188
THÉ TANG CHEUNG-18ẢI MURDER AND GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.
221
i
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND to the enmity of his fellow villagers and nt | the same time not surround him with adequate protection. In a despatch to the General Officer Coinnianding, dated mid- (Daily Press, 80th August.)
night, 3rd April, referring to the seuding of The references in the New Territory blue troops, the Governor concludes as follows: to the murder of TANG CHEUNG-TEAL," But have a prudent officer in e command, man employed to post the Governor's remembering that at present we are prac- "tically trespassing. Trespassing seems to proclamation, are of a confusing character. The mistake made in allowing the unfort have been the origin of the whole trouble.. upate man to
r to undertake the work without Seeing that it was open to the Government adequate protection seems to have been to fix its own date for the occupation what moognised as soon ook
the crime was brought occasion was there for it to anticipate that light, but allusions made to the date and send its officers on a trespassing pecurrence appear to be intended to slur expedition without a sufficient force to over the error. In a minute to the Col-back them up and preserve order in the onial Secretary dated 26th April H.E. the territory? Governor, says I see it atated that the murdered man was sent in by Govern- ment. I did not know this; but even had he been so sent there was nothing
1
י'
AN ANGLO-USSIAN CONFLICT AT HANKOW.
Con
[September 2, 1899.
The Acting Chief Justice observed that in the first instance the Magistrate convicted the appellant. An application for a re-hearing Magistrate confirmed his previons sentence. was granted, and
that re-hearing the Now there was an application for another bearing, and before that application could granted some valid and full reasons must given why the case should be re-heard.
Mr. Robinson submitted that on the cases he proposed to read the court was bound within the four corners of the section of the Ordinance to grant the appeal.
The Acting Chief Justice-We have power to dismiss the appeal or grant a re-hearing.
After some argument, the Acting Chief Justice asked-What are your grounds for re-hearing. You have given notice of motion on three grounds,
Mr. Robinson said that with regard to grounds of action there were three. The cou had disposed of one on the question of law. With regard to the merits of the case he submitted that there was a very strong case on the face of
to show you that there was the slightest JARDINE'S FENCING REMOVED BY the depositions for granting the re-hearing.
danger to be apprehended. On the con- trary, the reports received were to the effect that the people were ready to receive the British rule gladly." It was on the 17th April that TANG was seized and on the night of the same day the murder took place. The proclamation is dated the 7th April and presumably the posting of it would commence on the 8th. The dates are of importance in considering the responsibility of the Government in the unfortunate affair. Ou the 81st March
ance was offered to the erection of at sheds at Taipohu and on the same day the Hon. J. H. Stewart LookHART brought in an inflammatory placard. On the 2nd April the Governor made his memorable visit to the Viceroy of Canton to appeal to that functionary to send troops for the preservation of order in the district pending the establishment of British authority, the date for which stood fixed at that time for the 17th April. On the 3rd the Hon. F. H. Mir and his party of police were attacked And on the 4th Major General GASCOIGNÉ rent out with a hundred men of the garri son. On the same day, the 4th, the Go- Vernor telegraphed to the Viceroy, through the Consul, again urging that troops might ba’sent, and on the 5th another telegram to the same effect was despatched. On the 7th the Governor's proclamation was issued. At that time the disturbed state of the territory in the threatened resistance to the occupa- tion had become generally known and the position was freely discussed in the news papera: Yet in the face of all this His Ex- celleney writes on the 28th April, in para- graph 12 of his despatch to the Secretary of State: -- All this time Mr. STEWART "LOCKHART was assured by Chinese, to
:
COSSACKS.
THE "WOODLARK” AND “ ESK ́
TO THE RESCUE.
11
THE VOLUNTEERS CALLED OUT.
[SPECIAL TELEGRAMS TO THE "DAILY PRESS."]
Shanghai, 26th Angust..
4
At Hankow, Cossacks having interfered with Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co.'s fencing around their property on the so called Russian concession, the Woodlark, under orders from home, landed an armed party.
The Cossacks retired.
Shanghai, 27th Angust. The Esk has gone to Hankow to-day. The English Volunteers at Hankow have been called out.
"
Shanghai, 28th August. Quiet has been restored at Hankow. The fencing round Messrs. Jardine Matheson & Company's property has been completed. The landing party from the Woodlark has been
withdrawn.
ANTI-FOREIGN RIOT IN
SZECHUEN.
