سعر
361
pure benevolence to benefit her, or were the prisoners prompted by that selfish benevolence to which human nature is prone, and acted to benefit themselves. His Honour reviewed the evidence in relation to this point, and generally, He complimented Mr Tonnochy on the energy and discretion that gentleman had shewn, and directed the jury that they might rely on his evidence implicitly. Mr Tonnochy had found a paper in Chinese hung up outside the door of the house, where prisoners and the women were. (His Honor read a translation to the effect that persons inside that house must obey regulations, must embark on board the Portland at proper time, that persons entering the house must not go out as they liked, &c.) If the jury could not connect the prisoners with that paper, then the case must be dismissed, but as he had said, Mr Tonnachy's evidence was clear. The same witness also said that licenses for emigration purposes were issuable by him under proper regulations. He asked prisoners for their license, and they produced a piece of paper with English print upon it. Now was that paper an authority by means of which these prisoners could keep an emigration barrack? He would read it. "Bearers of these have been employed to collect emigrants for the Kwong-tang-fat Company at Hongkong." Well, what sort of Company? Was it a commercial company, or a benevolent company, such as in England would be regarded as such? The jury would draw their own inferences from the evidence. Then this paper went on. "The emigrants are to be shipped at Hongkong under the supervision of the local Government and the Netherlands Consul, and to proceed to Dutch Guiana, where they will be well treated. Having formerly been living in the Sunon and Kweishin Districts, I certify this to be the truth. W. Lobscheid, Victoria, Hongkong, 22nd September, 1866." So that (continued His Honor) the only authority under which these people emigrate is a licence from Lobscheid. That is not a licence. The charge of imprisonment was made—instantly made—by the women in the house directly they saw a man to whom they could speak. They said, "we have been brought here under false pretences." They said this in the presence of the prisoners. Why, if such an assertion had been false, did not the prisoners speak out! Suppose such a declaration had been made by a person in the house of one of the jury, what would the juryman have said? Why he would have at once denied the statement, and said "go about your business."
"Have you received any money?" Mr Tonnachy asked the women, They said they had not. Even upon this question the prisoners maintained silence. No witness had been produced for the defence to show that what had been done in that house, was justified by law or practice in this colony. Mr Barnard had presented the facts in the most favourable light for the prisoners, but, as had been said, the jury must draw their own inferences. It was said that the prisoners were ignorant men, but were they not in a station of life that would lead one to suppose they worked for gain? It was for the jury to say whether they believed the prisoners worked in this case for gain or not. If they believed the witnesses, they must arrive at the conclusion that there had been unlawful restraint on the person.
His Honor said he would not occupy the time of the jury uselessly, but he thought that the important nature of the case would relieve him from any suspicion of having intruded on their time unnecessarily.
The papers in the case were then handed to the jury, who retired, and in a few minutes returned into court with a verdict of
guilty on the second count.
Two of the
jury had desired to return a verdict of guilty on the first count.
His Honor—Have the prisoners anything to say?
The Interpreter put the question and replied: They all say they were employed by other men, my lord,
His Honor: The best excuse you can offer for yourselves is, that others were engaged in this transaction, who could have better filled your places at the bar. But you must have known that you were doing wrong, and committing a breach of the law. The embarrassment of your manner when you were challenged by Mr. Tonnochy showed that you had doubts as to whether what you were about was right. Enough has come out in this case for me to see that you knew you were committing a great breach of the natural duties of man, and that in keeping this woman in prison you knew you were committing a breach of moral and legal right. I shut out—properly or improperly—from this case, evidence which however I have looked at, and which gives such a character to your objects, as to make me certain that you knew you were doing wrong. However, the jury have taken a merciful view of your case. They had one of two alternatives before them, and I have no doubt they exercised their best discretion, It is my business now to punish you for the offence of which they have found you guilty; but I can only say that if the jury had found you guilty on the first count of the larger offence of imprisoning with the view of selling these people, you would have been very severely punished indeed." The sentence of the Court is that each of you be imprisoned for the period of twelve calendar months.
The prisoners were then removed and the Court rose. uu
CX.
