298
expensive chair did not carry the prosecution, one step further.
His Worship thought the questions conceru- ing furniture were unnecessary.
+
Mr. Looker said they were relevant to this extent the defendant was in receipt of a salary of about $650 a month, and it was found that the great bulk of that was remitted Home. It had been established, so far as was known at present, that the defendant had no known means outside his salary. The prosecution were entitled to prove that the defendant was in charge of an extremely large amount of railway funds, and that while he remitted the most of his salary Home he paid in large amounts to his private account, and there was no information as to where he obtained them, | so that it could be assumed that they were obtained from railway funds of which he had control.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRES3 AND
[October 2, 1909.
Defendant, who had been permitted to sit by his counsel during the trial, was told to enter the dock. The customary caution was ad- minstered, and he was asked if he proposed to make any statement in respect of the charges preferred against him.
He replied I reserve my defence.
Mr. Douglas asked the Court to make a note of his objection.
:
His Worship-The objection you raise is a matter of law, and it will be remitted to the crown advocate, who has power to expunge it if be thinks fit. The case will be committed to the Supreme Court and the accused will be remanded in custody, or, released on bail, on the same terms as before, namely,
two sureties of $10,000 each.
The Court was concerned with four charges, and the motive of the defendant in paying a it was His Worship's duty to consider whether certain amount into the construction account on those four charges, or any of them, a prima | was to prevent discovery by Mr. Grove facie case had been made out. He did not propose of an amount missing from the railway accounts. to take up the time of the Court by contendidg | The speaker concluded by submitting that there that three of the charges, for sums amounting to was amply sufficient evidence to enable His $5,000, $4,000, and $13,000, were matters on Worship to commit the defendant for trial. which the Court was entitled to ask for an explanation, but an explanation would be forth coming in due course. What he now sub. mitted was that there was absolutely no evidence to support a prima facie case upon the fourth charge, the charge of larceny of a sum of $21,000 odd. He contended that the prosecution had failed to make out aprima facies case to support the charge that Mr. Butler Wright did, between certain dates, defraud them of $21,326.44. It was the duty of the prosecution when they brought a criminal charge to lay before the Court facts which would establish a prima facie case pointing to the guilt of the accused. The facts must be logically pieced together so as to bring the mind of the Court to the conclusion that a crime had been com. Mr. Looker-I am entitled to show that his mitted. The facts put forward brought the rate of living and rate of expenditure necessitated mind to no such logical conclusion. They were the drawing of large sums of cash which he nothing more than a collection of facts and must have obtained from some source or suggestions-mostly suggestions-pointing to other. 'On the conclusion of the audit | certain suspicions. and practically asking we nay be able to establish that there the accused to take the stand and prove is a deficit in the railway accounts.
that he had not stolen $21,000. According to English law it was not for a man to prove himself innocent because the prosecution made a charge. It was the duty of the prosecution to support that charge by evidence. His learned friend's idea of a prima facie case ought rather
be! considered as frivolous joke. It was exactly like the case of the village greengrocer
who found an errand boy in possession of 17/6. The green- grocer said to the boy, "Your wages are 5/-a week, you may have won 2/6 at marbles,
His Worship-You have put in his pass-book, 'and the book shows on the left hand side certain entries. You have got to show how he obtained those, not how he spent them,
His Worship Mr. Wiiliams said that the defendant's average expenditure per mouth was $2,300.
Mr. Douglas submitted that the rules of evidence must be followed.
Mr. Looker-I thoroughly and entirely agree, but submit that this is relevant evidence. Mr. Douglas-To save the time of the Court I will withdraw my objection.
His Worship (to Mr. Looker)-You had better leave that evidence out.
Mr. Looker (to witness)-Have you any knowledge as to whether the defendant was addicted to gambling at fantan-He said he had a system by which he was sure of success. Did he ever tell you anything as to his financial circumstances when he came here?- He said he was making a lot of money out of a patent medicine, and used to win $250 and $300 a time at fantan.
You haven't answered my question yet, Mr. Power-He told me he came here like a missionary. with only a bible and a tooth brush. (Laugher.)
In cross-examination witness said he did not know that for over twenty years the defendant had received a salary of 2 thousand rupees a month, but from the posi- tions he had held witness should say that he received a salary of from 800 to 1,000 rupees. He had never heard defendant complain of losses at fantan. When Mr. Wright an- nounced his intention to go away he was not in very good health.
Mr. A. G. Brimble, superintendent of police ou the Shameen, deposed" to receiving instruc- tions from H.B. M.'s Consul to take possession of the effects of Mr. Butler Wright after the defendant left, which he did. There were five packing cases in the flat, none of which were addressed.
Cross-examined – As superintendent of police on the Shameon, did you think it a suspicious circumstance that a man should pack up his curios?--I did not.
