838
...
369
( 86 )
With regard to the 75 pirates or rebels,—72 of them were taken by H. M. steamer Niger, and the H. E. I. Co. steamer Auckland; three were seized in the town, they were undoubtedly pirates, and were charged by parties having nothing to do, as far I know, with Mr Caldwell. The same day on which these three were brought before me, but at a latter period of the day, the 72 others were also brought up by Mr Caldwell. It seemed to me clear that a great many of them were pirates, or had been, shortly before they were seized, acting in conjunction with 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 such there was not a distinct act of piracy sufficient for me to commit any of them for trial, I discharged three, and committed the others to Gaol, to await a reference to the Government.
In the second had it not broken down in the Police Court for lack of clear and unequivocal proof of the meaning of the prisoner's words. Since then, that is to say since the summer of 1856, no such case has occurred, and that satisfies me more than ever that until then nothing had been done either by Mr Caldwell or by anybody else conversant with the Chinese to deter them either by precept or by example. Indeed, upon the occurrence of either the first or second of these two cases, I myself asked Mr Caldwell if he had ever made any notification on the subject to the Chinese—he said he had not. I asked him if mine was a singular case, when he said, "Oh no! I have had bribes repeatedly offered to me by Chinamen, 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 directed 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.
nor under Section 3 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 pirates, 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 Macao. I wrote to His Excellency, who wrote to the Governor 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 discharged by him on the evidence of Mr Grand-Pré as to the honesty and peaceful character of the boats. Mr Grand-Pré 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 Honourable Mr DAVIES, (Chief Magistrate) a Member of the Commission,—Examined.
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 Akü the interpreter, but I believe Mr Caldwell will state that he had at one time proposed to call one of the witnesses in Tong Aku'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 page 5] being produced before me in the Police Court, I do not say that no paper whatever was produced to me, but I have not recollection of any, and if it had been of the nature described, I must have recollected it. I remember a pirate flag or pass made of calico being produced. I recollect the tin box being produced in the Police Court. I have searched the Gaol books, and there is no mention of any property of Eli Boggs being at any time in the Gaol.
On the 21st July, the next day, 24 men were brought before me, charged with the same offence as Ma-chow Wong and the other were charged with on Friday the 17th, and Ma-chow Wong and the other man were again placed in the dock. On this case I sat alone, and after ten sittings, I committed Ma-chow Wong and 25 others for trial, and upon this case he was convicted. Mr May and I sat, as I have said, together on the other case, and upon it Ma-chow Wong and another were committed for trial. In neither case was he admitted to bail until after he was committed. He was then bailed by order of the Chief Justice, the Crown Solicitor looking to the sufficiency of the sureties.
When I heard of the statement affecting Mr Caldwell which Eli Boggs had made in his defence, I was very much struck with it. I went to the Acting Colonial Secretary, and asked him if he had heard of it, and whether he thought it was possible there was any truth in it, for, said I, "it seems so very detailed and circumstantial, that really I think you ought to inquire into it." He said, "Oh no I know Caldwell's character perfectly well, and I am sure it's all nonsense," and from what he said I thought the same.
I have mentioned this here, merely to shew that up to that time, I had never heard the faintest whisper of anything against Mr Caldwell, or of any connection between him and Ma-chow Wong.
On the 17th July, 1857, Ma-chow Wong and another were charged before me by Mr Grand-Pré, with knowingly receiving sugar piratically stolen. The only witness besides Mr Grand-Pré, was Sergeant da Silva. There was no evidence whatever to justify me in detaining the defendants, but the circumstances were such as led me to suppose that evidence of criminality might be forthcoming on a future occasion. I therefore bound them over to appear and answer any charge within six weeks. The two sureties were procured by Mr Caldwell.
I am almost certain it was upon this occasion that Mr Inglis was sitting on the bench on my left hand, and Mr Caldwell on my right hand. At the commencement of the case, Mr Inglis said to me in a loud voice, "I think you ought to know, Sir, that this Ma-chow Wong is a notorious scoundrel, and has been convicted of receiving stolen goods." Mr Caldwell immediately replied, also aloud, "That's quite a mistake, Mr Inglis; no such thing ever happened." Towards the end of the case Mr Inglis whispered to me, "Mr Caldwell is Ma-chow Wong's adopted son," or he may have said "adopted father, I don't know which. I made no remark at the time, but at the end of the case I said quietly to Mr Caldwell, "I have heard something, Mr Caldwell, about your connection with this case, which, if it were said of me, I should perhaps feel it indelicate in me to be present during the inquiry. It is for you to consider whether you know of any reason which should make you think you ought not to be present." I said no more, and said I should say no more. Upon consideration I have some doubt whether I am correct as to the day on which this occurred.
I did not give Mr Caldwell time to make any remark, and he made none.
