CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4] — Page 422

( 34 )

rectors, if they could not be inquired into the subject, the Chamber is hardly entitled here by a jury? Where was the evidence to consider that the question le before that Mr Nelson could not attend to the them. I learn from Chinese suuress that duties of his bank ? Was that a light the Memorial which was presented the charge? It was a terrible charge. It was other day was got up by a gentleman rather a charge of a nature which he had seldom į well known in the Colony, who is in the heard of before in his life, never in fact. The employ of the Japanese Government, and charge came of malice. A mere outsider, who is more or less mixed up with the a few words being said of him at a Oplum Farm and other matters in the public meeting, was to clear Mr Nelson out Colony, and who is on very intimate and of the place root and branch. These friendly terms with the head of the Go. remarks arose out of the letter; he had not vernment in Hongkong, Now bearing in said one word outside that letter. Thore mind the manner in which equally sponta- were many thinga he might have referred to, but which he thought it better to bury in a discreet silence. There were points which he did not wish to raise. He put it that this was an attack on a man's character, and on the face of it, vindictively made. He then proceeded to call evidence.

MR. NELSON'S EVIDENCE,

neous expressions of opinion on other matters have been milised in the Colony, I think oue may justly come to the con- olnsion something is to be done in this matter, and I think, in the absence of any communication from the Government. It is not unbecoming on the part of the Chamber to invite some little amount of confidence in the matter, supposing anything is being

Mr H. H. Nelson, said: Ļam the mana, doue. I suggest the Secretary put him. gor of the Chartered Mercanti's Bank of self in communication with the Govern- India London and China, and have been soment and make an inquiry whether any- for the last six years. I commenced my thing is being done.” business life with the bank sixteen years Mr Nelson, further cross-examined said;--- Bgo. The Bead Office is in London. That is a tolerably correct report of what The Bank is controlled by a Board of I said. Each and every one of these re- Directors. Mr W. Jacksou a Secretaryferences is to Mr Pitman.

and Acting Inspector and travels about Question put "what do you mean by and reports on the Branches. He visited 'equally spontaneous," Question objected Hongkong on duty in March last. Mr to, and objec lon upheld after a long Jackson handed me the letter produced just argument.

as it is, with the exception of the underscor- In this argnment His Lordship, address- ing. This was on the 30th March, the daying Mr Bayllar, suggested that one object after he got it. Mr Jackson has now goue in going into a long examination on this home, to England. I knew Mr Alex point would be that it would take the jury MacGlashan Heaton. He was a broker in entirely away from the point at issue. this Colony, he is now dead. He died in the latter end of 1879.

he ought to do and what not, If he had done wrong, Mr Francis should take the proper course to have it put right.

Mr Francis submitted that it would do nothing of the kind, and that his Lordship Cross-oxamined:-The Chartered Mer-ought not to have made such a remark. cantile Bank issues notes, It also receiver His Lordship then told Mr Francis that deposits from customers generally, The be would not be told by Mr Francis what Bank is a member of the Chamber of Com- merce, and I am the Bank's representa tive. The Bank pays the subscription. I am also Vice Chairman. I was pre- sent at the meeting of February 23rd, I made several speeches at the meeting or the 281d February. The Report shown in the Chamber "book" is, I believe, taken from the newspapers. I presume it is ap- proved by the Secretary, I am a member of Committee. I see a report here of a speech I mado.

Mr Francis: Will you read it ? Question objected to and argued; objection overrul હતું.

Mr Francis submitted to the Court's better judgment, whether it was right to suggest to the jury that he was trying to divert their attention from the points &

saus.

t

The Chief Justice answered that Mr Francis was submitting to dictate to the Conrt.

