4
REGINA v. LOGAN.
Have you conferred with any solicitor at all, or barrister, with a view of retaining them to defend you ?--No, my Lord.
Do you wish to have the opportunity of doing so ?--Yes, my Lord; I would like to have an opportunity of doing so.
I understand there are now in Canton some legal gentlemen with whom you may confer, and if you desire it every opportunity will be afforded you to consult with them.
Prisoner--I do desire it.
His Lordship--Well, in that case it will be necessary to adjourn the trial; it will be adjourned until Tuesday next, and the court will sit at nine o'clock, if that is convenient.
Mr. Francis--Quite convenient, my Lord.
His Lordship, to prisoner--The case will be adjourned to enable you to instruct counsel for your defence at the hearing.
The names of the jurymen summoned were then read over, seventeen names being read, of whom five failed to answer, and those who were present were notified of the adjournment of the court.
The Crown Advocate--I would suggest that those gentlemen of the jury who have not answered to their names should be called upon again.
The Court then adjourned.
CANTON, 25th September. The case was resumed this morning. The Viceroy was represented in court by Mr. Pang, late Paotai of Chiu Chan, and now Supervisor of Taxation at Canton, who, with Mr. Popoff, the Russian Consul at Foochow, were on the bench on either side of the Chief Justice, some other Chinese officials being also present. Mr. Popoff was in court to watch the case in the interest of Johnsen, the other man in custody in connection with this matter, who is a Russian.
The Crown Advocate, before the jury were sworn, made a motion to the court that Mr. A. G. Wise, the Counsel for the defence, he being a member of the Hongkong bar, should be permitted to practise in the court. He also made similar motions with regard to Mr. Dennys and Mr. Ewons.
His Lordship signified his assent. The jury was then drawn, and the following were first called to get into the box--Mr. S. F. Mehta, who was challenged by the prisoner and retired; Mr. R. Howie, Mr. K. D. Adams, Mr. R. Comber; Mr. A. T. Daval, who also retired, being challenged by the prosecution; Mr. S. D. Cowanjee and Mr. S. R. Futtakia, who were challenged by the prisoner and retired; Mr. G. D. Fearon, and Mr. C. J. Lafrentz.
Mr. Fearon asked his Lordship to exempt him from serving as he had been on the jury in the last case in Canton.
His Lordship said that that was no ground for exempting a juror, and Mr. Fearon took his place in the jury box.
His Lordship informed the jury that the case would probably last some time, and he advised them as to the course he proposed to adopt in dealing with it.
Mr. Wise applied that all witnesses for the prosecution should be put away in some safe place under the charge of an officer of the court, as he felt it to be very important that they should be prevented from all communication while the case was proceeding.
This had been already provided for.
The Crown Advocate then opened the case to the jury for the prosecution as follows:--Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the indictment against the prisoner read; it contains apparently several charges, but in reality there is but one charge, the simple charge of the murder of a Chinese boy on the 12th August last. The circumstances which will be brought before you by the evidence are as follows:--About six o'clock on that morning the prisoner, in company with two other Europeans, was in a street in Honam, and he proceeded along that street to his own house. Before the trial is over you will have a plan of the street, and you will see better than I can now explain to you, and be better able to understand from it, all the evidence; but in order to give you some idea of different points which will be referred to in the locality I shall endeavour to explain to you the bearings of the different places to one another most important in Honam. The prisoner's house is in a street which runs to the west and east, and at no very great distance from the prisoner's house, is a cross-street; the street is irregular and towards the west especially it is so irregular that a man standing at the prisoner's door could not see the whole distance down the street to the place where one of the incidents occurred. Now the prisoner was proceeding towards his house, and on either side of the street were coolies sitting down waiting to be engaged in a tea hong. The prisoner has in his hand a stick, and as he passes along, he strikes first one coolie and then another with the stick, saying as he struck the first "one," the second "two," and so till he got to the fifth. The first four coolies make no remonstrance, but when he gets to the fifth that man asks what he means by hitting him; he says "I was not annoying you, and why do you strike me in this way?" Logan then, it appears, became excited, and he proceeded to his own house and brought out a pistol.
REGINA v. LOGAN.
