t
thousand dollars He, the creator, trusted to his ↑ Business, and MF Parsons, 2-419[AT"
C.,'e Attorney, Solicitor-the Solicitor again trusted t the Sheriff had been left to prosecute on ther Me Brodersen and that functionary found his authority treated did not know how much had been received, but he as nil by an act of the Governor, or the Colonial expected, yet, to get more. (Mr. Parsons is in Mac) Secretary. Could such things be? For what did
Robert MacKenzie, Warden of the gaɔ!, was thị, we pay this expensive Court. 2-Where was the use next witness called; but though a sub ca for his of the Institution, if the interests of the mercantile appearance was issued in good time, Robert Me. community rested on such a possibility as this? Kenzie had that morning been sent to Macao He, the defendant, felt that, as men of business, the The defendant desired the Jury to take a note Jury must feel the force of every word he said, of this circumstance He could not belp feeling. and, when the time came, he should confidently that it was most curious. fle, the defendant, had; leave his case in their hands. As regarded what had seen and spoken to MacKenzie that morning, been sit by Dr Bridges of the wri ing in the pa-und his evidence would have gone to show how pers of the 22nd and the 25th of August, riz that the prisoner Ahlum was really received
it was a distortion of the truth from beginning to the defendant's address to the Jury it was stated "end," he, the defendant would produce spectators that the Sherff never saw the Council's warrant in the Police Court that day, men of as good judg---nor did be;-and if McKenzie had such warrant, ment as Dr Pridges, and certainly as truthful, it was certainly not until long after Ahlum was con- who would certify to the report being fair. As to fined under Mr May's commitment.) the style of examination, why it was only an attempt at imitation of Dr. Bridges's own it was a coarse style he admitted; but his object in adopting it was to give the learned Counsellor an opportunity of tasting a fillip from his own dish. Let those who were in Court at the trial of Tar. trani v. Ahlum call to their minds the insults to
which he, the defendant, bad then been subjected by Dr. Bridges; and that, too, whilst, he, the defendant, was performing an act of duty to the public. He should now call his witnesses.
As the defendant in this case is his own reporter" it will save space by furnishing, b. fore the deposi tion of each witness, the objects of the ex mination -printing only so much of the evidence as tend to show how far it proved the point. And as regards the first called, Cheong-Asow, a cousin of the Baker Ahlum, the objects were two-one to rebut Dr, Bridges's assertion at the Police Court that the Thousand dollars taken by him were none of Ablum's money; the other to show in what itale were Ablum's affairs, both when arrested and when released. Cheong-Asow's evidence on the 'first point was eren more satisfactory than was anticipated. Of the thousand dollars paid to Dr Brid- ger. Cheong-Ablum had repaid Asow Eight hon. dred; and as regarded the second, -though Ahlam was worth several tens of thousands of dollars when he went into gaol—at least $30,000. -when he came out he had not enough to pay the balance of the $1,000 lent as above stated;-in a word he was not worth $200. The petition for Ahlum's discharge a for the acquittal was drawn up by Mr Antrobus- The nexi witness, Tem Achoey, was called to show how true was Dr Biidges's assertion at the Police Court that the thousand dollars were taken to him by Tam Achoey and others; by which it had to be inferred that the money was none of Ahlum's, but had been subscribed by some Chinese to obtain their friend's release
"
Tam-Achoey's evidence was distinctly corro- horative of Cheong-Asow's "He never took Dr Bridges a furthing-never contributed a cent toward Ahlum's defence
expenses The next three witnesses called were, Mosers Cohen, Brodersen and Drinker, to afford the Jury some idea of the mode in which Ahlom's Estate was placed." Mr Drinker having business could not appear, but he furnished the defendant with a receipt by the Sheriff for $1,100, the price of bread hinde to a contract; also a statement to the effect that when this money was attached by the Sheriff, desire was expressed before payment to detain out of it a sam due by Ahlum to Thomas Hunt & Co.; and that only on the Sheriff's guarantee that Ahlam was solvent, and would afterwardı sa- tisfy T. Hunt & Co., was the money given up- (Messrs T Hant & Co. now, of course, alas feel aggrieved by Ahlum's discharge)
Mr Cohen stated that Ablem owed Phillips Moore & Co. some $1,200.-Taat after Ahlum was arrested on the prison charge they coniaenced their suit ;—that judgment went by default, and they oblained their money from the Sheriff out of funds of Ahlum's which that officer attached. Severd other parties obtained payment by pursuing a similar
course.
