CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12] — Page 250

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

he may not speak the truth on some other point; the point which he may falsely have nothing to do with the real facts of the case, and there is no rule which states that because a witness may have sworn falsely on one point the whole of the other evidence is to be rejected.

Any decision of the Magistrate may 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 the witness may not be speaking the truth as to what occurred in the case, even if he is speaking falsely about something that happened years before.

Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence, and is this contradiction supported by two witnesses? If the Magistrate is convinced that the witness is not speaking the truth on that point, he should consider whether that is sufficient to overthrow the evidence of the other witnesses against whom a charge of perjury is alleged.

There is no law that says that because a witness has sworn falsely on one point, you are to reject the evidence of that witness because they have sworn falsely on another point.

I submit that the Magistrate be informed that his decision...

Edit History

2026-05-25 20:19:48 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
he may not speak the truth on some other point; the point which he may falsely have nothing to do with the real facts of the case, and there is no rule which states that because a witness may have sworn falsely on one point the whole of the other evidence is to be rejected. Any decision of the Magistrate may 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 the witness may not be speaking the truth as to what occurred in the case, even if he is speaking falsely about something that happened years before. Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence, and is this contradiction supported by two witnesses? If the Magistrate is convinced that the witness is not speaking the truth on that point, he should consider whether that is sufficient to overthrow the evidence of the other witnesses against whom a charge of perjury is alleged. There is no law that says that because a witness has sworn falsely on one point, you are to reject the evidence of that witness because they have sworn falsely on another point. I submit that the Magistrate be informed that his decision...
Baseline (Original)
} he may not speak the truth on some other point; the point ( which he may falsely may have nothing to do with the real facts of the case, and there is rule which states that because or ve witness. falsely Evidenc روع 07 1 loeu may or ce have sworn point the whole of the other witnesses is to be rejected. Any decision of the Magistrate ! Frven Auch principle Avold appeal be certainly revised on to the Supreme Court. The Magistrate should carefully Ameider whether those parts of the evidence) as to which is alleged / are material; penjury whether Lening Ayou may not be speaking the truth 4 J to what occurred in the if he is konce robbed even speaking speaking falsely happened a o red to hun livs years before. '247 what ox thece Is there anything which directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence and this contradiction supported by two witness & Ande vira if the Magistrate be convinced that the witness is not speaking the truth on that point, he should consider whether that is su sufficient to overthrow the evidence. of the other witnesses against wohour. o charge of perpry is alleged. There or Cuetorr you io 24 Atacour law that says which are to reject the evidence of me wities becau way have re twvoru another falsely. I subunit that the Magistrate be informed that his } PTT I;
2026-05-25 20:19:48 · Baseline
View content

}

he

may not speak the truth on some other point; the point

(

which he may

falsely may

have nothing

to do with the real facts of the case, and there is

rule which states that because

or ve

witness.

falsely

Evidenc

روع

07 1

loeu

may

or ce

have sworn

point the whole

of the other

witnesses is to be rejected.

Any decision of the Magistrate

!

Frven

Auch

principle

Avold

appeal

be certainly revised on to the Supreme Court. The Magistrate should carefully

Ameider whether those parts of

the evidence)

as to which

is alleged

/

are material;

penjury whether Lening Ayou may not be speaking the truth

4 J

to what occurred in the

if he is

konce robbed even

speaking

speaking falsely happened

a o

red to hun livs

years before.

'247

what

ox

thece

Is there anything which

directly contradicts the material parts of his evidence

and

this contradiction supported by two witness &

Ande

vira

if the Magistrate

be convinced that the witness is not speaking

the truth on

that point, he should consider

whether that is su

sufficient to

overthrow the evidence.

of the

other witnesses against wohour.

o charge of perpry is alleged.

There

or Cuetorr

you

io

24 Atacour

law

that

says

which

are to reject the evidence

of me wities becau

way

have

re twvoru

another

falsely.

I subunit that the

Magistrate be informed that

his

}

PTT

I;

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.