CORRESPONDENCE.
JUDICIAL TORTURE IN CHINA.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE “DAILY PRESH.”
St.-T hard to express say thanks (slo on Irhalf of the Founders Committee) for your kindness in drawing public attention to the movement started in this Colony, for the As fur back as ubolition of judicial torture, 5th Jaunary, 1905, you mentioned in a
118
THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, TUESDAY, MAY 30r¤, 1905.
SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Monday, 29th May,
IN THE MATTER OF WONG KA CHEUNG.
discussion, ought most certainly to have been raised then.
For myself shall in future never allow an argument on the issuing of a habens corpus unless there be an undertaking that there is to be no farther argument. The former practice was for the argament to for discharge, but at the instance of a former Attorney General that course was changed, takes place on and the argument now the application for the writ of haber corps. shall, however, take care that this inconvenience does not occur again.
areid mistakes" (such as we were led into) our correspondent must not depend upon the "judicial torture" phrase tu specify his particular. mesuing. After which, it only remains for s to add ar assurance that we did not m the somewhat stale evidence of Domitius
that evidens BEFORE MR. F. T. Procort (Cher JUSTICE). take place on bringing the prisoner up Lipians to persuado extorted by physical torment is utterly worthless. Every Eaglish school child laughs during its history lesson at the old English witch test by water, in which, if the lady would got drowa, she was adjudged guilty, and if she did drown, was declared innot. Wo sre sceptical about the recent Chinese reforms; but wish the Judicial Torture Abolition Society every good wish. If we hail a eriticisan to offer
His Honour fundis preece:" but instead we will take the earliest opportunity of helping to open those ears. Ed.
His Honour the Chief Justice yesterday delivered judgmout on the preliminary points raised in the matter of the extradition of Mr. Hugh Koman Wong Ka-chucng. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. Otto Kong Bing. appeared for the accused, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding;
Government.
paragraph that I hani published in the Chinese at all, it would be “Quid obseratis auribus for the Chinese :-The proceduro in this for the discharge of the prisoner. In de
Pipers of Canton and Haking a translation of an Italiau work on the subject of judicial Torture. On the 18th May, newly four months after you kindly dedicated a leader to the subject, asferring also with great pleasure to the abolition of ling-ch'i through the influence of H. E. Wu-ting-fang. We also are vory glad that China now listening to enlightened | You like hing, and this gas es us great confidenco in the success of our movement,
There is, however, a paragraph in your lader which is not erreet, and which I. therefore,
quolo in extensó ;--
7
ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.
The hearing of the case against Tang Fuk, at the Coroner's clerk and third clerk Magistracy, who stands indicted on the charge of embezzleing 80, was continned before Mr. F. A. Hazeland at the Police Court yesterday afternoon.
ease is in a stats of sont enfusion: this, how ever, is not to be wondered at, for there appear to have been few occasions in this Colony for its consideration in the Supreme Court and przetially the wine confusion seems to karo reigned in Eughand fare the practice was finally settled by the Judges and even now the practice can only be as certained by carefully comparing the Eifferent
decisions.
I
E HAVE THIS DAY
NOTICE.
REMOVED TO No. 17, QUEEN'S ROAD,
3
Premists formerly occupied by Mr. FR. BLUNCH, silk laco manufacturer, and Next Door is onr. Former Address,
LONG. HING & CO..
There are three stages at which argument can arise on the application for a male nisi for thei haber corpus: on the motion to make the rals alsainte ens motion to set aside the return,
Hongkong, 4th May, 1905. Fortugal's caes the re-argument was presentat by this Crown: here it comes from the prisoner. Bat, as before, the mia praciple underlies him to refer to preceding other than thoms before both cases: the same question must be argued the agistrato. And with regard to the proceed auce only. And I think that the Englishings before the Magistrate it would appear that practice should pevail, that the argument what I have said leak logically extend to all should take place on the notion to make the procedure unde the application for extradition. rule absolute. This will not preclude any motion being made with regard to the rotura s to any matter which may directly ariss out of the return and which could not havo beet maled on the motion in connection with the issue of the writ.
B
Never occurril. I can assure you on the bost i not think it proper for the shroff to advanc" at the return was a bad rotura, Mr. Pollock, points. But as Justice Day pointed on in da Learned authors to make statements co sach
Government
DEALERS IN PHOTO GOODS.
