18
ૐ
what the matter was. The foki I sent up caine down again and said that the defendant had been searching everywhere, and that someone had robbed him of his woman. I told the foki to go up and ask him to come down to the shop. When he came down, my master was in the shop. He said that he would have to take the foki he followed upstairs to the Police Station. He said that the foki had taken away his wife. A man called Lou YUN CHIN, the master of the shop told the foki to go with the constable. He told me to follow them. When we got to the Station, the Inspector did not ask us long questions, but told defendant to take the foki to the Registrar General's office. Defendant stopped me from going. He and another man chased me away.
By Mr. WOTTON-My name is LE KWANG CHEE. I manage the shop, and buy and sell for the firm. I am Manager. I am the complainant in this case, not a witness. I bring this charge because the complainant searched my premises without just cause or reason. He did not strike me. He did not break open any doors, or go into any private apartments. The proper name of the foki that was struck is LEUNG PING. He has two wives. None of my fokis' families live upstairs in the shop. I am not the owner of the shop. Three or four of us have shares. Lo AMEN, Ta Tun- street, Canton, owns a share. ỨNG KWONG TAI, in the same street, also owns a share. I have a share. I was in the shop all the time that de- fendant was there. A foki named CHow Foor was also there the whole time. When defendant came to the shop he said something to me. I do not know what he said. He spoke in the English language. Nobody in the shop understood him. LOU YUN SHING was not in the shop till defend- ant came down from upstairs. I did not hear the owner of the shop talking to a Police Constable. I saw them speaking to each other. The Chinese constable now in court was at the shop that day. I did not speak to him. The stout boy, who is in the shop was not struck. I will swear that up till now I did not know why the constables came to my shop. None of them told me that when they came to the shop. The other wit- nesses do not know what I was going to say to-day. They cannot make any more charges than I have made. There is nothing else to say. To the Court--I did not see defendant search- ing anywhere. The defendant went upstairs before the Chinese constable. He did not give any reason for coming to our shop.
Mr. WOTTON said that, seeing that the last witness was the complainant and that no other charge than the one preferred by him could be brought forward against his client, the case was clearly one for a Civil Court, as the matter was purely one of trespass without any violence what- ever, and he would prove that the trespass was justified under the circumstances. The proper course was for the complainant to sue for damages.
The Bench desired to hear the evidence. LEUNG KING said-On the 24th July, at twelve noon,
I was making up some bills at the counter,
9
when the defendant entered the shop with two Chinese constables. He came up to me and, without saying anything, gave me a blow, which I dodged. He tried to hit me again, and I went upstairs. He ran after me with a Chinese con- stable. They searched the first and second floors of our premises. I asked them what they were searching for, and the defendant said that I had taken away his wife and hidden her in the house. I denied this. Defendant asked me to go to the Station with him.
By Mr. Worton-I don't know Sun Wi Lane. I have lived in Hongkong about a year. I do not know defendant's reason for accusing me of stealing his wife. I will swear that I have never been into any house in Sun Wi Lane. I have never heard of a woman called A-PAT. I never saw that name in writing. I have never been out of our shop between nine and eleven in the morning for the last fortnight. I never saw de- fendant before he came to our shop. I have not
a concubine in Hongkong. I have two wives. Neither of them is here. I have never visited a woman in Hongkong since lust April.
To the Court-Defendant was two or three feet away from me when he hit at me. Ile aimed
at my face. I was behind the counter.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. WOTTON then said that the true facts of the case
were that the defendant's wife was missing, and that she had with her his property, over $1,600 in value. He had had reasonable cause to suspect the last witness of having got hold of her, and therefore in company with two other constables went to the shop to see. They made no disturbance, but simple stated the rea- son of their visit. He (Mr. WOTTON) was ap- pearing on behalf of the defence not so much for the case, which was palpably a made up affair, but in order to defend the character of his client. He had been in Police Force for nearly seven- teen years without a stain on his character.
I
The witnesses for the defence were then called. WONG AFAT, P.C. 170, declared-I am a Police constable doing detective duty. I have been in the Force for fourteen years and six months. I have known defendant upwards of ten years. know his wife's name. It is A-PAT. When she lived with him she lived in Sun Wi Lane. I lived on the first floor of the house she lived in. I have seen last witness before. He is called the stout lad. I remember when defendant found that A-FAT had disappeared that he told me something. In consequence of what he told me, I made en- quiries about her. In consequence of information received, I went to the shop with defendant and P.C. 183. There I saw the stout lad. This was on the 24th July. I had reason to believe that A-PAT was in that house. In going into the shop, a woman, called NAN So, led us.
On en- tering the door we saw several people there. When the fat boy, who was behind a counter on the ground floor, saw us, he ran upstairs as fast as he could. When he did this the defendant was at the door of the shop. When we entered