ment warrant.
Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson- After he left the police he went to the country and re- turned in April, 1894. He could find no ae. eupation and so he went back to the country, but returned to Hongkong in December, 1895. He started his present business in December, 1896. During the interval between December, 1895, and December, 1816, he was engaged in assisting Sam Yeen in distributing "expenses." that is, he was engaged in gambling operations. He was not convicted in March, 1895, for lar- cony and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. He was convicted for committing perjury, and was fined $100. He had only been conviated
once.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Francis said the conviction was for assault. Mr. Robinson had not correctly read the conviction.
Mr. Robinson said he was quite right. He then asked the witness about the matter and be admitted that he and another man were charged with stealing two shirts and were seul, to gaol for six weeks. In addition witness was charged with assault.
Mr. Robinson then complained that bis learned friend, a Queen's Counsel of this colony, had acensed him of misrepresenting matters to the Court.
Mr. Francis replied that in the hasty glance he obtained of the conviction paper he certainly did make a mistake.
His Lordship thought that with this explana. tion Mr. Robinson's honour was satisfied.
Mr. Robinson bowed to bis Lordship's decision and the case proceeded.
In answer to further questions witness said that the sentence was afterwards altered to a fine of $100 on the application of Mr. Dennys, who represented him. He admitted that at the Magistracy he said he did not know for whom he received 88. He was confused when he made that statement. He now admitted that he received it for Yang Fat. Cheng On gare him the name.
Mr. Bobinson--I suppose you have seen Cheng Ún since you were at the Magistracy?
Witness--I saw him yesterday or the day before.
Where ? In the witness room P-Yes. You wore both together for the greater part of the day in the witness room --We were both together, but we did not speak to each other.
I suppose there was some guard over you. His Lordship-Do I understand that Cheng On told you the name of this man, or do you recollect it r-Cheng On told me and I now recollect it.
In answer to further questions witness said he did not tell the Magistrate that he received some money from "Fat Child Chi." He did rot mention that name at all to the Magistrate. Re-examined by Mr. Francis.-He was not questioned at the Magistracy about the Cheung Hing Street gambling house.
His Lordship-Why didn't you mention it? Witness Because I had no direct dealings with the affairs and therefore I did not meu- tion anything about that house. The money was simply handed to me and I was asked to pass it over.
When was the last payment you made to Chong On 17th June last.
Sam Yeen, who was convicted of being the keeper of a gambling house at 2, Wa Lane, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, was then called. He said he had been connected with the house for five years, No. 3, East Street, was the outer office of 2, Wa Lane, and the money, jewellery, and accounts were kept there. There was only one gambling house in Wa Lane-only one house in which gaming was actually carried on. Gaming was some. times carried on in No. 5. In reality there were two houses in which gaming was carried on, but both belonged to the same establishment. The playing was sometimes shifted to No. 2. Ng Kwai Fong, next to the Tam Fa Lau eating house. Gambling had been carried on in Nos. 2 and 5, Wa Lane, every day from the 2nd February this year to the 18th June. The hours were 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. Last year gambling was carried on for six months in broken periods. Witness then spoke
to paying money to Tung Kum and to the con- versation he had with Cheng On respecting No. 12's application for money. Witness told Cheng On that if No. 12 received $1 a day the recipient must not chase and beat witness's fokis. Witness consented to pay $1 a day and 10 cents for Cheng On. Witness paid altogether about $150 a day for distribution during the fourth and fifth micous. The police who received the money were supposed not to take any notice of the gambling houses. Witness was then shown a list and he pointed out the entry "No. 12, $1.10, Cheng On's hand." That meant that the money was paid to Cheng On. There was also an entry $23.55, paid to Tung Kam" and another 331.05 paid to Tung Kom." Another entry was "No. 12, $1, Cheng On's hand entered in Kum's band," meaning that the money was paid to Tang Kam. The list was a memoran- dum showing the names of persons to whom money was paid and the amount of each payment. Mr. Francis-I will now ask your Lordship for direction in reference to the entries in the books, such as 43, 89, and 91, and Government House and other people. Does your Lordship think that I should ask questions about those entries or should the matter be dropped entirely? His Lordship--Mr. Robinson did ask a cer- tain number of questions about them, but I think we should keep ourselves free of them.
Mr. Francis-I think it is only fair to the parties concerned that some questions should he asked about them, but I am entirely in your Lordship's bands. The matter is not u neces- !sary portion of our case, but I cannot say what
my friend in his address to the jury will say,
"His Lordship-What I shall say to the jury with reference to this list is that we are not trying the question of the guilt or innocence of all the parties mentioned in this list as having received sums of money, but the defence is en- titled to look at this list and if they can show there are absurd entries in it and also impossible things they could say that the list is therefore not hona-fide and the jury would be entitled to dis- believe it.
Mr. Francis-Then, my Lord, that lays the duty absolutely incumbent upon me to show that these entries are not absurd.
His Lordship-Ou the face of it these entries may be true or untrue, bat we are not trying that question.
Mr. Francis-If it is open to my friend to say that the list is entirely false because he thinks fit to say so, the prosecution is entitled to say that they are not absurdities.
His Lordship-As far as my opinion goes he has not succeeded in showing that the entries are unreasonable and ought not to be there. Suppose the name of the Governor is there as receiving $5, or the name of the General as receiving $3, I think the gentlemen of the jury will say, "We cannot believe that; it is so utterly impossible."
Mr. Francis-Very well, my Lord. Even the entries" Government House" so and so and "Ho Kai" so and so can be explained. Sup- pose the explanation is this, that it is simply an entry relating to a boy in employ at Govern- ment House or to a servant in the employ of Dr. Ho Kai. I submit I am entitled to get that explanation from the witness if the defence are allowed to make a point of those entries.
His Lordship--If they do make a point- Mr. Francis-If they do make point of it it will be too late for me to give the explanations. His Lordship--Wo have no evidence that it is Dr. Ho. Kai.
Mr. Francis-Questions were asked in refer- ence to 89 and 91. I want to show that they were in receipt of bribes and that there is no reя- son why the entries should be looked upon as absurdities.
His Lordship-It came out in evidence that they had been formerly in connection with the Central District and therefore I shall put it to the jury that they might or might not have received bribes. But we are not trying that question.
The Attorney-General-I do not wish to throw dirt at anybody who is not here to answer, and your Lordship will notice that I have not introduced a single name, with the exception of Witchell's, as boing in receipt of bribes, as all cases of that sort will give very
472
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.