November 27, 1905.]
Plaintiff said he did not wish to be hard on him, and was quite willing that easy terms should be arranged.
His Lordship (to defendant)-Well, can't you do anything?
Defendant-I cannot raise a lump sum like that. Besides, it was at the plaintiff's request that I stayed at his boarding house, and he told me I needn't pay up until I found myself on my feet."
E
His Lordship (to plaintiff)-What are you prepared to do P
Plaintiff-The defendant's income is $75 monthly, and he has a free house. would ask your Lordship to make an order that he will pay me $30 a month.
His Lordship-If you agree to that I am perfectly willing.
Defendant-I cannot agree to it. His Lordship-I don't mind what you agree to. If you don't like that I will give judgment against you for the full amonat.
Anorder was made that the defendant pay the plaintiff of the sum $30 a month until the account was balanced.
Monday, 20th November.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE),
A MURDER CHARGE.
Lo Kun Mui and Lo Fat Hing were charged, the former with the murder of Lo Sam Ku at the village of Ching Po in this colony on 28th September, and the latter with being accessory after the fact. Prisoners pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. E. J. Chapman (foreman), W. T. Pigrum, Robert Wilson, Thomas Slade, Wm. Turner, J. F. Miller and P. Helme.
The Attorney-General conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. H. W. Slade appeared for the defence.
The Attorney-General stated that prisoners were charged-the first man with murder and the second with harbouring and receiving the first prisoner after the commission of the crime. Prisoners were brothers, and the deceased was a brother also. All three lived together, with the wife and children of the second prisoner. The case for the prosecution rested on the evidence of the children and the admission made by one of the prisoners. From the evidence of the children it would appear that on the evening of the 28th September, about 7 or 8 o'clock, & quarrel arose between deceased and the wife of the second prisoner, as the result of which, it is said, the man struck the womao. Then a fight took place between her husband and the deceased the latter being attacked by the former with a bamboo pole, inflicting injuries which caused death. Apparently the second prisoner assisted his brother to hide the body.
Dr. Wm Hunter, medical officer in charge of the public mortuary, stated that deceased had suffered from multiple injuries, the actual causé of death being the broken breast bone pressing on the heart. A bamboo pole, such as that pro- duced, would be likely to cause such an injury.
Mr. A. Franklin, assistant Government analyst, spoke of tracing blood stains on the bamboo pole submitted to him and to obtaining a similar result on the examination of a knife.
The other evidence as already reported, was repeated, after which counsel addressed the jury and his Lordship summed up.
The jury were absent a considerable time, and on their return the foreman announced that they had found the first prisoner guilty of man. slaughter but the second was not guilty of the charge brought against him.
The second prisoner was acquitted, and the first was sentenced to three years' imprison.
ment.
IN CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
Tuesday, 21st November.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
A DIVIDED JURY.
Cheung Lin pleaded not guilty to a charge of uttering a forged $5 bank note at Yaumati on
October 20th.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The jury were empanelled as follows: Messrs. Archibald Ritchie (foreman), G. Ruttonjee, E. B. Raymond, C. Hislop, H. A. Shreinfelder, W. J. Terrell, and K. C. Newman.
Sir H. Berkeley (Attorney-General) conducted the ouse for the Crown, while prisoner was undefended.
The Attorney-General, in opening the prosecution, said the charge against prisoner was that he passed a forged banknote well knowing it to have been forged. There would not be any doubt in the minds of the jury that the note was in fact bad, but the question they would have to determine was whether prisoner was aware of the fact or not. It was not an offence to pass a bad note unless one knew at the time that it was bad. Evidence would be called before them to show that prisoner must have known the note was bad, as he had made several attempts to pass the note that day, and actually did pass it. In the first instance he gave the note to a shopkeeper, who on taking it to a money changer was informed that it was bad. The shopkeeper saw prisoner later and told him the note was bad, Prisoner said he was sorry and gave him another five dollar note, which was good. He tried this a second time and when it was discovered that the note was bad expressed his regret and gave another in exchange. But the third man to whom the note was given had him arrested and taken into custody.
A clerk from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank affirmed that the note produced was not a genuine one. The numbering was illegible, and the paper was greasy, being a Japanese paper that the bank never used.
At the close of the evidence, prisoner's state- ment when before the magistrate was read. In it he said that he did not believe the note was a bad one.
Counsel addressed the jury, and his Lordship Bummed up.
The jury returned after an absence of about twenty minutes.
The Clerk of Court-Have you agreed upon your verdict?
The Foreman-No. The jury are agreed that the 85 dollar note was counterfeit.
