took away property.
aud
285
to beat their assailants
from the gang to
over
$1000 in value,
off
Kwan Shap
- during each attack the defendant
and others undered one
yat,
the elder brother of the
"Kwan Shap" is
3.
said
The witnesses for the prosecution
are three in number. Of these, the first
states that he is brother of the deceased,
that he was in the house
of his
brother when he
was murdered and the house
was sacked, and that he (the witness) was kept guard by the prisoner who presented firearm at him. The second states that he
is an accomplice of the prisoner and was in the house. The evidence of this witness is naturally open to grave doubt. The third states that he is a watchman who with three others
was attacked by a band of robbers coming from the direction of the house on the night in question and fought with the prisoner, who with others turned back
the attack.
After careful perusal of minutes and after giving
my weight
due
to the arguments employed by the Counsel on both sides, I am of opinion that, however unsatisfactory it may be to have to deal with a case in which the prisoner has been put three times on
his trial, this giving
the prosecution every opportunity for baffling the defence, still the case brought before me is one
in which the prosecution has succeeded in giving "probable cause"
for believing that the prisoner is a Chinese subject and that he committed
the offence against the Laws of China, with which he is charged
on
the
day
and at the place mentioned. I have
therefore
committed him for trial.
took away property.
aud
285
to beat their assailants
from the gang to
over
$1000 in value,
off
Kwan Shap
- during ench attack the defendant
and others unirdered one
yat,
the elder brother of the
"Kwan Shap - is
3.
said
The witis free for the prosecution
are three in mumber. Of these, the first
overr
states that he is brother of the deceased,
that he was in the house
of his
brother when he
was murdered and the house.
was sacked, and that he (the withos) was kept guard by the prisoner who presented firenomo at him. The second states that he
accomplice of the prisoner is the
the house. The evidence of this witness is naturally opento grave doubt. The third states that he is watchman who with three others
attack on
a
was
attacked band of robbers coming from the direction of the honce on the night in question and fought with the frisoner, who with others turned back
from
After careful perusal of minutes and after giving
my weight
due
to the arguments employed by the Comisal on both sides, I am of opinion that, however unsatisfaction It may be to have to deal with ce cas in which the prisoner has been put three times on
his trial, thees giving
me is one
the prosecution every opportunity for baffling the defence, still the case brought a before felt it my duty to commit for tual of the Supreme Court had it been triable in this Colony and is one in which the prosecution has succeeded in giving "probable for
which I should have
" believing " that the prisoner is a Chinese subject and that he committed
the offence against the Laws of China, with which he is charged
n
the
Jay
and at the place mentioned. I have
therefore
$
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.