138
this condition was very mark d. I think it is also fair to the deceased to say that if he had not been drunk he would not have struck the
woman. There is no doubt he struck the woman, not a terrible blow, but a blow. If he had not been drunk this much smaller man in the dook would not have knocked him down; he would have knockel the defendant dɔwa by the blows he struck at him other
Now as to the
moved
gar ap, poiats: deceased positions are now exactly located. With regard
on and fell down a second time; both these
man
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
objection to the prisoner's statement being made, but it is not right.
After further argument His Lordship said he had no objection to the statement being read, but in future in such cases the form laid down by form or jalges would be followɔd.
The prisoner then mate the following state- ment: --I deeply regret my connection with this affair, but I do not think I am to blame. I naver thought the man was injured; I thought he was only drunk. I did not go up the path with the intention of hitting him, I wanted to It was only bring him back or get his nam›. when the man struck me that I struck back.
I kept silence in the matter because I know I was morally innocent, and I did not want to involve my relatives in the disgrace of a public trial. As nobody else was charged, I thought my silence would injure nobody.
The Attorney-General addressed the jury. He said that from the evidence they could only assume that the blow delivered by the defeudant was the cause of the mau's death. The point as to whether deceased was drunk or not did not affect the law in the case. After reviewing the evidence h› submitted that there was coo- clusive proof that the man wa; kuɔcked down where he was foud, aid that he had not moved H+ suggested from the place where he fell. that the woman pulled the pin from the soldier's jacket in the hope of destroying the identity of the man who was knocked down. Dealing with the plea of self defence, the Attorney-General held that in this case prisoner was not defending him. self against attack. Even supp sing it to bɔtrae- as the prisoner said that the decased turned upon him and struck him, prisoner was the assailant. If they saw a man running after them with the intention of striking them they would be perfectly justified in striking him in self defouc. Prisoner was engaged in an aulawful purpose in pursuing the deceased, and the facts disclosed in evidence showed that prisoner was not entitled If to any consideration on that ground. deceased had known defentiant was going to assail him, was it not probable that he would have used the stick which he carried. It seemed more likely, when they remembered that pris ner was wearing rubber soles which would enable him to silently approach the man he was pursu- ing, that he came up rapidly behind the deceased and gave him the blow which he told Mrs. Slater was enough. If the man fell from the blow and falling fractured his skull, prisoner was guilty of the consequences of his act.
to the little matter of that vomit, I did not in the beginning intend to make it any part of my case, but since the Attorney-General has dwelt on it, I must also refer to it. If it was the deceased's it is clear that he walked above the spot where he fell, and I suppose changed his mind and walked back. I do not regard the matter of very, very great moment, as we know the deceased was vomiting, no dubt from bis injury, but I do not think it afficts the case in the least. The suggestion that it was th› girl is unkind. I submit that this injury was caused by the second fall, Both girls sail they had a good opportunity of looking at the man's face as it was in the light, and they say that there was no wound at that time on his face. This of defence has established by weight evidence that there is a point of reasonable doubt. There is one more matter of defence which I hesitate to lay before you, because I think the defence already stated is satisfactory. As to what happened at the time the defendant's blow was delivered nobody in the worl I can give evidence on but the defendant; the only other man who knew is dead. The full and frank state. ment of the defendant reid to you is fully borne out by the evidence for the defence. He says that deceased tarned and struck at him, and I submit he was justified in defending himself. It is clearly recognised by our courts that a can defen himself if struck at.. This second defence will not arise for serious con- sideration unless you are as I say, convinced beyond all doubt that it was the first blow that killed the man. There is practically nothing the else in the evidence of the Crowu thin evidence of the Chinese boy, which I submit, gentlemen, is unreliable. Referring to the point that the defendant did not report the matter to the police, I am not going to argua that it would not have been a proper procliur. Undoubtedly it would. Bat the defen lant considered himself morally innocent. He knew that if he went and reported his unfortunata
The Chief Justice prefaced a lengthy address connection with the affair. at the very least
to the Jury by asking them to discard all publicity, and extremely disagreeable, if not
preconceived notions and consider the facts actually dangeroas consequences. must ensue
as they had been presented. Their patience His case is totally different from the case of a
would be taxed a little longer to go through the man keeping quiet when he se33 auother min
Proceeding, he said he being unjustly charged, and the question in evidence once more. this man's mind would be -"Am I right tgir was anxious that their attention should be myself up?" It would have been a proper. confined to the main issues involving the guilt and I think any lawyer would say a prudent or non-guilt of the prisoner, and after expound. course for the man to have taken, but the courssing the law on the subject of manslaughter, His the prisoner took was the curse the majority Lordship pointed out that the question to
would have tak
consider was not whether the prisoner was of men of his class under the same circumstances. The defoul. innocent of manslaughter, but whither he was innocent of the ast which caused manslaughter. ant subsequently very amply male up for his failure to report to the police, by the full They would have to consider what was the he pursued statement he made later, If you come to the intention of the prisoner when conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased, because that was one of the materials of the case. Dr. Bell said death was caused by defendant is guilty, it is your duty to say so. but I do ask you to consider what a terrible his skull having been fractured through coming in violent contact with a hard substance such stain a conviction for manslaughter leaves on
as the kerb or the pavement. If the jury were the record of a mau, and not to forget that the
satisfied that death was caused by the fall, they very fact of having been tried on so serious a
would have to be satisfied if the law of man- charge leaves a stain which it is difficult to wholly erase. In copclusion. I submit to you slaughter applied. Supposing the intention of the prisoner was to bring him back and make that the prosecution has not proved its case
him apologise for what he had done, that was beyond reason ible doubt, as it is bound to do to
an unlawful act. Dealing with the plea of self succeed. I confidently submit to you gentl› - men, that it is consistent with the evidenc, defence, His Lordship showed that if the that the defendant did not inflict this injury; deceased had heard accused come up, the self the deceased in his intoxicated condition fell defence would be transposed from the prisoner to the deceased. Referring to the evidence of and inflicted the wound. I finally submit to you that if this explanation is not absolutely proved, Dr. Bell, he pointed out the fact that the medical
but be there cannot at any
on gentleman expressed the conviction that the rata your mind the gravest and profoundest doubt, deceased had not moved from the place where and if so, that doubt must be given to the defen. he had fallen. In conclusion he indicated that he would put a series of questions'tɔ the jury. dant
They were submitted as follows:
Mr. Sharp-I am told the prisoner is desirous of making an additional statement.