He was proceeding at this time from west to east, and the coolies were sitting close to his house. He went to his door, got a pistol, and came out again, coming back along the course he before followed, towards the west. The two other Europeans appear to have come out with him, and they chased the Chinese in the street. The Chinese, when they saw him coming out with firearms, ran in every direction, and got out of the way as fast as they could. He runs along this street towards the west and fires his pistol, and the bullet strikes a woman. Fortunately it does not kill her, but only wounds her. She did not know she was wounded until the people pointed out to her that she was bleeding from her back, and then she found she had a wound on her back. The prisoner, having fired the pistol, returns again from the west towards his own house, and was followed by the woman, who was shouting out to him--"You have wounded me, heal me," and the coolies and other Chinese about also shouted to the prisoner--"Heal her" that is to say--"You have wounded her, and you must look after her recovery." The prisoner then became further excited, and the evidence it will be my duty to bring before you will show that he then proceeded to his own house and brought out another firearm--whether it was a pistol or carbine there seems to be some doubt, but that is immaterial to the case. The evidence will be that the firearm was given him by his boy, that he brought it out, and proceeded towards the east of his house, the opposite direction to that which he had taken before, where the woman was wounded,--towards the cross-street which crosses the end of the street in which he lives. About half way, or rather less, between his house and this cross-street is a bridge, and it appears that when he got to the bridge he stooped down and deliberately taking aim, fired this pistol or carbine, with the result that a Chinese boy was killed, and that a Chinaman was wounded.
Now the charge against him for having done that is a charge of murder, and though you will probably have some general idea of what murder is, I shall now give you, subject to the directions which you will receive from his Lordship, some explanation of what murder is. When a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully kills another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, that is murder. Now, gentlemen, there are some things which you will have to presume, and if they do not exist it will be open to the prisoner to prove that they do not exist. You are to assume that the prisoner, at the time he did this, was of sound memory and discretion. The law presumes everyone to have sound memory and discretion unless it is proved that he has not. And the next presumption you have to make is that where any man kills another it is murder unless in some way or other on behalf of the prisoner it is proved not to be murder. You are to presume that all the evidence which goes to make the crime of murder is there, and that malice aforethought is there. For malice it is not necessary for the prisoner to have any previous grudge against the person or that he absolutely intended to kill him and did kill him. If he had intended to kill the boy that would be what is called express malice; but the law also implies malice, and one of the cases in which the law implies malice is when a man does something recklessly which is likely to lead to the death of his fellow creatures. A case in which malice would be implied would be such a thing as a man deliberately discharging a gun among a multitude of people. This will appear to you, gentlemen, a reasonable statement of the law, for if a man fires a gun amongst a multitude of people he must know it is likely to cause the death of some, and as I said before, it is not enough to say he did not intend to kill this or that particular person. He did not make up his mind to kill that person, but if the natural consequence of his act is that death will ensue, he is guilty of murder. The law presumes that a man intends the natural consequences of his act; and the only natural consequence of such an act is the death of someone. Therefore, if you find that such a state of things exists in the present case, and there is no other defence than that, it will be your duty to find the prisoner guilty of murder.
Then there is another question with regard to the case which it is necessary for me to go into, and that is the question of justification of his act. It appears to me that there is no thing which can suggest any justification in this case at all. Justification indeed there is none, nor is there any excuse; there was no offence given at all which will excuse it. Now, under those circumstances it may be attempted to be shown that the crime which was committed was not the crime of murder, but that of manslaughter, and if, after hearing the evidence, you come to the conclusion that the crime committed did not amount to murder, but only to manslaughter, it is equally within your power on the charge now before you to find him guilty of that offence. But to enable you to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter reason must be shown, and it rests upon the prisoner to show that the crime is not murder but manslaughter, not upon the Crown to show that it is murder and not manslaughter. Now, the only thing that the facts as I have stated them seem capable of suggesting is that there was some amount of provocation, and I will lay down to you...
4
REGINA v. LOGAN.
Have you conferred with any solícitor at all, or barrister, with a view of retaining them to defend you ?--No, my Lord.
