his Lordship, then proceeded with a general statement of the case and in regard to the letter sent to Mr. May asked if the jury thought that Cheng On could have known of that letter if the defendant had not told him about it. The jury had also to remember that, according to Cheng On's statement, Mr. May went to the house in Kwai Wa Lane, whereas he did not go, and it was most probable that the defendant would know whether Mr. May went or not. Speaking of the interview of the 11th March deposed to by Chung On, his Lordship pointed out that the statement was a long one and the jury would have to consider whether the defendant would not beat about the bush and not ask Cheng On straight off to pay him bribes. Speaking of the other names in the list, his Lordship had ruled that they could not go into the general question. They were not trying the other members of the Police Force but only the defendant. When they found a number of names appearing in a list, it was impossible, according to the rules of evidence and reason, for them to take up the list to see whether or not the bribes had been paid to the persons or not. Those were side issues, which would involve interminable inquiries and the appearance of all those persons before the Court. It was entirely a collateral issue whether Inspector Mann had taken bribes or not. Inspector Mann may have taken bribes or he may not. They did not know and they did not care; they were simply inquiring whether the defendant took bribes. Suppose the Governor's name appeared there for $5 and the General's for $3. The jury would have said, "We will not call the Governor and we will not call the General," and they would also say to themselves, "It is impossible that these two gentlemen—these two high officers would receive bribes.” The names of Inspector Mann and Acting Inspector Hall appeared in the books, and the defence asked the jury to say that the list could not be accepted as genuine because those two men were not stationed in the gambling sections. But both men had been in the Central District, and it also appeared that they were still in the colony. Therefore, the conclusion was that it was not impossible or not highly improbable or absurd that their names should be in the list. They might have been receiving bribes or they might not, but the jury were not charged with that issue. The presence of their names in the list did not render the list the least absurd or unreliable.
His Lordship then referred to the evidence for the defence. If the jury believed Mrs. Burnett had not mistaken the time and place, it was quite clear that Cheng On had told what was not the truth, but they must weigh the evidence most carefully and consider which of them gave the more likely evidence. They must not consider the evidence on the broad question of Chinese and Europeans. That would be a mistake. It was quite possible for a Chinaman to tell the truth and for a European to tell a falsehood and vice versa. They had to look at it in the light of the way the evidence was given and in the light of the probabilities of the case.
His Lordship concluded as follows: Gentlemen of the jury, this case is important both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the defendant. It is important from the point of view of the Government because if corruption exists in the Police Force, it is essential that they should detect it and that they could prove it and punish it. Nothing can be more important from the point of view of the Government than that. If they get a prima facie case against a principal member of the Police Force, it is important that they shall bring it forward and prove it if they can; otherwise, gentlemen, the whole administration of the Government fails. If you have corruption in the public service, and especially in the Police Force, then, as I say, you are landed in a series of evils of which
Page 631
3
Lorden, then proceeded wind a general state- ment of the case and in regard to the letter sent to Mr. May asked if the jury thought that Cheng On could have known of that letter if the defendant had not told him about it. The jury had ano to remember that, according to Cheng un's statement, Mr. May went to the honse in Kwai Wa Lane, whereas he did not go, and it was most probable that the defendant would know whether Mr. May went or not. Speak- ing of the interview of the 11th March deposed to by Chung On, his Lordship pointed out that the statement was a long one and the jury would have to consider whether defeudant would not beat about the bush and not ask Cheng On straight off to pay him bribes. Speaking of the other names in the list his Lordship had ruled that they could not go into the general question They were not trying the other members of the Police Force but only the defendant. When, they found a number of names appearing in a list it was impossible according to the rules of evidence and reason for them to take, up the list to see whether or not the bribes. had been paid to the parsons or not. Those were side issues, which would involve inter minable inquiries and he appearance of all those persons before The Court. It was entirely a collateral isge whether Inspector Mann had taken bribes or not. Inspector Mauna may have taken bribesgor he may not. They"| did not know and they did not care; they were simply inquiring whether the defendant took bribes. Suppose the Governor's name appeared there for $5 and the General's for $3. The jury would have said, "We will not call the Governor and we will not call the General," ! and they would also say to themselves. It is impossible that these two gentlemen-these two high officers would receive bribus.” The names of Inspector Mann and Acting Inspector: Hall appeared in the books and the defence asked the jury to any that the list could not be accepted es genuine because those two men were; not stationed in the gambling sections. But both men had bean in the Central District and it also appeared that they were still in the! colony. Therefore the conclusion was that it was not impossible or ngt highly improbable or absurd that their names should be in the list. They might have been receiving bribes or they might no but the jury were not charged with that issue. The presence of their names in the list did not ren- der the list the least absurd or unreliable. His Lordship then referred to the evidence for the defence. If the jury believed Mes. Burnett had not mistaken the time and place it was quite clear that Cheng On had told what was not the truth, but they must high the evidence most carefully and consider which of them gave the more likely evidence. They must not con- sider the evidence on the broad question of Chinese and Europeans. That would be a mis- take. It was quite possible for a Chinainan to tell the truth and for a European to tell a false- hood and vice versa. They had to look at it inỳ the light of the way the evidence was given! and in the light of the probabilities of the case. His Lordship concluded as follows-Gentlemen, of the jury, this case is important both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the defendant. It is im-j portant from the point of viey of the Govern- ent because if corruption exits in the Police Force it is essential that they should detect It and that they could prove it and punish it. Nothing can be more important from
the point of view of the Government than that. If they get a prima fucis case against a principal member of the Police Force it is im-, portant that they shall bring it forward and prove it if they can, otherwise, gentleinen, the whole administration of the Government fails. ! If you have corruption in the public servíca, į and especially in the Police Force, then, as I Isay, you are landed in a series of evils of which
631.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.