136
business would pay, even with the shop under- stocked.
By Mr. Pollock-I had no intention of being rude to Mr. Rumjahn. Perhaps my letter of June 16th was a little hasty, but was not a rude letter, although it may not have been (polite. They seemed to try to make all the trouble for me they could. I took a letter from Mrs. Bisney regarding her dress to a solicitor. but I did not want to make trouble.
His Honour-I do not think Me srs. Wilkin- son and Grist would be judges as to whether the
dress fitted or not.
By His Honour-No. That is not part of a solicitor's business.
After further evidence had been heard in
support of the plaintiff's case. Mr. Pollock opened the defence. He said that Mrs. Bell had misconceived her position at the Burlington. She did not look upon her employer as being entitled to any information, and that led to insubordination. Plaintiff took upon herself to consult a solicitor regarding Mrs. Bisney's dress, and such action was not in keeping with her position as dressmaker. He would call Mr. Bisney as a witness.
His Honour --Is he an exprt, too? Mr. Pollock--I don't know, bat he did actually see the dress tried ou.
Mr. Bisney deposed that he saw the dress in question tried ou and his wife was dissatisfied with it.
Mr. Ferrers objected. He did not think the witness could give evidenc as to his wife's feelings.
His Honour-Oh I think so. I should think he would know if his wife were dissatisfied (laughter).
Mr. Ferrers-Now I put it to you that you and your friend Ramjahu got up this letter against Mrs. Bell.
Witness-You have no right to use those words. That is not so.
Ahmet Rumjahn stated-I am the proprietor of the Burlington. I signed the agreement with Mrs. Bell on January 1 of this year. She promised to do as I asked and kept a book which was not exactly a diary. The particulars that I required were not all kept in some cases the book did not mention the nature of the dress 8. I als spoke to Mrs. Bell about keeping a record of the number of tailors em- ployed but this was not done during June. I re- member writing to Mrs. Bell about Mrs. Bisney's complaint and asking for the latter's letter, but did not get it. It is untrae that Mrs. Bell has not been rude to me.
His Honour thought the case-was certainly one for settlement and said he would be glad to discuss it in chambers. Mr. Pollock and Mr. Ferrers concurred, and when the Court resumed His Lordship announced that, by consent, he would give judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $900 and no order as to costs.
A second case in which the same plaintiff sued Mr. Rumjahn for $1,000 for slander was withdrawn, by consent, without any order as to costs.
Thursday. 24th July.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
- Kettlegi deleted
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE)
The trial of Aaron Ellis. charged with the manslaughter of Guaner Sampson, R.G.A., at Battery Path, on the 17th July, was concluded,
The Attorney-General prosecuted, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs Brutton. Hatt and Goldring) defended the prisoner.
In reply to His Lordship, the Attorney. General stated that he intended to treat Miss Desbien as a hostile witness.
The evidence of the Russian waiter, C. Burmakin, concluded the case for the Crown. He told practically the same story as he did at the Police Court, through the interpretation of Major Sexton, who is in charge of the interned Russian camp. He further related in cross-examination that prisoner asked him, through an interpreter," how he would speak at the trial.
The Attorney-General-That is the case for the Crown, Your Lordship and gentlemen of thejury.
THE HONGKONG weekly¡RESS AND
Mr. Sharp-My Lord and gentlemen of the jury. I have, as you have already gathered, a little further additional evidence to call for the defence, and I think, therefore, it will be con- venient to say that I shall call that evidenc: before I address you at all upon the ca89. It will be only necessary in this case res ly to state what the defence is, and as a matter of fact, from the evidence of the prosecution, I think the defence stands out. I will just put it to you what I am going to state and rely upon as a defence. I shall first submit to you that the prosecution has failed to prove what, in order to succeed, it must prove-that the injury of which deceased died was inflicted or caused by the defendant. They have wholly failed to establish that proof, and fortunately there is no question as to the cause of death. The deceased diel from a fractured skull, and according to the medical evidence the blow he received had nothing to do with his death. I will submit to you, gentlemen, on the evidence you have heard, that it is perfectly clear the man who died was most decidedly under the influence of drink, and what ap- parently happened was that deceased got up again after his first fall, and proceeled some considerable distance up the path, and in the condition in which he was he fell a second time, thus causing the injury of which he died. Again, I would refer you to the probabilities raised in the evidence. It seems likely that this second and fatal fall occurred while decesed was trying to light his pipe. We find it lying by him, and we find him at what the police described as the lightest portion of the whole path; a place which any man would select for fighting his pipe. We find a matoh box lying crushed under the man, and a large number of matches scattered round about. I think the inference is overwhelming that he was lighting or preparing to light that pipe. It is also very clear, indeed, that he had not a pipe or match box in his hauds when he stopped the ricsha, as his hands were both occupied. It is extremely likely that he got up after this dranken fall and went on, and gentlemen, I do not want to carry your imagination too far, but perhaps it was the fire of the match If this before his eyes that overpowered him, explanation is not satisfactory, I shall submit
༣
that there is at least a reasonable doubt raised by the evidenca, and if there is a reasonable doubt you will be bound to give the prisoner
the benefit of that doubt.
