the C.J. both in summing up and in passing sentence, recognised the serious character of the libel and admitted that Mr Nelson's
speech in the Chamber of Commerce
was a justification, yet he
was not
a circumstance that might be urged in mitigation of damages in a civil action
or of punishment
in a criminal prosecution, and accordingly he merely
sentenced the convict Piliman to pay a fine of $50 and to be imprisoned till the fine
was paid
The C.J. appears to me to
have taken a
very exaggerated
view of Mr Nelson's speech, but
this perhaps is a matter of opinion,
34 of Pamphlet
and however
386
However lenient the sentence
may have been I suppose it was within the discretion of the judge. The inequality or inadequacy of sentences is frequently a matter of public comment even in their country
I do not therefore
see that Mr Nelson has
made out any
mitigating
case for
an enquiry with
the administration of justice
in Hongkong.
But although Mr
Nelson's speech does appear to me to have been sufficient, scarcely any provocation at all beyond what public men in this country
are exposed to every hour, indeed it was contended by Mr Nelson's counsel that the convict Pitman's calling was a false and slanderous attack