10
REGINA V. LOGAN.
until the people told me the foreigner had shot me, and told me to go to him for medicine to care for me, and I then saw that all my clothes were covered with blood. When the people said this to me I went to some taipans and said, "Taipan, you give me some medicine to cure me, as you have hit me and I am covered all over with blood."
Mr. Francis—Were they foreign taipans or Chinese taipans?
Witness—It is only the foreigners who are taipans; there are no other taipans here. I followed them to a house; there were several there at the time, but I cannot say how many, as I was giddy and could not notice. When I got there I saw an amah in the house, and they pushed me away. It was a long distance from the place where I was hurt to the foreigner's house. I went to the amah in the foreigner's house, and asked her to let me come in till he cured me, but she would not let me, and told me to go away quickly or he would kill me. I was then taken to another foreign house a few doors further on; the door was open a little, I asked to be taken in, and they let me in; after that I became insensible. I had passed this house going to the other foreigner's house.
Mr. Francis—When you went into that street, was there any quarrelling or fighting going on there?
Witness—No, there was not; if there had been I should not have gone; I should not have dared to go, as I have so little courage.
Did you see anything in the hands of any of the foreigners as you were going up the street, either before—
His Lordship thought it would not be advisable to put the question unless it was absolutely necessary, and it was not put.
The case was then adjourned till the following day.
THE "HANKOW" AFFAIR.
Mr. Francis said he had an application which he wished to make to the court on behalf of the Chinese Government with regard to a man named Dias, a seaman on the articles of the British steamer Hankow, who was charged with murder. The application was made upon two affidavits, one was by Mr. Ewens, solicitor, to the effect that Dias was one of the crew of the Hankow, that his name was on the articles of the ship, and that he believed he caused the death of a Chinese subject named Lo Fan on board that steamer on the 12th inst. The other affidavit was sworn before Mr. Hopkins, the Pro-Consul, and was that of Lee Chu, a servant in the employ of Lang Su Cha, master of a boarding house. Lee Cha stated that on the 10th instant, about six o'clock, he was on board the Hankow lying by the wharf at Canton, and his fellow servant, now deceased,
to
His Lordship—Who makes the charge now?
Mr. Francis—The Chinese Government.
His Lordship—Does that appear here?
Mr. Francis—No, my Lord.
the moment.
His Lordship—I do not find any charge for
Mr. Francis—I tender the charge here now, Lord. I have no written charge, but I can formulate one in a moment.
Can I issue a warrant on your verbal application?
His Lordship—Assuming you know this, how
Mr. Francis—The charge is made by the affidavits; I think by the rules of the Supreme Court a charge is made by a person, his solicitor, or Counsel, under the heading of Criminalities. Mr. Francis then read an extract from the Code containing that provision, and he submitted that the affidavit supplied the want of a written charge, and no more formal charge was necessary.
His Lordship—I find in this affidavit no mention of the accused being a British subject, or under British jurisdiction.
Mr. Francis submitted that the fact of the act being committed on board a British vessel, of which the man was on the articles, was sufficient to make him a British subject, and in support of this contention he quoted the case of the Queen v. Anderson.
has
His Lordship—It does not follow from these affidavits that the man has not been taken by a concurrent jurisdiction and one quite as high or higher than this court, or that he might not at the moment have been taken by the Chinese Government.
of the warrant if we are not able to execute it,
Mr. Francis—That will appear by the return
His Lordship—We do not know where he is, and we might be running all over China for him.
Mr. Francis—That might be, my lord, and the warrant might be made in support of a claim for the extradition of the criminal.
His Lordship—If the warrant is to succeed he would be in British jurisdiction. Can you show me authority for your contention?
REGINA
Mr. Francis—I think the case of the Queen v. Anderson is sufficient.
11
V. LOGAN.
position of a British subject in this case.
was a matter of international law that a seaman, His Lordship—I am afraid not, for if the as soon as he shipped himself on board a vessel French had chosen to exercise jurisdiction there of some other nationality, and as long as he re- is no question they could have tried him.
mained upon the articles of that ship, was Mr. Francis said that if it were known in amenable to the jurisdiction of the country un- England that a person who had committed a der whose flag he served on the high seas or in crime there had escaped to France or some any ports. It was only under special circum- other country, no question would be raised on stances that there was a concurrent jurisdiction, that account about granting a warrant. The and in Canton there was no other jurisdiction. question was whether he committed the crime His Lordship said there was a concurrent under British jurisdiction.
jurisdiction between the power under whose His Lordship—You must bear in mind the flag the steamer was, and the power in whose difference between the authority and power of waters the act was committed. It might be the court in British territory and here. You that that power had renounced jurisdiction, have not established the proposition that I have but it did not follow that it could not resume the jurisdiction.
jurisdiction when it pleased. It might be that we could claim jurisdiction on account of the flag under which the man was serving, and China might claim the rights of a territorial power, and it was quite open to argument whether her rights were not on a par with ours.
Mr. Francis submitted that by the case of the Queen v. Anderson this man was under the jurisdiction of the court, as he was on the articles of a British ship, on board which the act was committed.