TRADE
MARKA
LIGHT WINES.
HOCKS AND MOSELLES.
1 doz.. →2 doz.
Battles, Bol iles, .
$13.00 $15000
14.00 16.0
NIERSTEINER HOCHHEIMER LIEBFRAUMILCH
15.00
17.00
20,00
22.00
24.00
26.00
41.50
1,50
Do
HOOK
6.50
7,50
WHITE WINES.
1 derz.
22 duz
Bottles
Bottles
$-8.50
$ 9,50
11.30
8.50
9.50
1150 16,00
authority that the Edict referring to them to any members of the sind; neither do I abolition of ling-ch'il contains nothing about think it proper for any sumber of the staff to use Lad language towards his subordinates. I the abolition of torture to extort evidence or
have had trouble with the defendant since I confession.
came, but I do not call in friction. I have It seems that you have misconstrued thr
wanted him to do things which he enid it was object of our movement, We have taken
torture in its most exact weaning as the not his business to do, but the business of the tort coolies. I don't removiber exactly what I asked. employment of cruel suffering to
vittones or eonfession. To avoid mistakes we him to do. I cannot swoût it was not in conas entitled to appear boing the pris her and the argument on the return, on which this Court | Clarks it should be noticed is always particular GRAVES have carefully specified our meaning by tion with chits, or with my private chíts. I boliaro defendant to be guilty of the charge. I first defining it always as judicial torturo
was not in his drawer.
Crown.
there any
Do
Our object is not, therefore, the abolition of formed this opinion when I found the money writ: but not of the motion for discharge have no doubt that the Crows will appear to upset any practice which has long boon SAUTERNE
Ik
114
tains it better, howoyer. limit my jude mont to the point actually before me, the position of the Chine Goverment of thus application for a writ of haben eorpos This the Wong Ka-cheong was arrested on 3rd March
position might he somewhat altered in on a warmat issued by the Magistrate under
case of the provedings before the Magistrate, To apply this principle to the presont case:
more especially where the warrant is applied f-se. the Chinese Extradition Ordinance No 7 of 1889, and the salmequunt intimation from H..
the argament that the return is bad, or rather
as in this case, before the Governor has weived the Chefor required by this Ordinanes in con-
t'at the prisoner should be discharged because
requisition from a foreign court. That ques. ' Mr. G. F. Morrell of the Crown Solicitor's sequienes of a requisition having been received the warment is but, bonuses the warrant does not tion must be considered when it arise.. I am In the arreus of the doings of there gead office prosecuted, and Mr. H. W. Looker toftram the Chinese Government for the man's disclose on the face of it that the prisoner whose impressed by the art that in the latest book' on
extralition. On the application of the prisoner hearted people, which was supplied to the Mesas. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) defcude.
tradition is claimed is a subject of Chinaxtradition (Byron and Chalmers) it is stated M. T. H. Hammer, Chief Clark at the Magis. by his counsel a writ of habeas corps This statement of the argument in its two forms that notice of the motion of habeas corpus LAUBENHEIMER... “preses, 40+ tauntion was made of the fact
granted by Mr. Justice Sercombe Smith ou
shows that the practice established in has to be given to the representative of the GRÁACHER tracy (where evidenes in chief was taken on 2d in. The writ using been rande returnare is the most conveniat, as the position torcugo Government. I know from my own that the object of the little society bad-
not cutoury for bera secured." We could not state the fact that bad Saturday) was cross-examined. He said able on Saturday, 27th. My. Ferrers mored for
the discharge of the prisoner on the ground is then less likely to be cunts red with thical prines that it is
Chinese Portugal's case, the Coown was within its rights; mttors except after consalting, the relats He took a preliminary objection and so here the pricus is within his rights in who are familiar with the practica, but there CALIFORIA RIESLING
It is is no express reference van, moes it KC appeared on behalf of the that the Puise Julgo should have grants raising the same question a second times. ruis nisi, and not an absolute rule for the only necessary to satte the procedure in order follow as a matter of course that the giving! To this Mr. to prevent the inconvenience raising a sucat of the noties implies the right to appear. It
Lime. I propose, therefore, to hear or rather to may be that it is given only by court sy! issue of the habeas corpus. Ferrers objected that the Chinesa Government had no locus standi: the precisa. terms of this continue the hearing of Mr. Ferrer's arguunt. On the other hand in nome of the cases
Smith himself, nalese I am mistaken, gave his. Chrke, is
trace of a foreign objection were that the Chinese Government in this cas, more especinly as Mr. Justice cited, nor in nty of thess referred to in had no right to appear in the procadings con decision contemplating a further and fuller Gvernment basing appeared. Sir Edward nected with the habeas corpus; the only parties
to give the sins of the counsel appearing in Notice was served on the Chinese might differ from him.
