July 25, 1904.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The jury after hearing evidence found the prisoner guilty.
His Lordship passed sentence of nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Wednesday, 20th July.
| into British territory and acting as they had done. In their own country they would have their heads off very quickly for a similar crime. The English law was more merciful, but it was more sure, and they must not attempt ever to do this sort of thing again. Each of them would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and in order that they might realise in their persons that the English law would not
have 24 strokes of the birch within the first month of their imprisonment.
fact to the détriment of the defendant. On 18th June McEwen was instructed to report on this particular work. On the 14th he inspected the houses, accompanied by the defendant. He found what he considered to be defects in the work. At half-past eight the same night defendant went to Inspector McEwen's house and asked him what he was going to report about the work. The inspector showed him a list containing the numbers of the houses which BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR W. M. GOODMAN permit this sort of thing, each of them would" he considered had not been properly limewashed. Defendant asked MoEwen to overlooke the defective work, intimating that he would give him &
present, whereupon the inspector rebuked him and said he would lock him up. Defendant did not take this rebuke seriously and proceeded to place on the table a roll of bank-notes for the inspector's acceptance, a zain asking him not to report the defective work. Defendant took the money, and at the same time took defendant into custody and handed him and the money over to the police about ten o'clock the same evening. He did not count the money. There was no corroboration of the inspector's story except that when defendant was charged with offering a bribe he said he did not say anything and did not deny the charge. At the Magistracy his counsel stated that he did not wish to say anything there.
Inspector McEwen in the course of his evi dence deposed that he had just finished writing his report about these houses when the defendant came to his place. After he showed him the re- port, from which he took some notes, the defen. dant told him to tear it up and he would give him ↑ something to buy wine. Witness said he would lock him up. When defendant put the money on the table witness sent his boy for a police. man. He waited about an hour and no policeman
came.
Then he went to the window and blew his police whistle. An Indian constable came. and to him he handed over the defendant, tellin him to take him to the station. He walked along with the constable about 200 yards, when he met the European sergeant, John Grant with whom he laid the charge against the defendant. During the time defendant was in his house the defendant asked him several times to give him a chance, but witness did not reply or speak to him.
The jury after hearing further evidence found the charge proven.
His Lordship passed sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
ANOTHER CHARGE OF BRIBERY.
Lai Shau, a sergeant-interpreter at Yaumati was charged with having on 14th May and on two subsequent dates obtained from one Cheung So bribes of $2, $5 and $5 with reference to a coffee-house licence held by Cheung So.
Mr. Slade, who appeared for the defendant (instructed by Mr. Kong Sing), objected to the indictment as insufficient in its terms, particu- larly with regard to the words "with reference to a coffee-house licence."
His Lordship said that when he first read the indictment the same matter struck him very forcibly. It was not until he had read the deposi- tions that he could obtain any definite informa- tion as to the real details of the offence for which the defendant was being tried. H. had come to the conclusion that the words "with reference to a coffee-house licence were not sufficient to enable the defendant to know the exact nature of the charge laid against him. The defendant, he thought, was at a loss to know what particular act with regard to the coffee-house licence he was alleged to have been bribed to do. On these grounds he held the accounts of the indictment were bad for want of certainty. He suggested that the indictment should be amended to read with reference to procuring the forfeiture of the coffee-house licence.”
The indictment was altered accordingly. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The following jury were empanelled-Messrs. L. J. C. Anderson, J. Bailie, J. C. Logan, G. Sole, F. Campbell, R. Menasheh, and A. 8. D.
Consland.
The Attorney-General in his opening state ment said that Cheung So was a woman who held a coffee-house licence at Yaumati, and that the defendant had received these bribes from her by threatening that unless she did bribe him he would take steps to have her licente cancelled. She gave him the bribes under the belief that he was able to do so.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
(CHIEF JUSTICK).
DISCHARGED.
The Attorney-General, Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley, stated that in the case of Ho Ping Kun, who had been committed on a charge of bribery, he did not propose to call any evidence, and he would ask that the man be discharged.
The defendant was discharged by proclamation.
THE TAI O RAID.
Four Hoklo fishermen were charged with having on 6th July at Tai O, Lantao Island, demanded money with threats from a fisherman, Fong Kee Fat; with causing a riot by assemb ling along with a large number of persons and acting in a riotous way; and with others assembling together in large numbers in an unlawful manner and creating great trouble and disturbance.
They pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled Messrs. W. S. Allen. A. Ramjahn, A. Bryson, W. J. Crawford, A. M. McDougall. E. B. Shepherd and W. G. Winterburn.
His Lordship, referring to the fact that the jury were sworn in twice over, said this course was necessary because the indictment contained charges both of felony and misdemeanour. There were historical reasons for the double outh, and though he did not see that there was any practical use of it at the present day, it was better to have it done. In England you could not join misdemeanour and felony in the same indictment. In this Colony they were allowed to join them.