Mr. P. Lawrie said he was not an auctioneer, but he had sold goods by auction. Defendant told him he was going on three weeks' leave had to give up his flat, and said he could not take all his goods with him. He pointed out to witness goods which he wished sold, and others which he wished shipped away. Witness did not ship them, however, because a warrant had been issued for defendant's
arrest.
In cross-examination witness said Mr. Wright told him clearly that he was returning in three weeks.
This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Looker informed the Court that the audit had not yet been fully completed. In the event of the defendant being committed for trial, and in the event of the trial taking, place within a few weeks, additional evidence would probably be given by the accountant.
Mr. Douglas hoped that that statement would not be taken into consideration by the Court,
|
|
to
a
was no
but you are guilty of the larceny of 10-," and that poor little errand boy was going to be found guilty because he could not prove that he came by the 10/- honestly. Counsel submitted that on the facts put forward the Court must dismiss the charge to which he referred. It was alleged that this sum of $21.00 was made up by stealing profits derived from exchange in Hongkong
Canton and
there currency, but evidence of any payments being made direct into local currency. There were only two ways in which interest could have been stolen :: it must either have come out of the local currency or Hongkong currency accounts, or else it was stolen by a cheque paid on a false voucher. There had been auditors on the books, but they were not able to give evidence of wrong payments out of currency accounts. Counsel concluded by asking the Court to dismiss that charge.
|
Mr. Douglas asked His Worship if, in the event of his client being unable to raise those sureties, the Court would allow him to remain at his Own house under surveillance. His client had been put to considerable expense and inconvenience in con- nection with the whole matter.
His Worship The question of detention is one for the British Consul, and not for this Court.
Mr. Looker said the only authority the Court had was to commit the accused by warrant to prison. He did not think that could be fulfilled by committing him to any other place than a place which was recognised as a prison.
His Worship-The point is that in Canton there is no prison.
Mr. Looker-The Court has power to commit the defendant to Hongkong to prison.
Mr. Douglas-None whatsoever. A man con- victed can be removed for imprisonment in Hongkong, but only by an order of the Supreme Court.
It was decided to refer the matter to the Consul,
THE BRANDY CASE.
THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.
At the Magistracy on Sept. 29 Mr. F. A, Hazeland delivered his reserved decision in the case in which Mrs. Meyer, of the Colonial Hotel; Tai Sing, compradore, Queen's Road Central; and Chung Cheong, compradore, Arsenal Street, were charged with selling brandy not of the nature demanded, and also with selling adulterated brandy.
Mr. F. B. L. Eowley, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted in all cases; Mr. John Hastings (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) defended Tai Sing and Chung Cheong; and Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon, of Mr. R. A. Harding's office, represented Mrs. Meyer.
Mr. Looker said his friend had been pleased to describe the fourth charge as a frivolous one. Of course he was perfectly entitled to describe it, and all the other charges, as frivolous, until they had been determined upon, but the Court might find them anything but frivolous. His friend had said that it was not for a man to prove himself innocent, but His Worship said-The three defendants, the speaker did not think he was quite correct. Merlin Sophia Meyer, proprietress of the There were many cases in criminal annals, where, Colonial Hotel, Tai Sing, compradore, and in default of an explanation which could be given, Chung Cheong, compradore, were summoned and which it was in the power of a defendant to by Inspector Gourlay, inspector of police, each give, had he so given it he would have been freed on the following two charges :-(A) That on from a term of imprisonment subsequently im-the 7th July, 1909, they did sell to the prejudice posed. The prosecution had established that of the purchaser an article of food for man, to whereas the defendant was getting a salary of wit, brandy which was not of the nature, $650 or $675 a month, of which the main portion substance or quality of the article demanded by was paid at Home, he managed to obtain some-
the purchaser, contrary to Ordinance 8 of 1896, where or other an amount equivalent to $55,000 section 6 (Sale of Foods and Drugs Ordinance which he could not possibly have obtained from 1896); (B) That on the 7th July, 1909, they salary. They had established prima facie evi- did sell adulterated liquor, to wit, brandy, dence which showed that he was paying into and not of the quality demanded by the his private account monies which belonged purchaser contrary to Ordinance 8 of 1898, to the railway. There might be
section 2 (Liquor Licences Ordinance, 1898). planation to this fact, but that was another point. It was also established that large profits were necessarily made in exchange and that the accounts in the International Bank at Canton were under the sole control of the defendant. He could put in what amounts be liked and draw what amounts he liked until the final day of reckoning
came.
an ex-
Mr. Looker proceeded to detail the numerous facts he had established, and contended that
Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Ordinance, 1896, is as follow:-" Every person who sells, to the prejudice of the purchaser, any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, or quality of the article demanded by such purchaser shall in every case, on summary conviction before a Magis- trate, be liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and, in default of payment thereof, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months."
Page 10Page 11