360
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
came
June.
to
that there was, beyond any doubt, a shortage was charged. It seemed to His Lordship of money, and to prove that shortage they that the Crown had proved all that was had to be satisfied with reference to the necessary. What, then, was the defence? The question of exchange on which the prose-prisoner's defence was that he thought he was cution put the loss as high as $27,000 entitled to mix his private money with the rail The Crown had not shown how the defendant way money, and that he was entitled to draw actually took the money on exchange. It had monies from the railway accounts as long to come out of one or other of the bank accounts, as he put them back. It had been held and had to come out by cheque, and they had hundreds and hundreds of times that it was not found those cheques. Mr. Butler Wright no defence for a man to take money entrusted it for himself, simply was a man of great experience, having 30 years to him and use railway service, and he was in receipt of over because he meant at some time or other to put it £600 a year and allowances. As he stated, he back. Nearly every unfortunate clerk or un- had a wife and six children at home. The jury fortunate solicitor one saw in the Old Bailey were asked to say that for the sake of took money honestly with the intention of paying $9,000, which he was able to pay back, he it back. But they could not pay it back at the absconded from Canton, threw over, after 30 time, and they were not able to pay it back years' service, the billet he had, as well as his before the time came when the whole matter wife and children, and decided to become an
out. First of all, this man Wright, outcast and fugitive from justice. A de- although the money was borrowed as far back on his faulting accountant would have gone to another as September, 1908, did not, even
own showing, attempt pay back till place under an assumed name, and could never
The defendant may have, after have written the bank to draw the accounts which the defendant had left behind. If the a certain time, paid back some monies, but he jury were satisfied in their minds that the did not inform anybody that he was using defendant's statement was true when he said he railway money, and he did not keep any Neither believed he put the accounts in order, then slip or record of the amounts used. Counsel submitted that he was entitled to did he, so far as one could ascertain, at the time acquittal. They had to be satisfied that a he took this money, have a substantial sum in criminal offence had been committed. The the bank at his own credit. He had talked defendant was not being tried on a civil action about his patent medicine, and also said he had
It was a for breach of agreement and duties.
a sum of money. It was only right his Lord- very much more serious charge, and con- ship should point out that there was no evidence viction meant ruination and in all proba- about this valuable patent medicine, and it was bility imprisonment. It meant ruination to him really for the defendant to prove that he had and his family, but of course these were facts got these ample means to pay the railway money from which the jury must not shrink in back. It was not so according to his pass book. weighing up the evidence. They had to give With regard to the accused leaving the Sha- fall weight to that and Counsel's arguments, in meen, one could not tell where he was going. He deciding whether the man was guilty or not, and might have been going to Shanghai or Japan; if they had any reasonable doubt, the prisoner no one knew. Anyhow, at a most important was entitled to the benefit of it! What they had time, when the whole of the accounts were to be to try was not criminal offence, but criminal andited, he did not tell the sub-accountant what intention, and the intention of a man could only he had been doing with the money, nor did he be gathered from the facts put before them. try to explain. Instead he slipped away to Counsel submitted that the jury must find that Shanghai, and, as far as one could judge,
was going there was no intention on the part of the
to Japan, where he would accused, and that he was entitled to acquittal. have been out of the jurisdiction of the Court. In all these circumstances it seemed to his Lordship that it would be very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the ac- cused used the money of the railway because be had not sufficient money of his own. Of course, it was for the jury to decide, and if they came to this conclusion they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. If he took the money from the railway without permission, and could not put that money back, he was guilty of embezzlement. The jury were then asked to consider their verdict.
His Lordship, in directing the jury, said they had listened so carefully and patiently to the facts, and they were, as business men and merchants, so well qualified to decide them that it was unnecessary for him to deal with them at any length. He would simply confine himself to pointing out the law which governed the offence, and also one or two important facts. Before he did that, however, he wished to impress upon them the great necessity of eliminating from their minds any fact they may have heard which had not been proved at the trial. Anything they had been told, or anything they read in the newspapers, which had not been told at the trial, they must dismiss from their minds and decide the case simply from the facts heard during the last three and a half days. The three charges were exactly of the same kind. In each the Crown accused the defendant of having fraudulently misappropri- ated certain sums of money. The essence of fraudulent misappropriation was not, as Mr. Douglas had stated, intention. It was wrong fully converting to one's own use money which had been entrusted to a person. If a man who was given money to take care of, instead of do- ing that used it for his own purposes, that man was guilty of fraudulent misappropriation. The Crown therefore had to prove in this case, first, that the accused was entrusted with certain monies to be used for the require. ments of the railway. They had also to he used this money or part prove that of it for his own benefit. It was clear from the evidence of His Excellency the Managing Director, and also from the whole history of the accounts and the position held by Mr. Butler Wright, that he was entrusted with monies which he put in the International Bank, and they heard from the evidence of the chief engineer, and would see from the total of the pass book and the accounts, that those monies in the International Bank
It was also for the use of the railway. clear that the accused on three occasions removed money from the railway accounts in the International Bank to his own account. Therefore he was in possession of certain money which belonged to the railway funds, and had committed the offence with which he
were
They retired, and after an absence of forty- five minutes returned into Court, and on reply to the Judge's clerk, Mr. Rosser, announced that they had agreed upon their verdict.
