-13-
44
1. That Fung was murdered.
2. That he was murdered through Laik.
3. That Lau himself had a principal.
4. That this principal was the accused.
in doubt.
The
îhe first and second of these facts are not here
That Lau himself is the agent of someone else has
been shown by the absence of any motive of his own and by his
control of large sums of money for the purpose of his orime.
The question arising here is upon the fourth issue.
problem has become one of identity of the identity of the
accused with a criminal known aliunde to exist.
To prove
the identity with the actual perpetrator of a person sought
to be im licated in criminal homicide proof of his hostility
t ward the deceased is relevant evidence. The evidence
of Zimmern and Christie to which objection has been taken is
such matter and is admissible.
erein
For
Some argument has been advanced on the definition
of the exact issue to which this evidence is related.
the Crown it has been suggested that the evidence of
hostility is available to prove the fact that Lau, who is
named in the indictment, was in fact incited by someone.
In support of this contention reference was made to a dictum (recorded there in the argument) in the report of "R. v. Bai 1*
1911 A.C. at p. 68 by Lord Atkinson which is as fol oWR !-
"Surely in an ordinary prosecution for murder you can prove
"previous acts or words of the me used to show he entertained "feelings of enmity towards the deceased, and that is evidence "not merely of the malicious mind with which he killed the
"deceased, but of the fact that he killed him. You can give
"in evidence the enmity of the accused towards the deceased's
life. Evidence of motive necessarily goœ to prove the fret
"of the comicide by the accused. This dictum was alsO
repeated by Lord Atkinson (in *Thompson v. The King" 1918
A.C. at p.227) where he said in his judgment "In a case of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.