Police Court on the first éxamination in this case Dr. Bridges discovered, greatly to his surprize, that Ahlun had been committed on a warrant is sued by a Magistrate - and the release of Ahlum in any other than the customary form, therefore, was An error, Had Dr. Bridges made that admission, he, the defendant, was prepared to admit on his side that he had writ en onder an erroneous im- pression; in fact, and he trusted the Jury would not overlook the fuct-he, the defendant, had writ ten to Dr. Bridges offering to correct any error that might be pointed out to him "
The Acting Attorney General here rose to say that the letter referred to had not been put in, and could not be taken notics of
The defendant replied that the letter itself was attached to the depositions at the Police Court ... Those depositions had been read throughout by Dr. Bridges that day, and as allusion was made in them to the letter, it formed distinctly a part of the Crown's case; and the defendant moved that the letter should be read. To this the Court assented. It ran as follows
-
Copy of letter to Dr. Bridges, dated 16th August, 1857. "I have heard incidently that during my absence in Va. can this week you have been desirous of obtaining my pre- sence at the Police Court with a view to the institution against me of an action for libel.
lose no time on my return to request you to indicate to me the untruthfulness of any passage of my writing in the Friend of China newspaper having reference to yourself, in order to enable me on being satisfied on the point, to make the ex lanation the law requires
I need hardly say that I have no knowledge of having said one word more than the rules of journalism justify, and in all matters I have been solely actuated by a desire for the public benefit. Personally have never had a word of al- tercation with you, and have therefore no spleen to gratify by saying more than is consistent with truth and justice."
Signed as Editor and Proprietor
-and as truth and justice were his sole objects - the defendant continued at the conclusion of the
reading of the letter and in the pursuit of them he had been solely actuated by a sense of public duty, so he felt satisfied that an unanimous acquittal would be promptly accorded to him in this case. Dr Bridges, as Officiating Colonial Secretary, had committed an error while in the performance of duty. For that error he must bear the consequence of public rebuke. Dr. Bridges knew well that on the civil side of that Court an action would not lie- the law is distinct on that point every man must bear the consequence of his own acts;—and though he had brought bis action on the crimint side the spirit of the law was still the same. · Dr. Fridges was a public servant-if he coininitted an error in the performance of duty he was bound to stand by
the consequences.
:
Dr. Bridges had said that had he cone his duty to himself, regardless of others,--Ablan should have been re leased on the 8th of July. It was not so. The time for arguing the point of lawin Taye int v. Ahlam had not expired then, and b must have been kept? But what should he, the de
fendant,have done when he found Ahlum was gone? -What, why have indicted Dr. Bridges and Mr Ingtis for a conspiracy, and have brought them to this Court as criminals, not leave them to come as witnesses. But no--he the defendant respected his Government, whatever he thought of individual members of it. Instead of pursuing this extreme course he memorialized the Secretary of State, and after he memorialized him this action was insti- tuted. The Secretary at home would take due note of this,--the consequences by and bye.
:
But Dr. Bridges bad not admitted his error- On the contrary he had that day told the court that Mr May was the party in error in saying that Ah!um had been committed on his warrant. Mr May would be called on to testify presently, and then we should see how the matter really stood. But there was a new feature in the case to-day- we had a governor's warrant as the authority under which blum was held until his release. It was singular, indeed, that the Sheriff, the Governor of the gaol when Ahlum was committed, never saw -never heard of that warrant-a warrant address. ed not to the Sheriff, the Governor according to local ordinance-but to the Keeper, an unordi- nanced functionary.
He, the defendant, was not deeply versed in law; he came there with the intention to refer!
but que solitary law book, a book from his pin library. He had no desire to take advantage of any quirk or quibble in law to obtain a verdict. What he had written was for the public benefit and he would stond by it; and he should prove by irrefragable evidence that what he had written was for the public good, and a favourable verdict must be accorded to him. But though not much versed in legal practice, he, the defendant, en ertained, he believed, a just appreciation of the constitution of his country and one thing he knew was that when an ordinance passed by the Council of the Gov- ernment vested power in any one particular officer --no warrant from a Governor no letter from a Colonial Secretary, could override that authority. It was on that point he stood. He would show that there had been, in the words of his pleu, an official interference with the ordinary course of conducting public business;--by that interference the public had been aggrieved, and therefore in exposing the conduct complained of he had only performed a public duty.
Dr Bridges does not want any investigation or dered by the Home Secretary, and so stops it in the bud Why he, the defendant, had written things of Dr Bridges of a much more damaging tendency than the articles now charged as libel, and yet Dr Bridges had taken no notice of them !-- Look at that piece about six weeks or two months ago, in which it was stated Dr Bridges took fees from a miserable, ignotant Chinaman, thirteen times more than the ordinance for fees and costs
would warrant; and he, the defendant, stigmatized that act in plain unmistakable Anglo-Saxon lan- guage he called it extortion; and it was ex- tortion--foul extortion. Why did not Dr Bridges bring an action for libel then?
