December 29, 1902.]
1
p. 37) it was clearly laid down that such act must not necessarily bɔ malum in se.
Mr. Blade said he would not attempt to argue against the authority of that case,
His Lordship stated that he proposed to leave these points to the jury- -Was the death of the boy Wong Chun caused by the collapse of No. 12, Second Street? Was that.collapse | ca sed by the full of the wall in No. 10? Was the fall of the wall in No. 10 coc sioned by the neglect of the defendants or either of the:u and which? | Did they use reasonable care and skill in the construction of No. 10? Then, if so, ws such neglect so gross as to amount to culpable negli- gance? These, he thought, covered the whole ground.
Mr. Slade then resumed his address, which continued till half-past 12 o'clock.
The Attorney-General hwing also addressed bis Lordship on the points of law and the jury on the facts,
The Court adjourned.
Monday, 22nd December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE - CONTRACTORS
FOUND NOT GUILTY.
|
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
competent. If the jury took the statement of the men themselves that they did not go down to see the building operations in connection with the so houses then it was evideat that there was no] proper supervision of the work at all. What was the result? Was the wall properly built. and, if it was not properly built, where were the faults? No one suggested that the bon !ing was The bonding was bad; it had b en stated so by Mr. Haggard and Mr. Hewet. The law required the bonding to he good. fle section of the Ac referring to this said, Every wall shall be properly bonded and substantially put together." This wall was not properly hand d. for the jury to consider whether that contributed to the fall of the wall. As regards the morfar there W s a cflict of evidence. Mr. Tooker said it s emed to be of fair quality. Mr. Hewe't said it was not good but on the gool side of indifferent, aul that there
It was
a
!
|
501
manner as to reader them mest dangerous for haman babitation and the public at large.”
The Attorney-General-Wo cannot do more than make a law. If juries choose to acquit people who disregard the law the responsibility is upon the gentlemen of the jury; the authori
i-scan do no more than they have already done. The responsibility for the endangering of life is entirely upo the jury for the verdict they bare giren. We can do nothing more than maka the law which they disregard.
His Landship-It is for yon (the jury) to find the verdict. The responsibilty is upon you. As Tegards the other part of the verdict we are not legislators in this Court, That is a matter for the admin stration. What we wanted to know was whether this house was properly built and if any blame was attached to the prisoners. You havo acquitt d them, and there is an end of WAY the case.
W LS
|
The Attorney-General-There has been no white person killed yet by a collapse. When some white man is killed the jury may take a somewhat more serious view.
His Lordship-They say in their rider, that mesures shon d be taken to prevent houses being built in such a way as was done in this case, and thy return a verdict of not guilty.
The Attorney-General-By the rider they stultify themselves.
His Lordship-If the jury wil not convict a man we cannot stop him from doing it; you can make a law, and yet you ca not hid that man resposible who bui ds contrary to liw.
The Attorney-General - They nu in imously fund that these incompetent persous are not gailty and thisk the autho ities should take some s rong measures to do what I do not know. The rider is alsolutely inconsistent with the verdiet, and the verdict with the rider taken togth they stultify the jury. I would commend the jury in the future to adhere to their verdict and leave riders alone. It is often safer to giro a judgment without giving reaso 8.
The jury wore discharged,
ARMED ROBBERY,
straight joint for nearly the whole length of the building bitxen the parly wall and tho front will, and that decidedly had workmanship; the boding wis bad esparity at the cǝ nors, where it ought to be especiall good; the corbelling courses hid mostly given and they were slanted insteal of bing flat. Therefore the jury bad got to this point, if they wera asked what were the faults-undisputed bad corbelling and bad banding. No one had given any evi encetoshaw That they were good. If this thing: conduced to help to make a wall fall- -as this wall fell - The evidence had been completed on Friday under a wind which was not of typ' non-fores, last and conurel addres ed the jury on Saturday. was it not negligence on the part of the man His Lordship in summing up reviewed the who put it up? His Lrship submittel that evidence at length. In directing the jury on the jury had to con ider now whetho these the point of law he said it is the duty of a per- men were guilty of a grave dereliction of their son who contracts to build a house for another duty, a grays failure to emply with the require for human habitation to usa reasonable care meats of the Ac'. If they we e, and that Aet that the work is properly carried out. Where, contribute to the fall of the wall, shoull the as in this Colony, certain statutory en vetments jury thick that the wall fell on the roof and are in force as to the proper boading of the walls killed the boy they were bonud to find the pri- and the materials which are to bused, it is the souers guilty. If they had any reasonable doubt | duty of the person undertaking to build to se about the matter, if they thought that the wind that those s atutory requirements ar comp'ied was of typh oa force and that No. 12 fell in with. It is also his duty to carry dut the forms first and o bright the wall of No. 10 down, of the contract. Is this Colony, therefore, the then it won'd not be thy fault of thos› m'n person who contracts to build a house for an- He thought he had lail down the law and had other has cast upon him certain statutory duties given the facts to the jury. He would give and certain duties arising out of his con ract. them the return of the velocities of the wind on If, by any grave failure, to perform his duties. the day in qu stion and ask them to retire aud ie, by his oriminal negliger.ce in the perform-cnsider their verdictand say whether there had ance of bis duties or in the omission to perform been great failure of duty ou the part of these his duties ho cused the death of a human
meu. The questions he would lears to them being, he had caused that death aulawfully were: Was the death of the boy Wong Chun and was guilty of mauslanghter it. паз caused by the collapse of No. 12, Second Street? Was that collapss caused by the fall of the wall of No. 10? Was the fall of the wall of No 10 orcassioned by the neglect of the defendants or either of them (and which) to nsa reasonable care and skill ia the co struction of No. 10?
