357
names.
a case.
upon
(62)
He did not do or say anything from which I could receive the impression, that I would please himself or the Governor more by not finding a true bill than by finding a true bill. From this time, until the case left my hands, there was no pressure used with me in favour of Ma-chow Wong by the Government.
After I had the depositions, and read them through, I was speaking to Dr Bridges on some other business one day, and I introduced the subject of Ma-chow Wong, and told him the depositions were ample to support a prosecution. He said that was quite enough—that I was to be the judge of that, and I was the only responsible person for carrying on the prosecution. I don't think I spoke to him on the subject from that time until the occasion mentioned at the Club. I think I can positively say that Mr Caldwell was never in communication with me concerning the case. It was my impression that Ma-chow Wong was strongly befriended from some quarter or another. I received this impression from a great many facts. I all along, while I was preparing for the trial, knew that Mr Caldwell was assisting him, for I saw him occasionally in the street with Mr Day and Mr Stace, the Counsel and Attorney for the prisoner, and Mr Caldwell took a great deal of interest in the trial, and gave evidence in the prisoner's behalf.
I have heard it stated that Mr Caldwell expressed confidence in Ma-chow Wong. Then, on the day of the conviction, I think before dark that evening, I heard that Mr Caldwell had petitioned the Governor to allow Ma-chow Wong's tail to remain on, until some further inquiry was made into the case. I never saw the man after he was convicted, but I believe as a matter of fact, that his tail did stay on. I felt particularly anxious about the case, as if my whole reputation were staked upon it. I knew the character of the prisoner, and the terror of the Chinese population about him. I knew that Mr Caldwell expressed confidence in him, and was anxious about his defence. I 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.
It was in consequence of the conversation I had with Dr Bridges before I saw the depositions, that I made the remark to him about the case being a sufficient one. I do not know that he saw the depositions, and he had no means that I know of forming an opinion of the case, while the depositions were in my hands. I perfectly recollect Mr May reading over to me some memoranda which he said he had taken from Ma-chow Wong's books. I have a distinct recollection of it, and can give a rough outline of their contents. The memoranda alluded to a traffic in pistols, and guns, and powder, and shot extending over a good space of time. I think a year and a half—at different intervals, and I think in different quantities. There were memoranda too of rents collected from the village of Cheem-sha-tsooy. I think there were memoranda of tolls levied on houses in Tai-ping-shan, which Mr May told me were gambling houses. I am not quite certain about this item. I also think there were entries of a great many articles of European consumption—wines, biscuits, and sundry articles for the table, not in use amongst Chinese. That is all I remember about them. I think there were no entries of articles in which Mr Caldwell's name was mentioned. I have not the slightest recollection of any such, and if you had not asked the question, I should have said decidedly not. There was nothing, so far as I can recollect, which brought in Mr Caldwell's name at all, or which would have led me inferentially to suppose that Mr Caldwell was referred to. I am only speaking from memory of a circumstance of a year ago. If such entries had been brought to my attention, I should have considered it my duty to bring them officially to notice. I could not use those memoranda for the purposes of the trial; I do not think I could have got them in evidence. Mr May showed them to me, and thought I would bring them forward in the Court. He considered them relevant to the issue, until we had a talk about it. I obtained no help in this prosecution from Mr Caldwell or through his department. Mr Grand-Pré was one of the witnesses. I did not accept Mr Caldwell as interpreter at the trial. I think Mr Day tendered him. I think Mr Caldwell seemed as if he did not wish to interpret himself.
I am almost certain he was tendered at the commencement, but I think also that he was not willing to interpret. Mr Caldwell denied in court on oath all connection or relationship with Ma-chow Wong, by blood, marriage, or adoption. I alluded to Mr Caldwell in the report which was asked from me by the Executive Council about the trial, but did not represent to the Governor his extraordinary conduct when joint Superintendent of Police with Mr May, in labouring for the miscarriage of the crown prosecutions of Ma-chow Wong; but I did say, alluding to one point of evidence, it rested solely on Mr Caldwell's testimony, and that he evinced too much of the character of a partisan for his evidence to carry very much weight with the jury. I said I was sorry to allude in the matter to Mr Caldwell, for whom I had a very great respect; but at the same time I could not but admire the constancy with which he adhered to the man in difficulties whom he considered innocent, and whom he had found useful. My omission to complain was not caused by any idea on my part, that Government patronised Mr Caldwell, and not Mr May. I did not think of complaining; I left all those things to the Executive. Dr Bridges said the verdict was clearly against evidence and that the jury had no right to bring in a verdict of guilty on that evidence. I do not recollect the Governor saying anything about it.
I don't know what the practice of the Attorney General is. The practice which I have followed has been to take the cases in the order fixed, unless when witnesses were absent, or unless the case was too long, and a short one might be brought in at the request of the Judge, to close the day. In entering the nolle prosequi I thought I was doing just what the Judge meant. If any one has asserted that the Court or any person ordered a nolle prosequi, such statement is false.
