234
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PI:ESS AND
1
·
"
that the Magistrate was bennd by that consider- ation, and was not entitled to go behind the Ordinance and to decide that th wo ds proof of guilt meant conclusive proof.” As the point was an important one, be requested his Worship to review his decision in the former case, and, if he thought fit, to decide that what was required was prima facie proof only. Mr. Hastings then proceeded to d ́t il the facts of the case.
Į
}
September 27, 1902.
member of the public. It is the public, it
received a certificate from the Director of must be confessed, which by its apathy
Public Works, and so was not inhabited. On and its aversion to appearing at the Police
18th July there were about 22 people living in No. 30, the ground floor being occupied by Court fosters the present state of affairs.
carpenters employed in the Hunghom Docks, Of course such a decision as that which was
the first floor by some boilermakers, and the recently laid down, that a ricksha-coolie can
second floor by the wife and family of the head refuse hire when summoned by a "boy
boileriker. The entrance to the upper floors for his master, discourages those who are
was, as usual in most Chinese honses, from the willing to bring ricksha-coolics into court;
street. Mr. Denuys, continuing, said he but we are here referring more particularly
In giving his decision, his Wor hip said he thought he would be able to show the jury that to cases of direct refusal of a fare to his had gone very carefully over the evidence, on 18th July these 22 people in that house had and he was of opinion that its naturo justi just finished their evening incal, that broadly face by an unengaged coolie. To stop such
fied him in making an order for the extra-speaking, all were in good health and strength conduct it is necessary for the fare to chargedition of the defeudant. The evidence of all the perfectly well- and that suddenly the house the offender and to be willing to appear in witnesses for the prosecution as to the identify, colly sed, killing ten persons, eight of whom, court. The remaining duty rests on the of the prisoner had been very conclusive and the doctor would tell the jury, suffered from frae- Magistrates, and we feel sure that they will quite satisfied him as to the guilt of the defeu-¡ture of the skull and the other two from injuries ont, by excessive leniency, refuse to aid in dant, whilst the er dence of an alibi was very of a similar nature, thongh slightly different; one baď sustained rupture of the spleen and the redressing a wrong against the general unsatisfectory. As to the point raised by Mr. public of Hongkong.
Hastings, it was not necessary to go into that, other laceration of the brain. At the time the his Worship still being of opinion that rou- accident happened the wind was from the clusive proof of guilt was required and not W.N.W.. and was blowing across a high hill prima facie proof caly.
at the back of the bouses, but Mr. Dennys was of opinion that after the jury bad beard the evidence they would come to the conclusion that the wind did not directly canse the fall of these two houses. Amongst the witnesses were people who had been in the house that col- lapsed and killed the teu prop'e, and they would tell the jury, so far as they could. what hap pened that a portion of No. 32 fell against No. 30, and that then the wall of No. 30 fell outwards. As a matter of fact, the two walls appeared to have fallen almost together, but it was possible that after he ring the ovidence the jury would conclude that the wind caugh the gable of No. 32 from the back, and blew it over against No. 30, resulting almost im mediately in the fall of No. 30. Which house fell first it might be extremely difficult to say, but Mr. Dennys did not think that it would make any difference either way as to the cul- pability for the collapse, if there was any
THE HEALTH OF HONGKONG,
The cases of communicable disease reported in the Colony last week were:-- Chol a. 4 (3 Chinese, I Japanese), all fa ul, diphtheria, 1 (European, at the Peak); enteric fever, 1 (Indian).
++
ENQUIRY INTO COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.
The official enquiry into rec nt fatal collup es We received on Monday from the Colonial of buildings in the Colony opened on Thursday Secretary's Office the following telegram from
morning before Mr. F. A. Hazeland. Police the Colonial Secretary, Singapore, to the
Magistrate, and a common jury. The first case Colonial Secretary, Hongkong, received 22nd
takin was that of the collapse of houses at 30-32. September: Hongkong released from
Kowloon City Read, on 18th July last, when 10 qual antive."
M. Dronze, Consul-General for the Nether.people were killed, 5 injured, and 7 escaped. Mr. lauds in Suth China, informs us that ships or vessels arriving in Netherlands-India from Hongkong are no longer subject to quarantine, the port of Lengkong being declared to be no longer infected with plague, The prohibition of importation of some articles is also cancelled so that all goods can now be imported into Netherlands-India.
Steamers from Hongkong will no longer be quarantined at Saigon, Mosers. Lemke and Kogge curteously tell us, having being so intermed by Messrs. Hale & Co, of Saigon.
H. L. Dennys, Acting Crown Solicitor, con- ducted the preceedings on behalf of the Government, and the jury was composed as follows-C. II. W. Kew, F. S. Chunnett, and S. A. Joseph.
Addressing the jury, Mr. Donnys said the enquiry was held under the provisio s of the Coroner's Abolition Ordinance, under which the magistrate was sitting in the position of a coroner to enquire into the cause of death of ten people who were alleged to have been killed by the fall of certain houses at Kowloon City Road, Nos. 30 and 32; their death was caused at about a At the time a quarter to six ou 18th July last. typhoon signal was up in the harbour, and although it would be shown that the wind was Mr. F. Fazeland, on Wednesday, the 24th blowing strongly at the time, Mr. Dennys would inst., gave his decision in a case in which Li put it to the jury, after they had heard the evi- Lap Ting, describing himself อธ a sub- dence, that there was not a sufficient amount of contractor, was charged in an extradition wind to account for thes) houses falling and ki'l- warrant with armed robbery in the jurisdictioning these people, if they had been properly built. of China on the 23rd February last,
AN EXTRADITION CASE.
