[
    {
        "id": 217177,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "page_number": 385,
        "title": "CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "content_text": "comment... My. present : impression is, \n\nthat in all serious \n\nsimple mode \n\nthe \n\nde of pro \n\nmatters an \n\nThe \n\npre vedere, combining great requisites of rigid impartiality and strict. justice, will be found in the thire grades of Magistrall, Judge, and Governor in founail. formeer. Officer investigating the charge- against, and committing the Accused; \"the Judge - perhaps assisted by the stipendiary Chief Magistrate, and an Justice of the Prane, or other \n\nsimilar Functionary - presiding at \n\nthe Trial, and \n\npunishment beyond \n\nthe \n\nin all cases in \n\nAm \n\ninvolving \n\ncertain degree= \n\nGovernor in Council confirming. \n\nthe Sentence \n\nints excention. \n\nbefore- \n\nit is carried \n\nThis arrangement would have \n\nthe additional advantage of \n\nassimilating \n\nསེས་ཀྱིས་ ལ ་པ་ན་ \n\nAw \n\nگیا \n\nassimilating vary much with the Chines \n\nmethod. \n\nin cases \n\nwhere: \n\nof \n\nIrial. \n\non ... \n\nwhich (unlass \n\nof urgent and pressing necessity immediate example \n\nit \n\nconsidered proper and always, excepting torture, and forced confessions) \n\nappeal. or. \n\nan \n\nreference. ties from the trying Judge, or Magistrate to the Vienoy, and prome the latter to the \n\nEmperor. \n\nThe great, \n\nand as \n\nI conceive. \n\ninemediable, difficulty which will - \n\nAttend all serious criminal cases, \n\nonr. Courts, \n\nin our \n\nas regards Chinese Subjects will be found in the __ positive_ of veracity, \n\nadmitted want \n\nmay \n\nand... \n\n15 high \n\nbe said to render oral.. \n\ntestimony, unless supported by ciraum.. \n\n-stancial or \n\npressumfitive-, \n\nevidense \n\nabsolutely vacuoles . _ In the thiness. \n\nCourt's",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 217210,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "page_number": 418,
        "title": "CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "content_text": "J \n\nproeed to subject those two persons tom \n\ntorture, in order to extort accor \n\nto extort as confessions \n\nof \n\nquilt from theus. Fortunately however, wen \n\nاست \n\nad \n\nPolitical point of view, \n\netion is no \n\nMagistratie suggestion \n\ncable \n\nthe Chief \n\nlonger applic \n\nthe Chinese Government have tacitly waived the right they firch claimed of trying \n\nall Persons (residing on the Seland of Hong trong / who might be charged with \n\ncapital, \n\nof other serious crimes.. \n\nIt appe \n\naAs \n\nto me. \n\nlittle \n\nvery \n\nthat it would require \n\ningenity to show, from these \n\nProvudings, that stronger cause for suspicion \n\nsh the Complainant in the \n\nexists against \n\ninstance, and his only \n\nthan \n\nto \n\nRe \n\nfirst \n\nWitness \"Porbsiye\", \n\net the Prisoners, but it is nestiss \n\nainst \n\nagainst \n\nfor on \n\nwill re \n\nsuch remarks.. \n\nI. request, that the thief Magistrate \n\nlease all the prisoners, making them to the Elders of the Village, or Villages, to which they belong, but without exacting \n\nover \n\nSecurity \n\nminute of minute of Ais Geellency. His Expelleway. The Governor Ge of the Governor 40 \n\nof \n\nSecurity, \n\nand that he willh \n\nfurther write to \n\nhe will further \n\nthe friminal Magistrate of Sumor, infrom: \n\n2 inf \n\nthat officer, that after the mock ins partial, and panictating investigation, the charge against \n\nainst the Pride \n\nhas not \n\nbeen proved; that it is contrary to the Einglish \n\nsystem of Surisprudence to inflict torture, \n\nwhatever; that the accusers have. \n\nin any \n\ncade \n\nfailed to establish, either by direct or circums= \n\nevidenes \n\nA \n\nstantial the fact, set forth in their Petitions and that although there is \n\nbelieving. \n\nmurdered, \n\nthat \n\nevery \n\nreasons for \n\nhas been \n\n4 yet, it is not possible, at this lapse of time, and amid the contradictory \n\nthat has been abduced by testimony \n\nthe \n\naccusers, and the accused, to say by whom that forl \n\nI crince \n\nwad \n\nperpetrated... \n\nThe Chief Magistrat will add, that \n\nit is a mostein of the Law of England, to \n\nindividual who may \n\nconceder \n\nused. \n\nevery \n\nof committing \n\nBe \n\na crive, innocent, \n\nuntil",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-002 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 217692,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-003 - Foreign Office - 1843",
        "page_number": 430,
        "title": "CO129-003 - Foreign Office - 1843",
        "content_text": "0.0. \n\nNOV 30 1845 \n\nPROCLAMATION. \n\n1282. Angking. \n\nrelevant to the charge against him, in explanation or defence of his conduct; but he is at the same \n\ncriminate himself. \n\nWITH reference to the Proclamation pub- time, to be warned not to say any thing that may lished under date, the 1st of June, 1843, RULE 5th-Should it plainly appear to the the following Rules of Practice and Pro- Examining Authorities, that the alleged offence has ceeding, in the Criminal and Admiralty not been committed by the person accused, or, Court of Hong-Kong, are promulgated for that where committed, the offence is of so trivial a general information, and are to be con- nature as not to require bail, the accused is to be sidered in force from the date hereof, until discharged, leaving the matter to be investigated by the Chief or Assistant-Magistrate, or other the same shall be disallowed by command inferior Court; but, where in the opinion of the of Her Majesty, or shall be set aside, or modified, by competent authority. \n\nGOD SAVE THE QUEEN. \n\nHENRY POTTINGER, \n\nCHIEP SUPERINTENDENT. Dated at the Government-House, Hong-Kong, this 20th day of June, 1843. \n\nSECTION I. \n\nOF ARREST. \n\nExamining Authorities the offence is sufficiently established, and of a nature requiring the detention of the accused, he is to be kept in safe custody till the examination can be submitted to the Chief Superintendent, (or such Official Functionary as he may depute to act for him) for final diposal. [See Appendix No. 2.1 \n\nRULE 6th-Examining Authorities are to con duct their proceedings on oath [see Appendix No. 3.,] and are to have the like power of sum moning witnesses (being British subjects) as is herein vested in the court [See Appendix No, 4., \n\nRULE 1st-No subject of her Majesty shall be for Form of Summons.] arrested for trial within this jurisdiction, unless RULE 7th-British subjects refusing to attend on charged upon oath, by one or more credible per the summons of examining Authorities, to be son, or persons, before the Deputy-Superintendent, liable to the Penalties herein after provided, for or before the Chief Magistrate of Hong-Kong, or failure of attendance when summoned before the before any two of her Majesty's Justices of the court. Peace, with such an offence as would justify the individual so charged, being, when apprehended, committed, or held to bail. \n\nSECTION III. \n\nOF BAIL. \n\nRULE 2ud-Arrest may be made in two ways. RULE 1st-The Chief Superintendent, Deputy- First By Warrant under the hand and seal Superintendent, or other official functionary to of the Authorities named in the preceding Rule, whom the case may be remitted, agreeable to (See Appendix No. 1.) \n\nRule 5th of the preceding Section, to have the Second-By verbal order of the Deputy- like power in respect to Bail as appertains by law Superintendent, or the Chief Magistrate of and usage to the Court of Queen's Bench, in Eng- Hong-Kong, or by any single Justice of the land; and in the event of refusal, or of unneces- Peace in the event of any subject of her Majesty sary delay, in the case of a bailable offence, to be committing (or being apparently about to com- hable to like penalties as Magistrates in England. init) a dangerous breach of the peace in their respective presence. \n\nRule 3rd-All persons charged with the execution of Warrants of Arrest within this juris- diction, to exercise like authority, to be entitled to like immunities, and to be liable for unlawful proceedings, to like liabilities, as persons executing the warrant of the courts of Oyer and Terminer \n\nEngland. \n\nSECTION II. \n\nOF COMMITMENT. \n\nRULE 1st-When a person charged with a crime or offence shall be arrested within this jurisdiction, he is to be as speedily as possible brought before the Authorities named in the war. rant, for examination. \n\nRULE 2nd. If the accused person cannot find Bail, he is to be committed by Warrant (as in the case of offences not bailable) to take his trial before the Court for the offence with which he stands charged [See Appendix No. 2, for Warrant of Committal.] \n\nRULE 3,-The principle and practice of the Law of England to obtain, as far as possible (with reference to local circumstances] as to the period within, which a prisoner should be placed on his trial, and likewise as to the period within which Prosecution for offences committed within the Court's jurisdiction should be instituted. \n\nSECTION IV. \n\nOF PROSECUTION. \n\nRULE. Ist.In all cases coming within the RULE 2nd-Authorities conducting examina- jurisdiction of the Court, prosecution is to be by tions, in the first instance of accused persons, are way only of a Bill of Indictment found by, and not subsequently to take part in any capacity presented on, oath by, a Grand Jury. (See Ap- whatever, in the trial before the court, of such pendix No. 5.) \n\npersons. \n\nRULE 2nd-It shall be the duty of an officer of RULE 3rd-On the examination of accused the Court, who is to be designated the Recording persons, when arrested within this jurisdiction, the Officer, to return on each Session, the names of testimony and information of all individuals having twenty good and loyal subjects of her Majesty to any knowledge of the alleged crime are to be act as Grand Jurors, and to do and execute all carefully taken down in writing, and on oath, in things on the part of our Sovereign Lady the the presence of, and subject to cross examination \n\nby the accused. (See end of the Appendix N. B) Queen, which shall then be legally required of \n\nRULE 4th-The person accused to be allowed \n\nto state any thing he likes, provided it be strictly \n\nthem. \n\nRULE 3rd-Not less than fifteen, and not more \n",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-003 - Foreign Office - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 220416,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "page_number": 11,
        "title": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "content_text": "WN 3. \n\nRULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPPING. \n\nThe following Rules and Regulations for the preserva- tion of the peace, and the maintenance of doe subordina- tion on board the British merchant shipping, now at anchor or hereafter arriving within the port of Hong- kong, are published for the information of all whom it may concern. \n\nSECTION 1. \n\nOf the functions of the magistrate. \n\nREG. No. 1. To repair forthwith on board of any British ship, sending or making the signal for assistance (siguals here- inafter specified), by reason of the riotous state of the crew, and, if a state of actual violence or resistance to authority shall exist, to take instant and energetic measures for the restora. tion of the peace and due subordination. \n\nREG. NO. 2. Fire arms in no case to be used on such occa. sions, except for the protection of life, till the Magistrate, or in his absence the commanding officer of the ship, or one of the constables of police, shall have, audibly and ineffectually, made the following Proclamation (or words to the like effect): \n\n\"Our sovereign Lady the Quees commands all persons \"here assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and to \"return peaceably to the performance of their duties. God \"save the Queen.\" \n\nREG. No. 3. The Magistrate on the spot, after summary inquiry on the occasion of any riot, may issue his Warrant for the apprehension of any Persons who shall appear to him to have acted as ringleaders, either leaving them for safe custody on board their own ships, or committing them to jail, as he may judge best under the circumstances. \n\nSECTION 2. \n\nOf the offences cognizable by the magistrate, \n\nand the penalties thereunto attached. \n\nRRG. No..1. \n\nOffence. \n\n1. Drunkenness with riot, either on board a ship, or on shore, \n\n2. Contempt of the authority of the magistrate on any oCCA- sion of inquiry. \n\nPenalty. \n\n1. Confinement, with, or with- out, hard labor, not exceeding two weeks, or a penalty t exceeding 20 shillings, or both according to the particulargravity of the offence, and its frequency. 2. Either of the above penal- ties. \n\n3. Disobedience of orders to 3. Confinement in the like man- desist from riotous conduct, or ner, not exceeding 14 days,--or abusive and menacing language a penalty, not exceed £2 10%; tending to the disturbance of the or both according to the cir peace and of due subordination. cumstances. \n\n4. Ringleaders in riots, attend- 4. Confinement in like man- ed with violence towards officers, ner, not exceeding one calendar or resistance to the magistrate, month,-or a penalty uot execed- or the constables of police, engang £5,-or both, according to ged in the restoration of the the circumstances. \n\npeace. \n\nREG. NO. 2. A decision against a prisoner involving higher penalties, or longer confinement, than those set down in the 1st and 2d specification, needs the the sanction of the Head of the government, or in his absence of the Deputy superintendent, and is therefore not to be pronounced by the Magistrate, till that sanction has been received, the Prisoners remanded after the closing of the evidence on the defence. \n",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 220434,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "page_number": 29,
        "title": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "content_text": "REGULATIONS OF THE PORT OF HONGKONG. The following rules and regulations are hereby pro- mulgated with a view to the safety of the shipping in the harbour, and the convenience of the navigation thereof. \n\nART. 1st. Every master or person in charge of any mer- chant vessel arriving at the said port, will take up the berth indicated by the harbour-master (and moor if requir» ed), under a penalty of $100 to be recovered in the man- ner hereinafter set forth for the general recovery of fines. ART. 2d. Every master or person in charge of any merchant vessel lying within the said port, shall immedi- ately remove the vessel to any other berth indicated by the harbour-master, under a fine of 820 för every hour that the vessel shall remain in the same place after a written notice to quit, signed by the harbour-mastes. \n\nART. 3d. All masters or persons in charge of vessels are required to strike their top-gallant yards and masts, and to have their jib and spanker booms rigged close in, if called upon so to do, and generally to follow such di- rections as the state of the weather or the crowded. con- dition of the port may render necessary in the judgment of the harbour-master, for the safety of the whole strip- ping, and masters of vessels offending against this regula- tion will be liable to a fine not exceeding $400, and pay- ment of all expenses incurred by reason of the vessels breaking adrift, or occasioning damage, subsequent to the precautionary notice of the harbour-master not being duly regarded. \n\nART. 4th. Masters of vessels proceeding to sea must give notice to the harbour-master at least 24 hours before the time of intended departure: and Notice is hereby given that vessels will be detained, the masters of which shall: not have paid fines or expenses awarded for violation of these rules and regulations. \n\nART. 5th. Transports wearing pendants will always be berthed by their own agent, and the harbour-master will make application to the senior naval officer on the spot respecting any movement which he may judge necessary for the general safety of the shipping in the port. \n\nART. 6th. Masters of vessels will be expected to con- form to ordinary port regulations, other than those herein. before specified, and they are particularly warned not to cast overboard any stone or other ballast.. \n\nART. 7th. All persons are required to take notice that the harbour-master's authority extends to the preservation of order at the several fanding-places in the harbour. \n\nAll fines for breach of these rules and regulations will be proceeded for before the chief magistrate, who is here- i by authorized at the written request and complaint of the harbour master to summon the parties charged, and there. upon to make summary decision, and all fines so recover- ed will go to the use of her Majesty. \n\nREGULATIONS FOR THE MARINE MAGISTRATE. SECTION 1, \n\nOf the functions of the magistrate. \n\nRea. No 1. To repair forthwith on board of any British ship, sending or making the signal for aesistance (signals here. inafter specified), by reason of the riotous state of the crew, and, if a state of actual violence or resistance to authority shall exist, to take instant and energetic measures for the restoration of the peace and due subordination. \n\nREG. No. 2. Fire-arms in no case to be used on such occa- sions, except for the protection of life, till the Magistrate, or in his absence the commanding officer of the slip, or one of the constables of police, shall have, audibly and ineffectually, made the following Proclamation (or words to the like effect):\" \n\nOur sovereign Lady the Queen commande ali persone here assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and to return \"peaceably to the performance of their duties. God save the \n\nQueen.* \n\nREG. No. 3. The Magistrate on the spot, after summary inquiry into the occasion of any riot, may isaue his Warrant for the apprehension of any Persons who shall appear to him to have acted as ringleaders, either leaving them for safe custody on board their own ships, or committing them to jail, as he may jadge beat under the circumstances. \n",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 220573,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "page_number": 168,
        "title": "CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843",
        "content_text": ": \n\nNOTIFICATION, His Excellency Sir Henry Pottinger, Bart., having been pleased to increase, in some respects, the powers and, authority originally granted to the Chief and Marine Magistrate, respectively, the Warrants of those Officers have been revised and modi- fied, and in their new form are now publish- ed for general information. \n\nBy order, \n\nJ. Robt. Morrison. Acting Secretary and Treasurer. \n\n'Government House. \n\nHongkong, 30th April, 1842. \n\nCHIEF MAGISTRATE'S \n\nWARRANT, \n\nany regulations to be the issued from time to time by this Government according to the customs and usages of British Police Law. \n\nAND I do hereby authorize you, for the police purposes herein before specified to arrest, detain, discharge and punish such offenders according to the principles, and practice of General British Police Law and to inflict on any such offender corporal punishment, to the extent of thirty six strokes or lashes; when you may consider that mode of punishment called for by, and appropiate to, the offence. \n\nAND all persons subject to the mutiny act, or the general law for the Government of the Fleet, found committing police or other offences, shall be handed over to their proper military superior for punishment. \n\nAND I do further authorize and require you, to detain in safe custody any persons whatever found committing within the Go- vernment of Hongkong, crimes and offences amounting to felony, according to the laws of England; forthwith reporting your pro- ceedingstherein and the grounds thereof, to the head of the Government for the time being. \n\nBy his Excelleney Sir Henry Pottinger, Bart, her Majesty's Minister Plenipoten tiary, Envoy Extraordinary, and Chief Superintendant of the Trade of British Subjects in China, charged with the Government of the Island of Hongkong. \n\nPending her Majesty's further pleasure, I do hereby constitute and appoint you William Caine Esquire, brevet Major, and Captain in Her Majesty's 26th. (or Camero- \n\nAND 1 further authorize and require you nian) Regiment of Infantry, to bë Chief \n\nto investigate and summarily to decide all Magistrate of the Island of Hongkong and claims for debts, not exceeding the sum of its dependencies: and I do hereby empow-Fifty Dollars, or one hundred and twenty er and require you to exercise authority, five Rupees, that may be brought before according to the laws, customs, and usa- you and further to investigate when so ges of China as near as may be (every de- brought to your notice, either claims for scription of torture excepted) for the preser-debts, beyond that sum and not exceeding vation of the peace and the protection of life Two hundred Dollars, or Five hundred Ru- and property of all the native inhabitants \n\npecs, but referring in all cases, such larger on the said Island, the shores and harbours claims to the head of the Government for thereof. \n\nthe time being, for instruction. And I And I do further authorize and require further require you, as often as you may you, in any case where the crime, according deem it neccessary to confine debtors, with to Chinese laws, shall involve punishments the view of enforcing your awards, imme- of such severity as are included in the \n\nannexed scale, to remit the case for the judg-diately and specially to report such decision gement of the head of the Government for to the head for the time being of the Go- the time being. \n\nSCALE \n\nImprisonment) with or without hard labor) for more than Six-months. \n\nPenalties exceeding 400 Dollars. Corporal punishment exceeding Strokes or lashes.- \n\nCapital punishments. \n\nAnd I do further require you, in all cases followed by sentence or infliction of punish- ment to keep a record, containing a brief statement of the case, and copy of the sen- \n\ntence. \n\nvernment. \n\nAND for all your lawful proceedings in the premises, this warrant shall be your sutfici- ent protection and authority. \n\nGIVEN under my hand and seal of Office at Hongkong, this twenty-fifth day of April in the year 1842. \n\nSIGNED \n\nHENRY POTTINGER \n\nBy the Chief Superintendant '&c. Charged with the Government. \n\nSIGNED \n\nJ. Robt: Morrison \n\nActing Secretary and Treasurer. MARINE MAGISTRATE'S \n\nWARRANT, \n\nPending her Majesty's further pleasure, I do hereby constitute and appiont you, \n\nAnd I further authorize and require you to exercise Magisterial and police Autho- rity over all persons whatever (other than natives of China dwelling on the Island, or persons subject to the Mutiny Act or to the William Pedder, Esquire, Lieutenant in General law for the Government of the her Majesty's Royal Navy, to be Marine fleet), who shall be found committing brea- Magistrate of the Island of Hongkong and ches of the peace on shore in any part or its dependencies:And I hereby emporwer dependency of this Island, or breaches of and require you, to exercise anthority, agreeably to the Regulations from time to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-010 - Sir Henry Pottinger - 1843.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 223056,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]",
        "page_number": 14,
        "title": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]",
        "content_text": "Power to Police Constables and per- \n\noffenders. \n\nset and the hour of six in the morning lying or loitering in any highway, yard, or other place, and who cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves. \n\nXVII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That any person aggrieved or person found committing any offence punishable either upon indictment or as a Misdemeanour, upon summary conviction by virtue of this Ordinance, may be taken into custody without a Warrant by any Constable, or may be apprehended by the owner of the property on or with respect to which the offence shall be committed, or by his servant or any person authorised by him, and may be detained until he can be delivered into the custody of a Constable, to be dealt with according to law; and every such Constable may also stop, search, and detain any vessel, boat, cart, or carriage, in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that any thing stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner any thing stolen or unlawfully obtained; and any person to whom any property shall be offered to be sold, pawned, or delivered, if he shall have reasonable cause to suspect that any such offence has been committed with respect to such property, or that the same or any part thereof has been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, is hereby authorised, and if in his power is required to apprehend and detain, and as soon as may be to deliver such offender into the custody of a Constable, together with such property, to be dealt with according to law. \n\nRemoving Fur- XVIII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That it shall niture to evade be lawful for any Constable to stop and detain until due enquiry can be made, all persons whom and all horses, carts, and carriages, or any other animal or thing which he shall find employed in removing the Furniture of any House or Lodging, between the hours of Eight in the evening and Six in the following morning, or whenever the Constable shall have good grounds for believing that such removal is made for the purpose of evading the payment of Rent. \n\nPersons charged with recent assaults may be apprehended without Warrant. \n\nXIX. And be it further enacted and ordained, That it shall be lawful for any Constable belonging to the Police Force to take into custody without a Warrant any person who shall be charged by any other person with committing any aggravated assault, in every case in which such Constable shall have good reason to believe that such assault has been committed, although not within view of such Constable, and that by reason of the recent commission of the offence a warrant could not have been obtained for the apprehension of the offender. \n\nHorses, Carriages, &c., of offenders may be detained. \n\nXX. And be it further enacted and ordained, That whenever any person having charge of any horse, cart, carriage, or boat, or any other animal or thing, shall be taken into custody by any Constable under the provisions of this Ordinance, it shall be lawful for any Constable to take charge of such horse, cart, carriage, or boat, or such other animal or thing, and to deposit the same in some place of safe custody as a security for payment of any Penalty to which the person having had charge thereof may become liable, and for payment of any expenses which may have been necessarily incurred for taking charge of and keeping the same; and it shall be lawful for any Magistrate before whom the case shall have been heard to order such horse, cart, carriage, or boat, or such other animal or thing, to be sold for the purpose of satisfying such penalty and reasonable expenses, in default of payment thereof, in like manner as if the same had been subject to be distrained, and had been distrained for the payment of such penalty and reasonable expenses. \n\nPersons apprehended without a Warrant to be taken to the Station-house. \n\nXXI. And be it further enacted and ordained, That every person taken into custody by any Constable belonging to the Police Force without a Warrant, except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name and residence, shall be forthwith delivered into the custody of the Constable in charge of the nearest Station-house, in order that such person be secured until he can be brought before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to Law, or may give bail for his appearance before a Magistrate, if the Constable in charge shall deem it prudent to take Bail in the manner hereinafter mentioned. \n\nXXII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That whenever any person charged with any offence of which he is liable to be summarily convicted before a Magistrate, or with having carelessly done any hurt or damage, shall be without the warrant of a Magistrate in the custody of any Constable of the Police Force in charge of any Station-house, during the time when the Police Courts or Magistrates' Offices shall be shut, it shall be lawful for such Constable, if he shall deem it prudent, to take the Recognizance of such person, with or without sureties, conditioned as hereinafter mentioned. \n\nPage 13\n\nXXIII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That whenever any person charged with any Felony or any Misdemeanour punishable by transportation, or any other grave misdemeanour, shall be, without the Warrant of a Magistrate, in the custody of any Constable of the Police Force at any Station-house during the time when the Police Courts or Magistrates' Offices shall be shut, it shall be lawful for the Constable in charge of the Station-house to require the person making such charge to enter into a Recognizance conditioned as hereinafter mentioned, and upon his or her refusal so to do, it shall be lawful for such Constable,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 223059,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]",
        "page_number": 17,
        "title": "CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6]",
        "content_text": "Expenses of re-\n\ntions, &c.\n\nfurther examination, or to surrender himself to take his Trial at the Supreme Court, at a day and place to be therein mentioned, and the Magistrate shall be at liberty from time to time to enlarge every such recognizance to such further time as he shall appoint, and every such recognizance which shall not be enlarged shall be discharged without fee or reward, when the party shall have appeared according to the condition thereof: Provided always that when any Magistrate shall take the recognizance of any person to appear at the Supreme Court, the Magistrate shall be bound to return the Depositions taken in the case, and to bind over the witnesses to appear and give evidence in like manner as if he had committed the party to take his Trial at such Court.\n\nXXXVII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That it shall be lawful for the Superintendent or other Officer of Police to require any person whose duty it shall be to remove any filth or obstruction, or to do any other matter or thing required to be done by this Ordinance, so to do within a certain time to be then fixed by the said Superintendent or other Officer, and that in default of such requisition being complied with, the said Superintendent or other Officer shall and may cause to be removed such filth or obstruction, or do or cause to be done such other matter or thing as aforesaid; and it shall be lawful for the Magistrate before whom the offender shall have been convicted to order and adjudge such offender, in addition to the penalties hereinbefore imposed, to pay such sum of money for defraying the expenses of such removal, or of doing such other matter or thing as to such Magistrate shall seem just and reasonable, and the sum so ordered and adjudged shall be recoverable in the manner hereinafter provided for the recovery of penalties imposed by this Ordinance.\n\nCompensation for Hurt or Damage.\n\nNot to prevent\n\nXXXVIII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That every person who, by committing any offence herein forbidden within the said Colony, shall have caused any hurt or damage to any person or property, may be apprehended with or without any Warrant by any Constable belonging to the Police Force, and if he shall not upon demand, make amends for such hurt or damage to the satisfaction of the person aggrieved, he shall be detained by such Constable in order to be taken before a Magistrate, and upon conviction shall pay such a sum, not exceeding Ten Pounds, as shall appear to the Magistrate before whom he shall be convicted to be reasonable amends to the person aggrieved, besides any penalty to which he may be liable for the offence, and the evidence of the person aggrieved shall be admissible in proof of the offence.\n\nXXXIX. Provided always and be it further enacted and ordained, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent any person from being indicted or being proceeded against by indictment or information for any indictable offence made punishable on summary conviction by this Ordinance, or to prevent any person from being liable to be proceeded against by action for any hurt or damage caused by him, provided nevertheless that no person be punished twice for the same offence, and provided no compensation shall have been awarded for such hurt or damage.\n\nXL. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the penalties imposed by this Ordinance shall be recovered in a summary manner under and according to the provisions of an Ordinance made and passed on the 10th day of April in the year of our Lord 1844, and numbered 10, entitled, \"An Ordinance to regulate summary proceedings before Justices of the Peace, and to protect Justices in the execution of their Office.\"\n\nPenalties.\n\nXLI. And be it further enacted and ordained, That in every case of the adjudication of a pecuniary penalty or amends under this Ordinance, and nonpayment thereof, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to imprison the offender for a term not more than Seven days where the penalty imposed shall not exceed Five Pounds, and not more than Fourteen Days where the penalty imposed shall not exceed Ten Pounds, the imprisonment to cease on payment of the sum due.\n\n16\n\nXLII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That in the construction of this Ordinance, the word \"Magistrate\" shall be taken to mean and include every Assistant Magistrate, and also every Justice of the Peace acting in and for any district or place within the colony of Hongkong.\n\nGeneral interpretation clause.\n\nXLIII. And be it further enacted and ordained, That in the construction of this Ordinance, unless there be something in the context repugnant thereto, any word denoting the Singular Number and Male Sex shall be taken to extend to any number of Persons or Things and to Both Sexes.\n\nJOHN FRANCIS DAVIS Governor, &c., &c.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong,\n\nthis 26th day of December, 1845.\n\nADOLPHUS E. SHELLEY, Clerk of Councils.\n\nHONGKONG\n\nPRINTED BY AUTHORITY, AT the OFFICE\n\nAdolphus Shelley\n\nClerk of Councils",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-016 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [1-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 223748,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-017 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [7-12]",
        "page_number": 165,
        "title": "CO129-017 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [7-12]",
        "content_text": "Whereas it has appeared that a material defect exists in the Law, whereby persons who have rendered themselves amenable to punishment in one of Her Majesty's Colonies have escaped with impunity by merely transporting themselves to another, and whereas it is expedient with a view to the furtherance of justice, to provide a remedy for such defect within this Colony.\n\nBe it therefore enacted and ordained, by His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, \"That in case a requisition shall at any time be made by the Governor of any other of Her Majesty's Colonies, or of the Territories of the East India Company, for the delivery of any person who may have escaped to Hongkong, charged with, or convicted of offences against the Law, committed within the jurisdiction of said Colonies, or of the said Territories of the East India Company, it shall be lawful for the Governor of Hongkong, or for the Officer administering the said Government for the time being, by warrant under his hand and seal, to signify that such requisition has been made, and to require the Chief or any other Magistrate of Police to govern himself accordingly; and to aid in apprehending the person so accused or convicted, and committing such person to gaol for the purpose of being delivered up to justice; and thereupon, it shall be lawful for the Chief or any other Magistrate of Police, upon view of sufficient depositions or other evidence furnished by the Government, or a Court of Justice of the Colony or Possession from which the said offender shall have escaped, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of such person, and also to commit the person so accused or convicted to gaol, there to remain until delivered pursuant to such requisition.\n\nAnd be it further enacted and ordained, That upon the certificate of...\n\nPage 02\n\n...\n\n130\n\nlawful...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-017 - Sir John Davis - 1846 [7-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 224571,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-018 - Others - 1846",
        "page_number": 477,
        "title": "CO129-018 - Others - 1846",