(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.
I do not remember the reason assigned by Mr May for not reading some entries.
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 think I was right in working for him at the time as I did." I think there was nothing more than this said. I don't pretend to recollect every word that passed. Upon hearing Mr May's evidence, my impression as to what was said is not altered. I think it is likely, though I cannot positively recollect, that Mr May told me there was a mysterious opposition to the prosecution of the case, which he could not understand,—an opposition not proceeding from Mr Caldwell. Dr Bridges did not say to me, that he would be better pleased if I did not find a true bill upon the evidence than if I did. He seemed to be quite careless. He referred to no other case in the calendar. I called upon Mr May, when I referred to him as Colonial Secretary, about the depositions, and I think he called upon me once. I arranged with 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 saying 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 memoranda, 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.
I asked the Acting Colonial Secretary what was to be done with the property at the Kwong Yik Loong shop, and the other property belonging to Ma-chow Wong. He said it would be an interminable thing to find out who was the owner of it; that amongst the multiplicity of witnesses, some of them conflicting, no jury could come to a conclusion what was the convict's property, and it was not worthwhile taking any notice of it. I don't know what was the value of the property. Mr May, or someone, told me it was his impression that Ma-chow Wong was a very wealthy man. I think the last day of the trial Mr May asked me regarding the disposal of the property. I think I told him to leave a policeman there as long as he could, and I would see about it, and the result was that I saw the Acting...
Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
Eighteenth MEETING.
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; and Ma-chow Wong stood first on the list, Lum Ahin second. My marginal note made at the time is this: "Nolle prosequi entered as to the second prisoner, the first 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 Ahin, and the reference made to the Judge as to proceeding with the second case, and his reply thereto, just tally with that statement.
With regard to No. 2: I recollect an item about Saltpetre, but not the particulars connected with it.
No. 3, I suppose that must be what I refer to about articles of consumption. I don't remember the fact of cash being 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 others.
I was also asked yesterday, had Dr Bridges spoken to me about any other case at that session. I endeavoured at the time to recollect what cases were tried in the same list, the case of Kan Assam and Lee Atong for murder...
357
names.
a case.
upon
( 62 )
He did not do or say anything from which I could receive the impression, that I would please himself or the Governor more by not finding a true bill than by finding a true bill. From this time, until the case left my hands, there was no presure used with me in favour of Ma-chow Wong by the Government.
After I had the depositions, and read them through, I was speaking to Dr Bridges on some other business one day, and I introduced the subject of Ma-chow Wong, and told him the depositions were ample to support He said that was quite enough—that I was to be the judge of that, and I was the only responsible person for carrying on the prosecution. I don't think I spoke to him the subject from that time until the occasion mentioned at the Club. I think I can positively say that Mr Caldwell was never in communication with me concerning the case. It was my impression that Ma-chow Wong was strongly befriended from some quarter or another. I received this impression from a great many facts. I all along, while I was preparing for the trial, knew that Mr Caldwell was assisting him, for I saw him occasionally in the street with Mr Day and Mr Stace, the Counsel and Attorney for the prisoner and Mr Caldwell took a great deal of interest on the trial, and he evidence in the prisoner's behalf, and
gave I have heard it stated that Mr Caldwell expressed con- fidence in Ma-chow Wong. Then, on the day of the con- viction, I think before dark that evening, I heard that Mr Caldwell had petitioned the Governor to allow Ma-chow Wong's tail to remain on, until some further inquiry was made into the case. I never saw the man after he was convicted, but I believe as a matter of fact, that his tail
did stay on. I felt particularly anxious about the case, as if my whole reputation were staked upon it. I knew the character of the prisoner, and the terror of the Chinese population about him. I knew that Mr Caldwell expres- sed confidence in him, and was anxious about his defence. I 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.
It was in consequence of the conversation I had with Dr Bridges before I saw the depositions, that I made the remark to him about the case being a sufficient one. I do not know that he saw the depositions, and he had no means that I know of forming an opinion of the case, while the depositions were in my hands. I perfectly recollect Mr May reading over to me some memoranda which he said he had taken from Ma-chow Wong's books. I have a distinct recollection of it, and can give a rough outline of their contents. The memoranda alluded to a traffic in pistols, and guns, and powder, and shot extend. ing over a good space of time. I think a year and-a-half —at different intervals, and I think in different quantities. There were memoranda too of rents collected from the village of Cheem-sha-tsooy. I think there were mem- oranda of tolls levied on houses in Tai-ping-shan, which Mr May told me were gambling houses. I am not quite
certain about this item. I also think there were entries
I am
of great many articles, of Eurepean consumption-wines, biscuits, and sundry articles for the table, not in use amongst Chinese. That is all I remember about them. I think there were no entries of articles in which Mr Cald- well's name was mentioned. I have not the slightest re- collection of any such, and if you had not asked the ques- tion, I should have said decidedly not. There was noth- ing so far as I can recollect which brought in Mr Cald- well's name at all, or which would have led me inferen- tially to suppose that Mr Caldwell was referred to. only speaking from memory of a circumstance of a year ago. If such entries had been brought to my attention, I should have considered it my duty to bring them officially to notice. I could not use those memoranda for the pur- poses of the trial; I do not think I could have got them in evidence. Mr May showed them to me, and thought I would bring them forward in the Court. He considered them relevant to the issue, until we had a talk about it. I obtained no help in this prosecution from Mr Caldwell or through his department. Mr Grand-Pré was one of the witnesses. I did not accept Mr Caldwell as interpre- ter at the trial. I think Mr Day tendered him. I think Mr Caldwell seemed as if he did not wish to interpret himself.
