of State
in my favor. I hope therefore that I am not in error in believing
that I am entitled to claim the
Jam
protection of His Excellency against
any repetition on the part of the Chief Justice of the conduct I
complain of
I have …
(Signed) Julian Pauncefote
Attorney General
(True Copy)
Ilbert
Colonial Secretary
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, DECEMBER 31ST, 1869.
Yesterday the Supreme Court met, sitting from 10 am till 6 pm, trying before the Chief Justice and a jury, the charge of perjury brought against Tang-pak-foo in reference to the Sowkewan murder case.
At the rising of the Court there were still several witnesses to be examined, and it is calculated the proceedings will not be finished till late to-day. The nature of the case, as set forth by the prosecution, is that of an alibi, it being sought to prove that Tang-pak-foo was absent from Sowkewan on the day when he said he took the four prisoners who were convicted at the Supreme Court to that place.
Mr. Hayllar, instructed by Mr. Caldwell, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Whyte, instructed by Mr. Francis, for the defence.
At the opening of the case, Mr. Whyte took two preliminary objections, which were, however, overruled by the Court.
He first submitted that, in accordance with the Act 23 Geo. II, which by Ordinance 2 of 1846 was applicable to this Colony, no prosecution for perjury could be instituted unless directed by the Court; and next, that, as the offence of perjury was a crime or offence against the state, as distinguished from a tort, or injury to an individual, the prosecution should be instituted by the Attorney-General, and not by a private prosecutor.
With respect to the first point, His Lordship was of opinion that the preamble of the Act, which set forth that its object was to facilitate prosecutions for perjury, was an indication that the Court not having directed a prosecution could not be set up as a ground for not admitting one; and in respect to the second point, he held that the Attorney-General was called upon to prosecute as a matter of duty, not as a matter of Law; and that, therefore, the charge was legally before the Court and should be proceeded with.
A report of the case will be given in due time, but it would be obviously contrary to the interests of justice to make the evidence public until the termination of the trial, that the ordinary detailed account is of necessity kept back.
The Daily Press
HONGKONG, JANUARY 3RD, 1870
His Lordship did not think it necessary to call on Mr. Hayllar to answer. The point had been put very forcibly by Mr. Whyte.
His Lordship, however, was of opinion that the Attorney-General should conduct every criminal case; but this as a matter of duty, not of law. The prosecution here was the Crown's.
Mr. Whyte respectfully submitted it was not.
His Lordship emphatically said it was. Mr. Pauncefote had signed the information, and was the prosecutor.
When His Lordship was Attorney-General, he always appeared, even when the case was instituted by a private prosecutor.
The Attorney-General could now, if he liked, step in and enter a nolle prosequi.
This could not, therefore, be properly called a private prosecution.
As the law stands, with this case before him, His Lordship considered that the Counsel for the prosecutor really appeared on behalf of the Crown.
There were two meanings to the word prosecutor, one was that of the Crown, and the other that of the person who is bound over to attend to the details.
He had no doubt that, as far as law was concerned, the case was properly brought before him, but he thought he was entitled to the assistance of the Attorney-General.
This, however, did not alter the law, and he had no doubt that the prosecutor was in Court with a right to prosecute, subject to the right of the Attorney-General to come forward and at any time during the proceedings to enter a nolle prosequi.
The objection would, therefore, be overruled.
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, THURSDAY, DEC. 30, 1869.
His Lordship said that he had his own opinion on the duty of the Attorney General, and his opinion was that the A.G. should conduct every case in this Court; but that did not affect the law.
In the present case, by the information filed, the Crown was unquestionably the prosecutor.
As to whether it was proper or not to have a private prosecutor, he had his own opinion; he never did so when he was Attorney General, although he was always glad of any assistance rendered.
It was competent for the Attorney General to enter, if he chose, at any time before the verdict was given, a nolle prosequi in any such case.
He ruled that the case was properly and legally before the Court, subject, as he said, to the power which the Crown possessed of coming in at any time and putting a stop to the proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi.