But how stood the case now, with what had he charged Dr Bridges? Why he had in effect said that, from antecedent circumstances--Dr. Bridges's con- duct in releasing Ahium in the way he had, was highly suspicious. It appeared so and so-and if it did not so appear--what did it appear like? That was the question for the court's consideration. Had Dr. Bridges's conduct, keeping in mind antecedent circumstances, been such as to lead any unbiassed person to think other than that it appeared as the defendant in his paper had described it? The Jury were not there to try Dr. Bridges on his motives, even though they did agree--as they must agree-- that appearances were against him
That was not the issue. Dr. Bridges's motives--Dr. Bridges's character-was none of their concern; only this was left for then to consider-Was his conduct such as to justify the defendant in saying appea rances were against him that in the words of the libet as charged his a 'tion was apparent."
The Defendant had spoken of antecedent circumstances. He would particularize them, and would go back to January last. Ahlum was in Gant on a charge of murder. Mr Gaskell had been requested by the prisoner's friends to under- take his defence, and that gentleman had retained Mr Day--and having reference to this position of affairs, Mr Anstey, our Attorney General, a gen- tleman not over prone to ftatter or say kind things even of professional brethren, had declared in that Court that a better or more able. Barrister for the defence could not have been found; while of Mr Gaskell it was only necessary to remember that he was the oldest of our local practitioners, and admitted by all to stand at the top of his profession. This was the position of affairs on the 17th of Ja mary-two days after the poisonings, Matters after this proceeded in due course, up to the 28th of January, when, all at once, the public discovered a new actor on the stage in the person of Dr. Brid- By some means or other that acute gen. ges teman bad discovered that the Sheriff had found $1225 in Ahlum's chest Dr Bridges at this time had just returned from Englandt. Certain corres. pondence now afloat tend to show that at that pe culiar juncture he was not overbur 'ened with dollars - When he heard of Ahlum's $1225 then
when in prospective he saw them his-we can- not be surprized at what he did-What was it? Why-riding down all professional etiquette-- breaking through all legal rule-without waiting to be requested by a Solicitor-he paid a visit to the wholesale poisoner, in gaol;--and he said to him. "Ablum give me an order for your dirty money, "and I'll be the man to dust the eyes of a Jury for you," And now we will read the result of that attempt. in the 28th of January Eleven days after Mr Day had been reta ned fur the defence, we find a motion in the Court reported as follows..
SUPREME COURT.
#
28th January, 1957.
THE QUEEN . THE PotsONERS.
Dr. Bridges moved on behalf of the Prisoner
い
Alum of the Esing shop, that the Sheriff, Mr May, be ordered to pay over the sum of $1225, being m nies seized by the Sheriff on the premises and claimed on hehalf of the prisoner.
The Chief Justice said that the objection to this motion has that there were two sets of Alto nies relained. The Attorney General assented to this, but observed that there were also other grave objec tions. Mr Bridges enquired what brought the At torney General there at all? To such a question the learned gentleman expressed his surprize, as Mr Bridges having served the Sheriff with notice of his motion, must have been prepared to expect opposition both on the part of the Crown and the Sheriff.
The ourt then said that it most certainly would not make the order as sought. Whether a portion of the sum might be allowed was a different question. The Chief Justice here remarked that an affidavit of the prisoner himself had just come down from the gaol, c aiming the money as his own, and asserting himself to be quite solvent, and to be less indebted to other people than other people were to him. The Al- torney General still thought that the Court should pause. events, the Crown was now in possession, through its proper officer the Sheriff, and the latter was bound o consider himself a Trustee of the money until the trial was over. The Court was bound to pro- tect it from plunder.
#
*
Al all
Theourt suggested here the following arrange- ment: that the money should continus in the Sheriff's custody until the trial was over ;--that, in the event of the prisoner's acquittal, it should be paid over into his own hands, to be disposed of by himself—and that, in the opposite event of confiscation by his convic- tion, th Crown might consent to disburse such rea- sonrible expenses of his defence as the Court should allow. The Att rney General expressed his readiness to consent on behalf of the (rown; Mr Bridges however repudiated the suggestion, proposing instead of it that the court should now fix the amount. But this the court sail was not the way to over come the difficully In the end Mr Bridges reluctantly
consented.
A question then arose whether the court should con sider itself bound by the Fees and costs Ordinance, if called upon to determine what was a reasonable sum
and in this case the man was acquitted--was it not shocking to think that that arrest entailed certain ruin, was this our boasted English justice?
