44.
252
a
been flagged as on buy.
I saw the apparent insufficiency of evidence. 3rd the doubtful legality of the manner in which the prisoner has been brought within the provisions of Section 7 of Ordinance N. 9 of 1887.
Finally, with regard to the age of the prisoner. In his first conviction, 9th March 1874, he stated to the Chinese Officer of the gaol that he was 18 years of age although he was clearly under age.
The entire period between 1st Conviction and 4th Conviction Arrests was 18 months and ten days. On the 2nd Conviction, 1 month afterwards he stated he was 21 years of age. The latter age is dubious (as is commonly resorted to) in order to escape from the order of flogging.
On the 3rd Conviction (six months intervening) the prisoner stated he was 14 years of age, unquestionably younger, because by the Chinese method of calculating age the year of birth and the year of statement are each given in full year, consequently he would have been between 13 & 14 years old at the 4th Conviction.
In deciding this case, the two magistrates together and under the provisions of the Ordinance (Section xiii of N:16 of 1875.) the prisoner upon the basis of the age first given by himself...