It appeared to me that 4th defendant, being a well-to-do woman and having no children of her own, had purchased the girl with a view to adopting her as a daughter in the belief that she did so with the father's sanction.
11th June, 1879.
(Signed,) C. V. CREAGH,
Acting Police Magistrate.
When Acting Captain Superintendent of Police last year, I wished to prosecute a man for detaining a child under this Ordinance, but as it was shewn that the boy had been sold by his father some months previously, the Attorney General (Mr. PHILLIPPO) considered that the purchaser was in loco parentis and could not be punished.
C. V. CREAGH,
Acting Police Magistrate.
11th June, 1879.
(Signed,)
MINUTE BY THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ON C.S.O.1606 of 1879.
I handed these papers to the Crown Solicitor with instructions to see what evidence is forthcoming and I beg to enclose his report.
With the greatest respect for the Chief Justice I doubt the policy of prosecuting the woman he refers to, having regard to the fact that the Magistrate had discharged her for want of testimony, and looking to his further report. The Magistrate should always be supported when it is possible, and if he discharged the woman and put her in the box as a witness and she was used again at the Supreme Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now as a criminal.
The other two women I could see less reason for discharging, and I think perhaps should have had them charged, but I felt that that would be a grave slight on the Magistrate.
As to the druggist's case I think that the only thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of faith to proceed against him now.
The Chief Justice reprimanded all the parties very severely when passing sentence on the others, and I think they were so frightened that they will not engage in such acts again. However in this case I am quite ready to sink my own opinion, and prosecute if it is deemed politic.
5th July, 1879.
(Signed,) J. RUSSELL,
Acting Attorney General.
REPORT BY CROWN SOLICITOR ON C.S.O.1606 of 1879.
Regina v. Soo A-su and another.
In this case I find that the boy LER A-PIU and also LAM A-TING of the Sun-kee Tailor's Shop in or near Canton, where the lad was apprenticed, both left the Colony immediately after the trial, and have not since been heard of. Possibly these witnesses might be got at through the British Consul at Canton, but without their evidence any charge brought against LAM PAK-CHEUNG the druggist could not be well substantiated,
Unfortunately no other evidence is forthcoming, and Inspector CAMERON can find no trace of the man A-KAM who stole the lad at Canton, or of the woman A-NG, both of whom seem to have decamped on hearing that the Police had been applied to in the matter.
The druggist was himself the first to complain to the Police, and apparently bought the boy with no evil intention, and under the impression that he was an orphan without a home. The child too says that he never told the druggist that he had any home, and expressed no desire to leave him.
The purchase by Chinese (having no family of their own) of young orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep them is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant occurrence in Hongkong. These "pocket children," as they are usually termed, are often treated with great affection and are far better off than they were previous to their being so bought.
Regina v. Mak Loi-hi.
With the aid of Inspector LINDSAY, I have carefully investigated this case. CHEUNG A-KAI, and SEUNG A-LUK, 2nd and 4th defendants, discharged at the Police Court have already given their sworn testimony at the recent Criminal Sessions. Should it however after this be thought desirable to put them on trial. I think there may be sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. LUM A-CHAN, 3rd defendant, seems to have taken a minor part in the affair, and would be required as a witness.
Two Magistrates sitting together have power to determine cases of this nature.
(Signed,)
EDMUND SHARP, Crown Solicitor.
No. 900
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 16th July, 1879.
SIR,---I have the honour to inform you that your letter of 30th May last recommending that proceedings be taken against Lau PAT-CHEUNG and LEUNG A-LUK under Ordinance 4 of 1865, paragraphs 50 and 51, was referred by His Excellency Governor HENNESSY to the Acting Attorney General who, before making a report, asked that the papers might be referred to the committing Magistrate.
I have now received the report of the Acting Attorney General as well as those of the committing Magistrate and of the Crown Solicitor and I regret to inform you that after carefully considering these reports as well as the depositions forwarded by your Honour, I do not see my way to directing the prosecutions of the two persons indicated by you, first because, with all deference to your Honour's opinion, I do not agree with you in looking upon them as the principal criminals, and secondly because I think that after the evidence of these persons has been taken before both the committing Magistrate and the Supreme Court without any warning having been given to them that their evidence might be used against them, it would appear like a breach of faith to treat them now as criminals.
A perusal of the depositions which you forwarded me and which I now return does not show that either of these persons obtained possession of the children for immoral purposes. It appears also from the depositions that they were led by the statements of the prisoners who have been sentenced by you, which statements were confirmed by the children themselves to believe that one of the children had no parents and that the other was disposed of with the written consent of the father alleged to be the only surviving parent. Neither of the children seem to have been ill-treated and the Magistrate has expressed the opinion with regard to the woman LEUNG A-LUK that "being a well-to-do woman and having no children of her own, she had purchased the child with a view of adopting her as a daughter in the belief that she did so with the father's sanction."
Should the prosecution of these persons result in their acquittal which seems to me not improbable, I fear that the good effect produced by the severe reprimand which I understand that your Honour administered publicly to all the parties concerned in these two cases might be to a great extent neutralized.
As your Honour's letter has remained for some time unanswered, I think it only right that I should acquaint you without further delay with the opinion that I have formed on the subject of your communication. But as your letter has been under the consideration of Governor HENNESSY, whose departure for Japan prevented him from finally dealing with it, there seems to me to be no reason why the matter should not be left, if your Honour wishes it for the decision of His Excellency on his return to the Colony, when it will not be too late to take proceedings against the parties should it be thought necessary to adopt that course.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
His Honour THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.,
Your obedient Servant,
W. H. MARSH,
Administrator.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO COLONIAL SECRETARY.
THE SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG, 8th October, 1879.
SIR, The Criminal calendar for September, 1879, was sent to you in due course yesterday. It comprises three cases, case No. 1, a conviction of LEE A-KAU for kidnapping and detaining a child aged ... years. Case No. 6, a conviction of TSANG SZ-TAU and U A-IN on two counts for kidnapping and detaining a boy Ho Po-SING with intent to sell him in this Colony, and on two other counts for the same offence as to another boy YEUNG-SHING, and case No. 9, a conviction of KEUNG A-TO for purchasing a female child TING-HENG for the purpose of prostitution in this Colony, and of LI A-KAK for having sold the same child for the same purpose.
I thought it my duty on the occasion of passing sentences on these prisoners to enlarge on the crimes to which these crimes ministered the great increase of which in number had recently been brought to the notice of the Court especially slavery, usually designated domestic, and slavery for the purposes of prostitution and seeing that arguments, doubts and difficulties had been rather hinted at than fully expressed, I thought it incumbent on me to enter very fully into all the questions at a length which otherwise might be thought too prolix.
21