great pain and should be investigated very carefully. My learned friend introduced Nos. 89 and 91 with a view of showing that these persons were not at present in the gambling districts but that they were stationed at other places. He could only possibly do that in order to say to the jury "There are two names of men who could not be in receipt of money; therefore do not believe the evidence." He therefore put me to the rather painful task of asking whether both those men were not in charge of these gambling districts before they went to their present stations. I stopped there.
If my learned friend says it is absolutely certain that it cannot be right, I say that such argument is fallacious and I shall have to show that the men did receive bribes. If my friend in his address to the jury opens an argument of that kind and says that this list is an absurdity because Government House is there, I shall have to give the explanation. It is possible a boy at Government House might be receiving the money. That sort of thing is quite common and not absurd at all. I do not want to go into the other cases in that list and try the list, as such a task would be endless and unfair.
His Lordship—I have already stated that there is an apparent and evident absurdity in this list, but we must not go into the truth or untruth of the entries, even supposing they are prima facie reasonable,
The Attorney-General—I would ask your Lordship for permission to ask one question only. In a colony like this it is not right that any dirt should be thrown at high quarters in this matter. My friend is going to say the list is an absurdity—
Mr. Robinson—The dirt will not stick.
The Attorney-General—You would not wish to imply that the Governor has accepted money?
Mr. Robinson—Oh, no.
Mr. Frannis (to Witness)—There is an entry "Government House" there.
Witness—That is a firm or head soldier. What does 3 mean? 7-30 cents. Who got the money—a lukong told me he was on duty in the Ping Tong bong→→→
A lukong got the money?—Yes.
Can you tell me if the entry means the Governor's residence or the General's residence?—I am not able to explain, but if you send for Ho Wai Pong he will tell you all about it. (Loud Laughter.)
Who is Ho Wai Pong?—A lukong at Government House.
His Lordship—Why did you pay a lukong in the employ of Government House 30 cents a day? Because I was afraid that this lukong might give some information to the Governor.
Mr. Robinson (cross-examining)—How long is it since you commenced making the list on this bit of paper? It looks very clean.
Witness—I made entries on that piece of paper many years ago. I made the entries bit by bit as people came in for money.
How many years?—About three.
Where did you keep the paper?—In the drawer of a cupboard.
The colour of the ink is the same all through? The entries were copied from another piece of paper about three years ago, that piece of paper being very dirty.
There was a loss of capital this year?—Yes. There was a quarrel?—Yes.
Amongst the partners?—Yes.
Do you know if one of them went to Mr. Francis?—I do not know.
For what purpose were those accounts kept—for the purpose of showing partners how the money was made and spent?—Yes.
And for the purpose of showing that you and your fokis were not swindling them?—There was no swindling. Here are the accounts and they could see them.
Between ten and twenty watobmen were employed by the syndicate?—Yes.
For the purpose of keeping a guard round the house and preventing the police from coming in unexpectedly?—Yes.
His Lordship—With regard to the entry "$110," you told us you put "$1.10" after Chong On told you he wanted 10 cents?
Cheung On mentioned something about his trouble and that he was entitled to get something for his trouble.
You told us Cheng On suggested 10 cents and you agreed.—He did not ask me for 10 cents; he simply mentioned that he was entitled to receive something. I did not promise to give him anything. I said I would see my master about it.
How could you tell that Cheng On really came on behalf of No. 12?—I say this because before any payment was made No. 12 went to Wa Lane and beat the fokis, but after making the payment to Cheng On there was no more beating.
When he came to you you agreed at once to give him $1. How do you know he really came on behalf of No. 12?—Well, I said the proof is evident because after Cheng On had been to my place there was no more beating of my fokis, and that is why I came to the conclusion that he came on behalf of No. 12.
Did you go and see No. 12?—No.
Why didn't you?—We carry on an illegal business and therefore we are afraid to see foreigners—Englishmen. There must be some connection in the matter, otherwise Cheng On would not have come and asked me about the matter. If Cheng On had come for himself and asked for the money I would not have given him a cent.
You have no writing from No. 12?—No. Do any of the people whom you say receive sums of money come and receive them direct from you, or they paid through somebody else?—The majority of them are paid indirectly.
Some of them directly? As far as Europeans were concerned they got their payment indirectly. Some Chinese constables got their money directly and some indirectly.
These two entries are the only entries in all these books and papers referring to No. 12?—The only entries having reference to No. 12 are in this paper, and not in the account books and papers.
Is there not any book of daily payments or monthly payments which would show the sums paid? Any cash books?—No, I have no entries in other books as to the daily payments. All the payments and names appear in this list. I have another paper like this with the names and the payments to each man.
Like that?—Not as full as this one, but there appear there the names of the parties to whom the money is paid and the names of those who acted as agents and so on.
Did you take any part in the actual carrying on of the gambling?—No, I did not assist in carrying on the gambling. I was stationed at No. 3, East Street looking after the accounts.
Did you know No. 12 yourself by sight?—I knew the defendant only by sight.
Did you know who No. 12 was?—He is an Inspector—a detective Inspector.
Did you know who he was?—He was an Inspector.
When Cheng On called the name No. 12 did you know which man that was?—Yes, I knew No. 12 because in the first and second moons he went to Wa Lane and beat fokis there.
Look at the defendant. Is that the Inspector?—Yes.
When Cheng On called the name "No. 12" did you know it was the defendant in the dock?—Yes, I know who No. 12 was directly Cheng On told me about it because No. 12 had been to Wa Lane several times and my fokis told me about him.
Was that memorandum made merely for the purpose of your business?—Yes.
And used in the course of your business?—Yes. Were all payments you had to make entered in that book—All expenses I have just mentioned were entered in that book, but profit and loss are entered in other books.
By whose orders was a name put in the list?—Did you do it yourself or by order of your master?—Not by order of my master. I made it myself and in case my master called for the accounts I could show them to him.
You had his authority to put names on that list? I put all the names in this list to show my master in case he accused me of swindling him.
473