I am almost certain he was tendered at the commencement, but I think also that he was not willing to interpret. Mr Caldwell denied in court on oath all connection or relationship with Ma-chow Wong, by blood, marriage, or adoption. I alluded to Mr Caldwell in the report which was asked from me by the Executive Council about the trial, but did not represent to the Governor his extraordinary conduct when joint Super- intendent of Police with Mr May, in laboring for the mis- carriage of the crown prosecutions of Ma-chow Wong; but I did say, alluding to one point of evidence, it rested solely on Mr Caldwell's testimony, and that he evinced too much of the character of a partizan for his evidence to carry very much weight with the jury. I said I was sorry to allude in the matter to Mr Cadlwell, for whom I had a very favour of the prisoner; but at the same time I could not great respect that I was sorry to see him so much in
but admire the constancy with which he adhered to the man in difficulties whom he considered innocent, and whom he had found useful. My omission to complain
patronised Mr Caldwell, and not Mr May. I did not think was not caused by any idea on my part, that Governineut
of complaining; I left all those things to the Executive. Dr Bridges said the verdict was clearly against evidence and that the jury had no right to bring in a verdict of guilty on that evidence. I do not recollect the Goveruor saying anything about it.
Idon't know what the practice
of the Attorney General is. The practice which I have followed has been to take the cases in the order fixed, unless when witnesses were absent, or unless the case request of the Judge, to close the day. In entering the was too long, and a short one might be brought in at the nolle prosequi I thought I was doing just what the Judge meant, If any one has asserted that the Court or any
( 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.
I do not remember the reason assigned by Mr May for not reading some entries.
person ordered a nolle prosequi, 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 know- ledge 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 think I was right in working for him at the time as I did." I think there was nothing more than this said. I don't pretend to recollect every word that passed. Upon hearing Mr May's evidence, my impression as to what was said is not altered. I think it is likely, though I can- not positively recollect that Mr May told me there was a mysterious opposition to the prosecution of the case, which he could not understand,—an opposition not proceeding from Mr Caldwell. Dr Bridges did not say to me, that he would be better pleased if I did not find a true bill upon the evidence than if I did. He seemed to be quite careless He referred to no other case in the calendar. I called upon Mr May, when I referred to himing Colonial Secretary. about the depositions, and I think he called upon me once. I arranged with him that he should see me at my cham- bers, to see the particular and laborious care evinced in the arrangement of the evidence. I have a distant re- collection of Mr May saying that he wished to push the case through for the public good. I think on one occassion, he disclaimed any hostility to Mr Caldwell. I think Mr May, when reading the memoranda, made an observation I as to a reason for not reading some of the entries. 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.
about the matter.
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.
I asked the Acting Colonial Secretary what was to be done with the property at the Kwong Yik Loong shop, and the other property belonging to Ma-chow Wong. He said it would be an interminable thing to find out who was the owner of it; that amongst the multiplicity of witnesses, some of them conflicting, no jury could come to a conclusion what was the convict's property, and it was not worth while taking any notice of it. I don't know what was the value of the property. Mr May, or some one, told me it was his impression that Ma-chow Wong was a very weal- I think the last day of the trial Mr May asked thy man, me regarding the disposal of the property. I think I told him to leave a policeman there as long as he could, and 1 would see about it, and the result was that I saw the Act-
Adjourned till to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
Eighteenth MEETING.
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 trial-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-Machow Wong, and Lum Ahing one of his shopmen; and Ma-chow Wong stood first on the list,
With regard to No. 2: I recollect an item about Saltpe- Lum Abin second. My marginal note made at the time
tre, but not the particulars connected with it.
No. 3, I suppose that must be what I refer to about ar. ticles of consumption. I don't remember the fact of cash being mentioned.
No. 4, is what I refered 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 others.
is this: "Nolle prosequi entered as to the second prisoner, the first 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 Ahin, and the referrence 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 sponken to me about any other case at that session. endeavoured at the time to recollect what cases were tried
in the' at that session, but did not succeed. I find now, same list, the case of Kan Assam and Lee Atong for mur-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.