July 8, 1899.
His Lordship said that point might be raised if the persons concerned were Germans or Americans.
Mr Blade said it had not been proved that the persons were subjects of the Emperor of Chins at the time the Convention was signed.
His Lordship-There is some evidence of it, because the deceased were told that they were traitors to their conntry. You tell that to the Germans. If you break the laws of Kiacchan you will find yourself tried by a German judge. Mr. Slade The Emperor could not grant the right to the British Government over foreigners in the territory.
His Lordship said Mr. Slade had better show that the prisoners were foreigners. Mr. Slade might object to every Chinaman placed in the box, and they would require to produce certificates of birth in each case. That was carrying it too far. It would be better to leave it to the Privy Council to decide these points, He asked Mr. Slade if he had any objections to raise.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT:
His Lordship said the evidence of the widow and non of the deceased was about as good evidence as could be obtained,
It was about ten minutes to five when the jary retired to consider their verdict. They returned in a quarter of an hour and the jury submitted their verdict in writing. In answer to the first question, both prisoners were found unanimously guilty. The answer to the second question was-We cannot form an opinion as to the exact time. In answer to the third question the jury agreed that the murder was committed in the colony.
His Lordship directed the jury to further consider the second question.
After an absence of 20 minutes the jury re- turned and the following answer was given to the second question-We cannot form an opinion
as to the date.
The jury were then discharge, after being thanked for their attendance.
¥
The prisoners were ordered to be brought up the following day at ten o'clock for sentence.
July 3rd.
Tang Tsing Ss and Cheong Ting, who were found guilty on Saturday of the murder of Tang Cheong at Un Loong, came up for sentence.
Before dealing with this case His Lordship refered to the other case set down for trial, in which Ng Ki Cheung, Ng Tang, and Tin Tak Lap are charged with the marder of Chan Kwai Tsui Tai at Un Loong on the 18th April.
His Lordship (addressing Mr. Francis, who appeared for prisoners)—I understand you have some application to make with regard to the other case P
Mr. Francis-I have to apply for the postpone. of the hearing of the case till the next sessions, or, if it would be more satisfactory to your lordship, to an adjournment of the present sessions, but I ask your lordship to adjourn the hearing of the case to the next sessions.
Mr. Slade replied that he had no more at present, but that he reserved his right of rais- ing more. He then addressed the jury on behalf of prisoners. He said that the latter were being tried for their lives, and having been asked by the court to appear for their defence it was his duty to raise every possible objection. That was his reason for raising the many technical points. His objections had been over- ruled, and it was now their duty to decide on the facts of the case. He asked the jury to give the case their must careful consideration. Re- ferring to the evidence given by two witnesses who were present when the crime was committed he said these men were murderers by their own confession. They admitted that they went down with the crowd of murderers and there they stood by and watched, and made no objectionment to the three men being murdered. He asked the jury why did these men come forward and give evidence unless some strong inducement had been offered? When the witnesses were in the box he did not ask them what inducement had been offered, because if such questions were asked it would only be casting serious reflec- tions upon the Police. It was a very common practice to endeavour to get a man acquitted by abusing the Police; he thought that was a very unfair thing to do. He did not want to put upon the Police the stigma of having induced these men to come forward, but there was little doubt that these men had been asked to come forward and give evidence under promise that they should not be prosecuted. Mr. Slade pointed out discrepancies in the evidence of these two witnesses, and argued that to save themselves they had invented the story they had given the Court.
The Acting Attorney-General, in his address to the jury, contended that there was direct evidence that prisoners actually killed Tang Cheong by revolver shots. The two witnesses who saw the crime committed substantially corrobarated each other in their narration of the events.
!
His Lordship commenced his address to the jury at three o'clock, concluding by giving the following questions for the consideration of the jury; (1) With respect to each of the prisoners is he guilty or not guilty of the offence with which he is charged in the information; (2) if you are of opinion that either or both of the prisoners are guilty of the murder of Tung Cheong, say whether you are of opinion the crime was committed before midnight or after midnight; (3) if you find that the murder was committed by either or both of the prisoners, but if the spot where it was committed is or is not in the Colony, say so.
Mr. Slade said if the second question was put to the jury he claimed the right to address the jury.
His Lordship allowed that Mr. Slade was within his rights,
Mr. Slade and the Acting Attorney-General then addressed the jury..
His Lordship then directed the jury on the question before them,
The Foreman (Mr. T. Grimshaw) said-My Lord, there has been a question mooted amongst the juryman as to whether the Police took any special means to identify the body. Was the body seen by anybody outside his own family?
His Lordship-It was appointed for this sessions, but in a case of this importance if you desire further time to prepare I think you ought to have it. Mr. Attorney-General, do yon oppose the application ?
