9
of the Accused.
Sheldon:
Is it the intention of the defence to submit
that there was a mi sdi rection in law?
Potter: It is so intended. That is a question of law.
Kemu.C.J: I reserved that point subject to whether
it is a question of law which can be raised.
Potter (continuing): The sum ing-up: Passages objected to:
For "bridge
P.5
: F.1 (agreed). .4 (very important):
the gap, substitute "prove the agency of Iau" :
"Kurderous hate" and "active steps....through other
channels" it is scarcely arguable on the ones that
either point is admissible. F.5, "and so on", no
suggestion that they should stop anywhere.
To kemp C. I. "Without reservation". By that I mean
that the Zimmern and Christie evidence was never stated
as being relevant to any particular issue, as, for
instance, in the "Armstrong case".
2.30 2.3.
12.30 to 2.30 - adjournment.
Potter (continuing) : Law.
9 Halsbury, p.380.
If the Crown prove that the Accused employed Lau,
then even "murderous hate" is irrelevant.
13 Halsbury, pp. 437, 439, 447.
F.437
"That end" is the very end, and "the act"
is the very act. That passage, p.437, was quoted by
the Crown. That passage and the cases refer to case:
of direct murder. Here, the alleged fact that the
Accused went round the Colony, expressing hate against
Fung, at a date subsequent to the completion of the
act charged, i.e., the procuring of Lau, could not in
given until the statements are connected
my case
with the crine.
If Lau's agency is proved the came