286
†
|
|
†
Commission such entries appeared. He trusted, with everyone concerned in the inquiry, that the inspector might be able to satisfactorily free their minds of anything against him. On June 2nd the aroused went to Chan Pai's house at seven in the evening and asked him to send his son, Chan Taun, to the country-that meant out of the colony to China. Chan Pai would further sat that on the 25th of the same month he received a message calling him from his house to the latrine in San Po Lau?. When he went there he found Inspector Ward alone. and declares that on that occasion Ward spoke to him in Chinese, complained that his son had not gone away, and asked him to send him away. Then it was stated by Chan Tsun that on the 28th Jung he received a message, in consequence of which he went to the brauch office of the Sanitary Department in Pokfulam Road and saw the accused, who again urged him to leave the colony, and promised if he did so to look after his latrines for him. These facts would be sworn to, aud the Attorney-General submitted that corroboration was not necessary. although it was usually desirable. He would produce the books showing the entries of amounts paid to accused.
|
[October 29, 1906.
evidence to be used before an arbitrator, and there was no differencia principle between a man manufacturing evidencs to be used before a Court of Inquiry or a Court of Arbitration, and a man preventing evidence from being nsed before a Court of Inquiry in a public malter. His Lordship was aware there were certain duties imposed upon coroners when inquiring into deaths.
Mr. Slade-A coroner can commit for trial on his warrant.
His Lordship-I don't quite see the point Mr. Slade is going to make out of this.
Mr. Slade The coroner inquires and directs the jury to come to a conclusion. The jury find the verdict, and on that verdict a mau may be committed for trial. The point is that acts done to prevent witnesses giving erience before a court of law or arbitration might be criminal. bat to prevent a witness giving evidence before the Commission, which was merely got up to report certain matters to the Governor of the colony, is not.
The Attorney-General-If you can get rid of one witness with impunity you could get rid of the whole lot of them, and then, if my lar el friend's argument was of any force, there would be no virtue attached to the Com.
Mr. Slade-Entries in books, the Attorney-mission. General knows perfectly well, are not permissible | When further authorities had been quoted in evilence. I have refrained from interrupting His Lordship said-Now I see what the point bim, but when he says corroboration is not is; it might simplify matters at this hearing if necessary. I say he is entirely wrong.
it is reserved for the fall court.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
evidence would be brought home to the accused, I be explained how in the books seized by the he tried to persuade this man to leave the country. It was an offence against Common Law to abstain from giving evidence before a commission lawfully appointed unler the Statute. It was also an off-nce to obstruct | or hinder any person or body of persons from the performance of a duty impes d upon him or them by law. The question was whether he should be able to establish against the prisoner a state of facts which would bring him within the danger of the law. If the speaker could establish the facts that accused did obtain the money, and did endeavour, after the Commission was appointed and the hooks seized, to get the man who drew the entries of payments to him to leave the country, that would be proof that Ward obstructed the duty imposed on that man. The accused WAS sometime between December, 1904, and April, 1905, a sanitary inspector in charge of No. 5 health district. In 195 Le was transferred to No. 4 health district for the month of July only. At the end of July or August 1st. 1905, accused was transferred to No. 9 district. and continued in charge of that district till May 1st, 1906, when he was transferred to to No. 10. During the prind for which the charges of misconduct were brought against bim, he was employed on districts Nos. 4, 5, 9| and 10. District inspectors were in charge of latrines, and according to the rules had to inspect every latrine each morning. The rales were very rigid with regard to cleanliness such The Attorney-General-This is my submis. as tarring, disinfecting and limewashing. Thesion, and the law is the authority and will direct latrines which came under the accused inspector's us. As I shall show presently, corroboration is not purview were at No. 2 Gugh Street in No. 5
necessary in law. The case against th2 ac used health district. No. 5 First Street, the same is the commission of a statutory offence, that is district, and No. 3 Sau To I une in 1 health of obtaining a bribe. That which was and is in district. A man named Chan Pui, who lived England a Common Law off ure has been made with his son at No. 2 Water Street, was the hure a statutory offence; that is to sy. owner of these latrines. The latrin- s were there is a special ordinanes with managed by the son who kept the accounts and respect to the accepting of bribes. The visited each latrine every morning. In this second case against the accused was the Commisu¦ way he came in contact with Inspector Ward, Law offene as he submitted, of obstructing who was there to see the Ordinanc properly and hindering the performance of a duty carried ont It was alleged by Chan T-un that impos d by law. When the Commission was on December 30th, 194 he gave Inspector issued by the Governor-in-Council it was issued Ward $ as a Christmas present, he then under the authority of an ordinance of this being the manager of the latrines aud Ward the colony. The Commission imposed upon the Sanitary inspector of the district. In April commissione:s certain duties, explicit, clear and 1905 the next payment was made. According positive. Among those duties was that of to Chan Tsun he was sent for and went to see inquiring into the very serious and important the inspector at his house. When he got there public question as to whether or not there was the inspector told him he wanted to borrow 810, corruption among the officers of the Sanitary and the $1 was advanced. On August 1th Board. On account of the power 1ossessed by the man said he went again to the house of them that Commission issued certain subpoenas, accused in causequence of another message seiz-d certain books, and ordered the pro- received, ant the inspector again asked for the duction of books of witnesses- loan of $10, and it was paid over, Again, on the 5th of the same month $15 was horrowed by the inspector. Chau Tsun would tell the jury why he did not press for repayment or sus for the recovery of the money. Then on December 24th the day before Christmas, the man made the inspector & Christmas present of $30. That was how things went on up to the end of December, 1905. There were no larg sums paid, but the largeness of the amount was no criterion at all, as it was just as bad to tike a bribe of $5 as of $70. In cous-quence, it; must be assumed, of rumours that alk, was not right in the Sanitary Departmout, the Govern- or-in-Council appointed # commission to inquire into the working of the departin-at, also into the question raised as to whether there was any corruption. That commission was issued on May 10th. about four months after the last "cumsha" stated to have been given to the inspector. The commission was duly cou. stitated under royal warrant and gazetted.