This point settled. I am afraid at some length,
the enses les reports. I-am naturally very loth of the application for the Government
Bay will be fixed for continuing the argument: to
established in the Colony; but the alleged of the prisoner. On this proliminary point discuss the questions of great import one which practice has been directly challenged, and I ha of practice, assuming that a Recend
have bean raised. I do not think it likely that head to give a decision. If I am wrong there 1 am of opinion that
the Crown will take up the atti ule which will be an opportunity of setting me right in notice is necessary,
has been bypathetically attributed to it, of the next case by an appout to the Full Court, a pity who hus not been served with notice, and not before the Court, cannot bring hitself into the proceslings in this manner. His standing by and allowing the proceedings to where the point can be argued at greater l-ngib.
The position of the Crown in extradition proper course is to apply to the Court by independent motion on which the question
proceedings is intimately connected with the whether he was entitled to notice, and so
question which I have already referred to, and hich has still to ho led, whether the entitled to appear in the proceedings, can be
Chiness Gaverument has any locas standi in mam question in the case fros from this in- argued. This lus the advantage of keeping the
these proceedings, the first place, the locus dependent ise, which may be an important standi for which Mr. Pollock contends is not matter, as in this esse, whether the Chinoo
geveral Government has any lacus staudi in extradition based on any rule of Compter statutory right: proceedings. In the present case this is the merit must be based, therefore, on
The Colonial legislation does not, nor could important, because Mr. Fellock's motion principles amonated in effect to an appial from Mr. Justice Smith's order, a point which eluga, soil, proceed on different principles to those ou which the Act of the United Kingdom is buset. to speak every question raised before me. But the fundamental principles of extradition as fundamental principles of extradition ure, spite of the apparent irregularity of this Aot of 1870, 33 and 34 Vict. 52. Now, so far as the fact of extradition is concerned, it is boing, as I think, involved to this question, in therefore, to be derived from the U. K. dien, it was in the manifest convenience of rutinu en administrativo mutter between
the two Governments. This Act does not. all parties that I should hear what Mr. Pollock had to nge in favour of his contention that a
allow the foreign government desiring the re nisi should have been granted and not an
apply to the British Court for the necessary absoluta enier for the issue of the writ. it will. extradition of an offender against its laws to moreover, enable me to settle the practice for the order: it provides that tus-requisition shall the Government should then sat his own Courts fure.
made to a British Govorament, and that in motion. The procedure traced out by S
cruel punhwcuts for the guilty, but the abolition of the infliction of excruciating pain, often much worse than the ernellest death, ou. the innocent as well as the guilty. We con- sider the latter object more bumane and more general, and we also consider that it will bring about the former object. In fact one cannot expect people to be disinclined to inflict cruel pain on the guilty when they are willing to inflict it on the innocent.
Let me also point out that our view is not ersstienal, but simply judicial: we consider
that the principal objection to the use of torture to extort evidence or confession is not th it is crnol, but that it is absurd. It not only inflicts great pain innocent as well as guilty, but it affords a last chance for the guilty, as a criminal with insonsible nerves way excape by his resistance our laws he to torture, while according to wonld I condemned simply on the strong evidenco against him...
Let me quote the opinion of one of the great Roman jurists, Ulpianus, who died more than sixteen hundred years ago and, therefore, lived in times when people enjoyed gladiatorial com bats, and oren ladies held down their thunb to bave a gludiator killed who had furnished poor sport, when "Christianos ad leones" popular cry.
