352
that complaints as to the quantity of food were generally attended to and corrected when found wrong. The time allowed by prisoners for accepting or rejecting the portions is brief, and consequently gives rise to complaints.
Witness-That recommendation was attended to, and they liad a little more time allowed to complain.
Prisoner Are you aware that, after, that complaint, my diet was increased from 26 to 32 onnces and continued for three weeks? It was then cut down to 22 ounces-I am not aware, my lord.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[April 27, 1901. was still going ou, There was a wound | manslaughter. The new regulations had ent on the top of the head in front an inch and a down his diet. half in length and superficial. There were two wounds on the front of the right, and the other on the left of the left shoulder, probably inflicted by the plane blade (produced).
Mr. Pollock said that completed his case. The first witness for the defence was a long service convict who said. It was not exactly cutting down the food. It was the cooking that was wrong. I know how to cook rice be- cause it has been my particular department for some years. But in the gaol they cook it wrong- Is it not the fact that you have been cuttingly, and it is well known that the more water down my diet without authority ?-No, my lord.
Prisoner I wish to thrash out the question of diet thoroughly, otherwise I will be starved to death.
*
His Lordship—Ask the next prisoner if he has any questions.
The second prisoner then proceeded to cross- examine witness at great length, on much the same lines as the first prisoner. After some questions as to how the alleged weapon came to be in his hand, which the witness could not answer, prisoner alleged that he had not got pork for a period of two years.
The third prisoner also cross-questioned the witness at great length.
The witness, in answer to this prisoner, said that he (prisoner) had been punished a number of times.
His Lordship-Who puts him on low diet like that?
Witness-I give the order.
His Lordship--After investigation? Witness-Yes.
•
Prisoner cited several instances in which for offences, which he denied, he had been peremp torily ordered into solitary confinement, and got ten days added on to his sentence. He then alleged that he was not allowed by witness to defend himself. Witness accepted the war- der's report without allowing him (prisoner) a word in self-defence.
At the conclusion of his evidence, the prison- er said to witness-I think you had better tell the truth. If you do not, whẹn I go back to prison, I will beat you again.
His Lordship-You had better take care of those prisoners in future.
In answer to his Lordship, witness said that the second prisoner assaulted him on a previous occasion, on 28th July, 1897, with a bamboo carrying pole. For that prisoner got 2 strokes. The character of the first prisoner was “fair," and that of the other two “bad.”
The evidence of Indian warders was then taken as to the recent assault.
The first prisoner: I have nothing to say against the warders of Victoria Gaol. They have not ill-treated me-only the first witness, my ls.d.
At a later stage the first prisoner, after a lengthy cross examination of one of the Indian warders, said – You are too cowardly to tell the truth.
On the Court re-assembling after tiffin, the Court Interpreter explained to his Lordship that he omitted to interpret a remark by the prisoners, before tiffiu, to the effect that they had no complaint to make against Captain May and Dr. Thomson, whom they liked as much as their own fathers.
Mr. Pollock said-With regard to the non- attendance of the prisoners' witnesses at the Magistracy I might explain to your Lordship that they themselves did not wish witnesses called there.
His LordshipIt was not the Magistrate who would not fake them ?
Mr. Pollock-No, my Lord; they told the Magistrate they wanted to call their witnesses at the Supreme Court.
His Lordship—I am glad to hear this ex- planation.
- Dr. Thomson said that on 27th March he
you put in, the more you swell it and increase the quantity. I did not hear the prisoners make any complaint because I was in the kit chen, and I don't know whether Mr. Craig has been unkind to the other prisoners or not.
-
|
His Lordship : Do you know if Mr. Craig took any steps towards cutting down the food below the regulations?
No answer.
Another convict stepped in the box, but he could not add anything towards the evidence for the defence. He admitted having assaulted the prosecutor, Mr. Craig, and also a European warder, but the latter would not have be n struck had he not stood in the way (langhter).
A further witness was put in the box, and in answer to his Lordship said that the gaol authorities should adopt a scheme of sending all the old men in the kitchens, and do away with the young ones who should go out to work.
Hon. F. H. May, Capt. Superintendent of Police, and Superintendent of the gaol, said he First prisoner-Do you know that my food had had that charge for about five years and was was cut down, and do you know that the pro-fully conversant with the new regulation which secutor Mr. Craig takes my food away from came in force in January, 1899. The new scale me and gives it to other prisoners ?
of diet effected a slight reduction for men on Witness-I don't know. I was in the hard labour, while for men on soft labour the kitchen.
reduction was immaterial, The difference be tween the old and new regulations was that a man received 1lb rice daily under the old regime and that was divided into a morning and evening meal of 11oz each, and 2oz for condiments. Under the new regulations a man like the third prisoner would be better off.
