The Supreme Tribunal decrees
333
The appellant was wronged by the Judge quo in the sentence against which an appeal is preferred.
— Whereas the judge acknowledged that there is no proof, as in reality there is not, of the offence of complicity, for which the appellant was indicted, it was his duty to carry into effect Art. 220 of the 3rd part of the Reformed Code.
— As it appears from the answer to the appeal, that the motives adduced in favour of the confirmation did not justify it, which motives, besides being frivolous, are foreign to the law, and contrary to that article and to the intent of the process of ratification, which is the confirmation of the sentence when there is ground for it, or its reversal when there is none, and consequently the termination or end of the criminal proceedings in the terms of the said article, in opposition to the Judge's statement, whose opinion involves an absurdity.
Therefore the decision appealed against is
9. and insufficient opinion of the Revisers be made out), the Appellant ought not to have been found guilty, and still less was it right for the Deputy Judge of Macao to confirm the sentence in such an arbitrary manner, in which confirmation, although he himself acknowledged that there was no proof of guilt against the appellant, he nevertheless did not acquit him, thus infringing the imperative provisions laid down in Art. 220 of the 3rd part of the Reformed Code: Therefore sepholding the appellant Francisco de Azeis & Fernandes, it is decreed. That the sentences appealed against be reversed, and that the Judge a quo acquit him, and the Respondents are condemned to pay the costs.
New York 20th April 1847.
(Signed) Silva Lobo
Souza.
Azevedo.
Oulooted as to taking cognizance only. (Signed). F. P. Collaço.