KAS $
"Quaestioni fidem non semper. nec tamen aunquam aber das, constitutionibus "declaratur: etenim rest fragiis, et "periculosa, et quae veritatem falli. Nam ** plorique paticntíasivedurit ia tormentorum ita fermenta contemnunt, at exprimi cis "veritas nullo modo possit: alii tanta sunt impatientia, ut (in) quovis mentiri, quam pati tormenta velint jäta fit, et etiam vario "mode faleantur, ut nou tantum se, vera. metiam alios comminentur." Digestoria Lib. XLVIIL, TR. XVIII, As you see, Ulpianas never refers to the exuelty of the practice, as probably he was too muel accustomed to it to consider it ne sach,
He did not say to me,
that the money was then in his drawer. I think I put the question to bim, but if Mr. Phelps says he put it, I should consider that I was mistaken.
[Mr. Looker hero quoted a part of Mr. Phelips' evidence from the Daily Press report, which coincided with his Worship's e py of the deposi tions, and read--I then asked defendant where the money was. He replied that it was in his private drawer."}
sura
the
Wilnos, continuing-As Mr. Phelips has said that he put the question, I must have een mistaken in saying I think I put it I don't think I may be mistaken in ether portions of my evidence. I told the defendant to open his drawer. I don't remember Mr. Phelips asking for the keys. I am not quite whether I hava said everything that occurred in first conversation with the defendant. I repeated all I remember of what took place at the second conversation Broadly, I have told the Court the exact words defendant said. I was present why defendant was asked where he put the money: he was askod as both interviewe. Mr. Phelips was prevent at both interviews. We west to the drawer at the second. The question was usked al the second interview in the clerks' office, the office where the defendant works: I have no doubt whatever about it, and if Mr. Phelips Hays it was not asked there, he is wrong. The drawer was opened once only, and that was at the second interview. The passage in Mr. Photics evidence as to the opening of the drawer was at the second interview. I know
of no fuot in the defendant's fas our which was brought to my knowledge, and which would sufco to acquit biw.
habens
take their courнe.
which allows a warrant to be issued by a which was adopted in the present esse
ment does not militate in any way from thia agistrate without an order from the Govern general principle; for the laat paragraph expressly provides that the fagitive criminal
is to be discharged unless within a reasonable lime an intimation is received from the goveru- ment that a requisition has been made by the
is
foreign government. This introduced
merely to enable the warrant to be, issued
by information received cable, the
02
But so far as this case is concraad. I am of opinion that the Chinese Government has ne faces standi, not on the narrow growls that no notice has been served on its representatire. bat ca the broadler grounds which I have indicated in this judgment.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. A QUESTION OF PARTNERSHIP. John D. Hutchinson and Coni pony, plaintiffs, claimed $5.714,25 from 0. Yik Tong. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Messrs wens and Harston) appeared for the plaintiffs and the Hon. Mr. E. H. Sharp (instructal by Mr. was for goods supplied by the plaintiffs to the Hang On firm, for which it was sought to make J. Hastings for the defendants. The claim
the defendant responsible as a purtar. The li question for the Court to decido ros whether the defendant was a partner in the firm or not. julgment were given in their favour onthat point the other side bail intimnuted that they would be willing to arrange for the accounts to be
books were seized and kept in the possession went into bankruptcy in 1904, and then some sottled by the Registrar. The Hang On firm
of the Official Receiver. In one of these books there was the following entry for January 23, 1904, "Received from Ó Yik Tong as share money, $4,500. There was also the master of the Hung On, and he on one evidence that the defendant was recognised as ccasion fold Mr Fechica, a solicitor practising at Macro that he had spened a shop called the Hung On ut Hongkong, in partnership with some friends.
The case was adjourned.
ATNINGPO.
Corps to the number of 337 word recovered The Act from the capsized Chinese launch at Ningpo.
but he points ont that very rarely it can be aufendant on one day had paid a sum of 350 to prisoner'a connsel were now moving for a rule person who has not off nded against its laws, Iggy in so that, when she turned turtle,
deported upon, and that most people (at least in
"Superieur". J
"Superienz"... 10,59 HAUM.. 14,00 Do HALT (Haosppler) 27.00 34.00 Ch. Yquews, 1894 Vintage...
Do
H. PRICE & CO.
12, QUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL.
