495
( 86 )
should have obtained the same sanction in the second had it With regard to the 75 pirates or rebels,-72 of them wera not broken down in the Police Court for lack of clear and taken by H. M. steamer Niger, and H. E. I. Co. steamer unequivocal proof of the meaning of the prisoner's words. Auckland; three were seized in the town, they were Since then, that is to say since the summer of 1856, no such undoubtedly pirates, and were charged by parties having case has occurred, and that satisfies me more than ever that nothing to do, as far I know, with Mr Caldwell. The until then nothing had been done either by Mr Caldwell or same day on which these three were brought before by anybody else conversant with the Chinese to deter them me, but at a later period of the day, the 72 others were either by precept or by example. Indeed, upon the also brought up by Mr Caldwell. It seemed to me clear:: pccurrence of either the first or second of these two cases, I that a great many of them were pirates, or had been, myself asked Mr Caldwell if he had ever made any notifica-shortly before they were seized, acting in conjunction with tion on the subject to the Chinese-he said he had not. asked him if mine was a singular case, when he said, "Oh 110! I have had bribes repeatedly offered to me by China- men, and some much larger than what the man offered you," --which, to use the words of the man in the first case, was $100," or so. I expressed my very strong disapprobation of his indifference to the opinion of the Chinese upon such a matter, affecting so nearly the character of the British Government, but he did not appear to regard it in that light. No notification whatever on the subject existed in the Supreme Court for the admonition of the Chinese against the crime of bribery, until after the first of these two cases was disposed of, when at my request the Chief Justice direct ed somebody, I think Mr Caldwell himself, to prepare one and put it up. And the Chief Justice said that it would be cruel for me to prosecute the man for a mere offence against the bribery laws, since His Lordship believed that nothing had been done since the Colony began to make known what our laws on the subject really were. I therefore waived my application for an attachment, and the prisoner was despatched with a suitable reprimand. Adjourned till Tuesday, at 12 o'clock.
TWENTY SECOND DAY.
Tuesday, 13th July, 1858, at 12 o'clock Noon.
Present,-All the Members.
I pirates, that some others were prisoners, and that a great proportion were certainly rebels, but whether only rebels: and not also pirates, I cannot say.
As Mr Caldwell swore that he had no doubt, from all the appearances, as well as from the evidence given, that the boats in which the 72 men were seized were pirate boats, and that he should have had no hesitation in bringing them in himself as pirate boats, and as there was not a distinct act of piracy sufficient for me to commit any of them for trial, I discharged three, and com- mitted the others to Gaol, to await a reference to the Gover nor under Section 8 of Ordinance 2 of 1850. I did not know, and I do not know now, that these rebels were arrested on the information of Ma-chow Wong. I only know from hearsay, that Mr Scarth took some steps, of what kind I do not know, to obtain their release.
With regard to the case of Po-pak-shing, the notorious pirate, I wish to state, that he and five others were first charged before me on the 19th January, 1857, with an act of piracy on Portuguese Lorcha No. 47. I took a very great interest in the case, and I may say almost acted the part of Superintendent of Police in it. I only succeeded on that occasion however in getting one witness, and after various remands, at the end of 12 days, was obliged to discharge them, but I bound over Po-pak-Shing to appear to answer any charge within one month, Four days after this, on the 7th February, 1857, I got another witness and Po- pak-Shing was again brought before me. There seemed to be some chance of obtaining many more witnesses from The Honourable Mr DAVIES, (Chief Magistrate) a Mem- Macao. I wrote to His Excellency, who wrote to the Gov- ber of the Commission,-Examined.
ernor of Macao; but after some delay it was clear that I should get no more witnesses, that I should not even get the first witness again, and that I should probably have a difficulty in retaining the present one. Po-pak-Shing however was clearly guilty of piracy. He had been seized in one of the boats in which the 17 men were seized who had been charged before the Attorney General, and dis- charged by him on the evidence of Mr Grand-Pre as to the honesty and peaceful character of the boats.
Mr
Grand-Pre swore to the same effect before me in this case, and that he had examined the boats with Mr Caldwell, and seen their Register. Under all the circumstances, therefore I discharged the prisoner. [The cases are referred to by Mr May in page 34.]
The man charged with the larceny of Mr Lapraik's watch was brought before me. That charge breaking down after two remands, I was upon the point of discharging him, when Mr Caldwell deposed that he thought he had evidence to support a charge of piracy and murder against him. The only witness brought forward was a convict under sentence of 15 years' transportation. After two more remands, there being no further evidence, he was discharged. I know nothing as to Ma-chow Wong having got up the case. This witness was not the same as the one who gave evidence against Tong Aku the interpreter, but I believe Mr Caldwell will state that he had at one time proposed to call one of the witnesses in Tong Akü's case also as a witness in this case. Nothing was said about the piracy and murder before the watch case was on the point of being dismissed.