#&8
|
THE "HEATHBURN" SHOOTING CASE, Charles Perthlin, a Norwegian, about 35, years of age, was brought up on a charge of having on 6th June, in the waters of the Colony, shot one Woo Kam with a shot-gun with intent to murder him; and alternatively with intent to do grievous bodily harm and with unlawfully wounding.
He pleaded not guilty on all thres counts, and said he wanted to make a statement and tell the whole story.
His Lordship said he would not dispose of the case before hearing his statement, but it would have to be made during the trial.
The following were elected to the jury- Messrs. W. J. Crawford, G. Richardson, W.. Anderson, J. M. da Graça, F. G. Chopard, A. M. McDougall and A. Bryson.
The Attorney-General in opening the case said that the prisoner was at the date in question carpenter on board the a.s. Heathburn lying in the Harbour. Woo Kam was quartermaster. He did not think, he said, that it would be possible to find the prisoner not guilty on at. least the last count. The quartermaster was ahot by the prisoner under such circum- stances as must make the wounding unlaw- ful, If the evidence was to be believed to the full the prisoner was guilty of the more serious crime of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The Heathburn arrived here on 4th June. On the night of the 5th, about midnight, there wa an attempt being made to smuggle ashore some Japanese women and men by the men who had stowed them away on the Heathburn when she left Japan. It would be proved that $100 had been given to the carpenter to stow away - these women and men. The carpenter and the steward between them were implicated in the astowing-away. On attempting to get stow
aways over the side of the ship Woo Kam the quartermaster, stopped them and resisted their passage. There was a souffle, and in the melée prisoner fired a shot from a gun, hitting the quartermaster on the breast. The only question for the jury to decide upon was that of intent. When the prisoner made his statement he stated that he fired in self-defence. There was nothing, said the " Attorney-General, that he could see as far as the witnesses who had been called up to the present were concerned, which would lead one to believe that the prisoner was called upon to exer- cise self-defence. He had most improperly stowed away these people, and as he had been în trouble before for the same thing he knew what risk he was running. When the affair happened he was evidently in a very excitable frame of mind. Some 38 pellets from the charge entered the quartermaster's breast.
The Attorney-General in opening the case for the Crown said he thought the jury when they had heard the evidence would have no hesitation in finding the prisoners guilty on all three counts. The facts of the case were as follows: Fong Tee Fat a fisherman at Tai O. and he had his boat moored there on the morning of the 6th July. There was
gang of Hoklo marauding fishermen- sometimes fishing and at times marauding who had been in the habit in years past of levying blackmail on the peaceful fishermen at Tai O; but this year Fong Tee Fat, the com. plainant, advised his fellow-fishermen to resist the blackmailers' demand. Three ringleaders of the gang came to this man's boat on the morning of the 6th and demanded from him $100, which he refused. They threatened him and then went away, saying they would come back. About eleven o'clock, a mob of about 80 returned, among them the four prisoners. They were armed with revolvers and swords. The gang came in boats to the month of the creek where the fishermen had their boats drawn up. The gang could not get their junks sufficiently near, so they left them and walked along the bank of the creek until they came opposite the complainant's boat. They then called out to him, made a great noise, threatened him and demand- ed the money previously asked for. In the meantime the complainant, fearing trouble as a. result of his refusal to pay the blackmail, had armed himself and his crew, and when threatened with violence by this armed gang he threatened to return
violence upon them unless The show of resistance made they went away. the gang go away. While they were still threatening him he got a report made to the police, and Sergeant Floyd turned out all the Indians in the station down to the village while he himself took to the water in a police-boat. When they approached the place he saw a boat making off with two of the prisoners in it. They pursued and captured them. About 60 of the gang ran off over the hills. An Indian con stable managed to capture one of those who was running away by threatening to shoot him, and another was found on the hillside hiding behind a rock.
the
The jury after hearing the evidence, found the prisoners guilty on all counts.
His Lordship in passing sentence said he wondered at the audacity of these men coming
Evidence was led.
The prisoner in his statement to the Court. said that in the course of the row he rushed into his cabin and seizing the gun fired it into the air to frighten the Chinese who were keep- ing the Japanese back. He did not intend to hit anyone.
His Lordship in summing up remarked that in his opinion the first count had not been prov. od. The third had been proved, and it was a question for the jury to decide whether the second had or not.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second and third.
His Lordship passed sentence of three years imprisonment with hard labour, remarking that had the gunshot entered the quartermaster's body only two inches from the spot it did enter the man would have been killed.
The prisoner asked his Lordship if he could reduce the sentence so as to make allowance for the time he had been in gaol already.
His Lordship told him that in the ordinary course his sentence would be reduced by one- fourth if he behaved himself while in gáol.-
2.3