I allege that he denied that he had a brother called Chan Koo I, and that he further stated that he had never been connected with any Chinese officials whatever until the 6th day of March, when he met the first defendant in Hongkong. He further said that he had never been in any Chinese prison; that he had but two marks upon his person, one on his head, caused by chopping firewood, the other on his arm, caused by a boil. He further stated that he had never been in Hongkong in his life before the 6th March, 1887. I allege that all these statements are false, and I say that Li Loi, the first defendant, laid the information in the case; that he attended in Court throughout almost the whole of the proceedings, and instructed the prisoner to appear in his behalf, and heard the greater part of the evidence that was given by the second prisoner. I say that the perjury, and subornation of perjury, were committed as part of the present charge of attempting to commit murder, and conspiring to commit murder.
The first witness for the prosecution was then called.
Chau Kai Ming-I am a sworn interpreter. I was present in Court on the 7th March and I interpreted in a case in which Chung Sam, U Shop, and Chang Chun, were charged before Mr. Wodehouse, Police Magistrate. The prisoners were charged with murder and burglary within the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China, in the 9th moon (October) of last year. I interpreted the evidence that was given by a man called Leung Yow. He is the second defendant in this case. As far as I can remember, the second defendant said, that on the 12th day of the moon he went to visit his aunt, Fu Ma She, that she invited him to stay all night, and he accepted her invitation; that he slept in the second depth of that house; that about the beginning of the third watch he was awakened by a great noise in the third depth. He got up and attempted to walk into the third depth but was prevented by two or three men. He went back to his bed and sat there. At the beginning of the fourth watch, he saw about twenty men pass him, carrying mat bags. One of them came up to him, put a mat bag over his head, and he was carried away and put on board a boat. There were six men in the boat, excluding himself, three rowing and three keeping guard over him. The three men keeping guard over him were the three defendants in the first case. They demanded $3,000 of him, but the second defendant said they would wait till they arrived at a shed. He was afterwards taken to a shed at Whampoa, a place in Chun-tak, not the Whampoa in Canton. When he was taken to the shed he had his hands tied behind his back, chains put on his legs, and he was fastened to a peg in the ground. The three defendants were constantly by his side. The first and third defendants in the other case demanded $3,000 from him. They took him to be the son of Fu Ma She, and requested him to write a letter to her, asking for the sum. This he refused to do. He was afterwards released, at the request of the second defendant in the other case, who said he knew he was not the son of Fu Ma She. He then put him in a boat, in which was only a woman about thirty years of age, and she rowed him back to Kwei-chow. When asked if he was Chan Aynt, he said he had never heard the name; that he had never been in any way connected with any Chinese officials before the 12th of the second moon; that he had never been in a prison; that he had but two marks on his person, one on the left temple, caused by wood chopping, and one on the right arm caused by a boil. I was called as a witness in those proceedings. I looked at the arm of the second prisoner, and found thereon tattoo marks of the Chinese character "To" meaning "thief." It was not very distinct, but I have no doubt that it was that character.
Mr. Francis-What do you mean by tattoo marks?-Marks tattooed by a needle. They were of a blue colour.
Mr. W. M. B. Arthur said-I am first clerk to the Magistracy. I have been keeping the document signed by Li Loi requesting the apprehension of seven men. The document came to me from the Government officers in the usual course. I have before me a warrant for the arrest of certain fugitive criminals. The writing in black ink is that of Mr. de Silva, fourth clerk to the Magistracy. The writing in red ink is by myself.
2. 190
The warrant was issued in consequence of the receipt of the other document. I know the defendant Li Loi. During the proceedings, he has been constantly about the Court. I have not seen him seated at the table, but I have seen him in Court.
Chun Kai Ming, re-called, said-During the proceedings, I saw the first defendant seated next to Mr. Caldwell, the solicitor for the prosecution. He said something in a very loud tone to Mr. Caldwell. During the time he was not seated by Mr. Caldwell, he was either behind the dock or stationed a few paces behind Mr. Caldwell.
Cross-examined by Mr. Francis-Mr. Dennys was seated at the table and was also a few paces from the defendant. There were several other persons near Mr. Caldwell.
Francis Xavier d'Almada e Castro stated-I am a clerk in the employ of Mr. Caldwell, solicitor in this Colony. I wrote the English words in the document sent by Li Loi, applying for the arrest of the men. I do not remember seeing the Chinese words written in the document. I did not see it signed. I left the blanks to be filled in.
Shi Ping Kong said-I am a clerk in Mr. Caldwell's office. I wrote the Chinese characters in the document by the instruction of Mr. Caldwell. I cannot say positively that I saw Li Loi sign the document. It looks like his writing but I cannot say where it was signed.
He said
Mr. D. E. Caldwell was next called-I am a solicitor practising in this Colony. I saw Li Loi sign the document.
Mr. Dennys-Do you know the meaning of the characters?
Mr. Caldwell.-No, I do not.
Mr. Dennys-I must confess I am surprised that you, who know Chinese far better than I do, should not know the meaning of these characters.
Mr. Caldwell-I know only about 12 characters. The document was signed in my office in the Queen's Road. It was signed in duplicate. One I forwarded to the Colonial Secretary, the other I sent to Mr. Maclean. I think I first saw the first defendant on 15th February last, the day before this document was drawn up. From my own knowledge, I cannot say where he lives. I was not aware that there was a Chinese gunboat in the harbour named Chung Was. I do not remember hearing the second prisoner state that he went on board that boat after meeting on shore with the cook, a friend of his. I saw the second defendant the day he came into court but not to speak to him. The only communication I had with him was in Mr. Arthur's room in the Magistracy, on the day of the trial. There were several gentlemen present in connection with the case, among them Li Loi, but I cannot say which of them gave me the instructions to call the second defendant as a witness. I cannot say positively whether or not it was Li Loi who instructed me to put him in the witness box. I remember Li Loi being seated beside me in court during the examination of the second prisoner. He spoke very loudly to me and gesticulated. He seemed to be angry and excited. So far as I remember, the words he said signified "Do not let them go," alluding to the three prisoners in the dock. The evidence about the mark on the arm had been given before he spoke; at least it was after the discovery of the marks.
Cross-examined by Mr. Francis-I have been engaged in several rendition cases. The persons who come down in these cases always bring credentials from the Viceroy. I was thoroughly satisfied that Li Loi was authorised by the Chinese Government, otherwise I would not have acted. Several gentlemen came down in this matter, and from Li Loi's own statement and the corroboration of those who were with him, I had no occasion to doubt him. I was also satisfied because of the introduction he brought.
Mr. Donnys-I am not in a position to finish this case to-day. I think, however, that I have brought forward sufficient evidence to ask for a remand until such further time as your Worship shall think fit. I do not wish to appear unreasonable, but I should wish the case remanded for a week. My object in asking for this is that I wish to call as witnesses the defendants concerned in the other case, and who will probably be dismissed on Monday.