CO129-236 - Others - 1887 — Page 96

86A

Cha

proof of

Case

criminal taking refuge in this bolony quilt he shall be delivered up, and that in Chinese incurring deblo in dongriong, du recovery of ench deblo met be arranged for by sth Englich leant of Suction on the spot. Supposing therefore, Ordinances 2 of 1850 and 2

as we have above stated, scemo

1871 not to be law; which,

extremely doubtful, then there is no legal provision whatever in existence which enables odio Excellency the Governor to carry out the Tientsin Treaty and there is no law instagring under which Leung a‡n can be detained or handed over: ots Lord Justice Mellish There is no doubt that in

England

140

Pays :-

treaty inconfirmed byddet of Partiorment would be eufficient to crable a

person to be

this

12ean

9

given up. How far be so in a brown lectomy I don't know! Suppiecing, as we say that the local Ordinances are valid, we humbly submit to His Excellency that he cannot order Lesugufic to be delivered over to torture and execution by the chimere Authorities endless he has been proved to be guilty of the offence charged against line by di Loi-

We think it hardly necessary

to ask idis Excellency to say that no and thing has been done. What the magistrate, before whom the prisoners

brought; has

dove is this he has made

into ita

guilt

o Autoćewei

110

Avere

enquiry or investigation of Lening a Fu, but he has

-410

mistake and

J

wo

expressed in leruw capable of misinterprctation that he considers the charge brought forward by Li Loi to be false from beginning to end, and he has simply committed the prisoners to gast because reading his instructions from ith Government as he does, he has wo

right to enquire into the quilt of ther

accused. All he can do is to register the etatements made

th

declaration

before

him. We do not intend to point out

contradictions and

falsehoods contained in the deposition

ao

we should be repeating

Taken before tur Wodehouse

what our Demays has already urged to the magistrate,

to the statement of Si dui, the cook,

but with

referenc

as he did not in

Mone

we would call attention to the fact that he was not cross examined, as

any way implicate the fat or 3rd

prisoners, who at the times of his examination, were the only thus represented by solicitors - Woo a choke was not cross examined, as she incriminated of the prisoners. Its to the declarations which we forward, dis Excellency will see

from the dates upon which they

were made that two of the witnesses the or Fring Sai Jonn and the landlord Likhaidring, examined afterwards the hearing of the ease. un. trackeon, in which SiLoi and

Leong alfour, khinese mandarin and his principal evictiness, charged

with

perjury at the instance of our the bennigo. These two wilhoves were cross, examined by ther. J. J. Francis, Q.C. who appeared evidence

was M A

(43

A

were

before

tt

were

Counsel for the defence, and ther

chaken. It

wvas

just at the

the landlord, Luk Kai Tring.

way

close

of the examination

f

was directed

baz

that the magistraté

as we

An Attorney Genend,

enbunt without any legal authority, to stay

and there there being sufficient.

proceedings against Li Loi,

evidence before to tragistesté to justify a committal for trial before the Supreme bant of Leong a you fore perjury, the Benny did not see any necessity for calling further witnesses, but had thr. Wodehouse allowed withivors for the defence of Leong a Fer to have been called prepared to produce. on his behalf all the witnesses whose declarations we enclos

wv2

WELL

Du conclusion, again ashodie Excellency

we

G

the