Cha proof of Case criminal taking refuge in this colony quilt he shall be delivered up, and that in Chinese incurring debt in Hongkong, due recovery of such debt must be arranged for by the English law of Suction on the spot. Supposing therefore, Ordinances 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871 not to be law; which, as we have above stated, seems extremely doubtful, then there is no legal provision whatever in existence which enables His Excellency the Governor to carry out the Tientsin Treaty and there is no law instancing under which Leung Afu can be detained or handed over.
There is no doubt that in England a treaty confirmed by Act of Parliament would be sufficient to enable a person to be given up. How far it is so in a Crown Colony I don't know. Supposing, as we say, that the local Ordinances are valid, we humbly submit to His Excellency that he cannot order Leung Afu to be delivered over to torture and execution by the Chinese Authorities unless he has been proved to be guilty of the offence charged against him by due process of law.
We think it hardly necessary to ask His Excellency to say that no inquiry has been done. What the magistrate, before whom the prisoners were brought, has done is this: he has made no enquiry or investigation into the guilt of Leung Afu, but he has - by a mistake and expression capable of misinterpretation - stated 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 gaol because, reading his instructions from the Government as he does, he has no right to enquire into the guilt of the accused. All he can do is to register the statements made before him.
We do not intend to point out the contradictions and falsehoods contained in the depositions, as we should be repeating what our Barrister has already urged to the magistrate. Taken before Mr. Wodehouse, we would call attention to the fact that Si Lui, the cook, was not cross-examined, as his statement did not in any way implicate the 1st or 3rd prisoners, who at the time of his examination were the only two represented by solicitors - Woo Ah Chok was not cross-examined, as she incriminated none of the prisoners.
His Excellency will see from the dates upon which they were made that two of the witnesses, Fung Sai Junn and the landlord Luk Kai Tring, were examined after the hearing of the case. An information was taken out in which Si Loi and Leong Afu, Chinese mandarin and his principal witness, were charged with perjury at the instance of our Barrister. These two witnesses were cross-examined by Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., who appeared as Counsel for the defence, and their evidence was taken. It was just at the close of the examination of the landlord, Luk Kai Tring, that the magistrate was directed by the Attorney General, without any legal authority, to stay proceedings against Li Loi.
There being sufficient evidence before the magistrate to justify a committal for trial before the Supreme Court of Leong Afu for perjury, the Barrister did not see any necessity for calling further witnesses, but had Mr. Wodehouse allowed witnesses for the defence of Leong Afu to have been called, we were prepared to produce on his behalf all the witnesses whose declarations we enclose.
In conclusion, we again ask His Excellency...
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
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.