The Attorney-General-If the prisoner wants to make a statmeat, he must do so before counsel addresses the jury. This is a rule of the Court I have no laid down by Sir William Goodman.
1. Did the death of Gunner Sampson result from a fall on Battery Path causing a fracture of the skull ?
2. With what intent did the prisoner pursue the deceased up the Path?
|
|
[August 26, 1905.
A-If to remonstrate, or otherwise deal peace- fully with him, and the deceased, mistaking his intention, struck at him, and the prisoner really struck his blow or blows as a parry and in self defence. That would be excusable homicid› and you will acquit the prisoner. But
B If to punish him for his alleged assault on the womin Desbien, and if the death resulted from the punishment, then the prisoner com- mitted a wrongful act if he carried out his in- tention, or so nearly-carried it out that the decased acted in self defence. That would be very near the border line between murder and manslaughter: but you will consider this cas)
If to be manslaughter. finding is in accordance with B., before you can determine the question of guilt there are certain other considerations to ba taken into account.
your
C. If the deceased fell in consequence of prisoner's blow, and in falling knocked his head against the pavement or the kerb, and died from the effects of the blow, you will find the prisoner guilty.
D. If you think that he fell as he swung ronad in delivering his own blow in self defence, then the fall is so connected with prisoner's original wrongful act, that you must find the prisoner guilty.
1
E. If you should be of opinion that the deceased was much or little under the influence of drink, you must still find the prisoner guilty.
F. But if you believe that the deceased fell from sheer inability to stand upright and not in any way as the result of the blow, then you will acquit the prisoner.
Again you must look at what happened from another point of view, aud consider whether the deceased fell from the blow, that he was not sufficiently hurt to prevent his getting up again, that he did get up again and move on, and that he afterwards" fell an 1 fractured his skull: then
G. If this fall was dus entirely to ano inability to stand upright from drink, you will acquit the prisoner. But
H. If you think that the fall was due to the after effects of the blow acting either independently of or in connection with the effects of drink, you will find the prisoner guilty.
A Juryman asked if the shoulder strap of deceased's jacket was buttonel or unbuttoned. His Lordship said he attiched considerabl importance to the question.
Counsel agreeing, the question was put to the police and an answer returned that it had been found buttoned.
After an absence of forty minutes, the jury returned and th foreman said-Your Lordship, the jury would like to know if we are bound to decide between section: Å and B.
His Lordship.-Those are paragraphs in which I wanted to indicate to you the fundamental difference between criminal and non-criminal independent of the main fact-simply determine
the original
whether
act
to
Wa3
a wrongful on › or not.
The Deputy Registrar-Have you considered your verdict?
The Foreman -We hire. The Dapaty Registrar-Are you unanimous? The Foreman-We are.
find the The Deputy Registrar-Do you prisoner gailty or not guilty?
The Foreman-Gailty. I would like to add a remark. We find prisoner guilty under para- graphs B and C. We consider there was pro- vocation and recommend him to mercy.
The Deputy Registrar-By what majority; do you recommend him to mercy.
The Foreman—Six to on) The Attorney General -Will Your Lordship I think in the circumstances permit mə. Your Lordship might see your way to inflict a fine as an alternative punishment. Speaking on behalf of the Crown, I should be content with that.
His Lordship Is there any means of ascer- tsining the destination of the fine?
The Attorney-General-I am not aware of it. -His Lordship-Is it beyond my power to indicate how the money should be apportioned ? The Attorney General-Therə is only one way. His Lordship, addressing prisoner, said— After a very patient trial you have been found guilty. I am prepared to acceptthe suggestion
Page 10Page 11