Second prisoner-Did I not ask you why you cut down my rice ?
His Lordship-Ask him to discern the difference between Mr. Craig cutting down. the rice and the witness doing so.
Second prisoner-It is the Superintendent that has cut it down, and that's what I call bad treatment.
Witness-The rice has not been cut down in my time.
Third prisoner-Do you remember one time rice was supplied to me and it was cut down when I should have got 26 oz ?
Witness-Yes. I remember it; you were cut down
Third prisoner-Did I not suggest that I should cook the rice myself?
Witness-Yes.
In answer to his Lordship, Capt. May said that he visited the gaol once a week, or oftener, and had had complaints made to him, but not against any European. He would like to say that he took the trouble to translate the new scales of diet into Chinese so that they could know exactly what food and privileges had been set out for them. There was no trouble about it, for on the whole the prisoners seemed to be satisfied. The position of the convicts was in no wise altered.
His Lordship: What is Mr. Craig's bearing
Third prisoner-Did I not complain that you with the prisoners ? deprived me of my pork?
Witness-You did.
His Lordship-But you are not entitled to pork until you've been these three years, and then only providing that you behave yourself.
A convict who was undergoing twenty years, examined by the first prisoner, said that about two years ago the regulation rice was cut down. Sometimes in the weighing out some prisoners got more and some got less. Those who had the lesser quantity some times complained. For his part when he got less he used to go to the Visiting Justices.
Capt May: I have never seen him treat men But in the right way. He is a strict disciplina- rian, and enforces the regulations. In fot he is a most humane officer.
His Lordship: Then you have no complaint to make against him?
Capt. May: No.
His Lordship: Then the outbreak came as a surprise ?
&
Capt. May: As regards surprise I have already reported to Government that it is dangerous thing to have 150 young convicts mixed up with life convicts. I do not remember any complaint being made against the Superin- tendent.
His Lordship: You tell him I'm not going to have any absurd questions. As long as the regulations are in force they must be obeyed; Mr. Pollock drew attention to Rule 259 which what I'm concerned in is this, has the pro-laid down how a convict could get from one secutor done anything to his damage? Has olase to the other and how he could earn a he cut down his rice ?
sufficient quantityof marks to enable him to rise.
Second prisoner: Yes, he has. He has starved me and taken away my clothes. I have nothing to say against Dr. Thompson and Capt. May They are all the same like my father.
Third prisoner: According to the new re- gulations is a man entitled to pork after three years?
His Lordship: You've got nothing to do with that, for you've only been in gaol a year. Have you any better question ?
Third prisoner: That is very important to me for without food how am I going to live I have a witness who can prove the assault upon me by the prosecutor.
Tat Sing, sentenced to five years for armed robbery, was called. He said he knew nothing whatever about the assault.
Another convict said he had been in gaol for over 12 years. He knew something about the alleged ill-treatment. The Superintendent did not give the second prisoner enough food.
His Lordship: Did you get less than the re- gulations?
Capt. May During the month. previous to the outbreak there were two case of Chinese who complained about their rations, and in both cases they had turned out to be unwarranted.
The prisoners then addressed the jury, and said that the only person they had a grievance against was Mr. Craig. They did not want to return to the gaol, and instead of sending them back would the court pass sentence of death ? Failing that, would the court cut off their lower limbs or deport them to a far-off spot on the earth's surface, but not to send them back to the gaol?
B
His Lordship said he had no power to order any of these things.
The jury after a short consultation found the prisoners guilty on both counts in the indict ment.
His Lordship in passing sentence said: After. a long trial, the jury are of opinion that you are guilty of the crime with which you have been charged. You are all evil-disposed persons who imagined that you had a grievance in the re-
grievances in your own way.' I do not believe that a grievance really existed. I he could make the ordinary complaint. Some action is the outcome of
Witness: Yes! It was among the cooks in
made an examination of the wounds on Mr. the kitchen and had nothing to do with Mgulations, and you set to work to redress those
Craig
were
Craig. If s prisoner did not get enough to eat
your evil.
some struments.
They were two
did so. The prosecnfor, kaa mut his diet dran STC TAI TAI SUSES THEN SEN
after ten in the morning. There -wounds on the back of the head by
separate onts, and they met at an obtuse angle, Altogether the wound was about six inches in length, and cut to the bone, slanting down. wards. The hemorrage was very severe, and although there that was soaked with blood and hemorrage
| but that was two or three years ago. Long | ter shows you to be criminals
service prisoners used to cook in the kitchens, type. You have been found guil but that was altered now, and short service necessary that you should undergo
severe punishment. I do not know t Another long service convict stated that he | is very much
inference betwee sentenced in 1892 to eighteen years for you, although I am inclined to
vy bandage put on men stepped in.
Four osed
that the