Page
381
Tuesday, May 22nd.
IN CRIMINAL JurisdictioN:
BEFORE ME: A¡ G. W18E (PUISNE JUDGɛ).
MURDER IN GAOL.
Wong Tal, a prisoner in Victoria Gaol, was indicted for the murder of a fellow prisoner named Li Shing on May 1st. The Attorney General (Sir H. S. Berkeley) prosecuted, and Dr. Ho Kai defended.
The following jury were empanelled: Messrs. A. E. Robinson (foreman), T. C. Gray, H. ClaveD, P. D. H. Grant, F. O. Reynolds, W. Wother- spoon and Radolf Goos.
E. J. Pierpont, chief warder in Victoria Gaol, stated that deceased was received into prison on 18th July, 1901, convicted of robbery, and sen. tenced to seven years' hard labour and twenty strokes with the birch The prisoner Wong Tai was undergoing sentence of eight years hard labour for piracy. About 730 on the morning of May 1st, when he was visiting the West Yard gaol, he heard someone shout from the shoemakers' shop. He immediately ran there and saw prisoner 115 standing up with a shoemaker's knife in each hand. Warder Driscoll was standing over prisoner with bis baton half raised. Witness told him to remain
still and then, ringing the alarm bell, went to the door of the shoemakers' shop and ordered all the prisoners to come out. This they did, fall. ing in two deep outside, Wong Tai remaining inside aader charge of Warder Driscoll. By that time the principal warder and other officers arrived on the scene. Then he noticed prisoner 19 (deceased) on the floor, and had him carried to the hospital. He ordered prisoner 115 to put down the knife, and after the order had ben repeat d several times prisoner did so. HO noticed that the deceased had a wound on the right side of his neck and that he was covered in blood..
Cross-examined by Dr. Ho Kai The prisoner amid all the confusion stood silent and unmoved, never speaking a word. The accused, who was within two months of his discharge, had had several reports against him for breach of discipline. Deceased and prisoner had worked together in the shoemakers' shop for several years, and so far as he knew they were on perfectly friendly terms. Both men were good workers, The character of the accused was indifferent, having been reported for disobedience, using obscene language, and fighting with prisoners, not the deceased. The last occasion he was reported for fighting was in September, 1903. William Driscoll, warder, detailed the occur rence. The prisoner, who was sitting behind the deceased in the shoemakers' shop, suddenly rose from bis seat and stabbed him twice in the neck with a shoemaker's knife. The deceased rau towards witness, and fell to the floor. Wit- ness told prisouer to put down the knife, but instead of doing so be picked up another. The chief warder also told prisoner to put down the knife, and after a slight hesitation he put the weapons down. It appeared to witness that there was a slight jalousy btw on the two men because Li Shing was a better shoemaker than the prisoner. Wong Tai was always & sulky prisoner.
After the evidence of eye-witnesses and Dr. Moore,
Dr. Koch was call d. He stated, in reply to the questions of the Attorney General, that the prisoner was of a very low mental type and though at the time of examination he was not insau+, witness considered that insanity might develop.
Under cross-examination he expressed the opinion that the accused auted under an impulse of homicidal insanity, and did not act from any premeditated intention or malice aforethought. Then you would say that the man was acting under au irresist.ble impulse to kill P-Yes; in the absence of any apparent motive I should say it was an irre istible impulse to kill sʊme- body.
Dr. Ha Kai submitted that on the fants of The care, together with the medical evidence, that the man killed the deceased during a fit of t:mporary insanity.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Judge-1 thoroughly agree with the jury. Tell him the only possi le defence was set up and argued on his behalf, but the jury
.
|
1
THE MONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND.
have come to the conclusion that the evidence | in support of insanity is not sufficient. If he is let off on that ground there would be no cot- victions whatever. Before I pass sentence on | him, hàs he anything further to say?
Prisoner (through the interpreter)—No, I will | leave it to your Lordship to decide whatever you like.
The Judge then donned the black cap and passed sentence of death.
IN ADMIRAlty JurisDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE) ANd Hon. Captain L. A. W. BARNES-LAWRENCE (NA TICAL ASSESSOR).
ANOTHER COLLISION ČASE
❘
[May 28, 1936. assis'ance of the Assessor, have worked ont accurately what actually happened from the times given to the cocurremen related by the second mate in his evidence. Now at 9.14 his course was south-east or east. At 9:16 he sighted the junk half a point on his starboard bow, one mile off. The very careful calculations made by the Assessor showed that it was two-thirds of a mile off. At 9,18-he had then been two . minu'es without altering his course the jauk was drawing ahead, going north-west, which, I take it, would cross his bows from starboard to port, two degrees on the starboard bow. He ported bis helm and then the junk was one point on the po t bow, which was afterwards increased to one and a half points and after- wards to two prints. He thea vefimated the junk to be 230 or 3 #1 yards aw ɩy. I think hy Pok-af-erwards said bulf a mil, He seems to have been uncertain as to the actual distanc'. The Assessor calculates, on these figures, that the junk was 400 yards away. He says that if the junk had kept her course she would have passed 249 yards off the "Hankow". This is nearly socurate if the position of the junk at 9:18 is correctly stated. The Amersor calculates the distanée would have been 450 yards on the figures given. After referring to the times given by the engineer he said they could not scoop. the theory that the junk tarne lin'o the "Haukow ". for if she did the light on her stern, which was burning brightly, must have been visible on the "Hankow”. In the circumstances he had deemed it advisable to put the following quen- tion to the Amressor :-Är
The case was continued in which Chan lai, owner of the junk Lin Shing Lee", and the owners of her cargo, claimed damages from the ss. Hankow" for a collision which occurred between the vessels on November 15th.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. E. H. Sbarp, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. J. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master), represented the defendants.
