28
REGINA v. LOGAN.
with the cartridges. Upon the evidence of Dan-prisoner fired into the air; be said the prisoner ean and Strom, and the bricks aud stones seen in did not stoop or rest the revolver on his arm a the prisoner's house, there could be no doubt one witness had stated, and if anyone had don that they had been pelted by the mob: Johnson so, it was not the prisoner. Firing into the sir was struck by a stone and he said he was in fear, in the street was no offence in itself as there and the jury would have to consider how serious was no law prohibiting it. It was evident that the disturbance was. It was true Johnson said neither Logan nor Johnson were aware of a boy that the Chinese were running away when having been killed and a man wounded when the pistol was fired, but he said they did not run they walked on from the bridge to Hing Keo's, away until the weapon was raised, and there could and it was no doubt with reference to the woman have been scarcely any time elapsed between the who had come to them wounded that Johnson re- raising and the firing of the weapon. As to the marked to the prisoner that they would get into woman who was shot, she seemed to know trouble over this affair. Though Neilson ap- nothing about who shot her. She said she was peared to have commenced the row, it also seemed shot from behind, though Dr. Wales said the that the mob had some feeling against the bullet entered anteriorly, and she did not know prisoner on account of his getting the watchmen she was hit until the crowd told her to go and into trouble about his house being broken ask the foreigners to cure her. It was a pistol into and robbed. Though he (Mr. Wise) Matsen saw in the prisoner's hand, and it was thought the jury would conclude as he had done evidout it could not be a carbine, or he could not that it was someone else who had killed the be waving it in the manner described with one boy with a carbine, it was still his duty towards band. Mr. Wise again alluded to the disere- pancies between the evidence of the witnesses stance, and he would deal with the case on the aud the written depositions he had put in, and presumption that the jury were of opinion that he submitted that the omissions in the first hear it was the prisoner who killed the boy. In such ing were really of a serious nature, and be a case the law presumed malice, and it was the thought it was perfectly impossible the witnesses business of the defence to do away with malice, could have then kept back some of the statements He still maintained his point that the prisoner they had now added if those statements were fired a revolver over the heads of the crowd; really correct. It was for the jury to consider there was no doubt that it could not carry so far whether such evidence was
reliable. He it fired point blank; and, he argued, this did would also ask them whether it was not fair to away with malice, and it was an act which the say that the witnesses who said they saw excitement and the action of the crowd justified. the prisoner fire the carbine had mistaken They had it stated by a number of witnesses that Neilsen for him, as he thought he had shown there was a large and excited crowd which was it must be some other person who fired the shouting "ta," and throwing stones, and oarbine, and there was a good deal of resemblance they had the remark of the prisoner that between the two men. Mr. Wise proceeded to go the Chinese were firing at him, and had thrown to take charge of his house. Johnson told them he was in fear, and there was no doubt those men must have been in a state of great excitement, and as the jury would probably know what a Chinese crowd was when it was throwing stones and shouting "ta," he thought they would have very little doubt that the pri- soner was acting in self defence. The evidence given was that he fired over their heads, and there could be little doubt that he was justified in doing so, and if the boy was killed by this shot, with this point very exhaustively Mr. Wise as he submitted was not the case, then the act went on to deal with the justification of the was reduced to justifiable homicide. He quoted prisoner's act in firing the revolver on the the case of the Queen v. Knook in support of bridge. Most of the jury were aware of the this contention, character of a Chinese mob, and of their dangerous character, especially when, as was shown to be the case in the present instance, they were shouting "ta" and throwing stones, and he would ask them to consider whether the prisoner was not justified in firing the revolver under the circumstances. Johnson told them the
Jolin-
His Lordship-That was not a case in which a lethal weapon was used.
Mr. Wise said it was not, but he submitted it applied to this case with regard to the question of justifiable homicide, as the prisoner did not fire point blank at the crowd, but over their heads. In any case he would contend that if
REGINA v. LOGAN.
