34
16
So it comes to the three points I put at the beginning. Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Lau was the man who organised the crime as agent for somebody else?
Are you satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, in view of all the difficulties in the evidence, that the accused made the definite statements attributed to him by Zimmern and Christie If the answer is "Yes" to both questions, then you may, I think, reasonably find the prisoner guilty. But equally reasonably you might say, " even that does not satisfy us we are not certain." If that is the answer to either of the first two questions I think-in my 10 view the answer must be "not guilty."
:
Gentlemen, if I have expressed my own view on any point of fact too definitely I hope you will remember that you are entitled to disregard that view entirely in fact you are bound to if your own view does not coincide with it. I will leave the case now in your hands: the responsibility now passes to you and I am sure you will discharge it with the greatest care and with full competence. I have no doubt you will wish to retire, gentlemen.
32. And your Petitioner submits that on the following grounds 20 there was no evidence on which a conviction against your Petitioner could be maintained :-
That the only evidence to show that your Petitioner was the man who employed Lau Hing to organise the murder was that of Zimmern and Christie which evidence the Crown itself described as tainted.
That both Zimmern and Christie were self-confessed swindlers whose only association with your Petitioner was (according to their own showing) for the purpose of swindling your Petitioner out of the sum of $10,000:00,
33. Your Petitioner submits for the following reasons that there was no ground upon which a conviction against your Petitioner could be maintained--
(1) That the chief evidence that Lau counselled procured and commanded the murder was the evidence of accomplices and that the Jury were not directed as to the danger of acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices.
(2) That there was no evidence to show that Lau had any principal.
30
(3) That there was no evidence that your Petitioner counselled 40 procured or commanded Lau.
!
1
17
10
(4) That the fact, if it be a fact, that your Petitioner was inciting Zimmern and Christie to poison or shoot Fung was no evidence that he counselled procured or commanded a third person to shoot Fung.
(5) That the direction that this could be inferred from the fact that $2,000 was paid by Lau, your Petitioner's chauffeur, was a misdirection in the absence of evidence that Lau had not any money.
(6) That there was no evidence that your Petitioner counselled procured and commanded Lau to get Fung shot.
(7) That the evidence of Zimmern and Christie was the evidence of accomplices and that there was no direction to the Jury as to the danger of acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices.
(8) That the learned Judge failed to direct the Jury that the only relevance of the evidence of Zimmern and Christie was to establish that your Petitioner had a murderous hate towards Fung.
(9) That the learned Judge should have directed the Jury that they could not find your Petitioner guilty merely on the evidence that Fung was murdered and that your Petitioner had a murderous hate towards him unless and until there was evidence that such murder was brought about at the instigation of your Petitioner.
31. Your Petitioner humbly submits that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that your Petitioner should be granted special leave to appeal and praying your Majesty in Council to grant your Petitioner special leave to appeal from the said judgments of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong dated the 12th and 14th days of September 1932.
WILLIAM A. JOWITT.
HORACE DOUGLAS.
20
A
35