Mr. Sharp continued his address for the defeuce, and at the close of Mr. Slade's speech his Lordship intimated that judgment would
be reserved.
Wednesday, 23rd May,
IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE FIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHISF JUSTICE) AND HON CAPTAIN L. A. W. BARNES-LAWRENCE (NAUTICAL ASSESSOR).
THE COLLISION CASE,
•
|
Did the fact that the " Hankɔw" continued on her course between 9.18 und 9.18 involve a risk of collision? Answer: Yes.
Ought any steps to have been taken to get out of the way” of the junk under articles 1′′ and 18 Answer: Yes. At 9.16, when the junk was in fact sighted.
Was the risk of collision at any time pre- dangerous? Answer: No.
Were
Judgment was delivered on the case in wh ch
the steps taken at 9.18 suffi -ient to Chan Pok-tsi, owner of the junk Lin Shingavert a collision ? Answer: No. Lee, and the owners of her cargo, claimed damages from the a s Haukow" for a collision | which occurred between the vessels on November 15th. Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. J. Godge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes aud Master), represented the defendants.
as
His Lordship said-In this case we have two questions to determine. The first in whether the junk was to blame for not having had her regulation lights burning and the second is whether the “Hankow" was to blame. After givin the matter exreful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the junk did not have her masthead light burning required by law, The quest on then remains to the defaults. if any, of | as
the Hankow", and I have to look at this from two points of view. (1) I think it is legitimate I should look at it as a lawyer. A the conclusion to which a lawyer would came on the nautical evidence could not by any imaginary means be considered satisfactory to sailors,
be
the law has provided that I should assisted by a nutical asseSSOT. I think the sase reelly is one in which I should be justified Now in giving my opinion as a lawyer. it is clear to me from the evidence of the second mate that what he saw was this:-"About mile, probably less, hossaw a dirk object ahead of him: he took b arings and continued straight on his course for two minutes: he was then proceeding at ten knols" The facts showed that if the object was stationary that would bare brought his vessel, going at that speed, into what must has been dangerous proximity to that dark object. He himself was satisfied that it was a junk and during the whants of these two minutes he did not see the junk alter her course. During to two minutes acterwards she was going practically, to the lay mind, right at it. I know "direct is not strictly accurate, because in fact the junk was on a course, which strictly spesking, was crossing his bows. She was to all intent and purposes going straight at him. That to my mind shows she was clearly wrong in not taking previous motion. It would be impossible that a judgment should be acceptable based on suck very broad lines and I, therefore, with the
h
#
|
|
|
|
Under the circumstances resulting from the previous answers, what steps should have been taken to prevent risk of collision? Answer I am of opinion that when the junk was first sighted at 9.16 a decisive movement of the helm should have been given, in order to avoid any risk of collision. Continuing the course of the "Hankow" until 9. 8 took the steamer into dangerously cl as proximity to the junk.
In conclusion, he stid-We therefore hold. both vessels were to blame. Judgment scoord- ingly.
A NEW SOLICITOR.
The Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock mɔred that Mr. Andrew Gimore Jackson be approved, admitted a ›d enrolled to practise as a solicitor in that bonourable Court. His Lordship would see that Mr. Jackson had practised as a solicitor in Dublin and he (the speaker) might mention that Mr. Jackson was a nephew of "Bir Thomas Jsokson, who had such a distinguished career in the Colony.
His Lordship said he was very pleased to admit Mr. Jackson to practise as a solicitor in the Colony, and trusted that the honoured name which he bore would guide him in his position.
Original JURISDICTION.
BEFORE the Chief Justice (Sir Francis PIGUOTT).
!
MONEY LENDING TRANSACTIONS, The Lai Trun Bank, of 145, Queen's Road' Central, claimed $15,334, money due on pro missory notes with $9,000 interest, from Li Wai-tong, gentleman, and his brother, Li Ki- tong, also described as a gentleman, both residing in Victoria.
Mr. M.SW. Slade, instructed by Mr. Hastings appeared for complainant, while Hon. Dr. do Kai and the Hou. Mr. H. E. Pollock, instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton (of Mowers. Brutton and Hutti), represented the first defendan'.
It was stated that judgment had slready been given against the second defendant.
Mr. Blade, in opening, said that the plaintiffs alleged that they lent the defendants throəé vama of money on different dates. The first defen- dant admitted having signed certain documenta bat denied that they were promissory notes. Plaintiffs sorted that he signed the documents
I