The Acting Attorney General-I do not oppose the application for an adjourment, but I was going to suggest to my learned friend-
His Lordship Prisoners have fled an affi- davit in which they say they have not had time to get their case up. They must have their chance to get their case up by the next sessions.
Mr. Francis-If your Lordship would take it on Thursday of next week it would be sufficient. The Acting Attorney-General-It is very inconvenient for the special jury to sit again.
Mr. Francis said his witnesses were not here. They were on the mainland. He had seen nothing of his brief yet except a copy of the depositions. He had had no particulars.
His Lordship-When were these men com-
mitted ?
am quite willing that the hearing should postponed. *
His Lordship said he did not consider there would be any dimoulty so far as that was con cerned, and adjourned the hearing until the next Criminal sessions, cab folur
Mr. Francis asked his Lordship to order a special jury,
His Lordship, in consideration of the gravity, of the case, granted the application.
There being no more cases for this sessions, His Lordship informed the jurors that is would not be necessary for them to attend any? longer this session unless they wished, and thanked them for their attendance.
His Lordship, alluding to the verdict of the jury on Saturday, said he took it that the find- ing the jury amounted to this, that prisoners committed the murder but that whether it o0- ourred a few minutes before midnight on the 17th April or a few minutes after midnight on the 17th April,
On prisoners being asked if they had any. thing to say why sentence should not be passed upon them they reterated that they were not guilty of the orime with which they were charged.
Mr. Slade said that on behalf of prisoners he begged to move to arrest judgment on the ground, first, that the verdict of the jury was not a verdict upon the information as it stood, and, secondly, that by no possible amendment of the information in accordance with the laws of the Colony could the verdict be amended,
This point was argued at some length. Mr. Slade said the verdict of the jury amounted to this-that the man was murdered some time between 11 p.m. on the 17th April and 1 III. on the 18th April, but he contended that the information could not be amended to that form. According to the Ordinance the date had to be proved.
His Lordship, supposing a case, said that ac- according to that if they wanted to murder a man all they had do was to get him in a room some night and then if he were found dead the following morning and the doctors could not tell whether it was before 11 o'clock or after 11" o'clock that he had died they could not be con-** victed. He was not going to admit that law. ZE
Mr. Slade contended that he was entitled to have the information amended so as to make it accord with the verdict of the jury He sub- mitted that his Lordship could not refuse it.
His Lordship, however, declined to admit Mr. Slade's objection, though he made a note of it.
in force in the new territory on the 17th of The point as to whether English law was April or not, and whether the
words & from the 17th" mentioned in the pro also mentioned. His Lordship, independently alamation included the 17th or not, was
16th April, held that "from the 17th" included of the fact that the flag was raised on the
the 17th. He, however, reserved the point until Thursday, announcing his intention of consult-
Mr. Francis said they were committed on the ing with Mr. Justice Wise in the meantime. 27th June and now it was only the 3rd of July.
His Lordship-We have to consider both sides. We have to consider hot only your self but the witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr. Francis-That is so, but a few days should not make much difference. I ask your Lordship to allow the case to be postponed until the next Criminal Sessions.
there might be some difficulty about postponing The Acting Attorney-General suggested that the hearing until the next sessions seeing that the case had been appointed to be heard at the special semions.
Mr. Francis contended that it was in the ab- solute power and discretion of the Court to post- pone any procedure whatever in the interests of justice.
کچھ
His Lordship said he certainly should not force on unduly a case of such gravity. Pri-| soners in their affidavit said that they had evid- time. They did not say what evidence they ence which was not forthcoming in so short a wanted to call-whether it was material or not.
Mr. Francis-It is stated to be material. time if I say that if your Lordship sees no diffi. The Acting Attorney-General-It may save culty with regard to the point I have raised
|
lowing terms:
His Lordship expressed his views in the fol-
unanimously by the jury upon an information2. On Saturday both the prisoners were convicted charging them with the wilful murder of one Tung Cheung at Un Loong in this colony on the 15th April, 1899, As, b however, the jury were unable to say with certainty whether the murder was committed before 12
of the**
them. In ordinary cases the exact date is im 17th or a few minutes after midnight they so stated in reply to a further question I put to** material and, indeed, Ordinance No. 5 of 1872,51 following the Engin law, provided expressly held insumoient "for stating the time imper that no information for any offence should be fectly, nor for stating the offence to have been committed on a day subsequent to that of the information or on an impossible day or on that never happened," eto, Moreover down in Arohbold's pleading in Criminal that "The day and year on which not in general materia stated in the indictment to have occurr proved to have occu
and the fact upon sny previous to the
of the indi
charge of murder There are certai
to the ne of those In ordinary sos, therefore, the date 1. 12.