29
yone was killed by this firing in the air, it the duty of the jury to find him guilty. They would be homicide by misadventure. In defend- found that the prisoner fired towards the crowd, ing his client it was also his duty to deal with and they did not find that there was any other the presumption that the jury were against him person who had any firearms, nor anyone else who on both those points, and he was then consider fired on that occasion; and it was during that the question of self defence. Mr. Wise again time, according to the evidence, that the boy was alluded to the attitude stated to have been taken shot. That alone, if the case rested only on by the crowd, and be submitted that even if the Johnson's evidence, was sufficient to show that jury came to the conclusion that his client killed the boy. There was also the evidence that only one shot was fired it would still be excusable homicide. Then if to the eastward in the direction of this boy, and the jury were against him on that point also, the fact that two shots were fired, as was con- the question would next arise whether it was tended by the defence, was sufficiently explained. murder or manslaughter. He quoted a dictum by the other one fired to the westward which laid down by Mr. Justice Lindley that if the wounded the woman. He went through the provocation was great, and greatly excited the eviden ́s of the man Wong Nam Po, who was the person who committed the homicide, the act then only witness who spoke to two shots, and he mounted to manslaughter. Mr. Wise also quoted argued that the second shot which that witness other authorities, and he argued that in this heard must have been the one which caused the case no time had elapsed between the provoca- death of the boy. In the face of this positive tion and the firing, as Johnson's evidence was and negative evidence, be submitted that the that the crowd only ran away when the firearms | only conclusion which could be drawn was that was pointed at them, and there was no interval the prisoner fired the shot which caused the death between his doing so and firing. If the jury of the bay. This, he thought, effectually did thought the provocation was slight, and the pri- | away with the theory set up by the defence that it soner fired at the boy not in self defence, then it was someone else who fired a carbine on the was murder; but he was confident the jury | bridge and killed the boy. As to Neilsen, the would never find that verdict. If the jury were evidence of the witnesses was that he had no with him on the first point that the boy was shot firearms, and further the great weight of by someone else with a carbine, then they would evidence was to the effect that he was not in find a verdict of not guilty. Mr. Wise again al- white, but dark or black clothes, whilst all luded to the way he said the evidence had been the witnesses agreed that the man who shot the altered to meet his case after the first day, and boy was dressed in white. There was some be said there was a good deal of the old Mosaic discrepancy upon that point, and he submitted law about the Chinese of an eye for an eye, but that in such a matter credence should be given he thought they did not care if they got an eye or to those who had most opportunity of seeing. a death whether they got the right eye or the and who would be most likely to remember it. right death. Mr. Wise also drew attention to the Johnson, who was with the prisoner and Neilsen excellent character given the prisoner. In throughout might be supposed to have the conclusion he appealed to the jury to consider best reason for seeing and remembering it, and that they had a fellow creature's life in their he told them distinctly that the prisoner was hands, and to consider well all the circum- dressed in white, and he and Neilson in blue stances, and if they had any reasonable doubt suits. This was confirmed by many witnesses, in their minds as to whether the prosecu- and those who stated that Neilsen was wearing tin had completely proved their case, first white clothes were those who had only seen him as to whether the prisoner killed the boy, a short time, who had nothing which was likely and then as to whether he did so deliberately to impress this upon their memory.
If the case rested alone on the evidence of the Chinese there might perhaps be some doubt on the minds of the jury as to the accuracy of their observations, but it was borne out by several European wit- nesses, and therefore it was probable that Strom was mistaken in supposing that Neilson was
seeing what appeared to be a gun or carbine in the prisoner's hand on the bridge, and if the jury thought that the weapon the prisoner was carry- ing was capable of killing the boy, and no one fired any other firearm, then it was clear he had killed the boy. He would submit that the Euro-
The Crown Advocate then replied upon the defence at considerable length, and he com- menced by pointing out where, in his opinion, the defence had failed. There was no doubt the boy had been killed, and the question was by whom was the firearm discharged which caused his death. He thought that if the case rested on the evidence of Johnson alone, it would still be
Page 30
Page 31
28
REGINA v. LOGAN.
