July 22, 1907.]
the defendant for $10 a month, and have been there since December.
Have you paid your rent ever since ?-Yes, with the exception of this month.
What is it you complain of ?-The defendant keeps his servant and a lot of articles on the ground floor under the stairs.
Has he no right to do that?—No, I barO taken the whole ground floor.
When you took it did you agree to let him have the place under the staircase ?-I agreed, and he took it with my consent,
And does he use the consent?-He does.
passige with your
His Lordship-I suppose he couldn't get in and out without it ?
Mr. Goldring-- No, my Lord. That is what I am coming to. Continuing, the solicitor asked-Do you claim exclusive right to the kitchen and bathroom?-I claim the whole of the ground floor.⚫
His Lordship-Have you the power to turn him out of the kitchen and the bathroom ?-I think I have the right.
Mr. Goldring-The quarrel arose over a small child sleeping there P-Yes, it was the amal's child.
His Lordship-Why did let
a child sleep there when it had nothing to do with you? When I took the house I said it could sleep under the stairs,
you
Mr. Goldring-Is it not a fact that on the 4th July you gave a month's notice to quit? --Yes.
His Lordship-Then they may have friction for nearly eight weeks yet.
Mr. Goldring-But the defendant can go whenever he likes,
His Lordship-Won't you go?-Well, my Lord, I bave given them notice to go, but I won't go at present.
His Lordship non-suited the case with costs.
Thursday, July 18th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALLEGED MURDER.
Kaiser Singh, Rooda Singh, Maher Singh and Sorain Singh were arraigned on the charge of murder.
Hon. Mr. H. H. J. Gompertz, Attorney General, instructed by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. G. E. Morrell, prosecuted, and the prisoners were defended by Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, instruot ed by Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist).
Prisoners pleaded not guilty and the follow- ing jury was empanelled :-A. Course (foreman), 8. 8. Levy, T. Arnolt, E. A. Long, I. 8. Gibson, D. Tolland and W. McIntyre.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REFORT.
clothes. The first said to the fourth, who was waiting outside, "Let us go now; we have done the work." The principal evidence W88 undoubtedly that of the two men who, were, to a certain extent, accomplices in the crime.
Case adjourned.
Friday, July 19th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE INDIAN MURDER: PRISONERS SENTENCED T DEATH.
The bearing of the trial of Kaiser Singh, Ronda Singh, Maber Singh and Sorain Singh for the murder of an Indian named Mela at Hing Lung Lane, West Point, on May 15th,
was concluded.
i-
Hon. Mr. H. H. J. Gompertz, Attorney- General, instructed by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. G. E. Morrell, prosecuted, and the Boners were defended by Ho. Dr. Ho Kai, instructed by Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist).
risoners pleaded not guilty and the follow. ing jury was empanelled :-A Course (foreman), 8. 8. Levy, T. Arnott, E. A. Long, I. S. Gibson, D. Tolland and W. Molutyre.
The case for the Crown having closed, the Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prison-re, contended that there was ΠΟ evidence except that of the two accomplio-s, -on their own showing they were accomplices. Unless the jury believed that from the beginning they did not know what was contemplared they were accomplices, otherwise they were accessories after the fact One of the witnesses knew the decased from the time he arrived in the Colony-knew all about him, how much money he had-and he says
be was sent for to ascertain what money had been sent away by the deceased, and what money he had bere. He said be was forced into it and did not know that they were about to do anything wrong. The two witnesses were charped as the Police Court but the case against them Was withdrawu simply because their evidence was required to convict others. It was extremely dangerous to take the evidence of these men without corroboration. No one would be safe if such evidence was accept-d; anyone who committed a crime might come forward any blame someone else. Further, tueir evidence was contradictory and Counsel submitted that the jury must n't accept the unsu. ported testimon, of accessories, men who had turned against their comrades to save their own necks.
The Attorney General began by alluding to the law regarding accessories, when Hi Lordship interrupted-These men are not put forward as King's evidence?
have not
The Attorney-General-They received formal pardons, but the charges against them have been withdrawn.
His Lordship-You introduce them merely as accomplices ?
The Attorney General-Yes, my Lord His Lordship-They are no King's evidence? The Attorney-General-They have not re ceived formal pardon, but they are perfectly safe. I submit they know perfectly well that the British Government does not lura a man on to give evidence against himself and then charge him. Proceeding, the Attorney-General informed the jury that the murder was com mitted on a dark and squally night in a most obscure spot That being so, it was impossible 1.bat abycus should be brought to justi e for a crime of this sort without the evidence of accomplices, therefore it would be impossible to prosecute any persons who would come forward and give evidence. It was the duty of the jury to weigh the case and consider whether there wa corroborative evidence.