        "content_text": "REPORT ON\n\nHONG KONG,\n\n12\n\nhills, washing the putrifying substance down the deep ravines towards the sea; thus generating a fruitful crop of diseases,\n\nWe shall have to consider in a subsequent part of this report whether the objects sought or to be obtained by the possession of Hong Kong, are worth the dreadful sacrifice of life which the maintenance of the present establishment entails.\n\nPopulation and Social Progress.-Hong Kong was \"ceded to the British Crown under the seal of the Imperial Minister and High Commissioner Keshen, in January, 1841;\" see Captain Elliot's proclamation dated Hong Kong, 29 January, 1841, promising \"full security and protection to all British subjects and foreigners residing in or resorting to the island, so long as they shall continue to conform to the authority of Her Majesty's Government, hereby duly constituted and proclaimed in and over Hong Kong,\" &c.\n\nBy the same proclamation natives of China were invited to settle in the island, by promising them that they should be \"governed according to the laws and customs of China, every description of torture excepted.\" And by another proclamation, dated Hong Kong, 1841, issued by Sir Gordon Bremer, Commander-in-Chief, and Captain Elliot, Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, it is declared \"that the island of Hong Kong has now become a part of the dominions of the Queen of England, by clear public agreement between the high officers of the Celestial and British Courts; and the Chinese are hereby promised protection in Her Majesty's gracious name, against all enemies whatever; and they are further secured in the free exercise of their religious rites, ceremonies, and social customs, and in the enjoyment of their lawful private property and interests. Chinese ships and merchants resorting to the port of Hong Kong for purposes of trade, are exempt, in the name of the Queen of England, from charge or duty of any kind to the British Government.\" The remainder of the proclamation consists of further inducements for the Chinese to settle in and trade with Hong Kong.\n\nA form of Government was organized-a chief magistrate and a harbour-master were appointed-fifty lots of land were sold in June, 1841, to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.; Dent and Co.; McVicar and Co.; Fox, Rawson, and Co.; Turner and Co.; Lindsay and Co.; and various other persons; the annual rental of which amounted to £3,224. Each lot was required to have a building erected within six months, of the appraised value of 1000 dollars; and a deposit of 500 dollars was required to be lodged with the treasurer, as a security for the performance of this engagement. Building commenced with great spirit; the Government spent very large sums of money upon the island, and the harbour was filled with ships of war and transports. The island has had a fair trial of more than three and a-half years. We shall now inquire what progress it has made in population.\n\nOn taking possession of Hong Kong, it was found to contain about 7,500 inhabitants, scattered over twenty fishing hamlets and villages. The requirements of the fleet and troops, the demand for labourers to make roads and houses; and the servants of Europeans increased the number of inhabitants, and in March, 1842, they were numbered at 12,361. In April, 1844, the number of Chinese on the island was computed at 19,000, of whom not more than 1000 are women and children.\n\nHONG KONG,\n\n13\n\nIn the census are included ninety-seven women slaves, and female attendants on thirty-one brothels, eight gambling-houses, and twenty opium shops, &c. It is literally true that after three years and a-half's uninterrupted settlement, there is not one respectable Chinese inhabitant on the island.* One man of reputed wealth named Chinam, who had been engaged in the opium trade, came to Hong Kong, built a good house, and freighted a ship. He soon returned to Canton, and died there of a fever and cold contracted at Hong Kong. It was understood, however, that had he lived he would have been prohibited returning to Hong Kong, the policy of the mandarins on the adjacent coast being to prevent all respectable Chinese from settling at Hong Kong; and in consequence of the hold they possess on their families and relatives, this can be done most effectually. At the same time, I believe that they encourage and promote the deportation of every thief, pirate, and idle or worthless vagabond from the mainland to Hong Kong.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Gutzlaff, who has been engaged in making the recent census appended to this report, referring to the fishermen who formed the greater part of the population of the island on our arrival, says—\n\n\"They are a roving set of beings, floating on the wide face of the ocean with their families, and committing depredations whenever it can be done with impunity.\" \"The stone-cutters have been working here for many years before our arrival. The majority of these men are unprincipled. They cannot be considered as domesticated, and are in the habit of going and coming, according to the state of trade.\" \"The most numerous class who have, since our arrival, fixed themselves on the island, are from Whampoa; many of them are of the worst character, and ready to commit any atrocity.\" The capital of the shopkeepers is very small; most of them live from hand to mouth, and lead a life of expedients, without principle or self-control.\n\n\"It is very natural that depraved, idle, and bad characters from the adjacent mainland and islands should flock to the colony where some money can be made†.”\n\nThe merchants and British residents in Hong Kong, in a memorial to Lord Stanley, dated 13th August, 1845 (after I had quitted the island), fully verify this observation: they say, \"there is at this moment, after four years occupation of the island, scarcely one foreign resident, except Government officers, and those British merchants and traders who commenced building before the enforcement of the leases; there are no Chinese merchants, or even shopkeepers, with any pretension to property!\"\n\nA writer in the London \"Times\" of 17th December, 1844, speaking of his experience at Hong Kong, says, \"The community is migratory, property most insecure, and life often in danger, from the bands of piratical robbers that infest this and the neighbouring islands. The place has nothing to recommend it, if we except its excellent harbour. The site of the new town of Victoria is most objectionable, there being scarcely level ground enough for the requisite buildings; and the high hills which overhang the locality shut out the southerly winds, and render the place exceedingly hot, close, and unhealthy. Many of the worst description of Chinese resort there, and I have seen during one evening at Victoria more open scenes of vice and debauchery than I had observed during my three years' stay in the north of China. So much for the boasted march of civilization ! principal part of the trade is still confined to Canton, and will long continue to be so; that with the north is as yet comparatively insignificant, and the additional expenses charged on shipment and agency have been so great as to prevent much traffic with the new ports. The very high rate at which opium continues to be\n\nThe\n\n470",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-018 - Others - 1846.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 225157,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8]",
        "page_number": 35,
        "title": "CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8]",
        "content_text": "Netonia, No 204 the Castle Jin J. 7 Lewis, # May 1847 Greys.\n\nReceived 2 Instalments of Hongkongs Formula against the Government.\n\nReplying to certain charges against the Rev. Mr. Smith.\n\nCopy\n\nA Proclamation issued on the 11th May, 1843, by order of Sir Henry Pottinger. Major Caine, Chief Magistrate of Police, issues this clear proclamation to the inhabitants of Hongkong.\n\nAfter this time no persons, Europeans excepted, will be permitted to walk the streets or to remain out of their houses after the hour of 10 o'clock at night and until gun-fire in the morning, unless they are provided with passes clearly and satisfactorily stating in English the object of their being out after the hour specified.\n\nPersons committing a breach of this order will be taken up by the police and severely punished; and they are further informed that sentries will fire upon them if they do not instantly deliver themselves up on being challenged.\n\nIt is notified in addition to the above that reference is made to the correspondence between the Rev. Mr. Smith and this Office. 21 July - 618.\n\nH. Pottinger to be informed often for the purpose of clearing up conceptions - but no such practice.\n\nI see no advantage in getting into further correspondence with Mr. Smith.\n\nBut by... 5.23.1",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 225404,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8]",
        "page_number": 282,
        "title": "CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8]",
        "content_text": "and to act with independence. If there is evidence to support a criminal information and the Attorney General is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to file an information, it is his duty to bring the offender to trial before the Supreme Court, but if on the contrary the evidence is insufficient, it would be an abuse of his power and an act of injustice to the accused if he were to file an information against the party before a Criminal Court. As he is clothed with the powers of a Grand Jury, he must be subject to the laws by which Grand Juries are regulated. These laws are unknown in Hongkong: A Grand Juror sworn to secrecy is bound on oath not to divulge any facts which come to his knowledge during the examination of witnesses prior to the trial under pain of being fined; formerly, indeed he became accessory to the offence, if felony, and if treason, principal. The true import of the secrecy is to prevent the evidence produced before the Grand Jury from being counteracted by subornation of perjury on the part of the defendant and to prevent the minds of the Petite Jury from becoming prejudiced for or against the prisoner. The Attorney General of this Colony is in the position of a Grand Jury and cannot divulge any facts to his knowledge which may come to him officially.\n\nIt is a libel for a Newspaper to publish the preliminary examination taken ex parte before a Magistrate previous to the committing.\n\nPage 276",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-020 - Sir John Davis - 1847 [5-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 227560,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-026 - Bonham - 1848 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 254,
        "title": "CO129-026 - Bonham - 1848 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "No 94 of 1848.\n\nInclosures No 5 in Despi\n\nand freedom from ambiguity. and others as to it's accuracy with a testimonials from certain, Chinese Shipmasters to the Junkmen in May 1846; relative to his translation of the Proclamation addressed November, 1848.\n\nStatement from Dr. Gützlaff\n\n247\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nHis Excellency the Governor is pleased to direct, that the following Instructions to the Harbour Master, and Notification, be published for general information, in the hopes that such of the European Community as have dealings with the Junkmen and other Chinese connected with them, will render their assistance in promulgating and explaining their contents as opportunities offer.\n\nBy Order,\n\nColonial Office, Victoria, Hongkong, 20th November, 1848.\n\n(Copy) No. 238.\n\nW. CAINE, Colonial Secretary.\n\nCOLONIAL OFFICE, VICTORIA, HONGKONG,\n\n20th November, 1848.\n\nSIR,\n\nI am directed by His Excellency the Governor to enclose copy of a Notification, which you are hereby instructed to communicate generally to the Junkmen of the Chinese Shipping in the Harbour. His Excellency desires that you will at the same time use every effort to allay the fears which these persons are alleged to entertain of Piracy within the Harbour, by explaining to them that for some time past no act of Piracy has been committed in this Port; and enjoining them, in the event of violence being used to them on board their Junks, by any person or persons, whether in the employment of Government or not, to lay their complaint thereof immediately before the Police Magistrates, or any of the local authorities, as by them the matter cannot fail to be properly investigated.\n\nYou will further cause the Junkmen to be made aware that a British Ship of war is almost always stationed here, the boats of which, as well as a Police boat, guard the Harbour at night; and that, should it appear to them that there is any other falsely representing itself to be one of these, they ought to lose no time in giving the necessary information.\n\nTranslations of the Notification are being prepared, and will be forwarded to you for distribution as soon as they are completed.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n(Signed) W. CAINE,\n\nColonial Secretary.\n\nW. PEDDER, Esq., Harbour Master and Marine Magistrate.\n\n(True copy,)\n\nW. CAINE, Colonial Secretary.\n\n(Copy)\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nWith reference to the proceedings of the Coroner's Inquests held upon the bodies of the two Chinese and the Policeman who were killed upon the 15th ultimo, His Excellency the Governor is pleased to notify to all whom it may concern, that as it appears that there has been some misapprehension of the meaning of a Government Proclamation dated 23d May 1846, it is not to be understood that the terms therein employed could have been intended to supersede the powers of the Police or other Government officers, whether vested in them by Local Ordinances or by the General Law.\n\nHis Excellency is also pleased to notify, that although it is not the intention of Government to proceed against the parties connected with the unfortunate affair of the 15th ultimo, in which an illegal opposition to constituted authority has been attended with the most serious consequences, no person whatsoever, hereafter committing a similar act of resistance, shall be allowed to avail himself of the plea of ignorance of either Law or Custom, but shall be forthwith prosecuted as the Law directs.\n\nBy Order,\n\n(Signed)\n\nW. CAINE, Colonial Secretary.\n\nColonial Office, Victoria, Hongkong, 20th November, 1848.\n\n(True copy,)\n\nW. CAINE, Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-026 - Bonham - 1848 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 228152,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848",
        "page_number": 456,
        "title": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848",
        "content_text": "Board\n\nof\n\nTrade\n\nIB\n\nAppendix.\n\nReport on the\n\nIsland of Hong Kong,\n\n[16]\n\nliterally true that after 3 years' uninterrupted settlement, there is not one respectable Chinese inhabitant on the island. One man of reputed wealth, named Chinam, who had been engaged in the opium trade, came to Hong Kong, built a good house and freighted a ship. He soon returned to Canton, and died there of a fever and cold, contracted at Hong Kong. It was understood, however, that had he lived he would have been prohibited returning to Hong Kong, the policy of the mandarins on the adjacent coast being to prevent all respectable Chinese from settling at Hong Kong, and in consequence of the hold which they possess on their families and relatives, this can be done most effectually; at the same time I believe that they encourage and promote the deportation of every thief, pirate, and idle or worthless vagabond from the main land to Hong Kong.\n\n\"It\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Gutzlaff, who has been engaged in making the recent census appended to this Report, referring to the fishermen, who formed the greater part of the population of the island on our arrival, says \"They are a roving set of beings, floating on the wide face of the ocean with their families, and committing depredations whenever it can be done with impunity.\" \"The stone-cutters have been working here for many years before our arrival; the majority of these men are unprincipled. They cannot be considered as domesticated, and are in the habit of going and coming, according to the state of trade.\" \"The most numerous class who have since our arrival fixed themselves on the island, are from Whampoa; many of them are of the worst character, and ready to commit any atrocity.\" The capital of the shopkeepers is very small; the most of them live from hand to mouth, and lead a life of expedients without principle and self control.\" is very natural that depraved, idle, and bad characters from the adjacent main and islands should flock to the colony where some money can be made.\" Dr. Gutzlaff, whose prepossessions are strongly in favour of the Chinese, concludes this portion of the memorandum with which he has favoured me, as follows: \"The moral standard of the people congregated in this place (Hong Kong) is of the lowest description.\" This observation is fully borne out by the numerous murders, piracies, burglaries, and robberies of every description which have taken place during the last three years, and with almost perfect impunity; for the Chinese are formed into secret societies for the mutual protection of villains, and no man dare inform against another. At this moment (July 1844) the European inhabitants are obliged to sleep with loaded pistols under their pillows, frequently to turn out of their beds at midnight to protect their lives and property from gangs of armed robbers, who are ready to sacrifice a few of their number if they can obtain a large plunder.\n\nThis state of things was long ago predicted. In the Canton Register of 23d February 1841 it was stated, Hong Kong will be the resort and rendezvous of all the Chinese smugglers; opium smoking shops and gambling houses will soon spread; to those haunts will flock all the discontented and bad spirits of the empire; the island will be surrounded by Shameens, and become a Gehenna of the waters.\"\n\nThree years have completely fulfilled this prediction, and neither time nor circumstances will now ever alter the character of the place. No Chinese of the humbler class will ever bring their wives and children to the colony. He must be sanguinely visionary who expects that Hong Kong will ever contain a numerous and respectable Chinese population. And, as regards the present inhabitants, (if a migratory race who are constantly changing deserve that epithet), their diminution by one-half would be satisfactory, for then a control by registration might be exercised, and life and property be rendered in some degree secure. The daring character of the population and its worthlessness for all useful civil purposes in the formation of a colony, will be seen in the following incident.\n\nOn 27th September 1843, the Honourable Major Caine, the chief magistrate, issued a proclamation for pulling down some mat sheds which harboured a gang of ruffians who were nightly engaged in plundering the town. In the beginning of October 1843, the Chinese robbers posted a counter proclamation on the gate of No. 1 Market-place, in the chief thoroughfare, declaring that if they left the island themselves they would \"compel others to do so, taking with them their merchandise and property, and warning people to be cautious how they ventured out after dark, lest they meet with some unexpected harm.\" At the same time the Government coal depots were set on fire; the mat barracks of the 41st Regiment, and the Market-place No. 1, were attempted to be burned; and at noon a number of Chinamen, armed with knives, entered the market, threatened all around, wounded a European policeman, and then walked away unmolested. The number of prisoners in the gaol of Hong Kong averaged, during 1843-44, from 60 to 90 a month; nearly every prisoner was Chinese, and the crimes with which they were charged were invariably piracy, murder, burglary, robbery, &c. There has been no diminution of crime; the number of prisoners in the jail have increased, and the nightly robberies are as frequent, if not more so, than they were three years ago. The shopkeepers do not remain more than a few months on the island, when another set takes their place. There is, in fact, a continual shifting of a Bedouin sort of population, whose migratory, predatory, gambling, and dissolute habits utterly unfit them for continuous industry, and render them not only useless, but highly injurious subjects in the attempt to form a new colony.\n\nThere cannot be said to be any other coloured race in the colony; a few Lascars seek employment in ships. The European inhabitants, independent of those in the employ of government, consist of the members of about 12 mercantile houses and their clerks, together with several European shopkeepers. A few persons have arrived here from New South Wales, to try and better their fortune, many of whom would be glad to return thither.\n\n[17]\n\nAppendix.\n\nReport on the\n\nIsland of Hong Kong.\n\nThe principal mercantile firms are those engaged in the opium trade, who have removed thither from Macao, as a safer position for an opium depot, and which they frankly admit is the only trade Hong Kong will ever possess. The opium belonging to the two principal firms is not, however, lodged on shore, it is kept in receiving ships, the \"Hormanjee Bomanjee,\" belonging to Jardine, Matheson & Co., and the \"John Barry,\" belonging to Dent & Co. Even the money in use by those firms is not entrusted on shore, but is kept in the receiving ships. These firms, and the three or four others partially engaged in the opium trade, carry on this business in Hong Kong. The tea trade is carried on distinctly at Canton, by members of the firms resident there. Excepting the six firms engaged in the opium trade, the other six houses are small, and are principally agents for manufacturers, &c. in Great Britain. The expense of establishments, the high rate of interest of money, and the want of trade, will, it is said, probably ere long compel the removal or breaking-up of several of the small houses. There is scarcely a firm in the island but would, I understand, be glad to get back half the money they have expended in the colony, and retire from the place. A sort of hallucination seems to have seized those who built houses here; they thought that Hong Kong would \"rapidly out-rival Singapore, and become the Tyre or Carthage of the Eastern hemisphere.\" Three years' residence, and the experience thence derived, have materially sobered some of their views. Unfortunately the government of the colony fostered the delusion respecting the colony. The leading government officers bought land, built houses or bazaars, which they rented out at high rates, and the public money was lavished in the most extraordinary manner, building up and pulling down temporary structures, making zig-zag bridle paths over hills and mountains, and forming the Queen's-road of three to four miles long, on which about 180,000 dollars have been expended, but which is not passable for half the year. The straggling settlement called Victoria, built along the Queen's-road, was dignified with the name of city, and it was declared on the highest authority that Hong Kong would contain a population \"equal to that of ancient Rome.\"\n\nThe Surveyor-general, in an official report to Sir Henry Pottinger, of 22 pages, dated 6 July 1843, proposed building an entirely new town or city, in the Woonichung Valley (which may be aptly called the valley of death), with a grand canal and many branch canals, &c. &c.; two ranges of terraces of houses, &c. &c.; courts of law and various other offices; acclimating barracks; additions to the present government house, for the secretaries and personal staff of the Governor, isolated from all other buildings; a space of land to be reclaimed from the sea for a public landing place, with an esplanade or public walk; a magnificent promenade of four miles to be made on ground now covered by the sea, which was to be excluded by a sea wall, at a cost of 35 dollars per lineal yard, exclusive of filling in, &c.; a circular road over hills and ravines, round the entire island, &c. &c., adapted for carriages, and for moving troops with speed and facility to any part of the island where they may happen to be required for the protection of the different villages. (These villages, be it remembered, containing nothing but a few hundreds of a thieving, piratical population.) I refer to the Government archives for full details of these and other most ridiculous projects, involving a vast expenditure of public money, which none but the wildest theorists or self-interested persons could have projected or entertained.\n\nOn 17th December 1843, the Surveyor-general laid before Sir H. Pottinger the elevation of a building for a government office, &c. with a front of 360 feet in length, by 50 feet in depth, and which would probably cost 30,000l. sterling. There seemed to be the greatest possible desire to spend a large part of the Chinese indemnity money on this wretched, barren, unhealthy, and useless rock, which the whole wealth, energy, and talent of England would never render habitable, or creditable as a colony to the British name.\n\nIn illustration of the mode in which the public money was proposed to be spent, I give the following, which is a portion of the estimate of public works in Hong Kong, for 1844, and which Sir H. Pottinger transmitted to England for approval:\n\nCompletion of Queen's-road from West Point to the east side of Wong-nichung Valley\n\nDitto, to godowns of Jardine & Co. New street formation in Victoria\n\nSewers in Victoria\n\n-\n\n-\n\nValue of houses to be removed from Upper Bazaar and other places Drainage of Woonichung Valley\n\nBridle path to Saiwan\n\nNew church\n\n-\n\nGovernment house, with suitable office, &c. House for Judge\n\nDitto, for Advocate-general\n\n28,000 dollars.\n\n15,000\n\n35,000\n\n\"\"\n\n100,000\n\n·\n\n25,000\n\n7,000\n\n3,000\n\n+\n\n35,000 \"}\n\n70,000 \"\n\n24,000 +1\n\n20,000\n\nE\n\nHouse\n\nSouth",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 229381,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-030 - Bonham - 1849 [8-12]",
        "page_number": 332,
        "title": "CO129-030 - Bonham - 1849 [8-12]",
        "content_text": "itself, irrespective of the territory\n\nin\n\nQ S\n\nwhich he might be taken; but that, we claimed to try all persons committing offences here, henceforward, should any people coming from the vicinity of\n\nHongkong\n\ncreate disturbance therein, he\n\nshould not be so officious as to interfere:\n\nin other words, that he should not attend to future applications.\n\n4.\n\nAt this juncture, police\n\nfrom the District of which Hongkong originally a part, having been found here with warrants from their Magistrate for the arrest of persons residing here, charged with certain offences committed within this jurisdiction, in replying to his last rejoinder, I first remarked that he had evidently misunderstood me; that the duty obliged our two nations to a mutual surrender of criminals, formally demanded; that this stipulation\n\n19th November, 1849.\n\nVictoria, Hongkong,\n\nhad been always observed by us, and would be; and I trusted would be by the Chinese Government as well; and I then brought to his notice the irregular proceeding of the Police in the employ of his subordinate. In his reply he abandoned the previous discussion, with reference to the criminal Chinese, demanded as a British subject, and attempted to exonerate the Magistrate from blame, in his violation of our right, on the ground that his object in endeavouring to seize the parties named in the warrants, was the punishment of crime, and the consequent wellbeing of both nations.\n\nI thought it well to remind him of a block from the same District, who attempted to levy taxes here in 1844, and was detained by Mr. Davis, until Ho Ying had",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-030 - Bonham - 1849 [8-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 230310,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-033 - General Stavely - Lieut. Governor - 1850 [5-8]",
        "page_number": 175,
        "title": "CO129-033 - General Stavely - Lieut. Governor - 1850 [5-8]",
        "content_text": "2\n\nat length with \n\nmy \n\nfor extending the \n\nRoyal Clemency to the Convicts; but as the \n\nsubject of Piracy in \n\nthis \n\nquarter has of late engaged much public attention in England, it appeared to me to be proper that I should fully explain the motive by which I have been actuated, especially as the Chief Justice was of opinion that the sentence of death should be carried into execution.\n\n3.\n\nthe transaction can be understood only by reference to the circumstances under which it is placed. I enclose the Notes of the Chief Justice taken at the trial, from which, however, but few particulars attending the case can be gathered, and nothing from which it is possible to measure the degrees of culpability of the several Convicts. The facts of the case, however, I find on reference to the depositions taken before the committing Magistrate, are simply these: The plundered Junke belonged to a port in China, and was the property of a Chinese Subject; she had been on a trading voyage to the Straits of Malacca, and on her return was attacked on the high seas by another Chinese Junk in which were these Prisoners, off the Coast of Hainan, some 300 miles distant from this Island: none of the parties, either accused or otherwise connected with the transaction, were in any way connected with the British Government, and none of the property plundered on the occasion belonged to British Subjects, or to others residing under its protection.\n\n4.\n\nTo inflict punishment for taking away the lives of others under such circumstances is not the most justifiable. Causing the lives of these men to be taken would have been done under the persuasion that doing so would deter others from committing similar crimes, and, had the offenders been British Subjects, or had the outrage occurred in the vicinity of this Island, or British property been in any way molested, I should, I confess, have been disposed to permit the sentence of the Law to take its course on some of the Prisoners",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-033 - General Stavely - Lieut. Governor - 1850 [5-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 232879,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-041 - Public Offices - 1852",
        "page_number": 83,
        "title": "CO129-041 - Public Offices - 1852",
        "content_text": "17\n\n81\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nHis Excellency the Acting Governor in Council is pleased to direct that the following Draft of a proposed Ordinance, read at a Meeting of the Legislative Council for the first time on this Day, be published for general information.\n\nBy Order,\n\nCouncil Office, Victoria, Hongkong, 11th August, 1852.\n\nCHAS. ST. GEO. CLEVERLY,\n\nfor the Clerk of Councils.\n\nHONGKONG.\n\nANNO DECIMO SEXTO VICTORIÆ REGINÆ.\n\nNo.\n\nBY His Excellency WILLIAM JERVOIS, Knight of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, Major General Commanding Her Majesty's Forces in China, Acting Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of Hongkong and its Dependencies, and Vice-Admiral of the same, with the Advice of the Legislative Council of Hongkong.\n\nAN ORDINANCE FOR THE PREVENTION OF DESERTION, AND BETTER REGULATION OF MERCHANT SEAMEN IN THIS COLONY.\n\n1852.]\n\n[Dated,\n\nWhereas serious Complaints have been lately made of the frequent Desertion of Merchant Seamen, and it is expedient that stringent Measures be taken for the Prevention thereof:\n\nI. Be it therefore enacted and ordained, that the Ordinance No. 13 of 1845, entitled \"An Ordinance to establish a licensed Ghaut Serang in the Colony of Hongkong, and for the better Regulation of Lascars resorting thereto,\" and the Ordinance No. 4 of 1846, entitled \"An Ordinance to explain and extend the Provisions of the Ordinance to establish a licensed Ghaut Serang in the Colony of Hongkong, and for the better Regulation of Lascars resorting thereto\"; and the Ordinance No. 2 of 1848 entitled \"An Ordinance to amend the Ordinance No. 13 of 1845, entitled An Ordinance to establish a licensed Ghaut Serang in the Colony of Hongkong, and for the better Regulation of Lascars resorting thereto\";—be and the same hereby are repealed.\n\nII. And that whenever any Seaman shall be discharged from any Vessel within the Precincts of this Colony, the Commanding Officer of such Vessel, shall give at the Time of such Discharge to such Seaman, a written Certificate of Discharge, specifying the Time and Nature of Service, and the Time of Discharge of such Seaman, signed by himself; and if such Seaman require it, shall further give him, within Twenty-four Hours after demand, a true Account in writing of the Wages of such Seaman, and of all Deductions therefrom.\n\nIII. That no Seaman be permitted to reside within the Precincts of the Colony unless he be provided with a Permit to reside on Shore, issued and signed by the Harbour-Master, who shall be entitled to charge for every such Permit the Sum of One Dollar, and who shall grant such Permit in the Case of a Seaman discharged from a British Ship only, when such Seaman shall present to him a Certificate of Discharge signed by the Commanding Officer of his Ship, and in the Case of a Seaman discharged from a Foreign Ship, when such Seaman shall present to him a Certificate of Discharge bearing the Signature of the Consul or Vice-Consul of his Nation; and the Harbour-Master shall date such Permit, and shall endorse on it the Name of the Boarding-house at which the Seaman requiring it proposes to reside, and such Permit shall require Renewal after the Expiration of One Month from the Day of its Date; and any Seaman residing on Shore without such Permit may be taken into Custody without Warrant by any Constable, and carried before a Magistrate, who, unless such Seaman satisfactorily account for his Want of such Permit, may imprison him for not more than One Month with hard Labour, as an idle and disorderly Person; and any Person harbouring any Seaman not possessing, or unable satisfactorily to account to the Magistrate for the Want of such Permit, shall be liable to a Penalty not exceeding Twenty Pounds Sterling, and if such Person be a Publican, or the Keeper of a Boarding-house for Seamen, he may in Addition to such Penalty, be deprived by the Committing Magistrate of his License as such Publican or Boarding-house Keeper.\n\nIV. That any Seaman who shall desert, or absent himself without Leave from any Ship, may be taken into Custody without Warrant by any Constable, or by the Master, or Person in Charge of the Ship, or any one specially deputed in writing by such Master, or Person in Charge, and forthwith conveyed before a Magistrate, who may cause such Seaman to be taken in Custody on Board his Vessel.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-041 - Public Offices - 1852.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 233110,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-042 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [1-6]",
        "page_number": 17,
        "title": "CO129-042 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [1-6]",
        "content_text": "Date of Drop: Desp: \n\n1852 \n\nProject of Despatch \n\n- 6 3 23\" (ing) Fronsmithing Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure of the Colony, for the year ending 31st December, 1853.. \n\n64 2 Sept Reporting appointment of Mr. Chapman as acting Clerk in the Colonial Secretary's office. of Mr. B. Caine. the Toom desigreed.. \n\n4 5 6 Acknowledging Receipt of Duplicate Despatch Military No2 Pt some, Circular of 30 June, and letter dated in July, 1852 \n\n66 167 Forwarding Requisitions for supply of Clothing, Accoutrements, and other articles for the Hongkong Police, for the year 1853- \n\n47 20 Oct : Acknowledging Receipt of Despatches to 122 of 5th August, and letter of 26th July, 1852. \n\n68 25 \" Ind Hone Vrone Trounsmithing Gunsterly Retires for the quarter ending 30th September, 1852... Que Prove \n\nDate of Desp: Deap: \n\nSubject of Despatch \n\n16 \n\n69 26 Sept. Comomitting Colonial Treasurer's Returns of Receipts & Payments for the Quarter ending September 1852, together the Report of the Board of Survey, held on the 1. October the Jends in the Colonial Treasury. \n\n70 22 Nov bensmitting Copy of the Ordinance No of 1852, entitled \"An Ordinance for the Prevention of Desertion and better Regulation of Merchant Seamen in the Colony \" \n\n231 - Reporting certain additions to Salaries and allowances of officers in the Department of the Harbour Master and Marine Magistrate, consequent upon the passing of Ordinance No of 1852; and stating that application from Mr Redder for an increase to his Salary, will be made until the arrival of Sir George Bonham Bentoni \n\n26",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-042 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [1-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 233741,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-043 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [7-12]",
        "page_number": 250,
        "title": "CO129-043 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [7-12]",