Mr Francis submitted that he was not. The point was reserved by his Lordship, at Mr Francis' request, as to whether the question "What did the witness mean in his

•

Report put in and read, Mr Francia read-speech by equally spontaneous,'" should ing it, as follows:---

not have been allowed; several other ques

"Mr Nelson. In the absenes of any tions of the same nature were disallowed, communication from the Government on the cross-examining Counsel not being al-

*

( 35 )

lowed to ask any questions as to the mean appeared on behalf of Mr Nelson as a lag of certain phrases in the letter.

private prosecutor, he in fact did appear The farther evidence of Mr Nelson on behalf of the Crown, all riminal was to the effect that he knew that prosecutions being in name of the Crown, Mr Pitman had some connection with the the case being Regina. Nelson. Opium Farm, but did not know its precise referred to No. 3 of 1865 in support of nature. There was at that time $50,000 this contention.

He re-

in the C. M. B. at the credit of the oplum Mr Francis objected to the admission of farmer; Government had the receipts; it the depositions on two grounds. First it was a guarautse. He continued," Mr did not appear that it had been read over Jackson made no enquiry on the subject and signed by witness. The charge then matter of Mr Pitman's letter. As a broker before the Court was under Section 4 of Mr Heston had share transactions with me. Lord Campbell's Act; the charge now was As a matter of fact I have bought and sold | under Section 5. The grounds of defence shares, for myself and for the Bank's would naturally be different under these customers, I have never had any share two sections; the line of cross-examina- transaction in the nature of time bargalas. tion different. There had not therefore I have never had dealings in shares in been a full opportunity of cross-examining which a settlement was to have been made the witness then; no opportunity at all in by the receipt or difference, either on my fact, Another ground was that his learned own account, or on the account of any friend did not appear to prosecute for the other person, so far as my memory serves Crown. The Attorney General, who was the only one authorized to appear for the Crown, did not appear in the case and had told the Court that be had instructed no ons to appear in his behalf,

Bie.

Mr Blogg proved Mr Pitman's signature. The Court then adjourned for tiffiu.

Aw

THE DEPOSITIONS OF ME JACKSON'S RVIDENCE NOT RECEIVED,

The Chief Justice: Cui bono, the evidence of Mr Jackson,

Mr Hayllar: Well, my Lord, I do not press it. That is the case for the prosecu tion.

The Chief Justice: I quite see, Mr Francis, some portions of it that it might have been advisable even for you to have Mr Francis: In a civil case, my Lord, no doubt.

On the Court reassembling, Mr Hayllar tendered the depositions con- taining the evidence of Mr William Jackson taken before the committing magistrate (Mr C. V. Creagh) on Wednesday, March Slat. Mr Hayllar read sec. 2 of ord. 6 of 1864 (an ordinance to render admissible in certain put in. cases the depositions of witnesses who cannot be produced at the trial) "by which whenever it shall be proved by the oath of any credible witness or shall in any other

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. manner whatever appear to the satisfaction Mr Franois desired to call Mr Ryrie to of the Supreme Court, that the Attorney ask him if his Lordship would allow General or other person conducting a although he presumed from his Lordaliip's criminal prosecution on behalf of the ruling on a point already raised-what his Crown is unable to produce at the trial of understanding was of the speech made by the accused any person as a witness in con- Mr Naison at the Chamber of Commerce sequence of bis absence from the Colony he was present at the meeting. and if it shall also appear that such person The Chief Justice said he had read his was examined before a magistrate and evidence. Mr Kyrie did not go into the that the examination was taken in the meaning of Mr Nelson's speech any further presence of the accused and that he be thought than any man of ordinary or his Counsel or his Attorney had common sense could do. It was his inter. a full opportunity of cross-examining such pretation of how this speech-Mr Nelson's person and that the examination of snob remarks described as containing a gibe, a person was reduced into writing and read very emphatic word-was to be taken. He over to and signed by the person examined believed any man of ordinary common it shall be lawful for the Court and it sense was quite capable of answering that

is hereby required to allow to be read and question for himself.

received in evidence so much of the said Mr Francis said that as his learned friend examination as would have been admisa had told them in opening this trial it had ible had the said person been produced caused, he had no doubt, in the Colony a and examined before the Supreme Court great deal of interest and possibly excite- in the ordinary and accustomed manner." ment. Elia learned friend had asked him Mr Hayilar contended that while he and he asked them to put all that aside and

برای

414