that he appealed for protection to the master of the launch. I do not agree with the Magistrate that the evidence of U A-fat is unreliable. I have my suspicions that he was connected with the conspiracy; if Lan A-fung, widow of the murdered man is to be believed. U A-fung left his house on 10th October in company of U A-fat.
U A-fung does not say that he was with U A-young, yet this latter does not say this. It is a strange coincidence that he should be back on board of the launch with Chion A Yeung and make no appeal to the steersman or any kinsman. He endeavoured to save his life very possibly having been frightened by seeing Chinese soldiers on board.
Again he says he went with the widow and mother and three undertakers to Kowloon to obtain the body and, for some time, they could not find the head; the widow says that U A-fat did not go with them and that they found the head where it had been exposed.
Yet still, all the main facts of the kidnapping spoken to by him have been fully corroborated and I accept his evidence as a whole. We have, I submit, duplicate evidence of the fact that U A-fung was on board the launch, that there were some Chinese soldiers on board, that U A-fung jumped overboard, was picked up, forced on board and confined in the cabin or hold of the launch and taken direct to Kowloon City where he was ultimately beheaded.
On the 29th, we have ample evidence of this because these facts are deposed to by very different and independent witnesses.
1. Leung A-cheung, a coolie in the Hung Hom Police Station.
2. U A-fah, a lone-cutter.
3. Pang A-fat, master of the launch.
4. So Ah-wai, a widow who was...