( 34 )
rectors, if they could not be inquired into the subject, the Chamber is hardly entitled here by a jury? Where was the evidence to consider that the question lay before that Mr Nelson could not attend to the them. I learn from Chinese sources that duties of his bank ? Was that a light the Memorial which was presented the other day was got up by a gentleman rather well known in the Colony, who is in the employ of the Japanese Government, and charge came of malice. A mere outsider, who is more or less mixed up with the Opium Farm and other matters in the Colony, and who is on very intimate and friendly terms with the head of the Government in Hongkong, Now bearing in mind the manner in which equally spontaneous expressions of opinion on other matters have been utilised in the Colony, I think one may justly come to the conclusion something is to be done in this matter, and I think, in the absence of any communication from the Government. It is not unbecoming on the part of the Chamber to invite some little amount of confidence in the matter, supposing anything is being done.”
MR. NELSON'S EVIDENCE,
Mr H. H. Nelson, said: I am the manager of the Chartered Mercantile's Bank of India London and China, and have been so for the last six years. I commenced my business life with the bank sixteen years ago. The Head Office is in London. The Bank is controlled by a Board of Directors. Mr W. Jackson a Secretary and Acting Inspector travels about and reports on the Branches. He visited Hongkong on duty in March last. Mr Jackson handed me the letter produced just as it is, with the exception of the underscoring. This was on the 30th March, the day after he got it. Mr Jackson has now gone home, to England. I knew Mr Alex MacGlashan Heaton. He was a broker in this Colony, he is now dead. He died in the latter end of 1879.
Cross-examined:-The Chartered Mercantile Bank issues notes, It also receives deposits from customers generally, The Bank is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and I am the Bank's representative. The Bank pays the subscription. I am also Vice Chairman. I was present at the meeting of February 23rd, I made several speeches at the meeting of the 28th February. The Report shown in the Chamber "book" is, I believe, taken from the newspapers. I presume it is approved by the Secretary, I am a member of Committee. I see a report here of a speech I made.
Mr Francis: Will you read it ? Question objected to and argued; objection overruled.
Report put in and read, Mr Francis reading it, as follows:---
“Mr Nelson. In the absence of any communication from the Government on the subject, I suggest the Secretary put himself in communication with the Government and make an inquiry whether anything is being done.”
Mr Nelson, further cross-examined said: That is a tolerably correct report of what I said. Each and every one of these references is to Mr Pitman.
Question put "what do you mean by 'equally spontaneous,'" Question objected to, and objection upheld after a long argument.
In this argument His Lordship, addressing Mr Bayllar, suggested that one object in going into a long examination on this point would be that it would take the jury entirely away from the point at issue.
Mr Francis submitted that it would do nothing of the kind, and that his Lordship ought not to have made such a remark.
His Lordship then told Mr Francis that he would not be told by Mr Francis what he ought to do and what not, If he had done wrong, Mr Francis should take the proper course to have it put right.
Mr Francis submitted that he was not. The point was reserved by his Lordship, at Mr Francis' request, as to whether the question "What did the witness mean in his speech by 'equally spontaneous,'" should not have been allowed; several other questions of the same nature were disallowed, Counsel not being allowed to ask any questions as to the meaning of certain phrases in the letter.
( 35 )
The farther evidence of Mr Nelson was to the effect that he knew that Mr Pitman had some connection with the Opium Farm, but did not know its precise nature. There was at that time $50,000 in the C. M. B. at the credit of the Opium farmer; Government had the receipts; it was a guarantee. He continued," Mr Jackson made no enquiry on the subject matter of Mr Pitman's letter. As a broker Mr Heaton had share transactions with me. As a matter of fact I have bought and sold shares, for myself and for the Bank's customers, I have never had any share transaction in the nature of time bargains. I have never had dealings in shares in which a settlement was to have been made by the receipt or difference, either on my own account, or on the account of any other person, so far as my memory serves me."
Mr Blogg proved Mr Pitman's signature.
The Court then adjourned for tiffin.
THE DEPOSITIONS OF MR JACKSON'S EVIDENCE NOT RECEIVED,
The Chief Justice: Cui bono, the evidence of Mr Jackson,
Mr Hayllar: Well, my Lord, I do not press it. That is the case for the prosecution.
The Chief Justice: I quite see, Mr Francis, some portions of it that it might have been advisable even for you to have...
Mr Francis: In a civil case, my Lord, no doubt.
On the Court reassembling, Mr Hayllar tendered the depositions containing the evidence of Mr William Jackson taken before the committing magistrate (Mr C. V. Creagh) on Wednesday, March 31st.
Mr Hayllar read sec. 2 of ord. 6 of 1864 (an ordinance to render admissible in certain cases the depositions of witnesses who cannot be produced at the trial) "by which whenever it shall be proved by the oath of any credible witness or shall in any other manner whatever appear to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court, that the Attorney General or other person conducting a criminal prosecution on behalf of the Crown is unable to produce at the trial of the accused any person as a witness in consequence of his absence from the Colony and if it shall also appear that such person was examined before a magistrate and that the examination was taken in the presence of the accused and that he or his Counsel or his Attorney had a full opportunity of cross-examining such person and that the examination of such person was reduced into writing and read over to and signed by the person examined it shall be lawful for the Court and it is hereby required to allow to be read and received in evidence so much of the said examination as would have been admissible had the said person been produced and examined before the Supreme Court in the ordinary and accustomed manner."
Mr Hayllar contended that while he appeared on behalf of Mr Nelson as a private prosecutor, he in fact did appear on behalf of the Crown, all criminal prosecutions being in name of the Crown, the case being Regina v. Nelson.
Mr Francis objected to the admission of the depositions on two grounds. First it did not appear that it had been read over and signed by witness. The charge then before the Court was under Section 4 of Lord Campbell's Act; the charge now was under Section 5. The grounds of defence would naturally be different under these two sections; the line of cross-examination different. There had not therefore been a full opportunity of cross-examining the witness then; no opportunity at all in fact.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Mr Francis desired to call Mr Ryrie to ask him if his Lordship would allow him to ask what his understanding was of the speech made by Mr Nelson at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, at which he was present.
The Chief Justice said he had read his evidence. Mr Ryrie did not go into the meaning of Mr Nelson's speech any further than any man of ordinary common sense could do. It was his interpretation of how this speech—Mr Nelson's remarks described as containing a gibe, a very emphatic word—was to be taken. He believed any man of ordinary common sense was quite capable of answering that question for himself.
Mr Francis said that as his learned friend had told them in opening this trial it had caused, he had no doubt, in the Colony a great deal of interest and possibly excitement. His learned friend had asked him and he asked them to put all that aside and ...