CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848 — Page 311

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

1

not at a lime been inflicted by at the Supreme Court.

Board of Trade E.L grei

I never heard of this case: the facts however can be readily ascertained in England by reference to the then Registrar, Mr. Fearon, who is now Professor of Chinese in King's College London.

No 3699

The case here referred to will be No 3701 found as appendix &. The facts relative to the Inquest are these:

The Coroner, who was immediately afterwards dismissed for his misconduct, surreptitiously obtained the depositions before the Magistrate, read parts of them to the Jury, and commented in abusive terms on the conduct of the Magistrate.

3702

308

of the Magistrate. I believe the proceedings on the Inquest were also published in the 'Friend of China' newspaper. The verdict of the Jury, given under the directions of the Coroner, was clearly contrary to evidence, and was quashed; as I am informed on that account. The Judge said that he reversed the sentence of the Magistrate because for the offence in question a punishment of 14 days imprisonment (without hard labour) or a fine of $10 was provided by Colonial Ordinance No 4 of 1845, Sec: 12, and that consequently any excess of that punishment was illegal.

The Magistrate urged on the other

Edit History

2026-05-17 07:34:24 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
1 not at a lime been inflicted by at the Supreme Court. Board of Trade E.L grei I never heard of this case: the facts however can be readily ascertained in England by reference to the then Registrar, Mr. Fearon, who is now Professor of Chinese in King's College London. No 3699 The case here referred to will be No 3701 found as appendix &. The facts relative to the Inquest are these: The Coroner, who was immediately afterwards dismissed for his misconduct, surreptitiously obtained the depositions before the Magistrate, read parts of them to the Jury, and commented in abusive terms on the conduct of the Magistrate. 3702 308 of the Magistrate. I believe the proceedings on the Inquest were also published in the 'Friend of China' newspaper. The verdict of the Jury, given under the directions of the Coroner, was clearly contrary to evidence, and was quashed; as I am informed on that account. The Judge said that he reversed the sentence of the Magistrate because for the offence in question a punishment of 14 days imprisonment (without hard labour) or a fine of $10 was provided by Colonial Ordinance No 4 of 1845, Sec: 12, and that consequently any excess of that punishment was illegal. The Magistrate urged on the other
Baseline (Original)
1 not at a lime been inflicted by at the Supr reme Court. Boar of Trad E.L grei Inever heard of this case: the facts however can be readily ascertained in bugland by refucuce to the then Régistrar, t? Fearow, who is now Professo of Chinese in Kings College London No 3699 Me case here refered to witt be No 3701 found as appondit &. The facts Actative to the Inquest are these The Corner, wolio was immediately afterwards dismissed for his misconduct, surreptitionsly obtained the depositions before the Magistrate, read parts of them to the Jury, and commented in abusive terms on the conduct- 3702 308 of the Magistrate. I believe the proceedings on the Inquest were also· published in the Friend of China) newspaper. The verdict of the. given under the directions of the any borma was vas clearly contrary to evidences, and was quaslied; as I am informed daid on that account. The Fudge that he reversed the sentence of the Magistrate the grenced that for Mix offence in question a punishi of 14 days imprisonment (without- late! or a fine of $10 was purvided M by bolonal bedie Colonial didinance No th of 1845 C Sex: 12, and that consequently any excess of that punishment was ittegat. The Magistrate urged- of ou the other
2026-05-17 07:34:24 · Baseline
View content

1

not at a

lime been inflicted by

at

the Supr

reme Court.

Boar

of

Trad

E.L

grei

Inever heard of this case: the

facts however can be readily ascertained in bugland by refucuce to the then Régistrar,

t? Fearow, who is now Professo

of Chinese in Kings College London

No 3699

Me

case here refered to witt be No 3701 found as appondit &. The facts

Actative to the Inquest

are these

The Corner, wolio was immediately

afterwards dismissed for his misconduct, surreptitionsly obtained the depositions before the Magistrate, read parts of them to the Jury, and commented

in abusive terms on the conduct-

3702

308

of the Magistrate. I believe the

proceedings on the Inquest were also· published in the Friend of China)

newspaper. The verdict of the. given under the directions of the

any

borma was

vas clearly contrary to evidences, and was quaslied; as I am informed

daid

on that account. The Fudge that he reversed the sentence of the Magistrate

the grenced that for

Mix offence in question a punishi

of 14 days imprisonment (without- late! or a fine of $10 was purvided

M

by bolonal bedie

Colonial didinance No th of 1845

C

Sex: 12, and that consequently any

excess of that punishment was

ittegat.

The Magistrate urged-

of

ou the

other

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.