothel? If after B sends the girl to the brothel he is arrested, he says, must prove I knew she was sold." This the presecution cannot do directly and in such case it seems fair the burthen should tie on the ac- cused to show he did not know of the sale. A proviso was then added to the effect that knowledge on the part of the prisoner shall be presumed unless he satisfies the jury or magis- trate that he had not such knowledge
Council resumed and the Bill passed through all its stages.
ADJOURNMENT,
"You
His Excellency-Gentlemen, there will be a meeting of the Finance Committee now and I propose to adjourn the meeting of the Council until after the Jubilee. (Applause.)
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
A meeting of the Finance Committee was
then held. Hon. J. H. Stewart Lockhart lonial Secretary) presided and all the members
[June 3, 1897. by the prosecntion that the master had asked the prisoner and his brother to set fire to the place. There was no evidence of that, but counsel asked what would be the natural answer of an employé who was asked by his master to. set fire to premises. Would it not be "No, I will have nothing to do with it"? It was true that something was supposed to have been writ- ten by the master, but the document was not admissible in evidence, and if it had been counsel would have closely cross-examined the translator of it. But that could pass. There was not a tittle of evidence to show that any bribe was offered to the prisoner, much less accepted by him. If he was guilty of course he knew all about the tin of kerosine and the soaked pieces of paper, and Chinese territory was not very far away. He was at large several hours, but did he try to get away? No, he was found in his mother's house. What connection was there between the tin of kerosine and the prisoner? If the Jury applied the principles that ought to be applied in cases of circumstan- tial evidence they would find there was no case at all against the prisoner. Undoubtedly there was suspicion, but a perfectly innocent man might lie under suspicion.
The tins were pnt there by somebody. Counsel was not there to talk nonsense to the jury, but the question was, did the evidence lead them to the conclu- - sion that the prisoner and no one else put them there? The Crown said that he did, while others were sleeping. Was it not just as likely that others did it while he was sleeping. The whole of the men in the shop were charged and dis- charged and Counsel contended that there was no more evidence against the prisoner than there was against the men who were discharged. Counsel also commented upon the fact that the prisoner was hot charged with the murder of the three men who were suffocated in the premises. Could the jury conscientiously return a verdict of guilty against the prisoner on a charge of murder? If they could not they equally could not find him guilty of arson,
The Attorney-General then replied and with (Co-regard to his having mentioned the letter to the jury which was eventually not admitted as evidence said it was usual to open to the jury all the facts which the Counsel for the prosecu- tion expects to be able to lay before them by the The minutes of the last meeting were read evidence he intends to call. No doubt if he and confirmed. pro-
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I have the hon- our to move the second reading of the Bill entitled an Ordinance to enable the Govern- ment to provide suitable latrine accommodation for the public. The objects and reasons are as follows:-The circumstances of this colony are somewhat exceptional and, in certain localities, public latrines are absolutely neces- sary, and are especially required for the use of the male inhabitants of the neighbouring houses. Experience has shown that the number of public latrines is at present insufficient to satisfactorily meet such requirements, and the object of this Bill is to facilitate the erection by the Government of public latrines upon such sites as are anobjectionable or may be approved by the Legislative Council after con- aideration of any objections. The Government public latrines at present existing, as well as those which may be erected under this Ordinance, are placed by it under the control and manage- ment of the Sanitary Board and it will be the duty of the Board to see that such latrines are conducted with a due regard to sanitary re- quirements. In these circumstances it is thought right, in the interests of the com- munity, to protect such latrines from the possi- bility of being made the subject of expensive litigation at the cost of the public, it being considered that the approval by the Legislative Council of a site previously selected by the Sani- tary Board provides a satisfactory guarantee that as fitting a site as practicable has been chosen. At the present time there is nothing to prevent the erection of public latrines with the previous sanction of the Sanitary Board under Ordinance 11 of 1891, but those who erect them after- wards find themselves taken into court to fight an expensive suit for an injunction. It is posed by this Ordinance in the case of Govern- ment latrines which are provided on land belonging to the Crown for the good of the public to grant them protection in cases where certain formalities are complied with. These formalities include three publications in