251.
..
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The jurors were Messrs. F. A. C. Hahu, A. Shaw, P. A. Cox, W. C. Pyne, Won Kai Mei, Geo. Hunter, and A. B. Samy.
:
[March 23, 1901.
with the birch within one week of that date. | robbery near Kowloon City on the 13th Febru- | slaughter and not of murder. It might It was lucky for them that they were not armed.ury, pleaded not guilty. If they had been their punishment would have been much more severe.
Abdoola Khan, the constable who arrested the first prisoner, was complimented by his Lordship on the intelligence displayed by him
in the matter, i-
The Chinese pawnbroker who accepted the watch and chain in pledge was reprimanded by His Lordship for the carelessness shown by him in the matter..
TRIAD BOCIETY CASE.
Li Muk Kwai, charged with being a member of an unlawful society, pleaded not guilty.
The jurors were Messrs. J. A. Tarrant, J. H. Oxbery, H. Albrecht, D. A. de Souza, E. Ahnt, A. M. Phillips, and A. H. Hammet.
The Attorney-General explained that the prisoner was accused of being a member of a Triad Society, and it was alleged that he was so on the 24th February last, when he was found to be in possession of papers re. lating to the Triad Society, and was thus guilty of an offence against the Ordinance.
Evidence was led.
The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship inflicted a sentence of four months' hard labour.
ANOTHER TRIAD SOCIETY CASE.
Li Kwai, charged with being a member of a Triad Society at Kowloon on the 24th February, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months' hard labour.
ALLEGED ARMED ROBBERY AT KOWLOON.
Tse Luk, Ko Wing Sang, Li Kwai and Lai Fui were charged with being concerned in an larmed robbery at Kowloon on the 23rd Feb
The Attorney-General withdrew the charge against Li Kwai, who was accordingly dis charged..
The other men pleaded not guilty, and they were ordered to stand by for the present.
The Court then adjourned.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUisne Judge),
THE ARMED ROBBERY AT WANCHAI, Chan Chin and Chu Yin Ki, who were charged with committing an armed robbery at Wanchai, pleaded not guilty.
The jurors were Mossrs. John Galbraith, A. Goche, J. M. R. Xavier, W. King, G. Patton, H. P. White, and V. P. Musso di Peralta.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., who prosecuted, said that on the 9th February four men, one armed with a revolver and the others with knives, en- tered the room occupied by a woman on the ground floor of a house at 79, Wanchai Road, her husband being absent at the time. The second, prisoner kept guard at the door with a revolver, and the man, who had been identified as the first prisoner, came into the kitchen and seized the woman by the jacket and asked her where her money was. - She shouted "Save life," and the second prisoner threatened to shoot her if she alarmed the people in the rooms above. She then told the men where her money and valuables were. They then ransacked her boxes, and finally de- camped with a considerable quantity of money, jewelry, and clothing. Three witnesses for the prosecution identified the prisoners as be- longing to the gang who committed the robbery. The first prisoner was arrested near Pedder's Wharf, wearing some of the stolen property and having some wrapped up in a bundle.
Mr. Pollock said that the complainants, a man and a woman, lived at a place near Kowloon City. On the early morning of the 13th Feb., the woman complainant was asleep in her room when she heard the other complainant, who was in the hall of the house, call out" Save life." She got up and a robber came into her room with a chopper in his hand. He seized her by the chest and asked her to take a bangle off her wrist. She refused and he took it off, breaking it in so doing. He took away part of the bangle, There were leaving the other part behind. three men in the room altogether, and after breaking open some boxes and appropriating the contents they went away. Both the com- plainants identified the prisoner as one of the
robbers.
Evidence was then led.
|
be that in the course of the enquiry the jury came to the conclusion that the prisoner was struck by another fireman and that he used his knife when moved to violent anger and might consider the case one of man- slaughter, but he was bound to say that so far as the evidence for the prosecution went he had not been able to see such facts on the face of the depositions as would reduce the case to one of manslaughter.
The evidence given at the Magistracy was repented.
Chau Chun, the man with whom the prisoner had words in the first instance, corroborated the Attorney-General's statement.
After tiffin formal evidence was given as to the departure of the Patroclus from Hongkong, in order that in the absence of the officers their depositions might be put in.
Leung Chun, another fireman on board the Patroclus, also gave his version of the affair. He said Chau Chun told the prisoner to take The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and some coal forward. The prisoner did not do so he was discharged.
Tuesday, 19th March.
CRIMINAL Sessions.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARBING- TON, C.M.G. (Chief Justice).
་་
THE "PATROCLUS MURDER CASE. A Manilaman named Louis Aroganti, em- ployed as a fireman or stoker on board the British ship Patroclux, was charged with the wilful murder of another fireman on board the same ship, named Chui Wah, on the high seas on the 7th February.
but pushed Chau Chun with his hands, causing him to fall against a ladder. The deceased man happened to come to the place, and he told the prisoner not to make a noise. Then he saw the prisoner stab the deceased with a knife, and the deceased fell. Witness went to him and picked him up. He saw the prisoner with a knife in his hand. Then he put it in his trousers-pocket. Chau Chun went to the engine-room and brought back the fourth engineer, and they three carried the deceased into the engine-room. He then went off duty and went asleep. The next day be saw the dead body of Chin Wah at the mortuary. Neither he nor anybody else struck the prisoner before the latter used the knife.
