10.
f
11
292
identifying him.
Ic Rays he saw him 8 or 9 years ago at See Woo; then he attacked his junks again when 2th March, 1880. He never saw him till he came to his Court. A man in the shop told him his name. Defendant's name was Cheung A Yat. He says in the passage I have before quoted:
"We agreed to report to the Mandarin till last February.
A On gives details of the attack, and says the accused was recognized - they had two junks. Ho Ayik says nothing of two junks.
And it is curious that See A On did not recognize Chang A Chi; for, according to Ho Ayik, Chang A Chi came to Hongkong and told him his name.
Yet he recognized him when he was brought down in the sauce steamer as Chang Chi.
He made no report to the Mandarin till the month of February, the first time he spoke to the Mandarin about it.
If he really knew the accused when he was on board, what reason was there for the Mandarin to tell him the man he had to identify, and to agree upon his name?
The 3rd witness examined was kieng Tion, crew on board of the junk when Chang Chi attacked.