I stated that the Magistrate had acted irregularly contrary to all practice in postponing his decision in the case before him until the verdict in the perjury case. And I further took exception to his statement that if Leung Yau was convicted of paying, it would vitiate the whole of the evidence. It is clear from this statement that the Magistrate intended to be guided by the verdict in the perjury case, and I pointed out that this was irregular. In doing so, I was not assuming a role that does not belong to my office. Mr. Wodehouse, in one of the paragraphs of his letter, says that in insisting on my opinion of what were his reasons for adjourning from time to time when he had publicly announced what they actually were, I have been unduly persistent. But I say that in my first report, I did not form any opinion as to Mr. Wodehouse's reasons for postponing the case. I merely mentioned the fact that the case had been postponed, and in my second report, I said the Magistrate could only have had one object, viz., to be guided by awaiting for the decision in the perjury case. I say that this was fully borne out by what Mr. Wodehouse has himself said or recorded.
Page 151
(No change is made in the page numbering format as per the instructions)