283
which I will hereafter allude.
Other witnesses produced in support of the charge of theft. A yik, a trader, was examined as a witness against Cheang Ati. No a lik says that on the 12th March 1880 he had vegetables and shrimps on board a boat on which he was a passenger and that when they arrived at Pring Hoi, Cheang Ayu was robbed. That he and Cheung ate cause went into the hold and that when the goods had been removed they sailed back to their native place.
This is, I submit, a very meagre account of the occurrence; for instance, he says he knows defendant, but is not asked how or when. He does not say when he came or where, nor does he give any details of the attack on board the junk. He merely says: "We arrived near Sing Hoi. Defendant robbed us. I was in the hold in the middle of the junk. Cheng et yat and Cheung ate cause went into the hold. Cheng et yat, defendant, caused me to go into the hold in which I was. They removed the goods. For some time they did it. Removed it to his own junk."
The whole question turns upon the identity of Cheung et yat. When in cross-examination he is asked about his knowledge of the defendant and his whereabouts, he says: "On the night my goods were taken away. Defendant lives at Cha Kic. I knew defendant.