The members of the Jury being men of sonde experience of Chinese character, knew that these people were remarkable for three things -First
Great timidity-Second---Inordinate desire and Third-Recklessness of consequences in the mode of escape when indulgence of the last named propensity brought them into danger. Give a China man a contract by which he thinks he can make money, and mark the carelessness--the bold- ness with which he will borrow money at usuri- ous interest! Let his carelessness bring him into trouble mark again the ao-ence of all regard for the interests of others with which he will attempt to get out of the net. Look at the prisoner charg- ed with crime how he perjures himself if he thinks it will free him from his difficulty. Ab- lum's case was an illustration of all this. His destre ran for a Mandarin's button For that he risked his life For that he attempted to poison the whole of this community -But he was caught - his heart sank within him and what was the consequence ? Ulter disregard of the interests of those to whom he was indebted:---and the man to take advantage of that position was not far distant. Well--the Government knowing the timidity- the desire the recklessness referred to-knowing also that none know these things so well as law- yers, that, in fact, there never was such a field for an unscrupulous practitioner as this of Hongkong -knowing this, have ordained a scale of fees and costs. Government have said- we have it on the autho ity of the Attorney General who drew the Ordinance that the rdinance is mandatory Government have said to the timid Chinese when you are in trouble you shall not sacrifice the interests of those to whom you are indebted you shall not take your creditors' money and squander it in payment to a lawyer to get you out of your trouble-you shall only pay so much-and you, gentlemen of the bar, shal take no more T'hat was the position of the law as he the defendant un- derstood it Buf by whom was this law to be en-- forced? The Chief Justice can not be expected to go out of his way to see to it His Lordship, no. doubt, will do justice in all cases coming before unless aided by the Press. And now we come to Ahlum again. Was he in distress for legal defence? Had the bar to a man refused to aid him? Was-
to be allowed in the prisoner s advisers Mr Bridges insisted that the Ordinance did not apply to criminal, not more. cases":—bul on reference to it this was found to be erroneous The Attorney General contended, moreo ver, that the Ordinance was imperative and manda- tory, and, (except with regard to the one solitary fee payable on the brief at the trial) left no discretion to
the court
This was not all the report, but merely stick parts as went to show the action of the complainant For the truth of this report competent te-timony would presently be produced. Dr. Bridges then
could not get the money. He has admitted how.
ever that he got a thousand dollars-nbae of Ahium's money he has boastfully told us. But with the chance of getting it back out of that very $1,225 there could have been little dif- ficulty with Ahlum's friends in borrowing. Or could it have been that when he tried for that $1,225 Dr. Bridges had already obtained a thousand dollars, and he simply made an at tempt to get inore? It was not improbable! Dr. Bridges when asked when Ahlum's Chinese friends paid him a thousand dollars-and whether it was before or after the motion for 81,225-could give no answer just now. He did not know it was all the act of that useful man to a Hongkong Of- ficial "my comprador," No, we shall never know; though had Ahlum attempted to go through the Insolvent Court we might have obtained some satisfaction on the point.
And now to two other circumstances-important circumstances! One was Ahlum's affidavit from
the gaol that when he went in he was perfectly sol
vent the other the admission of the Governor!
of the Gaol, regarding his desire to take the benefit of the Insolvent act. Evidence would be produced shoving that payment of just debts did not pro. duce that Insolvency-and if just payments did not produce it--what then did produce it? Some or other must have had some whacking
one
it
No--the law cannot be enforced
necessary he should give Dr. Bridges a thou- sand dollars to defend him? Nothing of the kind.. He was well and ably defended, and he was not justified in taking the money that belonged to others, and in giving it to Dr. Bridges to gratify a.
whim.
It had been said Ablum had a right to give Dr.. Bridges as much as he pleased; and no Court Insolvent or other could challenge the payment. But this was ab urd. It would be a fine doctrine, indeed, if true, that when a man found himself in difficulty he could go to a lawyer and say--here "take this sum of money I will charge it in my
books as paid you for professional services " It could not be. An insolvent doing so, for acting fraudently would be returned to gaol-and this is just Ah um's case. He paid more than the law justified, and had he taken the benefit of the Ins
vent act he would have had to stand the cons quences. But up to the first examination in this cate no one knew what sum Dr Bridges really had had. It was kept a profound secret. Letters have been seen in which it is stated that £500 were paid for the de- fine--who had this money? Well, with all these antecedent these suspicious circumstances, was it not a duty from Dr Bridges to himself to mid he do so? Did he not keep the intention of re- in making every point as clear as the day ? Did
Crown Solicitor, the defendant's Solicitor, perhaps leasing Ahlam a profound secret? Seeing the
that time breath a hint?
What could be in
every day for twenty two days- did he once in ferred from such mysterious conduct as this?-- In a word what were the appearances?---and that was the question for the Jury to decide.
divest from their minds the impression that might Finally the defendant would beg the jurors to
sums--some pne or other must have come in for the "plunder" as the Attorney General called it. have obtained that in all he had written he was There appeared ample justification for the ideas actuated by selfish motive--that the loss of the thou propounded in the Friend of the 25th July, at sand and ten dollars was the sole moving power. all events. And was it not shocking to think that. It was not so. Either of the gentlemen of the Jury when a man happened to be arrested and thrown might have been similarly situated Ahlum might into gaot in this Colony-be the charge true or false have owed either of them, five thousand or ten
80