10
SPECIAL SALE
AT
ROBINSON'S
OF
PIANOS, PIANOLAS,
MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
PREVIOUS TO REMOVAL..
GUARANTEED NEW INSTRUMENTS
BY ANY ENGLISH MAKER
WILL BE SU FFLIED AT LONDON PRICES. We supply Superior Value to anything to be had in the Colony in Tone, Price, aud Appearance in First-class German Makes tosted 3 years by us
Patting the Chinese Government out of the question for the moment, and treating Mr. Pol- lock as amicus curia (as he himselt suggested), he called my attention to the case of R. V. Gans (9Q. B. D. p. 93), in which precisely the same practice had been adopted as by Mr. Justice Smith in this case: Le, a rule absolute for the habeas corpus had been issued in the first instance, and unt a rule nisi to shew cause, (1) In point of fact a rule absente in the first previously granted, and the writ isened. The instauee for a writ of habeas corp had been prisoner was brought up in easterly on the return, but the Attorney General at the com mencement of the argument pointed out that mal requisition following by a subs quent THE HORRIBLE LAUNCH AFFAIR the practice in matters of this sort had since
mail. This being the basis of the procedure, it 1979 been to obtain a rule nisi for corpus, and argue the case on the rule, and that scenus to follow, that all subs-quunt mocessinge such practice was far more convenient. He also in the British Courts are to be taken by the stated that the printson which the prisoner scous-British Government concern-d Mr. Looker-I must remind you, Mr. Hanmers
sal wished to rely would not be availble to him ensures the Treaty provisions being compliul There were 440 people on board the Ving, METZLER
PLEYER on the return to the writ which was ou the face with, and provides the legal machinery by which which is rated to carry 1. The doors were that you are en your oath, and my ellent, stands
of it perfectly good. It was, therefore, agrond the Britis Government may falfil its freaty everywhere closed to prevent, of bors forcing
The COLLARD indicted on a charge of lolony,
people were imprisoned hopelossly. Withers, continuing-1 was told that the that the matter should be argued as if the obligations which involve the arrest of a thir
audi a withdrawal in his caso of what is goner portholes were all open. The theory is that ally and perhaps conveniently called the right the passengers in the saloon below the main- the shroff. On the afternoon of the 17th, the risi on affidavits, and the Crown showing canse
Asylum. The foreign government will deck,
alarmed at a small quantity of water his time) were able to resist torture, while others shrof made a statement to the effect that some. "gainst such rule. It is reported socordingly.
The argument before me then proceeded en
necessary to enable the British Court to take towards the other side. The boat was turning ALLISON recklesely accused themselves and others through | tima previous he remembered the defendant had the basis of a similar agreement: although the {asturally, by its officers, furnish all the material washing in on cus side, cried out and rashed |
the necessary action but, beyond this, what has round to houd down stream, the other port impatience to suffering. He considers it paid him $50. I said-It is nothing to do proceedings in that case and this cannot have
with the matterholes must have gone below water-line, and their cure, dosperous and deceptive. You have and mao nov, do what you think proper." I boon precisely the same, for this potis to have the foreign governmeal to do with courts, the dine inruda of water and the listing of the boat RACHALS hora a thoroughly unbiased opinion by a man did not mention ilis before, because I have been an application for a wiit of habeas corpus, trus effect of the administrative order of the did the rest." It has taken uine day to recoVUT WINKELMANN
British Governmout wou'd be a permission to all the bodies, Chinese stupidity cansing great Nerre who bal no rentimental objections to the practice
HAAKE not been asked about it. I am not horo to the writ having been already granted: whereasis
the foreign gorerament to conduct the pre- but who, through his large experience, had found suppress what is favourable to the prisoner, this case the motion is for the discharge of the
of steam KRAUSS ellcient entrol and supersticised by the aud to give evidence only in favour of the prisoner made on the return of a writ already dings for extraition before the British part of the delay. The NC. Daily it an unreliable instrument of justice.
Court.
