Enclosure 9.
20056 RECR(Rec 15 SEP 7
Extract from the "Daily Press" of the 4th August, 1897.
His Lordship commenced summing up at 5.20 and said that as a late hour had been reached and the jury had followed the evidence so carefully he would be less particular in going into all the evidence that had been given. After explaining the law on the question and detailing various points in the information his Lordship said the contest took place with reference to the receipt of money by the defendant. If they thought that the money was received under the circumstances referred to there could be no doubt that the defendant was guilty.
His Lordship could not help thinking that the length of the case had been greatly extended by the fact that the defence had taken upon themselves the burden of the police case generally, having an eye, so to speak, to the position of the members of the Police Force. He founded those observations on two reasons. In the first place, Mr. May underwent a very long and severe cross-examination: he was under cross-examination for practically a whole day. The other reason was the introduction of the books and papers. Both those points and the way with which the points were dealt made him think that the defendant had committed an error in judgment as they very much prolonged the case and made it more embarrassing to arrive at a right conclusion.
His Lordship's own view in regard to the books was that if the books were ruled not to be corroborative evidence in any way against the defendant, then the result was that the defendant had set up a bogey in order to knock it down, and he had taken a great deal of time to do it; whereas if the jury arrived at the conclusion that the books did corroborate the story the defence had undoubtedly admitted an enemy in the camp by asking for the books. If the books had not been produced his Lordship would have asked the jury to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard or read in the newspapers regarding the entries in the books, and he was quite certain the jury would have acted on these instructions. So also in regard to the general position of the police.
There was no need to make out that Captain May had mismanaged the police in regard to the gambling houses. Captain May really knew very little about this particular case. His evidence, as bearing upon the defendant, was very short and simple and confined to a few general particulars, but in order, so to speak, to break down the case as affecting the whole of the police, the defence went for Captain May and took him over the whole ground and, his Lordship was going to say, with some asperity.
In regard to the Chinese witnesses the jury would consider their demeanour and the manner in which they gave their evidence. It appeared to his Lordship that Cheng On and Tung Kam stood their cross-examination very well. Mr. May underwent his cross-examination in a very fair and honest manner. One important point that came out in his cross-examination was that there was no vestige of ill-feeling on his part towards the defendant, that he had no desire to see the defendant punished from any personal motives, and that he was doing his duty in this matter as a public officer only. He spoke in high terms of the defendant and they had it on all hands that the defendant was an officer of great energy, ability, and zeal. Juries naturally gave the benefit of any doubt to a man of a good character and the jury would no doubt bear that in mind.
In regard to Cheng On and Tung Kam they were scarcely cross-examined at all. They were not closely questioned, they were not dragged over the harrow, so to speak. Cross-examination was conducted in a somewhat general manner and the witnesses certainly did not break down under it. It appeared to his Lordship that Sam Yen was not a satisfactory witness under cross-examination; he was somewhat uncertain and shifty.
Page 633