Mr Brodersen said, of$13,600, the gross amount of suite instipated by the firm of Pustau & Co. against Ablum, 812,000 was for Promissory Notes: given by him, for which vilue had no' been re- ceived (and yet Dr. Bridges advised Ahlum to t judgment on these very promissory notes go by default!) Ho, Mr Bruderson, knew very litla about the matter;-the Promissory Notes came into. the hands of the firm in the ordinary course of
Mr Huffun the Judge's Clork testified to the truth of the report of proceedings in Court on the 28th of January, as referred to by the defendant is
his address.
The Clerk of the Councils being sick, and in Macao, and his locum tenens knowing nothing, stify regarding the warrant issued under his Hia Excellen y the Governor was summoned to ndas to the no-repeal of Ordinanca No.3 of 1853-&e --but His Excellency stood on privilege and did not attend,
Mr Collins, Clerk to the Police Magistrates, Mr Walker J. P. and Mr Limond J. P. were summoned to furnish information regarding the al teration in the Gol regalationg, swing to which | alteration the power of Government was taken from the Sheriff and vested in a Governor. Mr Walker said he was not aware of the extent of the altera
ions-no copy of the new regulations had been given to him--Should consider the taking the power of government from the Sheriff and placing it in the hands of another person as the alteration of a funda. mental principle-foot such a modification as Justices are author ised in making. Two other Justices, to whom the defendant spoke on this subject, abscot in Macho during the trial, are equally ignorant of le modifications, or the way in which they were effected.)
The only civilian likely to have held a disin terested opinion at the Police Court on the day of the examination referred to by Dr. Bridges in his evidence on the defendant's report, viz, that it was a distortion of the truth &c" was subpoenaed- and for some time was in attendance at Court, He had left, however, when called, and the only other witness subpoenaed, Mr Jarman, Inspector of Police testified thus. The reports, to the best of my re "membrance, are fair and truthful"
Cross examined by the Acting Attorney General. "I did not hear the whole of the proceedings
I did not hear that part-I cannot testify to "the whole-I heard Dr. Bridges say he had had none of Ahlum's movy-he had had no money from "Alum." The lines here italicized refer to the spirit of the whole, and the bantering ex Samination which followed dil not disprove it.*]
Mr Day handed in a memo of fees obtained by him for managing Ablum's case. The amount W19 $485. When he undertook Abla-n's defence he had no idea Dr. Bridges wou'd be retained. Dr. Bridges took prec dence of him in manage- ment of the case by reason of seniority at the Bar,
Charles May, Esq Aeting Sheriff and Assistan Magistrate of Pol ce, after replying to preliminity questions by the defendat, volunteered a satement to the following effect. "At the close of the trial of Ahlum and the nine other prisoners in Febru ary last, I received a letter from the Colonial Se. cretary instructing me to detain them, the acquit. ted men, as characters dangerous to the peace; and in my capacity as a Justice of the Peace 1 i asued a warrant for their commitment, Under that warrant they were sent to gaol,
In cases where Prisoners are released on bail, the practice is for the Committing Magistrate to receive the recognizance. On the 30th of July Mr Inglis came to me with a letter addressed to him as Governor of the Gaol instructing him, if there was no civil process against Ahlum within twenty four hours after its receipt, and certain recog. nizances were given, to let him go. I did not see that the letter gave him any instructions to receive the bail, and xcted this the recognisince would be. ex-cured before me according to custom I told hum I held a writ against Ahlum but that some difficulty existed in serving it, buse he
was detained on criminal side. If he coul! be removed to the civil side I was prepared to arres him at once. He replied he had no instrue'i '98 to mve him to the civil aide. and could not do so. I then said I would arrest him the following morning. If I found I cou'd not arrest him I would let him know The writ was for $3,500. Ahlum, being on the criminal side I did not know how to serve it. The same difficulty existed at this time as did at the time of the issuing of the writ. When the writ was issued I spoke to the Registrar regarding it I did not think much about the maver, because I felt satisfied in my own mind that Arlum could not be released until the recognizance was tendered to me,
The next I heard of the matter was from Dr. Bridges. He came into to the Police Court and told me Ablum was gone, and asked how was it? 1 could scarcely credit the intelligence, and felt very much astonished I feared for the con- sequences of not having put the writ I held in suit. O looking again at it, however, I found the time bad run out, and that I was safe.--
Questioned by the Defendant "Had Mr Cooper Turner put in a detainer on account of my judg ment against Ablum--would it have detained him? --Awwer No, IT WOULD NOT--IT WOULD HAVE SHARED THE SAME FATE AS THE WRIT
The defenda: hereupon remarked that he re greitel to observe his Lordship the Chef Justice. was taking no note of this important evidence Court have it all in my nemory --It is no thing to do with the libel."
