299
finally the decision of the case rested with me. I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out "for Wodehouse" and on that occasion refused to hear the witnesses for Chan Tik Cheong who were then in attendance and whose evidence was tendered.
Mr Stolmes, who was at that time solicitor for Chan Tik Cheong, will doubtless remember. As His Excellency will doubtless remember, the prisoner who was committed to gaol at the same time as Chan Tik Cheong by Mr Wodehouse was released by the Supreme Court, which held that the warrant of detainer was bad on the face of it and that Mr Wodehouse ought to have heard the witnesses for the defence.
We understand that at that time Mr Stolmes had an assurance from the Government that if Leong Afu was released under the writ of habeas corpus, Chan Tik Cheong would also be released. In fact, Chan Tik Cheong was technically released under the same warrant, but as a new warrant had been obtained by Li Loi before Chan Tik Cheong came out of gaol, the latter did not, as a matter of fact, get out of gaol before he was again arrested.
Judgment was given by the Full Court as to the release of Leong Afu on the 14th June, and a new warrant was obtained on the same day, and the prisoner who was rearrested on that day.
Although Li Loi applied for this warrant on the 14th...