CO129-541-11 Cheng Kwok Yau- trial judge's notes 1-1-1932 - 31-12-1932 — Page 111

|||

If, on the other hand, they fail to prove that, the

evidence is inadmissible because it does not tend to

show an incitement of Chul and Wong through Lau.

R. v. Ball (1911) A.C. 47.

R. v. Thompson (1918) A.C. 231

one

open to

I suggest that the course for the Court is to admit the

evidence and reserve it, without deciding on the

admissibility.

Sheldon.

case.

9 Halsbury, 380, 381, have nothing to do with the

13 Halsbury, p.447, is the statement of law which

covers this case.

The essential distinction here is that this evidence

is evidence of a design to kill the same person.

Phipson, 7th. 133.

Phipson's Manual, Library Ed., 59.

R. v. Hagen (1873) 12 Cox 357.

R. v. Buckley (1873) 13 Cox 293.

The evidence is in any case admissible. It cannot

be ruled out because it and the other evidence together

would be insufficient.

Potter.

Sheldon's two cases are cases of prior threats.

The case here is that accused procured Lau on

the 23rd. February to murder Fung, and that that continued

till Fung was murdered. What I want is authority to show

that evidence of another conspiracy on the 21st March

is relevant to connect accused with the conspiracy of the

23rd. Feb.

para.

13 Halsbury, Supp. $. 521 cites

R. v. Thomp son

(But =

- "means")

(29)