the Gazette in English and Chinese of the proposal to erect. If no objection is made protection is granted. If objection is made, unless it is with- drawn, no protection is granted unless after consideration of the objection a resolution of the Legislative Council is passed approving of the site and erection of the latrine. I do not think it likely that in face of any reasonable objection the Legislative Council would be asked to pass such a resolution, and in any case such resolution could not be moved until after the objection had been considered. It seems to me this course will afford sufficient protection. Unless some protection is given the supply of accommodation may be at any time rendered unequal to the demand by a house owner and, say, a coolie occupier coming forward and declaring they find the latrine interferes with their comfort and is a nuisance. Whether this was done out of spite or without sufficient reason the Sanitary Board might have to fight an action and they have no public funds at their disposal to fight such suits. To ensure that all care is taken to pre- vent such latrines becoming a nuisance they are placed under the control and management of the Sanitary Board and all the by-laws to ensure their proper maintenance are made applicable to them. I hope there will be no objection to the passing of the Ordinance.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded. Bill read the second time. Council went into Committee on the Bill, which passed through all its stages. THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS. The ATTORNEY GENERAL The next item in the Orders of the Day is the third reading of the Bill entitled an Ordinance to consolidate
+
were present.
The
MINUTES.
THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
COLONIAL SECRETARY-The only minute before the Finance Committee this after noon is one in which the Governor recommends the Council to vote a sum of $750 in aid of the Hongkong Public Library. No doubt hon. members have, within the last few days, seen in the public Press of the colony the report with regard to the Hongkong Public Library and from that report it is evident that this Library, which is intended to fulfil a public purpose, is in want of funds, and His Excel- lency the Governor is of opinion that the Government might well vote as a contrition to, the Library the sum of $750. Fe trusts that this vote will receive the approval of this Committee.
Vote recommended.
ADJOURNMENT.
The Committee then adjourned.
SUPREME COURT.
28th May.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS,
BEFORE SIR John CarringTON. (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
THE ARSON CASE: VERDICT OF GUILTY. -
The trial was resumed of Wong Lin Kang, who was charged with wilfully setting fire to 99, Jervois Street, there being persons therein at the time.
Hon. W. M. Goodman (Attorney-General) prosecnted, being instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys (Crown Solicitor), and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. V. H. Deacon) defended.
At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Ro- binson contended that there was no case what ever against the prisoner. He had no interest in the place and therefore could have no notive for setting fire to it. There was a suggestion
bad reason, on the facts before him when he opened the case, to believe certain evidence was inadmissible he would usually not open that evidence in detail. With regard to the letter which was excluded, there was no reason for him to doubt its admissibility when he opened the base. Indeed, except for the statement of the prisoner's paramour yesterday that she may have had some of the prisoner's brother's clothes sent to her to wash, the letter would have been admitted by the Chief Justice, because, apart from that statement, the letter must have been taken to have been in the prisoner's possession prior to the fire. The woman said the letters in the box in the prisoner's room were put there by her either from the pockets of the clothes or from the floor or from the latch in the room. It was not till one document had been admitted that she stated she might have washed the prisoner's brother's clothes as well as the prisoner's. In that state of affairs the Chief Justice held that it was just possible the letter might have come from the prisoner's brother's clothes and so, it was possible he (the prisoner) might not have read it or had it in his possession. On that ground he excluded the letter from evidence, but that ground was not before him (the Attorney-General) when he opened the case. The counsel for the prosecution opens the facts he expects to be able to prove and in most cases some of those facts are dis- proved or explained away by the counsel for the defence. In this case, the letter having been finally excluded, the Attorney-General asked the jury to dismiss it from their minds and try the case upon the evidence and the evidence alone. It is quite usual to ask the jury to exclude from their mind anything they may have heard or seen in the papers. This letter was admitted at the Magistracy and was appended to the depositions and may have found its way into the newspapers, but the jury would try the case and come to their conclusion upon the evidence admitted in the case and upon that evidence alone, discarding all other matters.
$
i