It did not appear either by what was before his Lordship that the man was a foreigner, and for all there was to show to the contrary he might have been an Englishman.
Mr. Francis alluded to the case of Kwok A Sing in Hongkong, where the question was whether the Chinese Government had or had not the power to claim a Chinaman who had committed an offence on board a French vessel on the high seas. It was there denied that China had any right to extradition, because they had no special law like England. He submitted that—putting the case hypothetically—the man was a Portuguese, and his Lordship was not entitled to assume that there was any law in Portugal to punish a man for an offence committed on board an English ship. He contended that if there was no British jurisdiction in this case there was none at all.
China, had renounced by treaty all jurisdiction over British vessels and crews, which Portugal had not done. He also pointed out that by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act British law courts had complete jurisdiction over all seamen committing offences on board a British vessel either on the high seas or in the ports of a foreign country. The 267th section gave jurisdiction not only for the time they were on the articles of the ship, but for three months afterwards. He also pointed out that under the provisions of the Code, the jurisdiction of China was transferred to the Supreme Court.
His Lordship said he would consider the application, but at present he did not think that the affidavit supported the case.
Mr. Francis—Will you allow me to amend it?
His Lordship—I will consider the matter.
26th September, 1883.
THE FATAL SHOOTING AFFRAY AT HONAM.
The hearing of the case was resumed at nine o'clock, when the following additional evidence was taken:——
Peter Christian Matsen, examined by the Crown Advocate, said—I am a Danish subject, and a clerk in the employ of the Wa Hop Telegraph Company. I have lived at Honam, and I know the prisoner, who lived about four houses from my house, which is next but one to the bridge. Witness here pointed out the positions of the houses on the plan, which he said was correctly marked. I know the position of Mr. Ström's house; it is next door to mine, to the westward. I remember the morning of Sunday, the 12th August, I got up about six o'clock
20
10
REGINA Y. LOGAN.
until the poople told me the foreigner had shot me, and told me to go to him for medicine to care me, and I then saw that all my clothes were covered with blood. When the people said this to me I went to some taipans and said, "taipan you give me some medicine to cure me, as you have hit me and I am corered all over with blood."
Mr. Francis-Were they foreign taipaus or Chinese taipans?
was with him. Ile saw a man named, he believed F. C. Dias, kick his fellow runner, who fell in the water, and he believed the kick caused his death. He (Mr. Francis) submitted that the man Dias, being on the articles of a British steamer, and being charged with an act of a criminal na taro while on board that steamer, was prima facie a British subject, and therefore within the juris. dietion of that court, and he would ask his Lordship to grant him a warrant for the man's arrest. The application was made to bis Lord- ship because applications had been made in this matter and refused. The man was charge formally ber Majesty's Acting Consul before the Consul, and he refused to take the charge in suy shape or form.
Witness-It is only the foreigners are taipaus; there are no other taipans here. I followed them to a house; there were several there at the time, but I cannot say how many, as I was giddy and could not notice. When I got there I saw an amab in the bouse, and they pashed me away. It was a long distance from the place where I was hurt to the foreigner's house. I went to the amab in the foreigner's house, and asked her to let me come in till be cured me, but she would not let me, and told me to go away quickly or he would kill me. I was thon taken to another foreign house a few doors further on, the door was open a little, I asked to be taken in, and they let me in; after that I became in-my sensible. I had passed this house going to the other foreigner's house,
Mr. Francis-When you went into that streat was there any quarrelling or fighting going on there?
Witness-No, there was not; if there had been I should not have gone; I should not have dared to go, as I have so little courage.
Did you see anything in the hands of any of the foreigners as you were going up the street, either before-
His Lordship thought it would not be advis able to put the question anless it was absolutely necessary, and it was not put,
The case was then adjourned till the follow. lug day.
THE "HANKOW" AFFAIR. Mr. Francis said he had an application which he wished to make to the court on behalf of the Chinese Government with reward to a man named Dias, a seaman ou the articles of the ritish steamer Hankow, who was charged with murder. The application was made upon two affidavits, one was by Mr. Ewens, solicitor, to the effect that Dias was one of the crow of the Hankow, that his name was on the articles of the ship, and that he believed he caused the death of a Chinese subject named Lo Fan on board that steamer on the 12th inst. The other affid it was sworn before Mr. Hopkins, the Pro-Consul, and was that of Les Chu, a servant in the employ of Lanug Su Cha, master of a boardiur house, Lee Cha stated that on the 10th instant, abent six o'clock, he was on board the Hanko lying by the wharf at Canton, and his fellow servant, now deceased,
to
His Lordship-Who makes the charge now? Mr. Francis The Chizese Government. His Lordship-Does that appear here? Mr. Francis-No, my Lord.
the moment.
His Lordship-I do not find any charge for
Mr. Francis-I tender the charge here nOW, Lord. I have no written charge, but I can formulate one in a moment.
can I issue a warrant on your verbal application? His Lordship Assuming you know this, bow Mr. Francis-The charge is made by the at- fidavits; I think by the rules of the Supreme Court a charge is made by a person, his solictor, or Counsel, under the beading of Criminalities. Mr. Francis then read an extract from the Code containing that provision, and he submitted that the affidavit supplied the want of a written ebargo, and no moro formal charge was necessary. His Lordship-I find in this affidavit no men- tion of the accused being a British subject, or under British jurisdiction.