So unusual a course would require asks: Mas not the time come when a more Z. VOLPICELLI, prosecution. I told Mr. Morrell of this, but Granted. Theth in a question to be altimately argued in this case, that the return is on the
poes per lunches should be ft must at onca be admitted that we were in ho askel me netting further about it. I do face of it bad: whereas in the Ganz's case the express -gislative sanction: the grant of such error in regarding the two movements as identi- not necessarily consider that this fact, if true, return was on the face of it good. Bat the anthority is certainly not inherent in the Foreign Customs? True, at the present time OWN MAKE
depends on constitutional principles of bw, eal in object.
the English case is appliesble to the present
or ero Joss, would pay all the expensou is independent of the executive. I do not miservice. A small tax of $2 per brat per journey, HOPKINSON No fer people choose words would be important evidence in the prisoner's principle underlying the agreement come to in overigu, for notess to the British courts they bring in practically no revenue to the nowadays with any regard for their exact mean-
case, there should be an opportunity for a
not incurred by such foreigu supervision. Such a that a suy
foreign government might of the master before the Court. inge that we did not think of attaching special favour, but it might be. meaning to the phrase "judicial tortare.
Mr. Looker Mr. Hantaor, you are not hero full argument another nation of procedure. I appear before the British.ourts, Just as it may terrible loss of life ought not to be lacking in
· brings me " read the contributed report as referring to an io fence with me, but to tell the truth. Re-This already been ous argoment, and it is appear, subject to speciui rules of provedu its cry for reform in this direction." ordinary agitation in favour of reducing the reverity of Chinese pauisliments. This is made
Witness, continuing-The question asked by very orident elsewhere in the comments quoted; and we have, herefore, suppressed one paragraph Mr. Phelipe of the defendant was not Where of our correspondent's letter, which might cause did you pat the money when you receive it.'
practice
Wo-
member, you are a Government officiel.
There
motion
to
and
1,400
17
$350 formerly $475
425
500
650
·700
Do Grands 950
Do
425
**
650
430
650
575
ว
750
625
750
525
456
585
650
300
4.50
"
600
700
400 BRISSMEAD... KIRKMAN
**
750
325
290
PLETEL
COLLARDGRAND300
cureles readers to imagine that we had attempton } The question was "Where is the money." The appeal from the Puisao Judge's decision. He hypothesis of extradition is that there has boen Munsey's Mayosive that the Germans are LUNAI
to defend the absurd implying #twisting
PLANOLAS
Do
JJ
$550
360
WHY GERMANY FEARS JAPAN. Capt. Brinkley, of Tokyo, points out in
150 400 formerly their public works is the province of Shantung
285 displaying splendid enterprise in Chius. All and their private constractions at Yangise ports, clearly indicato great expectations of their country's aggraulisemant in the Far East. Kinochow they regard as importantchiefly for the PIANOLA, ROLLS 25% discount. the whole of Shantung. Had not the present war sceurred, the German Government world, I Bike of its hinterland, in which term they include
1
:
[630
to be so, it can only be matt-rs within the quito clear from what Mr. Ferrers has ani, before British civil courts. But, assuming this that the argument before this Court proceed on the same lines as that presented to Mr. Justice Jurisdiction of those Criminal Courts: that is beach of the British erlipinal law. But the Seith. In answer to any question, Mr. Ferrers to say, in proceedings connected with some pointed out, and rightly, that this was not on of "forture," as
breach of the law of the foreign cuautry.. evidence or confession defendant replied "I have got it at my house; in fact obtained what he waited. The motion no such breach bat, on the contrary, an alleged from the tortured. Having thus acknowledged can I go and get it" At the first interview now before the Court is entirely different; it is either by statute, rule of court, nor principle, can I see that the forsige government that there was a misunderstanding, we may call defendant was asked what he did with the to set aside the retura to the writ already
has any legs standi in extradition proceed. our correspondent's attention to the fact that the
might be that my iews should differ from those
ings. If it were otherwise wo should find exact meaning of the word "tertura" is rot money. He replied May I fetch another 50 granted. But the same question arises, and it auch au admitted certainty as to allow of the from my house." I understood he had taken of the learned Judge who has already given a
the British Court would stand eside, which the safe absence of all explanation as to the objects the 50 to his house. and at the time of decision in the matter. This motion, therefore, ourselves in this unpleasant dilemma: either
At like that made by Mr. Pollock, savours vary
would not be in conformity with
believe, har bova able to secure the reversing These instruments are GUARANTEED for of the local Society. The contributed report speaking, he had 50 at his house. of its doings contained nothing beyond"
was not his much of an appeal from Mr. Justice Smith a Gue time defendant soil it
erler. The manifest inconvenience of tws Onlinauce, and allow the conduct of the pro- phrase "judicial torture" to enlighten the
Ilongkong, 19th May, 1905. But should public as to the exact objects of Cher, fault, and the auditor replied that it was different Cours hearing the sune argument in edings to be in the hands of the forain of Weihniwei from England, who attaches little Volpicelli and bis friends. The dictionaries The defendant's asking to be allowed to get the two mutious, the second of which is not ang vernment, which the Ordinance does not value to the place for its own sake; and no he CLIMATE.
