-14-
45
"homicide..... evidence is admissible to prove that the
"accused entertained feelings of hatred towards, or a desire
"to be revenged upon, the deceased, in order to prove that
"he killed the deceased, not merely quo animo he did so".
This dictum, as it seems to me, can only be interpreted to
mean that when a homicide has been proved emity against the
deceased may be used to connect an accused person with it.
(See also 13 Halsbury "Laws of England" p.447, par.621).
The matter has been stated also in 9 Halsbury "La sof
Ingland,” p.378, par.740 in the following terms: The
"prosecution must first give a satisfactory proof of the
Ecorpus delicti i.e. that the offence charged has been
nitted by someone. The prosecution must then prove
" that the defendant is the person who con átted the offence
charged. Any facts which affirmatively prove either of
"these propositions are relevant evidence for the prosecution
In neither of the two cases reported, from which the dictum
of Lord Atkinson has been quoted, was the evidence then
under discussion admitted to prove the corpus delicti. in the present care is to establish the identity of the accused The proper use of the evidence of hostility/with the offender
sought to be identified. and the evidence is admissible
for that purpose.
In his suming up the learned Chief Justia
distinguished to the jury at the outset the two i sues, the
fact of the incitement of Lau and the identity of his
inciter.
That the case was properly left to the jury on
sufficient evidence is to my mind undantly clear. As
Lord Buckmaster has remarked (I quote again from "Craig
v. Glasgow Corporation"- cited supra) "If a set of
" circums tances are actually consistent with a number of
"varying hypotheses, no one can be selected as the one that
"is trus". The standard of proof which a j ry in a