سعر
361
pure benevolence to benefit her, or were the prisoners prompted by that selfish be- nevolence to which human nature is prone, and acted to benefit themselves. His Honour reviewed the evidence in relation to this point, and generally, He compli mented Mr Tonmochy on the energy and discretion that gentleman had shewn, and directed the jury that they might rely on his evidence implicitly. Mr Tonnochy had found a paper in Chinese hung up outside the door of the house, where prisoners and the women were. (His Honor read a translation to the effect that persons inside that house must obey regulations, must embark on board the Portland at proper time, that per- sons entering the house must not go out as they liked, &c.) If the jury could not connect the prisoners with that paper, then the case must be dismissed, but as he had said, Mr Tonnachy's evidence was clear. The same witness also said that licenses for emigration purposes were inst- able by him under proper regulations. He asked prisoners for their license, and they produced a piece of paper with English print upon it. Now was that paper an aut thority by means of which these prisoners could keep an emigration barraccon? He would read it. Bearers of these have been empoyed to collect emigrants for the Kwong-tang-fat Company at Hongkong." Well, what sort of Company? Was it a commercial company, or a benevolent company, such as in England would be re- garded as such? The jury would draw their own inferences from the evidence. Then this paper went on. "The emigrants are to be shipped at Hongkong under the su pervision of the local Government and the Netherlands Consul, and to proceed to Dutch Guinus, where they will be well trans ted. Having formerly been living in the Sunon and Kweishin Districts, I certify this to be the truth. W. Lobscheid, Vic- toria, Hongkong, 22nd September, 1866." So that (continued His Honor) the only authority under which these people eni grate is a licence from Lobscheid. That is not a licence. The charge of impri- sonment was made-instantly made--by the women in the house directly they saw a man to whom they could speak. They said, "we have been brought here under false pretences." They said this in the presence of the prisoners. Why, if such an assertion had been false, did not the pri- soners speak out! Suppose such a declara- tion had been made by a person in the house of one of the jury, what would the juryman have said? Why he would have at once denied the statement, and said "go about your business."
"Have you received any money P' Mr Tonnachy asked the women, They said they had not. Even upon this question the prisoners maintained silence. No witness had been produced for the defence to show that what had been done in that house, was justified by law or practice in this colony. Mr Barnard had presented the facts in the most favourable light for the prisoners, but, as had been said, the jury must draw their own inferences. It was said that the prisoners were ignoraut men, but were they not in a station of life that would lead one to suppose they worked for gain? It was for the jury to say whether they believed the prisoners worked in this case for gain or not. If they believed the wit- uesses, they must arrive at the conclusion that there had been unlawful restraint on the person.
His Honor said he would not occupy the time of the jury uselessly, but he thought that the important nature of the case would relieve him from any sus picion of having intruded on their time unnecessarily.
The papers in the case were then handed to the jury, who retired, and in a few mi nutes returned into court with a verdict of
guilty on the second count.
Two of the
jury bad desired to return a verdict of guilty on the first count.
His Honor-Have the prisoners anything to say?
The Interpreter put the question and re- plied: They all say they were employed by other men, my lord,
His Honor: The best excuse you can offer for yourselves is, that others were engagent in this transaction, who could have better filled your places at the bar. But you must have known that you were doing wrong, and committing a breach of the law. The embarassment of your manner when you were challenged by Mr. Tonnochy showed that you had doubts as to whether what you were about was right. Enough has come out in this case for me to see that you knew you were committing a great breach of the natural duties of man, and that in keeping this woman in prison you knew you were committing a breach of moral and le gal right. I shut out-properly or impro- perly-from this case, evidence which how- ever 1 have looked at, and which gives such a character to your objects, as to make me certain that you knew you were doing wrung. However, the jury have taken å merciful view of your case. They had one of two alternatives before them, and I have no doubt they exercised their best discre tion, It is my business now to punish you for the offence of which they have found you guilty; but I can only say that if the jury had found you guilty on the first count of the larger offence of imprisoning with the view of selling these people, you would have been very severely punished indeed." The sentence of the Court is that each of you be imprisoned for the period of twelve calender months.
The prisoners were then removed and the Court rose. uu
CX.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.