The witness was cross-examined at some length by the Hon. Dr. Ho Kai.
Other witnesses followed, and the case for the prosecution was closed.
{
The prisoner, for whom the Hon. Dr. Ho
The Hon. Dr. Ho Kai said he had no wit- Kai appeared, pleaded not guilty. The prinesses to call for the defence. soner spoke Spanish, and Mr. V. A. Salis (cfork and usher) acted as interpreter.
The following composed the jury -Messrs. Alwin Goecke, H. E. Hammon, J. M. Jensen, A. M. Phillips, E. Arndt, W. J. Wright, and W. C. Pyne.
Ž
His Lordship said the Court had better ad- journ, as the case could not be finished in one day.
The hearing was accordingly adjourned.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH
(ACTING PUISne Judgi).
THE ARMED ROBBERY IN UPPER LASCAR ROW. Tsang Shan, Sin Sheung, and Chan Un were charged with (1) robbery being armed; (2) re- ceiving stolen goods. They pleaded not guilty.
The jurors were Messrs. P. M. de V. Peralta, G. Patton, G. Hunter, A. Shaw, G. Mayer, V. A. P. Collaço, and J. Vandermeer.
The Attorney-General (the Hon. W. Meigh Goodman, K.C.) said the prisoner stood charged with the wilful murder of a man named Chui Wah on the night of the 7th February. The deceased man appeared to have been employed as a greaser in connection with the engines on board the steamship Patroclus. The prisoner was also employed on board the same ship as a
The Patroclus was fireman or stoker.
a British ship and left Singapore on a voyage to Hongkong, arriving in Hongkong harbour on the morning of the 8th February. The tragic event which the jury would have to consider Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., stated the case for occurred when the ship was on the high seas, the prosecution. It was to the effect that some 80 or 90 miles from Hongkong, shortly about eight o'clock on the evening of the 5th before midnight on the 7th February. It February a married woman named Tai King, seemed that shortly before midnight on the 7th who lives on the third floor of No. 42, Upper February the prisoner was spoken to by one Lascar Row, was standing at the door of her of the firemen on board-a man named Chau cubicle when she saw two men at the head of the Chun. He was asked to wheel some coal stairs. She asked them what they were looking towards the fore-part of the ship-from the for, and they replied “Ah Yau." She did not engine-room by a sort of tramway towards the know any man of that name on the third floor, stoke-hole. Naturally they would have some con. and she turned her head away, upon which the flicting evidence as to what took place, but the third prisoner caught her by the neck. She account of the fireman Chan Chun, corroborated | called out “Save life," whereupon the other man Both of by another fireman, amounted shortly to this. put a handkerchief into her mouth. Chau hnn told the prisoner to wheel some them then pressed her down and took from her coal. The prisoner replied "Don't make, a a pair of rattan bangles mounted with gold and noise," and pushed Chan Chun against a ladder.seven finger rings. The third prisoner contin- The deceased man then came up and told the ned to hold her down while the other man, whom men not to fight, whereupon the prisoner took she could not identify, broke open her boxes, out a knife and stabbed him in the left temple, after which both decamped. All the prisoners the wound. being an inch and a half long and were subsequently arrested with some of the penetrating some four inches inwards. The stolen property in their possession. man died shortly afterwards and the prisoner was arrested. At the Magistracy he made a statement to the effect that he was struck before he used his knife. If one man took the life of another it was presumed to be murder until some justification could be brought forward. Mere provocative language was not sufficient to reduce murder to man- slaughter; but undoubtedly if two men quarrell- ed and one struck the other violently so that the man struck lost his temper and he killed the THE ARMED ROBBERY NEAR KOWLOON. other man in anger, the jury would be justified case of man- Fong Sui, charged with committing an armed'in considering if this were
Evidence was then lead.
The jury found the prisoners guilty on the first and second counts. With regard to the third count against the first prisoner a verdict of not guilty was returned.
His Lordship sentenced both the prisoners to seven years' hard labour on the first count, to receive 20 strokes with the birch rod, and to 14 days solitary confinement-one week at the beginning and one week at the end of the term of imprisonment. On the second count they were both sentenced to three years' hard labour, the sentences to run concurrently with those on the first count
The evidence as to the men being armed not being conclusive, the first count in the indict ment was amended to robbery only.
The jury found the first and third prisoners guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. The second prisoner was found not guilty on the first count and guilty on the.
second.
His Lordship sentenced the first and third prisoners to six years' hard labour and 20 strokes with the birch-rod, and the second prisoner to three years' hard labour.
The Court then rose.
www.