        "content_text": "247\n\n4\n\nment without sanction in Writing of Medical Officer of the Gaol that the Person to be punished can receive the Punishment awarded to him without injury to health.\n\nMedical Officer.\n\nOn the discharge of Minors, &c., notice to be given to their Friends or Superiors.\n\nPrevious to the discharge of any Prisoner under the Age of 21 Years, he shall inform such Prisoner's relatives or friends, (if any of good character can be found), of the time of the intended discharge, that they may attend to receive the Prisoner; and in case of a Soldier or Sailor he shall if possible inform the Superior Officer of such Person.\n\nAs to admission to Legal Advisers.\n\nHe shall allow Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or committed for Re-examination or Trial, to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times and in private if required, unless the committing Magistrate, or Sheriff, or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary, but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the fact and his reasons in the Journal, noting also the Names of the Applicant and the Prisoner, and he shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their legal advisers, if a Visiting Justice, the Sheriff, or the committing Magistrate so order. But every Person claiming admission as a legal adviser, must be a Lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the Authorized Clerk or Pupil of such Lawyer. Should he think proper to refuse admittance to such Person, he shall be careful to refer such Person to the Sheriff, and he shall obey promptly any order the Sheriff may give therein.\n\nPrisoners for Re-examination may see their Friends.\n\nHe shall allow prisoners committed for Re-examination to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours, unless the committing or a Visiting Justice or the Sheriff order to the contrary; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as provided in the last Clause.\n\nPrisoners committed for Trial.\n\nUnless he receive orders to the contrary, he shall allow Prisoners committed for trial to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours twice a Week or oftener if the committing, or a Visiting Justice so order; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation.\n\nConvicted Prisoners.\n\nHe shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their relations and friends, once in the course of each successive Three Months, but if in case of Sickness or otherwise he see sufficient reason, he may allow the privilege oftener, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation. Prisoners committed for non-payment of Penalties or want of Sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as those committed for Re-examination, if the objects of the visits appear to be to make arrangements for the payment of the Penalty, or to procure the required Sureties, otherwise they shall be subject to the same rules in this regard as convicted Prisoners. He shall take proper and discreet means to ascertain that no visitors bring into the Gaol any Instrument or other objectionable Article.\n\nMinisters of Religion.\n\nIf a Prisoner do not belong to the Established Church, the Gaoler, subject to the orders of the Sheriff, shall allow the visits of known Ministers of such Prisoner's own persuasion, or of whom such Prisoner may approve.\n\nVisitors' Names to be recorded.\n\nHe shall demand the names of visitors to Prisoners, and enter them and the particulars of their visits in his Journal, and on reasonable suspicion, he (or the Matron in the case of females), may with their permission search them, and, if they decline to give their names, or to be searched, may refuse them admittance.\n\nAs to Letters of Prisoners.\n\nUnless the committing or a Visiting Justice, or the Sheriff order to the contrary, he shall allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination or trial to send and receive letters, but he may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the particulars and reasons in his Journal, and, subject to the same restrictions, he shall allow such convicted Prisoner to send and receive one letter in the course of every Three Months, but he shall inspect every letter or paper so sent, unless it be addressed to a Visiting Justice or other authority, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless it be necessary to report the same to a Visiting Justice. He may also inspect letters to or from Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or for want of Sureties, if he reasonably suspect them to refer to a projected escape, or infringement of Prison discipline, recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons for so acting, and marking the letters with his initials, but he may withhold a letter to or from any Prisoner, recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons, and laying such letter without delay before the Sheriff or a Visiting Justice.\n\nInventory of Gaol Furniture.\n\nHe shall keep in the proper Books an Inventory of all Furniture and moveable property belonging to the Gaol, a Catalogue of all Books and printed papers allowed to be brought into the Gaol, an account of all provisions and stores supplied for the use of the Gaol or Prisoners, and an account of all money paid and received by him.\n\nFines paid by Prisoners.\n\nHe shall on payment of a Fine by a Prisoner, immediately transfer the Money to the Person authorized to receive it, noting the particulars in the Fine Book.\n\nCertain parts of Gaol to be used as Sick Wards.\n\nHe shall reserve certain parts of the Gaol to be used as Infirmaries for Prisoners of both Sexes, paying strict regard to the Regulations herein provided for the separation of male and female Prisoners.\n\nReturns to be made by Gaoler.\n\nOn the 3d day of every Month he shall lay before the Sheriff a short Return of the Work performed by the Prisoners, and the Number of Hours a Day they worked during the Month immediately preceding. And before the Colonial Secretary, for the information of the Governor, a Return in the following Form, and shall retain Copies of all such Returns:-\n\nA RETURN of PRISONERS CONFINED IN GAOL ON\n\nSentenced to Transportation,\n\nImprisoned for more than One Year,\n\nImprisoned for more than Six Months, and not more than One Year,\n\nImprisoned for not more than Six Months,\n\nCommitted for Trial,\n\nRemanded for Re-examination,\n\nCommitted for want of Sureties,\n\nDebtors and others confined on Civil Process,\n\nCrown Witnesses,\n\nPresent working strength of Chain Gang,\n\n  \n    EUROPEANS\n    CHINESE\n    INDIANS\n    MALAYS\n    SUMS\n  \n  \n    Total\n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Men\n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Prisoner longest in Confinement, not having been tried,\n    \n    185\n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Crown Witness longest in Confinement,\n    \n    185\n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Prisoner confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, longest in Confinement,\n    \n    185\n    \n    \n  \n\nGaoler.\n\nREMARKS.\n\nMale and Female Prisoners shall always be so confined as to prevent the former from seeing, conversing, or holding any intercourse with the latter. The keys of all Cells, Wards, or Rooms, in which Female Prisoners shall be confined, shall remain constantly in the possession of the Matron, and the locks and keys of such Cells, Wards, or Rooms, shall be different from the locks and keys of the Cells, Wards, or Rooms, for Male Prisoners.\n\nPrisoners to be divided into certain Classes.\n\nThe Prisoners unless confined separately shall be divided into the following Classes, and no Prisoner of one Class, (with the exception hereinafter mentioned), shall be confined, or associate with Prisoners of another Class.\n\n1st, Felons under Sentence of Death,\n\n2d, All other Felons.\n\n3d, Misdemeanants and Persons confined for breach of the Revenue Laws.\n\n4th, Prisoners committed for trial for Felony.\n\n5th, Prisoners committed for trial for Misdemeanors, or detained for want of Sureties.\n\n6th, Prisoners remanded for Re-examination.\n\n7th, Approvers.\n\n8th, Debtors and Persons confined on Civil Process.\n\nAnd every convicted Prisoner not a Felon shall be considered a Misdemeanant for the purposes of these Regulations.\n\nPrisoners to clean Cells, &c.\n\nAll Prisoners of the 1st, 2d, and 3d Class shall be compellable to sweep, clean, and lime-wash the rooms in which they shall be confined, and to wash their persons and their clothes as often as required by the Gaoler, and Prisoners of the other Classes to do the same, or cause it to be done.\n\nTwo Male Prisoners only shall never be lodged together; the number confined in one Cell or Room shall be one, three, or more. If there be only one Prisoner of a particular Class confined in the Gaol, the Gaoler with the consent of such Prisoner, may assign such Prisoner to any other Class.\n\nNo Officer or Guard attached to the Gaol shall be allowed Rations, nor shall in any case be supplied with Rations by the Contractor who shall provide rations for the Prisoners, unless he be a Constable borne on the strength of the Police Force, and such Rations to be those to which he is entitled as such Constable, and the Contractor for the Prisoners be also Contractor for the Police Force.\n\nGaoler and Subordinates not to receive Fees.\n\nNeither the Gaoler nor any Officer of the Gaol shall receive any fee or gratuity of any kind from any Prisoner, visitor, or other Person, under any pretence whatever, unless he be expressly authorised by Act of Parliament, or by a Colonial Ordinance, to receive such fee or gratuity.\n\nGaoler to Superintend the distribution of Rations, &c.\n\nThe distribution of Rations and Clothing shall be personally superintended by the Gaoler or an Officer of the Gaol. Any Prisoner may request the Gaoler or Officer distributing, to weigh or measure in his presence, or allow him to weigh or measure any Article of food so distributed to him, and the Gaoler or Officer shall comply with the request, except it appear to the Gaoler that such request is vexatiously made, and such request and refusal shall be noted by the Gaoler in his Journal.\n\nChinese Prisoners and others accustomed to Chinese diet shall have at least two hot meals a day, and other Prisoners shall have three meals a day, two at least of them hot meals,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-043 - Sir Bonham - 1853 [7-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 233982,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853",
        "page_number": 54,
        "title": "CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853",
        "content_text": "53\n\n20\n\nthe Commander of any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or of any British vessel, to receive any such person on board, with a copy of such sentence and a warrant from the Consul for its due execution, addressed to the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said colony, and thereupon to convey him in custody to Hong-Kong, and on his arrival there, to deliver him with the said copy of such sentence and warrant into the custody of the said Chief Magistrate of Police, or other Officer of Her Majesty within the said Colony lawfully acting as such, who on the receipt of the said warrant, and of the person therein named, shall be authorized to commit, and shall commit such person to the common gaol of the said colony, and such sentence shall be enforced to execution in the said common gaol, in the same manner as if the sentence had been awarded by the Supreme Court of the Colony of Hong-Kong.\n\npromote reconciliation\n\nin cases of Assault.\n\nXXVI. And it is further ordered, That in cases Consuls may promote reconciliation between the parties, and to suffer compensation and amends to be made, and the proceedings thereby to be stayed.\n\nmisdemeanours.\n\nXXVII. And it is further ordered, That save and except as regards offences committed by British subjects against the stipulations of Treaties between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China, or against rules and regulations for the observance of the stipulations of such Treaties, duly affixed and exhibited according to the provisions of Article IV of this Order, or against rules and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects, being within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or being within any British ship or vessel at a distance of not more than one hundred miles from the coast of China, duly affixed and exhibited as aforesaid, and save and except as regards the offence of engaging in trade declared by Article XXXIV of this Order to be unlawful, no act done by a British subject being within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or being within any ship or vessel at a distance of not more than one hundred miles from the coast of China shall, by the Chief Superintendent or by any of Her Majesty's Consuls, be deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person committing it amenable to punishment, which, if done within that part of Her Majesty's dominions called England, would not by a court of justice having criminal jurisdiction in England, have been deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person so committing it amenable to punishment.\n\nXXVIII. And it is further ordered, That a minute of the proceedings in every case heard and determined before a Consul in pursuance of this Order, shall be drawn up and be signed by the Consul, and shall, in cases where assessors are present, be open for the inspection of such assessors, and for their signature, if they shall therein concur; and such minute, together with the depositions of the witnesses, shall be preserved in the public office of the said Consul, and a copy of every such minute and of such depositions shall, if the Chief Superintendent shall see fit to require them, be transmitted by the Consul to the said Chief Superintendent.\n\nXXIX. And it is further ordered, That the Chief Superintendent shall have the same power and jurisdiction in regard to breaches of treaties, and breaches of rules and regulations, and in regard to crimes and offences committed by British subjects, as are granted to Her Majesty's Consuls by the provisions of this present Order;\n\nand any person charged with an offence against any such treaties, or against any such rules and regulations, or with any crime or offence committed within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or within any British ship or vessel within one hundred miles from the coast of China, or within any ship or vessel on the high seas within the said limits not being lawfully entitled to claim the protection of the flag of any state or nation, or within any Chinese ship or vessel within the said limits, shall escape to, or be found within the Colony of Hong-Kong, it shall be lawful for the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said colony for the time being, or other Officer lawfully acting as such,\n\n21",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 234016,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853",
        "page_number": 88,
        "title": "CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853",
        "content_text": "20\n\nthe Commander of any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or of any British vessel, to receive any such person on board, with a copy of such sentence and a warrant from the Consul for its due execution, addressed to the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said colony, and thereupon to convey him in custody to Hong-Kong, and on his arrival there to deliver him with the said copy of such sentence and warrant into the custody of the said Chief Magistrate of Police, or other Officer of Her Majesty within the said Colony lawfully acting as such, who on the receipt of the said warrant, and of the therein named person, shall be authorized to commit, and shall commit such person to the common gaol of the said colony, and such sentence shall be enforced to execution in the said common gaol, in the same manner as if the sentence had been awarded by the Supreme Court of the Colony of Hong-Kong.\n\nXXVI. And it is further ordered, That in cases Consuls may promote reconciliation of assault it shall be lawful for the Consul before whom complaint is made, to promote reconciliation between the parties, and to suffer compensation and amends to be made, and the proceedings thereby to be stayed.\n\nXXVII. And it is further ordered, That save and except as regards offences committed by British subjects against the stipulations of Treaties between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China, or against rules and regulations for the observance of the stipulations of such Treaties, duly affixed and exhibited according to the provisions of Article IV of this Order, or against rules and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects, being within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or being within British ship or vessel at a distance of not more than one hundred miles from the coast of China, duly affixed and exhibited as aforesaid, and save and except as regards the offence of engaging in trade declared by Article XXXIV of this Order to be unlawful, no act done by a British subject being within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or being within any ship or vessel at a distance of not more than one hundred miles from the coast of China shall, by the Chief Superintendent or by any of Her Majesty's Consuls, be deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person committing it amenable to punishment, which, if done within that part of Her Majesty's dominions called England, would not by a court of justice having criminal jurisdiction in England, have been deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person so committing it amenable to punishment.\n\nXXVIII. And it is further ordered, That a minute of the proceedings in every case heard and determined before a Consul in pursuance of this Order, shall be drawn up and be signed by the Consul, and shall, in cases where assessors are present, be open for the inspection of such assessors, and for their signature, if they shall therein concur; and such minute, together with the depositions of the witnesses, shall be preserved in the public office of the said Consul, and a copy of every such minute and of such depositions shall, if the Chief Superintendent shall see fit to require them, be transmitted by the Consul to the said Chief Superintendent.\n\nXXIX. And it is further ordered, That the Chief Superintendent shall have the same power and jurisdiction in regard to breaches of treaties, and breaches of rules and regulations, and in regard to crimes and offences committed by British subjects, as are granted to Her Majesty's Consuls by the provisions of this present Order; and if any person charged with an offence against any such treaties, or against any such rules and regulations, or with any crime or offence committed within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or within any British ship or vessel within one hundred miles from the coast of China, or within any ship or vessel on the high seas within the said limits not being lawfully entitled to claim the protection of the flag of any state or nation, or within any Chinese ship or vessel within the said limits, shall escape to, or be found within the Colony of Hong-Kong, it shall be lawful for the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said colony for the time being, or other Officer...\n\n21\n\nG\n\n87",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-044 - Public Offices - 1853.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 234665,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-046 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Bowring - 1854 [5-19／8]",
        "page_number": 77,
        "title": "CO129-046 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Bowring - 1854 [5-19／8]",
        "content_text": "74\n\nat the Criminal sessions, April 1854, of Robbery with Arms and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. It is remarked on the \"Criminal Calendar,\" \"punishment lenient from discrepancies may be believed on depositions and oral testimony\".\n\nIn this case the committing Magistrate and the principal Witnesses made several contradictory and irreconcilable statements in the Police Court. At the sessions they altered their statements in these particulars so that no discrepancies were apparent to the Jury: otherwise I do not believe that a verdict of guilty would have been returned, as it was not visible to the Acting Attorney General who drew the attention of the Acting Chief Justice to the matter.\n\n(Signed) Chas. May,\n\nActing Sheriff.\n\nConfidential\n\nOffg: Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-046 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Bowring - 1854 [5-19／8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 237986,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-054 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [1-2]",
        "page_number": 165,
        "title": "CO129-054 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [1-2]",
        "content_text": "opening the prosecution could fail,\n\nOL\n\nand he recommended that a Nolle prosequi should be entered on behalf of the Crown, on the ground that written warrant for the committal of Captain Michels had not been delivered to the Officer of the Court;\n\nand, during the \"prosecution, mention was made\n\nhaving communication on the subject\n\n巴\n\nwith Chief Justice Houline, I understand from him, that if the case were brought before him, he should decide that the prisoner Michels was not legally in custody, and the indictment for rescue was not good in law, and he countenanced\n\nthe suggestion that to enter a\n\nNolle prosequi should be the most satisfactory arrangement of the matter. I determined to direct\n\na Nolle prosequi, and I instructed the Colonial Secretary to intimate this conclusion to Mr. Keenan's Counsel.\n\nBut, in justice to the committing Magistrate, I must point out that the practice pursued in this case has been customary ever since the establishment of the Police Court, and that the Boat Building is in the same enclosure as the Yard, as will be seen from the enclosed N.1 plan, which I forward in order\n\nthat the circumstances of the case may be fully apparent.\n\nPage 160",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-054 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [1-2].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 239523,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 161,
        "title": "CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "reward (45) to each of these Chinese Crown witnesses in Mor Bell's case who had distinguished themselves by their prompt and successful exertion in pursuing, seizing\n\nAnd bringing to speedy justice the highway robber\n\nwho\n\nwas yesterday convicted\n\nof having taken that gentleman's\n\nwatch from his person\n\nin the instant.\n\non the\n\nThe Committing Magistrate Mr. May at whose suggestion I made the application informed\n\nme that it was very rarely\n\nthat Chinese will volunteer\n\ntheir services in aid\n\nof\n\nthe\n\npolice where the injured party\n\nis a\n\nEuropean and the criminal a Chinaman.\n\nIn cases of extraordinary\n\nmerit it is the practice at\n\nhome to make such orders:\n\nThe Chief Justice however\n\nhas laid down a rule\n\nnever to interfere but by\n\nrecommendation; and he\n\ntherefore refused my application,\n\nthat if it were\n\nmade to His Excellency,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 241301,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-062 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 326,
        "title": "CO129-062 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "324\n\n25\n\nAr\n\nDATE\n\nFRAM\n\nDara\n\n[NO. 6. FEBRUARY 10, 7\n\nMERCHANT VESSEL&-Continual.\n\nJune 29 117 Dent, Beale and Co\n\nJan. 12 962 Lindsay and Co\n\nJan. 29 2, Duus and Co Jan 19 7 W. Husband Co July 14 50 Watson, aud Co\n\n925 W. Pustau and Co\n\nSHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.\n\nARRIVED,\n\nThe Wongkong Register.\n\nMERCHANT VESSELS-Continued,\n\nSarre\n\nArrival\n\nDate of\n\nTime\n\nDate of\n\nCOMSJONKER\n\nSups\n\nArrivTOMA\n\nConsta\n\nNAMR\n\nFLAG\n\nPOSH CAPTAIN\n\nRio\n\nFRUM\n\nBAILED\n\nCanco\n\nCONTIGNER.\n\nFast Coast\n\nDuich\n\nShanghae British\n\n2. Christian\n\nglsamstra\n\n4 Auckland\n\nBercha\n\n4 Mazeppa\n\nAn\n\n8 Vecilia\n\n23 Archer\n\nHongkong Feb. Leon\n\nדן\n\nDut. 764 ric\n\nEarl of Windeer Brit. sh. 1000\n\nkrawa 3JArcher\n\nAm. sh.160\n\nagond\n\nTime & Truth Brit. bk 670 Dod\n\nAuckland\n\n$Queen Phangnze Jau. 23 Maria Hay\n\nAm. hk 204 Nelson\n\nBrisach. 140\n\nBolton Brit str. 103 Harris\n\nDrát, s 200 steary Dri sh. 924 Middleton Aan. a. 1280 Osgood\n\nBordcan Sept. 10\n\neucral Sonrabara Jan. 2 Rico Calcutta Nov. 23 Kiar Bombay Dec. 30 General Shanghae Jan. 30 Ballnat Melbourne Doe, 1 Ballast\n\nGeneral Formosa Feb. Nineus FP Sundries\n\nAmoy\n\nBrat Cess Peb\n\n2 Treasure\n\nGenerat Amoy Peb. Ballast Bingapore Jan. 28\n\nAmunition Singapurs Dec. 24\n\nilico Meller Sov. 26 Baline 3. Francisc\n\nDiana. sebouer\n\nJan.\n\n100 Schaefer and Co\n\nFr. Lk. 406 Oreg Hara, bg. 260 Bigcon\n\nOrdar\n\nWat.l'ostaw andCo Schaefer and Co Lindsay and Co Order\n\nHenrietta Maris, bq. Due. Pagan Zephyr, ba July Vrieadshop, chip jJune\n\nDanish\n\n581 Schaeffer anil Co Jady A. Duff, barque 952. W. LawrenogaĈo Lady Mary Wood, c. Dec. 700 F. W. Lawrence Co Laalmenntir, ship\n\nLoulan Baillte, ship\n\nKelso, ship\n\nJan. *: 589 Ladway and Ca\n\nNov.\n\n$ 3709, Kennedy and Co\n\n509.&O. 8. S. N. G\n\nJan.\n\n7 8529, Bawinan and Co\n\nAng. 24 49man, B. and Co\n\nOrder\n\nBre. bk. Suo Klamp\n\nFeb.\n\nBrits 674 Tage\n\nA. Catr. 945 Drought\n\n.M. Robinet & Cy Wu. Pastau and Co Jardine. M. and Co 1. Walker Jardine, and Co\n\nHaldur, sehooner Lootse, schooner\n\nHamburg\n\nNov.\n\n14: W. Pustau and Cu\n\nMary Wionholt, ship\n\nJa\n\n1205ardino, M. & Co\n\nJav.\n\n160 W. Tustau and Co\n\nNapoleon HI, abip\n\nDec\n\n760 Busaeil and Cu\n\nElizabeth Rose, brig Lima, barque Mathilde, brig\n\nOct\n\n123 Siemsson and Ca\n\nJune\n\n919John Bard and Co\n\nKau.\n\n202 Turner and Ca\n\nNina, schooner File, ship Nightingale, ship Parade, qua Palmyra, harjua\n\nNov.\n\n115 John Burd and Co\n\nDoe\n\n708 Jardino, M. and Co\n\nHee. 1404Jardine, M. and Co\n\nbraly\n\n62 Welters and Co\n\nNov. 28 708 Captain\n\nBadast\n\nAugier and Cu Jardino, J. & Co tugwell and Cu\n\nParagon, skip\n\nBremon\n\nAug.\n\n800 Order\n\nPelican, barque\n\n2. 144. C. Schwabe\n\nPluto, stenmer\n\nFelis, arqu\n\nJan,\n\nbeefyall, Stiil and Co\n\nPruth, ship\n\nSAILED.\n\nChilian Frolle, schooner\n\nRemi, atenmer\n\nJape\n\n166W.M.Robinet & Ve\n\nRolls, lig\n\nGreyhound, ship\n\nFeb.\n\n500W. Pustau and\n\nCedarsh Lacy, barque\n\nNAMS\n\nRo\n\nTexs\n\nCAPTAIN\n\nFor\n\nCono\n\nCONNORRST\n\nSwntow Britisk\n\nSamuel Studdart, bg, Salmatle, ship\n\nSept. 1 451 Dent, Beale at Co\n\nالواد\n\nSir James, bang\n\nDec.\n\n7 Lindsay and Co\n\nHongkong Feh. No\n\n3 Alligator\n\n3 Magallanes\n\n3 Nimrod\n\n4 Waroola\n\n3.Scipion\n\n8 Baria\n\n19 Crisis\n\n4P. Van Burco\n\nWild Wave\n\nBrit bg 200 Boyh Brit. bg 1078tudes Sp. str.\n\nBrit. sh. 820arg\n\nBrit. ah 54 Alien Brit, sch. 200 Cheyn\n\nLaughing Water Brit, hk. 404 Omut\n\n6 Montriant\n\nChampion\n\n7 Si James Brooke Brit. str. 973 Skioner\n\n7 Dygden\n\nSw. ab. 240 Patterson\n\n7 Anos Justina Dut. sb. 500 Budeaburg 7J. Godfrey\n\nAm. t 486jGrant\n\nAlfred the Great Brit ] 640 Melutyro Grayhoaud\n\nSwatow Jan. 20 Anais\n\nAmoy Dec. 29 Tariew Fuhchau Nov. 21 Queensbury\n\nDec 8Folmala\n\n15 Agnes Garland\n\nShanghae Jan. 198chiamer\n\n12 Prince Royal 19,Sallow\n\n15 White Swallow\n\n20 Kate Carnie\n\nFr. sh. 82|Carignac\n\nAna sch. 240 Gregory Brit sh. 680 Casaldy Belk all asrisulte Brit. bk. 265 Thompso old. bk. 550 Schwarz\n\nBrit. sh. 502 Hamilton\n\nBrit. sh. 1293 Tucker\n\nAm. sh. 1200 Brown\n\nBrit, h, 401 Black.\n\nSHIPPING IN CHINA.\n\nMERCHANT VISELS.\n\nLondon\n\nNew York\n\nSiam\n\nSundries\n\nOnder\n\nChina, whip\n\nApril\n\n300 Order\n\nSu R. Abercromby, si. Jan.\n\n743 Tammer and Co\n\nSheagha\n\nSundries\n\nGibb, L. and Co\n\nFazal Cerian, burqno Juue\n\n250 Order\n\nVindex, actioner\n\nJon.\n\n179 Dent and Ce\n\nBoern\n\nManila\n\nNantos, schoober\n\nAug.\n\n150 D, Laprak\n\nWhampoa, barque\n\nSept. 30\n\n378 Under\n\nWild Mower, ship\n\nfec.\n\nSingapore\n\nSandries\n\n175 Lindany and Co\n\nDent and Co\n\nTht. bk. 250 Yeaser\n\nButaris ¡Sundries\n\nWm. Pustan and Co\n\nAmey\n\nFrench\n\nSingapor\n\nSundries\n\nHolliday, Wise and Ce\n\nBritish\n\nCanton, ship\n\nDea\n\n435 Deal and Co\n\nMeltwuns\n\nSundries Jardine, M, and Ge\n\nAbbotsford, barquo\n\nNov.\n\n425 F. D. SyDia and Co\n\n| Montrlant, ship\n\nFab,\n\n917ent and Co\n\nAkyalı\n\nSp.bg\n\nMaulls Duran\n\nSundnes\n\nSundries\n\nhilpa, Moore and Co\n\nAnn Key, schoenen\n\nApril\n\n121 Tait and fa\n\nAmerican\n\nAntoinette, barque\n\nSøpt\n\nBrit. str. 850 Payley\n\nStangha\n\nSandrite ], & 28, N. Ca\n\nBlack River Packet, bq. April 19,\n\n219 Scharffor and Co 205 Order\n\nArgonaut, ship\n\nJa.\n\n586 King and Co\n\nFr. sh. 91 Brun\n\nStangha\n\nSundries\n\nDent and Co\n\nConfucina, ship\n\nNov.\n\nAm. sh. 360 Gray\n\nForth Seas\n\nSundries\n\nUrder\n\nColdstream, ship\n\nDee.\n\nSingaport\n\nSundries\n\nFletcher and Co\n\nChinchew, ship\n\nSept\n\nShaug\n\nBuutirios\n\nWzz. Pastau and Co\n\nRangoon\n\nSundries\n\nTurner and Ca\n\nEllen, barque\n\nOliver, bargce\n\nNos.\n\nPeb\n\nSan Fransisco Sundries\n\nOrder\n\nEmma, scheuer\n\n511 Holliday, Wise &Co 764adine, M. and Co\n\n785. D. Sype and Co\n\n226 Lya, Stil! and Co 688 Platcher and Co April 21; 120 Curner and Co\n\nMilam, ship Carrington, ship Channing, ship Competitor, siy Eagle, ekip\n\nEagle Wing, ship\n\nGolden Weat, ably\n\nB.\n\nDec.\n\n49% Raspell and Co\n\nNOF.\n\n100 aac M. Buli & Co\n\nJuly $556 King and Co\n\nNov, 101000 King and Co\n\n1174 Russell and Co\n\n1500 A. Heard and Co\n\nMelbourne\n\n¡Buodtles\n\nJamca StephoneNA\n\nEmigrant, baryas\n\nChi ah. 506/Smith\n\nBest Coun\n\nBundries Won. Pratâd and Ca\n\nEmily Annina, neh,\n\nAug. 19 Nov.\n\nOrder\n\nHenry Harback, ship\n\nNov. 16 740 Crampton, H. & Co\n\n165 Purlagjes & Co | Horsilo, ship\n\nNov. 18\n\ntall, Nya and Co\n\nHavant\n\nSuadrien\n\nOrder\n\nForerunner, schooner\n\nDea\n\n140 D. faprak\n\nMatilda, ship\n\nSingapor\n\nSandrica\n\nLondon\n\nTait and Co\n\nTena, &c. Heard and Co\n\nGom, brly\n\nJane\n\n254 Dent ausl Co\n\nMelita, schooner\n\nJuu. J\n\n689 Rosell and Co\n\n140 Kassell and Co\n\nHomer brig\n\nJals\n\n595 Order\n\nTeas, &c.\n\nLiverpool Teas, c. Cows, der Sundries\n\nJardino, M. and Co\n\nOrder\n\nMariner's Hope, brig\n\nApril\n\n250 Order\n\nNile, hrig\n\nJuas\n\nEid Angier and Ca\n\nRomances of Sons ship! Dos.\n\nEundou Teas, &c, Upadi\n\nWth. Paste and Lo Blenkin, R. and Co\n\nNymph, barqne\n\nDec.\n\n400 Liadeay and Ca\n\nNeptune's Favorite, sh. Det. 81846|A, Heard and Co Norwester, ship\n\nDanish\n\nDec. 101287 A. Heard and Co\n\n241782 Ruwell and Co\n\nPet, barque\n\nAag\n\n375 Under\n\nDanmark, arque\n\nTeas, c Tens, &c.\n\nGrampton, H. and Co\n\nRoyal Lily, barque\n\nApril 28\n\n404 Lunevil and Co\n\nGlucions, brig\n\nLiverpool\n\nBrit, sh. 580|Rodger\n\nToas, e Sundrios\n\nKingsport\n\nMERCHANT VKSELS—Continued.\n\nA. Heard and Dent, Beale and Ca Gilian and Co\n\nBisters, brig\n\nJune\n\n182 Tail sud Co\n\nDee 330 Sterosen and Co Fan. 14 268Siemssen and Co Nov\n\n360 Overweg aud to\n\nUncle Tom, schooner\n\nSept\n\nWood Lark,brig\n\nDet. 12\n\nto ruil, Still and Co\n\nUnder\n\nJan.\n\n188 W. Pustan and Co\n\nNoringaese\n\nJATH\n\n270 W. Pustau and Co\n\nAurora, schooner\n\nMay\n\n128 Order\n\n140 W. Puatau and Co\n\nPostum, steac\n\nJune\n\n236 Simen and Ca\n\nAmericum\n\nNov.\n\n210 Joan Burl and Co\n\nSAIZS\n\n!Data of Tou\n\nMorida, ship\n\nCONFIGNERS\n\nHelcus, ship\n\nNov. Junt\n\nDec.\n\n404 Squeer and Co\n\nโมน\n\n25 W. Postan and Co\n\nDate of Inors\n\nCommons\n\n{Arrival |\n\nSept.\n\n277W. Pustan and Co\n\nHongkong\n\nOct.\n\n340 Trautmann and Co\n\nAlmonde, banq\n\nAug.\n\n589Order\n\nJustina, barque\n\njAug\n\nMercurius, barque Fielades,\n\nJuly\n\nDec,\n\n230|Dreyer und Vo\n\nDen.\n\n225 Biomes and Co\n\nLygdon, shig\n\nHambary\n\nBonito, brig\n\n¡Nov,\n\n31 John Burd and Cal\n\nBuenos Ayua, brig\n\nDed.\n\n200 Dreger and Co\n\nChristinu, brig Puel, choomer\n\nApril\n\n170rder\n\nDew\n\n148 Jardine, M. and Co\n\nPeruvian\n\n250W.M. Robinet & Co\n\nAug.\n\n175W.M.Robinet & Co\n\nDeo.\n\n400 Order\n\nLug\n\n9 430 Order\n\nAourn Barrabout Butts.n\n\nJuly\n\n3240;der\n\nCalcutta\n\nNov.\n\n220. 1. Syaru and Co\n\ny 11 4168.0. Syme and Ce\n\nConn\n\nJuly\n\n325 King and Co\n\nAng, 25 500 King and Co\n\nAag, 10 985 Russell and Co\n\nFab\n\n216|W. Puetae and Co\n\nSabu\n\nAt Hongkong} British Anandale, ship And, steamer Anaye, ship Australia, chip Avon, Lacque Banner, schooner\n\nGaneber, barque Brothers, brig Caldera, ship\n\nCadiz, steamer\n\nArrival:\n\n8759 Lyall, Sul and Co J Feb. 5 163 Robert 9. Walker Jan. 13 878 Fletcher and Co Sept. 5 580 John Bardd and Co Sep. 39 280 Bus and Co Jan. 188ohn Burd and Co\n\nPet 485 Jardiue, St. and Co\n\nDec. 15 2400rder\n\nJan. 8 225 Order\n\nFeb, 13000 P. & 0.9. N. Cu\n\nCity of Carlisle, ships. 15 996Jardine, 3 and Cu\n\nClarendon, satp\n\nDeva, ship\n\nSinglet, sleemer\n\nEarl Grey, barque\n\nEarl of Windsor ship\n\nBena, brig\n\nBuranic ship Excellent, brig Falcon, ship Formosa, ship\n\nGleus, ahip\n\nGod Succe, sip\n\nHero, ship\n\nKensington ship\n\nLady Hayce, barque\n\nLaurick, brig\n\nLord Raglan. ship Tani, barque\n\nNarshall, Buhooner Maria Hay, ship Mazepps, schooner Pacifico, brig\n\nFeb. 1 850Jarding, M. and Co Jan. 18:1030 Russell and Co\n\nDoc 8 1888tomssen und Co Dec. 17 8737ardine, M.\n\nDiter\n\nAdmiral Zoutman, shipDec.\n\nAlbrecht Belling, bq.Nov.\n\nG. G. D. Von Twist, hq,fian. Oct. 10 300W. Postau and Coatic Liong, bargus ne Jaa. 18 3685iomsten and Co Nov. 28, 8438,Senseffer and Co\n\nAnon Elizabet,bą. Chriatias, leque General de Stiles, hop. Jan. 2 798|Under Hollandetrow, hargas Jacot. Lima, barke Jacoba Cornella, pq. Klazina, darus\n\nOosterling, harg Proteos, barque Regina, arqu Sumatra, aliip Danish\n\nSept. 10 799 chaster and Co OL 32 800 Schaeffer and Cu Feb. 192chaser and Co Jan. 17 charler and Co Dee. 13 363 Van der Haven Jan 18 443ucer and Co Jan. 473 W. Punta and Co Feb. 278445obacter and Co\n\nMay 10 Siemmen and\n\nIfercuian, brig Helena\n\nJau. 31\n\nCo\n\nHanbury\n\nAar, ship\n\nAlbin, schooner Christian, belg\n\nDec. y Nov. 16 Feb.\n\n260\n\nFab 21 Lindas and Co\n\nJan. 26) 207 Camajce and Co\n\nDec. 26 728 Order\n\nNov. 385 Lyail, Still and Co\n\nSept. 26 430Jardine, M. & Lin\n\nJan. 14 406 Order\n\nLau. 16 784. Murray and Co\n\nNov. 600 Jardine, M. & Co\n\nJan. 1 404 Lindsey and Co\n\nJan. 13 scoileder\n\n0 15 848 Geo. Duddell\n\nJan. 27 28Ajardine, M. and Co\n\nDec. 17 766 Jardine, M. & Cn\n\nJan. 12 274 Dent and Co\n\nDet.\n\n8 1988. K. Burrow\n\nJan. 31 994 Janline, M. and Co\n\nFeh. 4140anline, M. & Co Oct. 14] 146Deo. Dúddell T'aranverance, Largna Sept. 18 2Turner and Ca Princess Reval, supDec, 28; 900 Dent aud Co\n\n(Doc. 25 781onser\n\nQueen, brig Samarang, banque\n\nApoctly, ship\n\nFeb. 8 ĐuôiAngier and Ca\n\nDes. 25 5801Dent and Co\n\nJau 241031 Jamaa Stephenson\n\nSpirit of the North, ah. Kov, 11) 671jtibb, L. and Co Sultans, barque Oct 10 588schaeffer and e\n\nTime & Truth, bargde Teh. 3 578 Orlar\n\nUnion, leamer\n\nTruro, ship\n\nFenilia, ship\n\nVirginia alip\n\nVivid, brig\n\nWater Witch, barque\n\nWild Daynell, ach. Zephyr, schooner\n\nFrench\n\nEtoile, ship\n\nIndia, barqu\n\nLeon, harqua\n\nMaarl, ship\n\nSucces, ship\n\nVille de Dieppe, barque\n\nAnter\n\nAntonita, schwoner Antelope, T Archer, whip Auckland, barque\n\nBurnham, barque\n\nCarbon, shooner\n\nJan. 24 695 Order\n\nAng. 16 786 Thon. Husband Co Feb. 8 674 Jardine, Al, sad Co June 18 830 Lyall, Still and Cộ Nov. 8 143ardine. M. & Co Jau. 15 253 D. Lapaik\n\nJan. 156 Deat and Co\n\nJun. 31 148Dcut and Co\n\nJan. 24 539 Order\n\nfan. 18 615 Dent and Co\n\nFalk 2405,Order\n\nJan 24 156 Russell and Co\n\nNov. 14mier\n\nno. 221014 gail, Sul and Co\n\nDec. 3 112Order\n\nJan. 24200 Kussell and Co\n\nTeb. 31460 Roswell and Co\n\nFeb. 209.M.Robinet & Co\n\nOct. 28 245 W. Pulau and Co\n\nDue 26 300 K. Crashy\n\nCW. Bradley, j, bq. Oct. 9 218 A. Heard and Co\n\nDon Quixote, ship\n\nKtement, ship\n\nEureka, ship\n\nFrancis P. Sage, ship\n\n• Garland, schooner\n\nHelgu Mar, bergun\n\nJanes Marshall, big Kate Hooper, shig Mary Whitridge, ship\n\nMatcor, ekip\n\nMiana, schooner\n\nMin, geamur\n\nMonsoon, ship\n\nNorth Wind, ship\n\nN. B. Palmer, Jip\n\nDen 91438 King and Co\n\nJAN 33 400A. Heard and Co\n\nNov. 51100A. Heard and Co\n\nNov, 191146 Jardine, M. & Co\n\nJan. 151138. R. Barrows\n\nDec. 26 560 Order\n\nJan. 16 1865. K. Darrows\n\nDec, 281488 Jne. Stephenson\n\nNov. 27 978 Kuseli aud Co\n\nao. 201088, Heard and Co May 306Order\n\nJ. 14 101 Bu-sell and Co\n\nJane 28 506 Thomas Hunt &Co Oct.\n\n81041 Jaa. Purdon and Co\n\nDec. 1400 Russell and Co\n\nQueen of the Seas, spec. 17185Rll and Co\n\nRacebound\n\nRealute, ship\n\nShane Draper, sch.\n\nSportsman, shiy\n\nStar King, sly\n\nTuskina, ship\n\nYoung America, wip\n\nAug. 28 580. E. Barrows\n\nSept. 25 801 Russell and Ca\n\nHai, 26 206 A. Heard and Co\n\nNov. 20 626 Unter\n\nDec. 14177nder\n\nSept. 342 Y. J. Murrow\n\nSept 202000. Heard and Co\n\nMeteos, ship\n\nPeruvian\n\nAndreas, orig Architect, ship Carica, arqua L'allau, barque\n\nSantiago, banne Ugarte y Santiage,\n\nSMAR\n\nNoortol, banque\n\nSan Juan, barquə\n\nhq.\n\nSiamese Crow, stalp\n\nSintoy, schooner\n\nSpar\n\nDenia, schooner Bremen\n\nBertha, barque\n\nC. Metabets, you Solon, hanger\n\nChition\n\nAllanza, barque Spray, schooner\n\nNess Crans dinn Annie, barque\n\nMacao British\n\nW. Pustan and Co\n\n510 W. Puszu and Co\n\nJohn Bard sad Co Wm.Fustat and Co Jan. 15 540 die aussen end to\n\nTait and C\n\nNov. 16\n\nNov. 12 540. M. Rabinet& Co\n\nDar. 28 3505. J. das Remedios\n\nTall, 231 218 and\n\nJ.\n\nAcmel, brig Chico, brig\n\nClarita, brig Cara, skip\n\nkesits toge\n\nSiamese\n\nSea Horse, hocqus\n\nSiam, que\n\nSpanish\n\nSan Lorenzo, brig\n\nSeraphina, ship\n\nFubebau\n\nDritish\n\nCo\n\nMaste, bri\n\nDee & 9p. dos Remedios\n\nJan. 195. Robinet & Co\n\nSept. 15j 200 Order\n\nNav. 19 160 Order\n\nDee, 15 300inder\n\nAug. 26 250 under\n\nNov. Zayall, Still and Co\n\n1400W. Duxted and Co\n\nJan. 24 4702. S. Walker\n\nDet. 22 48fuhn Bond and Co Jan. 29 270/Onder\n\nDec. 220W.M. Robines & Co\n\nJuly 1307 Edward and Bailey\n\nJehn Macthic, ekip Feb. Rochampton, shijs Ang\n\nPortugues\n\nMetasje, barque\n\nNew Era, khij\n\nGaiden Raer, ship\n\nKingfisher, ship\n\nMandarin, ship\n\nSamuel Ronsell, ship\n\nSarah H. Snow, Ivy, Vancouver, ship\n\nHambog\n\nAtlas, barne\n\nSa Dent, Beate and Co\n\n289 fyn, Stilt end Co\n\n597 1..Robinct & Co\n\nTou Scimeter and Co 1543chaetler and Co 478sohaefer and Co 2448. D. Syme and Go 237 Adam Scott 190Schelfer and Co 424\n\n10. Nathabloy & Co\n\nOtto, barque\n\nVirginie, brig\n\nHamburg\n\nEsperanza, harqne Hannibal, schooner\n\n| fverbrook, brig\n\nLima, barque\n\nMary Boar, ship Pathfinder, barque Senatur, barque Pramin Amerika, belg\n\nSiamete\n\nBangkok Mark, ship Golffinder, baqme Sueroan, ship\n\nSparsh\n\nSanta Lucts, banque\n\nSwedish\n\nNov. 181296 Moncreiff, G. & Co Dea ¡Dec.\n\nBRITISH SHIPS OF WAR IN CHINA.\n\nمات قلات کا\n\nCLASS\n\nAv\n\nCanton Stoop\n\ni,kong !. W. Str. JiLong Sloop\n\nILong Flag Ship\n\nCanton loop\n\nCuroaandel Canton P. W. Br. Vatcounter anto\n\nHoteles\n\nHornet\n\nMam\n\n! Nakist\n\nNiger\n\n632 Dent, Dotle stud Co Elk\n\n600 John Herd and Go | Fary\n\nser. St. (kang Hospital Canto Ber. Sw. H.kongoro Ship\n\nFrigate\n\nPanton Bar Sta\n\nCOHKANDERS.\n\n12A, W. A. Haud\n\n8T. D. A. Fortescu 12 Licut. Beamish\n\n(lour Ad.\n\nCapt. W. K. Hall\n\n14. Jenkins 35 Doorglas HG.W.D.O'Callaghan\n\n17 C. C. Forsyth\n\nH. T. Fla, Muater\n\n60 H Keith Stewart 19H, A. A. Cochrane 408FW.F. Nicolson\n\n14. Barnard\n\n49. 9. Hand\n\n40 Cdre. m, Ú. Elliot\n\nBRITISH SHIPS OF WAR EXPECTED.\n\nCONDEAND\n\n.ALEN\n\nÜs..\n\nENGLAND\n\nza Frigate\n\nRav.\n\nW. 7. Bate\n\n11. Macendie. Str,\n\nKit Boater, 26\n\n11\n\n136A. Hearl wait Co\n\nNov.\n\n9191ent and Co\n\nPastalcon, brig\n\nNov.\n\n200 Cantujee and Co\n\nPique\n\nSgus Frigars\n\nKol: Small, ship\n\nAug. 29\n\n663 Gibu, L. and Co\n\nKenos\n\nPibehta Bloop\n\nRempaon\n\nAmor P. W. Str.\n\nAmerican\n\nAnnie Buoknax, 1.\n\nSept.\n\n530 Russell and C\n\nSybille\n\nHogue Frigate\n\nMay 16\n\n800 Russell and Co\n\nAug.\n\n1288ardine, M. and Co\n\nJune\n\n78. lead and Oə\n\n¿Mag\n\n94 Russell and Co\n\nDo.\n\n420|Klug and Go\n\nJune\n\n518 Bus and Co\n\nOut\n\n420John Burd and Co\n\nWienu, Larque\n\nJuct.\n\n490Biomes ami Us\n\nActoun\n\nAlseri\n\nNingpo British\n\nCullou\n\nCamila\n\nkt. T. Calville\n\nSlop\n\nCruizer\n\n17 ber. Str. Sept. 25\n\nCarnulle. ship Lyra, Belovner\n\n15. Hot\n\n120 Lindy and Co Forestr\n\nA. J. Innes\n\nidun Beat Sept. 20\n\nSolon, barane\n\n6\n\n560 Turner and Uo 469 A.A.de Mello & Co\n\naughty\n\nGan Beat Sept 25\n\nWilminginn, schooner Feb.\n\n196 Bell and Co\n\nHüchilyor\n\nInflexibla\n\nr. Vorhert\n\nAL\n\nOsprey\n\nAlbert Edward, ship\n\nBritisk\n\nang.\n\n497. Bowman and Coh\n\nNov,\n\nAliyals, ship\n\nNov. 20 1247 Biriey, W, and Co\n\nStaunch\n\n1. Wildonan\n\nAlchemist, ship\n\nDe\n\n914 Turner and Co.\n\nStarling\n\nA. 1 Villiers\n\njun Boat Sept. 25 Gun Boat Ool. 23\n\nAlligator, brig\n\nb.\n\n19710166, Land Co\n\nAugusts, ship\n\nNov. 23 372 Lindmy and Go\n\nBallarat, ship\n\nNov.\n\n719 Dent ad Co\n\nChallenger, barque\n\nSeph\n\n175 Turner and Co\n\nChieftain, barque\n\nJan.\n\n20John Burd and Co\n\nCo..lucius, ship\n\nThee.\n\n400 Holliday, Wine & Co\n\nVESSEL\n\nAr\n\nFLAQ\n\nCOMMANDERL\n\nDec. 19\n\nJune 15 566 Turner and Lo\n\nJan.\n\n127 William I. and Co\n\nCetinnt\n\nHongkong Fr. Str.\n\nSur Are\n\nL'et\n\n8501 & 0.2. F. Co\n\nSupt. 10 240 Jardine, M. and Co\n\nVirginie\n\nHongkong Fr. Frig\n\nCape, Plan\n\nForest Queen, ship\n\nNov.\n\n839 W.H. Wardley Co\n\nLevant\n\n18 Smith\n\nPortsmouth\n\nEassio Manens, barq. May 25 297 Jou d'Abreide Waris Carlota, Iryusi Jan. $30 J. J. don Rmuelion Slavina, banque\n\nTremelga, barqua\n\nFreach\n\n13ane 211 1705. 3. dos Ramedice\n\nSept.\n\nPort de Bordeaux, ship Oct.\n\nAmerican\n\nLorisiana, barq\n\nDeich\n\nBerena, rig\n\nDoggershank, skip\n\n3751 inday and Co\n\n816Dent and Co\n\nShanghae\n\n249W.M. Robinet &Co Arrow, ship\n\n237W. Pustuu and Co\n\nApril 22\n\nOct.\n\nDet\n\nBebehneller and Co\n\nEverdina izabeth, og Jan\n\n600 Schneer and Co\n\nDee,\n\n189 Schaefer and Co\n\nFra\n\n753 Order\n\nJuct.\n\n530 Schaeffer and Co\n\nJAR.\n\nSt. Heleon, brig\n\nTonia, ship\n\nVrow Jobunag\n\nHamburg\n\nLaura & Fonis, big,\n\nKose, brig\n\nWillewina, brig\n\nPeruvian\n\nGrimeness, chip\n\n243jDrayer and Co\n\nJuly 14, 1769. M. Burrows\n\nJuly\n\n224 Schaeffer and Co\n\nOct. 15: 50 Order\n\nCrystal Palace, ship\n\nKila Jane, barque\n\nElizabeth, brig\n\nHein, steamer\n\nFazli Corrim, barque\n\nFrances, ship\n\nGazelle, schooner\n\nGeelong, barque\n\nDec. 125 Birley. W. and Co\n\nWaton and Co\n\nMay 30 302 Tail and Co\n\nJan 15 212 Hooper\n\nAug. 11 3420ma, B. and Ca 651 gal. Stiti and Co\n\nMaria Natividad ship Sept. 18 610w.. Robins & Co General Windham, ship.\n\nEast Coast British\n\nChin Chin, harque Eamont, schonbur Gazelle, schoenor\n\nHazard, schooner\n\nHelen, brig\n\nion.\n\n316 Camajarse Co\n\nJan.\n\n121 Dent and Co\n\nGulnare, ship Hellespont, steamer Tuchinnan, arque Just\n\nBat, ship\n\nApril\n\n15Jardine, M. And Co\n\nJuly\n\n144 Y. J. Mucrow\n\nJan.\n\n180Turner and Co\n\nHydronce, ship\n\nJane\n\n137 Carlowitz and Co\n\nMalacca, barque\n\nAug\n\n089 Carlowitz and Co\n\nPearl, schooner\n\niJuly\n\nW.M. Reniunt & Lo\n\nTrumpu. schooner\n\nMay\n\n300jD. Laprak\n\nAntican\n\nDerby, ship\n\nJuly\n\n1098A. Heard sad Co\n\nProgressive Age, brig\n\nNov\n\n296A. Heard and Co\n\nRinglorier, ship\n\nMay\n\n2156 A, Heard and Co\n\nSancho Pans, ship\n\nSept\n\n875 Russell and Co\n\nWitw, la ver\n\nUst\n\n$10Kinder\n\nFra 2002 Hargreaves and Co\n\nJan. 886Fadine. M. and Co Sept. 1 265 Deus, Buaie y Co Dec. 241 8201Birley, W. and Co\n\nC. Reilowas\n\nJ.F.C.Hanitou 12 loop\n\nC. T. Lackie\n\nA. V. Hamilto\n\nC.F.A,Shadwell 21 Ser. Str.\n\nC Campbell\n\n6 P. W. Str. Oct, 25\n\n(Gan Bost\n\n21. J. Bomalieid 4 Ser. Str.\n\nKith Stewart !\n\nGu Buat\n\nHos, H.Keppel 60 Frigata\n\nFOREIGN MIPS OF WAR IN CHINA.\n\nSan Jacinto\n\nHongrong U. &. SI.\n\nStaigas U. S. Sh.