Do you wish to have the opportunity of doing so P-Yes, my Lord; I would like to have an op- portunity of doing so,
I understand there are now in Canton some logal gentlemen with whom you may confer, and if you desire it every opportunity will be afforded you to consult with them.
Prisoner-I do dosiro it.
His Lordship-Well, in that case it will be necessary to adjourn the trial; it will be ad. journed until Tuesday next, and the court will sit at nine o'clock, if that is couvenient.
Mr. Francis-Quite convenient, my Lord. His Lordship, to prisoner-The case will bo adjourned to enable you to instruct counsel for your defence at the hearing,
The names of the jurymen summoned wore then read over, seventeen names being read, of whore five failed to answer, and those who were presont were notified of the adjournment of the court.
The Crown Advocate-I would suggest that those gentlemen of the jury who have not answered to their names should be called upon again,
The Court then adjourned.
CANTON, 25th September. The case was rosumed this morning. The Viceroy was represented in court by Mr. Pang, late Paotai of Chiu Chan, and now Supar- visor of Taxation at Cantou, who, with Mr. Po poff, the Russian Consul at Fooshow, were on the beach on either side of the Chief Justice, some other Chinese officials being also present. Mr. Popoff was in court to watch the case iu the interest of Johnsen, the other man in custody in connection with this matter, who is a Russian.
The Crown Advocate, before the jury ware sworn, made a motion to the court that Mr. A. G. Wise, the Counsel for the defence, he being a member of the Hongkong bar, should be permit ted to practise in the court. He also made similar motions with regard to Mr. Dennys and Mr. Ewons.
His Lordship signified his assent. The jury was then drawn, and the following were first called to get into the box-Mr. S. F. Mehta, who was challenged by the prisoner and retired; Mr. R. Howie, Mr. K. D. Adams, Mr. R. Comber; Mr. A. T. Daval, who also retired, being challenged by the prosecution; Mr. S. D. Cowaujee and Mr. S. R. Futtakia, who were challenged by the prisoner and retired; Mr. G. D. Fearon, and Mr. C. J. Lafrentz,
Mr. Fearon asked his Lordship to exempt him from serving as he had been on the jury in th last case in Cauton.
His Lordship said that that was no ground for exempting a juror, aud Mr. Foaron took his place in the jury box.
His Lordship informed the jury that the oase would probably last some time, and he advised them as to the course he proposed to adopt in dealing with it.
Mr. Wise applied that all witnesses for the prosecution should be put away in some safe place under the charge of an officer of the court, us he felt it to be very important that they should be prevented from all communication while the caso was proceeding,
This had been already provided for.
The Crown Advocate then opened the case to the jury for the prosecution as follows:-Gea- tlemen of the jury, you hava heard the indict- meat against the prisoner read; it contains ap- parently several charges, but in reality there is but one charge, the simple charge of the murder of a Chinese boy on the 12th August last. The circumstances which will be brought before you by the evidence are as follow-About six o'clock on that morning the prisoner, in company with two other Europeans, was in a street in Honam, and he proceeded along that street to his own house. Before the trial is over you will have a plan of the street, and you will ace better than I can now explain to you, and be better able to understand from it, all the evidence; but in order to give you some idea of differout points which will be referred to in the the locality I shall endeavour to explain to you the bearings of the different places to one another most important in Honam. The prisoner's and the prisoner's house, the street being the house is in a street which runs to the west, and east, and at no very great distance from the pri is on the south side of the street. Towards the
soner's house, is a cross-street; the street is irregular and towards the west especially it is so irregular that a man standing at the prisoner's door could not soe the whole distancs down the street to the place where one of the incidents occurred. Now the prisoner was proceeding to- wards his house, and on either side of the street were coolies sitting down waiting to be engaged in a tea hong. The prisoner has in his hand a stick, and as he passes along, he strikes first one ovolie and then another with the stick, saying as he struck the first "one," the second two," and so till be got to the fifth. The first four coolies make no remonstrance, but when he gets to the fifth that man asks what he means by hitting him; ho says "I was not annoying you, and why do you strike me in this way?" Logan then, it appears, became excited, and
REGINA. v. LOGAN.