35
reason why that practice adopted is in order that the Crown may get true facts of the case which it submits to the jury. This was not a case of King's evidence at all, and if this was the practice adopted in the Colony, the sooner it was dropped the better. His Lordship did no cast any reflection on the Alt rney-General because a serious crime must be put before the jury with what evidence could be got. Hers the Crown came before the Court with two witnesses who were put in the box as cred table witnesses. They had con essed the crime, but the jury might or might not, believe their story.
An extraordinary thing in the story was how the fourth man told one of them after the murder to go home and tell the first Indian he met. The jury, when dealing with the question of scomplices must deal with their evidence. It was no use saying "This is the evidence of accomplices; how can I corroborate it?" They should first find out whether there was anything to corroborate. If they could not accept that evidence as true so far as it went, there was nothing to corroborate it. His Lordship then reviewed the evidence, and asked the jury to consider their verdion
The Attorney General stated that deceased was employed as a watchman at 4, Hing Lung Lane, West Point On the morning of May 16th, a man named Hakka Singh went to the deceased's brother and gave him certain infor- mation. Then the two men went together to West Point, and finding the gate leading to deceased's quarters looked, one of the men climbed over and entered his matahed. In consequence of what he saw be reported the matter to the West Point police, and 8-rgeant Gordon visited the matshed. He found the body of deceased bearing a number of wounds and he found the man's box broken open and the contents scattered about the place. The grother of the deceased would say that deceased kept his money in the box which was broken open. No money was found in the box and the deceased Mela, had about $400. nother witness would say that on the day before the murder the first, second and fourth defendants went to the Hongkong Dispensary where they saw him. The fourth defendant called him across the road and asked him whether the deceased
His Lordship, in samming up, explained had sent any money to India. On the night that, owing to the noise of the fans he did not when the defendants assembled before deceased's quite catch the addresses of Counsel, and there house the third prisoner opened the gate and the fore did not hear the Attorney-ieneral was first, second and fourth entered. Witnesses would going to introduce his two chief witnesses as ac- say that they heard the defendants talking to complices. To the jury he explained that King's deceased. Shortly afterwards they heard a cry evidence was where a prisoner, a man charged, and fifteen minutes later the defendants came turned round and confessed his gailt, his par- out and climbed over the gate. The first ticipation in the crime. Then the Crown, defendant carried a chopper and the second a | for very obvious public reasons would accept knife, and there were bloodstains on both men's his evidence and grant him a free pardon. The
The jury retired, and on returning into Court brought in a verdict of guilty against all four prisoners.
|
His Lordship then donned the black cap, and passed sentence of death on each,
CONSPIRING TO CHEAT AND DEFRAUD.
Li Leung was indicted on the charge of conspiring to cheat and defraud.
The
ttorney-General, i structed by the Crown Folicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. D. Steavenson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon, appeared for the d fendant and pleaded guilty on his behalf.
The Attorney-General-Und-r section 5 of the Misdeme nou s' Ordinance the prisoner is liable to imprisonment for three years with
hard labor.
His Lordship-Do you know the facts of the case P
The Attorney-General-Yes, my Lord, I am tirely in your hands.
Mr. Slade This young man cannot be considered in any way a hardened criminal, and I would ask your Lordship todeal as leniently as possible with him. The whole facts connected with his career must be in your Lordship's recollection, having been related to your Lord- ship in two rivil actions which came before the Court. It spp-ars that he is the son of most respectable par-ats. His father is dead, but his mother is still living. His mother' your Lordship bas seen, and you must appreciate you self that she is a woman of good character, He is a married man, this youngster, with a wife and, I believe, one child. Until some two years ago he lived with his mother in the family house at Cauton. Then he was seat here for the purpose of learning English. He had a fair Chinese education, and tie came to add to it by learning English. While here be made some undesirable friends, and by their inducement was led into a life of debas ment, and for the purpose of stisfying his desires was induced to raise money in various way. Whilst here he learned for the first time that there was a certain property stand- ing in his own name which had been given by bis father to him while he was still an infant,
earning tuis, though he was still under the age of twenty-one, he raised money on it, declaring himself to be over twen y one. HIG mother beard of this and came down to seek him in Hongkong. It was obvious he knew that he had done wrong, and was very much afraid of his mother and of what she might say to him. When she came here he left the shop where he was living, and hid himself. It would appear that his one great desire at that time was to keep out of the way of his own mother; he wanted to get away from Hong. kong altogether so as to avoid her but he had not sufficient money. In these circumstances his friends-bis false friends came to him, and said if he would identify a certain person as his brother Li Fook, they would give him 82,000 or thereabouts, and under the pre- sure I have described he very wrongly con- anted to do this, That he knew all he was doing, I think, it was extremely doubtful He is not a youngster of great intellect, and he was in the hands of men older and more astute than
!