114
SUPREME COURT.
Saturday, August 18th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR FRANCIS
PIGGOTT).
he Criminal Sessions were opened to-day there being only two cases for trial. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ATTORNEY. GEN RAL.
His Lordship, on taking his seat, addressed the Attorney General-Sir Henry Berkeley, as follows:-This is the first occasion on which the Court has met since the King has been pleased to confer on you the dignity of King's Council. I am perhaps painting the lily and gilding refined gold, but I wish to express my opinion that it is an honour which was well bestowed. It has been the custom here that Attorney-Generals should not hold the title of King's Council, and therefore I have to congratulate you that his Majesty has been pleased to confer this dignity on you. The Attorney-General-I have to return many thanks for your kind words,
KOBBERY.
was
Pang Kang, an unemployed coolie, charged with robbery on the road between Stanley and Shankiwan. The Attorney- General prosecuted aud prisoner. who pleaded not guilty, was undefended.
The following jury were empanelled—Messrs. T. Skinner (foremau), E. Abraham, G. L. Duncan, T. C. Downing T. C. Turnbull, S. A. Seth, and J. H. Seth,
It appeared that the prisoner, with two others, met the complainant and a friend on the highway on Sunday, 29th July. They rushed from behind some trees and sprang upon the two men. After going through the victims' pockets and finding only about $3 in cash they stripped them. Complainant said they took off his trousers and girded his loins with a piece of old sacking. The robbers then dis- appeared and the unfortunate men reported the matter to the police at Shankiwan. A few days later complainant was proceeding along the same road and met one of his assailants who was also carrying his umbrella.
Prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Monday, August 20th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
TWO YEARS FOR BRIBERY,
Raheem Bux, Indian watchman in the employ of the Sanitay Board, surrendered to his bail on charges of accepting bribes to the amonut of $370.37 on divers dates since October, 1903.
Sir H. S. Berkeley, K.C., Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of the Crown Solicitors' office), prosecuted, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) represented the defen. dant.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the following jurors were empanelled :-Messrs E. J. Ellis (foreman), A E. Hollings, R. C. Hurley, A. Ohme, G. Newman, J. Lysaught and J. À. T. Plummer.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The Attorney-General said the charge against the prisoner was that being an officer in the employment of the Sanitary Boari engaged to oversee the sanitary work at the Peak, he with a view to improperly influence his conduct as a public officer did receive bribes amounting to $40 a month from the con- servancy sub-contractor for a period ex. tending over a series of months. According to the charges this bribery went on from October, 1905, till July, 1906. Each month the prisoner, to use a local expression, received a squeeze" of $10 out of the sub-contractor antil the month of June, when the Sanitary Commiss on inquiry started. The sub contrac- tor then attempted to get out of the toils and told the prisoner he was not going to pay him The contrac or would relate the any more. circumstances under which he agreed to give bribes when he succeeded to the contrast. The
|
prisquer sent for him and informed him that his predecessor had been in the habit of paying him 840 a month, and the contractor was asked whether he w prepared to fall in with the old custom. He would tell them that when he demurred the prisoner said to him-"You pay or not, you please." Under the oir cumstances the man paid between October and June. It might have been a coincidence, but it was a fact, that there were no prosecutions of the sanitary contractor's coolies during this period They had apparently, as the prisoner alleged. committed no offence for which they could be prosecuted. It might have been a coincidence, but it was also a fact, that when the contractor expressed his intention in June of tion. On July 6th the prisoner charged two no longer paying the toll, there was a prosecu-
coolies with dumping in the drains of the Peak, and they were fined $7 apiece. The contractor was afraid to pay the prisoner any more money because the Commission was sitting; also he was afraid not to pay the prisoner the money agreed upon because he feared prosecutions, so he went and made a statement of what had been going on for the last six months. It Was then arranged that he should comply with the demand of the prisoner. He was given certain bank notes the numbers of which were taken, and evidence would be given that the contractor was seen to give the said notes to the prisoner. After receiving the money the prisoner was arrested, and be then pulled the notes ont of his pocket and dropped them.
Mr. G. A. Woodcock, secretary to the Sanitary Board, was the first witness. He said the prisoner was appointed a servant of the Board on September 1st, 1903, and was so employed till the time of his arrest.
recommended him for appointment to the Cross-examined-The Sanitary Department
Government, and the Government appointed him. His name was submitted to the Governor for approval of this appointment. Prisoner
was a watchman at the Peak. Witness was not sure whether he had power to institute prosecutions, but was under the impression to report to
prisoner's duty the senior inspector with regard to . nuisances. Inspector Reidie was senior inspector of his district in October four months ago, when Inspector McEwan took last and continued in that position until about
charge. The duties of inspectors were laid. down in departmental regulations, but he was unable to say whether the duties of watchmen were also laid down. The reports made to senior inspectors went to the Medical Officer of Health, and be dealt with them.
that he had. It Was
Dr. W. W. Pearse, Medical Officer of Health, sword, said the defendant was employed as sanitary watchman on the Peak district. He was under witness' orders, aud was paid by the Sanitary Department.
