- 10 ILOK ONGOO Tedd and eving
MELAPO ART PLA
J F
die N
} e
F
t.
i 18 301CORUJA
1
Alt du ka
and vlizov iz p
* 2 * add t
ST11
**
bar-
I
JL JE JA MON K10D 00
* 3
ANTON TOMLIV cus
Jedd kui i far ri
V SUPE
VEN OJ PERS
At nu te duc ? nut AJAL LOOK but
.areas. AJ J Frel
JI
ར་་
sendt 10 the ntr. viizanen a Jarani id
İS. J
I
554
1905 to #ard with his own hand.
Both the witnesses told the Council that
the other payments were made by Lai Yuk San. In view however of what these witnesses had said before the Commission I submit
that the Crown had right to call them and that the Council was
entitled to hear what they had to say.
Lai Yuk San did not appear before the
Commission having it appears left the Colony in 1905. Enquiries
were made for him and the Commission offered to reimburse his
travelling expenses if the Buxon firm could procure his attend-
-ance before them.
Had this man returned to the Colony he
would undoubtedly have been called on to give evidence.
I presume it was in the expectation that he
might eventually come forward that the charges relative to the seven payments alleged to have been made by him were allowed to
stand.
In the result when the evidence for the
Crown had been called it appears that one payment only out of
16 was substantiated by direct proof.
The only evidence as to the other 15 pay-
-ments consisted of the entries - evidence admissible in itself
but not sufficient without corroboration to establish liability.
When the reporter had been dismissed and
the Council was sitting with closed doors to consider the evidence it was pointed out by the Chairman, Mr. Sercombe Smith, and myself that there was only sufficient evidence of one direct
payment
-
that of 18th September, 1905 - and this was I think
fully realized by the other Members.
Was it under the circumstances necessary
to put each separate payment singly to the Council and require it
to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty, like a jury in a
Criminal
- 10 ILOK ONGOO Tedd and eving
MELAPO ART PLA
J F
die N
} e
F
t.
i 18 301CORUJA
1
Alt du ka
and vlizov iz p
* 2 * add t
ST11
**
bar-
I
JL JE JA MON K10D 00
* 3
ANTON TOMLIV cus
Jedd kui i far ri
V SUPE
VEN OJ PERS
At nu te duc ? nut AJAL LOOK but
.areas. AJ J Frel
JI
ར་་
sendt 10 the ntr. viizanen a Jarani id
İS. J
I
554
1905 to #ard with his own hand.
Both the witnesses toll the Council that
the other payments were made by Lai Yuk San. In view however of what these witnesses had sail before the Commission I submit
that the Crown lil right to call them and that the Council was
entitled to hear what they had to say.
Lai Yuk San 111 not appear before the
Commission having it appears left the Colony in 1905. Enquiries
were made for him and the Commission offered to reimburse his
travelling expenses if the Bux on firm could procure his attend-
-ance before them.
Mad this man returned to the Colony he
would undoubtedly have been called on to give evidence.
I presume it was in the expectation that he
might eventually come forward that the charges relative to the seven payments alleged to have been made by his were allowed to
stand.
In the resuit when the evidence for the
Crown had been called it appears that one payment only out of
16 was substantiated by direct proof.
The only evilence as to the other 15 pay-
-aents consisted of the entries - evidence admissible in itself
but not sufficient without corroboration to establish liability.
When the reporter had been dismissed and
the Council was sitting with closel doors to consider the evilence it was pointed out by the Chairman, Mr. Sercombe Smith, and myself that there was only sufficient evidence of one direct
payment
-
that of Bri. September, 1905 - and this was I think
fully realized by the other Members.
Was it under the circumstances necessary
to put each separate payment singly to the Council and require il
to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty, like a jury in a
Criminal
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.