Kenneth Gaskell was the first witness for the defence. He deposed-On the 16th July last I was bar manager at the Hongkong Hotel. I saw the defendant in the hotel that evening about 11.30 p.m. He left as I was closing the bar at 12 o'clock. I saw him again in Des Voeux Road amongst a number of other people who were there. I had a conversation with him and walked with him and two others to
[August 26, 1905
soldier and the two women ?—How could I con- olude that the womu were concerned in the affair?
You say you know Miss Doshien because she was a client of your firm's?—Yes.
And that is the reason why you wished to I am not screening screen ber?—Not at all.
her.
Why didn't you tell the police you had seen the soldier with the two women, one of whom was your client?-How could I know. they were connected with this affair? If you will allow me I will explain.
WAS
That is the fourth time you have said that. Proceed-On Saturday when the man charged, I saw the account in the press of the Battery Path mystery in which a civilian was charged with murder. I saw that Mr. Goldring apparel for the prisoner, whose name was not It also meationed, and wondered who it was. mentioned about two women being concerned in the affair. On inquiring was told that one of the women was Miss Desbien. On the following morning I told Mr. Goldring I know something about the case, but did not think my evidence was material.
You found out by the papers only that your employer or master was
engaged in the case?—–—
You did not know before ?-No.
Yes.
suppose your attention is solely directed to reading law, is it? No. I have nothing to do with Mr. Goldring's cases.
John Quinn said-Oɑ Sunday evening 16th July, I was in the Hongkong Hotel playing billiards. The defendant came up and spoke to me; this would be about 103 p.m. I saw him off and on from the time of his speaking to mẹ” until nearly closing time. If he was absent from the hotel it could have been for a very short time.
Cross-examined-The Owl Grill Boom is about two minutes' walk from the Hongkong Hotel.
out.
He was
C. Peachley sad-I am a waiter in the Silver Grill Room, and was last month employed On the 16th July in the Owl Grill Room. I went on duty at 9.30 p.m. Just as I went in Mrs. Slater and Miss Dǝabien went Neither Miss Radcliffe nor the defendant was there. Mrs. Slater and Miss Dusbien returned about eleven o'clock. Burmıkin came in about 10.3 p.m. He sat down, had some supper and one brandy. He went away about 11.30 p.m. and did not return that night intoxicated. Shortly after Mrs. Slater and Miss Desbien returned, Miss Radcliffe came in, and the two girls went off together. We closed the premises at midnight; after that it took a little time to finish the work. When that was done we started for home. When defendant and the opposite the Silver Grill Roon we met the
ladies. two
Defend- Slater if he could give ant asked Mr.
with. rub his hand him something to Mr. Slater sud he had only spirits. They. went back with him and he got some brandy. This was rubbed on outside. I observed that Miss Desbien's mouth was a little swollen, and clerk to Mr. Brutton. On the night of Sunday, she told me that the soldier had hit her. I was - 16th July, I was out to dinner with my family
on duty all the following day at the Owl Grill at Laichikok. I reached Blake pier about 12.30 that night, took a chair and went up Battery Room: the defendant was not there at all that, Path. Just as I raachad Thomas Hotel Í day. What I read of Burmakin's evidence in the papers I consider false. He was not in the noticed two ricshas rushing out of Icehouse
Owl Grill Room after mid-night on the 16th or on the following day. He has since admitte ! to me that the evidence he gave before the magistrate was not true.
Queen's Road, near D'Aguilar Street. I parted As far from him just as the clock struck 12.30. as I could see he was not un ler the influence of drink.
L. d'Almada e Castro stated —I am an articled
Desbien.
Street from the direction of the Praya. who Was ä I recognised Miss
The two ricshas stopped client of my firm's. by the big tree near Bittery Path, and as I passed I saw a soldier hanging on to the splash board of Miss Desbien's ricsha. From his attitude I conclaled that he might have been
drunk.
Cross-examined-I am in the office of the solicitor who is conducting the defence.
Why, having this knowledge in your head, did you not inform the police and military author- itie of what you saw ? Do you not read the newspapers? No.
Then you had better adopt some study of the art which ought to be studiel by a solicitor before you finish your articles.
Witness-After what I saw on that night I did not think anything more about the matter until Saturday when the prisoner was charged at the Police Court.
I am asking you why you did not before mention what you saw at the time you saw the
Witness was cross-examined by the Attorney-” General.
→
Burmakin and you had been amusing the Russians in camp that night, hadn't you?—Yes.
Is he a clever fellow ?-No. That is why he took you to help him?—Yes. You are the cleverer man of the two ?—I can't say that, Sir.
Did you amuse the audience ?—No Why? They did not take any interest in his tricks.
Was it want of intelligence on their part, or want of skill on his ?-Want of skill on his.
Why didn't you do the tricks ?—I couldn't. I'm not a conjuror.
When you returned to Hongkong was he intoxicated ?—No.
He hasn't too much money to spara has he ?
've seen him with money.