On Monday, the 20th July, Dr Bridges requested me to take a case which was coming on against Ma-chow Wong. I said, "It is not my day, I have Petty Sessions business to attend to; it will be Mr May's case." Dr Bridges explained to me, that he believed Mr May to be in some way prejudiced against Ma-chow Wong, and, I think he said, against Mr Caldwell also, and that therefore he thought it very desirable I should take the case. My objection to doing so, solely arose from a desire that Mr May's feelings should not be hurt, and it was ultimately arranged we should both sit.
Mr May has asked me to mention what my impression is of his mode of conducting the inquiry. I state at once, that he exhibited a great deal of zeal, and that he strayed beyond the simple duties of a Magistrate, and acted partly no doubt as Superintendent of Police; and well it was he did so. I really do not think that he was guilty of even the smallest act, from which—even now when I look back on his conduct, with the further knowledge of his relations with Mr Caldwell—I could, even if I had the greatest wish to do so, conclude that he acted unfairly or with hostile feelings towards Mr Caldwell. As to his feelings he concealed them very well from me.
On acting somewhat as Superintendent of Police, any case of such cumbersomeness, much more this case, would have broken down unless he had done so.
The Attorney General's statement, [see page 32,] about warning Ma-chow Wong against threats of violence, is perfectly accurate. We both not only warned him, but addressed the public. I happen to recollect also, as Mr Anstey has stated, that, as the words Samkwei came out of the witness's mouth, Mr Anstey came in to the Court.
I don't believe Ma-
( 87 )
838
...
369
( 86 )
With regard to the 75 pirates or rebels,-72 of them were tion in the second had it not broken down in the Police Court for lack of clear and unequivocal proof of the mean- taken by H. M. steamer Niger, and the H. E. I. Co. steamer ing of the prisoner's words. Since then, that is to say Auckland; three were seized in the town, they were un- since the summer of 1856, no such case has occurred, and doubtedly pirates, and were charged by parties having that satisfies me more than ever that until then nothing nothing to do, as far I know, with Mr Caldwell. The same had been done either by Mr Caldwell or by anybody else day on which these three were brought before me, but at conversant with the Chinese to deter them either by pre-a latter period of the day, the 72 others were also brought cept or by example. Indeed, upon the occurrence of up by Mr Caldwell. It seemed to me clear that a great either the first or second of these two cases, I myself ask-
many of them were pirates, or had been, shortly before they ed Mr Caldwell if he had ever made any notification on
were seized, acting in conjunction with pirates, that some I asked the subject to the Chinese--he said he had not.
others were prisoners, and that a great proportion were him if mine was a singular case, when he said, "Oh no! I have had bribes repeatedly offered to me by Chinamen, certainly rebels, but whether only rebels and not also pirates
I cannot say. As Mr Caldwell swore that he had no and some much larger than what the man offered you,"
doubt, from all the appearances, as well as from the evid- which, to use the words of the man in the first case, was «$100," or so. I expressed my very strong disapproba-ence given. that the boats in which the 72 men were seized
were pirate boats, and that he should have had no hesita- tion of his indifference to the opinion of the Chinese upon
tion in bringing them in himself as pirate boats, and as such a matter, affecting so nearly the character of the British Government, but he did not appear to regard it in there was not a distinct act of piracy sufficient for me to that light. No notification whatever on the subject exist commit any of them for trial, I discharged three, and com- ed in the Supreme Court for the admonition of the Chi-mitted the others to Gaol, to await a reference to the Gover- nese against the crime of bribery, until after the first of these two cases was disposed of, when at my request the Chief Justice directed 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.
nor under Section 3 of Ordinance 2 of 1850. I did not
Adjourned till Tuesday, at 12 o'clock.
TWENTY SECOND DAY.
Tuesday, 13th July, 1858, at 12 o'clock Noon.
Present, -All the Members.
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 pirates, 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 seem- ed to be some chance of obtaining many more witnesses
The Honourable Mr DAVIES, (Chief Magistrate) a Mem- from Macao. I wrote to His Excellency, who wrote to the ber of the Commission,-Examined.
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 evid- ence against Tong Akü the interpreter, but I believe Mr Caldwell will state that he had at one time proposed to call one of the witnesses in Tong Aku's case also as a witness in this case. Nothing was said about the piracy and mur- der before the watch case was on the point of being dismis sed.
Governor 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-Pré as to the honesty and peaceful character of the boats. Pré 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.]
Mr Grand-
As to Eli Boggs's case, I recollect nothing whatever of any paper of the nature described by Lyons in his evidence
from
same.
( 87 )
[see page 5] being produced before me in the Police Court, | to; it will be Mr May's case." Dr Bridges explained to me, I do not say that no paper whatever was produced to me, that he believed Mr May to be in some way prejudiced but I have not recollection of any, and if it had been of the against Ma-chow Wong, and, I think he said, against Mr nature described, I must have recollected it. I remember Caldwell also, and that therefore he thought it very desira- a pirate flag or pass made of calico being produced. I re-
ble I should take the case. My objection to doing so, solely collect the tin box being produced in the Police Court. I arose from a desire that Mr May's feelings should not be have searched the Gaol books, and there is no mention of hurt, and it was ultimately arranged we should both sit. any property of Eli Boggs being at any time in the Gaol.
