CO129-541-11 Cheng Kwok Yau- trial judge's notes 1-1-1932 - 31-12-1932 — Page 192

22.8.32

192

9 Halsbury, p 263, para. 531

Archbold 28th Ed. 1485

There must be something done by the accused, and of course

there must be evidence of that.

R. v. Cooper (1833) 5 c. à p. 538

R. v. Taylor (1875)

2 0. C. R. 147

R. v. Fox 1

19 *.R. 109 at 110.

R. Y. Krause (1902) 18 T.L.R. 238

In eitament to murder:

no proof that letter ever reached the agent.

Ro Y. Lonse (1913) 110 LT. 239

Cited in the Supplement to Halsbury, Vol.9, para. 531.

ut. It is not a case of there being a

scintilla of eviden06. That decrine is gone.

There must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find a verdict.

13 Halsbury, p.429

Ryder ▼. Fombwall (1868) Ex. 32.

Giblin v. Halkullen (1868) #¥.C. 317

at 331, 335.

AO Y Bowden

(1856) 26 LeJ.Q.B. 3 at p.b.

The evidence here, which I dispute, and accept it only

for the purpose of argument.

Two branches (1) Chui (2) Zimmern à Christie. Chui evidence gives no evidence against the accused.

The

There

You are

between the ümui evidence and the accused.

Zimmern à Christi 17: den 06,

therefore throw back en

but that does not bridge the gap •

mmern & Christie svidenes.

There is only one

reference in their evidence to the chauffeur, the alleged

faithfulà abaugsmur statement which I acompt as true for

the purpose of argumente

9 Halsbury, p 588, para. 1190.

Z. & Christie's

evidence is no evidence that Lau was the agent of the

(110)