The jury foaud both prisoners guilty, If so, was such neglect so gress as to amonut 10
His Lordship sentencxl them each to five crimin negligence As to criminal neglix-yea's imprisonment with harbour and to ence his Lordship adopted the words of Justice receive 20 strokes with the birch during the Blackburn in Reg. r. Eyre, Finlason's Report. first week, For their action in capturing the p. 57: "Criminal negligence is a phrase con- stantly used in criminal cases, but the amount prisoners bis Lordship commended 1. S. 56
Wilso 1, P. S. 54 Sn ith and I. P. C. 555. of negligence that would make a man
ANOTHER ARMED ROBBERY, responsible cannot be defined. It is not a little failure in duty that would make him criminally responsible, a great failure of duty undoubtedly
В
very important matter, he said in con- clusion, that when human life was lost there should be a very careful investigation not only to find out how it happened but to prevent it happening again if possible. It was a seri mus matter the jury had got to consider They would be doing very wrong if they said,There have been a great many collapses; we must bring somebody to book, we will convict the first person who comes before us." He would insult their intelligenca by supposing for a moment, however, that they would take up that view.
What they hat to do here, and what they had taken an oath to do was to return a verdict according to the evidence. As to what evidence thy were to accept, they must form their own opinion. They would have to think whom the men were who undertook to buld these hou es. Were they competent? Should they have taken this job at all? If one of them was not competent, then was the other competent? Each of the men seemed to say that he had not been responible; each said that it was the other who had to do with it. Was it a legitim- ate conclusion, then, for the jury to draw that the work was not properly supervised; no person of any skill or intelligeace supervised it; a certain man was employed to procure labour Lut no man to secure brains to see that the labour
was properly done? he man who undertook a contrast to build a hous? yet did not choose to take any responsibility for the supervision pat himself in a perilous position. Things might tura out luckily for kim and the house be well built, he might get off all right and make his money, but the law enforced that a man who put him- self out as a building contractor was bonud to use reasonable skill and intelligence! He should learn his business as an apprentics. The jury would have to consider whether these men were
|
|
|
SO
would. The line between the two is hard to define al must be left to a great extout in each individul case to t'e common Rense of the jury whether or not the degree of failure of duty is cria inal."
After an absence of about half-an-hour the jury returned into Court. When asked for the.r verdict,
The Foreman said-Unanimously not guilty of manslaughter.
His Lordship-Let the prisoners be dis charged.
The Foreman-Your Lordship, may the jury add a rider.
His Lordship-You are here to try these men and you have found them not guilty. That is all we bure to do with it. How ver, let me hear your rider and I will consider it.
The Foreman-The jury desire to add this rider to th ir verdict:"The jury are of the opinion that the authorities should adopt more siriugeut measures to prevent houses being built in such a manner as in this case over which we have given our verdict, where incompetent men are left entirely to themselves without any supervision whatever to erect houses in such a
•
Lo Wing and Sung Li pleaded not guilty to a charge of having committed armed robbery at Kukpo, Mirs Biy, on 25th November.
The following jury was empauelled: -Messrs. H. E. Morris, J, Y. do 11 Brucholleris, E. G. B rrett, G. A. Yranovich, R. H; B. Mitchell, I. S. Lovy, an | L. L. Lopes.
Tao eridance showed that during the night¦ three robbers dropped through the roof of a farm-house at Kukpo, terrorise the inmates! wi ha revolver and a kuifa and go off with a qraa ity of clothing and a pair of silver bangles. The two prisoners were captured next dy with so e of the stolen articles in their possession,
em.
Wong Fing and Chuen Fong were pinelled on a charge of having committed armed robbery at Shek O on 23th November.
They pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was chosen-Messrs. S. F. de Jesu‹, P. F. da Cruz Pratta, R. H. B. Mitchell, E. G. Barrett, G. A. Yvanovich, E. J. Lopes, and A. G. G. Gordon.
After hearing the evidence, which went to show that four men, of whom the prisoners wire two, en'ered a dwelling-house at night. tim: armed with a revolver and a kuife, threatened the inmates and stole a large amount of clothing and valuable, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against both the accused.
His Lordship said that this armed robberý was getting a very sɔrions matter. It would hire to be put a stop to. Every Sessions now. thy Lad five or six of these cases of rumaus dropping through the roofs of houses and robbing poor villagers. The people who associated with these gangs and rec.ivel tha stolen property were as bad as the robbers themselves. He sentenced each of the prisoners to five years' bard labour and to receive 20 strokes with the birch during the first week.
The Court rose shortly after four o'clock.