On the 21st July, the next day, 24 men were brought before When I heard of the statement affecting Mr Caldwell me, charged with the same offence as Ma-chow Wong and which Eli Boggs had made in his defence, I was very much the other were charged with on Friday the 17th, and Ma- struck with it. I went to the Acting Colonial Secretary, chow Wong and the other man were again placed in the and asked him if he had heard of it, and whether he dock. On this case I sat alone, and after ten sittings, I thought it was possible there was any truth in it, for, said committed Ma-chow Wong and 25 others for trial, and up- I, "it seems so very detailed and circumstantial, that really on this case he was convicted. Mr May and I sat, as I have I think you ought to inquire into it." He said, "Oh no I said, together on the other case, and upon it Ma-chow Wong know Caldwell's character perfectly well, and I am sure and another were committed for trial. In neither case was it's all nonsense," and from what he said I thought the he admitted to bail until after he was committed. He was I have mentioned this here, merely to shew that then bailed by order of the Chief Justice, the Crown Solici- up to that time, I had never heard the faintest whisper of tor looking to the sufficiency of the sureties. While the anything against Mr Caldwell, or of any connection be- hearing of the cases in the Police Court was going on, Ma- tween him and Ma-chow Wong.
chow Wong and his friends had been heard to utter threats On the 17th against the witnesses, and upon the affidavit of two of these I now go on to the Ma-chow Wong case: July, 1857, Ma-chow Wong and another were charged witnesses, I bound him over to keep the peace, with four On the before me by Mr Grand-Pré, with knowingly receiving sureties of which sureties Lai-Sze-kai was one. sugar piratically stolen. The only witness besides Mr day on which I took the recognizances, I saw Mr Caldwell Grand-Pré, was Sergeant da Silva. There was no evidence at the Police Court, with a number of persons who offered whatever to justify me in detaining the defendants, but the themselves as sureties; he showed me a list of eight names. circumstances were such as led me to suppose that evidence I believe it is quite true, as Mr Caldwell seems to suggest, of criminality might be forthcoming on a future occasion. that I asked Mr Caldwell into the Magistrate's room; in I therefore bound them over to appear and answer any fact, I spent about three quarters of an hour in examining charge within six weeks. The two sureties were procured into the sufficiency of the sureties. I made each of them by Mr Caldwell. I am almost certain it was upon this make a declaration, that the value of his property, after all occasion that Mr Inglis was sitting on the bench on my left his debts were paid, was enough to cover the penalty.
At the com- hand, and Mr Caldwell on my right hand. mencement of the case, Mr Inglis said to me in a loud voice, "I think you ought to know, Sir, that this Ma-chow Wong is a notorious scoundrel, and has been convicted of receiv- ing stolen goods." Mr Caldwell immediately replied, also aloud, "That's quite a mistake, Mr Inglis; no such thing ever happened." Towards the end of the case Mr Inglis
Mr May has asked me to mention what my impression whispered to me, "Mr Caldwell is Ma-chow Wong's adop- ted son," or he may have said "adopted father, I don't is of his mode of conducting the inquiry. I state at once, know which. I made no remark at the time, but at the that he exhibited a great deal of zeal, and that he strayed end of the case I said quietly to Mr Caldwell, "I have heard beyond the simple duties of a Magistrate, and acted partly something Mr Caldwell, about your connection with this no doubt as Superintendent of Police; and well it was he case, which, if it were said of me, I should perhaps feel it did so. I really do not think that he was guilty of even indelicate in me to be present during the inquiry. It is for the smallest act, from which-even now when I look back you to consider whether you know of any reason which on his conduct, with the further knowledge of his relations should make you think you ought not to be present." I with Mr Caldwell-I could, even if I had the greatest said no more, and said I should say no more. Upon con- wish to do so, conclude that he acted unfairly or with If he had such sideration I have some doubt whether I am correct as to hostile feelings towards Mr Caldwell.
As to his the day on which this occurred. I did not give Mr Cald- feelings he concealed them very well from me.
On acting somewhat as Superintendent of Police, any case of well time to make any remark, and he made none. Monday, the 20th July, Dr Bridges requested me to take a such cumbersomeness, much more this case, would have case which was coming on against Ma-chow Wong. I said broken down unless he had done so. "It is not my day, I have Petty Sessions business to attend chow Wong's case would have lived three days through
The Attorney General's statement, [see page 32,] about or warning Ma-chow Wong against threats of violence, is perfectly accurate. We both not only warned him, but addressed the public. I happen to recollect also, as Mr
Anstey has stated, that, as the words Samkwei came out of the witness's mouth, Mr Anstey came in to the Court.
I don't believe Ma-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.