October 25, 1909.]
into the house of a woman whose husband was away. The first prisoner seized her by the throat and told her to keep quiet, and threatened her with death if she re-. sisted. Then her hands were tied, the house was ransacked, and the men were about to depart when a European constable entered, and caught them in the act. But for the exemplary conduct of this constable (P. C. Patterson) in going in as he did, single-handed, these men would probably have effected their escape.
*369
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the follow-Vorster (foreman), V. G. J. Direng, G. E. L ing jurors were called:Messrs. C. E. Warren Hartig, D..P. J. Lopes, J. Wilkie,. P. D (foreman), C. Makeham, Tong Tze Sam, B. Sutherland and F. J. Gellion. K. Mehta. J. Cruickshank, J. E. Danelsen and E. A. G. May.
The Hon. Mr. W. Rees Davies, K.C., Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. H. L Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solici- tor, prosecuted, and prisoner was undefended
The Attorney-General informed the Court and jury that the prisoner at the bar was in-
In reply to his Lordship the prisoners admit-dicted on charges of forging and uttering two ted tying the woman's hands.
Each man
was sentenced to four years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Tuesday, October 19th.
ALLEGED ARMED ROBBERY, Yeung Wong Kwai was arraigned on a charge of robbery with violence at Tsung Un Ha in the New Territory on September 13th.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the following jury was empanelled:-G. L. Duncan (foreman), S. G. Bolden, A. Charlton, C. Chaytor, F. Z. Britto, T. Braun and E. E. Rigold.
Hon. Mr. W. Rees Davies, K.C. (Attorney- General, instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solicitor, prose- cuted, the prisoner being undefended..
The Attorney-General informed the Court and jury that this was another of the unfortun- vate robberies with violence which were so very prevalent in the Colony at the present time. The prisoner was charged with being one of the robbers who committed this gang robbery at Namshiwo on September 13th and stole, beside a quantity of clothing, three buf- faloes and two bullocks. The prosecutor, who was a farmer, would state that at about eleven o'clock on the night of September 13th several men broke into his house. Three men entered the room in which he and wife were, and they identified the prisoner as being the second of the three. The accused was arrested in Hong- kong, and at the Magistracy he made a state- ment in which he set up an alibi alleging that he was in the city at the time. The whole question was purely one of identity, and all the jury would have to decide was whether the prisoner was one of the robbers or not.
Prosecutor then gave evidence, after which he was questioned by his Lordship :
What brought you to Hongkong?—I came over to see the cattle in the depot.
Were you looking out for the robbers as you walked along, or was it by accident tha you come across the prisoner?--I was looking
for him.
For this particular man, or for the robbers generally ?-I was looking for this may in Hongkong. I did not know where the other men had gone to.
Had you any reason to think the prisoner would be in Hongkong ?—A detective found out he came here.
So you and your wife were going along to see if you could find him?—Yes.
Witness was then questioned by the foreman of the jury:
Does your wife know the name of this man? -I have not asked her whether she knows his name or not. She is here and you can ask her; Did the prisoner recognise you and your wife here ?-He did not see us.
Prisoner said he had no questions to ask. The prosecutor was making a false accusation against him.
>
After hearing further evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and his Lordship sentenced the prisoner to five years' imprison- ment with hard labour,
Wednesday, October 20th.
FIFTEEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. The hearing of the charge preferred against T. Shaminsky, of carnally knowing a girl eight years of age, concluded yesterday.
After an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and his Lordship sentenced the accused to fifteen years' imprisonment with hard labour. -
When the prisoner heard the verdict he collapsed, and had to be carried from the Court.
ALLEGED FORGERY.
Tam Pak alias Tam Shin Nam was indicted! on charges of forgery,
bills of exchange, one on the Deutsche Asiatische Bank for $1,265, and one on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank for $100. Both bills were payable to the Chun Shun Wo firm of Cali- fornian merchants, of Des Voeux Road Central. On September 18 the managing partner of this firm received a letter addressed to the assistant manager which contained two seconds of exchange, These were chopped with the firm's chop, and given to the assistant manager, who took them to the banks mentioned. Both banks refused to honour the bills, and subsequently the manager went to the banks and was shown the two first bills of exchange. On examination of these he would say that he found the firm's chop had been forged, and that the signature was in the handwriting of the prisoner, who was the son of the assistant manager, It appeared that the prisoner had formerly lived in the prosecutor's shop, and was well known to the manager, who identified the handwriting on the bills. Further-more, the assistant manager would say that the handwriting was that of his son. In both cases a forged chop had been used. A letter coolie would tell the jury that when he got to the shop the prisoner asked to see some letters he was carrying, and took one. from the bundle, saying that it was for him, and sent from a relative in America. This letter was received just before the prisoner pre- sented the two bills for payment. The father would inform them that his son had no relative in America, and was in possession of no money except the pocket money with which he supplied him. Information was laid with the police, and the prisoner was arrested on September 3rd at No. 9, Wanchai Road, where he was apparently living with a woman. The police had mpoh difficulty to get into the house, and the woman did all she could to screen the prisoner and prevent the police from arresting him. The accused was eventually caught on the roof. In the house large quantities of newly purchased articles and $700 in money were found. The woman was originally charged with receiving stolen money, but that charge had since been
withdrawn.
