1:
י
54
1
1
Fourthly the discharge of the fugitive on all charges, but nere expecially on the third charge, viz: that relating to the larceny of the book) is claimed on the ground that the evidence offered by the Grown is insufficiently conclu- sive to justify a committal for surrender. I has been
argued that while a Magistrate considering the same evidence for committal to the Criminal Sessions of this Colony,might or might not hold that it was "sufficient to put the acoussé upon his trial" (ord. 3 of 1890, Sec.76, read with Ord.7 of 1889, Seo.10 (1)), yet the evidence cannot be held to "raiss
a strong and probable presumption of the guilt of the accused, and on the authority of "In re: Wong Ka Cheong" yy- (Hongkong Law Reports 1905 6, p.23), it is essential that
the evidenos should raise this presumption to support a coa-
mittal for surrender under the Chinese Extradition Ordinazos
I shall here therefore, while allowing that further evidence
may put a new aspect on the matter, express the opinion that
the evidence before me if presented to a jury in its present form is calculated to raise a string and probable presump- tion of the guilt of the accused in respect of any of these
charges (Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5).
#
Fifthly the discharge of the fugitive is claimed on the
ground that he has made 'a claim of right
a claim to
retain the money the subject matter of charges Nos.1,4 & 5
as against the Kwong Tung Geverament.
It is to be noted that this olsin. cannot affect the
third charge in any way.
This claim of right is evidenced in the steps taken by
the fugitive and by his solicitor on his behalf in defens-
ant în 0. J. Action No.172/1913 (Exhibits 19 and 20).
(9).