Mr Wodehouse-I will now state the course I propose to take and be prepared to hear arguments against it. At the commencement of the proceedings on the previous occasions I informed the solicitors for the defence that the examination of the witness, Leung Yow, having been completed, I considered that, if his evidence was to be believed, a prima facie case was made out against the prisoners; and that I understood the solicitors for the defence had evidence in their possession which would go to show that the whole of this witness's evidence was false-that he was not present at the robbery and that he was not the man he represented himself to be. Under these circumstances I called upon the solicitors for the defence to prove their case against the witness, Leung Yow. They then called evidence to the effect that this man, instead of being the man he represented himself to be, was an old Chinese prisoner and that he was branded; and the evidence that was given, so far as time permitted, supported their contention. Evidence was also given by Dr Hurtig further in support of that contention, showing that the man had marks on his arm, contrary to what he himself had stated. There being no time that evening to go further into the case, I adjourned the Court.
Before doing so, Mr Dennys on behalf of his clients and Mr Holmes on behalf of his client applied to have the prisoners immediately released and to have the Colonel in charge of the case prosecuted for subornation of perjury and the witness Leung Yow for perjury. Upon hearing what they had to say on behalf of that course being taken I decided that the case at that stage of the proceedings was not sufficiently advanced to permit of my taking any action, but I said that if the solicitors had information of which I was not in possession it was open for them to take any steps they thought fit, and that with the view of allowing the solicitors to take the steps they thought best, I remanded the case till to-day.
Mr Quincey has now stated that proceedings have been taken against Leung Yow, the one with whom I am concerned, on a charge of perjury. Under these circumstances I consider it my duty to remand this case from time to time until proceedings in the other case terminate, and also I consider that I ought to give notice to Mr Francis that if the charge is proved against the witness, Leung Yow, unless any opinion very much changes, I shall find that no prima facie case has been made out against the prisoners and that they should be discharged. If I discharge them, I do not intend it to be inferred, however, that I do not consider the prisoners guilty, only that there is no prima facie case made out against them in this Court, and that if the Chinese Government know that they are guilty and are prepared with evidence that this Court can believe to prove it, by my giving notice now to Mr Francis of the course I shall take, it will be open for the Chinese Government to take any steps they like. My decision now, however, is to remand this case from week to week until the case against Leung Yow is decided.
123
Before the Court adjourned, Mr Francis asked if it would be competent to bring fresh witnesses in the event of the witness being convicted of perjury. I reserved the point for consideration and the case was adjourned for a week again.
Upon the Court meeting again, I informed Mr Francis that I considered that if the witness was guilty of perjury, it would in my opinion vitiate the whole proceedings, and that I should discharge the prisoners. I was of that opinion and thought it right to let him know in order that he might not be taken by surprise.