with the cartridges. Upon the evidence of Dan-prisoner fired into the air; be said the prisoner ean and Strom, and the bricks aud stones seen in did not stoop or rest the revolver on his arm a the prisoner's house, there could be no doubt one witness had stated, and if anyone had don that they had been pelted by the mob: Johnson so, it was not the prisoner. Firing into the sir was struck by a stone and he said he was in fear, in the street was no offence in itself as there and the jury would have to consider how serious was no law prohibiting it. It was evident that the disturbance was. It was true Johnson said neither Logan nor Johnson were aware of a boy that the Chinese were running away when having been killed and a man wounded when the pistol was fired, but he said they did not run they walked on from the bridge to Hing Keo's, away until the weapon was raised, and there could and it was no doubt with reference to the woman have been scarcely any time elapsed between the who had come to them wounded that Johnson re- raising and the firing of the weapon. As to the marked to the prisoner that they would get into woman who was shot, she seemed to know trouble over this affair. Though Neilson ap- nothing about who shot her. She said she was peared to have commenced the row, it also seemed shot from behind, though Dr. Wales said the that the mob had some feeling against the bullet eutered anteriorly, and she did not know prisoner on account of his getting the watchmen she was hit nutil the crowd told her to go and into trouble about his housa being broken ask the foreignors to cure her. It was a pistol into and robbed. Though he (Mr. Wise) Matsen saw in the prisoner's hund, and it was thought the jury would conclude as he had done evidout it could not be a carbine, or he could not that it was someone else who had killed the be waving it in the manner described with one boy with a carbine, it was still his duty towards band. Mr. Wise again alluded to the disere. the prisoner to deal with every possible circum- pancies between the evidence of the witnesses stance, and he would deal with the case on the aud the written depositions he had put in, and presumption that the jury waro of opinion that he submitted that the omissions in the first hear it was the prisoner who killed the boy. In such ing were really of a serious nature, and be a case the law presumed malice, and it was the thought it was perfectly impossible the witnesses business of the defence to do away with malice, could have then kept back some of the statements He still maintained his point that the prisoner they had now added if those statements were fired a revolver over the heads of the crowd; really correct. It was for the jury to consider there was no doubt that it could not carry so far whether such evidence was
reliable. He it fired point blank; and, he argued, this did would also ask them whether it was not fair to away with malice, and it was an act which the say that the witnesses who said they saw excitement and the action of the crowd justified. the prisoner fire the carbine had mistaken They had it stated by a number of witnesses that Neilsen for him, as he thought he had shown there was a large and excited orowd which was it must be some other person who fired the shouting "ta," and throwing stones, and oarbine, and there was a good deal of resemblance they had the remark of the prisoner that between the two men. Mr. Wise proceeded to go the Chinese were firing at him, and had thron,h the evidence, pointing out the distriad to take charge of his house. crepancies and arguing that various points sup son told them he was in fear, and there was no ported his contention that there were two shots doubt those men must have been in a state of fired on the bridge, and one by & carbine, which great excitement, and as the jury would probably must have cansed the fatal result, was fired by au- know what a Chinese crowd was when it was other person, not the prisoner, and therefore the throwing atones and shouting "ta," he thought latter could not be found guilty. He also pointed they would have very little doubt that the pri out the very excellent charactor which had been souer was acting in self defence. The evidence given the prisoner by Mr. Laut, his superior was that he fired over their heads, and there officer, other members of the Customs, and the could be little doubt that he was justified in European witnesses generally. Having dealt doing so, and if the boy was killed by this shot, with this point very oxhaustively Mr. Wise as he submitted was not the case, then the act went on to deal with the justification of the was reduced to justifiable homicide. He quoted prisoner's act in firing the revolver on the the case of the Queen v. Knook in support of bridge. Most of the jury were aware of the this contention, obaracter of a Chineso mob, and of their dangerous character, especially when, as was shown to be the case in the present instance, they were shouting "ta" and throwing stones, and he would ask them to consider whether the prisoner was not justified in firing the revolver under the circumstances. Johnson told them the
Jolin-
His Lordship-That was not a case in which a lethal weapon was used.
Mr. Wise said it was not, bat he submitted it applied to this case with regard to the question of justifiable homicide, as the prisoner did not fire point blank at the crowd, but over their heads. In any case he would contend that if
REGINA v. LOGAN.