Mr. Francis submitted that the fact of the act being committed on board a British vessel, of which the puu was on the articles, was sufficiant to make him a British subject, and in support of this contention he quoted the case of the Queen v. Auderson.
has
His Lordship-It does not follow from these affidavits that the man by a concurrent jurisdiction and one quite as not been takeu high or higher than this court, or that he might not at the moment have been taken by the Chinosa Government.
of the warrant if we are not able to execute it,
Mr. Franois-That will appear by the return His Lordship-We do not know where he is, and we might be running all over China for him.
Mr. Francis-That might be, my lord, and the warrant might be made in support of a claim for the extradition of the criminal.
His Lordship-If the warrant is to succeed ho would be in British jurisdiotion. Can yon show me authority for your contention P
REGINA
Mr. Francis-I think the case of the Queen Anderson is sufficient.
11
It
. LOGAN.
position of a British subject in this case. was a matter of international law that a seaman, His Lordship-I am afraid not, for if the as soon as ho shipped himself on board a vessel French had chosen to exercise jurisdiction there of some other nationality, and as long as he re- is no question they could have tried him.
mained upon the articles of that ship, was Mr. Francis said that if it were known in amenable to the jurisdiction of the country un- England that a person who had committed a der whose flag he served on the high seas or in crime there had escaped to France or some any ports. It was only under special cironm- other country, no question would be raised ou stances that there was a concurrent jurisdiction, that account about granting a warrant, The and in Canton there was no other jurisdiction. question was whether he committed the orime His Lordship said there was a concurrent under British jurisdiction.
jurisdiction between the power under whose His Lordship-You must bear in mind the flag the steamer was, and the power in whose difference between the authority and power of waters the act was committed. It might be the court in British territory and here. You that that power had renounced jurisdiction, have not established the proposition that I have but it did not follow that it could not resume the jurisdiction.
jurisdiction when it pleased. It might be that we could claim jurisdiction on account of the flag under which the man was serving, and China might claim the rights of a territorial power, and it was quite open to argument whether her rights were not on a par with ours.
Mr. Francis submitted that by the oase of the Queen v. Anderson this man was under the jurisdiction of the court, as he was on the articles of a British ship, on board which the not was committed.
It did not appear either by what was before his Lordship that the man was Me. Franois alluded to the case of Kwok a foreigner, and for all thore was to show to the Asing in Hongkong, where the question was contrary be might have been an Englishman. whether the Chinesa Government bad or had not The offence in the case quoted was one of man. power to claim a Chinaman who bad committed slaughter on board a British ship in Portuguese an cffeuce on board a French vessel on the high waters, and it had there been held that seas. It was there denied that Obina bad the man, who was 20 American subject, any right to extradition, because they had no WAS under British jariadiction. Ho (Mr. special law like England. He submitted Francis) submitted that was conclusive upon that-putting the case hypothetically-tbe this case. The offence, having been com. man was a Portuguese, and his Lordship was not mitted upon a vessel carrying the British entitled to assume that there was any law in flag, it must be considered as having been Portugal to punish a man for an offence com. committed upon British territory. This case mitted on board an English ship. He contended was stronger indeed in favour of the British that if there was no British jurisdiction in this jurisdiction since one of the powers concerned, case there was none at all. China, had renounced by treaty all jurisdiction over British vessols and crows, which Porta.al had not done. He also pointed out that by the pro- visions of the Merchant Shipping Act British law courts had completo jurisdiction over all sostuen committing offences on board a British vessol either on the high seas or in the ports of a foreign country. The 207th section gave jurisdiction not only for the time they were on the articles of the ship, but for three months afterwards. He also pointed out that under the provisions of the Code, the jurisdiction of China was trans- ferred to the Supreme Court.
His Lordship said he would consider the ap- plication, but at present he did not think that the affidavit supported the case,
Mr. Francis Will you allow me to amend it? His Lordship-I will consider the matter.
26th September, 1883. THE FATAL SHOOTING AFFRAY AT HONAM.
The hearing of the case was resumed at aino o'clock, when the following additional evidence was taken:——
Pater Christian Matsen, examined by the Crown Advocate, said-I am a Danish subject, Ilis Lordship-I think that is in some way and a clerk in the employ of the Wa Hop
Telegraph Company. I have lived at Ho
limited.
Mr. Francis read the part referred to, section nam, and I know the prisoner, who lived about 4. and submitted that when the order in Coun-four houses from my house, which is next but cil was passed, the jurisdiction was transferred one to the bridge. Witness hore pointed out to the Supreme Court of Hongkong. He also the positions of the houses on the plan, which urged that China having renounced all jurisdic. he said was correctly marked.] I know the position. tion over British subjects by treaty, that jurisdic- of Mr. Ström's house; it is next door to mine, to tion could only be transferred to the British | the westward. I remember the morning of Suo- authorities, and that the man Dias was in the day, the 12th August, I got up about six o'clock
20
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.