359
His Honor: What did she say! Does she know Mr Tonnachy?
Interpreter: Yes, my Lord, she knows him as the T'ai Cheong T'ou "The Great Headed Governor" (much laughter).
Witness continued, and deposed to the fact of her enforced detention in the house; she refused to go on board a ship to go to a foreign country; some of the prisoners had said something about the women going on board a ship at a given time to go to a foreign country. She said she would not go, and they said "You may do as you please," but did not let her go. "The Great Headed Governor" released her when he came to the house. There were one or two Chinamen in the room; but she did not know exactly as she was very confused.
Before commencing a cross-examination of the witness, Mr Barnard requested that the positions of the prisoners might be altered. His Honor consented, but he could not see how that could invalidate Mr Tonnachy's evidence. The witness, after answering a few questions, was directed to point out the prisoners she identified. She did so pointing out the same men as before. Mr Barnard said that was satisfactory, but directed a further experiment. His Honor suggested that frequent changes might confuse even the court; he thought that the witness had undergone a sufficiently hard ordeal.
Mr Barnard concurred; but he wanted now to satisfy himself as to which she identified as the master of the establishment; His Honor would see there were grades of criminality as the case stood.
Other evidence was given, but we must defer our report until to-morrow. Mr Barnard urged as part of the defence that prisoners had simply acted as servants to employers, who were the real culprits.
His Honor carefully summed up, and the jury retired at ten minutes past six to consider their verdict. They returned in a few minutes with a unanimous verdict of guilty on the second count,--that of false imprisonment; two were in favour of a verdict on the first count, that of imprisoning with intent to sell.
His Honor asked if prisoners had anything to say.
The prisoners all said they had been employed by other men.
His Honor: The best excuse you can offer for yourselves is, that you were engaged by others; who would have better filled your place at the bar. His Honor after a few remarks, sentenced the prisoners each to 12 calendar months' imprisonment.
The Court then rose. We shall give the remainder of the report to-morrow, and shall preserve it in full for our Overland edition.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Saturday, 24th November, 1866. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) THE KIDNAPPING CASE.
Our report of this case was brought down in yesterday's issue to the end of the cross-examination of Chu a Lin by Mr Barnard, who appeared for the defence. Subjoined we give the remainder of the trial.
Sung Akin said-I am now staying in the gaol. I came from a house with the last witness. A man called Choya Chin met me into that house. I was there more than ten days. I did not want to stay there, and I did not go because the door was locked.
A paper purporting to be a sort of bill of sale over the witness was here produced.
The Court objected to this paper being admitted as evidence against the prisoners on the charge before the Court, and the paper was accordingly withdrawn by the prosecution.
Examination resumed: I recognise all the prisoners; they were in the house in which I was. Last witness was also in the house; she appeared to be unhappy.
Cross examined: The trap door was kept closed except when food or tea was brought up.
Mr Barnard here put the question to the witness: Have you had any conversation relative to what you should say here to-day? This question was objected to by the Attorney General, who reminded Mr Barnard that there was a difference between civil actions and criminal prosecutions.
Yang-a-ho was next placed in the witness box. The witness appeared to be much frightened, and answers had to be drawn from her by persistent enquiries. When taken to the front of the dock to recognise the prisoners she was much alarmed, and had to be assured again and again that she had no cause for fear, before she would go close to the dock.
Witness said: I was in the house with the prisoners and identify all of them. I went to the house, as I heard I could get employment. I wanted to leave the house, but I could not get out. The prisoners told me that I was to go to New Bombay at $8 per month.
Cross examined, - Sometimes I had enough to eat, and sometimes not.
Inspector Langdon was next sworn and said: I was in charge of Wanchi Station on Oct. 27th. I went on that day with Mr Tonnachy to a house in Wanchi and arrested the prisoners. I had been to the house two or three times before. On one occasion I went and asked the 2nd prisoner whether he had any coolies. He replied, "no, but I have women." There is a trap-door at the top of the ladders which I have always found locked.
Cross examined: There was no difficulty in getting into the house. 2nd prisoner appeared to be master of the house. I have only seen the 1st prisoner in the house on the last occasion. The white paper marked A was pasted on the shutter of the ground floor facing the roadway. The first time I went to the house was about the beginning of the month.
The various papers were then formally put in, and the case for the prosecution being closed,
Mr Barnard rose for the defence. He felt that he had a most painful duty to perform. It was not often that a case of this nature came before a court. The offence charged was a very serious one, and he felt sure that that was one reason among others to induce the jury to weigh carefully all that they had heard said. The defence was this: the prisoners were in the house, and certain females were up-stairs. That could not be disputed. The points for consideration were two--first, the completion of the offence; secondly, if complete, which of the prisoners were guilty. To come to a proper conclusion the jury must well weigh what had been said with reference to that white paper (the Lobscheid certificate.) He laid this fact earnestly before them, for it had a material bearing on the case. These people, the prisoners, thought they were doing right, as was proved by the fact of their producing that paper, when asked for their authority. The learned counsel read the certificate and continued: Now if any one did an improper act, and imprisoned the people in the house, the real offenders were not the men before the Court. They were not the proper parties to be charged. The real offenders were the parties who issued that document, and these men were simply their instruments. Mr Tonnachy had told the Court that he did not believe...