THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, THURSDAY, OCT. 14, 1869.
SUPREME COURT. SPECIAL CRIMINAL SESSION. (Before the Hon. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and a Jury.)
October 14, 1869.
The following Jurors answered to their names—Messrs Silveira, Medlin, Da Roza, Barradas, Ward, Scott, A. Pereira, and Babey (the last being excused because of the arrival of the French mail).
THE BORNEO MURDER.
Lum Ayee, cabin-boy, was charged with having wilfully murdered Donald Carlton, the chief officer of the barque Nile, on board the barque Jane, while lying at Samarinda, a place on the Cowie river in Borneo, on the evening of the 10th of August. Prisoner, on being arraigned, pleaded guilty, or rather said that he had struck the chief officer, but did not know whether he was dead or not. Upon further explanation, this plea was taken as one of *not guilty*.
At the request of the Acting Chief Justice Mr Hayllar said that, as no one defended the prisoner, and as Mr Whyte was sitting in the other Court, he would gladly watch the case for the prisoner.
The Acting Attorney General stated the facts of the case very clearly, adding that, though no one actually saw the deceased struck by the prisoner, there was little doubt that prisoner was the man by whom the murder was committed. (The facts, however, have been fully given in these columns, and need not be here repeated.) There could be no possible doubt that prisoner struck the blow which killed Mr Carlton, though no eye saw the wound inflicted. There was no time between Abel's fall and the death-blow given to Carlton, and the axe could not have been handed to any one else. If, therefore, according to the evidence, the Jury were satisfied that prisoner struck Abel, and that the axe produced was a likely weapon to inflict the blow on the unfortunate deceased, then they were bound to bring in a verdict of guilty.
Mr Hayllar, on prisoner's behalf, questioned the jurisdiction of the Court, the crime having been committed fifty miles up a river in Borneo; and his Lordship (as well as the Acting Attorney General) said it was quite right so to do. But the Court was of opinion that the objection could not lie, as the Court had jurisdiction over those belonging to any British ship in any waters, so long as she was a British ship, and within those waters.
Abel, mate of the Jane, was first called. He detailed the facts connected with the missing earrings belonging to the Chinese girl, which were the beginning of the difficulty, and which prisoner was accused of having stolen. After the cabin had been searched over and over again, the earrings were found under the chest of drawers, and witness accused him of being a thief, and turned him out of the cabin. Before that, however, Carlton had said "Flog the son of a b——," but witness refused to do so. This was said in hearing of the prisoner. Going out of the cabin, he saw the prisoner outside, and ordered him forward, upon which prisoner at once gave him a blow on the head, which stunned him and knocked him over; upon trying to get up, he received another blow on the left thigh, which rendered him insensible; and when he came back to the medicine-chest, he saw Carlton lying dead.
Ahkum, the Chinese female on board, was next examined, and she narrated what took place regarding the earrings which she lost and afterwards found. She next described how the prisoner was turned out of the cabin, and said she saw the prisoner standing or walking outside the cabin shortly before the blows were struck. She saw Abel go out, then she heard him cry "al-yah," upon which Carlton ran out, crying "What for? what for?" Immediately after this, Carlton came back, staggering and bleeding; and she ran away to another ship.
Samuel Richardson, master of the Jane, was the next witness, and he proved that the Jane is a British vessel. The captain also described what he saw on going on board his vessel on the night of the 10th August. In the cabin was a pool of blood; Carlton was lying dead, having a gaping wound in the left breast, and Abel was sitting on the sofa in the fore cabin wounded in the head and thigh. Prisoner was not then to be found, but was brought on board by the Dutch resident about twelve days afterwards.
This closed the case for the Crown.
Mr Hayllar then addressed the Jury. He said that it was difficult for one who had volunteered to defend a prisoner to do justice to a case; but he found the evidence submitted to be very simple, even mournfully simple. However, regarding the certainty of the blow having been struck, the Jury would bear in mind that no one saw it; and in a case where the results were so serious, any doubt would be for the benefit of the prisoner. Another and more serious question presented itself, viz., whether this homicide could be regarded as murder. Though homicide was regarded prima facie as an act of the graver kind, still the circumstances surrounding the committal of that act sometimes reduced it from the higher to the lower grade; and any circumstances which might honestly and fairly be regarded as calculated to have this result ought to be carefully considered. Now, considering the irascible and quick temperament of the Chinese, was this act committed in quick and sudden passion, or was it a deliberate attempt to take away the life of a human being? There was no expressed malice, and there seemed to have been no standing feeling of bitterness; nor does there appear to have existed any disposition to slay and kill without a certain amount of provocation: the boy had been accused of being a thief, on nothing more than presumptive evidence, according to Abel (who had given his evidence very impartially); and the question was whether such an accusation will appeal with sufficient force, to a man knowing himself to be honest, to induce a resort to such violence. Another thing remained; did sufficient time elapse between prisoner's being pushed and the alleged death of Carlton to form a cool and deliberate judgment? He submitted that the time was too short for that, and that prisoner had gone out smarting under the accusation, and taken up the first weapon he laid his hands on, and did the act on the spur of the moment—it was a sudden act done while the boy's passion was aroused beyond his control and when he had suffered a certain amount of provocation. That which had been given by deceased was the advice to the mate (Abel) to string up the son of a b—— and flog him, and this may have been regarded as an unwarrantable interference by an outsider in the general good treatment received at the hands of his own officers. He did not justify for a moment such acts; but he put it that the provocation and the absence of deliberation reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter. It was a grave and solemn case, and they had a solemn duty to perform; he was confident that if the Jury saw their way to affix any doubt upon the matter of malice, they would exercise their power accordingly, and he would leave the case in their hands.
The Acting Chief Justice, in shortly summing up, remarked that of course murder implied premeditation and malice, and a man killing another in a sudden fight or during an encounter, he would be guilty only of manslaughter. But this case was no fight, but a deliberate attack with a deadly weapon. It was truly shocking to find a youth charged with such an outrage, but society must be protected from outrages of that description. The little altercation in the cabin could not be regarded as sufficient provocation, as Mr Abel appeared to have acted with great moderation; and nothing but a most deadly encounter could even palliate the use of a deadly weapon.
Page 4191