CO129-541-11 Cheng Kwok Yau- trial judge's notes 1-1-1932 - 31-12-1932 — Page 13

13

could admit it only on the exceptional grounds.

You

have a complete statement of the law in R. v. Bond,

R. . Bell (1911) A.C. 47.

k. V. Thompson (1918) A. C. 221.

Thompson's cse is cited in Halsbury's Supplement

on the aragraph quoted by the Crown on p.447.

R. v. Armstrong, (1942) @ X.B. 555.

Cases where the evidence was not admitted:

E. v. Butler (1846) 2 c. ♣ K. 221.

F. v. Oddy (1851) 20 L.J. (K.C.) 198.

2.30 P..

R. v. Holt (1860) 30 L.J. (M.C.) 11.

R. v. Fisher (1910) 1 K.B. 149, at 152/3.

...... ▼, llis (1910) & K.B. 746, at 756 et seq,& 760.

12.30 to 3.30 p.m. Adj urnment.

Potter (continuing).

A v. Kodley (1913) 3 K. ́. 468.

The conviction was quashed, Logically, the evidence

would have been admissible.

to Cheng's state of mind.

It is right on the point as

Perkins v. Jeffrey (1915) 2 K.B. 702.

The Zimmern and Christie evidence is not admissible

to show Cheng's state of mind with a view to inferring

from it the agency of Lau. See 13 Halsbury, 453.

The Zimmern and Christie evidence is not relevant

logically, or in the view of the man in the street.

If you put it into a logical form it would run somewhat

as follows;

1.Men who engage persons to commit murder are

likely to œ-ploy other men to commit murder.

2.The Prisoner employed Zimmern and Christie to

commit a marder.