The accused, with about twenty or thirty others, was alleged to have broken into a pawnshop at Sun Hing, on the We.t Riv r, aud cleared it of everything worth taking away -about Taels 9,00. worth. He was arrested on the 4th ult. iu a house at 65, High Street, West Point, ou the sworn i formation of a mandariu from Canton. Mr. J. Hastings appeared for the pro scution and Mr. J. Hays for the defence.
The evidence having been completed, Mr. Hastings addressed the Court. He said that with due deference to bis Wor hip's decision in a former extradition casa copy of which decision his Worship had kindly given to him -he submitted that the decision in question was not correct. The point was as to the duty of the Magistrate and the amount of proof required in extrad.tiou
EASCA, The Chinese Extradition Ordinance stated that "if at the enquiry before the magistrate such evidence is produced as would justify the committal of the criminal for trial at the Supreme Court, if the crime of which he is accused had been committed in the Colony, the Magistrate shall commit him to trial, with a view to his extradition." This laid down clearly, submitted Mr. Hastings, what the duty of the Magistrate was, but his Worship had held that he was entitled to go behind the Ordinance and to look at the words of the Treaty of Tientsin, which were that, with regard to Chinese or minals, on proof of their guilt they shall be delivered up." 'proof of guilt" might mean two things either prima facie proof, namely, such proof na would justify committal to the Supreme Court, or conclusive proof, proof that would satisfy jury-and Mr. Hastings submitted that the Ordinance had considered these words to thean prima facie proof only, and, further,
G
|
Was
|
¦
I
culpability on anybody's part. There were the same owners, the same architects, the same cou- tractors, and the same overseer. The jury would simply have to judge, after hearing all the evidence, as to how the accident happened, and whether No. 32 fell first or No. 30 fell firs!, would not make any difference in their verdict. The object of the enquiry, went on Mr. Dennys, was to find out how these ten healthy people were suddenly hurried into eternity. They were killed while in their house immediately after they had had their evening meal, but in coming to a conclu.
as to how | sion
these people met their death it would not be sufficient for the jury to say they were killed by the d'bris of falling brickwork or of falling timbers. It was for the jury to empire carefully into the whole facts connected with the construction of these houses, and it would be for them to say, after careful enquiry, whether or no anyone was responsible
il
The houses were the property of the Hongkong Land lovestment Company, and formed the | end houses of two blocks of buildings, ach consisting of fifteen bouses These buildings were erected under the supervision of Leigh and Orang, a very well known firm of architects in the Colony, and the work was looked after by su overseer whose name was Harry Anderson, a Norwegian sailor, who paid by the primarily responsible or otherwise responsible Hongkong Laud Investment Company the sum for the deaths of these ten people. Under of $60 a month to look after the work, which the Coroner's Ordinance the magistrate had was given to a Chinese contractor, or, rather
power to commit any person against whom to a Chinese contracter's firm, consisting of two the jury might find verdict for trial He did not say. persons and called the Loong (heong. There at the Supreme Court was at the same time included in this contract for explained Mr. Dennys, that the jury would these thirty houses other twenty houses which find anyone criminally guilty in the present were being built, or to be built, on Inland Lot case, but it would be for them to weigh most No. 1.108. These twenty houses were on the carefully the whole of the evidence and to find other rid of the road, and except that they were whether anyone was criminally negligent in gard to the way the-a h uses were built included in the contract for the other thirty
whether there was houses, the jury had nothing further to do
negligence in the their construc- with them in ascertaining why Nos. 3) and material that was used in 32 fell. They were also mentioned for the tion or negligence in allowing people to purpose of showing the price paid, theiulabit them before they were fit for in- Hongkong Land Investment Company agree-habitation. It won'd be put to the jury that ing to pay the Loong Cheong for these fifty houses $145,000. On 9th March of this year В certificate was granted for the houses on K. I. L. 118 in the name of the Director of Public Work, who did not himself see these houses or know any thing about them at that time. However, a
was issued in
of the certificate Director of Public Works that these houses had been built in compliance with the Building Ordinance No. 15 of 1889, as amended by other Ordinances. With regard to No. 30, this was the house in which the deceased were at the time they were killed, and it was separated from No. 32 by a lane fifteen feet wide. The latter house had been completed after No. 30, but never
108 nóme
these house were perfectly new; they were built by a wealthy company, and Mr. Dennys did not think that the jury would find to he insufficient the snm jaid for them. The secretary of the compa: y would tell the jury that his fim did not accept the lowest tender. anl that they paid Fomething For a Chinese like $2,900 for each house. house, Mr. Dennys expected that the jury would It would consider that price a reasonable one. bo for the jury to decide who was responsible- whether the architects, or contractors, or the overseer, or, after
evidence, hearing the whether anybody else was responsible, There was a legal maxim, Res ipsa loquitur, which in the present case would be considered in this way: