#
of other estions. Ho thought the point was fully covered by the affidavit of the Chief Justice of Kwangtung, which stated that each of the several offences with which the fagitive was charged at the Magistracy was a crime under the law of China. Another answer was that the principle laid down in the Kwok A Sing case applied. His Lord- ship said he must confess that, speaking for himself, he should have some dificulty in coming to the conclusion that there was ovidence that the fugitive received the cheques dishonestly at first, but there waS in bis Lordship's opinion ample evidence to support a verdict of larceny either as a bailee or as a servant, and this was sufficient to justify the finding of the Magistrate on the first charge.
On the contention that the prisoner was not a servant of the Provincial Government, or at any rate of the present Provincial Government, his Lordship said he had no difficulty in finding that the Local Government Was continuous throughout and WIS never displaced by Chan's Manifesto. The cheques #ere obtained from the Treasury of the Province on an order which stated on the face of it that the money was to be romitted to Nanking for military expenditure. The fugitive used those cheques to buy drafts in his own name in Hongkong. He had made in a civil action in which he was defendant au affidavit on the subject of his dealing with this money, which was in evidence and which was not unfairly described by Counsel for the Crown as being a tissue of falsehoods.
His Lordship held that the charge of larceny fell within the decided case of R. * Perry and that the charge of larceny as a bailee was covered by the principle of I, ». Oxenham, 13 Cox 349, and R. v. Aden, 12 Cox 512. The charge of embezzlement did not seem to him to be supported by the evidence. On the fourth charge he entire'y agreed with the Magistrate's conclusion. On the contention that this was a political offence, his lordship said the fugitive was an official of the Treasury who, having obtained public money ostensibly for a public purpose, absconded to Hongkong and bankod the money in his own name. The Magistrate had found on the facts that there was s strong and probable presumption of guilt against the accused: that is, that he acted with a dishonest intention, and there seemed to his Lordship to be no material whatever on which the Court could say that the Magistrate was wrong and that the acts 'charged were done with a political motive.
Several further points raised during the hearing were dealt with in the judgment und decided against the prisoner.
84