war result in finally checking the define torture as "severe pain inflicted judicially,
baon dealt with in England. In rede Pertagal the B. itish and the foreign governments would absorption of the entire perinos.
Manchuria, the acquisition of the either as punishment for a criote, or for the money from his house did not immediately follow appeal from the first, has, like the former point, contemplate, but rather on the contrary or both tangible obstacle would then have offered to the
on the auditor's reply that it was his feult. a confession from an
the Weekly Reporter reports is fuller than that uppear, in which cass there might be a conflic of parpose of extorting a
dibent, and the Geronu rosidouts at Kiaochos. accused person," Volpicelli meant do not remember when this occurred. Every of the Law Roports) Mr. Justion Day gives pinion between them; a conflict which might session only the latter; we were thinking of ling-chih body who receives money in a Government very strong judgment to the effect that in such involve the interpratation of the Treaty Kiaochow hinterland would twee much more tius questions essentially diplomatie might be fully sensible of the fact, miks no attempt to
conceal their sympathy with Rassie's arms,
clear- "judiciul torture," which it is. The department is guaranteed. I do not know of proceedings there must be only one argument. obligations as between the governments, and
Mr. Justice Day-I regret that I was not a
In the Far East itself these things are? judicial torturo in England, inflicted for the
Looking at the question merely as one last t me in May. 1640 (vide Macaulay's history clerks who are not guaranteed receiving money member of the Court which gave judgment in raised before the curls.
I referred squally to the treatment of convicted; I am guaranteed. I am of opinion that if there this case yesterday, but
am in
a habeas corpus at common law, and assuming licant fact that all the journals adited and owned by American citizens and British sub. pH. LODS.
Crabb, in discussing the difference was no ous in the office, tho defondant should possession of the grounds on which it in aricing in connection with an application for recognised. It is a remarkable and signi betwixt "torture and "torment" calls have refused to receive the money. There is no delivered That court heard a full argument that interested parties may appear on such an
from both sides. Now, on the application that first an excess of the second, and cites
Government conld, as such, appear, for it cannot cause in her war with Russia whereas the the Indian tortures inflicted upon captives, role to that effect. It has never happened to
have been addressed to us. I cannot help think- divest itself of the position in which the Extra- papers edited by Germans and Frenchmen are Its rights with one colourless exception, frankly or eovert- matter of greatdition Ordinance Las placed it. with no ulterior motive other than pleasure my knowledge that fines have besa received the prisoner be discharged further arguments application, I do not think that the Chinese jects in China and Japan champion Japan's in torment. We do not think that the word after the shroff has left, and I am not aware ing that such a coures, is
must be limited in every direction by that ly Russophile. An equally clear line of demar- was coined expressly to describe methods of thay it is a constant practice for fines to he public inconvenience. It would be very incon- Tonient if double arguments on the same for ing evidence, &c. Coming from torques, to
question came to be alowed. The question Ordinance. Mr. Pollock stated that the practice cation divides Anglo-Saxon sentiment from in Hongkong lus abraye been for th Chinese that of continental Earous in the various twist, it may we'l have described ancient ways received by other persons than the shroff.
Hearing continues.
raised here, if it was not raised in the former Government to appear. I did not understand settlemente." of withandling human limbs. Esidently, to
£ 3
Chor
Enssian
DR. NEWELL WILSON, DENTIST.
Latest American Mathoils. Reasonable Fees.
No charge for examinations Office hours 9 AM, to ́5 P.M
1ST FLOOR, WATKINS' BUILDINGS
31, Queen's Road Central Hongkong, 19th October, 1904.
a