1
not at a lime been inflicted by at the Supreme Court.
Board of Trade E.L grei
I never heard of this case: the facts however can be readily ascertained in England by reference to the then Registrar, Mr. Fearon, who is now Professor of Chinese in King's College London.
No 3699
The case here referred to will be No 3701 found as appendix &. The facts relative to the Inquest are these:
The Coroner, who was immediately afterwards dismissed for his misconduct, surreptitiously obtained the depositions before the Magistrate, read parts of them to the Jury, and commented in abusive terms on the conduct of the Magistrate.
3702
308
of the Magistrate. I believe the proceedings on the Inquest were also published in the 'Friend of China' newspaper. The verdict of the Jury, given under the directions of the Coroner, was clearly contrary to evidence, and was quashed; as I am informed on that account. The Judge said that he reversed the sentence of the Magistrate because for the offence in question a punishment of 14 days imprisonment (without hard labour) or a fine of $10 was provided by Colonial Ordinance No 4 of 1845, Sec: 12, and that consequently any excess of that punishment was illegal.
The Magistrate urged on the other