:
تار
1
483
62})
Caldwell. I don't think he mentioned any names. He did l'of great many articles, of European consumption-wines, not do or say anything from which I could receive the impres- biscuits, and sundry articles for the table, not in use amongst sion, that I would please himself or the Governor more by not Chinese. That is all I remember about them. I think there finding a true bill than by finding a true bill. From this time, tere no entries of articles in which Mr Caldwell's name wa until the case left my hands, there was no pressure used with me mentioned. I have not the slightest recollection of any such in favour of Ma-chow Wong by the Government. After I had nd if you had not asked the question, I should have said the depositions, and read them through, I was speaking to Drecidedly not. There was nothing so far as I can recollect Bridges on some other business one day, and I introduced the hich brought in Mr Caldwell's name at all, or which would, subject of Ma-chow Wong, and told him the depositions have led me inferentially to suppose that Mr Caldwell wa were ample to support a case.
He said that was quite eferred to. I am only speaking from memory of a circum- enough that I was to be the judge of that, and I was the stance of a year ago. If such entries had been brought to my only responsible person for carrying on the prosecution. I attention, I should have considered it my duty to bring them don't think I spoke to him upon the subject from that time fficially to notice. I could not use those memoranda for until the occasion mentioned at the Club. I think I can the purposes of the trial; I do not think I could have positively say that Mr Caldwell was never in communication them in evidence. Mr May showed them to me, and thought got with me concerning the case. It was my impression that would bring them forward in the Court. He considered Ma-chow Wong was strongly befriended from some quarter or them relevant to the issue, until we had a talk about it.. another. I received this impression from a great many facts. obtained no help in this prosecution from Mr Caldwell or I all along, while I was preparing for the trial, knew that through his department. Mr Grand-Pré was one of the wis Mr. Caldwell was assisting him, for I saw him occasionally in nesses. I did not accept Mr Caldwell as interpreter at the the street with Mr Day and Mr Stace, the Counsel and trial. I think Mi y tendered him. I think Mr Caldwell Attorney for the prisoner--and Mr Caldwell took a great seemed as if he did not wish to interpret himself. I am deal of interest on the trial, and he gave evidence in the almost certain he was tendered at the commencement, but. prisoner's behalf, and I have heard it stated that Mr Cald- I think also that he was not willing to interpret. Mr well expressed confidence in Ma-chow Wong. Then, on the Caldwell denied in court on oath all connection or rela day of the conviction, I think before dark that evening, tionship with Ma-chow Wong, by blood, marriage, or I heard that Mr Caldwell had petitioned the Governor to adoption. I alluded to Mr Caldwell in the report which allow Ma-chow Wong's tail to remain on, until some further as asked from me by the Executive Council about the trial, inquiry was made into the case. I never saw the man after but did notepresent to the Governor his extraordinary he was convicted, but I believe as a matter of fact, that his conduct when joint Superintendent of Police with Mr May, tail did stay on. I felt particularly anxious about the case, in laboring for the miscarriage of the crown prosecutions of if my whole reputation were staked upon it. I knew Ma-chow Wong; but I did say, alluding to one point of the character of the prisoner, and the terror of the Chinese evidence, it rested solely on Mr Caldwell's testimony, and that a population about him. I knew that Mr Caldwell expressed he evinced too much of the character of a partizan for his confidence in him, and was anxious about his defence. knew that, with an assistant intimate with the language like Mr Caldwell, the defence had an advantage I had not, and I had two very able counsel against me.
as
Ievidence to carry very much weight with the jury. I said
was sorry to allude in the matter to Mr Caldwell, for whom I had a very great respect-that I was sorry to see him so much in favour of the prisoner; but at the same time I It was in consequence of the conversation I had with Drould not but admire the constancy with which he adhered Bridges before I saw the depositions, that I made the remark to the man in difficulties whom he considered innocent, and to him about the case being a sufficient one. I do not know whom he had found useful. My omission to complain was that he saw the depositions, and he had no means that Iot caused by any idea on my part, that Government patro- know of forming an opinion of the case, while the deposi-nized Mr Caldwell, and not Mr May. I did not think of com- tions were in my hands. I perfectly recollect Mr May reading plaining; I left all those things to the Executive. Dr Bridges over to me some memoranda which he said he had taken from said the verdict was clearly against evidence, and that the Ma-chow Wong's books. I have a distinct recollection of it, jury had no right to bring in a verdict of guilty on that and can give a rough outline of their contents. The memo-evidence. I do not recollect the Governor saying anything rands alluded to a traffic in pistols, and guns, and powder, about it. I don't know what the practice of the Attorney and shot, extending over a good space of time. I think a General is. The practice which I have followed has been year and-a-half-at different intervals, and I think in diffe-to take the cases in the order fixed, unless when witnesses rent quantities. There were memoranda too of rents colleet-ere absent, or unless the case was too long, and a short ed from the village of Cheem-sha-tsooy. I think there were one might be brought in at the request of the Judge, to memoranda of tolls levied on houses in Tai-ping-shan, which close the day. In entering the nolle prosequi I thought I Mr May told me were gambling houses. I am not quite was doing just what the Judge meant.
