CO129-550-7 Rex v. Ng Loi Yuen- appeal to Privy Council 1-1-1934 - 31-12-1934 — Page 7

7

17th day of October 1934 such appeal was dismissed.

a.

12. Your Petitioner humbly submits :

That a substantial miscarriage of Justice occured in that

it was impossible for the Jury to disregard the statements in

the Crown's opening with regard to the evidence that Mary Pine

would give, in spite of a warning to that effect given by the

Learned Trial Judge.

That the evidence given by the said Doris Pine with regard

to the two marks on Mary Fine's neck was of no importance

whatever unless the Jury had in mind the Crown's opening, namely,

that Mary Pine was seized by the neck by your Fetitioner end

that therefore the Learned Trial Judge misdirected the Jury on

this point when he said on page 14 of his summing-up :-

"There is one piece of direct evidence which from the

point of view of circumstantial evidence is of considerable

importance. That is the two bruises on Mary Pine's neck.

You remember the state she was in when her poor mother got

home she found her being put to bed. She was undressed,

examined there was a mass of bruises and cuts, but there

were two strange bruises on the right hand side, at the

base of the neck. The skin was not broken, they were

bruises and they were circular in shape. Now, gentlemen,

I mention this for two reasons.

Firstly, because it is an important piece of evidence

that you will have to fit in to the whole of this great

jig-saw of pieces. Also I want to remind you expressly

that you must pay no attention whatsoever to the statement

very properly made in the circumstances by the Counsel

for the Crown, in his opening that those are indicative

of the grasp of the accused as Mary Pine tried to run

away. This is one of the statements made by Mr. Fraser

in all good faith and confidence that Mary Fine was going

to give evidence. She has not given evidence and therefore

6.