|||
If, on the other hand, they fail to prove that, the
evidence is inadmissible because it does not tend to
show an incitement of Chul and Wong through Lau.
R. v. Ball (1911) A.C. 47.
R. v. Thompson (1918) A.C. 231
one
open to
I suggest that the course for the Court is to admit the
evidence and reserve it, without deciding on the
admissibility.
Sheldon.
case.
9 Halsbury, 380, 381, have nothing to do with the
13 Halsbury, p.447, is the statement of law which
covers this case.
The essential distinction here is that this evidence
is evidence of a design to kill the same person.
Phipson, 7th. 133.
Phipson's Manual, Library Ed., 59.
R. v. Hagen (1873) 12 Cox 357.
R. v. Buckley (1873) 13 Cox 293.
The evidence is in any case admissible. It cannot
be ruled out because it and the other evidence together
would be insufficient.
Potter.
Sheldon's two cases are cases of prior threats.
The case here is that accused procured Lau on
the 23rd. February to murder Fung, and that that continued
till Fung was murdered. What I want is authority to show
that evidence of another conspiracy on the 21st March
is relevant to connect accused with the conspiracy of the
23rd. Feb.
para.
13 Halsbury, Supp. $. 521 cites
R. v. Thomp son
(But =
- "means")
(29)