\n\nFR-A. Guerla\n\n16 Fonta\n\nƒ m. A POOR Capt. Bell\n\nHongkong U. S. Sir.\n\nMandura\n\nMacao\n\nFort. Reig.\n\n90 Com. Tavara\n\nAmazona\n\nB+\n\nPurt.lorsha 6 Earnichs\n\nJorge Just\n\ndu.\n\nSelpion\n\ndr.\n\nSp. Ser.\n\nBg.\n\n4Brinnes\n\nAnies Ba\n\n14 Duran\n\nHongkongora Sv. 20 Capt, Boturin\n\nTERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION to the HONGRONG REGISTER and OVERLAND REGISTER AND PRICE CURRENT-For One Year, $25; 9 Months, $13; Three Mouths, $8. To the HONGKONG REGISTER For One Year, $15, Six Months, $2, Three Months, $5. To the OVERLAND RE- OISTER AND PRICE CURRENT' alone:--For One Year, $3; all payable in advanUSB, TERMS OF ADVERTISEMENT in the HONGKONG REGISTER-Advertscments, not exceeding 5 lines,\n\nesch insertion, $1; cach additional line 20 conts; une balf of these charges for Repetitions AGENTS for the HONGKONG REGISTER and GVERLAND REGISTER AND PRICE GUERENT J. G. APIHOur, Rey, London, Mars, Jant, steak & Co, Cricuta: Mesars. Binaton & Co. Bombay W. S. Donos, Faq., Singapore, Messrs. Thorson, Ronkers & Ur, Batavia, J. P. Pzabek, Boy. San Francisco.\n\nEdited, Printed, and Published by ROBERT STRACHAN, at the Hongkung Register Ofice: Gage Street\n\nVictoria, Hongkong. Tuesday, February 10, 1857.\n\nThe China Mail Extra.\n\nHONGKONG, SATURDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY, 1857.\n\n“Chino Muit\" Office, Feb. 7, 1857- thon to the unsatisfactory state of his toast, my wife remarked she felt giddy and sick, him; he pretended to be overlooking the business the investigation as Superintendent of Police, the A man can overlook his business while walking affair being then eurelaped in mystery; and I imagine\n\nThe Criminal Sessions of the Supreme fairs, which had be shewn to be the We let the room after 3, she immediately felt sick\n\nshop\n\nthat the first instanco Mr Mercer acted as Culo- Court the most exciting that have occur reverse of is a fouriebing condition, his and smiled, I thought nothing of it at the time, but about the e\n\nwalked was to the verandah to light a chemot, when Aaxx, cock to The Herland,On the 15th January, eial decrewry-in fact it was an investigation into rel since the settlement of the colony-debts to one firm alone amounting to nearly in the wor af gtating the elgar I suddenly felt sick\n\nthe morning, got bread from the Esing shoes don't the case genotally. I usually, in cases requiring commenced on Thursday, and closed last $15,000. He spoke of the temptation and vomited. Thinking no more about it, I went know the peron-thes was generally brings it, he particular forestigation, maka peliminary acquiry sight. The case of most interest-the bold out to Alum, of averting the pantah in my hair to the Folke Hospital, but when Tranches is not one of the prisoners; this was about half-past 7- before sending them up to the Magistrate. It was trial of Cheong Alum and nine others, on ment with which he had been threatened the entraner leading up to the fif, I was again sick; \n\nAtoy, coolie to be Hachand, Saw Esing's people not my original intention to make a magisterial and when I got clues to St Paul's College, was age\n\nmyrassine's house on the marning of investigation in the present instance; I merely aga.a bring bread a charge of dilempt to poison-lasted fee by the mandarins, by the commission was aide off and on, up to a quarter to 10. the 15th January; they are not among the priscoera. wished to yet an insight into the case as Superit daye, and ended in a verdict of Not guilty, would be considered a highly meritoriona was sick 19 or vlock that night. Next habit of getting bread from the Esing shop the was a very singalar case, I propound we should sit of an atrocious crime, but yet ar net which The romiting was very violent. Mrs Dengr W. A. HARLAND, M.,Was I believe, in the tundent of Police. but her two hours or so, as it\n\nto 1.\n\ntime.\n\nars from that shog-down to the morning of the 16th as Magistrate, and we then commented to take do We are sorry we are unable to give the one by the Chinese authorities, deserving day I tapponed to enter the Police Office, where en eloquent addresace of the Counsel on buth of commendation and reward, instead of vision was going forward, and promised then fancy inclusive I are a mail piece of the bread paltional,\n\nto send some of the bread to Dr Harland for analy. that morning, Dr Chaldecott and Dr Hat.ca alo Next, bo\n\nSANDWITH DAINKED-Am in business in the sides, but must content ourselves with the punishment, at their harde. \n\nzation; did that night. [Cross-conmiasi by partook of it. About an hour afterwards fe faint sity, and live in the wee house with Captain Endi- De Brive,I did not take the bread myself to Dr and aíck, and incised to veuit, and within a few mere heads of the points dwolt upon; and referred to the departure of Alam and \n\nnott Faing enpplicà me with bread on the 15th minutes ufteur wande vomited slightly, and fole a pain January-I partook of the bread and was very ill- even these, we fear, will prove very io his father from the colony on the very Herland. I know caly the Sih prisoner (Alum) na \n\nworning the criminal set was wusumnat belong ag to the Eving shop. I kept the balled the Beach. I then took an emotis, which made at the inmates of the house whe ate of the bread perfect. \n\nup in my own room until I sent it to Dr Harland.me veil a bitła man, and for a little time alter felt ed; and commented strongly on the suspi \n\nwere Hi-I have not perfectly recovered up to this Of the opening speech by the Hųn. T. \n\nIn consequence cf my laers, I delivered the cious manner in which this was managed. By the ATTORNEY Uraat.]-Don't know the 10thy, but shortly afterwards was able to attend to \n\nprisoner, never mw him before at all. sent the same people who can to she house sick. About to remainder of the breast Mr May at the Ptice lice C. Anstey, the Attorney General, wo \n\nWith regard to the sickness of his family \n\nbread a ten minutes past to Dr Harland, by a hours afterwards the pain in the stomach returned, this was on the evening of the 16th-Dr Badland have no notes whatever. He dwelt, how on board the steamer-this was easily and coalie named Attal. \n\nbut I could not vomit. I bai diethms during the I think was presos 1 lave had many dealings with ever, on the atrociousness of the attempt naturally to be imputed to sea-sickness; ATIAL METAL to Dr Dempeter--On the 16th night, and next day a violent headache, wakacss of the Esing abug in the bakery business -I know the made upon the community, and the utter for there were no proofs of them aftor January, escried a paper parcel from Dr Dampster to the jibs, and xansea, Dr Iamos got sick sooner 9th and 10th prisoners to belong to the duche than I did; but I did ont see him, as he had gone 10th I are always understood to be the father of Faing impossibility in such cases of producing sufferings which the medical evidence had Dr Harland, Do not know what was in it, but ir \n\nwas given me by my master. \n\nca Dr Chaldecots, hearing of people being sick, Alum), he was always in the shop, and when the direct testimony against the parties accus- abawo were the invariable effects of argo- ACHING, servant to Dr Dempster-om the 15th took an emetic, as he had ate more bread than any was cut of the sloop, I have left by neders with him od. The evidence in this, as in avery nic, and under which the foreigner who January, received rome bread at may master's day of on Before I had filed breakfast, a Parsee ger Orn about the 24 ur 3d of January, our he made similar case, tour therefore be entirely cir- had partaken of the bread in the present from two men from Esing; they are not at the bar. teman aliud. 20 mil the inam of his house were a contract with Alura fura supply of breuis for the cumstantial; but he would adduce sich a \n\nThis was about 7 wack gars the bend to my sick, and blamed the bread as being the cause of it; I Russian curvest On the Mih I went over to the instance had laboured. He also spoke of \n\nmaaler to estipul it up the breakfast table. \n\nlef my breakfast to go and see them, and it was on \n\nEwing how to apeak to Alure about the contract, Oa TARRANT, Editor of the Friend of my return I first felt sick myself. Both Dr Chalecoss the morning of the 13th, the shop bep called our art jury, as he felt assured must to a certainty and Agent of the steamer to retura to the N indelibly the stain of crime apon the Hongkong that night, as a ruse on his my bread from the Haing shop, dawn to the 13 several days séta, attending to people who were black lettres out in frens of his door sunt him user prisonem at the bar, and draw forth au \n\npart, when be found his hopes of escape January, inclusiva-row the 1st, 3d, and the staffering from eating the bread; the Parses had to ascertain its pats, and in consequent of what unanimona verdict of guilty. \n\nthe boy told us, I had the conversation with hiari on frustrated, and that the poison had not had and 10th prisoners to belong to the shop-the 1st taken only band and a cup of tea-they had all been \n\nI believe to be general assistant and Collector of sick, I adviced them to take emetica. Some of thus the 14th. I teid hum the boy haul informed us that Dr Bridges comarcal his defence by the fatal effets intended had his efforts balls; the 3d I have known in two capaction in con- we axtended effured much more everely than schare the chop said he intended to leave the iny, and remarking that, the case was remark succeeded, the result would have been nection with Exing shop, the inst was as breme-de-bes all had similar syroptatns. From the symptotes wished to sell out. He admitted the chup did say ablo from the atrocity of the attempted another frightful tragedy like that of the liverer; the 9th believe to be the head of the in my own case, and of others who came to be. I felt but said that it was not his intention to leave, but he crime; admitting most fully that there had unfortunate Thistle. He noted the contra- Eing the 19th is I believe the father he ais? i ere what arannic had been administered in the bread, Lad put out the notice for the purpose of deceiving be an attempt to destroy the community dictious in Alam's statements about the have knows in two capacities—one as general assist- I haght down a piece of bread from the Parets, and the Mandarine, who had been traping him a great ant of the Taing shop I have ren bien, 2 ay may kept the remnant of our own. I had alan overal deal told him that would not antinfy one had by poison, but denying that the guilt of poison to the various witnesses and frequently. I saw the 1st prisver five or air day specimens, from Dr Dempster, Captain Paints, and deceived me in a former contract, and I would not yest such an attempt was in any way hrought finally wound up with a confident aanr-before the 15th, ou my ectering my printing offit, othere, and two savea from Mr GrandPre, which he unsil I saw that the bieenit was in the drying lots - bone to the prisoners at the bar. Extra- ance on his part of a verdict against all the he was sitting there, and presentat me a hill from hia took from the Eving shop and gare ints my uwa he most go with me and show in that the bread wa ordinary, be said, bad been the display of prisoners. \n\nsaster. I told him I was then rather busy, and sa bas.d. Ir Deropster's and Captain Endicott's I re- there. Its went with me in my boat to the bakery the mercy and goodness of God, in not a His Lordship the Chief Justice then the bill was not recripted, if he would leave it with ceived on the tin. So let the first alarm, I in the Ila-wen, and on the page down we had a me, I would Inok at it and have it settled. He then endeavoured to ascertain in a busty way what was in conversation on various matters. I had him if he single instance of death having cocurred addressed the jury,-directing them to said in master intended to have the colony-replied the bread, and Ur Bradford curing in, be and I from the attempt. He sormented strongly card from their wouls everything they in rather an impartiment way, and marle a motion to \n\nad bi kamily in Hongkong? La replied he had. I satisfied ourselves it was anovic... Néxt day, at the sard, having his fatally bore, he had better remén on the singularity of the course adopted might have rend or heard about the case it down again and not to go away until he got paid. request of the Colonial Secretary, we made s moral the end of the war no one could supply to by goveraronut in departing from the ordi- nut-of-doors, and to couline theneelves Seeing he was disposed to be saucy, I took him by the crest analysis of each piece of bread separately, cuit so walk-te would make a good thing of it, and nary course of conducting criminal inves outinely to the evidence. As regarded nine coline, said he and his master might go to the devil if and found they all indicated the presence of arsenin. Le protected. He said it was not his wish to go, but they phased, and told him to go ont. The Ed prisoner 1 The analysis for Ascoctaining the yountity tank he had heen threatent, and there were at that time tigations, and still more strongly on the of the prisoners, the jury would probably have a good way times, but the seas. 1 up place entaequently, and we found that one pasad 88 Mandarins in Hongkong in disguise. I told mode in which the Attorney General had agree with him in thinking the evidence pore you (the Alterary General) referto, was eu an in- loaf of bread contained nearly a drms of armenia, B0 \n\nbim if he world report them to the police office, bo conducted the cause, by displaying personal against them was very slight, amounting quest on the 38 January, upon a body that was found grains to the diant commit while arsenic. The \n\nwould be protected. His answer was, that on bis animosity against the prisoners, and making indeed solely to their connection with the board the Thiste, on which occasion be described br I ate was brown, the uther specimens were arrival at the bakery, he would convince me that he \n\nwhite-both kinda contained ausanie; much been the quotatione from trial which had taken Esing Bakery. With respect to Alura, bebimself as Parare Mate on card the steamer, To \n\nhad a large amount of property at stake-that it was the best of my knowledge und belief, the 9th prisoner ivai contined aufficient cause deart. I also, on not bis desire to leave, and a thought he would take place in the worst periode of English ori-was alewn to have been at the bakery on the (Am) was the charterer of the steamer at the time the alterion of the 15th, had two jars brought me my advice and reusia. When we tired at the minal law; and lastly, wornarked on the afternoon of the 14th January, when tho she was destroyed. In consegaenen of the way the d by a pokocurau-one containing yet used on the bakery, the people appeared to be mixing water and pancity of the evidence brought forward dongh was making; and if the jury thought prisoner gave his evidence at the inquest, I objected to night of the lash, the other the materials for making dough in dimus ms in the plass. After visiting for the proscention-which, he said, ovea that he mixed the arsenie with the bread, is bringing bad es my bowo objected on the yat, together with me foar and some pastry from \n\nthe drying room, and when leaving the bakehouse, 15th January between Gand? in the morning, when if there had been to defenes to offer, would or ordered it to be so toixed, tuy weak aw him delving it. A man war with bin ear \n\nthe bakery-pasta scraped from the table, and some \n\nexported Alum would go back with me, and offered pastry in tin moulds, I found no trace of arsenic or him a passage in the heat, but he said he bad some net buvo warranted a conviction on the \n\nfind him guilty; or if they were of opinion rying cau basketa-prisoner took the bread out of other meallic poi in any of the materials. The business to attend to, and would walk bot part of the jury. Ha divided the evi- that he consulted with the forumon Alun the Easkew and put them into my base. I said to analysia was fade in the presenes of Dra Bradford, was between 3 and 4 in the aftermon. They dence for the prosecution into three classes and Atmoi on the subject, Le would be him \"Da my ine fellow, you deliver cay bread, ús Kenky, Watson, and Elspeter. \n\nwere mixing our and water in two ho 1st, those especially connected with the accessory before the fact; but if they were \n\nyou \"He made no response, but yard a kind of A. HAND-PRE, Assistaus Superintendant of Police, showed me a room he said was the brand bakery, gistrod outside the door, saw the bread handed Hava baard D: Harland's evidence-i tak lie fact of the poisoning; 2dly, them wit- \n\nnot perfectly assured in their own minds of in, and immediately after went in and ordered my board to him from the Eaing shop on the morning of supplied 400 families with bread this was told re and they were mixing duugh theve te told me ha nesses who detailet facts connected with Aluni's connection with, and cognizance Comprador to anale Raing's bill, and not to take any the 16th--was promet at the Cowai Station, whey, by him in evidence of the husless he was doing, and Alom before his departure; adly, the of, the attempt to poison, they would return more bread from him, as I was afraid he would the yeast and others things found in the bakery bis eonarquent disinclination to leave. day statement class who described his conduct on board a verdict of acquittal. His Lordship after-puss \n\nI and a servant girl partusck of the were sent to De Harland Tent thera. (Oroei- made by him that be bad sold his business to me la false. the steamer and on the way to Macao. wards, in reading over the evidence, called bread that morning she ate a little left on my plate. questioned by Dr Batmaks.]—I was acquainted with I was asked by MeMncow, anice my first examination, All that evidence he examined in detail; the attention of the jury to the facts of pent to my room, and there folt a sensation of flatu shop on the Queen's Road, and the bakery at the About five minutes alcer leaving the breakfast table, the Esing abop perious to this affair-1 know the then stated what evidence be intended to Alo's own furally being sick from par-toucy-sit1 had been eating wow at first wok Seng Gardens be the plows from which the bring forward in defence; and wound up taking of the bread, and to his offera of to notice of is, but eat down on my chair, looking at trend is carried to the shop there was formerly a with 3 general comparison of the whole 450 and $100 to Captain Xavier to return me papers, as the boy handed them to the the papers bakery about two years ago-attanited in the shop in the 19th, when the evidence I gave was rond over to evidence, and a confident averment of his to Hongkong that night, as rims facin were for the Yoss-offe, and the hot was landing the Queen's Road. The distance betwixt the shop him, he wished me to think if he had aut said he bound three up to as team tho ilone, when I suddenly bohat the jury would acquit all the proofs of his inuocance; but the jury vomited over him. Shortly afterwards two friends \n\nand Jokery in shout one mails. I was nogcainted bean aid there were 59 mandarina I call the place with Alnu, the 9th prisoner, before the 15th-have Queen's Roud the shop; I never wow the th Poy the charge, as affecting the nino consider them merely as clever ruses on called, and I told them I was sick-they said a great soon his very clices; he was always said to be the prisoner in the bakery. The contest was for 27,000 apuially, depending altogether upon their the part of a guilty man is dread of us many people were sick-I said I might be poised, master of the Eng shop. I don't know if he had anyar 28,000b of biscuit the bargain wet in writing. employment by Alam. \n\npision, and if so, would treat them ac- and had better take an omeric, and got up to get on, parts he was reputed sole owner. There were a hot made with Alur personally. I never made a but again vomited violently for about ten minutes good aber arrested on account of the affair contract with the 10th prisoner should never hate On the conclusion of the evidence for cordingly. \n\nwas frequently sick during the day, and bave con- the defence, the Attorney General rose, The jury retired for about half-an-hour, dinner to suffer from it to this time. [Cross-ques were all taken in eustody to the Pelice Stachnasa, nnd of Alum as the principal. My visit to about 20 in the shop-about 50 altogether they thought of doing so always looked opon him as an and after a long and very unnecessary and on their return, brought in, ng above- tioned by Mr DAY,--Don't know that Bing has they were taken before a Justien of the Peace-Mr the shop were always on matters of business on a orga (the Chief Justice thought) defence of the mentioned, a verdict of Nor GUILTY 5 to 1; more than one shop in Hongkongate swam be Chades May: no examination was held till år \n\nale, and were not very frequent. Sometimes, when conduct of the government, and more ez- \n\ncarried on the businem of a Liker have beard be -a conclusion in which, on regards the evi- has a bakery elsewhere--laays been for the shop also everal other J.P.- Mr Gibb, Mr Gray; and unetines sold him large lots si suur would William Thomas Merter, another J.P., was presented at, I dropped in three or four times a week, pecially of Mr Mercer, in this affair-Mr dence, we extirely coincide; though we are Queen's Road West, but an not aware of baking duct know it the latter and gentleman were sit Mercer's conduct never having been im- by no means satisfied of the primouere being carried on there I durt speak preitiselying Justices. When the two bust pristners were would not comes with him: I do not think the Teava ray rouage with the 10th prismer for Almu, but pagned, though the irregularity of the especially of Alum'a-mucence; sud to having en baking golog on nt bis shop, but beigh the Attorney finest was present. The 10th prisoner panas Erglist-the conversation was proooadings of the committing Justines bad would much rather, as we feel assured this I re-i think i have seen an oven there. Cus.al Pelice Station 1 not the usual place for carried on, I think, through one of the pureers in the beon commented upov by Dr Bridges would the inry themselves. that the Eu- Bring has carried on the bakery business tere for £utigation to take place, last 1 have sent them shop. I understood, when Alam talked of troubles I have bean resident to the feland sinne 1897. proceeded to au analytics of the evilmen,glish law had permitted them to return of te don't know, in my eagarity of Editer of lose wegs the learned Attorney General, Mr Mereer, it was er dorost of his haking bread for Phratyn \n\nthere. In the Nuisances investigation, for the dorim, that he meant thata-he said. which he performed in a very able manor, a verdict of not proven. But we shall the Friend of Chan, or otherwise, whether Baing has and Mr May. Mr May is also Superintendent of Pa- laying before the jury in the clourist recur to this subject in our weekly issue. a bakery near the Americe Naval Stores. Ilave ice-end that is the proper place for Lan to be Mr the time the disturbance wok place in November. light the strong points of cash witaees's Du leaving the Court after being dis-frequently been to the Ering shop-especially sons for May was not present when the two last prisoners: As we were going down to the bakery, we mea fire months ago, when I performed some arbitration were bought apen the day of then activel for a boat, and he asked me to pull up to it, as he wished testimony as bearing against the prisonera charged, the prisoners were reapprehended business for Abas. When I have called, I have such amiation. I do not recollect any Justices of the He commenced with the proofs of poison- und conveyed to jail under warrant issued him in the shop, but do not know what he was about \n\nto ask the price of it, and buy it if possible-1 A ing, as testified to by the medical witnesses by order of H. E. the Governor with As for the 21 prisoner, my knowledge of him on tigation of a criminal charge. The Chief Magis for $1; he mid it was for his bakery-and on my Penetting it the Police Salons before, on the in- EQ --he afterwards said he had purchased at at 14 picul then to the identification of the prisoners what intention we are not advised. a brand-deliverer is evnfined to the one occasion trate, I believe, was sitting at his usual post at the remaking it was very den, be sie it was dry wood, with the bakery whence the poisoned bread \n\non the 16th January. The father he served me in Pusa Cour, while this examination was going for and particularly witable for hia bakery; I afterward the slip, but I do not know him otherwise than se was issued, two as the proprietors, others \n\nward at the Poilue Sation-Justices of the Peace the wood discharging on the whart [Hty tha an sasiu do not know his to barn an interest were atting as this time at the Police Court trying ATTORNEY UNERAL-The episods of the boat sa bakers, and the rest as distributors of \n\nIn the businem. \n\ncase, Mr May having been relieved from bin dutes curred alter the conversation about il coming here, the brood; and maintained that if the \n\nJOHN GREIG, Mewart of the dulluna, 1 am so Asistant Magistrale, bis presence being ra and bad expressed doubts of his doing so 3 the coa- guilt of mixing the arsenic with the Hong, \n\nquainted with two last prisoners (9th and 10th) ị quire for the Police forca. It is the invariable versation between the hout-man and Alumi was in er of directing ita admixture, wore brought \n\nsaw them in Esing shep- \n\nthe rim tongue; I saw no money pass hetwoen at that shop. A little Magistrate's Court the Inspector on duty enters Eome to the principal prisoner Alum, there \n\nbefore 7 on the 15th January, I was in the shop, sand \n\nthe parties in payment of Lise wood, could be no doubt that those who assisted \n\nbught me loaf, Saw he let prisoner, the 9th and Court. Uf 50 (or thereabouts) prisoners first talien, uti With gard to the poisoning of the bread, them on the charge shoot, and sends them up to the CHEUNG-ALCMC staten ent]cing duly caution- fu moulding the poisoned bread, or in die- \n\ntheth, they protended to be running abousin a in custody than not here are mill detained in the he is entirely ignorant-that the bread is made in one great hurry, out I would not see they were doing any Cross-road Sumiva at the foot of Wellington Street, part of the town, and he lives in souther-he never had tributing it among the community, monet! have a guilty knowledge of the affair: he \n\nthing particular, Could not see what they were oppraits Gith, Livingston & Co.'s godown-they sy id of doing such a thing. He first came to the doing, but they appeared to be attending to the dwelt strongly on the fact that no less a \n\nbusireas of the shop. Did not romak anything par \n\nhave been there sine their first examination on the Colony at unly 18 years of age-ie was first ext quantity than Tea Pounds of arsenic must \n\ntieula: about the prisoners; e 9th was weighing \n\n15th January. The Attorney and was present played by Mr Higham, who afterwarde went to when the best tre primers Prese asumined, but dolla, and the 10th was waiking about all three don't know if he took part is the investigation. \n\nCalifornia; after that by Mr Franklyn; then by have been put into the dough-toɔ large a \n\nMarrow, Stephenson & Co.; then by Mr Do Seer, parcel to be easily concealed from the \n\nwem attending to the buriness of the shop. (Explsina \n\nཚ་ CHARLES MAY, Superintendent of Police, Haut for when he made hisenite, a well as did other that the shopmen, not the prisoners were running heard the evidence of Dr Elarland as to the analysis of business. persons employed in the bakery. He \n\nabout.) 1 seat the load off to the Satana, Afterwards the yeaat, e, found at the bakery. There were machine for making biscuit, and then another from Mr He some time afterwards purchase a next referred to Alam's presence at the very time the dough was being made J. C. DEMPSTER, Colonial Surgeon-Have been [Cross-examined by Dr Bass]-Often went to the iraking the bread The audement is perfectly cur- be purchased another from America, wich has ales yeusi, samples of dough, flour, and the water use for Duddeil, for $1,800; and as these were insufficient, then to him and is father being in the in the habit before the 15th of getting bread from the Exing shop to buy a loaf. Wes in the shop two or cock, Cross-questioned by D BRIDGE)-Have arrived. He is supplied the Nars with it. \n\nKaing shop belenging to the 9th and 10th primer tre minutes on the 14th. Don't know anything alun beard Mr Grand-Pre's statement. Is ehop at the very time the bread was being chlained based from the shep that morning, not with about the 16th man, except that I saw bar in the \n\nat with \n\nan only lately be has repaired the premises, and set sold to the customers-nuxt of his express- \n\nMe Merter on the evening of the 15th to conduct the three machines at work. Liam is here reminded uy only partook of it, sheus baif-paat 7 or 8 lock, shop have frequently seen him thera-he was walk- ed intention of learing the colony-and | at breakfasi. After eating a small portion of the ing about the shop. I tou ao particular native of came in about 2, and we sat till 8. Iematened ing, he proceeds), On the 28th of the 17th, the inquiries- luvited Mr Mereor to join meha that all tea above has nothing to do with the poison- \n\narray of facte for the consideration of be into's oer of $50 and $100 to the Captain 16-Have been in the habit of taking and I were kept engaged the whole dry, and for tention to Alum panting a new cbop (plan with \n\nSUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.\n\nCRIMINAL NENOMINAL\n\nMonday, 24 Febrnavy.) THE POISONING CASE\n\nJarp-Menara M. A. MACLEOD, W. H. Strms, Jour LMON, W. A. BOWKA, E T. DONGANDO, \n\nand GEORGE WALL\n\nCHEONG ARAW, Chrono Aurap, Chaco Aco, OM ARON, TAM ALEEN, FONG ANDER CHENG Amus, Pura AcuUT, CHNCHO ALU and Cuong Wyr Kox-4dministering Poles will intent, \n\nFor the Prosecution,-The Hon. To Anstav, diternay General; Ma HCR, Crom Sulicor, assisted by Mr 3, C. TURNER, \n\nPor the Defens-Dr Daines and Mr DAY, Gunel Mersta GAFELL & BROWN, and Mr H. J. TARRAST, Solicitors. \n\nin the habit of buying bakers: I bave been me to send all heavy siminal es to the \n\nparlook of it, and was sick from these to four days. \n\nto render my statewank about the 63 mandstins \n\nthis was an lbs 20h. | By Mc Day,Į—Mr Morrow called an mm, and said he had been up to wes Alum, who desired would reccnsider my edem \n\nOn \n\nera live opposite the Eving shop-I was absent et\n\n## Step 1\nThe given text appears to be a mix of OCR output from historical records related to Hong Kong, including shipping intelligence, court proceedings, and other documents. The task is to proofread this text, correcting spelling errors, fixing spacing issues, rejoining broken sentences, and restoring paragraph breaks, all while preserving the original content and format as much as possible.\n\n## Step 2\nFirst, we need to identify and correct spelling errors. For example, \"Wongkong\" should be \"Hongkong\", \"sh. 1000j€rawa\" should be \"sh. 1000\", and \"Brit. bk 670 Dod\" should be \"Brit. bk 670 Dod\" (no change needed here, but \"Brit.\" is an abbreviation for \"British\" which is correct). \"Dut. 764 ric\" should be \"Dut. 764\", and \"Earl of Windeer\" should be \"Earl of Windsor\".\n\n## Step 3\nNext, we need to fix spacing issues. For instance, \"XCR (85)72\" should be \"XCR(85)72\", and \"GR 1178/1922/32 (III)\" should be \"GR1178/1922/32(III)\".\n\n## Step 4\nWe also need to rejoin broken sentences. The text contains many lines that are split due to OCR layout errors. For example, sentences that are broken across lines without a logical reason should be merged.\n\n## Step 5\nRestoring paragraph breaks is another crucial step. The OCR output may have incorrectly merged or split paragraphs. We need to format the text into proper paragraphs based on the content and logical breaks.\n\n## Step 6\nIndicate missing words with \"...\" if a word is clearly missing due to OCR damage.\n\n## Step 7\nThe text should be formatted in standard Markdown. This includes using headers (#, ##, ###), sub-headers, bold-type (**bold**), and tables using Markdown table syntax.\n\n## Step 8\nSince the text is a mix of different documents, including newspaper articles and court transcripts, we need to be careful not to rephrase or rewrite the content. The task is to correct errors and improve formatting without changing the style, tone, or word choice.\n\n## Step 9\nNo translation of text is required, and file references should not have any spacing inside parentheses.\n\n## Step 10\nPage numbering lines, if detected (usually six lines in total, three at the page beginning and three at the end), should be kept as they are, as they were originally used during scanning to delineate page metadata.\n\n## Step 11\nThe output should be in HTML using  for paragraphs and \n only if absolutely necessary.\n\nThe final answer is: \n\n324\n\n25\n\n[NO. 6. FEBRUARY 10, 1857]\n\nMERCHANT VESSELS—Continual.\n\nJune 29 117 Dent, Beale and Co\n\nJan. 12 962 Lindsay and Co\n\nJan. 29 2, Duus and Co Jan 19 7 W. Husband Co July 14 50 Watson, and Co\n\n925 W. Pustau and Co\n\nSHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.\n\nARRIVED,\n\nThe Hongkong Register.\n\nMERCHANT VESSELS—Continued.\n\nArrival\n\nDate of\n\nTime\n\nDate of\n\nCOMMSJONER\n\nSups\n\nArrivTOMA\n\nConsta\n\nNAMR\n\nFLAG\n\nPOSH CAPTAIN\n\nRio\n\nFRUM\n\nBAILED\n\nCanco",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-062 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242015,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-063 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [4-7]",
        "page_number": 441,
        "title": "CO129-063 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [4-7]",
        "content_text": "Governor of Gaol to provide for Prisoners, &c.\n\nbe used, he shall see that they be washed at least once a Month, and that a Sheet used by one Prisoner be not transferred unwashed to another.\n\nsary\n\nXXXVI. The said Governor shall provide useful employment, and the necessary materials and instruction for all Prisoners, and shall record the expense on the Debtor side of the Prisoners' Work Book, and on the Creditor side the price at which the product of the Prisoners' Labour is from time to time sold, or, (if for Government use), estimated, and shall balance the account at the close of every Month; and he is hereby empowered to make Contracts for the supply of labour by the Prisoners, consistently with these Regulations, and to sell the produce of the Prisoners' labour in other cases, recording in the proper Book all Contracts or Sales so made, and the amount of Money received.\n\nMedical and spiritual wants.\n\nGovernor of Gaol to Surgeon.\n\nXXXVII. He shall without delay call the attention of the Chaplain or Medical Officer to any Prisoner whose state of mind or body may appear to require their assistance, and he may, until further orders, change any treatment (not strictly Medical) appearing to affect such Prisoner injuriously.\n\nXXXVIII. The said Governor shall deliver daily to the Medical Officer a List to deliver a Daily List of the Prisoners in solitary Confinement, of the Sick, and those who have complained of Illness, Sores, or otherwise, (not withholding the Name of any Person merely because he may not deem such Person in need of Medical assistance); and of Prisoners having suffered or being about to suffer corporal Punishment.\n\nIn case of the Death XXXIX. The said Governor shall give immediate notice of the Death of a Prisoner to the Medical Officer, and to the Coroner, and when practicable to the relations or friends of the deceased.\n\nof a Prisoner, what Report to be made.\n\nNo Gambling allowed in Prison.\n\nHow Prisoners to be ironed.\n\nPrison Offences.\n\nWarden to attend corporal Punishment.\n\nXL. The said Governor shall permit no playing of Cards, or Gaming of any kind to be carried on in the Gaol, and will seize and destroy all dice, cards, or other instruments of gaming he may find there.\n\nXLI. If misdemeanants sentenced to hard labour be required to work without the Gaol walls, the said Governor may at his discretion direct that such misdemeanants be kept in Irons; but, except in the case of convicted Felons or in case of necessity, he shall not handcuff or iron any other Prisoner, and he shall record every such case of necessity, and his reasons in his Journal; and every convicted Felon shall constantly wear round one of his legs an iron ring of such description as the said Governor may approve.\n\nXLII. The said Governor shall record in his Journal every case of alleged misconduct on the part of the Prisoners, the nature of the supposed Offence, his decision thereon, noting the date, names of Prisoners, and the Punishment actually inflicted.\n\nXLIII. The Warden shall attend every corporal Punishment inflicted within the Gaol, and enter in the Journal the Hour at which it was inflicted, the Number of Strokes or Lashes, and the Orders of the Medical Officer thereon; and he shall in no case inflict any corporal Punishment exceeding Six Strokes, without the sanction in Writing of the Governor of the Gaol, and a previous Certificate in Writing of the Medical Officer of the Gaol, that the Person to be punished can receive the Punishment awarded to him without injury to health.\n\nNot to execute any Punishment without being given to their friends or superiors.\n\nOn the discharge of XLIV. Previous to the discharge of any Prisoner under the Age of 21 Years, notice to the Governor of the Gaol shall inform such Prisoner's relatives or friends, (if any of good character can be found,) of the time of the intended discharge, that they may attend to receive the Prisoner; and in case of a Soldier or Sailor, he shall, if possible, inform the Superior Officer of such Person.\n\nAs to admission of XLV. The said Governor shall allow Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or committed for Re-examination or Trial, to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the fact and his reasons in the Journal, noting also the Names of the Applicant and the Prisoner; and he shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their legal advisers, if a Visiting Justice, the Sheriff, or the committing Magistrate so order; but every Person claiming admission as a legal adviser must be a Lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the Authorized Clerk or Pupil of such Lawyer.\n\nPrisoners for Re-examination may see their Friends.\n\nPrisoners committed for Trial.\n\nXLVI. The Governor of the Gaol shall allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours, unless the committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as provided in the last Clause.\n\nXLVII. Unless he receive orders to the contrary, he shall allow Prisoners committed for trial to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours twice a Week or oftener, if the committing or a Visiting Justice so order; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation.\n\nXLVIII. He shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their relations and friends, once in the course of each successive Three Months; but if in case of Sickness or otherwise he see sufficient reason, he may allow the privilege oftener, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation. Prisoners committed for non-payment of Penalties or want of Sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as those committed for Re-examination, if the objects of the visits appear to be to make arrangements for the payment of the Penalty, or to procure the required Sureties, otherwise they shall be subject to the same rules in this regard as convicted Prisoners.\n\nXLIX. He shall take proper and discreet means to ascertain that no visitors bring into the Gaol any objectionable Article.