SAFETY OF THE MISSIONARIES.
fi
A riot occurred on the 23rd August at Shuen. king, Szechuen.
[SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE “DAILY PRESS.")
Shanghai, 31st August.
The missionaries escaped.
SUPREME COURT.
28th August.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
|
To sum up the case for the prosecution as pre- sented by the prosecutor and his
it was
aa follows: The story of the tor was
that on the 15th June last, at about five o'clock in the afternoon, four men in s big empan and unarmed came and boarded his junk, and in dead silence took away his fish, whilst he remained at the bow of the junk looking ou. He might comment on that that notwithstand- knew that the big sampan belonged to the ing the dead silence observed the complainant Cheung Cha shop, and the next morning, he said, he rowed himself ashore in the said big sampan and went to the Chenug Cha shop to get the money. He demanded the Hongkong price for the fish, which had then been delivered at the shop. Payment was refused, and so about three or four o'clock on the reported the robbery to the police at Tai Ho. 6th June he
The story of the complainant's wife confirmed this. She also said the robbery was effected in complete silence; that her husband was at the stern (he said he was at the bow); and that he went ashore the following morning not in the big sampan but in his own boat. The wife did not explain, any more than the husband, hør if the robbery was effected in complete silence and if her husband did not go asbore with the men in the big sampan, he knew where to go to ask for money, which he said he did. He both knew the shop and he went there to get the money,
Nor did either of theui explain until three or four o'clock on the following day why when they had been robbed they waited before leaving the anchorage to go and report to the police. The complainant as well as his wife in the first instance denied that he went ashore in the big sampan the following morning. He denied that he hailed the sampan and went as a passenger ashore in her; but he was content to contradict himself a minute after- wards and say he did go in the big sampan to the ship. Then they came to the wife's story. The husband said he went ashore in the big sampan and the woman said he went ashore in the boat belonging to the junk. - In order to reconcile these two statements the complainant
whom he lookel för information, that the BEFORE HIS HONOUR W. MEIGH GOODMAN | must have gone ashore twice, and this was
people were all anxious that we should take over the territory, the gentry alone being antagonistic." And on the 26th April, in his minute already quoted, His réellency writes to the Colonial Secretary that " there was nothing to show you”—¿.e. subsequent to the 7th April, the date of the proclamation –– that there was the slightest * danger to be apprehended." Yet before the 7th April His Excellency had paid his
to the Viceroy British troops had been into the territory, and the prevailing Nsorder, was generally known. It was not But the 17th that the unfortunate man lost on which day it appears that he had red to his village from Hongkong. her on that occasion he was directly the Government or went of his own does not appear, but in the disturbed the country it was imprudent, to to engage one of the villagers post the proclamationt and so expose him
|
(ACTING CHIEF Justice) and Mr. JUSTICE WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
CHAU KING APPELLANT V. LO CHEUNG MAN RESPONDENT.
the story of the defence. There was a molive in the minds of these two people which induced them to conceal the fact that he twice visited the shop. The fact that they and the thing took place in dead silence went to show that they did not want the court to know that there This was a notice of motion for leave to appeal was something said Then the fact that the men against the decision of the Police Magistrate in the sampan were unarmed went to show that (Mr. T. Sercombe Smith), whereby the appel- they were not pirates. He submitted that on the lant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment story of the prosecution there was not sufficient in June last for robbery from a fishing junk.
Mr. Robinson (instrusted by Messrs. Mounsey Now they came to committal of this man. and Bratton) appeared for the appellant.
The case came before the court a fortnight ago. Since then the respondent—a fisherman- has been served with notice of motion for leave to appeal for a re-hearing to the full court, and affidavits in proof of this were produced. The respondent, however, on bis name being called
evidence to warrant
ད
case as stated' by the defence. The appellant said he and the meu who were with him in the sampan belonged to a fish shop which had a branch in Hongkong and carried on business in the island of Al Chau. It was their custom se send round the harbour when junks come in and collect the fish from them, the price paid being the market price. If there was auy “bår- Mr. Robinson submitted that he had the op-gaining to lake place it took place at the shop portunity of making an application for the The appellant and the other men, being fokis allowance of the appeal forthwith, or at any in the shop, went round the harbour int
the rate for the allowance of the motion asking for ordinary course of business on the 15th of June.
re-hearing.
When they got to the complainant's innk tha
did not answer.