CO129-541-11 Cheng Kwok Yau- trial judge's notes 1-1-1932 - 31-12-1932 — Page 20

-16-

If the evidence is admissible, as I submit, there is

overwhelming evidence that the Prisoner procured the

murder of Fung.

In R. v. Ball (1911) A. C. 47, Lord Atkinson says

that enmity is evidence of the fact that he killed him”.

It has never been argued otherwise till this case.

Potter said he could not believe that Lord Atkinson meant

that, Potter said that he would be surprised if that

passage would be found in any text book. I found it in

the first text book at which I looked. Lord Atkinson

proposition

repeats the gxxxxgɛ in R. v. Thompson (1915) A.C. 221,

at pp.226/7. In that onse Lord Dunedin said (p.226)

that "the law of evidence in criminal cases

set of practical rules

·

without causing undue

"prejudice. . . . .'

R. ▼. Bucklem (1873) 13 Cox 293.

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

R. v. Harris (1864) 4 7. & r. at 343.

R. v. Lovegrove (1920) 3 K.B. 643.

Potter's propositions amount to this:- "A" says to "C",

I have hired "D" to murder ?", but if he does not, will

you do it for $10,000.

does murder ***. The question

is whether "A" rooured "D". *A'** statement to C* 1#

inadmissible.“

There is no authority for that.

Assume, by way of illustration, that Prisoner was

joking when he asked Christie to kill Fung, and that he

really wanted to fire a blank round and frighten Fung,

but that a live round was fired by mistake and Fung was

killed. In that case Prisoner would have a very good

defence: he had no guilty mind. If Potter is right,

then if the true defence of mistake and accident is raised,

the evidence of a previous attempt to incite Zimmern and

Christie becomes admissible to rebut that defence.

The

20

Page 20Page 21