THE ATTEMPTED ARREST BY CHINESE OFFICIALS IN HONGKONG. Lan Man Tin, Sham Wan Tsoi, Ching Man Pan, Ng Hok Chun, Cheong Shing Fat, Young Cheung Un, and Sham Hing Wan, Chinese men- of-war's men belonging to the Chinese gunboat Ngai San, were brought before the court charged with committing an assault apon Chang Chi, master of the junk Kum Cheung Fat, on the 22nd inst.
The Crown Solicitor, Mr. A. P. Stokes, ap- peared for the prosecution, Mr. Caldwell defond- ed.
Mr. Stokos briefly opened the case, stating the facts as disclosed by the evidence below, and in- forming his Worship that he charged the pri- soners with committing an assault upon Chang Chi, and under Sec. 7 of Ordinance 2 of 1875, with having unlawfully detained him.
The complainant, who seemed to be unwell, was examined in a squatting position in the wit- ness box. He said he was master of the Kum Cheung Fat junk trading between Hongkong and Taiwan. At about eight a.m. the pre- vious morning, while he was at the Hing Fat shop in Queen's-street, a number of armed men came into that establishment, and without saying anything thoy at once seized him, band- cuffed him, and put chains upon his ankles. The seven prisonors and another man whom he had seen outside the court were the ones who had been concerned in this. They made him lio down upon the ground, and wanted to take him on board their ship, but the master of the shop, Akwok, and some of his fokia, who were present, would not let them. The prisoners did not say on what account they wanted him. He had never seen them before, and had no idea why they seized him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Caldwell-Witness had been master of the Kum Cheung Fat junk about four months, and the junk formerly belonged to his brother, Cheung Kit Kwong, who was killed by the Custom House people. His brother had been master of that junk about three years, and during that time witness never went out in her, but used to go fishing in a small boat,
Mr. Stokes, at this stage, applied to his Wor ship for a warrant for the arrest of the man out- side the Court referred to by the complainant.
Mr. Caldwell contended that a warrant could not be issued, as this was only a charge of as- sault. A summons only could be issued.
Mr. Stokes admitted that the case was one of aggravated assault, and therefore under those circumstances a warrant could be issued.
Mr. Caldwell said this was not a case of aggra- vated assault, and a warrant could not be issued. The man referred to was an officer of the Chi nese Government, and he should be ready to produce him at all times without a warrant. He should protest against the officer being charged with the other men. He was not arrested with them, and there was no fear of his running away. Mr. Stokes submitted that if this man was a party to the act in which the prisoners were con- cerned he should be tried also.
Mr. Caldwell offered, upon condition that the officer was not placed with the prisoners, to pro- duce himu.
This course was agreed to, and the officor, who gave the name of Chun Ti Hi, was then called into court.
The complainant said this was not the man he referred to, but the other man who had been concerned in his seizure was still outside the court.
Mr. Stokes withdrew the charge against this person, and the complainant was taken outside to point out the man he reformed to. He pointed out a petty officer of the guabout, named Lau Kok Lin, who was then arrested and made the 8th defendant.
The complainant, in answer to Mr. Caldwell's further cross-examination, went on to give evidence to the following effect. He lived at a city called Hin Wah, and never went out in the junk with his brother, who traded with Paktau, Formosa, and Hongkong. The junk was not livenced at Hongkong, but it got a paper from the Harbour Office every time it came here, There were neither English nor Chinese figures on the bows of the junk. Witness was staying at the Hing Fat shop at the time he was ar- rested. In the eighth moon of last Chinese year
he was at home at Hih Wah, Tad ninth moou he went to Paktan. near Ping Hoi.
the end of the
Hệ xinh was
Mr. Stokes objedthat this line of cross- examination was irrelevant to the case.
Mr. Caldwell contended that ho had a right to go into any matters he thought he in cross- examination.
His Worship ruled that the questions were not in order.
Cross-examination continued.-Over ten mon came into the shop when witness was seized, and Lau Sin, the last defondant, was the first mau who entered, and the seventh man tied him up by the order of the eighth. They put him down with his face upon the ground, and he did not see what the other mon did. Witness ar- rived in the colony in the same junk on the 20th November last.
His Worship cautioned the defendant that he was not called upon to answer any question which might incriminate himself.
Cross-examination continued. When witness came here in November he came from his village, and brought no cargo. The junk left on the ⚫ 16th December, but he remained bebind as he was sick. His foki cleared the junk at the Harbour Office.
Re-examined by Mr. Stokes.-The eighth de- fendant came into the Hing Fat shop first, and the other defendants came in a crowd behind him, and acted under his orders. They were all present when he was secured, which was doue by the handcuffs, chain, and padlocks in court.
It being impossible to finish the case at this sitting his Worship decided to adjourn it.
Mr. Caldwell applied for bail for the prisoners. Mr. Stokes rather demurred to bail, he thought at least it ought to be something very substan- tial.
His Worship said he should certainly require very substantial bail. On further consideration he was disposed to think that the best course would be not to graut bail, as from what he hoard there seemed to be a Mandarin mixed up in the matter, and there might be some difficulty in socaring the defendants' re-appearance. Ho thought it would be better, under the circuma- stances to detain them in custody.
Mr. Caldwell-Then am I to understand that your Worship refuses me bail for a common as- sault ?
His Worship-I do not consider that this is a ¿commion assault.
Mr. Caldwell-There was nothing else, no one was bodily injured, and the offence with which the defendants are charged is only a mis- demeanour. It is not one of those cases in which bail can be refused.
Mr. Stokes-The question of bail is entirely oue for his Worship.
Mr. Caldwell-But it is not so in this case, as to refuse bail in a case of misdemeanour like this would be to commit an offence by the Ma- gistrate at Common Law. (Mr. Caldwell quoted from Archbold as to what definition this case come under, and from Blackstone as showing that to refuse to grant bail to prisoners charged with offences of that class was to commit an offence against the liberty of the subject.;
Mr. Stokos said that under the provisions of Ord. 2 of 1875 the case if determined, should be determined by two Magistrates.
Mr. Caldwell said he had seen that before, and he would have taken the objection before but for the fact that he thought this was merely a pre- liminary trial, and that the case would be com- mitted for trial at the Supreme Court.
His Worship said that raight be so, but if the case was disposed of in that court he apprehend- ed that the usual course was for one Magistrate to take the depositions, and then call in the ad- sistance of another Magistrate to docido, aud place the depositions before him.
Mr. Stokes. It might relieve your Worship of the question of bail if you committed the pri- souers now, and left the case to be dealt with by two Magistrates.
Mr. Caldwell-There is no really good and reasonable ground upon which your Worship can refuse to grant bail. It is a bailable offenen, and there is no fear of the defendants running away. They have come here under certain cir- oumstances, and they have a charge against the complainant.
44
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.