M
445
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, NOVEMBER 28TH, 1888.
SUPREME COURT.
27th November.
IN CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE MR. A. J. LEACH, ACTING PUSINE JUDGE.
THE LITTLE HONGKONG MURDER. VERDICT AND SENTENCE.
Li Tak und Yu Man were again placed in the dock on the charge of murdering Chin A Tak, on the 10th October, at Little Hongkong.
The Attorney-General (Hon. E. L. O'Malley) prosecuted, and Mr. E. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Wilkinson, defended.
The jurors were:-Messrs. P. A. Schom- berger, A. Harvey, A. J. Carma, A. E. Allemao, A. Duer, S. E. da Luz, and H. W. V. Ehmar.
The evidence of the detectives who made the arrest and of Inspectors Matheson and Gauld was taken, and the case for the prosecution closed.
The defence called no witnesses.
Mr. Robinson, on behalf of the prisoners, said it now became his grave duty to place before the jury the case of the prisoners and comment on the evidence which had been taken. It was for the prosecution in all cases, but more especially in a case of this kind, where the issue was life or death, to prove their case and they had no right to ask the jury to lay upon their consciences the responsibility of a verdict of guilty where there was any doubt. The lives of these men rested on the verdict of the jury, and law as well as common humanity required their verdict to be one of acquittal if they had any doubt as to the prisoners' guilt. He should be able to show them that the evidence of the prosecution was not reliable or such as to warrant the jury com. ing to the conclusion that these men were guilty. The Attorney-General in opening the case called their attention to four points: first, the finding in the possession of the prisoners of clothing which had been identified as balonging to the house where the murder was committed; second, the fact of their being found in possession of arms; thirdly, the conduct of the prisoners, and lastly, the boy's identification of them. These four were the elements of the case. The evid- ence that had been called that morning was merely circumstantial evidence. He put it to the jury that it did not carry the case ma- terially further than the evidence of the boy. carried it. If they believed the evidence of the boy they had no need of the evidence they had heard that morning. If they did not believe | the boy then that evidence, standing alone, would not warrant them in bringing in a verdict against the prisoners. The possession of the goods and arms and their conduct when the de- tective met them were all explainable by another theory than that they were concerned in the murder, namely, that being in possession of these goods and arms they were terrified into a cer- tain line of conduct, knowing themselves to be in possession of goods that had been stolen. This was corroborated by one or two little cireum- stances. It was corroborated by the fact that when they are arrested it did not involve them in any crime except receiving stolen property. One of the prisoners said the clothing had just been given him to take over to Hongkong. The man who gave him these goods might or might not have been the thief, but even assuming that he was it only proved that prisoner was guilty of the receipt knowingly of stolen goods. The other prisoner when arrested stated that he had just bought the goods from a man on the hillside. These statements raised only the question whether or not they were guilty of receiving stolen goods and no other question. One of the constables had told them in
evidence
evidence that another man had been arrest- ed in possession of similar goods and that he was brought before the Magistrate on the very morning prisoners were arrested. Now, when that man was arrested it was certain all the others in the gang would hear of it and would make great efforts at once to get rid of all evidence of their crime. The first three ele- ments in the case, which he had already alluded to, raised therefore the question of receiving stolen goods and nothing more. The charge against them therefore depended on whether the jury believed the evidence of the little boy as to their identification. There was no other evidence upon which they would safely convict the prisoners. The Attorney-General, in open- ing the case, laid down the law to them i that if these men were in the gang, were present at the murder of deceased, it mat- tered not whether they were the men who fired the shot or not, they were guilty of the same, by the construction of law, provided it was done in pursuance of a common aim. He (Mr. Robinson) was not prepared to dispute the vali, . dity of that. It therefore became a question of murder or nothing, and the issue of life or death narrowed itself down simply to this-were these two men prescut or were they not? If present they were guilty of murder. If they were not present whatever other crime they were guilty of they were not guilty of murder. It might be, said if these men were not present at the murder on that night let them come forward and say where they were. Very little examination showed the impossibility of proving this nega tive circumstance. It was easy enough in most casos to got people to come forward and say where you were at such-and-such a time, but it must be remembered that the murder happened at midnight. The prisoners therefore were utterly helpless in the matter, and could not bring witnesses to prove where they were at the time. In cousidering the statements made by the little boy it was necessary to take i into account his character and the ideas of: responsibility be had. Had an European child been put in that box he would have been subject to the influences of the Christian religion, aud these would have acted upon him as a powerful motive to tell the truth. Then again an Eu- ropean child would, in all human probability, have had a clear idea of the responsibility he was incurring, and would have a clear idea that this was a case of murder. The consequences to these men were the most awful there could be. This boy had no idea of the gravity of the charge against them. He did not know the case was one of murder. He was not imbued with sense of the responsibility of his position. Coming to the evidence of the boy as it stood, it it was either true or fraudulent. If true it was amply conclusive, but if false what would be the state of mind of the child who came there deliberately to make a false statement and of the person who instigated him to fraud. Whether the child was present or not on the night of the murder he did not know now. He had never doubted that he was until that morning, but a new light had flashed across him on hearing the evidence of Inspector Gauld, who said that when the report was made and he went to the house he did not gee the child. If the evidence of the boy was frau. dulent it was necessary to consider the state of: mind of the person who instigated him in the fraud. He would naturally tell the boy first, that he was not to tell anyone that be had been coached in his evidence. Io would teach the boy how to identify the prisoners. He might take them to the Magistracy and show them to him without the knowledge of the police offi- Was that done? The jury had got to be thoroughly convinced that it was not, be- fore they convicted the prisoners. They must remember that in this case the witnesses caine before them seeking to obtain a conviction. The prosecution, he submitted, had not made out their case devoid of doubt as regards the identification. It had not been shown that the witnesses had not been tampered with or instigated to give fraudulent evidence. The evidence of the boy raised ĥ grave suspicion that he was anxious to secure a conviction. An- other point which appeared to him strange was
a
cers.
that
I