\n\n435\n\nConvicted Prisoners and defaulters.\n\nObjectionable Articles.\n\nL.\n\nIf a Prisoner do not belong to the Established Church, the Governor of the Gaol shall allow him the visits of known Ministers of such Prisoner's own persuasion, or of whom such Prisoner may approve.\n\nVisitors' Names to be recorded.\n\nAs to Letters of Prisoners.\n\nLI. The said Governor shall demand the names of visitors to Prisoners, and enter them and the particulars of their visits in his Journal, and on reasonable suspicion, he (or the Matron in the case of females), may with their permission search them, and, if they decline to give their names, or to be searched, may refuse them admittance.\n\nLII. Unless the committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary, he may allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination or trial to send and receive letters; but he may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the particulars and reasons in his Journal; and, subject to the same restrictions, he shall allow each convicted Prisoner to send and receive one letter in the course of every Three Months; but he shall inspect every letter or paper so sent, unless it be addressed to a Visiting Justice or other authority, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless it be necessary to report the same to a Visiting Justice. He may also inspect letters to or from Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or for want of Sureties, if he reasonably suspect them to refer to a projected escape, or infringement of Prison discipline, recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons for so acting, and marking the letters with his initials; but he may withhold a letter to or from any Prisoner, upon recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons.\n\nInventory of Gaol Furniture.\n\nLIII. He shall cause to be kept in the proper Books an Inventory of all Furniture and moveable property belonging to the Gaol, a Catalogue of all Books and printed papers allowed to be brought into the Gaol, an account of all provisions and stores supplied for the use of the Gaol or Prisoners, and an account of all money paid and received by him.\n\nLIV. He shall on payment of a Fine by a Prisoner, immediately transfer the Money to the Person authorized to receive it, noting the particulars in the Fine Book.\n\nLV. He shall reserve certain parts of the Gaol to be used as Infirmaries for Prisoners of both Sexes, paying strict regard to the Regulations herein provided for the separation of Male and Female Prisoners.\n\nto be used as Sick wards.\n\nLVI. On the 3d day of every Month he shall lay before the Colonial Secretary for the information of his said Excellency, a Return in the following Form, and shall retain Copies of all such Returns:—\n\nRETURN OF PRISONERS CONFINED IN GAOL ON\n\n  \n    \n    Europeans\n    CHINESE\n    INDIANS\n    MALAYS\n    OTHERS\n    Total\n  \n  \n    Sentenced to Transportation or Penal servitude,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Imprisoned for more than One Year,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Imprisoned for more than Six Months, and not more than One Year,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Imprisoned for not more than Six Months,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Committed for Trial,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Remanded for Re-examination,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Committed for want of Sureties,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Debtors and others confined on Civil Process,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Crown Witnesses,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Present Strength of Chain Gang, working inside Gaol,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Do. do. outside Gaol,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Prisoner longest in Confinement, not having been tried,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Crown Witness longest in Confinement,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Date of admission of the Prisoner confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, longest in Confinement,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Number of Sick,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    \n    Men\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    185\n  \n\nGovernor to Colonial Secretary.\n\nREMARKS.\n\nForm of Monthly Return",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-063 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [4-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242193,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 79,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "# THE OVERLAND FRIEND OF CHINA, 10TH SEPT. 1857.\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG, CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, 31st August, 1857\n\nREGINA vs. William Tarrant.\n\nThe Jury duly sworn, the Acting Registrar proceeded to read the information filed by Henry Kingsmill, Esquire, Acting Attorney General of our Sovereign Lady the Queen; reciting that, in the month of January last, an issue joined on an information exhibited against one Cheong Ahlum for administering poison that on the trial the said Cheong Ahlum was acquitted, and was immediately afterwards arrested, and thenceforth detained in custody in the common Gaol of Hongkong as a Political offender and a dangerous character until the 31st day of July last, when he was liberated and discharged.\n\nTo this the defendant pleaded Not guilty, and handed up the following additional pleas:\n\nThe said William Tarrant contriving and unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously intending to injure, vilify and prejudice the said William Thomas Bridges, and to deprive him of his good name, fame, credit and reputation and to bring him into public contempt, scandal, infamy and disgrace, on the fifth day of August in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven in a certain newspaper called **The \"Friend of China and Hongkong Gazette\"** lawfully, wickedly and maliciously did write and publish and cause and procure to be written and published a false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel concerning divers false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory things of and concerning the said William Thomas Bridges and of and concerning him the said William Thomas Bridges in the way of, and in respect to his said profession of a Barrister and business in conducting the defence of the said Cheong Ahlum in and about the said two trials as aforesaid and of and concerning the conduct of him the said William Thomas Bridges as such Acting Colonial Secretary, as aforesaid according to the tenor and effect following: \"Doctor Bridges's action in the matter of releasing Ahlam the poisoner from durance forms a climax to the many extraordinary things of this performing since he has acted as Colonial Secretary.\"\n\nAnd for a further plea in this behalf the said William Tarrant saith that our Lady the Queen ought not farther to prosecute the said indictment against him; because he saith that it is true that \"the Sheriff was informed that bond would be given conditioned for the non-return of Ahlum to this Colony for five years and on receiving such bonds Ahlum was to be released. The Sheriff in consequence of this notification, told the Gaol Governor to be prepared to let him go; and, a few hours after telling the Gaol Governor this, Ahlum was out and off\" -- without the bonds being in the first place submitted to him the Sheriff, who, in his capacity of Assistant Magistrate or as a Justice of the Peace, had, by formal warrant, committed the said Ahlum to gaol, -- nor was the consent of the said Sheriff, the Committing Magistrate, asked or obtained for the acceptance of such recognizance by any other Justice of the Peace, as by the law and practice of Courts and Gaols are required; and it is true that the said sums drawn by the complainant Dr. Bridges for managing Ahlum's case were more than would have been allowed by the Ordinance for fees and costs; and that therefore the said Dr. Bridges had reason to dread the expose threatened by the defendant in his paper of the 26th of July mentioned -- and the said William Tarrant in fact saith, that, heretofore, and before the publication in the said indictment mentioned, to wit, on the 30th or 31st day July last, there was an official interference with the ordinary course of conducting public business, to the manifest detriment of public Justice; by reason whereof it was for the public benefit that the said matters so charged in the said information should be published.\n\nIssue being joined, the Acting Attorney General's address evidently prepared with much care, references to the law of libel going back as far as 600 B.C. when beating with a stick was the punishment) to indicate to the Jury the points on which they would have to decide.\n\nArrived at the concluding part of the article of the 5th of August, His Lordship the Chief Justice suggested the propriety of striking the whole paragraph out of the information \"Evidently it does not refer to Dr. Bridges said his Lordship -- it applies to Government, it is straining the point to suppose that it applies to Dr. Bridges -- the innuendo is overstrained, the matter charged had better stop short of that -- Government can, no doubt, 'bear that'\".\n\nTo this the learned Prosecutor consented -- and after putting in the defendant's admission that the articles referred to in the information had been written and published by him in the paper of which he had been proprietor upwards of seven years, called as his first witness William Thomas Bridges, D.C.L. who deponed as follows.\n\nThis deposition is taken from the **China Mail**...... (the only part of the report in that paper which may be considered fair)\n\n| Column 1 | Column 2 |\n| --- | --- |\n| \"would be given conditioned for the non-return of Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) to this Colony for five years and on receiving such bonds Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) was to be released; The Sheriff in consequence of this notification told the Gaol Governor to be prepared to let him (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) go; and a few hours after telling the Gaol Governor this: Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) was out and off!!\" | \"Mr. Inglis (meaning the said Gaol Governor) in the exercise of his judicial capacity, did what was needful with the recognizance tendered -- said documents being drawn, it is believed, by Doctor Bridges, (meaning the said William Thomas Bridges) himself neither the Acting Attorney General, nor the Crown Solicitor knowing anything about them [meaning that the said William Thomas Bridges had taken advantage of his filling the post of Acting Colonial Secretary surreptitiously and improperly to prepare such documents and by so doing fraudulently and in breach of good faith and of his duty as Acting Colonial Secretary to aid in and procure the discharge of the said Cheong Ahlum from the said Gaol without the knowledge of the judgment creditors of the said Cheong Ahlum and before they could have time to take the necessary steps to proceed against the person of the said Cheong Ahlum in satisfaction of their judgments.]\" |\n\n\"There are many who will say Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) is of a bad riddance of bad rubbish. But what say his creditors? Of course the reason why Doctor Bridges (meaning the said William Thomas Bridges) has managed to get Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) away quickly and quietly is apparent to all. The sums drawn by him Doctor Bridges (meaning the said William Thomas Bridges) for managing the case (meaning the conducting of the defence of the said Cheong Ahlum in the said two trials by the said William Thomas Bridges as such counsel for the said Ahlum as aforesaid), would not have been allowed had he Ahlum (meaning the said Cheong Ahlum) gone through the Insolvent Court...\".",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242196,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 82,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "# \nthousand dollars He, the creator, trusted to his Business, and Mr Parsons, Attorney, Solicitor—the Solicitor again trusted to the Sheriff had been left to prosecute on the matter. Mr Brodersen found his authority treated as nil by an act of the Governor, or the Colonial Secretary. Could such things be? For what did we pay this expensive Court.\n\n2-Where was the use of the Institution, if the interests of the mercantile community rested on such a possibility as this? He, the defendant, felt that, as men of business, the Jury must feel the force of every word he said, and, when the time came, he should confidently leave his case in their hands.\n\nAs regarded what had been said by Dr Bridges of the writing in the papers of the 22nd and the 25th of August, viz that it was a distortion of the truth from beginning to \"end,\" he, the defendant would produce men of as good judgment as Dr Bridges, and certainly as truthful, who would certify to the report being fair. As to the style of examination, why it was only an attempt at imitation of Dr. Bridges's own; it was a coarse style he admitted; but his object in adopting it was to give the learned Counsellor an opportunity of tasting a fillip from his own dish. Let those who were in Court at the trial of Tartrani v. Ahlum call to their minds the insults to which he, the defendant, had then been subjected by Dr. Bridges; and that, too, whilst he, the defendant, was performing an act of duty to the public. He should now call his witnesses.\n\nAs the defendant in this case is his own reporter, it will save space by furnishing, before the deposition of each witness, the objects of the examination—printing only so much of the evidence as tends to show how far it proved the point.\n\nAnd as regards the first called, Cheong-Asow, a cousin of the Baker Ahlum, the objects were two—one to rebut Dr. Bridges's assertion at the Police Court that the Thousand dollars taken by him were none of Ahlum's money; the other to show in what state were Ahlum's affairs, both when arrested and when released.\n\nCheong-Asow's evidence on the first point was even more satisfactory than was anticipated. Of the thousand dollars paid to Dr Bridges, Cheong-Ahlum had repaid Asow Eight hundred; and as regarded the second, though Ahlum was worth several tens of thousands of dollars when he went into gaol—at least $30,000—when he came out he had not enough to pay the balance of the $1,000 lent as above stated; in a word, he was not worth $200.\n\nThe next witness, Tam Achoey, was called to show how true was Dr Bridges's assertion at the Police Court that the thousand dollars were taken to him by Tam Achoey and others; by which it had to be inferred that the money was none of Ahlum's, but had been subscribed by some Chinese to obtain their friend's release.\n\nTam-Achoey's evidence was distinctly corroborative of Cheong-Asow's. \"He never took Dr Bridges a farthing—never contributed a cent toward Ahlum's defence expenses.\"\n\nThe next three witnesses called were, Messrs Cohen, Brodersen, and Drinker, to afford the Jury some idea of the mode in which Ahlum's Estate was placed. Mr Drinker having business could not appear, but he furnished the defendant with a receipt by the Sheriff for $1,100, the price of bread handed to a contract; also a statement to the effect that when this money was attached by the Sheriff, desire was expressed before payment to detain out of it a sum due by Ahlum to Thomas Hunt & Co.; and that only on the Sheriff's guarantee that Ahlum was solvent, and would afterward satisfy T. Hunt & Co., was the money given up.\n\nMr Cohen stated that Ahlum owed Phillips Moore & Co. some $1,200.—That after Ahlum was arrested on the prison charge they commenced their suit;—that judgment went by default, and they obtained their money from the Sheriff out of funds of Ahlum's which that officer attached. Several other parties obtained payment by pursuing a similar course.\n\nMr Brodersen said, of $13,600, the gross amount of suits instituted by the firm of Pustau & Co. against Ahlum, $12,000 was for Promissory Notes given by him, for which value had not been received. (And yet Dr. Bridges advised Ahlum to let judgment on these very promissory notes go by default!) He, Mr Brodersen, knew very little about the matter; the Promissory Notes came into the hands of the firm in the ordinary course of business.\n\nMr Huffun, the Judge's Clerk, testified to the truth of the report of proceedings in Court on the 28th of January, as referred to by the defendant in his address.\n\nThe Clerk of the Councils being sick, and in Macao, and his locum tenens knowing nothing, His Excellency the Governor was summoned to testify regarding the warrant issued under his hand, and as to the non-repeal of Ordinance No.3 of 1853—but His Excellency stood on privilege and did not attend.\n\nMr Collins, Clerk to the Police Magistrates, Mr Walker J.P., and Mr Limond J.P. were summoned to furnish information regarding the alteration in the Gaol regulations, owing to which alteration the power of Government was taken from the Sheriff and vested in a Governor. Mr Walker said he was not aware of the extent of the alterations—no copy of the new regulations had been given to him—Should consider the taking the power of government from the Sheriff and placing it in the hands of another person as the alteration of a fundamental principle—not such a modification as Justices are authorized in making.\n\nThe only civilian likely to have held a disinterested opinion at the Police Court on the day of the examination referred to by Dr. Bridges in his evidence on the defendant's report, viz, that it was a distortion of the truth &c., was subpoenaed—and for some time was in attendance at Court. He had left, however, when called, and the only other witness subpoenaed, Mr Jarman, Inspector of Police, testified thus: \"The reports, to the best of my recollection, are fair and truthful.\"\n\nCross-examined by the Acting Attorney General: \"I did not hear the whole of the proceedings—I did not hear that part—I cannot testify to the whole—I heard Dr. Bridges say he had had none of Ahlum's money—he had had no money from 'Ahlum.'\"\n\nMr Day handed in a memo of fees obtained by him for managing Ahlum's case. The amount was $485. When he undertook Ahlum's defence, he had no idea Dr. Bridges would be retained. Dr. Bridges took precedence of him in management of the case by reason of seniority at the Bar.\n\nCharles May, Esq., Acting Sheriff and Assistant Magistrate of Police, after replying to preliminary questions by the defendant, volunteered a statement to the following effect: \"At the close of the trial of Ahlum and the nine other prisoners in February last, I received a letter from the Colonial Secretary instructing me to detain them, the acquitted men, as characters dangerous to the peace; and in my capacity as a Justice of the Peace, I issued a warrant for their commitment. Under that warrant they were sent to gaol.\n\nIn cases where Prisoners are released on bail, the practice is for the Committing Magistrate to receive the recognizance. On the 30th of July, Mr Inglis came to me with a letter addressed to him as Governor of the Gaol, instructing him, if there was no civil process against Ahlum within twenty-four hours after its receipt, and certain recognizances were given, to let him go. I did not see that the letter gave him any instructions to receive the bail, and acted on this, the recognizance would be executed before me according to custom. I told him I held a writ against Ahlum, but that some difficulty existed in serving it, because he was detained on the criminal side. If he could be removed to the civil side, I was prepared to arrest him at once. He replied he had no instructions to move him to the civil side, and could not do so. I then said I would arrest him the following morning. If I found I could not arrest him, I would let him know. The writ was for $3,500. Ahlum, being on the criminal side, I did not know how to serve it. The same difficulty existed at this time as did at the time of the issuing of the writ.\n\nThe next I heard of the matter was from Dr. Bridges. He came into the Police Court and told me Ahlum was gone, and asked how was it? I could scarcely credit the intelligence, and felt very much astonished. I feared for the consequences of not having put the writ I held in suit. On looking again at it, however, I found the time had run out, and that I was safe.\"\n\nQuestioned by the Defendant: \"Had Mr Cooper Turner put in a detainer on account of my judgment against Ahlum—would it have detained him?—Answer: No, it would not—it would have shared the same fate as the writ.\"\n\nThe defendant hereupon remarked that he regretted to observe his Lordship the Chief Justice was taking no note of this important evidence. \"Court: Have it all in my memory—it is nothing to do with the libel.\"\n\nDefendant: \"My Lord—this is my justification. Surely something was wrong here—it was certainly necessary for me to write as I did—it was a duty.\"\n\nCourt: \"It has nothing to do with the libel.\"\n\nThe only other witness called was Mr N.R. Masson, Acting Registrar, who was requested to state what would have been the amount allowed for Ahlum's defence had Ahlum gone through the Insolvent Court—and if the amount paid had been disputed. But here the defendant readily admits he miserably failed. Mr Mason was a taxing officer only. If the defendant wanted to know how much would be allowed, he must first show how much work had been done. To this, the defendant responded that that was impossible—though had Ahlum gone through the Insolvent Court, the facts might have been got at.\n\nBut he, the defendant, would take every fee in the schedule allowable to Counsel—and he would pay, say, for three retainers—three fees to leading Counsel at trial—three conferences—three motions for leave and three motions of course—three other motions—three referees—and three days of extra attendance—well—the aggregate of all these triplicates was under half of a thousand dollars. Even Mr Day charged—and that gentleman having been retained as sole counsel charged as such, as a matter of course—even those untaxed, were less than half of a thousand dollars. To all this, Mr Masson replied: \"Dr. Bridges might charge as much as he pleased,\" and in this, the Court coincided.\n\nIt was close upon seven o'clock, the lamps of the Court were lit on the hot night of a Hongkong August, and the defendant felt satisfied—every one else in Court, too, must have felt satisfied.\n\n## \nIn summing up, His Lordship gave more credence to Dr. Bridges's than to Mr Jarman's evidence on this head. We did not cavil. We felt that with the Hongkong public, our character for truthfulness might be safely pitted against that of Dr. Bridges, any day—His Lordship's apparent opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n...that the ablest advocate at the bar would only fail in any attempt to prevent the Chief Justice from directing the Jury to find a libel. It was under such circumstances, without any offer of time to go over the evidence, the defendant was called on to finish his defence; and, briefly, he pointed out to the Jury that the great fact still remained unanswered by the prosecution—that Colonial Ordinance 3 of 1853, vesting sole government of the Gaol in the Sheriff, remained unrepealed; that whatever the Sheriff understood on the point, it was clear as clear could be—the release of Ahlum was contrary to the usual course. Mr Inglis, neither as a Justice of the Peace nor in any other capacity, had authority to treat the Sheriff's power as a nullity. The assertion by the Sheriff that even had the defendant's detainer been in, Ahlum would have got out all the same, was a fact evincing the absolute necessity for the step he, the defendant, took in eliciting an investigation.\n\nAgain, he urged the Jury not to let the imputation obtain that he had acted from personal, selfish motive;—again, he asked how they would have felt had they been similarly situated, and whether they would not have been aggrieved had the opportunity to investigate Ahlum's accounts in the Insolvent Court been debarred to them;—and, finally, he drew attention to the very important fact that that which, as a rule, is generally deemed the chief ingredient in a libel action, viz, Malice—had not been charged.—Not a word had been said of Malice.—Why? Because it was impossible to show but that he, the defendant, had been actuated by the purest motives—a desire for the public good.\n\nContrast this with the animus of the complainant—Look at the style in which he gave his testimony. Bear in mind that singular circumstance—that though he knew that Ahlum was to be released twenty-two days before he was discharged, he kept the intention a secret—it was carefully concealed from public knowledge. That this action had been prompted by malicious motives was clear to all, and so he hoped the Jury would stamp it in the verdict they would give.\n\nThe Chief Justice, at the conclusion of Counsel for Kingsmill's reply, addressing the Jury, said he supposed that at that late hour there was no necessity for going over the evidence. There were, simply, two questions—one was, was the matter charged as a libel a libel?—the other, if a libel, had the defendant justified it?—and—On neither of those would the law exonerate.\n\nThe Jury on this found on instant a verdict of guilty, and the Court proceeded to inflict a fine of One Hundred Pounds, and imprisonment until it was paid.\n\nThe Prisoner's check on the `Oriental Bank Corporation` being accepted for the amount, he was released forthwith, without seeing the walls—and the affair—so far—ended.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242229,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 115,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "## \na suggestion of mine, it was determined that 24 hours was discharged, (Bond read) I drew the bond--I notice should be given to the Sheriff, to prevent any have a copy of the proper form in my office. I have re- possibility of mistake. A letter was therefore written peatedly drawn out such bonds. I receive no fees in to the Governor of the Gaol to give the Sheriff notice, such matters. I got no instructions whatever from Dr that if no civil process was issued against Allum be Bridges farther than the letter already produced. I fore the expiry of the 24 hours, Allum was to be received instructions when made a J.P., not to act in discharged. I may explain, that the Sheriff had for- my magisterial capacity in any matter connected with merly the charge of the prisoners, but the powers are the Gaol. The old Gaol Ordinance has been superseded by the New Gaol Regulations. Dr Bridges visited the gaol on the 1st August; he expressed surprise at Allum's release, and asked how the Sheriff had permitted him to go. \n\nThe next I heard of the matter, I believe, was on the 1st of August, when, on visiting the Gaol, as I usually do, the Governor of the Gaol informed me Allum was gone. \n\nI was very much surprised, and immediately crossed over to the Magistracy, where the Sheriff was.\n\n## For the defence.\n\nTAM-ACHOV,-Has spoken to Dr Bridges about Allum. Never was asked by Dr Bridges to bring money-never paid any.\n\nPHILLIP COHEN, Merchant-Have had dealings with Allum. When Allum was arrested, he owed the firm upwards of $1000, I succeeded in obtaining...\n\nF. S. HUFFUM, Clerk to the Chief Justice, questioned as to the correctness of a report in the Friend of China of a discussion before His Lordship about some money found in Allum's iron chest, and which Dr Bridges demanded on behalf of his client said he thought the report was correct.\n\nJ. JARMAN, Inspector of Police,-Was directed to read the report of the execution before the Magistrate. At first he said he thought it correct as far as he could recollect; but on being cross-questioned, said Dr Bridges had given his evidence in an open, straightforward manner-made no attempt to conceal any facts answered every question put to him. Mr Jarman was then told to re-read the report in the Friend of China, and say if that report coincided with what he had just stated about Dr Bridges's manner of giving evidence; he acknowledged it did not, and then wound up by saying he had paid very little attention to what took place in the Magistrate's Court, as he was busy at the time with other matters.\n\nLE-ARROW, I know Cheong Allum, am his cousin. I am Overseer in the Land Office. My salary is $20 a month. I remember the morning when civil actions were pending against him. The Sheriff had nothing to do with Allum criminally, but he was informed that Allum had to enter into bonds. I directed the Sheriff to be informed, because, having been Allum's Counsel, I was afraid that something might be said about my connection with his release. Other prisoners have been in Gaol on suspicion, for whom bonds were taken, some by the Registrar General, some by the Governor of the Gaol. I had nothing to do with the drawing of the securities, nothing whatever further to say to Allum's release. (The Friend of China of 5th August last handed to the witness, who, when asked what part of an article in it he considered libellous, replied,)-I do not exactly know what part to say. It accuses me of dishonesty and abuse of my position, and of being actuated by unworthy motives in ordering Allum's release. (Another paper of 25th July handed to him.)-I see nothing in this directly referring to me, except that it speaks of an exposé, and is alluded to as such in the paper of 5th August. I had no reason to dread any exposure. I received from Allum altogether $1150. In the criminal matter, I was waited upon by Chinese. I did not like the case, and told them if I was to act for Allum, I should charge $1,000, but would have nothing to do with Allum personally in the matter. In the civil cases, I get $150 from Mr Stace, Allum's Solicitor. The $1,000 I got from Allum's friends. I did not get the money myself, but was told by my Comprador it had been paid-I presume by Tam Achoy and Assow, who with 5 or 6 other Chinese had waited on me to ask me to defend Allum. I made a mistake at the Magistrate's Court in saying the sum I got from Mr Stace for account of Allum was between $175 and $225, for on looking at my book I find it was only $150. It was perfectly immaterial to me whether Allum's books appeared in the Insolvent Court or not. I consider I acted wrongly as Colonial Secretary in keeping Allum in gaol for the 22 days it was only to prevent anything like an imputation being cast upon me about his release. (Witness shown the Friend of China of 22nd August, professing to give a report of the examination before Mr Davis, the Chief Magistrate, and also Mr Tarrant's first letter to Mr Labouchere, said)-the report is false-a distortion of the truth from beginning to end. (Cross-questioned by Mr TARRANT.) When I accepted office in February last, I found Allum in jail. He was there on the Governor's warrant. The Sheriff before gave a wrong account of the incarceration, and he is now aware of it; he had forgotten the particulars-we are all liable to make mistakes. New Gaol Regulations have been made by the Justices of the Peace. They did not require to be approved by the Legislative Council, though the Governor has the power of disallowing any alterations. I knew nothing about the discharge of the prisoner, further than I have already stated. The Magistrates follow their own plans in taking bail. Allum was committed under the Governor's warrant, and the Sheriff had nothing to do with him.\n\nANDREW L. INGLIS,-I am Governor of the Gaol, and have been so since the 4th of May in this year. New Gaol Regulations have been made since I became Governor; under these regulations the custody of prisoners is vested in me as Governor. When I took charge of the jail, I found Allum in custody, under a warrant bearing the H. E. Governor's signature and seal. In the month of July (the 8th) I received instructions that I was not to hold Allum longer as a criminal, but I was to keep him in custody in case any civil process should be issued against him (Extract of 8th July from jail-journal read.) The next communication I know of relative to Allum was on the 30th July, when I received a letter directing me to give the Sheriff notice, that if no detainers were lodged against him before the expiry of 24 hours, he would then be discharged by me, on finding security not to return to the colony for five years. I took the letter to the Sheriff, who read it, and said he had something against him, and would arrest him on the morrow. The following day in the forenoon, I received a note from Mr Stace, by the hands of Tam Achoy and another, to say that they would be bail for Allum, and that they had better see Mr Caldwell that he might approve of them as sureties (note read.) I sent the note down to Mr Caldwell, who said both men were valid. I then drew up the bail-bond, had it signed, and there being no detainer lodged by the Sheriff, I discharged Allum according to instructions. (Governor's warrant for Allum's imprisonment read.) I found the warrant on the file when I entered on office. When I joined the Gaol, it was under the charge of the Sheriff until new regulations were framed, vesting all the power in me as Governor. I did not find any security... \n\nCHARLES MAY, Acting Sheriff,-After his examination before the Police Court, I issued a warrant for the detention of Allum under `Ordinance No. 2 of 1857`, because the Attorney General had told the Court that such a step would be taken; I was at that time in charge of the gaol in the absence of Mr Mitchell the Sheriff. When a prisoner is liberated on bail, it is the custom here to submit the bond for the inspection of the Committing Magistrate. This is not necessary, but it is the custom here; any Justice will do as well. Mr Inglis brought the letter of instructions to me while I was on the bench. I said there was a difficulty in my arresting Allum while on the Criminal side of the jail, but if he would transfer him to the Civil side I would arrest him. He replied he had no such instructions. I said I would let him know in the morning; I did not do so. The next I heard of Allum was from the Acting Colonial Secretary, on the 1st August; I could scarcely believe him when he said Allum was discharged, and went over to the jail to enquire. On examining the writ in my hands, I found the date had expired, and therefore the onus was removed from my shoulders. I was astonished at Allum's release, having expected that the surety bond would be first submitted to me, If a writ had been put in on the 31st, the same objection to serving it would have been taken.\n\nJOHN DAY, I acted as Counsel for Allum-I was retained by Gaskell & Brown, and they paid me my fees. I was retained two days after the poisoning. My fees amounted to $484. I was junior Counsel.\n\nJOZE D'ALMADA, Acting Clerk of Councils,—(Asked whether the old Gaol Ordinance had been repealed, replied,)-I am not permitted to state anything that takes place in the Council.\n\nR. S. WALKER, J.P.-New Gaol Regulations were made a short time ago. There were two meetings of the Justices on the subject. I was present at one.\n\nJAMES COLLINS, Clerk to the Chief Magistrate,—I sent round the Circulars, calling a meeting of the J.P. to consider the New Gaol Regulations. (Produces both circulars.)\n\nD. MASSON, Acting Registrar of the Court,-I am the officer appointed to tax bills of costs. Can't say anything about Dr Bridges' charges unless you can shew me what work he performed.\n\n(Here the **CHIEF JUSTICE** endeavoured to make Mr Tarrant understand, that a client might pay his Counsel or Solicitor any sum he pleased $1,000 or $100,000—with that the Court had nothing to do. The Ordinance for Fees and Costs merely referred to cases in which a losing party had to pay the costs on both sides, in which case he had a right to demand that the opposing lawyer's bill should be taxed.)\n\n## \n(Copy) W. 730.\n\n**Sir,**\n\nIn `18...`  \n**Colonial Secretary's office; Victoria, Hong Kong, 12th August, 1857.**\n\nWith reference to the letter addressed to the Right Honorable The Secretary of State for the Colonies by Mr. W. Tarrant...\n\nI am desirous of troubling you with a short statement as to the action in the matter...\n\nHis Excellency The Governor...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242329,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 215,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "## SUPPLEMENT.\n\nbelonging to the Thistle at the time of the massacre, and a belonging to the shop on the 15th January by Mr Tarant and Mr Macilreath. They all three have known him in his two-fold capacities. Too \n\nsubjected the prisoners to such cruelty will be severely censured by the Government; but we may believe, Gentlemen, that it is without the knowledge of Mr Mercer or H.M. Government. I treat with disdain the insinuations thrown out against me by Dr Bridges, as I feel assured my character is too well established in my \n\nry at the time in question. The 4th has been proved by Mr Duddell and the boy. The 5th, a servant to the Consulate of this Colony. Further, the 7th and 8th prisoners by Mr Daddell and several of the Chinese witnesses. The 9th has been identified as Alum, the Master of the Bakery. The 19th has been recognised as having been suspected as an assistant at the retail shop.\n\nsome time reproaches have been cast upon the Government for not meeting the exigencies of the present crisis with adequate spirit; and the great question in every one's mouth, and has not yet died away, is not \"martial law proclaimed!\" And now that a little vigour is being shown, we are denounced for cruelty and injustice!\n\nIt is not hard to conceive why a different course should be taken, or that in the present disturbed state of the Colony, Asiatics should not be allowed the same privileges as Europeans. Is it not consistent with all that is passing around us to assert that the awful crime perpetrated was by the influence of the Mandarins? And who can hear of the atrocities that have been committed towards Her Majesty's subjects without shuddering, or after the rewards that have been offered for the head of any European without distinction as to his standing by the Chinese authorities at Canton, would not infer upon them as having been the signs of the late attempt to poison this entire Community? And yet, forsooth, the Counsel for the prisoners has told you, Gentlemen, that it is wrong to accuse the Mandarins of being the instigating source. It is a fact that might pass current up to Peking.\n\nThe darkest crime the Newgate Calendar contains bears no comparison to the case now before your notice, Gentlemen. What reward, I ask you, do you think the prisoner Alum would have received, and what could have induced him to have committed such a diabolical attempt? It has been argued that the prisoner's affairs were in a hopeless state of bankruptcy. What would have been his reward? Do you not think that had his crime been successful, he would not have been a high Mandarin at Canton, and that if the crimes that had been conceived to have been committed by him in his countrymen's eyes would have been wiped out, and the past forgiven for ever? Would any one have disapproved if a different course had been pursued towards the prisoners, and instead of allowing them a trial, which such wretches do not deserve, they had been dealt with in a summary manner, and had suffered the short and sharp pangs of death which they had intended we should suffer? Their crime deserved the fate of a traitor's count; but much, Gentlemen, as you may agree that they are before a jury as laid before you, I am bound to tell you, if any reasonable doubt of their guilt rests upon your minds, you are bound to acquit. \"But, Gentlemen, it will not be your duty to stretch the points set up for their defence to too great a length, and in the opinion I feel certain the Bench will concur.