As to Eli Boggs's case, I recollect nothing whatever of any paper of the nature described by Lyons in his evidence [see
(87)
Mr
page 5]eing produced before me in the Police Court. I case. Dr Bridges explained to me, that he believed Mr do not say that no paper whatever was produced to me, but May to be in some way prejudiced against Ma-chow Wong, I have not recollection of any, and if it had been of the and, I think he said, against Mr Caldwell also, and that nature described, I must have recollected it I remember therefore he thought it very desirable I should take the case. pirate Lag or pass inade of calico being produced. I re- My objection to doing so, solely arose from a desire that ollect the tin box being produced in the Police Court. Mr May's feelings should not be hurt, and it was ultimately have searched the Gaol books, and there is no mention of arranged we should both sit. On the 21st July, the any property of Eli Boggs being at any time in the Gaol. next day, 24 men were brought before me, charged with the When I heard of the statement affecting Mr Caldwell which same offence as Ma-chow Wong and the other were charged Eli Boggs had made in his defence, I was very much struck with on Friday the 17th, and Ma-chow Wong and the other with it. I went to the Acting Colonial Secretary, and asked man were again placed in the dock On this case I sat alone, him if he had heard of it, and whether he thought it was and after ten sittings, I committed Ma-chow Wong and 25
ssible there was any truth in it, for, said I, "it seems so others for trial, and upon this case he was convicted. very detailed and circumstantial, that really I think you ought May and I sat, as I have said, together on the other case, and to inquire into it." He said, "Oh no, I know Caldwell's cha-upon it Ma-chow Wong and another were committed for fracter perfectly well, and I am sure it's all nonsense," and trial. In neither case was he admitted to bail until after he from what he said I thought the same, I have mentioned was committed. He was then bailed by order of the Chief his here, merely to shew that up to that time, I had never Justice, the Crown Solicitor looking to the sufficiency of the heard the faintest whisper of anything against Mr Caldwell, sureties. While the hearing of the cases in the Police Court or of any connection between him and Ma-chow Wong. was going on, Ma-chow Wong and his friends had been I now go on to the Ma-chow Wong case: On the 17th heard to utter threats against the witnesses, and upon the July, 1857, Ma-chow Wong and another were charged before affidavit of two of these witnesses, I bound him over e by Mr Grand-Pré, with knowingly receiving sugar pira- to keep the peace, with four sureties of which sureties dically stolen, The only witness besides Mr Grand-Pré, was
Lai Sze-kai was one. On the day on which I took the Sergeant da Silva. There was no evidence whatever to jus- recognizances, I saw Mr Caldwell at the Police Court, with a tify me in detaining the defendants, but the circum- number of persons, who offered themselves as sureties; he stances were such as led me to suppose that evidence showed me a list of eight names. I believe it is quite true, of criminality might be forthcoming on a future occasion. as Mr Caldwell seems to suggest, that I asked Mr Caldwell therefore bound them over to appear and answer any into the Magistrate's room; in fact, I spent about three quar- charge within six weeks. The two sureties were pro- ters of an hour inexamining into the sufficiency of the sureties. cured by Mr Caldwell. I am almost certain it was upon I made each of them make a declaration, that the value of this occasion that Mr Inglis was sitting on the bench on my his property, after all his debts were paid, was enough to left hand, and Mr Caldwell on my right hand. At the com- cover the penalty.
mencement of the case, Mr Inglis said to me in a loud voice, The Attorney General's statement, [see page 32,] about "I think you ought to know, Sir, that this Ma-chow Wong our warning Ma-chow Wong against threats of violence, is a notorious scoundrel, and has been convicted of receiving perfectly accurate. We both not only warned him, but tolen goods." Mr Caldwell immediately replied, also aloud, addressed the public. I happen to recollect also, as Mr "That's quite a mistake, Mr Inglis; no such thing ever hap Anstey has stated, that, as the words Samkwei came out of pened." Towards the end of the case Mr Inglis whispered to the witness's mouth, Mr Anstey came in to the Court.
Mr Caldwell is Ma-chow Wong's adopted son," or he Mr May has asked me to mention what my impression may have said "adopted father,"—I don't know which. I is of his mode of conducting the inquiry. I state at ade no remark at the time, but at the end of the case once, that he exhibited a great deal of zeal, and that he aid quietly to Mr Caldwell, "I have heard something, Mr strayed beyond the simple duties of a Magistrate, and acted aldwell, about your connection with this case, which, if it partly no doubt as Superintendent of Police; and well it were said of me, I should perhaps feel it indelicate in was he did so. I really do not think that he was guilty of me to be present during the inquiry. It is for you to con- even the smallest act, from which even now when I look sider whether you know of any reason which should make back on his conduct, with the further knowledge of his you think you ought not to be present." I said no more relations with Mr Caldwell-I could, even if I had the
nd said I should say no more.
Upon consideration I have greatest wish to do so, conclude that he acted unfairly or me doubt whether I am correct as to the day on which with hostile feelings towards Mr Caldwell. If he had such occurred. I did not give Mr Caldwell tim make feelings he concealed them very well from me. As to his remark, and he made none. On Monday,
Lis
20th acting somewhat as Superintendent of Police, any case of such cumbersomeness, much more this case, would have broken down unless he had done so. I don't believe Ma- chow Wong's case would have lived three days through
mly, Dr Bridges requested me to take a case which was oming on against Ma-chow Wong. I said, "It is not my day, Have Petty Sessions business to attend to; it will be Mr May's
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.