After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
The Attorney-General applied for the re- stitution of the goods and money seized in the house where the defendant was arrested.
At this stage the woman with whom the prisoner was said to have been living shouted out in the body of the Court, and was called forward. She told his Lordship that the money seized belonged to her, as well as the other articles, which she bought with money received from a money loan association.
His Lordship said it might be a novel pro- cedure, but he thought the best thing would be to allow the money to remain in Court, and the firm could sue.the woman. He then asked the the woman if she also claimed the jewellery.
She said she did, as she handed the prisoner the money to buy it.
His Lordship-I think the complainant firm had better bring a civil action in the Summary Court. That will be the best way to settle it. The Attorney-General Supposing your Lordship were to order that the property should remain in Court, with leave to either party to apply.
His Lordship decided on this course, and said he would take the application on Saturday.
Thursday, October 21st.
THE SHARK FIN CASE.
Ko Fun and Lai Lok were arraigned on charges of receiving 1,085 lbs. of shark fins between July 1st and August 7th.
Prisoners pleaded not guilty, and the follow ing jury was empanelled:-Messrs. J. O.
|
Mr. C. G. Alabaster, instructed by Mr. H, L., Dennys, Jr., from the office of the Crown Solici- tor, and assisted by Mr. W. E. L. Shenton (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon), who prosecuted at the Magistracy, appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General. Mr. J. W. Orr, instructed by Mr. Davidson (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) represented the first prisoner, while the second was defended by Mr. Eldon Potter, who was instructed by Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon, of Mr. R. A. Harding's
office.
Mr. Alabaster, in opening, said both prisoners were charged with receiving, well knowing the goods received had been stolen. It was neces- sary for Counsel to prove first of all that the goods were stolen; and that at the time when each prisoner received these things he knew they were stolen. It was also necessary for him to satisfy the jury that at some time or other the goods were in the possession of both pri- soners. The way he proposed to prove that the defendants knew the goods were stolen was by the fact that each gave an account→→→
Mr. Potter-I object. My friend is now open- ing with what happened at the Police Court. He cannot put before the jury anything that happened there that he cannot actually prove. He must open his own case.
His Lordship-If your client did at the Police Court, under the provisions of the Magistrates' Ordinance and after being cautioned by the Magistrate, make a statement, that statement can be used as part of the case for the Crown.
Mr. Potter-It was not a statement, it was & deposition, and cannot be put in unless the man is dead, or too ill to attend Court.
His Lordship-Supposing he had simply made a statement which was not sworn to?
Mr. Potter-That would be a different mat- ter altogether.
His Lordship-What is the difference ?. Mr. Potter-In the one case you have a deposition; in the other you haven't.
His Lordship-The general principle is that a man's statement, made by him not under any inducement of fear or otherwise, is receivable in evidence against him..
Mr. Potter-That is another matter. The law says that depositions are not receivable in evidence except in case of death or sickness. It is obvious that otherwise a prisoner might be put into difficulties which would be almost insurmountable.
His Lordship-He is not bound to say any-. thing unless he chooses.
Mr. Potter-A prisoner is now allowed to give evidence on his own behalf, just as an ordinary witness. Therefore he is a witness and a witness only. What my friend wants to do is to open to the jury with evidence given by a witness at the Police Court.
Mr. Alabaster referred his Lordship to page 327 of Archibold.
His Lordship-Was the prisoner defended at the Police Court?
Mr. Alabaster-Yes.
His Lordship-I have no doubt at present about the point, but if it arises later on I can reserve it.
Mr. Potter-Another point which must arise. is how far the evidence of one prisoner can be used as evidence against another prisoner.
His Lordship-The view I take is this: If one prisoner goes into the box to give evidence, the other should have the right to cross-examine him. I am not sure that we had not better try the prisoners separately.
Mr. Alabaster-Anything a prisoner says can be used in evidence against him.
His Lordship-I am with you so far. It seems to me there is no doubt whatever that any statement made by a prisoner in the Police Court is not evidence against another prisoner, but is evidence against himself.
Mr. Alabaster stated that if he succeeded in satisfying the jury that in each of these statements there were things untrue, they could infer from that that the prisoners had reason for saying something untrue, and their reason was that they know the property in question was stolen. An honest man who came into possession of stolen property had no reason to tell anything but the truth.