the
defence has to take; if there is a discrepancy, he that the evidence
urges
is unreliable; if there is no discrepancy the evidence fits so well, it is a conspiracy. With the natural distrust any Juror has to all Asiatic testimony,
this line of argument is often fatal to a conviction. I may execute live
recently came under any
cases that
non-observation: in one,
Counsel
with a
not
reason
the prosecuting
the point of sitting down
Gesture indicative of disgust with of his witnesses, because he would
1 say anything with reference to
"Persian" as it was
depositions;
given in the
as a matter
of fact the
witnesses had spoken in the allegistrany
"Parzec". " In another case at
of a
the Magistracy
the
question was
"
that
3.3
100
"What remark did the prisoner make?
The question put
was
"What words were
" on the prisoner? et similar case is quoted "How was the prisoner addressed
by
the complainant?" Question put
How
10 as
the prisoner dressed? The irrelevancy of the
advocate way
、
be discovered, but then the natural com result is the utter confusion of the witnesses, for naturally the error would be laid against him,
him, and
China Mail
C,
20. April &, 1886.
Maliire
the
of his testimony shaken,
(c) The following report shows well the average intelligence of Commission Jury in this Colony
(Before Mr Justice Russell, Puisne Judge.)
The following gentlemen were sworn in as jurymen-Messrs J. W. Jamieson, E. N. da Silva, Arthur Turner, Ernesto F. do Rozario, E. J. Haghus, A. A. Eça da Silva and Robert Cooke.
ARMED ATTACK.
Chi Atuk was charged with cutting and wounding a shopman named Ching Aki on
the 1st inst.
Dr Ho Kai said the circumstances were that as Cheung Aki was going home about noon and was passing through Gilman's bazaar he was followed by five or six men
a
Who