His Lordship-Is there any special point on which you require direction P
The Foreman-No, my lord.
His Lordship-I am afraid I must ask you to endeavour to come to a decision.
The Foreman-We have endeavoured, my Lord.
His Lordship-How were you divided ? The Foreman-Four to three. His Lordship-I am afraid I must ask you to try once more.
The Attorney-General-We can take a verdict of five to two, not less.
absence, the foreman announced that they had The jury again retired, and after a short
arrived at a verdict-by five to two.
The Clerk-Do you find prisoner guilty or not guilty.
The Foreman-Not guilty. The prisoner was discharged.
Wednesday, 22nd November.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE,
charged with committing robbery with violence Wong Tsoi and Wong San Kwai were at the village of Sum Chung on 13th July and assaulting Lay Yang Soi. Prisoners, who pleaded not guilty, were undefended, Sir Henry Berkeley (Attorney-General) prosecuted. Peter Dow (foreman), R. St. Pierre, Campbell The following jury were empanelled: Messrs.
Glover, Donald Forbes, Harry Eyre, Alexander Bain, and Paul Lowder.
The Attorney-General outlined the case for the Crown. On the 13th July last about 10.30 at night the complainant Lay Yung Soi, a grocer in the village of Sum Chung in the New Territory-whose uncle was also living in the house was awakened by some persons attempt. ing to get into the house. Subsequently three men effected an entrance and attacked the two inmates, tied them up, and raided the house, carrying off $21, a musket, a revolver, two
973
umbrells, articles of clothing and other things. Although the robbery took place in July, prisoners were not arrested until October. The first prisoner was arrested on the 27th October in a lime boat, in which was found one of the stolen umbrellas. On the same night a party of police, acting upon information, went to the house occupied by the second prisoner and there found some of the stolen artioles, notably jacket. The second prisoner was taken to a village where he informed the police he had two muskets, but although a search was made in the house indicated they could not be found. It would be proved, however, that this prisoner hid the muskets at the back of the house, In the charge-room he admitted that he had committed the robbery, but denied it when before the magistrate.
Lai Yung Soi detailed the robbery on the night in question. The frat prisoner was armed with a pole, the second with a bludgeon, and the third was unarmed. They tied his hands behind his back and fastened his queue to a beam. Going to the shop they took $21 in money and afterwards raided the house, carrying off a number of articles.
Both prisoners made statements in defence. protesting their innocence.
His Lordship summed up, and the jury, without retiring, found the first prisoner not guilty and the second prisoner guilty.
The latter was sentenced to five years' hard labour and to receive 24 strokes. In the other two charges the Attorney-General did not offer any evidence and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in each.
The first prisoner was discharged. This concluded the business of the Sessions.
Thursday, 23rd November.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (Chief JUSTICE).
APPLICATIONS FOR RECEIVING ORDERS.
In the case of the Kwong Ta Cheong exparte Chai Kwong Yan, Mr. Otto Kong Bing appeared for the petitioning creditor and assets were estimated at $63,000, mainly book applied for a receiving order. The debtor's
debts owing in the Straits Settlements, Australia, etc.; and the liabilities were believed to be $63,000.
Mr. Wakeman (Official Receiver)—I don't see where the substantial assets come in.
His Lordship-Neither do I. Kong Sing to file a further affidavit.
The application was adjourned for Mr. Otto
Mr. Otto Kong Sing applied for a receiving Re Wong Lee firm exparte Leung Tai Nam, order. The petitioning creditor filed an affidavit that debtor had suspended payment and that he owed Leung Tai Nam $500 due on a promissory note.
Mr. Wakeman stated that in this case they were all be ok debts. As a rule the information of the petitioning creditor was not very accurate.
His Lordabip observed that the debts were given with great particularity, but the petition. ing creditor supplied these at his own risk,
The application was allowed to stand over.
Re Wai Kee firm, of 21 Central Market, Kong Sing appeared for petitioning creditor exparte Lo Shun Tsun, contractor. Mr. Otto and applied for a receiving order. The firm owed the creditor $830, due on a promissory note, and had issued a notification that they had suspended payment of their debts. The and the liabilities to be $9,000. assets were believed by the creditor to be $6,223
Mr. Wakeman said he could not understand how the oreditor obtained his information.
His Lordship stated that there was clearly an arrangement between the creditor and the debtor. It was not a proper case for bankruptcy, When the amounts were properly certified he would consider the application.
Re Kwong Tak_firm exparte. Cheong Shing Tong. Mr. H. K. Holmes appeared for the petitioning creditor and in support of his application for a receiving order stated that the
2
7
}