720
¿September 13, 1934
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT
GUILTY
NULLAH
OF
MURDER
OUTRAGE
CASE ENDS
WITH UNANIMOUS VERDICT
Jury Retires For Ninety Minutes
After retiring for an hour and a half during which the jury returned to Court to seek further directions from the Chief Jus- tice, a verdict of "Guilty" was returned in the case in which Ng Loi yuen was charged with the murder of Michael Pine. The verdict was accompanied by a recommendation for mercy.
Death sentence was passed on the prisoner, who when ask- if he had anything to say, pointed out that he had an aged grandmother, an old father, a wife and son in the country who were dependent on him. He asked for the mercy of the Court.
Prior to putting on the black cap and passing sentence, his Lordship assured the jury that he would be at great pains to see that their recommendation will be forwarded at once to the proper quarters.
Final Speeches By Counsel
Mr. Fraser, in his final address to the jury, said the case for the Crown was, briefly, that accused threw five children into the nuilah, one of them being Michael Pine. who died later from his injuries. The defence, as far as he under- stood it, was that Michael Pine was not thrown in.
"Mary Pine is ill, and if she is to be called as a witness, it will be keeping you waiting for two weeks before she can come here. The case, however, is simple, and the absence of Mary Pine's evi- dence has not changed one title the case for the Crown. In my presentation of the case for the Crown, I have brought her evi- dence in, and I must now ask you to forget anything. I have said about her evidence.
"A question which you will have to answer is: How did Michael Pine die? Did he die by falling into the nullah, by being throw into the nullah, or by striking something when he was swept down?
What Motive?
"If he was thrown in by the accused, what conceivable motive could he have? That is a ques- tion which you will have to ask yourselves and decide. If the accused did not throw them into the water, how did they get there? There were five children on the bridge. It was said they were in a bunch on one side of the bridge, intent on throwing stones into the water. How easy to have walked up behind them and thrown one
ifte
I put it to what actually
er.
happened. The only reasonable explanation for five children be- ing in he nullah is the all five had been thrown in at the same time.
"There is another issue which I should have mentioned first. It has to do with a question of whether the accused was sane at the time of the murder. No thinking 'man in his right senses. one would have supposed, would think of doing a thing like that."
A man tried for murder is not liable to have any other charge added to the indictment. It is unfair for me to infer or suggest any other charge. The accused is on tial for murder and murder alone. Here is the statement which he made in answer to the charge: I was drunk, I was un conscious, I had a bruise or two. I will come to the question of drunkenness later, and take first the plea of "I was unconscious,” It has no meaning. It is quite obvious it has no meaning at all. The only evidence of unconscious- ness we have is evidence of a man who was unconscious coming out of the tunnel. You have the evi- dence of the accused standing or moving about in the water.
He had a wound or two. The most likely cause of the wound was striking against the wall of the nullah. We know he had a wound in the side of the head when taken out. Now that ob- viously refers to the wound or two. And from the evidence we must take it that he got that wound in the nullah. Therefore, anart from that statement
341
ness, it refers to circumstances which took place after the mur- der.
The only thing which we can say definitely conveys a meaning to us, was that "I was drunk." The rest of that statement I sub- mit to you with all deference, en- tirely refers to what happened afterwards, and put as a plea of leniency in the circumstances.
Now take his statement to the Magistrate. After being propery cautioned, he made this state- ment: I had no money. I there- fore attempted suicide. I have nothing more to say." That fits exactly with the evidence pro- duced by the Crown.
Refering
letters to the three found in a basket said to belong to the accused, the Assistant At- torney General said: All the Crown would say is that one of these papers was signed by the accused in one of the names which accused signed his statement to the Pollee and in one of the names with which he answered to the charge in this court. Although these papers were dated the 10th December 1933, apparently the accused thought it was sufficient- ly important to carry them about with him. If you want a motive there it is.
"I Was Drunk”
It may be asked why he should have picked upon children rather than grown up people. A man intent on rurder and in the fame of mind the accused was would hardly entertain niceties of murder and differentiate between children and grown-ups.
Coming to the point of drunken- ness, Mr. Fraser said: It was urged by the defence that this man was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing, and a point brought forward in this connection was that as soon as he comes to, his first words are: "I want wine.". It is however part of the Crown's case that the accused was sober at the time. It was for the defence to show if they can, to prove that he was drunk, but there has not been a scrap of evi- dence to support his statement ment "I was drunk."
Mr. Lim's Address
Counsel for the defence, Mr. R. C. H. Lim then addressed the jury. He said: I am grateful to my friend for at the very outset re- set reminding you of one funda- mental principle of British law that every man is innacent until he is proved guilty and that the onus of proving a person guilty to satisfy you beyond all reason- able doubt lies entirely upon the Crown. The Crown has to satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was the per- son who threw Michael Ping to
Page 20Page 21