86A
Cha
proof of
Case
criminal taking refuge in this bolony quilt he shall be delivered up, and that in Chinese incurring deblo in dongriong, du recovery of ench deblo met be arranged for by sth Englich leant of Suction on the spot. Supposing therefore, Ordinances 2 of 1850 and 2
as we have above stated, scemo
1871 not to be law; which,
extremely doubtful, then there is no legal provision whatever in existence which enables odio Excellency the Governor to carry out the Tientsin Treaty and there is no law instagring under which Leung a‡n can be detained or handed over: ots Lord Justice Mellish There is no doubt that in
England
140
Pays :-
treaty inconfirmed byddet of Partiorment would be eufficient to crable a
person to be
this
12ean
9
given up. How far be so in a brown lectomy I don't know! Suppiecing, as we say that the local Ordinances are valid, we humbly submit to His Excellency that he cannot order Lesugufic to be delivered over to torture and execution by the chimere Authorities endless he has been proved to be guilty of the offence charged against line by di Loi-
We think it hardly necessary
to ask idis Excellency to say that no and thing has been done. What the magistrate, before whom the prisoners
brought; has
dove is this he has made
into ita
guilt
o Autoćewei
110
Avere
enquiry or investigation of Lening a Fu, but he has
-410
mistake and
J
wo
expressed in leruw capable of misinterprctation that he considers the charge brought forward by Li Loi to be false from beginning to end, and he has simply committed the prisoners to gast because reading his instructions from ith Government as he does, he has wo
right to enquire into the quilt of ther
accused. All he can do is to register the etatements made
th
declaration
before
him. We do not intend to point out
contradictions and
falsehoods contained in the deposition
ao
we should be repeating
Taken before tur Wodehouse
what our Demays has already urged to the magistrate,
to the statement of Si dui, the cook,
but with
referenc
as he did not in
Mone
we would call attention to the fact that he was not cross examined, as
any way implicate the fat or 3rd
prisoners, who at the times of his examination, were the only thus represented by solicitors - Woo a choke was not cross examined, as she incriminated of the prisoners. Its to the declarations which we forward, dis Excellency will see
from the dates upon which they
were made that two of the witnesses the or Fring Sai Jonn and the landlord Likhaidring, examined afterwards the hearing of the ease. un. trackeon, in which SiLoi and
Leong alfour, khinese mandarin and his principal evictiness, charged
with
perjury at the instance of our the bennigo. These two wilhoves were cross, examined by ther. J. J. Francis, Q.C. who appeared evidence
was M A
(43
A
were
before
tt
were
Counsel for the defence, and ther
chaken. It
wvas
just at the
the landlord, Luk Kai Tring.
way
close
of the examination
f
was directed
baz
that the magistraté
as we
An Attorney Genend,
enbunt without any legal authority, to stay
and there there being sufficient.
proceedings against Li Loi,
evidence before to tragistesté to justify a committal for trial before the Supreme bant of Leong a you fore perjury, the Benny did not see any necessity for calling further witnesses, but had thr. Wodehouse allowed withivors for the defence of Leong a Fer to have been called prepared to produce. on his behalf all the witnesses whose declarations we enclos
wv2
WELL
Du conclusion, again ashodie Excellency
we
G
the