4
(D) That the evidence generally of the said witnesses was wrongfully admitted and used for the purpose of proving that the accused on divers dates between the 23rd day of February 1932 and the 24th day of March 1932 (both dates inclusive) in this Colony through one Lau Hing, did counsel, procure and command Chui Yung Sham and Wong Nam Sheung to do and commit a certain felony by them committed on the 24th of March 1932 at Wongneichong in the Colony that is to say, to murder Fung Him alias George Fung.
(E) That the learned Chief Justice was wrong in putting the 10 evidence generally of the said witnesses to the Jury upon the issue as to whether or not the accused did through the said Lau Hing so counsel, procure and command as aforesaid,
(F) That the learned Chief Justice was wrong in refusing to withdraw the case from the Jury.
12. That such matters were argued before and considered by the Full Court consisting of Sir Joseph Horsford Kemp, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice John Roskruge Wood, Puisne Judge, and decided against your Petitioner on the 12th September 1932. On the hearing of the Appeal your Petitioner's Counsel attacked the Summing up of the learned Chief 20 Justice on the ground that it was inadequate and misleading. No opinion was expressed thereon in the reasons given for dismissing the Appeal. Your Petitioner's learned Counsel at the conclusion of his address on the Summing up stated that the learned Chief Justice doubted the wisdom of the course which he adopted referring it is submitted by your Petitioner to the opening words of the Summing up to which the learned Chief Justice replied: I did not doubt the wisdom of the course and I do not doubt it now. I say this to avoid misunderstanding. It should I think be pointed out that the Summing up followed immediately on the Summing up of the defence and that the defence had avowedly attached great 30 importance to the last word."
13. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that in a capital case it is incumbent upon the learned trial Judge to abstain from dealing with the case on very broad general lines and that where there are, as in this case difficulties improbabilities and inconsistencies, not to abstain from dealing with them that it is also incumbent upon him to direct the Jury as well upon the law as the facts and to sift the evidence so as to ensure a due appreciation thereof by the Jury and that the speeches of Counsel cannot relieve him of his duty and that it is incumbent upon the learned Judge where, as in this case the chief evidence is that of accomplices 40 to warn the Jury that although in law they may convict on the evidence of accomplices alone without corroboration yet that they should look
10
5
for corroboration and that he should direct them what in law is corrobora- tion and point to such evidence as may properly be considered as corroborative as implicating the accused. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Chief Justice's Summing up failed to properly direct the Jury in the above matters and indulgence is asked for the unusual course of setting out in this Petition the relatively short Summing up of the learned Chief Justice in a case which lasted twelve days during nine of which the evidence was heard preceded by a Summary of the evidence of the principal witnesses.
14. Mr. Justice Wood who gave the reasons (concurred in by the Chief Justice) for dismissing the appeal after reviewing the facts proceeded to say that the facts in issue which the Crown must prove were four in number-
(1) That Fung was murdered.
(2) That he was murdered through Lau, (3) That Lau himself had a principal.
(4) That his principal was the accused,
And he said that the first and second of these facts were not in doubt; that Lau himself was the agent of someone else had been shown by the 20 absence of any motive of his own and by his control of large sums of money
for the purpose of his crime.
Your Petitioner respectfully submits that assuming evidence given of the perpetration of the murder, and that Lau counselled procured and commanded the murderers, paid them $2,000, and that the most credible witnesses proved that your Petitioner had shown murderous hate towards Fung, the evidence would nevertheless be inadequate to connect your Petitioner with the crime and permit of the case being allowed to go to the Jury.
15. Your Petitioner humbly submits the following summary of the 30 evidence of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.
16. In the year 1928 Lai Ming Fai (hereinafter called "Lai "} then an actress of about 18 years of age became engaged to your Petitioner with a view to marriage; she and your Petitioner lived together until the 22nd of February 1932 your Petitioner being young and in affluent circum- stances. In the first instance and for some time your Petitioner and Lai lived at Shanghai during which time your Petitioner employed a body- guard and afterwards at Hong Kong. Between 1928 and 1932 Lai fell in love with Fung Him alias George Fung (the murdered man) (hereinafter called "
Fung") who had been a friend of your Petitioner. Fung was a 40 man without means except such as he might gain by employment. From
10581
23