must decide a case
evidence as
by the given before him
Besides, the magistrate
in stating that
Leung You
if
the witness
f
were convicted
perjury, it would vitiate the
whole
down a
of
the evidence, lags proposition which
is not supported by any
law.
One part of the man's evidence
may be perfectly true and still
he
may
not
speak
the truth
on some other point; the
point
On
which he may
falsely
may
have
nothing to do with the
real facts of
the case,
there is
410
and
a rule which
states that because a
witness
falsely
on
one
point
the
whole
evidence even
23.
137
of the other
witnesses is to be rejected. Any
decision of the Magistrate given
on such a principle would be
certainly revised
on
appeal to
The
Supreme Court. The Magistrate should carefully consider whether those parts of
the evidence as to which perjury
is alleged, are material, whether Leung You may not be speaking the truth as to what occurred
in the house robbed
if he is speaking falsely
even
as to
what happened to him two
or three
years before.
Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence and is this contradiction supported
by
22.
must decide a case
evidence as
by the given before him
Besides, the magistrale
in stating that
Leung You
if
the witness
f
were convicted
perfuty, it would vitiate the
whole
down a
of
the evidence, lags proposition which
is not supported by any
law.
One past of the man's evidence
may be perfectly true and still
he
may
not
speak
the truth
on some other point; the
point
On
swear
which he may
falsely may
have
nothing to do with the
real facts of
there is
410
and
the case,
rule which
states that because
witness
falsely
on.
one
may
have
Sworn
onl
point
the
whole
whole evidence even
23.
137
of the other
witnesses is to be rejected. Any
decision of the Magistrate fiven
on such a principle would be
certainly revised
M
appeal to
The
the Supreme Court Magistrate should carefully consider whether those parts of
the evidence as to which perjung
is alleged, are material, whether Leung You may not be speaking the truth as to what occurred.
in the house robbed
if he is speaking falsely
even
as to
what happened to him two
three
years before.
Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence and is this contradiction supported
by
$
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.