I stated that the Magistrate had acted irregularly contrary to all practice in postponing his decision in the case before him until the verdict in the perjury case. And I further took exception to his statement that if Leung Yau was convicted of paying, it would vitiate the whole of the evidence. It is clear from this statement that the Magistrate intended to be guided by the verdict in the perjury case, and I pointed out that this was irregular. In doing so, I was not assuming a role that does not belong to my office. Mr. Wodehouse, in one of the paragraphs of his letter, says that in insisting on my opinion of what were his reasons for adjourning from time to time when he had publicly announced what they actually were, I have been unduly persistent. But I say that in my first report, I did not form any opinion as to Mr. Wodehouse's reasons for postponing the case. I merely mentioned the fact that the case had been postponed, and in my second report, I said the Magistrate could only have had one object, viz., to be guided by awaiting for the decision in the perjury case. I say that this was fully borne out by what Mr. Wodehouse has himself said or recorded.
Page 151
(No change is made in the page numbering format as per the instructions)
12.
I stated that the Magistrale had acted irregularly
contrary
and
to-all pradice
pradice in postponing his decision in the
before him until the
Case
verdict in the
peyury
Care.
And I further took exception to his statement that if Leung
Yau
convicted of paying,
Avert
it would vitiate the whole of
the evidence.
It is clear from this
statement that the Magistrate
intended tobe
guided by the
verdict in the perpry
th
imple.
the perpry case, and
ported out that this
crregular.
In
doiing
was not ass
nvas
Daubsreit J.
the
over
deamung Magistrals any control a which does not belong to my
office _ Mr Wodehouse the paragraphs of his letter says
in one
of
that
that in insisting were
opinion of what
151
rzy
his
13.
reasous
for adjourning from time to time when he had publicly annonuced what they actually were, I have been unduly
to this d
misistent. Du
say
агосост
that in my first report
I did not form any opinion
as to Mr Wodelionse's reasons
for postponing the
cave.
Deverely
" mentioned the fact that the case had been postponed,
and in
y
second report Deaid the Nagistrate could
only have had
ovu
object.
viz, to be guided
evaiting for the decision in the perjury
by it
Ir
case
saying
this Drvas fully
borne out by what In Wodehouse has himself said
In
oire
or recorded.
of the paragraphs,
of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.