Defiant My Lord-this is my justification. Surely something was wrong here--It was certain. ly necessary for me to write as I did--it was a dity.
Court...It has nothing to do with the libel.
-
The only other witness called was Mr NR Masson, Acting Registrar, who was requested to state what would have been the amount allowed for Ablam's defence had Ablam gone through the lusivent Court-and if the amount paid had been disput. d. But here the defendant readily admits he miserably failed Mr Mason wai a taxing officer only. If the defendant wanted to know how much would be allowed, he mat first show how much work had been done TJ this the defendant responded,
that that was impossible--though had Alilum gone through the lasulvent Court the facts might have been gital
But he the defendant would take every fee in the schedule allowable to Counseland he would pay, say, for three retainers-three fees to leading Conncel at trial -three conferences —three motions for leave and three motions of course three other motions three refre-bere and three days of extra attendanc --well, --th aggregrate of all these triplicates was under the half of a thousand dollars-Even Mr Dy charged -and that gentleman having been retain ed as sole counsel charged as such, as a matter of Course even those untaxed, were loss than the half) of a thousand dollars, To all this Mr Masson re plied Dr. Bridges might charge as much as he pleased, and in t'ais apiawo i the Court coincided
It was close upon seven o'clock, the lumps of the Court were lit on the hat night of a Hongkong August, and the defendant felt satisfied — every one else in Court, too, must have felt entisfiet,
||
In summing up, His Lordship gave more credence to Dr. Bridges's than to Mr Jarman's evidence on this head. We did not cavil. We felt that with the Hongkong public our character for truthfulness might be safely pitted against that of Dr. Bridges, any day-His Lordship's apparent opi-i nion to the contrary notwithstanding.
that the ablest advocate at the bar would only fail in any attempt to prevent the Chief Justice from directing the Jury to find a libel. It was under such circumstances, without any offer of time to go over the evidence, the defendant was called on to finish his defence; and, briefly, be pointed out to the Jury that the great fact still remained unanswered by the prosecution that Colonial Ordinance 3 of 1853, vesting sole govern ment of the Gaol in the Sheriff, remained un- repealed; that whatever the Sheriff understood an the point it was clear as clear could be the release of Ahlum was contrary to the usual course. Mr Inglis, neither as a Justice of the Peace nor in any other capacity, had authority to treat the Sheriff's power as a nullity. The assertion by the Sheriff that even had the defendant's detainer been in, Ablum would have got out all the same, was a fact evincing the absolute necessity for the step he, the defendant, took in eliciting an in- vestigation. Again he urged the jury not to let the impaton obtain that he had acted from personal,sel- fish motive;—again be asked how they would have felt had they been similarly situated, and whether they would not have been aggrieved had the oppor. tunity to investigate Ablum's accounts in the in-- solvent Court been debarred to them ;--and, finally, he drew attention to the very important fact that that which as a rule is generally deemed the chief ingredient in a libel action viz, Malice --had not been clared.-Not a word had been said of Malice.— Why 1. Because it was impossible to show but that he the defendant had bren actuated by the purest motives—a desire for the public good. Contrast this with the animus of the complainant-Look at the style in which he gave his testimony. Bear in mind that singular circumstance that though he knew that Ahlum was to be released twenty two days before he was discharged, he kept the in tention a Becret--it was carefully concealed from public knowledge That this action had been prompted by malicious motives was clear to all, and so he hoped the Jury would stamp it in the verdict they would give.
The Chi f Justice, at the conclusion of Counsel. for Kingsmill's reply, addressing the Jury, said be supposed that at that late hour there was DO necessity for going over the evidence. There were, simply, two questiona-one was, was the matter charged as a libel- libet?—he other, if a libel, bad the defendant justified i'? and-On neither of those would the law exonerate. The Jury on this found on instant verdict of guilty, and the Court proceeded to foffici a fine of One Hundred Pounds, and imprisonment until it was paid,
The Prisoner's check on the Oriental Bank Cor. poration being accepted for the amount, he was released forthwith, without seeing the walls " and the affair-so far-ended.
;
81