276
SUPREME COURT,
Monday, 20th September.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER,
Wong Kam, a lukong, was indicted on a charge of manslaughter. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the following jury was empanelled: A. J. P. Pumfrett (foreman), W. Stormer D. A. Malcolm, G. Morphew, E. Roby, G, Pickering and A. C. Diss.
Sir H. S. Berkeley, K.C., Acting Attorney- General, instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solicitor, prosecut- ed. and prisoner was undefended.
The Attorney-General, in laying the facts before the jury, stated that when deceased, who was a hawker, was arrested he was suffering | from the very serious complaint known as hernia. The hawker was arrested for obstruc- ting the streets, and it was alleged that about! the time of the arrest the constable prodded the deceased about the region of abdomen with his truncheon... This the constable denied, but wit-
nesses for the prosecntion would assert that they saw him do it. Deceased was taken to the station, and on arrival there he was discovered to be in considerable pain. He was not confined, but allowed to return to his house, where he was treated by a Chinese doctor, and died some hours afterwards. The post mortem was per- formed upon him by a European doctor, who stated that the cause of death was strangulation of the hernia. The doctor found no marks of violence or bruises about the region of the abdomen, but there were one or two bruises on the arm.
The Attorney-General then informed his Lord- ship that he brought the case before the Court because the accused was a constable.
Dr. Shaw, the acting medical officer in charge of the mortuary, stated that death would follow strangulation of the hernia if the strangulation was not relieved by nature or by an operation.
His Lordship drew the attention of the jury to the doctor's evidence, and asked them to bring in a verdict of not guilty against the prisoner.
INDECENT ASSAULT.
The jury brought in a verdict accordingly, and the prisoner was discharged.
1 Walayat Khan was arraigned on a charge of indecent assault, and the same, jurors were empanelled as in the previous case.
After hearing the evidence and His Lord- ship's directions, the jury returned an unanimous verdict of guilty.
Prisoner
was sentenced to fifteen years, imprisonment with hard labour.
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Lenng Tsan was charged with robbery with violence, and pleaded not guilty. The jurors were the same as in the previous case.
1
The Attorney-General stated that a Chinese lady, living at that time at 149, Hollywood Road, returned from a party at about 1.30 am, and went to bed, omitting as usual to remove
her gold hair ornaments. She went to sleep, but was awakened at about three o'clock by someone opening her door and enter- ing her room. The intruder threw pepper in her face, and snatched the gold orna- ments from her head. She was greatly alarmed, and made an outcry. Her cries were heard by a lukong who was passing, and he proceeded upstairs to investigate. The prisoner, startled by the cries, dropped the gold orna- ments and made a bolt for it. On the stairs he met the lukong, but knocked him down and made tracks. The lukong followed him, and the prisoner was ultimately arrested by au Indian constable. The lukong would state that he never lost sight of the prisoner until his arrest.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and His Lordship sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND Tuesday, 21st September.
INDECENT ASSAULT.
Zarif Khan was indicted on a charge of indecent assault, and pleaded not guilty. The following jurors were called:-T. H. G. Brayfield (foreman), F. O. Day, J. O, Hughes, C. J. Schmit, T. Neave, J. Walker and W. Tippett.
Hon. Sir II. S. Berkeley, K.C., Attorney General, instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. J. W. Orr, instructed by Mr. Davidson (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings), appeared for the defendant.
The jury, after a retirement of about twenty minutes, returned a verdict of guilty, and His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour.
Wednesday, 22nd September.
ROBBERY.
Man Ng and Wong Lam were indicted on a charge of robbery. Prisoners pleaded not guilty, and the following jurors were called :- J. R. Boyes (foreman), L. V. Langstein, J. C. Kitzmantl, E. H Neave, E. A. Long, G. Koenig and C. H. W. Kew.
Mr. C. G. Alabaster, instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the Attorney General, while prisoners were not defended.
Mr. Alabaster informed the Court and jury that the prisoners were charged with robbery at Lantao Island on August 13th. On the night of the 12th a prosecutor, who was a grocer, and another, who was a cloth dealer, went to bed in their house. About seven o'clock. on the following: morning they were awakened by a number of men entering their house, one of whom was the first defendant. The second man remained outside to prevent other people enter ing, but he was just as much a party to the crime as if he had been inside. The people inside committed a serious assault on the two prosecutors, and then cleared off with everything they could lay hands on. Two fishermen who were sleeping outside heard cries of "save life," and proceeded towards the house of the prosecu. tors. As they reached the door, the second prisoner, who was outside, threatened to take their lives if they entered. Shortly after this the robbers departed, and went to Dumbbell Island. There they followed by one of the prosecutors, who went and reported the matter to the police, and the two prisoners were arrested on the same morn ing. oth accused made statements, but he would not say what those statements contained because the prisoners said they had been extorted from them after they were beaten by the police Apart from those statements, however, there was ample evidence of identification by which the jury could convict the prisoners.
