20
# MINUTE BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.
I shall have much pleasure in submitting the details of the proposed association for the consideration of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
I have recently expressed to Mr. FUNG MING SHAN and the other Chinese gentlemen who nearly twelve months ago brought this important matter to my notice, my best thanks for their valuable co-operation in checking kidnapping and the disgraceful traffic in human beings.
(C.S.O.1606 of 1879.)
J. POPE HENNESSY. 7th October, 1879.
# FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.
THE SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG,
May 30th, 1879.
SIR—I have the honour to acquaint His Excellency the Governor that I yesterday sentenced Loo A-sü and CH'AN A-fü, two poor women, for detaining a male child LI A-PIU aged 13 years, against the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 of 1865, paragraph 50 and 51, to imprisonment with hard labour for 18 months each.
On the evidence it appeared that they sold the child to LAU PAK-CHEONG, a druggist at Yau-má-ti, for $174 and the child stayed with him as his servant for over twenty days when his relatives came from Canton and claimed him, but the druggist insisted on his right to possession of the boy producing a Bill of Sale and the boy was not given up till the parties appeared in the Police Court.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the great criminal was LAU PAK-CHEONG, and that it is an opprobrium to the administration of Justice to punish these poor women as I have done, and allow LAU PAK-CHEONG to escape. I therefore ask His Excellency to direct that proceedings be forthwith taken against LAU PAK-CHEONG and that the case be conducted at the Magistracy by the Crown Solicitor, so that LAU PAK-CHEONG may be committed for trial before the Supreme Court under the above-named Ordinance.
2. I have also to inform His Excellency that on the Special Criminal Sessions on the 6th May instant, a woman MAK LOI-HI convicted of stealing a female child NE A-SO of the age of 9 years by force under Ordinance No. 4 of 1865, paragraph 51, to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
This poor woman was merely a middle woman and received a small sum, but it came out in evidence that LEUNG A-LUK had bought the child for $53, and was actually confining her in a room when the child was discovered. She was the great criminal. It is an opprobrium to Justice to punish this poor woman MAK LOI-HI and to allow LEUNG A-LUK to go unpunished.
I therefore ask His Excellency to direct that proceedings be forthwith taken against LEUNG A-LUK and that the case be conducted at the Magistracy by the Crown Solicitor, so that LEUNG A-LUK may be committed for trial before the Supreme Court on the above-named Ordinance.
3. I am aware that according to precedents here and at home it is within the province of the presiding Judge to direct prosecutions such as these to be instituted, but I think it more convenient to ask His Excellency as the head of the Executive (whose province it especially is to originate Criminal proceedings) to direct prosecution.
4. To let these two chief offenders go unprosecuted and to punish such poor miserable creatures, exposes the Court to the contempt of the community and tends to destroy all respect for the administration of Justice in the Chinese community.
It is no objection to proceeding against these two persons that they were witnesses examined on the two trials.
According to law the evidence given by each on the former trials might be read against him or her; but I advise this not to be done (see 3 Rus. on C. and M. p.p. 411 and 412, 4 Ed. 1865.)
That the proceedings sought are right and proper and necessary, I take on myself the responsibility of emphatically asserting, any trial should be before Mr. Justice FRANCIS.
Herewith are the information and depositions before the Magistrate in each case which be pleased to return to me, they being records of this Court.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
(Signed,)
JOHN SMALE, Chief Justice.
# MINUTE BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR ON C.S.O.1606 of 1879, TO THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL.
1. It is clear from the evidence and documents published by the Contagious Diseases Commission that practices of this kind have prevailed unchecked, or almost unchecked, for many years past in this Colony.
2. Last year I drew the Attorney General's (Mr. PHILIPPO) attention to a petition from a father for the restoration of his child, but Mr. PHILIPPO, before whom the papers were laid, did not seem disposed to enforce the rights of the father on the ground that he had sold the child. It would be well to get the Petition and read the minutes on it.
3. I did not agree with Mr. PHILIPPO's view of the law.
4. If the Acting Attorney General thinks he can obtain a conviction in the case to which the Chief Justice now calls attention, or any similar case, my wish is that the Law be strictly enforced.
(Signed,)
J. POPE HENNESSY,
30th May, 1879.
Note.—Governor HENNESSY left for Japan on the 31st of May, 1879. The Colonial Secretary, Mr. W. H. MARSH, administered the Government till the Governor's return, 6th of September, 1879.
# MINUTE BY THE HONOURABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR ON THE GOVERNOR'S MINUTE.
I think the Magistrate who committed for trial in these two cases should have an opportunity of perusing the Chief Justice's letter and of explaining why he discharged the two persons whom it is now suggested should be prosecuted. Refer to him accordingly.
(Signed,)
W. H. MARSH. 9th June, 1879.
# REPORT BY THE ACTING POLICE MAGISTRATE,
Regina v. Swo A-sü and another.
In this case the druggist Lau Pak-cheung was not discharged, he only appeared before me as a witness for the prosecution.
Regina v. Mak Loi-hi.
It appeared to me that Mak Loi-hi, who, according to the evidence, found the child crying in the street and under the pretence of finding and restoring her to her mother, took her about and offered her for sale, was the chief actor in the crime, and as I considered that the unsupported evidence of the child was insufficient to secure her conviction, I discharged the 4th defendant, and made her a witness at the request of Inspector LINDSAY who believed that from the inquiries he had made she had purchased the girl on the supposition that the latter had been sold with her father's consent.
When recalled the child herself stated that she told the 4th defendant that this was the case "because 1st defendant told me to say so.
53
To obtain a conviction under paragraph 50 and 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1865 it must be proved that the child was detained,
1. With intent to sell him or her or to procure a ransom or benefit for his or her liberation.
2. "With intent to deprive any parent, guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of such child of the possession of such child, or
3. With intent to steal any article upon or about the person of such child" and I considered that while the evidence of a criminal intention was very slight in the case of the 4th defendant, she would be an important witness against the actual kidnapper of the girl.