دولتم
1
24
REGINA v. LOGAN,
Mr. Wise-I want in the first place to put in the depositions that have been read.
lived about twelve years. I have held office for the Chinese Government, that of Vice-Consul at San Francisco, where I went about ten years ago, I have known the prisoner by sight for some time, having often seen him in the street, and I know the house he lives in. I also know the Yi Koe shop, I have measured
His Lordship-This is the time for me to ask you whether you intend to call any witness, and I wish to know whether you intend doing so.
Mr. Wise-I shall put in one deposition at any rate.
The Court was then adjourned till half past nine o'clock the following morning.
28th September, 1893. His Lordship took his seat upon the bench at 9.40 a.m.
the distance between his house and the shop by tape measurement, and the distance is 84 feet from the east corner of the Yi Koe shop to Mr. Logan's door, English measurement. The Yi Koo hong is to the west of Logan's house. I know the Yuen Mun Shi tea hong; it is on the north side of the street opposite the prisoner's and the two adjoining houses. The schoolmaster lives upstairs above the tea shop. I also know the Shun Chu Long tea hong; it is at the corner of the street in which Johnson's house is. From the east end of the bridge to the west corner of Fuk Hing-street is 44 feet, English measurement, and from the east corner of Fuk Hing-street to the centre of the cross-street, the distance is 82 feet. Since I have come back I have made inquiries about this case, and I have endeavoured to discover the prisoner's Chinese boy and woman, as I thought they would be good witnesses, but I could not find them. I asked a tea merchant there named Kow Fung Hung to attend the court, but he has not come, and has sent to say his mother is dead. A Chinaman does not show his face for three weeks and sometimes seven weeks after his mother's death.
Mr. Wise applied that the deposition of Lee Chok Wan, taken at the preliminary examination, should be put in as part of his case.
The Crown Advocate-I do not propose to offer any objection to the application; but there is one application I have to make; that is, that the interpreter may inform me whether the letters in the indictment correctly spell the name of the deceased.
Mr. Ball was then called and said-I have not seen the characters representing the deceased's name; as the witnesses pronounce the name it may be correctly spelt, but the pronunciation was like "kang", but that may be a bad pronunciation of the same word, which is very common. The more correct way of spelling the name in English is "king". I cannot say positively whether it is the correct spelling of the deceased's name as I have not seen the character.
The Crown Advocate-How did the father of the boy pronounce the name?
Mr. Ball-He pronounced the name "kang". And would that be the name by which he would be known to his father and the outside world? Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wise-I was at the house this morning. It is not under repair, and I am sure carpenters and workmen were not engaged in this house three days or so ago. I do not take any more interest in this case than I am obliged to do as an elder in the street. I am obliged to investigate any case of murder which occurs in the street. I have not looked up witnesses particularly for this case, excepting to get the evidence together.
Mr. Wise-Have you not smoothed it all off to see that all goes right?
Witness-I do not know what is right or what is wrong, I only got the witnesses together. Have you not taken them to a lawyer's office to see that all got their evidence properly? --No.
The Crown Advocate-That is the case for the Crown, my Lord.
His Lordship-Are you going to call any witnesses for the defence, Mr. Wise.
Mr. Wise-It is rather late now, your Lordship,
His Lordship-But I want to know whether you intend to call any.
And that sound is not correctly spelt by "king"?
The Crown Advocate then applied that the spelling of the name of the deceased on the indictment might be amended to "Hang" instead of "King", so as to be in accordance with the pronunciation of the name.
The alteration was made throughout the indictment.
His Lordship-Are you going to call any witnesses, Mr. Wise?
Mr. Wise-No, my Lord; but I wish to put in the depositions of Li Chok Wan taken before the Consul.
The deposition was then read by the Clerk of the Court, the material part being the statement
25
REGINA v. LOGAN.
it one of the foreigners held two revolvers fully; it was not for him (Mr. Wise) to make out who killed or wounded these persons, but it was for the Crown to show that the boy met with his death at the hands of the prisoner. As to the woman and the man who were wounded, that was not the point, which was whether the evidence convinced them that the prisoner killed the boy. Unless the evidence was such as to convince them upon that point their verdict must be in favour of the prisoner; if they had any reasonable doubt upon that point he was entitled to ask them to give the prisoner the benefit of it. In his opening speech the Crown Advocate had informed them that the prisoner had a stick in his hand with which he struck some coolies, and, according to the case for the prosecution, that was the commencement of the whole row; that the prisoner then went into his house and brought out a revolver. He then went back to the west with the two other Europeans, and chased the people, who ran; he then fired towards the west and wounded a woman. He (Mr. Wise) would ask the jury to believe that there was no evidence at all to bear out that part of the story. After this the prosecution alleged the prisoner went back to his house, followed by the woman, and got a larger weapon, and cartridges from his boy, and with a pistol or carbine he then went to the bridge, killed the boy and wounded the man. The Crown Advocate was evidently in doubt whether this was done by a pistol or a carbine, but he said it did not matter which it was so long as the jury were satisfied the prisoner killed them with either. It struck him that on the first day the witnesses were extremely pliable upon cross-examination, and he was able to get several facts from them that had not transpired from the examination-in-chief, but directly the line of the defence was shown and it was seen that a distinction was to be made between a pistol and a carbine then matters were very different. There was then no question between a revolver and a carbine, but it was then a long firearm which had killed the boy, and there was no question of a pistol except with one of the witnesses, who showed the length with his hand, and the length stated was found to be only an inch more than the revolvers in court. That witness had given the length of the weapon inclusive of the stock and barrel, but upon cross-examination of the witnesses on the second day, they all alleged that they were speaking of the length of the iron work, and not of the whole pistol. This was after the line of the defence had been shown.
The defense had to prove nothing, only that the Crown had not made out the case that the prisoner killed the boy. Mr. Wise then called his Lordship's attention to Taylor on Evidence, page 126, of the 1878 edition, which stated that one of the most important legal pre...
27