CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4] — Page 548

-t

''

"

Lugo 5.

For

Sobotal comfoly

Tu can f

!

E

"

π [*NO BFON

Ꭸ

:

22. fly setela

tio

and missant

་བ། བ!

suzeta saty

-

•

„vkotana For? equ

at orvlak and not no on it

nedy rod, then add at Horren ont al colin

1 Pheard a homsencorpe of skivorm slimoз767 netextimo et hautomo abit of min mo [[o] male linsern edt zevoo [ku moins eht melden end mt monter of tada relie

and rain of mosten od tamm mit into

འད་

545

Chonton has remarked on the absence of authority to be noted, but will you please note my direction to you that this exord vwill not a ostitute an 'unlasful assembly' within the second part of this definition unless you find that in the areas through which it passed, violenco, either to the person or property, was anti cinato? reasonably from it by residents or by persons making the ordinary use of the read. You may be able to do this on your view of the evidence as to the behaviour of the crowd, but I hardly expect that you will. Then it remains to consider if the crowd was an unlawful assembly within the terms of the first part of the definition "An assembly of three or mora pars one aadenb led with

for co intent to commit a crime by open vielemes". You have the evidence

in mind. You To sctisfied, I take it, that the droensed and his companions set out together with the como pupose of bro.ing the law by unlwfully attempting to leave the Colony. Meting together in this way they are guilty of orihinal caspiracy. Also the attempt is in itself made a a statutory offonoe by the torm of section 10, sub-section 1, of the "Travoller's

-

-

2915"

+

Restriction rdina co

The question you must ask yourselves is this. At the time when fired upon had this crowd the intenti on of accomplishing this purpose by open force?

for co? According as you answer this quoction you concede to or deny the police officors present, the legal right claimed to use force in order to disporse this er ovā „ In order to mower this quation in the affirmative it is not necessary to be satisfied that this crowd vas an unlawful assembly aither at the commencement of its joumey or et any earlier point during its progress. To Julgo from the evidoɔ' tha partics composing this crowd may have had different views as to the corce of souäuse conduct to be pursued in the event of official opposition, and the main body of the crowd may have varied its intentiona from time to time. Let it be admitted for the moment that the crowd was an unlawful assembly when earlier it forced the police barrier at the Kowloon Waterworks. It may be that during the next two and a half miles of road its intention became entirely orderly in which case the crowd lost the charactor of an lawful assembly