(102)
THE QUEEN v. TARRANT.
DEPOSITIONS.
One
I was Attorney for Mah-chow Wong in the charge upon which he was convicted at the Criminal Sessions last year. I also attended at this Court at the several preliminary examinations. There were a great number of papers seized; they were in three separate batches: one brought from the Hong in Bonham Strand, one from prisoner's dwelling house, and one from the shop of a co-defendant. I understood they were all deposited at the Police Station. I applied to the investigating Magistrate for permission to inspect those books and papers on behalf of my client, but permission was refused by the Magistrate.
POLICE COURT, Saturday 7th August, 1858.
G. COOPER TURNER, examined on oath states. I have notified the present proceedings against the defendant in my capacity as Crown Solicitor for a certain libel against the defendant, as stated in the summons to which he now appears. I put in evidence a letter from Mr Tarrant dated the 4th of August instant* (letter marked 4) in which he admits himself to be the writer of the matter alleged as libellous. The opinion of the Attorney General has been taken on the subject matter of the libel, and upon that opinion, as being libellous of the Government of Hongkong, I received the instructions of His Excellency the Governor, through the Colonial Secretary, to institute proceedings against Mr Tarrant. I am prepared to prove the charge against the Government, as contained in the alleged libel, to be absolutely false.
I finally obtained access to the documents upon an order from the Chief Justice. [After the commitment, but before the trial.] I examined the papers through an interpreter named Ho-chun-seen, recommended to me by Dr Legge. I instructed my interpreter that the books were said to contain such and such entries; by such and such entries I mean entries tending to prove the complicity of my client with pirates. Tong-aku alleged the existence of such entries. On examination I found that though there were some discrepancies, yet, in substance, what Tong-Aku had stated was correct.
Statement made by Mr Tarrant at this stage of the proceedings.
"I received a copy of the minutes taken by the Commission in the Caldwell Inquiry on the 6th instant, from Mr Leverly. I have perused the evidence given by Mr Mongan, at page 41 of that Pamphlet,† at the meeting of 33rd of June. Had I read Mr Mongan's evidence before writing the complained of article, I should not have expressed myself in such strong language.
"If Government will be satisfied with my printing Mr Mongan's evidence, together with this statement, I am perfectly prepared to do so. I hold this to be tantamount to withdrawing the obnoxious words complained of just now by the Crown Solicitor."
Further hearing adjourned to Wednesday next, at 11 A.M.
SECOND HEARING.
Wednesday, 11th August, 1858.
MR TARRANT APPEARS AT THE BAR.
EDWARD KEATE STACE, examined on oath, states.
Page 100 supra.
Mr Jarman was present during my examination of that portion of the books which were at the Police Station, and an officer of the Court was present when I examined the portion at the Court. The entries did not prove the complicity of Ma-chow Wong with pirates. They were of the ordinary character of trading entries. I must have been misunderstood if I was taken to have stated anything contrary to this in the earlier part of my examination. Mr Caldwell's name was never reported by my examiner as appearing in the books or other documents either under his proper name, or under his Chinese name of Sam-qui, or under any other denomination whatsoever.
Neither was the name of Dr Bridges mentioned, nor that of any other government officer.
Neither was anything reported to me out of the documents leading me to suppose any complicity on the part of those persons named, or any public officer, with pirates.
† The pamphlet here referred to is reprinted within pages one and eight of these papers, and, in order to facilitate reference, the same numbering of the pages has been adhered to.
I found them.
(377)
事