|
|
I
1
Mr. Slade-I do object to my friend referring to the contents of those books.
The Attorney General-In the course of my argumeat I must.
Were
The Attorney-General said it was absolutely obvious that it the statute enjoined upon 1. body of men the performance of a duty, it must be wrong to prevent those men perform. ing that duty, and if there was no statute making it an offence, then it was a misde. meauour at Common Law. More especially was it so where the duty was not of private interest, but of public benefit. The Commission, in the public interests of this colony, was making au inquiry about the charges of corrup tion against sanitary inspectors which being band.ed about on the tougue of rumour. He might say at once that th- Case against the accused would depend on the amount of ere/libility attached to the, evidence of the man, Chan Pui, and his son. the son was the person who sai | he paid the money under circum- stances which he ( ́ounsel) submitted amonuted to bribery. It might be contended, in fact it would be contended, that the-e persons were themselves liable to be indicted for giving bribes, and that therefore they ticipators in the same
offence. This case must be loft to the jury. They could reject Chan Pai and Chan Tina's evidence, if they lied, and say they wanted further evidence, but if after the whole of it, they believed Chan Pui aud Chan Tsun, they should find the prisoner guilty. It was not law that
Mr. Slade-He ought not to refer to specifica entries in books,
were par-
man could not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an approver. In practice it was right and proper for the presid
ug judge to point out to the jury that it was dangerous to commit a man upon the evidence of au approrer. The Medical Officer of Health was the i called for the Crown,
The Attorney-General- The hooks contain certain entries which the Commission would require to have established for them to proved. he persons to prove those entries are Chau Tsun and Chan Pai. The accused is charged with endeavouring to cisswide Chan Dr. Francis Clark, sworn, said he was the Tsun from giving that evidence. It is not a Government Medical officar, and was lately question of whether Chau would or would not acting as Chief M-Fical Officer. Accused was a give evidence, whether he pleased or was inclined, sanitary inspector, and was appointed on March because the Commission has all the powers of 1904. It was part of his duty to see the latrine a Supreme Court to compel the witness to; bye-laws were carried out under certain bye- answer questions, and witnesses are a much laws issued for guidance. Accused joined on as bound to answer before the Commission as salary of £170 a year rising by £5 a year to before your Landship.
i
!
£215. He was now receiving a salary of £ 30
In support of his contention, the Attorney., a year converted into dollars. That was his General referred to a case in Archibald's į total salary. There were no other emoluments, Criminal Pleadings.
The district inspectors were under seniors; enth senior had two district inspectors under him.
Mr. Slade That is an Irisa case, my Lord, The Attorney-General-Even though it is Irish it is good law
His Lordship- Your case is that the a cused endeavoured to persuade the men ut to give evidence.
The Attorney-General-That is it.
Mr. Slade That will have to be proved. The Attorney-General, after reading the notice about the Commission which appeared in the Gazette, said it was very important to bear in mind what the nature of the inquiry was. Of the two objects of inquiry, one was alleged corruption. On June 21st, the Commission, which was invested with extremely large power, seized the books of the owners of the latrines in question, aud later to the question of persuasion, it was found that there were entries of payments made to the inspector. Whether by your persuasive manner a witness from giv-, they were forged entries or not was a questioning evidence. for the jury to determine. Daring the period from 1904 to 1905 tese Chans might have bad it in their wicked mind to bring a false charge against the inspector, but the fact remained to
His Lordship Well, we can keep it entirely
The Attorney-General-Yes
You dissuade
The Attorney-General theu referred to the case of the Queen against Vrecues. 1 Q B.D., and said in that case it was held to be an indictable misdemeanour
to prepare
false
}
Cross-examined-Accused joined from the police. Sanitary inspectors got au allowance for proficiency in the Chinese language. There were three grades, and increases were paid with increased knowledge, Ward had not passed any examination.
A. Carter, Sauitary Surveyor, said on March 1st defendant was placed in charge of No. 5 health district.
Senior Inspector T, P. Canolly stated that he had been in charge of health districts 9 and 10 since January 31st, 1992. Inspector Ward was transferred from No. 5 to No. 9 on August 1st, 1905. He remained on No. 9 till April
Page 10Page 11