CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8] — Page 196

Mr. Francis-1 object entirely to any adjourn ment. There is a certain amount of evidence to ahow that the second defendant might be charg- ed with committing perjury, but as for the first defendant there is absolutely not a tittle of eri- dence against him. The charge is that he indu- sed the other prisoner to come bare, and deliber. ately make a number of false statements, but there is no evidence to support such a charge, In fact there is the strongest presumption against it. Colonel Li Loi came here simply as a person in the employ of the Viceroy of Can- ton to claim the rendition of certain prisoners, and it was bis business to bring forward some aridence, but he is no more responsible for the trathfulness of his witnesses than is Mr. Cald-

well, and he Can no more be charged with subornation of perjury than

Caldwell. Thore must be some evidence to prove that he paid or compelled the witness in some way to come here and make the statements that he did. Yon are en- titled to remand the second prisoner, but as there is no evidence against the first he ought to be discharged. As to the charge of attempt- ing to marder, there has not been a particle of eridence produced to prove it. Not a single fact has been alleged to show any act which if carried out would have resulted in murder. I must ask your Worship to proceed with the case at once and insist on Mr. Dennys producing some eri- dence to support the very grave charges he has made. In making these charges Mr. Dennys has not only brought a charge against the two defendants, but it is equivalent to saying that if the prisoners were handed over by the Court, they would, whether innocent or guilty, be sent straight to death. This means that not only would the magistrate have failed in his duty, but likewise the Government here, and the Chinese officials. Mr. Dennys, as solicitor for the prisoners in the other case, has largely allowed his zoal to outrun bis discretion, and has, in the interests of his clients, placed himself in a very serions position. He has taken upon him- self, in the pablic interest I presume be would say, to bring a charge against this MAN. If he was an official in the position of Captain Deane, and after making a pre- liminary investigation assured your Worship that he had evidence to prove this charge, s certain amount of weight might be attached to ench assurance, if the prisoners were unknown. The complainant, however, is a solicitor in the colony, who, without a shred of interest in the case, comes forward and makes these reckless charges. Li Loi stands in exactly the same po- sition as Captain Deaue or Inspector Matheson would do, if after bringing a charge, they found that one of their witnesses had given false evid- ence. No one would think of holding them re- sponsible for that or of charging them with sn- tornation of perjury. As there is no evidence sgainst Li Loi I ask that he may be discharged, or that Mr. Dennys be required to give further evidence.

His Worship-The case will be remanded till Monday afternoon at half-past two, and Li Loi will be released without bail.

Mr. Dennys-On the ground that he is a Chi- nese official ?

His Worship No, on the grand that the

Jonce against bim is very slight. The Court then adjourned.

*

The Daily Press.

HONGKONA, MARCH 29TH, 1887.

THE PERJURY CASE.

On this case being called, his Worship ob- served that he had decided to commit the de- fendant for trial, bail being allowed as before.

or the Reports contained in the isenes 6, 22nd and 28th March, and 30 April requested to the copies our

THE CHINESE RENDITION CABE. The further hearing of this case in which the three men are claimed by the Chinese Govern- ment on a charge of burglary and murder com- mitted within its jurisdiction, was resumed.

Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., instructed by Mr. Caldwell, prosecuted; Mr. Holmes appeared for first defendant and Mr. Dennys for second and third defendants.

Inspector Quincey, who was first called, in- formed his Worship that the defendant in the perjury case bad been committed for trial.

His Worship-This case will be remanded till next Monday,

101

Mr. Holmes On behalf of the first defendant, I must beg to remind your Worship of the re- marks made by you at the last sitting of the Court. I believe that you intimated that in the event of the case of perjury being proved against Chun Ayut, you would not allow the prosecntion to bring further evidence. Chnu Ayut being the principal witness, if your Worship was satisfied by the proceedings in the other court, that he had committed perjury, the evidence of other witnesses would be immaterial, that is to say, the principal part of the charge rested on his evidence. This being so and the case this morning as against Chun Ayut having been proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate of the other court and the defendant committed for trial at the Criminal Sessions, I submit that the duty of the Magistrate ended in his finding Chan Ayut guilty as far as he was concerned and it now remains for a higher tribunal to con- firm or reject those proceedings. But so far as the Magistrate is concerned, Chun Ayut is found guilty. Even supposing he should be dis- charged, the prosecution are not atliberty to bring any further evidence, and therefore their case is closed. The prisoner being committed his case is disposed of, and I therefore respectfully submit to your Worship that these men, at least, I speak on behalf of first defendant, should no longer be detained in gaol.

Mr. Dennys-On behalf of the second and third defendants, following the lead of Mr. Holmes, I would remind your Worship of the remarks you made with regard to the witness Chun Aynt, who calls bimself Leung Ayow. After Leung Ayow had been cross-examined at great length, your Worship said that the case depended so entirely on whether or not any credenes was to be given to this man's evidence, that if the evidences called to prove the charges made against him was satisfactory the defendants ought to be discharg- Jel. Your Worship will remember that applica. tion was made to examine Chun Ayut privately, in the presence of the Colonial Surgeon respect- ing the marks on his body. Your Worship re- fused that application and said we must proceed with the case in the ordinary way of cross-examination. I then called Dr. Hartigan, who examined the witness in Court and whol positively swore that he had on his arm tatoo marks and above that a mark which had been burned out. Your Worship then made the remark, that in consequence of the informs. tion that had come out in cross-examination, we had only to prove that to quash the case. We have had the evidence of Ho Ki, who said that these marks were on Chua Ayut's arm when he had seen him before. Your Worship said you have only to prove that the characters on the man's arm are the word "To" and the prisoners will he discharged. I put Mr. Chun Kaiing, the interpreter of this court, in the box and he swore positively that these marks were "To," meaning "thief." This took place on the Friday and your Worship then adjourned the case the following Monday in order to give Mr. Caldwell time to bring rebutting evidence. And you further s'ated that such evidence must prove that that mark did not exist on the man's arm. On the following Monday no such evidence wa produced. In the meantime action had been taken in the case by a private individual and a charge of perjury brought against Li Loi and bun Ayut. I need not say that that private individual was myself. I submit that the case before the other Magistrate has nothing }

in the issues of the Daily Press of the 15",

respectfully file in the Colonial Office Library,

mis camrot be obtained here.

(now)

reference