If any one has certain about this item. I also think there were entries asserted that the Court or any person ordered a nolle pros
qui,
( 63 )
No. 10, I think I remember.
No. 11, I remember nothing about. No. 12, I don't remember. No. 13, I think I remember. No. 14, I can't say I remember.
No. 15, I recollect Mr May calling my attention to the entry concerning the Silk robbery.
No. 16, I don't remember.
No. 17, I don't remember:
No. 18, I think I remember something about that, but am not certain,
such statement is false. The name Samkwei did not occur in any of the papers that I saw in the second case.
It did not to my knowledge occur in the papers of the first case. The petition for Ma-chow Wong's pardon was referred to me by the Government. There was an allusion at Government House on the Queen's Birth Day to Ma-chow Wong's name; his name was but mentioned. I was sitting with Mr Caldwell at dinner, and have a tolerably good idea of what was said. He said that the whole case of Ma-chow Wong would be opened up before this Committee. I said "Indeed." Then I said that I wished he, Mr Caldwell, had not worked so much at the trial of Ma-chow Wong, in his favour, for I believed him to be a great scoundrel. I think Mr Caldwell said then, "That may be, or may not be, but I I asked the Acting Colonial Secretary what was to be done think I was right in working for him at the time as I did." with the property at the Kwong Yik Loong shop, and the think there was nothing more than this said. I don't other property belonging to Ma-chow Wong. He said it would pretend to recollect every word that passed. Upon hearing be an interminable thing to find out who was the owner of Mr May's evidence, my impression as to what was said is it; that amongst the multiplicity of witnesses, some of them not altered, I think it is likely, though I cannot positively conflicting, no jury could come to a conclusion what was the recollect, that Mr May told me there was a mysterious convict's property, and it was not worth while taking any opposition to the prosecution of the case, which he could not notice of it. I don't know what was the value of the pro- understand,—an opposition not proceeding from Mr Caldwell.perty. Mr May, or some one, told me it was his impression Dr Bridges did not say to me, that he would be better pleas-that Ma-chow Wong was a very wealthy man.
I think the
I do not remember the reason assigned by Mr May for not reading some entries.
EIGHTEENTH MEETING...
ed if I did not find a true bill upon the evidence than if I last day of the trial Mr May asked me regarding the disposal did. He seemed to be quite careless about the matter. He of the property. I think I told him to leave a policemani referred to no other case in the calendar. I called upon there as long as he could, and I would see about it, and the Mr May, when I referred to him about the depositions, result was that I saw the Acting Colonial Secretary. and I think he called upon me once. I arranged with Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock. him that he should see me at my chambers, to see the particular and laborious care evinced in the arrangement of the evidence. I have a distant recollection of Mr May say- ing that he wished to push the case through for the public good. I think, on one occasion, he disclaimed any hostility to Mr Caldwell. I think Mr May, when reading the memo- randa, made an observation as to a reason for not reading some of the entries. I think there were some of the entries he did not read. I think if I heard the entries read over I would recollect them. I have totally forgotten the reason; I don't know whether it was anything about Mr Caldwell.
Upon hearing Mr May's account of the contents of the memoranda, I confirm No. 1: I remember distinctly the 50 taels for powder, and some sums for cannon; but do not remember exactly the 600 taels.
Thursday, 1st July, 1858, at 12 o'clock Noon..
Present,—All the Members, except Mr Scarth. HENRY KINGSMILL-Re-called at his own request, to correct a part of his evidence given yesterday.
This morning, on turning over my papers, I found the list of the Criminal cases of the Sessions of August 1857-the Session at which Ma-chow Wong was tried-with my own notes made on the margin at the time. On referring to it I find I did not enter a nolle prosequi as to Ma-chow Wong in the second case. There were two prisoners in the second case-Ma-chow Wong, and Lum Ahing one of his shopmen; With regard to No. 2: I recollect an item about Saltpetre, and Ma-chow Wong stood first on the list, Lum Ahing but not the particulars connected with it.
second. My marginal note made at the time is this: No. 3, I suppose that must be what I refer to about articles" Nolle prosequi entered as to the second prisoner, the first of consumption. I don't remember the fact of cash being having been convicted in another case vide supra.”
." Seeing this, I see now that I did not enter a nolle prosequi as to Ma-chow Wong, but only as to Lum Ahing, and the refer- ence made to the Judge as to proceeding with the second case, and his reply thereto, just tally with that statement. I was also asked yesterday, had Dr Bridges spoken to me about any other case at that session. I endeavoured at
mentioned.
No. 4, is what I referred to about gambling houses. No. 5, I don't remember.
No 6, I recollect.
No. 7, I think I recollect it, but am not quite certain. No. 8, I don't remember.
}
No. 9, I think I recollect the paper about Ross, but not the time to recollect what cases were tried at that session,
the others.
but did not succeed. I find now, in the same list, the case of
-
قطر
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.