-10-
3. Therefore he may have mployed Lau to commit a
murder.
Keap C.J: One thing is omitted, that the person to be
murdere
dered was the same in each case.
Fotter: Then substitute "to murder Fung" for "to commit
murder".
can
In the summing-up, to what issue xxx the murderous
hate, and the attempts to get Fung murdered by someone
else, be relevant.
9 Halsbury, p. 585, para. 1190.
You must prove the connecting link before you prove
the Accused's state of mind.
Stephen Art. 3.
Ho can you say that the Zimmern and Christi e
evidence is part of the transaction which is the subject
of the charge:
No evidence to go to the jury:
It all comes back to the agency of Lau.
9 Halsbury, 253.
There must be an aùtive proceeding, which must be
proved.
F.. Cooper (1833) 5 C. & P. 535.
A. v. Taylor (1875) 2 C.C.R. 147.
Ryder v. Wombwell (1868) 4 Exoh. Cases at p.39.
Giblin v. MoMullen (1869) 2 P.C. at 335.
Avery v. bowden (1856) 26 L.J...B. at 5.
'Conjecture": that is the position here.
erhaps the last three cases are the answer to
R. v. Buckley. There is here no evidence in Zimmern and
Christie's evidence from which the jury could infer Lau's
agency.
K. v. úardner (1859) 1 F. & 7, 669, cited in
9 Halsbury p. 588.
14