6
by evidence of another.
There could be no case here of any defence on the
part of Lau's principal of accident or mistake.
If it is proved that I have incited a man to
kill another there is no possible defence, except
insanity. There is no question of motive.
The “continuous hate" said to be proved by the
Zimmern and Christie evidence is irrelevant until
there is proof that the Prisoner did actually incite
Lau. It is an attempt to prove the charge by evidence
of the Prisoner's state of mind, which cannot be done.
The Zimmern and Christie evidence was thrown to the
jury without any reservation, and they were told that
they might find on it that the Prisoner was
quilly-
they might * * K**XX**X gakkkx infer that the
accused was the kind of men to commit the crime
charged.
Kem.C.J. That was never said.
Sheldon also objected.
Fouter: I did not mean that. They were told that they
might infer that the accused was "the man".
The whole suggestion to the jury was that if
the accused could do this thing.
Sheldon here interposed and the sentence was not
finished.)
That
The first step in the Zimmern and Christie
evidence was t of the plan to assault fung.
was a distinct offenoe. It is irrelevant.
The second step in the Zimmern and Christie
evidence in the $10,000 offer, and the discussion
about poison.
Then there is the evidence of the walk to the
ferry, the ferry, the breakfast, the Tung Shan Hotel,
the purchase of poison and a syringe, the chicken