CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12] — Page 293

*

-3-

287

It was obvious that the accused knew perfectly well from the beginning what was alleged against him. When confronted

with the witness he tried to interrupt him and tell the story

of the wounding himself. Hie cross examination of the wit-

neas showed that his case then was the same story as that

which he told at the police station 24 hours later and which

he repeated at the trial. It was this case which suggested

the amendment contained in paragraph (g) of section 3 of this

Ordinance. The amendments made by the other paragraphs of

that section are formal.

5. Section 4 to 8 deal with the form of oath or affirmation.

The principal changes which they make in the law are as fol-

lows.

6. Section 7 provides an alternative of affirmation in all

cases where an oath is required by law. Formerly the al-

ternative of affirmation was provided only (1) in the case

of viva voce evidence, affidavits and depositions (Ordinance

NO. 2 of 1869, s. 43), and (2) in the case of the official

oaths prescribed by the Promissory Oatha Crdinance, 1869,

The alternative was, for in- Ordinance No. 1 of 1869. stance, not provided in the case of the oath of allegiance generally, though of course particular Ordinances do provide an alternative for cases where the oath is to be taken under

that particular Ordinance.

7.

Under section 43 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance, 1689, if any person who is not a native of China is unwilling from

conscientious motives to be sworn he is allowed to make an affirmation, but it would appear from the form of affirmation