They found the prisoner guilty on all three counts, and the Foreman handed a written slip of paper to the Judge.
read it.
His Lordship, after perusing it, said he was not sure that it was quite in order, but he would The slip read "The jury are of opinion that great negligence has been shown by the general managers for the Corporation in not being aware that large sums of money were drawn from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and passed into other bank accounts which were operated upon solely by the defendant. Had an audit been taken half-yearly the present case might have been averted."
The Crown Advocate passed up to his Lord- ship a letter which he had received on Friday, and which, in the circumstances, he thought his Lordship should see. The letter was not read aloud.
Mr. Douglas then informed His Lordship that as the prisoner had been found guilty it was the Judge's duty to pass sentence. Counsel asked His Lordship to take into consideration the fact that the prisoner was an old man of fifty-five, and that he would have to serve the sentence imposed under conditions which would be exceedingly trying to a man in his position.
His Lordship-William Butler Wright, you have been found guilty by this jury of unlaw- fully and fraudulently misappropriating three- specific sums of money. The law always regards that as a serious offence, and it is more serious in your case because you have been specially chosen as an Englishman to defend that offence,
[October 25, 1909. and have been found guilty. After making allowance for what your Counsel has said of the trying climate in which the sentence will have to be served, I cannot do less than pass sentence of two years' hard labour.
Prisoner, who appeared quite calm when sentence was passed on him, was then removed from the Court.
:
The Crown Advocate applied for the re- storation to the railway of the property seized when defendant was arrested, and stated that he thought it his duty to mention that under an Order-in-Council the prisoner could be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. There was about $5,000 in the hands of the Court.
His Lordship (to Mr. Douglas)-If you like to consider the point there is no necessity to argue it now.
Mr. Douglas-The money should be sent to the man's family.
It was decided that the application should be heard later at Shanghai.
His Lordship - Gentlemen of the jury, you have listened patiently to this case and given it every attention, and I think it is only right that you should get some sort of recompense. You will be exempted from serving on a jury in this place for the next three years.
The prisoner was brought to Hongkong on Saturday night by the steamer Kinshan, and imprisoned in Victoria Gaol.
IMPORT AND EXPORT OF LIQUOR.
The undermentioned places in the Colony are specified by His Excellency the Governor as places into which dutiable liquors and denatured spirits may be imported :-
1. The place where the road from Sha T'au Kok to Shek Chung Au crosses the Chinese frontier.
2. The end in British Territory of the bridge between Lo Fong and the Lo Shu Ling blockhouse.
i
3. The landing place in British Territory of the Lo Fu Ferry.
4. The landing place in British Territory of the Lok Ma Chau Ferry.
The following places are specified as places from which dutiable liquors and denatured spirits may be exported:-
1. The place where the road from Sha T'au Kok to Shek Chung An crosses the Chinese frontier.
2. The end in British Territory of the bridge between Lo Fong and the Lo Shu Ling block- house.
3. The landing place in British Territory of the Lo Fu Ferry.
4. The landing place in British Territory of the Lok Ma Chau Ferry.
PRINCE HSUN IN HONGKONG.
On Oct. 20th the warships in the harbour were decorated in honour of His Imperial Highness Prince Hsun, who, with a party including Admiral Sah, Sir Chentung Liang Cheng, Messrs. Chao Feng, Chang and ten other attaches, is on his way to Europe to make a study of naval matters. The Prince and party were passengers on the German mail steamer Luetzow, which did not enter the port on Tuesday but sought a safe anchorage at Junk Bay, but the weather was so unpropitious on Oct. 20 that the official landing was abandoned, as well as the luncheon at Mountain Lodge arranged by H.E. the Governor in honour of the distinguished visitors.
The party will disembark at Genoa and proceed direct to London. Visits will then be paid to Paris, Rome, Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg in the order named. The return journey will be made via Siberia, and His Highness expects to reach Paking about the middle of January. In March he will resume his travels and visit Japan and America.
A royal salute was fired from the warships in port on Thursday afternoon as the German mail steamer Luetzow left port with H. I. H. Prince Hsun on board.
The Protector of Chinese at Ipoh is taking strong measures to stop the boycott by the Chinese of the Japanese. It is understood that the men who insulted the Protector (Mr. H. C. Fidges) will be banished.