·380
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
these courses. He exercised jurisdiction; he dealt with the case summarily and he pro- ceeded to a conviction. That conviction was good and valid. It could only be impeached or affected, as ho understood, in one of two ways either by an appeal to the full court or by a review of the decision under the section to which reference had been made-section 97 of the Magistrates' Ordinance of 1890. There was no question now of an appeal to the full court to vary the Magistrates' decision, no application to review his decision or adjudication under section 87 of the Ordinance. Now that section conferred a power which was a special power and must be strictly followed. Under that section the Magistrate had power to re-open and re-bear the case wholly or in part and to take fresh evidence and to reverse, vary, or confirm his previous decision or adjudication. It was quite clear the whole of the sub-section referred to cases dealt with by the Magistrate in the exercise of his own proper jurisdiction and in no way to cases of indictable offence triable before that court. He thought that that section enabled a Magistrate to reverse, to vary, or to confirm his previous decision or adjudica- tion. It gave him no power to waive or pass by his decision or adjudication and to decide to send the case for trial before that court. The Magistrate, as he understood, did not act strictly under that sub-section. He did not he did not vary, and he did not confirm bis decision. He left it as it was and remitted the case for trial before that court. He felt clear that that was a mistake in procedure, caused no doubt through inadvertence, and that defendant. was not properly before that court at all. The Magistrate had no power under this special Ordinance to commit him for trial before that court. There was also a further objection. Supposing he were to be tried by that court there would be the fact that there was al- ready a standing conviction against him and he would be tried for an offence for which he was now liable to undergo imprison- He thought the only way out of the difficulty was for the case to be remitted to the Magistrate for him to deal with in the exercise of the summary jurisdiction he had already assumed. Therefore the original depositous world go back, and no doubt the police would take defer- dant before the Magistrate to be dealt with.
reverse,
Ordinance 2 of 1869 or any other ordinance in that behalf hereafter in force in the colony, remitted the case for further investigation or to be dealt with summarily the committing Magistrate er Magistrates shall re-open the case and deal with it in all respects as if the accused had not been committed for trial, and if the case be such that it may be dealt with summarily by such Magistrate or Magistrates, be or they shall so deal with it." The legal difficulty to which he had alluded arose under sub-section 1. He would remind his lordship that in the first instance, when this man Li Ho was brought before the Police Magistrate he pleaded guilty to the charge of detaining a letter or letters, and the Magistrate thereupon summarily sentenced Li Ho, without bearing any evidence at all, to imprisonment for six months with hard labour. Subsequently Mr. Brutton appeared at the Police Court on be- half of Li Ho and requested the Magistrate to re- open and re-hear the case, which the Magistrate accordingly. did, taking certain evidence, and upon that evidence, the defence being reserved, Li Ho was committed by the Magistrate at the Police Court to take his trial at the sessions. It seemed to him, however, that according to the true interpretation of sub-section one of section 97, the Magistrate having once dealt with the case summarily and inflicted a summary punishment it was not competent for him to send the case up to the Supreme Court. The only power which the Magistrate 'had under the sub-section to which he had referred was to re-open and re-hear the case wholly or in part, which he thought must mean, construing this Ordinance strictly, as he thought it ought to be interpreted, that the Magistrate had himself to re-open and re-hear the case and deal with it himself and that the Magistrate had himself to reverse, vary, or confirm his previous sentence. He did not think it would be competent for the Magistrate, bearing in mind the meaning of the word "vary," to leave his sentence, as he had done, of six months' imprisonment with hard labear against this man sfill stand-ment for six months with hard labour. ing and at the same time commit him for trial at those sessions. It seemed to him, if he might say so, that if this case went on for trial at those sessions and supposing this man were found guilty by a jury there would be two sentences outstanding against him be- cause the sentence of the Police Magistrate of six months' hard lahour was, he took it, still un- reversed, and the man would be placed in a very difficult and awkward position. Under these circumstances he had decided, after carefully considering the point, to exercise the power which wavested in him as Acting Attorney General under section 9 of Ordinance 21 of 1869 of directing the original depositions to be returned to the committing Magistrate, and as Acting Attorney-General he did in pur, suance of the power vested in him by this section of the Ordinance now direct that the original depositions be returned to the com- mitting Magistrate for him to re-open the case and deal with it in all respects as if Li Ho had not been committed for trial, and of course he at the same time withdrew the information which had been filled in that court against Li Ho.
Mr. Slade, who appeared for defendant, said it appeared to him that there were only two courses open-either to proceed with the trial or to offer no evidence on the information upon which Li Ho had been brought there.
|
case
The Acting Attorney General said that after the expression of opinion which had just fallen from his lordship he proposed to deal in the same
way with the of Cheng Tsang, who was also charged with offences under the Post Office Ordinance 1887. This mun also admitted the charge at the Police Court and was dealt with summarily and sen- tenced to six months' hard labour, after which the case was re-opened. He stood in exactly the same position from a legal point of view as the man Li Ho,
The Chief Justice-Let him be brought up. The man having been brought forward, The Acting Attorney-General said that in pursuance of the power vested in him he asked that the original depositions be returned to the Magistrate for him to re-open the case and deal with it in all respects as though defendant had not been committed for trial, and at the same time he withdrew the information against Cheng Tsang which had been filed.
t
Both defendants were then removed, and sub- sequently brought up at the Magistracy before Commander Hastings, who remanded them to gaol.