Cross-examined-Defendant had not authori- ty to prosecute under the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance, but he could prosecute under the Summary Offences Ordinance. Even inspectors could not prosecute unless they had authority in writing from him so tɔ do. The ordinary prosecutious against conservancy and scavenging coolies would ba for offences against the sanitary bye-laws; the prisoner could not proceed without witness' instructions. If a report were made on. a trivial matter, that could be set right by the inspector seeing the contractor or foreman and telling him to have the matter attended to. If the complaint was a serious one the inspector would report it to witness. Since October last matters had been reported to him by the in- spector with regard to the sanitary contract at the Peak. Without referring to the papers he could not say how it was done, but thought it would be through the prisoner. In the counterfoil of the book produced a complaint was made against the contractor's coolies and a prosecution instituted on July 8th, but witness knew nothing about it. It was for a public nuisance, and as a member of the public Raheem Bux was entitled to prosecute
After further evidence for the Crown had concluded,
Mr. Slade said one question stood out for his Lordship to decide and that way, what, the definition of a public servant in the Ordinance covered. In Ordinance 1 of 1898, under which the prosecution was instituted, a public servant'
[August 25, 1906.
as defined meant any person holding or discharging_the_duties whether permanently or tempor rily of any offes or appointment in the Civil Service of the Colony, and includes say member of the Police fores”. If it had not been for those last words he should have thought there was no question that this man
was a member of the Civil Servic› of the Colony.
His Lordship-There is no doubt this is a department and not a separate Board?
Mr. Sladé-It is a department of the Govern. ment, and I asked the question in evidence which makes this quite clear, that the salary of this man is pail direct from the Government. The point is really quite clear. All the facts He is appointed by the Government of Hong- are proved and we know his exact position.
kong as a watchman. What the last words of the cited section mean "and includes any member of the police force is that we must put a uarrower construction on it.
It means all officers who are covenanted servants.
His Lordship-The police are under a different organisation.
Mr. Slade Under a slightly different organi. sation. They are appointed by the Govern- meat under the recommendation of the Captain Superintendent of Police, and paid by the Government.
His Lordship-The police are always called the police force".
+
The Attorney-General-I suggest the reason why the words "police forca are used is be- cause that body carries arms. The public That service is defined to mean civil service is why a body partly armed cannot be included in the word civil, but they are all civil in one
sense.
8
His Lordship-There are very often number of officers in the Government service. such as artisans, who are not civil servants at all. They are engaged as artisans or workmen who have no right in the civil service. Civil servants as sometimes used is a highly tech- nical phrase.
Mr. Slade--This man is engaged as a watch- man, which is not a high position. If it is x Tensionable office he is a civil servant, but I don't think anyone in less than a pensionable office is a civil servant. The decision must be
Ordinance. based on the meaning of this definition in the
The Attorney-General-Everybody is in the civil service who is not in the military, naval or arms service. The man is in the service of the Colony; what is the nature of his service can be arrived at only by a process of elimination. He is not in the medical, military, naval or arms service, there- fore he must be in the civil service.
His Lordship-I can conceive cases which would not fall under this Ordinance. For example, the clerks in the police force.
The Attorney-General-They come under the Police Ordinance.
His Lordship-But they would be people not in the police force.
The Attorney-General-The word 'police' does not exclude. It includes police and other- wise. The police are armed, but they are still civil servants.
His Lordship-I unfortunately have known cases like that in other colonies where a point like this has got men off. I think I shall decide that he is a member of the civil service. The Attorney-General-His salary is voted annually.
His Lordship-Is he liable to dismissal at three months' notice?
The Attorney-General-I don't think so. His Lordship-I think I shall hold he is a civil servant, and the point can be taken after. wards.
Addressing the jury, Mr. Slade said the defence was that this was really an act of revenge. It was not upon the prisoner to prove that he was innocent, but for the Crown to. prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The case for the Crown was based on the evidence of the sub-contractor who was alleged to have paid the prisoner $10 a month, and on the evidence of the foreman who was still in his employment. The foreman, who was not in the contractor's employment now, and in no way under his influence, flatly denied that he had paid the prisoner any money. It was very rare for a
A