29
yone was killed by this ring in the air, it the duty of the jury to find him guilty. They would be homicide by misadventure. In defend found that the prisoner fired towards the crowd, ing his client it was also his duty to deal with and they did not find that there was any other the presumption that the jury were against him person who had any firearms, nor anyone else who on both those points, and he wast then consider fired on that occasion; and it was during that the question of self defence. Mr. Wise again time, according to the evidence, that the boy was alluded to the attitude stated to have been taken shot. That alone, if the case rested only on by the crowd, and be submitted that even if the Johnson's evidence, was enfficient to show that jury came to the conclusion that bia client kilit was the prisoner who killed the by. There led the boy by firing point blank at the crowd, it was also the evidence that only one shot was fired would still ba excusable homicide. Then if to the eastward in the direction of this boy, and the jury were against him on that point also, the fact that two shots were firod, us was con- the question would next arise whether it was tended by the defence, was sufficiently explained. marder or manslaughter. He quoted a dictum by the other one fred to the westward which laid down by Mr. Justice Lindley that if the wounded the woman. He went through the provocation was great, and greatly oxoited the ¦ eviden ́s of the man Wong Nam Po, who was the person who committed the homicide, the act then only witness who spoke to two shots, and he mounted to manslaughter. Mr. Wise also quoted argued that the second shot which that witness other authorities, and he argued that in this heard must have been the one which caused the case no time had elapsed between the provoca death of the boy. In the face of this positive tion and the firing, as Jobuson's evidence was and negative evidence, be submitted that the that the crowd only ran away when the firearma | only conclusion which could be drawn was that was pointed at them, and there was no interval the prisoner fired the shot which caused the death between his doing so and firing. If the jury of the bay. This, he thought, effectually did thought the provocation was slight, and the pri- | away with the theory set up by the detence that it soner fired at the boy not in self defence, then it was" someone else who fired a carbius on the was murder; but he was confident the jury | bridge and killed the boy. As to Neilsen, the would never And that verdict. If the jury were evidence of the witnesses was that he had no with him on the first point that the boy was shot firearms, and further the great weight of by someone else with a carbine, then they would evidence was to the effect that he was not in find a verdict of not guilty. Mr. Wise again al-white, but dark or black clothes, whilst all luded to the way he said the evidence had been the witnesses agreed that the man who shot the altered to meet his case after the first day, and boy was dressed in white. Thero was some be said there was a good deal of the old Mosaic discrepancy upon that point, and ho submitted law about the Chinese of an eye for an eye, but that in such a matter credonos should be given he thought they did not care if they got an eye or to those who had most opportunity of seeing. a death whether they got the right aye or the and who would be most likely to remember it. right death. Mr. Wise also drev attention to the Johnson, who was with the prisoner and Neilsen excellent character given the prisoner. In throughout might be supposed to have the conclusion he appealed to the jury to considor best reason for seeing and remembering it, and that they had a fellow creature's life in their he told them distinctly that the prisoner was bands, and to consider well all the circum-dressed in white, and he and Neilson in blue stances, and if they had any reasonable doubt suits. This was confirmed by many witnesses, in their minds us to whether the prosecu- aud those who stated that Neilsen was wearing tin had completely proved their case, first white clothes were those who had only seen him as to whether the prisonor killed the boy, a short time, who had nothing which was likely and then as to whether he did so deliberately to impress this upon their memory.
If the case and with malice for thought, they would give rested alone on the evidence of the Chinese thera the p isoney the benefit of it. A great responsi might perhaps be some doubt on the minds of bility rested upon thom, but he was sure the pri. the jary as to the accuracy of their observations, soner would meet with justice and fair play at but it was borne ont by several European wit- their bandy.
nesses, and therefore it was probable that Strom was mistaken in supposing that Neilson was
seeing what appeared to be a eun or aurbine iu the prisoner's hand on the bridge, and if the jury thought that the weapon the prisoner was carry- inz, was capable of killing the boy, and no una fired any other firearm, then it was clear he had killed the boy. He would submit that the Euro.
The Crown Advocate than replied upon the defence at considerable Jenth, and he com-dressed in white. Strom also gave evidence to menced by pointing out where, in his opinion, the defence bad failed. There was no doubt the boy had been killed, and the question was by whom was the Brearin discharged which cansei his death. He thought that if the case restod on the evidence of Johnson alone, it would still be
}
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.