After the story for the prosecution had been told,
were
Sergeant Gordon was called, and gave evid ence as to the identification of the prisoners at the Central Police Station.
Were you present when the prisoners made statements in the Central charge room?--Yes. Did you use any violence towards them, or
of them ?--I did not. any
Did anyone ?-Not to my knowledge. Witness was then questioned by the first defendant:
Is it not a fact that in the first instance I was brought to Hongkong in order to identify some other person ?-No, you were brought over under arrest.
Accused That is not so, my Lord. Is it not a fact that when I failed to identify anyone another constable had a conversation with you, after which you fisted me on my chest No.
Did you not beat me at random, at dusk ? did not.
The first defendant, in his statement, said that when taken to the Chungchau Police Station, he was asked how many men took part in the robbery. When he said he knew nothing about it he was assaulted to such an extent that he was compelled to admit the charge. After he promised to do so a Chinese constable instructed him how to word his statement, and he followed out the instructions. He was also told that if he went before the magistrate and pleaded guilty
[September 27, 1909.
his sentence would not be more than ten days' imprisonment, but if he did not it would be longer.
On his
the
*to
The second defendant said he was sick on the day of the robbery, and his master gave him $10 to buy medicine.
way purchase it a constable unfortunately saw the $10 in his pocket and arrested him. When he appeared before
sergeant he was assaulted until he was black and blue all over, When asked where he got the money he said it was his own, and was again assaulted While being assaulted the sergeant continued saying," Name some of the robbers. Go ahead; name them." Each time the sergeant said this he prodded the defendant until he ultimately promised to admit the charge. He was taught what to say, and followed his instructions.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty, and each of the prisoners was sentenc- ed to three years imprisonment with hard labour.
ALLEGED THROWING OF CORROSIVE FLUID.
Li I Tam was arraigned on a charge of throwing a corrosive fluid with intent to buru. The same jurors sat as in the previous case.
Mr. Alabaster stated that the occurrence took place at seven o'clock on the evening of the 8th instant. Prosecutrix knew the prisoner, and owed him 36, which might supply some motive, She would say that on the evening in question she
someone threw
was walking along Gough Street, and the bottom of the steps turned off to go down some steps. At vitriol on her back, and on turning round she saw the prisoner, who threw some more on her face. Prisoner then escaped, but shortly afterwards prosecutrix saw him with his sweet- heart, and the pair bolted in opposite directions. Subsequently the defendant was arrested.
Defendant, in his statement before the Court, said he did not really know why he was implicated in this affair. Prosecutrix was a prostitute, and prostitutes had generally a lot of enemies. Perhaps one of them did this, or it may have been that one of her sweethearts was his enemy, and told her to accuse him.
After a short retirement the jury unani- mously found the accused not guilty, and His Lordship discharged him.
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.
Li Wing pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving stolen goods, and the same jury heard
the case.
Air, Alabaster informed the Court and jury that he could prove by the conduct of the accused that he knew the goods in question were stolen. He was not bound to explain how he got the property, but if he made a statement, and in that statement told lies, the jury could infer from that that he knew perfectly well the goods were stolen." The eight cases in question were stored in a godown in Sutherland Street at the rear of the Ko Shing Theatre. On July 5th, about five o'clock in the evening, the prisoner was in charge of a party of coolies who were carrying these cases. He approached a lighterman near the new western market, gave him a document directed to a firm in Macao, and caused the goods to be put on board. At Macao with a letter and a the prisoner went party of coolies to claim the goods, but as the letter was not chopped the lighterman refused to hand over the goods. A quarrel followed, At and the Macao police arrested the accused. the Magistracy the prisoner admitted that he lived behind the Ko Shing Theatre, and His reason for that he went to Macao: going there, he said, was, to find has younger 'brother. His mother had written him tell- ing him that his grandmother's bones were about to be. removed, and stating that she
would like him and his younger brother to be present. In Macao the prisoner. said he met a man who became ill in the street, gave him a document, and asked him to go and claim the goods. He denied causing the goods to be put on board for shipment to Macao.
Prisoner elected to give evidence, and, on being sworn, stated that while in Macao he met an old man whom he had formerly met in tea-house.
a
asked This man him if he would be good enough and obliging enough to go to a wharf and get some goods for him. He was to call out
•
Uncle Kau" twice, and then a man in a grey water-gauze jacket would appear. Prisoner was to hand a letter to this man, but when he