S
he proceeded to his own house and brought unless it is proved that he has not. And the pt the pistol. He was proceeding at this next presumption you have to make is that where me from west to east, and the coolies were any man kills another it is murder unless in sitting close to bis house. He went to his door, some way or other on behalf of the prisoner it is got a pistol, and came out again, coming back proved not to be murder. You are to presume that Along the opurse ho before followed, towards all the evidence which goes to make the crime of the west. The two other Europeans appear to murder is there, and that mslice aforethought have come out with him, and they chased the is there. For malice it is not necessary for the Chinese in the street. The Chinese, when they prisoner to have any previous grudge against, saw him coming out with broarms, ran in every the person or that be absolutely intended to kill direction, and got out of the way as fast as they him aud did kill him. If he had intended to kill could. He runs along this street towards the the boy that would be what is called express west and fires his pistol, and the bullet strikes a malica; but the law also implies malice, and woman. Fortunately it does not kill her, but one of the cases in which the law implies only wounds her. She did not know she was malico is when a man does something reck. wounded until the people pointed out to her lessly which is likely to lead to the death of that she was bleeding from her back, and his fellow creatures. A case in which malico then she found she had a wound on her back. I would be implied would be such a thing as a The prisoner, having fired the pistol, returns man deliberately discharging a gan among a again from the west towards his own house, and maltitude of people. This will appear to you, he was followed by the woman, who was shouting gentlemen, a reasonable statement of the law, out to him-"You have wounded me, heal me,” and for if a mist fires a gun amongst a multitude the coolies and other Chinese about also shouted of people he must know it is likely to canse the to the prisoner-"Heal her" that is to say-death of some, and as I said before, it is not "You have wounded her, and you must look after enough to say he did not intend to kill this or ber recovery." The prisoner then became further that particular person. He did not make up his excited, and the evidence it will be my daty to mind to kill that porson, but if the natural conse- bring before you will show that he then proceed-quence of his act is that death will ensue, he is od to his own house and brought out another guilty of murder, The law presumes that a man firearm-whether it was a pistol or curbius there | intends the natural consequences of bis act; and the seems to be some doubt, but that is immaterial only natural consequence of such an act is the to the case. The evidence will be that the death of someone. Therefore, if you find that firearm was given him by his boy, that ho brought such a state of things exists in the present case, it out, and proceeded towards the cast of his and there is no other defosos than that, it will house, the opposito direction to that which he be your duty to find the prisoner guilty of mur. had taken before, where the woman was wound- der. Then there is another question with re- ed,-towards the cross-street which crosses the gard to the case which it is necessary for me to end of the street in which he lives. About half go into, and that is the question of justification way, or rather loss, between his house and this of his act. It appears to me that there is no cross-street is a bridge, and it appears that when thing which can suggest any justification in be got to the bridge he stooped down and this case at all. Justification indeed there is deliberately taking aim, fired" this pistol or none, nor is there any exouse; there was no of- carbine, with the result that a Chinese boy was fence given at all which will excuss it. Now, killed, and that a Chinaman was wounded, under those circumstances it may be attempted Now the charge against him for having to be shown that the crime which was committed done that is a charge of murder, and was not the crime of murder, but that of man. though you will probably bare some general slaughter, and if, aftor hearing the evidenco, you idea of what murder is, I shall now give you, come to the conclusion that the crime commit- Enbject to the directions which you will receiveted did not amount to murder, but only to man- from his Lordahip, some explanation of what slaughter, it is equally within your power on the murder is. When a person of sound memory and charge now before you to find him guilty of that discretion unlawfully kills another with malice offence. But to enable you to reduce the crime aforethought, either expressed or implied, that is from murder to manslaughter reason must be murder. Now, gentlemen, there are some things shown, and it rests upon the prisoner to show which you will have to presume, and if they do that the crime is not murder but manslaughter, not exist it will be open to the prisoner to prove not upon the Crown to show that it is murder that they do not exist. You are to assume and not mauslaughter. Now, the only thing that the prisoner, at the time he did this, was of which the facts as I have stated them soom sound momory and discretion. The law presutuos capable of suggesting is that there was some everyone to have sound memory and discretion amount of provocation, and I will lay down to you
17
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.