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

-8-

12

"f

is not inextricably mixed up with" the Chuí conspiracy (p.400)

and it was not wanted to make the main story intelligible (P.400)

To Kemo C.J. I agree that it is not only when the evidence

of another crime omnot be omitted without making the org

unintelligible that the evidence is admissible. It would

be admissible if relevant to an issue, or if part of the

in

Λ

transaction issue. "Prior acts", p.400: the Zimmern and

Christie evidence was subsequent to the alleged exployment

complete by the 18th March.

grain

of Lau which was

Kemp C.J: In the

xxxxxxcase (p.400) how were the watchinge

inseparable parts of the larceny charged?

ons

Fot er: Re Hagan (p.401) is illustrative of the class of

case where menaces are admissible: "The relati of the

"murdered man......integral parts of the history of the

"crime...." (p.401); that is the test. Lvidence of another

offence may be admissible to negative mistake or accident,

or when the question of criminal intent is material.

act not enough to prove criminal intent (p.405), a fortiori,

how can you prove from a single act with Zimmern and Christi.

the agency of Lau.B *roving one crime in order to raise

presumption

that another crime had been committed by

Single

the perpetrator of the first (p.406): that is precisely

the case here. "Obvious that it was wanted for some

* •

"other purpose ...unless it is plainly necessary to prove

"something that is really in insue." (p.416). If there

were proof of agency such evidence would be inadmissible

on the above ground. "Nexus (p.424).

A nexus case is:

k. v. khodes; (1899) 1 K.B. at 82 and 83.

Unless you can admit the Zimmern and Christie evidence

on the grounds laid down by Aennedy, J., on pp.400 and 401 of

R. ▼ Bond, as laid down in 9 Halsbury, p.380 and 381, you