THE SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A WOMAN.
The Chief Justice differed from Mr. Slade: He said he thought the Acting Attorney-General had taken the right course in this matter. It was a peculiar case and perhaps it would be desirable A woman named Chan Fung Ying, of 48, he should add a few words to what had been al- Stanley Street, was charged on remand, on the ready said. In some ways perhaps it was na- first count, with "inducing a girl named fortunate that this case could not be brought Ho Tai Mui above the age of 12 and under in court before a jury, but he felt clear that the age of 16 to be in the premises 48, Stanley that court was not, in the circumstances of the Street, for the purpose of being carnally known case, competent to try it. This man was by men."
There were ten other counts in the charged before the Magistrate with detain-indictment. ing a post letter. On that charge it was competent for the Magistrate to take bne of two courses. He might have exercised jurisdiction himself and proceeded to a viction such as the evidence might war- declined to exercise.
con-
The following composed the jury :-Messrs. A. A. de Jesus, A. H. Mancio da Silva, Schelto Swart, L. Rudolph Ruchwaldy, F. Röhrs, A. Levy, and A. S. Gubbay,
The Acting Attorney-General (instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Crown Solicitor) appeared
by Mr. Looker) for the defence.
|
[October 22, 1899.
Acting Attorney-General said the girl's story was that her eldest sister sold her to defendant on the 25th March last. Complainant understood she was sold to defendant for the purpose merely of doing certain household work about defen dant's house, but after she had lived in the house about a fortnight she was compelled by defendant to become a prostitute. Defendant would not allow her any rice to eat so long as she refused to do what was required of her, and defendant would not allow her to go out of the house, defendant being apparently afraid leat if complainaut, once got ontside the bouse she would run away. It would appear that at the time the girl was sold to defendant, complainant put a finger mark upon a certain document. In his opinion this document did not assist defendant in her case in In fact it seemed' the slightest degree. to him that it rather wove the chains closer about her and made her guilt in this mat ter more certain. This document purported to say that complainant had borrowed from defend ant the sum of $200, and that defendant could So far as any time get back the money. he could see the suggestion Which must be by the defence - •Was that the made sum of money was naturally borrowed from defendant upon what he might call the security of the person of complainant, and the latter would tell the jury that on her becoming a prostitute all her earnings were paid over to defendant, the idea being that all complainant's earnings should go to repay this debt. At the beginning of last month a sister of complainant found out, where she was living. She at once took her away, and information was given to the police.
Complainant and others gave evidence. The further hearing was adjourned.
October 19th.
On the conclusion of the case for the pro secution the Chief Justice intimated that the counts which he purposed submitting to the jury were counts. one, two, three, four, six, and 11. The first count is given above. The other five sre:-
2. Knowingly suffering a girl named Ho Tai Mui above the age 12 and under the age of 16 to be in the premises No. 48, Stanley Street, for the purpose of being carnally known by men."
3-"Taking part in purchasing a girl named Ho Tai Mpi for the purpose of pros titution."
4.-"Taking part in taking in pledge a girl named Ho Tai Mui for the purpose of pros--- titution."
6. Taking part in disposing of a girl named Ho Tai Mai for the purpose of pros titution."
11.- Procuring a girl named Ho Tai Mui to become a common prostitute."
Mr. Slade opened the case for the defence, and then proceeded to call his witnesses.
Defendant said that on the 22nd March last a woman named Ah Sni, together with com- brothel at 48, Stanley plainant, came to her Street, and asked her to lend her $50, which she did. They came again on the 25th March, and Ab Sui asked her to lend her another $150. She said their father was seriously ill and she wanted the money for him. Ab Sui promised to repay the money within six months or at the longest within 12 months. She said she would repay it ont of the earnings of two of her sisters and she would also leave complainant at 48, Stanley Street, and what she earned there could go to- wards the reduction of the debt. Complainant was present at the time and said she was willing to fall in with the arrangement, also telling de- fendant she had been a prostitute before on board a boat, and that she was 17 years of age. Ah Sui and complainant then left, coming again on March 29th, when Ah Sui said that that day was a lucky day and that she would leave complainant there as a prostitute, and "to add to your light" (meaning "to increase your business.") De- fendant said it was not true she ill-treated complainant and thus compelled her to become a prostitute. Complainant was perfectly free to go in and out, and she went out several
rant, or he might have the case for trial at for the prosecution and. Mr. Slade (instruoted | times. Last month she went away with her
jurisdiction and
that court if he thought a prima facie case was made out. - The Magistrate took the former of
In stating the case for the prosecution, the
sister and did not come back again. They took some jewellery away with them, and she went