131
of State
in my favor. I hope therefore that I am not in error in believing
that I am entitled to claim, the
Jam
protection of His Excellency agains
repetition on the part of the Chief Instice of the conduct I
any repetition
complain of_
I have Hr. ऋ
(Signed) Iulian Pannce fole
Attorney Genera &
(Sue Copy)
Ilgandona
Аллий
Colonial Secretary
The Daily Press.
HONGKOSO, DECEMBER 318T, 1809.
Yesterday the Supreme Court me sitting from 10 am till 6 prestigating Before the Chief Justice and a jury, the charge of perjury trought against Tang-pak-foo|| i reference to the Sowkewan murder
At the rising of the there were still several witnesses to erhining and it is calculated the proceedings will not be finished till late to-day. The nature of the casa as set forth by the prosecution is that ofan alibi, it being sought to prove that Tung-pale- foo was absent from Sowkewan on the day when he said he took the four prisoners who were convicted at the Supreme Court to that place. Mr. Hayllar, instructed by Mr. Caldwell, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Whyte, instructed by Mr. Francis, for the defence. At the opening of the case, Mr. Whyte took two preliminary ob- jections, which were, Lowever, overrated by the Court. He first submitted that in accordance with the net 23 Geo. II, which by Ordinance 2, of 1846, was applicable to this Colony, no prosecution for perjury could be instituted unless directed by the Court; and next, that, as the offence of perjury was a crime or offence against the state, as distinguished from a tort, or injury to an individual, the prosecution should be instituted by the Attorney-General, and not by a private prosecutor. With respect to the first poiut. His Lordebip was of opinion that the preamble of the act, which set forth that its object: was to facilitate prosecutions for perjury, was an indication that the Court I not having directed a prosecution could not be set up as a ground for not admitting one; and in respect to the second point, be held that the Attorney-General was called upon to prosecute as a matter of duty, not as a matter of Law; and that, therefore, the charge was le- | gally before the Court and should be procceded with. A report of the case will be given in due time, but it would be so obviously contrary to the interests of justice to make the evidence public until the termination of the trial, that the ordinary detailed account is of necessity kept back.
The Daily Press
HONGKONG, JANUARY 3RD, 1870
His Lordship did not think it necessary to call on Mr. Hayllar to answer. The point had been put very forcibly by Mr. Whyte. His Lord- alip, however, was of opinion that the Attorney. General should conduct every criminal case; but this as a matter of duty, not of law. The prosecution bere was the Crown's-
Mr. Whyte respectfully submitted it was not. His Lordship emphatically said it was. Mr. Pauncefote bad signed the information, and was the prosecutor. When his Lordship was At- torney-General, be always appeared, even when the case was instituted by a private prosecutor. The Attorney-General could now, if he liked, step in and enter a nolle prosequi. This could not, therefore, be properly called a private pro- secution. As the law stands, with this case before him, His Lordship considered that the Counsel for the prosecutor really appeared a on behalf of the Crown. There were twoj meanings to the word prosecutor, one was that of the Crown, and the other that of the person who is bound over to attend to the details. He bad! no doubt that, as far as law was concerned, the case was properly brought before him, but he thought he was entitled to the assistance of the Attorney-General. This, however, did not alter the law, and be had no doubt that the prosecu. tor was in Court with a right to prosecute, sub- jeet to the right of the Attorney-General to come forward and at any time during the proceedings to enter a nolle prosequi. The objection would. therefore, be overruled.
HE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, THURSDAY, DEC. 30, 1869.
His Lordship said that he had his own opinion on the duty of the Attorney Gene- ral, and his opinion was that the A. G. should conduct every case in this Court; but that did not affect the law. In the present case, by the information filed, the Crown was unquestionably the prosecutor. As to whether it was proper or not to have a private prosecutor, he had his own opi nion; he never did so when he was Attor ney General, although he was always glad of any assistance rendered. it was compe- teut for the Attorney General to enter, if he chose, at any time before the verdict was Liven, a nolle prosequi in any such case. He ruled that the case was properly and legally before the Court, subject, as he said, to the power which the Crown pos- sessed of coming in at any time and putting a stop to the proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi
131
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.