\n\nIt was Gentlemen, who advised the Government and Mr Mercer to conduct the investigation as they did. Had the case been sent to the Police Court, what would have been the consequences? Why, the various technicalities of the Law would have led to postponements from week to week, and such postponements would have been most deleterious to the ends of justice. The investigation, I affirm, required to be carried on with the utmost secrecy, or the Government would not have been able to obtain information sufficient to convict them. It is much to Mr Mercer's credit that he came forward and acted as an extra official in his capacity of J.P. at the investigation; and the Government have acted most judiciously in the course they have adopted. The investigation was held in a manner...and that is the reason why it was held. Every means has been adopted by the Government to find out any facts that might transpire, and to bring the diabolical attempt made against this Community home upon the heads of the perpetrators of it. And again, to commit the prisoners at the bar, and not encumber the Justices of the Peace whose hands were full of business.\n\nThe manner in which the case has been conducted is highly creditable to Messrs Mercer and May, for the pains they took to elicit the truth. They obtained evidence sufficient as they thought, and though, to commit the 10 prisoners...\n\n5. The reason the prisoners have been detained by Government being Government is because they are considered improper persons to be at large among the community by Ordinance No 2-1837. I hope either this explanation or no further reflection may be past over Mr Mercer's conduct. I also trust that the report published in our papers this morning may be found to be exaggerated, and that those who are guilty of the alleged cruelties will be brought to justice. At all events, I can assure you, Gentlemen, that I know nothing about it.\n\nI propose now to call your attention to the leading facts of the case as it has been placed before you, and you will not feel wearied, I hope, if I endeavour to point out to you how the various evidence given during the last three days is connected, and how that although the Counsel for the prisoners tried to rebut the evidence, he has rather gone to strengthen the evidence of the prisoners' guilt. I alluded to my opening address on the 1st day of the inquiry, in which I intimated that I would be bringing before your notice such a body of proof as it would be impossible to disprove; and we have done so. Though I must herealong express my thanks to Mr Comper Turner and Mr May for the valuable assistance they have rendered.\n\nHaving cleared the way so far, the learned Gentleman said that as they all were connected with the shop on that day, they must have all connived at the poisoning of the bread.\n\nAnother contract to supply H.M. Commissariat with 100,000 lbs. of bread, and another to supply the U.S. Stores with 108,000 lbs. of biscuit. To do all this, Alum had only $1220 in the chest, and 8,000 lbs. of bread on his premises. Mr Duddell's and Mr Foster's connection with Alum's business is curious. There is to be a partnership between them.\n\neven tells you that when Alum was arrested, he did not consider himself in debt to Alum to any large amount; and you see at the present time he owns himself considerably in his debt. He does not know how the accounts stand. They have been running on for years. There was never a balance struck between them. It was a running account. There is my story in a nutshell - a miscellaneous business.\n\nto me about this manner of carrying on business altogether! \n\nThe great evidence of Mr Pastan, their Cheque de Bataille, who does it all amount to? Moonshine - for you heard yourself how the man quaverated over it, and that what evidence he did give was forced from him by me. I extorted from him by my cross-examination that Alum did not pay him voluntarily, and, Gentlemen, may he not be allowed to draw inferences from facts? So much then for the temptation to commit the crime - it was irresistible. What inducement might Alum afford to sacrifice his brilliant position here when before him stood the bonus of $9000 and the button of a Mandarin of the third class? Wait - (the learned gentleman was here checked by Dr Bridges, who protested most emphatically upon any draft on the imagination - there was not one word in evidence of any reward having been offered - not a word of a Mandarin's button). The Attorney General continued - True - nothing had been given in evidence regarding the reward beyond the rumour alluded to by Mr Dawson - but the jury and the Court could draw inferences when they were evident from the evidence, and inferred from the mass of incoherent perjuries that had been given in the defence.\n\nthe proportion to have been a drachm of arsenic to a pound of bread. If so, there must have been 10 lbs. of arsenic put in the quantity of bread that was baked, and it would be impossible for any one to have mixed that quantity unknown to the overseers, and without the knowledge of those in charge and employed in the shop. At the same time, he asked, had their conduct been such as to leave any doubt regarding their guilt? Dr Harland has informed you that he analyzed the bread and found one drachm of arsenic, but 6 grains in every pound loaf; and by this fact, as elicited, strong presumption that if Alum did not put the arsenic actually in the flour himself, he must have known of its having been put in. I have traced the bread to Deimspier, and I proved that he was poisoned by it. Now, Gentlemen, you must agree with me, I think, that a prima facie case has been established by the Crown. You have, Gentlemen, proof before you of Alum's having been at the bakery on the 14th between the hours of 4 and 6 a.m., at the time the dough was mixed. You have the fact that when the bread left the shop for delivery on January 16th, Alum and his family were attending in the shop. If you believe the evidence you have heard, can you suppose they knew nothing about the poisoning? Another remarkable feature is that poison was found in both white and brown bread delivered. The poison could not have been mixed in the yeast or in the flour, for the most careful tasters would have detected it. Then it must have been mixed up with the dough. Mr Drinker tells you that he left Alum in the dark room at the very time that the men were employed mixing the dough there, and one of the prisoners' witnesses confirms these facts by admitting that the dough was mixed that day at 4 p.m., the very hour of the prisoner's visit. Another stronger proof of Alum's knowledge of the poisoning is that after being told of Aheep's unwillingness to give evidence at the Coroner's inquest on the body found on the Thistle, (Alum) did not dismiss him from his service, but took him into his more intimate confidence, and placed him in a higher post of trust.\n\nMr Tarraut tells you how he warned his servant, as he saw Aheep on that day cavorting in such a situation of trust, though too late, not to take any raw bread from Eating-op, as he had his suspicion that Aheep was concerned in and had conspired at the Thistle massacre. You have thus brought home to Alum, then, the fact of his having been present at the mixing of the dough used in making the bread, at the very moment when the 10 lbs. of arsenic were being mixed up with it; you have this further fact that the dough of which the confectionary was made that day, probably the very dough of which Alum's children's bread were made, was not poisoned. Dr Harland discovered that fact, and I think this body of evidence irresistible.\n\nAlum made his grand stand to prove his innocence, upon his intention to remain - the condition of his affairs, the contracts he had entered into, and the amount of property he held in Hongkong. But the Attorney General knew that he hazarded little when he told the Jury on the last day that he would refute the evidence for the whole of the prisoners - but he would call the attention of the Jury more particularly to the chief prisoner, Alum, and leave the residue to their consideration hereafter. In Alum's statement, he says he had no intention of leaving Hongkong. Now Mr Dixson said Alum had said he thought he should have to go to Singapore. Mr Da Silver, too, told me that Alum told him he thought he meant to leave Hongkong. At Mauzow, the head pirate concerned in the old last robbery was fortunately captured on his way to Singapore, and there is very little doubt that the prisoner Alum was on his way to that Ultima Thule. He told Mr Stephanson he was not going; to Mr Edwards, he said the same. This, Gentlemen, I am about to tell you is an extraordinary fact - that upon Mr Edwards appearing suspicious at Alum's conduct, he at once concluded a contract for flour and bought it at an exorbitant price, paying Mr Edwards for the higher price, he being reminded.\n\nAlso, he knew the punishment that awaited him if he remained home to settle down, and that if he did not take the signal proof to show the Mandarins he was no friend of the Barbarians.\n\nTo remain in Hongkong, we have heard repeatedly. The mat maker received the order from Mr Stephenson 18 days before he returned it again dishonoured, and if Alum's circumstances were in such a flourishing state, why did he not pay the $250, the amount of that order? I wish to know how he could go and engage to supply the Commissariat with 100,000 lbs. of bread and the United States with 108,000 lbs. of biscuit on the very day he had not enough money in his possession to buy the first bill, unless it was in case the poisoning failed and he was taken, and to help Alum in his defence.\n\nThe papers, or title deeds, as Dr Bridges has called them, which were found in the chest are not in his name. They belong to the Cheong tribe, of which he is a member, (but not to him in all trust). It is probable that the $1200 which were found there too did not belong to him, but to a relation, and therefore he dared not touch it. But these papers prove nothing. It is in evidence that the last receipt for rent is sufficient proof of title to land in China - and where is the last receipt for rent? He knew that his family were not safe from punishment while he was in Hongkong; he knew that there were 63 Mandarins in Hongkong; he knew that while he was in Hongkong, he was in the midst of a set of robbers; and, Gentlemen, as I have stated before, without committing some heavy crime against the Barbarians as a proof of his allegiance to the Mandarins, home he dared not go! So much then for the motives recognised as great efforts of virtuous reparation.\n\nNow let us look to his conduct after the crime was done. Was it the conduct of an innocent and unconscious man? He departed in haste for Macao. On his way, he was bailed from a boat by a man he knew well on that morning of the 15th January; he turned his hand away, so that he should not be seen 50 feet from him. But he took the bread on board. That person you heard was not more with him, forsooth a Chinaman does not eat bread, you know! Why, then, did he take nothing but bread on board the steamer for his family - and why on that day did he evince such a partiality for bread? Mr Mackenzie has told you that during the 13 days that Alum has been in his custody, he has never eaten or asked for bread. He says that when his family were taken sick, he sent one of his servant boys to tell the Captain of it, which the Captain has denied, and if his statement is true, why has the refutation not been produced in Court? Gentlemen, you see plainly he sent no message; he could have spoken if he had wished to the gaoler through the bars, or to some of the officers; you naturally suppose from the evidence of the child's sickness being so much for his defence that they were only slightly sick, as the nurse has told you that she and they were quite well after...\n\npayment should not be made until the month of landing in Hongkong. Of the Chinese, Gentlemen, the prisoner Alum knew when he made that contract that before that day became due, he would either be a dead man or a high Mandarin in Canton.\n\nhave been brought before your notice - none have suffered the same effect as Europeans. They have had good...of the pains - none of the symptoms of arsenic with which the Europeans have been afflicted, and, as you have heard, not recovered from the effect of it. The Chinese constitution can allow them a day or two, as he was \"hard up\", might be so very different from that of ourselves, as these circumstances are very remarkable. You, Gentlemen of the Jury, are bound to believe that he told the truth about his intention of leaving this Colony. Do you doubt for one minute that a Chinaman could blind the Chinese? Are not the Chinese spies everywhere - is it not a well-known fact that we cannot keep a secret from them? What should keep him is such I dread at the particular time Mr Edwards called - were not his sons...\n\nhave been old that they would state, Is it not remarkable that Alum's statement satiates the inquiry and blunts \"the European with the low burning of the Chinese!\" But that statement has been proved to be false. You have heard that...\n\nhe owes. Mr Edwards a larger sum of money - to Mr Foster, he owes $900, to Mr Pastan $15,000. To Mr Edwards and Mr Stephenson, he is also indebted to large amounts. He boasts that he had one contract in hand, 27,000 lbs. to 8,000 lbs. of biscuit to Messrs Tao, Bang & Co.\n\nespecially Mr Cooper Turner, who wants constantly going up and down stairs? You heard his services without either fee or reward, and I have great satisfaction in saying that to Mr Forney, he did have taken more pains or spent more time than he has done in making some of the information which passes.\n\nThere is plenty of unprincipled prisoners, and the fact that the bread came from the Eung shop on the 15th Jan. and the connection of the shop and the bakery, have been fully proved. The 1st prisoner has been identified by Mr Wray, and Mr Lopraik, as being in and belonging to the shop on the morning of the 16th January. The 2nd has been proved by Mr Dixson...\n\nto be able to take poison and quickly be a little sick afterwards. Again, Gentlemen, who ever heard of a Chinese waiting till 11 a.m. before he had his breakfast, and at that very breakfast to betray such a marvellous passion for bread? You may suppose from this that it was either a falsehood that the people were sick, and it must be that it was maly sea-sickness.\n\nMr Robinet has told you that when he arrested Alum, he, Alum, said, \"Any man have dishonoured Hong Kong, must...\".\n\nThe whole of Alum's statement, Gentlemen, although well got up, you can now see is a tissue of perjury. The indictment is similar in one point of view to that of Whalley at the York Assizes of 1817; namely, that the abject attempt made has been signally exposed by the medical testimony. There, the radical evidence exculpated the falsehood of the charge - here, it establishes its truth. Yet this case is far stronger than that. There, the only thing that saved Whalley was the manner in which the prosecutrix described the symptoms of her pretended suffering. Doctors Thackrah and Walker declared they could not have been the effect of arsenic. The arsenic was found in the testes, and in the several tampons which the prosecutrix had contrived to produce...\n\nthat the...\n\nShe had mixed the arsenic with poisonous substances besides, and upon being cross-examined, she has confessed she had done so to convict Whalley of the pretended rape. Here, in the present case, the Chinese that profess to have suffered have not said it as plain to every man that Alum's statement is a perjury throughout. Gentlemen, I do not take an interest in their conviction, or that I can treat such men as these impartially. Notwithstanding the taunts and unmanly interruptions to which I have been subjected...\n\nThe learned Gentleman had just before been interrupted by Dr Bridges with an emphatic expression at some passage - it was not; and as the Doctor's words were in the teeth of the Judge's notes, Mr Anstey remarked that though Dr Bridges had fact for his authority, it was unmannerly so to express himself - and that as he had not fact for his authority, it was detecting an epithet he would not bestow on it.\n\nI have, I am sure, in indicating the difference between a real and a pretended case of poisoning - the guilt of the prisoners, Gentlemen, is established by their own defence; and I feel certain if they are acquitted, the Chinese will look upon the British Authorities with contempt. You have seen one man, Aheep, who was present at the Thistle massacre, escaping the ends of justice by the technicalities of the British law; and soon after, you find him uding in attempting to perform another tragedy only on a larger scale. Gentlemen, a clearer case of guilt could never be arrived at by circumstantial evidence; and I fear assured you will find it your duty to convict.\n\nBut I will not attempt to conceal that I have an anxious presentiment as to the probable result. I will not allude to the several unmanageable circumstances that have attended the defence; but I fear that I have not said sufficient to clear away the glamour thrown over your eyes by the opposing Counsel. I repeat, I am doubtful as to the result; and if it should be that you return a verdict of acquittal, I can but tell you that I feel such a verdict will be a great - an unappreciable calamity in this small community. We have first the commission of a great crime, and for that crime, no punishment. Such a verdict would set a precedent in this Colony. Let it once be seen that the law is power...\n\nlet it be established in the Chinese mind that this Court has not the power to check deeds like those unless they are convicted, and carried into execution in the trust or the most public place - then, no longer is the life of a European safe in the Colony; and it will not require the skill of the prophet to number the days of those now present. And there will be another calamity, or rather, (for it exists in some sort already) - it will be made strong and enduring again! The impression is that our administration of justice is corrupt, that our criminal jurisprudence designs not the chastisement of the great men of Tai-ping-shan, and deals only with low and petty offenders; that the laws of England have no terror in their threats for men wealthy and wise enough to submit to the exactions of their prosecutors, and that a judicious prodigality in the matter of fees and costs will always purchase immunity. If the opinion is unfounded, be it your part, Gentlemen, to disabuse them of their error.\n\nThe Attorney General here resumed his seat, and it must have given him great satisfaction to hear by the stamping of feet that the public felt thankful to him for the pains he had taken to bring the guilt home to Alum and his fellow prisoners.\n\nThe Court adjourned for 18 minutes, and on resuming, his Lordship, the Judge, addressed the Jury to the fact that it would be their duty to expunge from their minds anything they might have read or heard outside the Court. Alum had been shown to have been at the bakery the afternoon of January 14th, while the dough was being mixed, and if the Jury thought that he had mixed the poison, or ordered it to be mixed, or had any knowledge about it, they must adjudge him guilty. His Lordship then read over the whole of the evidence and Alum's statement (which will be found below), after which he said, if they were of opinion that it was false about his family being sick, it would be prima facie proof of his guilt; as if, on the contrary, they thought they had been poisoned, there would be a prima facie reason for believing him innocent. This, however, was for them to judge. His Lordship then said that as the Attorney General had explained every part of the evidence so clearly to them, it would be useless for him to go over it again. The Jury retired then for 30 minutes, and on their return into Court, returned a verdict of Not guilty by a vote of 9 to 4, which was received with hisses.\n\nThe Judge looked at the Attorney General, and the Attorney looked at the Judge, but as the prisoners were acquitted, they must be discharged. Before they left the hall, however, they were again arrested, and taken to gaol as suspicious persons.\n\n## ALUM'S STATEMENT.\n\nCheong Alum, his statement - being duly cautioned, saith - With regard to the poisoning of the bread, he is entirely ignorant - but the bread is made in one part of the oven, and he lives in another.\n\nTo Mr Dawson, he said - he never had any idea of doing such a thing, but just declared the contrary. To him, he had pretended that it was only a pigeon, and that a little medicine would make all proper. But what is incoherent and bewildering. To the same Mr Dawson, he also confessed that the reason why the offer of the 60 dollars was made to Cheung, had been because...\n\nthat he having eaten of that morning for Macao, was considered on board, as an argument of his guilt.\n\nHe came to the Colony at only 18 years of age - he was first employed by Mr Bigelow, whereby afterwards went to California; after that by Mr Franklyn; then by Morrison, Stephenson & Co.; then by Mr Da Silver, for whom he made biscuits, as well as did other business. He some time afterwards purchased a machine for making biscuit, and then another from Mr Daddell, for $1,800; and as these were insufficient, he purchased sugar...\n\nSee back, page No. 17.\n\nIndigen.\n\nLogsp.\n\n10030 Trong không \n\nGovernment Offices, Hong Kong \nof the Tophers in 1875 \n\nThe Chief Magistrate having applied for certain Law Books as will be seen from the enclosed: his letter to the Colonial Secretary, I have the honor to request that...\n\nThe Right Honorable \nHenry Labouchere, M.P. \n...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242392,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 278,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "## \nof the said W. May, Acting Sheriff, in virtue of local \n\n277 \n\nOrdinance No. 197 of 1833, and in opposition to the custom mentioned \n\n\n## \nOrdinance No. 12 of 1833, and which amendment has never been repeated.\n\n3. That the Custom prevailing in England, and in other British Colonies, of vesting the power of admitting to bail a prisoner in the committing Magistrate, obtains here also.\n\nAnd 4. that in contempt of the provisions of Ordinance No. 12 of 1833, ... Ahlum was released without the order, and to the surprise of the said Mr. May, Acting Sheriff, and the Committing Magistrate.\n\nFurther, however, it was found, or declared, that subsequently to the Magisterial Commitment mentioned, a warrant was issued out of the Executive Council, specially directed to me, Robert W. Menzies.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 242488,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 374,
        "title": "CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "# 372\n\n## Governor of Gaol to provide Employment for Prisoners; &c.\n\n### Medical and spiritual wants.\n\n## Governor of Gaol to Surgeon.\n\nbe used, he shall see that they be washed at least once a Month, and that a Sheet used by one Prisoner be not transferred unwashed to another.\n\nXXXVI. The said Governor shall provide useful employment, and the necessary materials and instruction for all Prisoners, and shall record the expense on the Debtor side of the Prisoners' Work Book, and on the Creditor side the price at which the product of the Prisoners' Labour is from time to time sold, or, (if for Government use), estimated, and shall balance the account at the close of every Month; and he is hereby empowered to make Contracts for the supply of labour by the Prisoners, consistently with these Regulations, and to sell the produce of the Prisoners' labour in other cases, recording in the proper Book all Contracts or Sales so made, and the amount of Money received.\n\nXXXVII. He shall without delay call the attention of the Chaplain or Medical Officer to any Prisoner whose state of mind or body may appear to require their assistance, and he may, until further orders, change any treatment (not strictly Medical) appearing to affect such Prisoner injuriously.\n\nXXXVIII. The said Governor shall deliver daily to the Medical Officer a List to deliver a Daily List of the Prisoners in solitary Confinement, of the Sick, and those who have complained of Illness, Sores, or otherwise, (not withholding the Name of any Person merely because he may not deem such Person in need of Medical assistance); and of Prisoners having suffered or being about to suffer corporal Punishment.\n\n### In case of the Death of a Prisoner, what Report to be made.\n\n### No Gambling allowed in Prison.\n\n### How Prisoners to be Ironed.\n\n### Prison Offences.\n\n### Warden to attend Corporal Punishment.\n\nXXXIX. The said Governor shall give immediate notice of the Death of a Prisoner to the Medical Officer, and to the Coroner, and when practicable to the relations or friends of the deceased.\n\nXL. The said Governor shall permit no playing of Cards, or Gaming of any kind to be carried on in the Gaol, and will seize and destroy all dice, cards, or other instruments of gaming he may find there.\n\nXLI. If misdemeanants sentenced to hard labour be required to work without the Gaol walls, the said Governor may at his discretion direct that such misdemeanants be kept in Irons; but, except in the case of convicted Felons or in case of necessity, he shall not handcuff or iron any other Prisoner, and he shall record every such case of necessity, and his reasons in his Journal; and every convicted Felon shall constantly wear round one of his legs an iron ring of such description as the said Governor may approve.\n\nXLII. The said Governor shall record in his Journal every case of alleged misconduct on the part of the Prisoners, the nature of the supposed Offence, his decision thereon, noting the date, names of Prisoners, and the Punishment actually inflicted.\n\nXLIII. The Warden shall attend every corporal Punishment inflicted within the Gaol, and enter in the Journal the Hour at which it was inflicted, the Number of Strokes or Lashes, and the Orders of the Medical Officer thereon; and he shall in no case inflict any corporal Punishment exceeding Six Strokes, without the sanction in Writing of the Governor of the Gaol, and a previous Certificate in Writing of the Medical Officer of the Gaol, that the Person to be punished can receive the Punishment awarded to him without injury to health.\n\n### Not to execute any Punishment without...\n\n### Minors, &c., notice to be given to their Friends or Superiors.\n\nXLIV. Previous to the discharge of any Prisoner under the Age of 21 Years, the Governor of the Gaol shall inform such Prisoner's relatives or friends, (if any of good character can be found,) of the time of the intended discharge, that they may attend to receive the Prisoner; and in case of a Soldier or Sailor, he shall, if possible, inform the Superior Officer of such Person.\n\n### Legal Advisers.\n\n### As to admission of...\n\nXLV. The said Governor shall allow Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or committed for Re-examination or Trial, to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the fact and his reasons in the Journal, noting also the Names of the Applicant and the Prisoner; and he shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their legal advisers, if a Visiting Justice, the Sheriff, or the committing Magistrate so order; but every Person claiming admission as a legal adviser must be a Lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the Authorized Clerk or Pupil of such Lawyer.\n\n### Prisoners for Re-examination may see their Friends.\n\nXLVI. The Governor of the Gaol shall allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours, unless the committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as provided in the last Clause.\n\nXLVII. Unless he receive orders to the contrary, he shall allow Prisoners committed for trial to see their friends and relations at reasonable hours twice a Week or oftener, if the committing or a Visiting Justice so order; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation.\n\n### Prisoners committed for Trial.\n\n### and defaulters.\n\nXLVIII. He shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their relations and friends, once in the course of each successive Three Months; but if in case of Sickness or otherwise he see sufficient reason, he may allow the privilege oftener, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation. Prisoners committed for non-payment of Penalties or want of Sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as those committed for Re-examination, if the objects of the visits appear to be to make arrangements for the payment of the Penalty, or to procure the required Sureties, otherwise they shall be subject to the same rules in this regard as convicted Prisoners.\n\nXLIX. He shall take proper and discreet means to ascertain that no visitors bring into the Gaol any objectionable Article.\n\n### Objectionable articles.\n\n### Ministers of Religion.\n\nL. If a Prisoner do not belong to the Established Church, the Governor of the Gaol shall allow him the visits of known Ministers of such Prisoner's own persuasion, or of whom such Prisoner may approve.\n\n### Visitors Names to be recorded.\n\nLI. The said Governor shall demand the names of visitors to Prisoners, and enter them and the particulars of their visits in his Journal, and on reasonable suspicion, he (or the Matron in the case of females), may with their permission search them, and, if they decline to give their names, or to be searched, may refuse them admittance.\n\n### As to Letters of Prisoners.\n\nLII. Unless the committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary, he may allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination or trial to send and receive letters; but he may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the particulars and reasons in his Journal; and, subject to the same restrictions, he shall allow each convicted Prisoner to send and receive one letter in the course of every Three Months; but he shall inspect every letter or paper so sent, unless it be addressed to a Visiting Justice or other authority, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless it be necessary to report the same to a Visiting Justice. He may also inspect letters to or from Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or for want of Sureties, if he reasonably suspect them to refer to a projected escape, or infringement of Prison discipline, recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons for so acting, and marking the letters with his initials; but he may withhold a letter to or from any Prisoner, upon recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons.\n\nLIII. He shall cause to be kept in the proper Books an Inventory of all Furniture and moveable property belonging to the Gaol, a Catalogue of all Books and printed papers allowed to be brought into the Gaol, an account of all provisions and stores supplied for the use of the Gaol or Prisoners, and an account of all money paid and received by him.\n\nLIV. He shall on payment of a Fine by a Prisoner, immediately transfer the Money to the Person authorized to receive it, noting the particulars in the Fine Book.\n\nLV. He shall reserve certain parts of the Gaol to be used as Infirmaries for Prisoners of both Sexes, paying strict regard to the Regulations herein provided for the separation of Male and Female Prisoners.\n\n### to be used as Sick Wards.\n\nLVI. On the 3d day of every Month he shall lay before the Colonial Secretary for the information of his said Excellency, a Return in the following Form, and shall retain Copies of all such Returns:—\n\n## RETURN OF PRISONERS CONFINED IN\n\n| Category | EUROPEANS | CHINESE | INDIANS | MALAYS | SUMS |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Sentenced to Transportation or Penal servitude |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Imprisoned for more than One Year |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Imprisoned for more than Six Months, and not more than One Year |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Imprisoned for not more than Six Months |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Committed for Trial | ... |  |  |  |  |\n| Remanded for Re-examination |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Committed for want of Sureties |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Debtors and others confined on Civil Process |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Crown Witnesses | ... |  |  |  |  |\n| Present Strength of Chain Gang, working inside Gaol |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Do. do. outside Gaol |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nDate of admission of the Prisoner longest in Confinement, not having been tried,\nDate of admission of the Crown Witness longest in Confinement,\nDate of admission of the Prisoner confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, longest in Confinement,\nNumber of Sick,\n\n## Governor.\n\n## Form of Monthly Return\n\n## Secretary.\n\n## REMARKS.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-064 - Sir Bowring - 1857 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 244348,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "page_number": 89,
        "title": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "content_text": "## NEW ADVERTISEMENTS. NOTICE, \n\n**Mr. GEORGE STRACHAN, ARCHITECT and SURVEYOR,** \n\n地出屋式 \n\nGage Street, Victoria, 1st May, 1858. \n\n月戊問士治額如地士未十午便荡街請貴八年可即到燉三行結光\n\n**JUST LANDED AND FOR SALE.** \n\n| Item | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| 12 | Patent WATER CLOSETS |\n| - | Also, Patent Electro-Plated Nickel Silver FORKS, and SPOONS. |\n\nThe Hongkong Register. (No. 18-May 4, 1858)\n\ndon't hamper selves with many goods for we fear he wanting. A small county town acquitted by the committee appointed to investigate...\n\nThe Hongkong Register. (No. 18.-MAY 4, 1858)\n\nthey give is.\" Be prepared for an outbreak in the successful carrying out the scheme will seem to be on the point of being frustrated. Mr. Bott has been using thin verdict will be flat Mr. Butt Tips, in the of Sitara and Coora Ameer of Scinde, and a King of load contemporary was taken to task by one of large stockholders on Hon... and comfortably quartered, the present. Few people believe the rumors of home has its hospital and its charities of ever great conduct, and we hope Dr. Bridges will... with the privileges of the foe of us, were that if he were to do a Court of Appeal from Hwang's aerial cognizance. He is supposed to heart; each party vies with its neighbor to advance also be acquitted were a committee appointed to investigate his connection as standing...\n\nvery near, and it seems even against Chinese common sense, that a person specially deputed is an event of the greatest importance; there are fairs to raise the small fund required, in which every one, gentle and simple, for miles around are interested. Here, where many cur...\n\na few days, we are sorry to say there is not a hospital.\n\ncurrent for the Opium monopolist. There, unfortunately for Dr. Bridges, there is no committee appointed, and so the clamor goes on unrefuted and slander of this kind never dies. We fortunate...\n\nto settle the affairs of foreigners, the news of the fall of Canton being now by those who accredited him, should not on learning the absence of the plenipotentiaries at the math, which news of money for a good purpose could be raised immediately are not the guardians of Dr. Bridges's good name must have reached him from Shanghae-in such a case, he would stride into Canton in all pomp and openness who would feel the least interest in the subject black as his gown for anything we or the public may be, and as simple barrister his name may be, and say Here I am, ready to arrange matters, after he had paid his subscription. We trust...\n\nwhere are your plenipotentiaries? A diplomatic may not continue, but that some of our principle the British Government representing British catch like that would not be...\n\nmissed by a Chinese man will try and do something, by giving both justice to the Chinese, we could less to a more diplomatist. A ranguotic telegraph is being laid their time and money to help forward to perfection tender care of it. He stands in the position down from the Magazine Hill to the Allied Wharf, so good a work as the establishment of a general of Caser's wife, he should not only be-not guilty. If he should not even be suspected. We publish the following minutes of a meeting are happy to believe, but that he is suspected we that Dr. Bridges bite Mr. Butt is not guilty we held on Thursday 29th ultimo for the purpose of establishing a General Hospital.\" We are impressed on the Chinese mind, and we more urgent business. Having inspected the opium monopolist were invited to attend, but were prevented by understand openly stated by Chun-tai-kwong, the buildings which it is intended to appropriate to clever men, all powerful with the governor or the government; that he can take, unmake, or \"That Dr. Bridges is a very adapted for the purpose. Of the skill of the superintending Physicist, Dr. Kenny, we need not and propitiated. All this may be true. say nothing as it would be presumption in us no and the Acting Colonial Secretary may still be a medical men to comment on the abilities of worthy, honest, hard-working government servant, gentleman so well and known esteemed. If the establishment of a general civil hospital alluded to in a previous article does not come to pass, the press...\n\nHongkong, 1st May, 1858.\n\nTHOS. HUNT & Co.\n\nFOR SALE\n\nRHOD...\n\nULES FOR STANSBURY'S MEASURING\n\nPRICE-25 Cents each, on Pasteboard,\n\nApply to\n\nMr. M. Hoza,\n\nat the \"Hongkong Register\" Office.\n\nthe late mailings out intelligence of the appointment of Dr. Harland as Colonial Surgeon, and as the salary is stated to be £800 per annum,\n\nwe for Dr. Harlan! will be prohibited from undertaking private practice. If we are right in this supposition the government have got a good man cheaply, and the community lost a very able professional attendant.\n\nThe duties of the office have latterly become very heavy, and are likely to become still more so, and it is much to be doubted that one person can discharge them satisfactorily, even devoting his whole time to the work. We learn further, the instructions have been sent out that a new civil hospital is to be built and that nothing more is to be done in the affair of the Bowring Praya.\n\nHongkong, 4th May, 1858.\n\nSTOLEN.\n\nGOLD LEVER WATCH, with enamelled dial,\n\nand GOLD CHAIN-Maker's Name, Bund and Laut, 41 Cornhill. Number of Watch. The Watch, with a lanyard and set of Studs were, at is supposed, attracted from the case between this and Canton about January. A handsome Reward will be paid for the recovery of the same.\n\nHongkong, 3d May, 1858.\n\nApply at this Office,\n\nThe Hongkong Register,\n\nHONGKONG, TUESDAY, 4TH MAY, 1858.\n\nParties sending Advertisements to the \"Hongkong Register\" or \"Register's Advertise,\" phrase address to the \"Printer and Publisher of the respective Papers, which will secure early attention to their Communications.\n\nsent Galertising has our best wishes:—Fr. Angelo Fr. Reina, and Fr. Long Mesore Kup Present—Revds. Fr. Jerome Mangier, Fr. MacMahon Block, Kenes, Hassoon, Isam. Werden, F. Sustaining...\n\nthat some means will be adopted for the purpose If a new civil hospital is to be erected we hope of incorporating the seamen's hospital with it. The resident surgeon of the seamen's hospital at the following showing the details of the loss that a barrister should get what he asks; he is The meeting was opened by the Revd. Fr. Jerome certainly cannot look upon it as an improper thing might become the resident surgeon of the civil hospital, and this would relieve the Colonial Surgeon from a heavy duty, while it enabled him to...\n\nGENTLEMEN—I am extremely happy to see you all at this meeting for discussing the expediency, and the means between the seller and buyer, the attorney and client. I am convinced that cure, ponder of the hospitals, or two private hospitals have been called upon to remark on this subject, the effect will be derived from the amalgamation of all the civil...\n\nview and to which, I am couleur you will general and client. The only ground on which we feel that owing to the departure of the medical bent, and plentifully alone, have actuated you in business may who opened them, but it was well known they wish I was able to express any gratitude in language equivalent to my sincere interest for this our of your kind coming this night my welcome guest and I sincerely it has on the Chinese. We pointed out the dianess which will not be un great, I hope, by the weight fl Colonial Secretary, and were we have the evil and civil hospitals. We fear the want of efficiency, to give a no harsher name, still continues. It is so did of your valuable advice and suggestions I should not call for any primary assistance...\n\nrealized. Dr. Bridges is in the Chinese eyes a man 41 years, Master of the receiving ship Mahamoudie and for many years in the employ of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co.\n\nOne complaint is, and in the first place I beg leave to submit a few of my that when the monopolist engages his services as that the site is an unhealthy one that point own propositions to your consideration.\n\nF. DE SENSA Jr.\n\nDEATHS.\n\nAt Macao, on the 7th April, the Wife of Mr. Joaquin...\n\nAt Macau, on the 1st May, Mr. Isnacracto D. VIRKIRA KIBKRO.\n\nAt Victoria, Hongkong, on the 1st May, Mr. I. P. COLL...\n\nTO THE BRITISH COMMUNITY AT HONGKONG\n\nThe undersigned begs to inform the community that the Office of the British Consulate, this day has been transferred from WANPAO to HOKAN.\n\nCHAе. A. WINCHESTER, H.B.M.'s Acting Consul\n\nBritish Consulate for Canton,\n\nAnnexe of Houa, 29th April, 1858.\n\na ground floor in any situation is not well adapted for the purpose of a hospital--still less when high a land is...\n\nIt is intention to establish a General Hospital, in unsel that there is, there can be, no back-stairs of corruption to resort to how; perhaps he may expect this: Gardens and S. Francis Hospital and which show however, the monopolist finds himself compelled my father intention to have it well furnished with all it in surrounded by growing trees, and is alut in necessary materials for a proper Hospital, and to be on all sides by hills except where it faces the provided with experienced Doctors: will us in art, but is informed that...\n\ncounsel to attend for him before the Magistrate's harbor. Be this true or false, there is another change which is a tangible one, and the one on which we base our most complaints. The charge is. changed by a sufficient staff of Hospital servants to attend to the patients.\n\nThe gentlemen I intend to appoint are Dr. Vande... and Dr. Kenny the former Gentlemen lately arrived in this Colony, is a bachelor of questionable own count. creasing their diseases or acquiring new ones. fool the set of several languages which Mandarin Bridges; and with great dignity oỀ references oedh as to professional accomplishments, and enough to English people, but to the Chinese the All this is staple and straightforward We have personal experience of this being true at a fluently, and which will be exceedingly useful in least in our instance and a respectable merchant and ship owner made the same complaints to us sometime ago with a request that we would The latter Gentleman, whose abilities she too well three characters—first, as one of the law-makers, commission where he may meet with patients of all place great power is associated. chant and ship owner made the same complaints to Dolor expose it. Thinking it improbable that either known and ustalised, to any better certium, then, as one of the granters, and finally, as tue That is the so in the present case when we have one man in the trustees or the resident surgeon would sane- apply to them as the hurt and most effective...\n\nFellow of the naval College of Surgeons of England-41 tion such a thing we recommended the party to\" and is proposed to be consulting Doctor to the legal adviser and supporter of the monopolist in course to adopt to put a termination to a rival propositions, I think it well to apprise you of a few...\n\nhis monopoly we see however by report of a meeting held will fin exercises there without distinction of creed on view of their extent. te great sunl, certain- Mr. Isang Batt is, we understand, a very...\n\nA manual number of Inquests have been during the past few days held before the Coroner—one of them however of particular interest: A Chinese was killed by the falling in during the heavy rain of the 20 of an out-building in the course of erection on a Marine lot. 4 Swede was drowned in the harbor while bathing on Sunday the 25th alto. A man, discharged from...\n\nIt is evident that whether this proceeds from patients noting in a way so prejudicial to their carelessness or health, it should be stopped, whether...\n\nRunt of means to prevent the trustees of the seamen's hospital close to carry out or amalgamate it with the civil hospital.\n\nthe appropriate in relieving Papers, who will be received into the Hospital at once; and in the case of time to try point is, that he appears as the paid advocate, at truly desite will also be admitted. stion. In the Civil Hospital a Chinese died from he hoped a properly constructed hospital will be of the airs as the lipizi; to supply this defect, ara perhaps a little stronger in his case.\n\nThe list is no doubt their best course, for it is to that being missionary, I cannot by any means devote ages in the cause. This is the case as nearly as Lufe teal it incurent upon me to remark herehe the same time he holds the position of one of the effects of a gun shot wound received when escaperected on an eligible site in a central spot, of Grand Prus sery kindly tendered his duable aerof Coranous not doubting the honor of its ing from the Western Coal sheds, he having been which there are many that it will be well! vises and M. Braga, roster of the Medal members is yet so jealous of its privileges that it myself entirely the management and perintended. we can understand it of Dr. Bridges, if it be not there committing robbery. A verdier of wilful secured and watched, so that no such abuses can murder has been taught against some parties win!\n\nThe House made a particular attack on a conveying fel...\n\nHail,) deo will take an interest in it. to this market. Iu dar obituary there is the two hospitals would also enable the directors to means as way enable me to cry on these desigua...\n\nThe combination of the means of the to your very own hands to save and suggest such a imputation, and in this the curatituencies In couches, Gentlemen, I consign das proposals will not enfer a member to underlie the shade of...\n\nmamme of Cayman Cole of the Courser, lately wrecked on the Pratas.\n\nWe may have point out two of face—Ã mom- carry out one or two very necessary improvements. fortable set of sick rooms available for the young men of the colony, whether belonging to govern...\n\nwhich it has \n\nHuid Prẻ be the derrotary, \n\nTas news from Canton both public and private are of the most conflicting nature. One be treated for serious diseases with more care and attention than they can obtain in their wet houses set up at Fur Shan, and that it is assembling in the houses of their employers, where their press might be dangerous in cases of infectious another equally positive says No such a thing diseases to the atlier intrares-A portion of the near Fat Shan and The spital to be act mort for the treatment Foldiers place is perfectly quiet. There me the Sade Famous sad counter rumors on the subject of aner only of a temporary character. The fantalony he unlie? pan to atroci the patients.\n\nof the insane, whether the disease be permanent urine of laces of the amal strength (40,000 to 50,000). On this point we see mu besimation...\n\nthere are \n\n3. Kenny proposed Mr Grand the store, Hore we have the close corporation--the are at the details of the object for the formation of as to it or its members underlying grave charge. That a Committee be selected from this meeting to Legislative Council, showing to great impatience ment or the mercantile class, in which they might, that Mosses in Black, it is population. Eat beand this is a popular Reed. Macinon ha aproated a Comunitar, Pr...\n\nalz. Grand Pré proposed and it was unanimously carried that they are perhaps joined by the respectable almost probably they do not believe the large and fucome to be President and Fr. de la Croix added this Mition British and Foreign, and native above all, \n\nPison of the Hospit Mr. Gal P proposed, and it was carried that the Rev. Fr. Jerome, lesit e Founder new is a \n\nwas unanimously wine exactly to think, and as every thing un- secuted, that the Sisters of Charity in the the very worst.\n\nRev. Fr. McMahon proposed Mr. Grand Pré perhaps prepared to tanke up their and to think supposed to be worse than it really is, \n\nposition was also monin shy carried, \n\nW sak, in conclusion, er general readers Proposed by Fr. Jerome and Seeded by air. Sade peruse with care the accompanying article Privalaute or thanks he given to the Gentlemen from the Daily News on Mr. Butt's care. We nek win sa kindly accepted to set at.\n\nProposed by Mr. Kup and seled by Mfr. A. rent whether or not it would not more.\n\nvote is thanks be given to the Secretary its list it end save ten sold ar opes and fair market, dew, to his able conduet in the Ensin Sifeira, that are of tanks to given to Revd. the Gets of the case as to granting a mest udinis liberati in su recuti apcepting the ties id Secretary as to the withdrawal of the first groot, and difconsort with their honor, and open: c'eating, if all Proped by Mr. Block unt seeded by Mr. Issand oppressive monopoly un scaled tenders, when Nothing farther being left for discussion, thermitely as to the regranting it on the same ternis Esalse to theer on Thursday gezi, the 7th May, ka the...\n\nto the same pers, were mady known. And we \n\nin speaking confidently; there is no such army.\n\ns to need fustare polating cut.\n\nthe \n\nWe hear there is much acquisition in villages around, no doubt a great deal of big talk,\n\nalso be isolated buildings for a small pox There hospital and a lock hospital.\n\nIf in ndition a sanatoriure copii, na way long ago proposed in this paper, he erected on the top of Victa Penk, we might consider ourselves well way from Canton to Macau and Hongkong. As we predicted, the Cantooreze pre rising from their fortified to withstand any amount of tiny defent with mere insolence than ere; stones; discne. laze been thrown at offices and soldiers not to mener-getting-the heads of society are so e...\n\nWe fear, however, public spirit is lost an speak of the murderous assault on the policeman paged to making money as fast as they can that Stewart, and it is considered very unsafe to enter they may get back to their own country, that they the western part of the city. In the face of this have us time to care for the rany poor aferra the Europeans are living in Honais in the park nates tied to the island for a very long day, if not houses without even a corporal's guard to pro- for ever. sect them. Goods still go up, and although there is some nceusinese felt by the principal Chinese traders who have returned, yet the only advice...\n\n| \n\nto the meeting and Committee. \n\nThis \n\nhomes of Mr. Buck, to draw Rules and Regiations for the the Hospital.\n\nA. GRAND PRE\n\nNerred \n\nActing Colonist Secretary to give the public. which pays him, sogte expérnation of the very doubtiul position in which he at present stands :—— (beily Never.)\n\nsource of the success of such a scheint, would be. 1. for Youghal and W. T. Bridgee. Eaqrektious peaard by the Committee of the Charnam Mr. \n\nWe do not think outy, one great cases of leave Butt, Esq., Barrister and wanting, but something more than money is. C. L., Harrister and Member of the close car-r's me, it may be informed that the dir. mester has wanting-personal superintendence und an interes portion—the Legislative Council of flugkong, tren aited of the charge of breach of pra ilege, \n\nFrom: what has been allow vú to trucepire respecting the \n\nTo \n\nna weit is a portion of the Naval Brigade. The troops the officers of that regiment: -- \n\nwere left on board the transports Lancashire Witch und Tax Benged Hathara, of the 20th March, says with Mooresfort. at Whampoa and the French Contingent remained on board their own ships, except a ousall party in conjeful occupation \n\nreference to two aditional Native Regiments for th \n\nice in China- \n\nPoutres hundred sepoy belonging to the 65th and #2th Regiments N. 1. are now wigh at island, 30 they have not already arrived ut ur in the visity of Barrack port. As we all know they are destined for service in Cuma, provided they can be clarked on the rearts all which possage us ofen signed these, but not being ralunteers for the screire, they canne! in the whole e Looked upon as very willing soldiers vayer for forel ware,\" nnd we sind be able to state the exact numifer that my he proceeding to China, only on the authority \n\n3. the 181, (reclved a communication from Ule Bariul Bizin und Baron Gros, stating that the reply the Contaistioner had been received that is was most antislactory, and inviting the aavel and milhors and-chief to a saference board the Aulaccuse, to consider what further steps aliulit be taken, in consequence of Keb's determination to resist the very nurse decade of the two Governments, \n\n4. Tur conference was held un the 21st it, when it was determined that the pienipotentiaries should \n\nDe knocking at the dors tie Iluase of Coumene\n\nthese prvi of the \n\nthe inverse of Tabs, it would be overwhelmed with adelage India. basic enough co ungrosa tile whole the ovidence selitted to the committee crabile us, \n\ntime of tho bare. And the tuulia eniture, who A Morril, vus of the four Ameere of Upper Selnic, we setertido a boradigazy faith in the nipotence frihe med of turving acquired the interstance of the of Las in judicial proceedings would besiege these members with; dengnes by the presuction of a legal document. The pretura, which if u come the intimation of die James dim Government appelated a commision of the their argir, it would be perfectly air for them to lost heas 4 Prestige de large judicially. The secept. It was nice aged at a Nahub of Arcot bu Cammons in tris pay of an artisan cum te tor conclusion that the charge was eight members of the Host \n\nTim Court of Directors therungen proposed that 1 Sudan bill be any degree resembling that of Lourd Faimers blogne should be deprived of the laude which he held us, is allowed to be low every bilan in-and der the surged decourt. The Presideur of the Bont of their now is leglus--an every wealthy Balno will have attel, for the Cana being, was of opinion that this contence has paid ur uz merabers in the loss of \n\nto lenient, and at bis sggesden Ali Moore was de This is anger gainer which the people of Bogland rised of the ends thus fraudulently bined, and also of have to murd, now that it to props to vrat illa governs \n\nof the pilots reports from the Sashes. Meanwhile, dan letter to the Eugerial High Couimper, started his crban\" laude, beaving him in pranes munt of falla exclusively on the Minsters of the tr \n\nwe dure suy, preparations are being mude for the restoring his Excelteney that, in consequence of his mom.compliance with the debody submitted for fas on of all his remaining and very valuable eruditary! \n\nWe publish the following despatch from the ception of those men to be taken to fight the battles of \n\nconsideration, the lurther settlement of the question the Goverment in a country distant and different from To win a reversal of this judgment, the Amger Putna to \n\nbeen transferred to the anal and military suites, that where as hrave and faithful soldiers their services Sugated. We pas Uver the minor personages in the dis- Government Gazette of last Saturday from the \n\nof State for Foreign affairs, which we ece fur toere required at would be most valuable, that me should sly address better to his silency stating the above faci, and that it, at the end of a further uded the Coffeys, and the alle lady who travelled \n\ntern of forty-eight hours, the eny saguld be perefully from London to Paris, and from Paris to Vienna, for the \n\nquived preparations are compite, nid the sea sust atenie purpose of sizing the deposed prace by paying \n\ncoussy be subject to temporary dependion before surdered into our hands, life and property would be es with it. Gar Lusiness is with the servant of the \n\nthey are sent away. Whether they are all to vents respected; but that, if the teras were out roepted, the English public, the bon, member for Youghal. \n\ntheir rus ad munition or not, we are not aware; city would be attacked. \n\nAll our efforts to avert the evils of war from the hot after the last false alarm, we think it would be \n\nกษ \n\nterested nu eympathising agency by which he was - Secretat, s:t the attention of persons who have Some days may be expected to elapse before the re- \n\ncommend \n\nbeen married in Macau or who propose being married rkare:- \n\nNo. 20. \n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION. \n\nAch is established by Mr. Burt's corn statements. Hiviers were engagal for the Amar acu after that raine's rival in England Mr. Brat sits that he could \n\nWith reference to the Validity of Marriages sofem nie heered the passagement of the application furtius in the der's beauf le staves that he al-nize an Chana, otherwise that ja acendance with nys urged upon the Amer, Aut his lends art advisers, the provisions of the Act 12 and 13 Victores, Cap the bringing of his ca bure Parliament, as the m0268, His Excellency SR JOHN BOWRING, Kaight, relies are to pure. Ha actually used for propers, like \n\nproductive of which he theme obviated to promote the L., Her Majesty's Poipotentiary and Chief er's van. He coniterie the Pirator: the Superintendent of Frade in China &c., &c. has Kulit Company, and agon Mr. Turen faith, the Presisereived a Despatch front The Bight Hande bat the Bora of Control, la licit their nou wees on Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a Copy child of hie ciet. The result of these applicnída was a of which is hereby published for „euerai inforna- jetine on the Board of Directors in answer to the Amcera \n\nBy Order, \n\nG. W. CAINE. Superintendency of Trade, Victoria, Hongkong, 26th April, 1858. Xo. 7 \n\n| \n\njudicious to let it be generally own where and how Chmese having walled, tough the obstinate deteriou the large reinforcement of Pay at the presidency hastian winch as chuterised the proceeding of the een lucnted. Three times the same nombe: of sepoya, Imperial Commissioner from October 21, 1956, oching with all the respectude cam-uds of Barnkport, could remained for the Commanders of the Allied Furces but 15 address the Imperia. Commissiouer, wai to muery into but little, even if they did their worst, but talve \n\ni nens and anuseless panes are any tring fat dignied execution the painful alternative of attacking Centon, Jerorols, would be more effectsly avoided by wich was conquced at daylight this ring. The da:ture of the pucket will prevent my giving say funk revelation of actual wrangements than j \n\ninither reports. I am now on the point of joining the studied reticence which only lends to mystification and forces asembarking at Kuyer's Talked for the zasault on surpicion, -nnd very often reduces the very offre it is \n\nthe city walls, intended a prevent \n\nTur Fagfxman of 23rd Mauch on the same subject, remarks \n\nThe 47th Regt. N. I have nerived, and are vuramped on the glacis of Fort William; they are about 379 strong \n\nof all grace, native officers mari sepoys, and is the Government have ordered Colonel Port, Command FOREIGN OFPics, Alarch 9, 1950. \n\ning, to rerait the Regiment with Malen. Brigadier SIR, eve under my consideration, and have | Corfich with this topiment and the 65th N. I. new en referred to the proper Law Advisers of the Crow, the way down, will leave by the 16th proximo. your Despatches Nos. 452 and 7 of the 26th of \n\nFLOWERS FROM THE INDIAN PAPERS. December and 9d of January last, on the subject of \n\nThe Athene reples mure we to our elrage of the doubts when hel arisen as to the Validity of the \n\nAs we cannot consent to sally our Marriages of British Sabjre's at Chinese Ports; and literary larceny. \n\nges with language ru is seldom beard erido I have to acquaint yaa, in reply, that the Statute i2 \n\nappliers, which on being bitted. se i noceary, for tim. de approvation of the Board of Controt, was materially al. by B1. Fordon sit The reply, as orglundly homed by the Court of Directors, was in vlect, that the Amy's care and on Judicially decided, and that they ans rezson to reverse the decision. The reply, as indi Sed by Me. Vernon Site, was in effent, that if the Amer would zezer his native country, and exert himself in half of the English Government, his real right he Argarable mitezinimesi. These series, fr. But declares, firmad gratully, and simply from his covention of the juice of the Ameer's cline. But in ariston to these parcier Mr. Gutt rent to posed to Failid to argo the Anect's Shell her. For the filter service Mr. Hah desit het theas to receive in all 19,1001, and thut off this She has actually received southing more than 2000. Mr. Butt deolares ther be still holds himself sound to proceed to hulin if the Ameer insists upon it; her in the event of Mr. Bart's aching latelet te lo be will and 13 Victoria, Cap. 68, inponeering Consul topolhouse, our readers must be sausted with our report of fund the money recusat it he is dy preserred solomuze Mariages, does not affect the valulity of, the substance of it. Elis rejoinder is, that our charge of fum pracoding to tudi by the Ameer and his advisers or in any way interfere with, any Marriages which flebing terms the Sproutor is an unmitigated file- arriving at the conclusia thuc his services are not quired would have been valid independently of that Statute, ho,\" and he taunts with being no gentleman. it Here, he will retain the money received. This is, tho \n\nin which category are Mariages celebrated in Chiantik big too on the subject of horsewhips\" and best if our abilty, a tuir and eerut katement of the sub \n\nby Ministers of the Church of England, according horsepouts.\" Bur the strong point agniuss us, ju tja \n\nopis, is our want of gentility. Patial Lects prevad lutorg tår i omories of the House f \n\nto the forms of that Church. \n\nthur contemporary reminds one of the Bath fontman in Pickwick; he can endure anything low.\" When Now, to what do these facts a nuné? Mr. Batt is s Babe of the House of Commons, of a tribunal which and to the Validity of Marriages veiebrated by a \n\nthe public are at a loss for a referee on alkat concerus might intre lawn called aga to procence a verdict as to Clergymen of the Church of England, and not under a gentleman\" they will know wher, to had one. dre justice or injustice due treatment of All Marra by the At 12 and 13 Victoria, Cap. 66, at Macau \n\nLouisana \n\nadi nggala urged 16 Mourial to agipeal lo \n\nM. Mut, Leo, \n\nWith regard to the case fepecially referred to \n\nif \n\nThe deferee, we have already calist characteristic. \n\n6. I beg 10 es, close copies of two General Orders of the 26th instant, and of lemoranda issued by Major- General Van Straubensee, containing the monesancy arzangements for the struck, which I hage will put their lordships in full possession of our intended proceedings. 3. Í have pleasure in reporting that the most perfect umadinty exvts between the Commanders-in-thigï of The allied forces. \n\nI have, .. (Signed) \n\n31. SKY, Bea-Amira and Commanter-in-Chie?. \n\nTo the \n\nSecretary of the Admiralty, \n\nLoudon \n\nGENERAL ORDER. \n\nBefore Canton, December, 1857. The uvala nilitory commander-in-chief of the aisted forces before Cantun love agreed to the following ander of operativas against the city. First bombardme to conxuráce at daylight on Monday morning the 28th of December. \n\nThe sirps and vessels numed in the acte juoder, letter \n\nA) on the signed hereafter indient being made, wilt open fire on the south-west angica of the city wells, with a view to breach them, and impede the communication \n\nThe ships and vessels poused in the net (under letter \n\nThe Gina Cartumqui of India; a transsi which Nie. Baltsgain i Marsa is Chinese Territory, and not a Portuguest | The pickpochyt when arraignai before the Magistrate, of the Chinese troops along thei: parapets to the ent it would appear, actually took some initiatory reps, which precision, such Mauriages 11 be valid as being har generdly hur one answer to wake,-\"it's all a Fed wight have seen servince to the Ameer half as been galebrated in China, Pazar Country. If, however, your wushup.\" We are therefore no more surpriced at hunght be the tribusi of which he was ember. Macao is a possession of Portugal, then it has a the exam's coarse denial than at his blastering), wear the Dutch Folly, with a staritar osject, wit A me wither of the funer of Compune stonde in the core Christian Law of Marriage, as its lex moci,\" and threats, at that the pubic way judge on which ends breach the city walls opposite the Viceroy's residence; Inion to the pimenting even of any individui applying \n\nto met \n\n(Signed) MALMESBURY. \n\nSia Joy Bowring, \n\nBec., N., & \n\nTrue Cops. \n\n11. F. HANCE. \n\nthe mortare in the Dutch Fully, and the Niger and Avalauele, 1.kewise sbetting the city heights auf Gough three insicuess ont of many at our dispoed, in which the Aina has appropiated without actueledgment heights. \n\nThe ships and vessels named in the note (under letter whunt he found in journal. The racier of the ex wination of the Military Female phan Asylum C), beruse the Dutch Folly and the French Folly, will pubished by the Aham was made up entirely from apen fire on the Rooth-east ungles of the new and ell what had appeared the previous day in the Spector, elty walls, mud the walls ferning the east side of the city. These time several nacks will couuence simul without the slightest arkludgment the fuder's) Charge at the opsing the last Sessions repertet for taseously, wira a white csiga shall be hoisted at the fore the Ann, mail a yelaw dug us a corresponding this carnal, was similaris fched the reports of the trinis for funpiracy, the two of most interest, appeared sigral at the spule he listed at the fure of the in the Athena aise the day after they were publised Phugction. \n\nThe Horet end the Avalanche wild repeat these signals A still are at theit fore so long as the Angs shall remain Byug on \n\nthe before mentioned shipa \n\nsit j'fusion, that a judya iter in the run or Manages of British Sabjects anort, in order to be the guilt of \"falschod\" iles, with mension two or \n\nWet wein de said of judge widertunk valid, he adenized there esther in accordance with conse or saticier for a site who had brough, or such lex leci,\" or with the Provisions of the Act \n\nin bring, actions in de curt? The iniquity are mentioned.-1 am, &c., ach step in any incrad a little tem prave by the consider the lye har, or had not received re- mueratina f his seres ful bun pliced biawety in the wharf whition of being with by price that he be mil preciera remuneration for undertaking to as me $5. iend's sent before a tribuent of vehich he to \"use of the anashers. He has aceste promise of 10,0004, for his services, sart of thị sùm he estually trevived more anne ut The urging of the Amcer à aut span the ludia \n\nW take the following short notice of the Khang in the Spectator, almost verbatim, whion & single torrent is one este act, whether the erfarin \n\nflagrant case of Newspaper dishonesty, nceurred in on- ting, the insete the line of it, or has Spring Meeting from the North-Ching Herald whisper whence the apolis were stolen. the juce the tivard Camiral in Cannon-run. it of the 24th olim. The commis mun who so osion with the articultural Exhibition, when the serar di Tu say that make do improper for ft. But to aventry for urging a se before the Howe of ham sold people here at our anal meeting has been the revive the report of the Prizes from the cautioned day and night, net in exceed per each gun carrying off all the good things of Secretary, w the express coulition that he should, is employed 60 rounds during the Best 3 uurs, except f which it is in, but then it would be a right and fortanste \n\n\"We wander who rode our cormity with the usage of the Press on icse oc- the ships under letter C. which will fire 100 rounds. \n\nThey were proper for him to wipe the end beture the Ligure of Chanan, the Northern turt. \n\nCasics, end slips so the Speci \n\nfudiately the bunchardment open the landing of the attic forces will take place at the creek in' Küper an, of the man tinte, kifor a sane her trimmal, provided be ezig recessed reaeration, for the tertives let here the old friend raid. Yellow Jack and Tartar are with e, at the east of Leuils as well as of honesty. The \n\nThe dist heul mom is welcome to the use of vagulang words Pussage, when there the British and French dags will batur. His obvious that by such decision the door to abwe be found in the Hwek Stakes. art by rite oper. Nothing more would be tryniced never have been elsewhere --- \n\nwhich like utty her about he worbi did an enlty be planted in the following order, commencing a day- in eaing, if Palled upon to do so; we will conline onr \n\nlight- to end a remier if Parliament to pochert with perfect; \n\nThe mail, that apology for au many lanes, is urged by \n\nsives har fiets. It is of some consentence that safety a renumeration as Parliamentary agent, u \n\njon which he was onlied in devide as lielige by cerforming war sareporter as a plea for 101 furnishing 18, ki this the public should know that the journal which has won adition acres in his client cost of deces, et clurging issay, with the fall, time and parimer pronunt of the \n\nFor itself the reputation of being acivali in squerility Taxes that came off on Wednesday and Friday in this sproper timotely large for for them. We will not, in \n\ntatau kitowledge, afirm that the committee of \n\nThe stud was graced by the presence of many of car fair residents, and the intervals between the races were enlivened by the music of the of 11. M. S. Higher Adly tout for the occultat: \n\nFIRST DAY. \n\nThe Wung Plate-Spota, 1; Muischite, 2; Dred. 33 \n\nBlack Cockatoo, i. \n\nTHE CHINESE DESPATCHES. THE BOMBARDMENT OF CAYTON. \n\nWAR OFFICE. Fra Mazt, February 15 \n\nThe Secretary of State for War but this day received & despute, of which the following is a copy, addressed is lord chip by Major Geveral C. T, Vas Strubeuzes, C. B., commanding are Majesty's Land Forces in Chan \n\nCenton, December 29, 1857. \n\nMy Lord-I have great satisfactios in reporting that Canton city was ermaisded muud eaptured this day at nine o'clock, with a more trifling losa das enuld have been expected. liceat emulatios was displaye 1 by the whole Allied Force, ten-st whom the greatest cordiality and god feeling into \n\nWe have to deplore the low Royal Suvy, els of Liestemt fiske, of the 59 Regie In stenaut Bowen, ct the me regiment, has tree seriously wounded, \n\nAll \n\nand misrepresentata, is as dishonest in soull thing as The Flea of Comes applied to inquire in Mr. Bersoek; we can therefore only give the places of the brass \n\nSpretter case has come to such a monstrous decisiour; but if it hits and ponies as they came in, which we do on the best. With fius exposure we leave him-Medran \n\nThe intimation arributed to Sir. Jaries Gesinam shut authority, sed promise a graphic report in or next. \n\nThe weather and ground was favorable on the whole, ties of the resolutions was an acquittal of Isan Sasho charge of inproperly enjoying bis prillon bach days, thongh there was a greas outrast; then e is a member of Le 1s of Con alyst day be hot, with a southerly with, and the ther- escuptible of ach an interpretation-it ili ose electors memeter in the shule at 80°, and on Friday, a cold nor- tur be an incir qurd visst the sing why we for strictherly wind was hiewing, and the hormoneter at 63. \n\nPiwili place himself sack $19- It had rained a god deal the night before, hat the wind jście position \n\nAnd dried the course pretty well.\" this tunction The part which Ms. Butt han played cannot be appruched less his negetation with the x-reshient of the art of Corral are taken into account. Mr Vermilch admits that he had repeated emmunications with Mr. Butt-vethal aud epilary-on the subject of the class of Ali Mvered. Of in excep Timock was kept me the lacters are said to have bren private autoosidential. It is possible, Therefore, bu learn with certainty what was the lure of the comuneulea- tions. But this is certain, il subsequently to these inter- Venom Sto altered a dras lurzer 1935 [ektors, Mr. nd the Court of Directors refusing to entertain the Ameer's application, iuro a letter couraging him to return to Sciarie by long at the lope Sut i li mi nital Ala to the Buglial Governinect something arigat he does to him. The only reasna, sseigned for too parišal revered fa inficial teuer, on the strengt of private, sureverteil enamiestis, is that the siteure appenced inrse; but M. Vernon Sanita gave the contest la stand Und Je very reluctant to have sue Ameer's new debaresi à l'aclinent while the Bengal insurrection was it progress, Mr. But having gives it frommilostared theit die hunt informed the ex-Pretent of the Beart of Country of his having tuged the user and his friends to bring the wise 'fore Parlia ne. We r TL entitled to say that Mr. Batt obtained the centerscica in favour of 32 Moured by hinting to the Prescrican of the Buned of Contro, but he had it is power Parliment to fore in a cebam As slin Amour' case; tot in the cherastonces succions will intrude themelsea which at in mot easy to disynd \n\nThe righe Flute-Cock Tail, 1; Peg Tupe, 2; Tiny, 3: \n\nTelegram. 4 \n\nThe ingken Cuga-Sydney, 1; Cheertal, 2 Vaugueril, 8. The dis-Touiz 1 Spot, ; Cock Tail 3, \n\nChelato, 4 72 Pailon, 1; Deuil. 2. \n\nThe finch Marks Rocket, Bay Midleton, 2. \n\nThe Shanghae Pork Cup —Syota, 1; Maiciite, 2; Tapas, \n\n3. \n\nSECOND DAY. \n\nThe fisher Flame-Tiege, walked oven, \n\nThe Swing Cry-Cacetent, 1; Cheerful, 2; Vanguard, \n\n3. \n\nThe China-sup-Blank Coelaten, 1: Topaz. 2; Lakin i \n\nThe T'antica Cap---Coverfil. 1: Shali, 2; Drutd, 8, The Hunt Strikellow Zack, Rocket, 2: Tartar, 3. After the figh vene, in the second day, a match was Parween, Mr. Recens guy Are pobytynen, and Mr. Benadier's black Cafe piny Tube, which was won \n\nGarne. \n\nWe pronoun an epilar in the count of 7%. Batsby mini iko es dreient of the board of Contd. We are will \n\nthat fact of both lisa hart ht \n\nThis will the deutet \n\narists cl \n\navember of the Homme Camus in a \n\nThe following extracts in the Hurkura wnd Englishmas. Calcutta papers, will be read with \n\nun riser as preferring a sai to the lease if interest anal satisfaction by the Colonists of be is lined to \"eir veneration from the air for a Hongkong, if the Pandies are landed here, and po \n\ning the sun elsewhere, if the mean He that doubt with equal satisfaction by General Van \n\nare il gratuitously in the Hour by the name tur \n\nStrasbenzre if such galbut and ready soldiers are placed under his charge. We do not like \n\nengaged is allen wat align and are public civic of the Chatte, whenleigh them drada a dealer fee site's claims in the flow of Corsake y comments, for it by n chase the regiments reach bare without racing their barge conectanapur his eliumiven conrægur dance of com region may be enfly tired by mandors th heers (insult them Pardy met vertaily will House of Come and in the Eccrtine Government, Such a state of stairs is const unsatisfactory even b we shall have some gallant ofboer of ours dawn maky now, star), But supposing that the entire itone Adastraling of India were vested in a single mon ne with the assertion that never was there Minister of the Corn she is to the House of a more loyal or better behaved regiment in Culosis, with wild traptations would the integrity of Our representatives in the legislature le tona feet Atler Majesty's service. We had a sample of it it is, wo have had at one time a Narab Susa, Rajans the other day in the case of the 70th, when a \n\nCaptain Hates, of the \n\nThe hophardment is to be in very low time, aud \n\n1. Suppers and Miners, 59th Regiment, Royal Artillery, stores and mention, \n\nThe French Nawai Brigale, stoves, &c. \n\n3. The Naval Brigade, under the ader of Commodore the 1o. 4. 6. 1, B Esot. \n\n4. The Naval Brigade from Cantun. \n\n5. Lieulcunt.Cola.et lemon's battalica of Royal Marines, & \n\nd. Cutearl Holowry's Brigade of Royal Marines, &c, (Waru last heet of No. £ has passed, No. 2 will com meece, and on with: the remainder \n\nThe duration of the French forces will be eritraded by Capta Reinan:], fg captein; the British troops and Royal Marines by Major the Bon. H. Cidord \n\nThe British Naval Brigade, by Captain W. K. Hall.\n\n... acutalo.\n\nThe following will be the disposition of the united forces after landing:\n\nBritish Naval Brigade on the right.\n\nCentre bridge, composed of Lieutenant-Colonel Lemon's provano instalion, 19th Regiment, Royal Artillery, and Sapiers.\n\nPreucia bridge on the inft\n\nColonel Holloway's brigade in reserve, with Royal Marine Artillery,\n\nAfter getting into position the allied forces will remain still to cancuston, and the mail leaving; I must therefore defer instheer det üle to the next rpportunity. † in line of contianova elutus of brigade audil further...\n\nI bwe, &c.\n\nC. T. VAN STinerszre, M jur General,\n\nCommanding Traps in China,\n\nPort Gongh is now heng oerapied.\n\nThe Right Hon.\n\nthe Secretary of Stue for \n\nWar, C., * \n\nADMIRAL SEYMOUR'S DESPATIUU.\n\nAdmiralty, Fuurorg 15. Despoteker, of which the following me cans, bure en verived by the Lords Commissioners of the! Astrahy Trout Kee-Sentral Sir Michael Seyavour,\n\nOrumates at CANYON \n\nNo. 357.\n\nHer Majesty's ship Coromandri,\n\nnt fan. De ch SirMy letter (No.343) of the 13th ist. courzved \n\nPuins to the fures of the Allied Power, and that u \n\nthe indigence of the raceable regation of ionsh letter had seen vent in t. You, the Lagerial High Cour mission, by the ass-furs of the Allied Powers, stating the deamus of the two Gavernitects, d rating ten days for a consideration of the same, lailing earnered against the city of Citati.\n\nplane with which, conise mesures would be 2. The Brigade of Royal Mears et igal Maries Actriery mere inediately wasis dought up to the i \n\nunders for an advaner, watch will be made to a position \n\nfor vise night, y reparatury to active service us the follow-\n\nnig andag. \n\nM. Skrmore, Rent.Adesiral. \n\nComander-in-Chief of Her Britannic \n\nMajesty's Noynt Purees. \n\nRear-Adesira \n\nC. HowerDA GENOT13.1.T \n\nComewi'kiet af 1Fix Emperial \n\nAlajesty's Naval Forces. \n\nCT VAN STRAL BENZ, Major Lien, Commanding the Alinary Force, \n\nGENERAL MEMORANDUM. Carouane), Canton, Deectner 26, 1857.\n\nThe Nuva! Brigade of seanien will be in three divisions. The divisions will be tald off into companies, each stvising gomorracing No. 1. md the last timber cop. rames is 1st tumi 2e devisions will be composed of boats' \n\ncrewy. \n\n(A) Actre, blgethon, and guulmate, \n\n() Me. Puade, Crnizer, Tornet, and a gunhast. \n\nNumrud, Surprise, 1 agone, Mares, a gunboals. After se p, the three fut-anted ships will after sheir genka 18 will, after one qui, aiter their fire to the north- east with gate. fire to the ty and Gough's Lighrere Alarmcast and \n\nSea Supplemen \n\n} \n\n} \n\n## GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nWith reference to the Validity of Marriages...\n\nHis Excellency SR JOHN BOWRING, Kaight, L., Her Majesty's Poipotentiary and Chief Superintendent of Trade in China &c., &c. has received a Despatch from The Right Honorable Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs...\n\nBy Order,\n\nG. W. CAINE. Superintendency of Trade, Victoria, Hongkong, 26th April, 1858. No. 7\n\n| \n| --- \n| --- \n\njudicious to let it be generally own where and how Chinese having walled, tough the obstinate deteriou the large reinforcement of Pay at the presidency hastian winch as chuterised the proceeding of the een lucnted. Three times the same nombe: of sepoya, Imperial Commissioner from October 21, 1956, oching with all the respectude cam-uds of Barnkport, could remained for the Commanders of the Allied Furces but 15 address the Imperia. Commissiouer, wai to muery into but little, even if they did their worst, but talve \n\ni nens and anuseless panes are any tring fat dignied execution the painful alternative of attacking Centon, Jerorols, would be more effectsly avoided by wich was conquced at daylight this ring. The da:ture of the pucket will prevent my giving say funk revelation of actual wrangements than j \n\ninither reports. I am now on the point of joining the studied reticence which only lends to mystification and forces asembarking at Kuyer's Talked for the zasault on surpicion, -nnd very often reduces the very offre it is \n\nthe city walls, intended a prevent \n\nTur Fagfxman of 23rd Mauch on the same subject, remarks \n\nThe 47th Regt. N. I have nerived, and are vuramped on the glacis of Fort William; they are about 379 strong \n\nof all grace, native officers mari sepoys, and is the Government have ordered Colonel Port, Command FOREIGN OFPics, Alarch 9, 1950. \n\ning, to rerait the Regiment with Malen. Brigadier SIR, eve under my consideration, and have | Corfich with this topiment and the 65th N. I. new en referred to the proper Law Advisers of the Crow, the way down, will leave by the 16th proximo. your Despatches Nos. 452 and 7 of the 26th of \n\nFLOWERS FROM THE INDIAN PAPERS. December and 9d of January last, on the subject of \n\nThe Athene reples mure we to our elrage of the doubts when hel arisen as to the Validity of the \n\nAs we cannot consent to sally our Marriages of British Sabjre's at Chinese Ports; and literary larceny. \n\nges with language ru is seldom beard erido I have to acquaint yaa, in reply, that the Statute i2 \n\nappliers, which on being bitted. se i noceary, for tim. de approvation of the Board of Controt, was materially al. by B1. Fordon sit The reply, as orglundly homed by the Court of Directors, was in vlect, that the Amy's care and on Judicially decided, and that they ans rezson to reverse the decision. The reply, as indi Sed by Me. Vernon Site, was in effent, that if the Amer would zezer his native country, and exert himself in half of the English Government, his real right he Argarable mitezinimesi. These series, fr. But declares, firmad gratully, and simply from his covention of the juice of the Ameer's cline. But in ariston to these parcier Mr. Gutt rent to posed to Failid to argo the Anect's Shell her. For the filter service Mr. Hah desit het theas to receive in all 19,1001, and thut off this She has actually received southing more than 2000. Mr. Butt deolares ther be still holds himself sound to proceed to hulin if the Ameer insists upon it; her in the event of Mr. Bart's aching latelet te lo be will and 13 Victoria, Cap. 68, inponeering Consul topolhouse, our readers must be sausted with our report of fund the money recusat it he is dy preserred solomuze Mariages, does not affect the valulity of, the substance of it. Elis rejoinder is, that our charge of fum pracoding to tudi by the Ameer and his advisers or in any way interfere with, any Marriages which flebing terms the Sproutor is an unmitigated file- arriving at the conclusia thuc his services are not quired would have been valid independently of that Statute, ho,\" and he taunts with being no gentleman. it Here, he will retain the money received. This is, tho \n\nin which category are Mariages celebrated in Chiantik big too on the subject of horsewhips\" and best if our abilty, a tuir and eerut katement of the sub \n\nby Ministers of the Church of England, according horsepouts.\" Bur the strong point agniuss us, ju tja \n\nopis, is our want of gentility. Patial Lects prevad lutorg tår i omories of the House f \n\nto the forms of that Church. \n\nthur contemporary reminds one of the Bath fontman in Pickwick; he can endure anything low.\" When Now, to what do these facts a nuné? Mr. Batt is s Babe of the House of Commons, of a tribunal which and to the Validity of Marriages veiebrated by a \n\nthe public are at a loss for a referee on alkat concerus might intre lawn called aga to procence a verdict as to Clergymen of the Church of England, and not under a gentleman\" they will know wher, to had one. dre justice or injustice due treatment of All Marra by the At 12 and 13 Victoria, Cap. 66, at Macau \n\nLouisana \n\nadi nggala urged 16 Mourial to agipeal lo \n\nM. Mut, Leo, \n\nWith regard to the case fepecially referred to \n\nif \n\nThe deferee, we have already calist characteristic. \n\n6. I beg 10 es, close copies of two General Orders of the 26th instant, and of lemoranda issued by Major- General Van Straubensee, containing the monesancy arzangements for the struck, which I hage will put their lordships in full possession of our intended proceedings. 3. Í have pleasure in reporting that the most perfect umadinty exvts between the Commanders-in-thigï of The allied forces. \n\nI have, .. (Signed) \n\n31. SKY, Bea-Amira and Commanter-in-Chie?. \n\nTo the \n\nSecretary of the Admiralty, \n\nLoudon \n\nGENERAL ORDER. \n\nBefore Canton, December, 1857. The uvala nilitory commander-in-chief of the aisted forces before Cantun love agreed to the following ander of operativas against the city. First bombardme to conxuráce at daylight on Monday morning the 28th of December. \n\nThe sirps and vessels numed in the acte juoder, letter \n\nA) on the signed hereafter indient being made, wilt open fire on the south-west angica of the city wells, with a view to breach them, and impede the communication \n\nThe ships and vessels poused in the net (under letter \n\nThe Gina Cartumqui of India; a transsi which Nie. Baltsgain i Marsa is Chinese Territory, and not a Portuguest | The pickpochyt when arraignai before the Magistrate, of the Chinese troops along thei: parapets to the ent it would appear, actually took some initiatory reps, which precision, such Mauriages 11 be valid as being har generdly hur one answer to wake,-\"it's all a Fed wight have seen servince to the Ameer half as been galebrated in China, Pazar Country. If, however, your wushup.\" We are therefore no more surpriced at hunght be the tribusi of which he was ember. Macao is a possession of Portugal, then it has a the exam's coarse denial than at his blastering), wear the Dutch Folly, with a staritar osject, wit A me wither of the funer of Compune stonde in the core Christian Law of Marriage, as its lex moci,\" and threats, at that the pubic way judge on which ends breach the city walls opposite the Viceroy's residence; Inion to the pimenting even of any individui applying \n\nto met \n\n(Signed) MALMESBURY. \n\nSia Joy Bowring, \n\nBec., N., & \n\nTrue Cops. \n\n11. F. HANCE. \n\nthe mortare in the Dutch Fully, and the Niger and Avalauele, 1.kewise sbetting the city heights auf Gough three insicuess ont of many at our dispoed, in which the Aina has appropiated without actueledgment heights. \n\nThe ships and vessels named in the note (under letter whunt he found in journal. The racier of the ex wination of the Military Female phan Asylum C), beruse the Dutch Folly and the French Folly, will pubished by the Aham was made up entirely from apen fire on the Rooth-east ungles of the new and ell what had appeared the previous day in the Spector, elty walls, mud the walls ferning the east side of the city. These time several nacks will couuence simul without the slightest arkludgment the fuder's) Charge at the opsing the last Sessions repertet for taseously, wira a white csiga shall be hoisted at the fore the Ann, mail a yelaw dug us a corresponding this carnal, was similaris fched the reports of the trinis for funpiracy, the two of most interest, appeared sigral at the spule he listed at the fure of the in the Athena aise the day after they were publised Phugction. \n\nThe Horet end the Avalanche wild repeat these signals A still are at theit fore so long as the Angs shall remain Byug on \n\nthe before mentioned shipa \n\nsit j'fusion, that a judya iter in the run or Manages of British Sabjects anort, in order to be the guilt of \"falschod\" iles, with mension two or \n\nWet wein de said of judge widertunk valid, he adenized there esther in accordance with conse or saticier for a site who had brough, or such lex leci,\" or with the Provisions of the Act \n\nin bring, actions in de curt? The iniquity are mentioned.-1 am, &c., ach step in any incrad a little tem prave by the consider the lye har, or had not received re- mueratina f his seres ful bun pliced biawety in the wharf whition of being with by price that he be mil preciera remuneration for undertaking to as me $5. iend's sent before a tribuent of vehich he to \"use of the anashers. He has aceste promise of 10,0004, for his services, sart of thị sùm he estually trevived more anne ut The urging of the Amcer à aut span the ludia \n\nW take the following short notice of the Khang in the Spectator, almost verbatim, whion & single torrent is one este act, whether the erfarin \n\nflagrant case of Newspaper dishonesty, nceurred in on- ting, the insete the line of it, or has Spring Meeting from the North-Ching Herald whisper whence the apolis were stolen. the juce the tivard Camiral in Cannon-run. it of the 24th olim. The commis mun who so osion with the articultural Exhibition, when the serar di Tu say that make do improper for ft. But to aventry for urging a se before the Howe of ham sold people here at our anal meeting has been the revive the report of the Prizes from the cautioned day and night, net in exceed per each gun carrying off all the good things of Secretary, w the express coulition that he should, is employed 60 rounds during the Best 3 uurs, except f which it is in, but then it would be a right and fortanste \n\n\"We wander who rode our cormity with the usage of the Press on icse oc- the ships under letter C. which will fire 100 rounds. \n\nThey were proper for him to wipe the end beture the Ligure of Chanan, the Northern turt. \n\nCasics, end slips so the Speci \n\nfudiately the bunchardment open the landing of the attic forces will take place at the creek in' Küper an, of the man tinte, kifor a sane her trimmal, provided be ezig recessed reaeration, for the tertives let here the old friend raid. Yellow Jack and Tartar are with e, at the east of Leuils as well as of honesty. The \n\nThe dist heul mom is welcome to the use of vagulang words Pussage, when there the British and French dags will batur. His obvious that by such decision the door to abwe be found in the Hwek Stakes. art by rite oper. Nothing more would be tryniced never have been elsewhere --- \n\nwhich like utty her about he worbi did an enlty be planted in the following order, commencing a day- in eaing, if Palled upon to do so; we will conline onr \n\nlight- to end a remier if Parliament to pochert with perfect; \n\nThe mail, that apology for au many lanes, is urged by \n\nsives har fiets. It is of some consentence that safety a renumeration as Parliamentary agent, u \n\njon which he was onlied in devide as lielige by cerforming war sareporter as a plea for 101 furnishing 18, ki this the public should know that the journal which has won adition acres in his client cost of deces, et clurging issay, with the fall, time and parimer pronunt of the \n\nFor itself the reputation of being acivali in squerility Taxes that came off on Wednesday and Friday in this sproper timotely large for for them. We will not, in \n\ntatau kitowledge, afirm that the committee of \n\nThe stud was graced by the presence of many of car fair residents, and the intervals between the races were enlivened by the music of the of 11. M. S. Higher Adly tout for the occultat: \n\nFIRST DAY. \n\nThe Wung Plate-Spota, 1; Muischite, 2; Dred. 33 \n\nBlack Cockatoo, i. \n\nTHE CHINESE DESPATCHES. THE BOMBARDMENT OF CAYTON. \n\nWAR OFFICE. Fra Mazt, February 15 \n\nThe Secretary of State for War but this day received & despute, of which the following is a copy, addressed is lord chip by Major Geveral C. T, Vas Strubeuzes, C. B., commanding are Majesty's Land Forces in Chan \n\nCenton, December 29, 1857. \n\nMy Lord-I have great satisfactios in reporting that Canton city was ermaisded muud eaptured this day at nine o'clock, with a more trifling losa das enuld have been expected. liceat emulatios was displaye 1 by the whole Allied Force, ten-st whom the greatest cordiality and god feeling into \n\nWe have to deplore the low Royal Suvy, els of Liestemt fiske, of the 59 Regie In stenaut Bowen, ct the me regiment, has tree seriously wounded, \n\nAll \n\nand misrepresentata, is as dishonest in soull thing as The Flea of Comes applied to inquire in Mr. Bersoek; we can therefore only give the places of the brass \n\nSpretter case has come to such a monstrous decisiour; but if it hits and ponies as they came in, which we do on the best. With fius exposure we leave him-Medran \n\nThe intimation arributed to Sir. Jaries Gesinam shut authority, sed promise a graphic report in or next. \n\nThe weather and ground was favorable on the whole, ties of the resolutions was an acquittal of Isan Sasho charge of inproperly enjoying bis prillon bach days, thongh there was a greas outrast; then e is a member of Le 1s of Con alyst day be hot, with a southerly with, and the ther- escuptible of ach an interpretation-it ili ose electors memeter in the shule at 80°, and on Friday, a cold nor- tur be an incir qurd visst the sing why we for strictherly wind was hiewing, and the hormoneter at 63. \n\nPiwili place himself sack $19- It had rained a god deal the night before, hat the wind jście position \n\nAnd dried the course pretty well.\" this tunction The part which Ms. Butt han played cannot be appruched less his negetation with the x-reshient of the art of Corral are taken into account. Mr Vermilch admits that he had repeated emmunications with Mr. Butt-vethal aud epilary-on the subject of the class of Ali Mvered. Of in excep Timock was kept me the lacters are said to have bren private autoosidential. It is possible, Therefore, bu learn with certainty what was the lure of the comuneulea- tions. But this is certain, il subsequently to these inter- Venom Sto altered a dras lurzer 1935 [ektors, Mr. nd the Court of Directors refusing to entertain the Ameer's application, iuro a letter couraging him to return to Sciarie by long at the lope Sut i li mi nital Ala to the Buglial Governinect something arigat he does to him. The only reasna, sseigned for too parišal revered fa inficial teuer, on the strengt of private, sureverteil enamiestis, is that the siteure appenced inrse; but M. Vernon Sanita gave the contest la stand Und Je very reluctant to have sue Ameer's new debaresi à l'aclinent while the Bengal insurrection was it progress, Mr. But having gives it frommilostared theit die hunt informed the ex-Pretent of the Beart of Country of his having tuged the user and his friends to bring the wise 'fore Parlia ne. We r TL entitled to say that Mr. Batt obtained the centerscica in favour of 32 Moured by hinting to the Prescrican of the Buned of Contro, but he had it is power Parliment to fore in a cebam As slin Amour' case; tot in the cherastonces succions will intrude themelsea which at in mot easy to disynd \n\nThe righe Flute-Cock Tail, 1; Peg Tupe, 2; Tiny, 3: \n\nTelegram. 4 \n\nThe ingken Cuga-Sydney, 1; Cheertal, 2 Vaugueril, 8. The dis-Touiz 1 Spot, ; Cock Tail 3, \n\nChelato, 4 72 Pailon, 1; Deuil. 2. \n\nThe finch Marks Rocket, Bay Midleton, 2. \n\nThe Shanghae Pork Cup —Syota, 1; Maiciite, 2; Tapas, \n\n3. \n\nSECOND DAY. \n\nThe fisher Flame-Tiege, walked oven, \n\nThe Swing Cry-Cacetent, 1; Cheerful, 2; Vanguard, \n\n3. \n\nThe China-sup-Blank Coelaten, 1: Topaz. 2; Lakin i \n\nThe T'antica Cap---Coverfil. 1: Shali, 2; Drutd, 8, The Hunt Strikellow Zack, Rocket, 2: Tartar, 3. After the figh vene, in the second day, a match was Parween, Mr. Recens guy Are pobytynen, and Mr. Benadier's black Cafe piny Tube, which was won \n\nGarne. \n\nWe pronoun an epilar in the count of 7%. Batsby mini iko es dreient of the board of Contd. We are will \n\nthat fact of both lisa hart ht \n\nThis will the deutet \n\narists cl \n\navember of the Homme Camus in a \n\nThe following extracts in the Hurkura wnd Englishmas. Calcutta papers, will be read with \n\nun riser as preferring a sai to the lease if interest anal satisfaction by the Colonists of be is lined to \"eir veneration from the air for a Hongkong, if the Pandies are landed here, and po \n\ning the sun elsewhere, if the mean He that doubt with equal satisfaction by General Van \n\nare il gratuitously in the Hour by the name tur \n\nStrasbenzre if such galbut and ready soldiers are placed under his charge. We do not like \n\nengaged is allen wat align and are public civic of the Chatte, whenleigh them drada a dealer fee site's claims in the flow of Corsake y comments, for it by n chase the regiments reach bare without racing their barge conectanapur his eliumiven conrægur dance of com region may be enfly tired by mandors th heers (insult them Pardy met vertaily will House of Come and in the Eccrtine Government, Such a state of stairs is const unsatisfactory even b we shall have some gallant ofboer of ours dawn maky now, star), But supposing that the entire itone Adastraling of India were vested in a single mon ne with the assertion that never was there Minister of the Corn she is to the House of a more loyal or better behaved regiment in Culosis, with wild traptations would the integrity of Our representatives in the legislature le tona feet Atler Majesty's service. We had a sample of it it is, wo have had at one time a Narab Susa, Rajans the other day in the case of the 70th, when a \n\nCaptain Hates, of the \n\nThe hophardment is to be in very low time, aud \n\n1. Suppers and Miners, 59th Regiment, Royal Artillery, stores and mention, \n\nThe French Nawai Brigale, stoves, &c. \n\n3. The Naval Brigade, under the ader of Commodore the 1o. 4. 6. 1, B Esot. \n\n4. The Naval Brigade from Cantun. \n\n5. Lieulcunt.Cola.et lemon's battalica of Royal Marines, & \n\nd. Cutearl Holowry's Brigade of Royal Marines, &c, (Waru last heet of No. £ has passed, No. 2 will com meece, and on with: the remainder \n\nThe duration of the French forces will be eritraded by Capta Reinan:], fg captein; the British troops and Royal Marines by Major the Bon. H. Clidord \n\nThe British Naval Brigade, by Captain W. K. Hall.\n\n... acutalo.\n\nThe following will be the disposition of the united forces after landing:\n\n| Unit | Position |\n| --- | --- |\n| British Naval Brigade | Right |\n| Centre bridge | Composed of Lieutenant-Colonel Lemon's battalion, 19th Regiment, Royal Artillery, and Sapiers |\n| Preucia bridge | Left |\n| Colonel Holloway's brigade | Reserve, with Royal Marine Artillery |\n\nAfter getting into position the allied forces will remain...\n\nC. T. VAN STRAUBENZEE, Major General,\n\nCommanding Traps in China,\n\nPort Gongh is now being occupied.\n\nThe Right Hon.\n\nthe Secretary of State for \n\nWar, C., * \n\nADMIRAL SEYMOUR'S DESPATIUU.\n\nAdmiralty, Fuurorg 15. Despoteker, of which the following me cans, bure en verived by the Lords Commissioners of the! Astrahy Trout Kee-Sentral Sir Michael Seyavour,\n\nOrumates at CANYON \n\nNo. 357.\n\nHer Majesty's ship Coromandri,\n\nnt fan. De ch SirMy letter (No.343) of the 13th ist. courzved \n\nPuins to the fures of the Allied Power, and that u \n\nthe indigence of the raceable regation of ionsh letter had seen vent in t. You, the Lagerial High Cour mission, by the ass-furs of the Allied Powers, stating the deamus of the two Gavernitects, d rating ten days for a consideration of the same, lailing earnered against the city of Citati.\n\nplane with which, conise mesures would be 2. The Brigade of Royal Mears et igal Maries Actriery mere inediately wasis dought up to the i \n\nunders for an advaner, watch will be made to a position \n\nfor vise night, y reparatury to active service us the follow-\n\nnig andag. \n\nM. Skrmore, Rent.Adesiral. \n\nComander-in-Chief of Her Britannic \n\nMajesty's Noynt Purees. \n\nRear-Adesira \n\nC. HowerDA GENOT13.1.T \n\nComewi'kiet af 1Fix Emperial \n\nAlajesty's Naval Forces. \n\nCT VAN STRAL BENZ, Major Lien, Commanding the Alinary Force, \n\nGENERAL MEMORANDUM. Carouane), Canton, Deectner 26, 1857.\n\nThe Nuva! Brigade of seanien will be in three divisions. The divisions will be tald off into companies, each stvising gomorracing No. 1. md the last timber cop. rames is 1st tumi 2e devisions will be composed of boats' \n\ncrewy. \n\n(A) Actre, blgethon, and guulmate, \n\n() Me. Puade, Crnizer, Tornet, and a gunhast. \n\nNumrud, Surprise, 1 agone, Mares, a gunboals. After se p, the three fut-anted ships will after sheir genka 18 will, after one qui, aiter their fire to the north- east with gate. fire to the ty and Gough's Lighrere Alarmcast and \n\nSea Supplemen \n\n} \n\n}",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 244729,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "page_number": 471,
        "title": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "content_text": "468 \n\n(32) \n\nThe omitted passages refer to the place of residence of the Chinese. I mention this only as an instance, but I could give many more, and Mr May is aware of three which were the subject of a conversation between us yesterday. When stated, they will show that since this inquiry began, Mrs Caldwell has been sending round to every person from whom she can recollect to have received what they call presents, and desiring them, if called upon, to deny having given such presents, for that the charges are false. \n\nMr May and the Chief Magistrate, who were the Committing Justices, will be able to inform the Commission who procured bail for Ma-chow Wong, and whether the Chief Magistrate warned Mr Caldwell that it would be more decent for him to stay away from the inquiry upon his sitting on the bench, and offering suggestions favourable to the culprit. It came out in evidence before the Chief Magistrate, while I was present, that the witnesses in one of the cases were threatened with personal violence by Ma-chow Wong's friends and I think either then or upon a previous day, as much as $1,000 was offered to buy off one or more of the Crown witnesses. The Chief Magistrate himself, and afterwards I, by his permission, addressed the Crown witnesses, and the Chinese audience through an Interpreter, and we dared them, at least I did, to execute their threats - telling them what would be the consequence to themselves if they attempted it. This was my last appearance in any Court before proceeding the following week to India on sick leave. Captain Twiss and Mr Hannen, who were with me, can confirm what took place in Court that day. \n\nIt was on that occasion that, as stated in my letter, some of the business accounts of the pirate's hong were produced and read. I distinctly remember several entries of monies entered to Samkwei's credit. The word \"Samkwei\" was the first word I heard upon entering the Court. \n\nAs to the bail having been but a month before in prison for debt - the man himself, Szekai, has proved that - and also that he was or had been Mr Caldwell's servant. \n\nThat Mr Caldwell was guilty of the denial referred to in my letter, is, I apprehend, admitted; it certainly is proved; whether it is audacious is a matter of inference, and I adhere to the expression. I heard His Excellency state on the 10th ultimo, as recorded in my letter of the 13th, that the reason why Ma-chow Wong was not pardoned was that his accounts and papers were ascertained to contain such evidence of the man's systematic guilt, as to make his pardon impossible. Mr Caldwell having denied that they contained any evidence of guilt, it follows that Mr May's two memoranda, and Mr Wade's certificate were the materials which His Excellency had before him, and on which he formed his judgment. I know that those memoranda were in existence within a week before. Mr Wade proceeded with Lord Elgin to the North. \n\nMr Wade and I had a long conversation about them and their contents about that time, and he told me there was no doubt that the accounts and papers contained the evidence of the convict's guilt. He further stated, \"By the by, I have finished my certificate upon the whole of those papers,\" and he added either that he had sent them in, or that he would send them in without delay. \n\nI cannot understand how, after my repeated and solemn references to the danger of employing Mr Caldwell in matters of State or Police - of which my official correspondence with the Executive Government subsequently to the proceedings in Executive Council, furnish some of the instances - His Excellency or any member of his government would venture upon the destruction of a single portion, much less the whole, of what I must pronounce to be the damning proofs of his guilt. I submit to the Commission, that this spoliation of evidence compels them to act upon the universal principle of all jurisprudence, \"Contra spoliatorem, omnia presumuntur.\" I make these observations, because I am informed that shortly before, or shortly after, the ventilation of the subject-matter of the present inquiry, Mr Mongan having consulted the Executive Government through one of its officers as to what was to be done with the Ma-chow Wong papers still in his hands, was directed to destroy them. Not a syllable of this transpired, until subsequent to Mr May's examination before the Commission in this case. \n\nI wish to add, if Mr May be asked he will disclose a still more flagrant attempt to leave Ma-chow Wong at liberty to escape, to which Mr Caldwell's present assistant, Mr Grand-Pré, was party. I refer to the fact of Ma-chow Wong having been allowed by Mr Grand-Pré to remain an entire night, more than 12 hours, at entire liberty upon his personal parole. This was immediately before he was called upon to find bail. \n\nAs to the proceedings in Executive Council, Mr Dixson has proved, Mr Lane and Mr May will prove, what took place there. Their correspondence with Mr Dixson, printer, in the **China Mail** of October last, will show the extraordinary method taken by His Excellency in dealing with the case, and which had the effect of putting at least one witness upon his trial on that occasion. I presume those papers are on record in the Colonial Secretary's office; if not the Newspaper will speak for itself. \n\nwho was sent for by the Commission on that occasion, and all that he told me was, that they had disappeared, and no one knew what had become of them. It was next suggested that they were probably in the hands of Mr Wade. I then volunteered my evidence to the Commission, which showed that that was impossible; and now at the last moment it is suggested they have been burned. \n\nEar-witnesses have assured me, that Mr Caldwell did admit at the trial at the Supreme Court his character of partner in a Lorcha with Ma-chow Wong and that his share in it was still undisposed of. I was then in India, but I believe the Commission have in evidence before them a letter from Mr Caldwell to the same effect. The entries that appeared in the destroyed documents, will be proved by those who read or prepared them. My charge against Mr Caldwell with respect to them, was not that the entries were true, but that he has always acted as if they were true, and although they were brought to his knowledge, continued to the last steadily and zealously to befriend the pirate, whose hand had recorded them, until it was mentioned by Mr May, in his letter on the occasion referred to.\n\nHis Excellency has not inserted amongst what he calls my charges, the application made by Mr Caldwell at the Police office for the residue of the pirate's books and papers mentioned in my letter of the 13th. That application having been made as a friend of the convict, was of necessity acceded to.\n\nAppendix A to my letter of the 13th May, is a document prepared from Chinese information with a view to the proceedings against Ma-chow Wong, and not with a view to any proceedings against Mr Caldwell. Mr May lent it to me for my perusal, and I thought it so important, that I copied it. It throws much light upon a great deal of my evidence of to-day. \n\nIn contrast with the course taken in the case of supposed pirates, I may mention another circumstance which occurred about the same time, and I think on the same day. A respectable Chinese trader, so it was represented to me by Mr Cooper Turner, his attorney, had arrived in the Colony with a quantity of merchandize. Before he could dispose of it he was seized by Mr Caldwell and thrown into prison under the deportation ordinance, as a suspected or dangerous character, and upon no other charge. Mr Cooper Turner applied to me for the liberation of the man upon heavy bail, not believing there was any opposition to it. I said, that when the application was made in form, I would grant it; it was made in form, and Mr Caldwell opposed it. He said, he believed that the man was a very bad character, and had been guilty of some offence which he did not specify; he was not prepared with any witnesses, but would have them in a few days. He said he could not give me an inkling into the case, for if he did, it would frustrate a great plan he had in view, for the detection and seizure of a great number of other offenders. I very reluctantly consented that the application for bail should stand over for a few days, when Mr Caldwell undertook to be prepared. He did not tell me that he had any intention to cause the man to be deported, or I should have liberated him on bail; but the **Phebe Dunbar**, which was then taking on board her Emigrants for deportation to Hainan, sailed in two or three days afterwards, having, as I was afterwards to my great indignation informed, the merchant on board.\n\nThe deportation ordinance was not intended to apply to any case where security for the good character of the suspected person was offered. The books - particularly the Visiting Justices book - of the Gaol, for the years 1857-8, contain other, and perhaps more glaring, proofs of the capricious and improper manner in which Mr Caldwell, as a Justice of the Peace, exercises his power of commitment. I suggest that the Commission send for those books. I refer particularly to a minute in the Visiting Justices' book during this year, signed by a member of this Commission (Mr Lyall) and myself.\n\nI therefore gave credit to Mr Caldwell's evidence of reputation in favour of the accused, and there was only evidence of the Police to reputation of the opposite kind. I discharged every one of those persons on his application, ordering at the same time their boats to be restored. I was sitting in my rota as Justice of the Peace, according to a then recently gazetted arrangement. The police brought them up, and charged them with being notorious pirates. The deportation ordinance was then in full vigour, and my thought was to send them before His Excellency in Executive Council for deportation. But Mr Caldwell came before me, and upon oath declared them to be peaceful traders, and not pirates nor reputed pirates. This was in January, 1857, I think. At all events I had not then formed more than a very unpleasant suspicion of Mr Caldwell as stated in my first examination.\n\nI therefore repeat what I said in my letter of the 13th on this subject, with what I have added there, viz., that within the last few weeks I had been informed by Mr May they were in fact pirates, and that the circumstances were such as to make it impossible for Mr Caldwell not to know of the fact. I am not certain whether I made any record of this case at the time, but if I did it will be found amongst the papers at the Police Court.\n\n## CHARLES MAY, Superintendent of Police, -- Called and examined.\n\nThe preliminary remarks regarding my intimacy with Mr Caldwell, which I made on my previous examination, apply to this branch of the inquiry also. The conversations I had with Mr Caldwell on the subject of what he considered the injustice of making him responsible at the time of the conversation, I had banished it from my recollection.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 244731,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "page_number": 473,
        "title": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]",
        "content_text": "470 \n\n\"% \n\ninfluence over the case. \n\n(36) \n\n1 \n\nody. \n\n(37) \n\nFrom the Central Police Station the books, &c., were taken to the Police Court, under the memoranda as referred to the second charge, which were found in the house. The Acting Colonial Secretary \n\nup, I do not know by whom. I do not know anything about their transmission up to the Government Offices. To the best of my knowledge all the books, &c., found in the house, were sent from the Station to the Police Court, to be transmitted to Government Offices. I am not certain that when so sent they were sealed.\n\n[The Commission then proceeded to take secondary evidence tendered by Mr May, of the contents of these memoranda to the best of his recollection, reserving for after consideration the question of the admissibility of such evidence.]\n\nI replied that I did not see that we could legally hold the charge of Jarman, and they were still in his charge when I saw them. I should like to recall to his recollection a similar case, in which an influential man had been in custody on a charge of munitions of war, including gunpowder, shot, guns, muskets, shields, stinkpots, &c., as could by no possibility have been employed for any purpose but that of piracy, and which were examined by Mr Stace, Mr Caldwell, and an interpreter, and remained so, I believe, until the time they were sent to the Magistracy for transmission to the Government. I believe, of confederation with pirates, when he was Acting Attorney General, and in which he had insisted that the Police should retain possession of the shop. In consequence, it was arranged that one shop, which was considered more as the family residence of the prisoner, should be given up, but that the remainder of his premises should remain in the hands of the Police. I was Acting Assistant Magistrate at this time. My belief is that Dr Bridges interested himself because of the movement of Mr Caldwell in the matter.\n\nAfter the prisoner, Ma-chow Wong, was committed for trial, application was made that he should be admitted to bail. The Committing Magistrate refused to accede to the application, and an application was then made to the Judge in Chambers for the admission of the prisoner to bail. The prisoner was bailed, and I saw Mr Caldwell come with the bail to the Police Court, I think at the time it was accepted by the Chief Magistrate.\n\nAfter the trial and conviction, the memoranda remained in my possession. I heard that appeals had been made to His Excellency the Governor in Council to pardon the prisoners. I firmly believed that the existence of the memoranda was then known to the Acting Colonial Secretary because the existence was known by the Chief Magistrate and Acting Attorney General, to whom I knew the Acting Colonial Secretary had spoken on the subject of the prisoner's pardon. I did not make a direct communication to the Government on the subject of those memoranda. I thought it certain that a communication would be made to me by the Acting Colonial Secretary on the subject of the prisoner's pardon, when of necessity the memoranda would have been exhibited. No such communication was made to me until the appearance of an article in the China Mail newspaper, which article adverted to the existence of the information contained in these memoranda.\n\nI was summoned to attend a meeting of the Executive Council and found that Mr Dixson, Mr Lane, and some other civilian, had also been summoned to the Council. When I was called into the Council room, His Excellency the Governor said he had noticed certain statements in the China Mail and asked me if I had in any way authorised those statements. His Excellency the Governor said he would take the statement as they appeared seriatim, and reading the first charge asked me if I had authorised that. I do not now know what the first charge was. I said \"No, I had not authorised it;\" the Governor then read the second, and to the same query I answered in the affirmative. His Excellency asked for proof I had, and I then produced the memoranda referred to. It was apparent to me that His Excellency up to that time had not known of the existence of the memoranda.\n\nWith the permission of the Council I read such portions of the memoranda and I could not help observing that the reading of these memoranda produced a considerable effect on the Council. The Acting Colonial Secretary said he did not know of the existence of the memoranda till that time, and His Excellency the Governor was very angry that papers of such importance had not come to his knowledge before.\n\nI handed to the Acting Colonial Secretary the papers containing the memoranda, saying when I did so, \"I leave these in your hands.\" I have not seen the memoranda since. With regard to the original books and papers, I know that in obedience to an order from the Acting Colonial Secretary, all the papers and books of consequence, including those from which the memoranda had been taken, were sent up to the Government Offices; but whether to the Acting Colonial Secretary's office or to the Chinese Secretary's office, I do not know. To the best of my knowledge they passed from the hands of the Police to the Chief Clerk in the Magistracy, and from him to the Government Offices.\n\nMy impression at the time was that these memoranda did not contain evidence of matters which formed the subject of either of the two pending inquiries, or which could have been adduced in evidence on the trial on either of the indictments before the Supreme Court. I believe that all the books, papers, and writings seized in the house and shop of Ma-chow Wong were taken possession of by Inspector Jarman because the warrant was directed to him. Those found in the Kwong-yik Loong shop related exclusively to the two cases under investigation; those found in the house are those from which alone the memoranda were extracted, and these were taken from the house to the Central Station in an iron chest, of which Mr Jarman had the key. They remained, to the best of my knowledge, in his custody until examined by Tong Ait in my presence, after which they still remained in Jarman's custody.\n\n### Memoranda Contents\n\nNo. 1.-There were about 15 items, with dates of purchases of guns, gunpowder, stinkpots, shot, and muskets. I cannot say within what years. There were some single payments of as much as 50 taels for powder and 600 taels for cannons. The books bore on them the seal, and some the name, of Ma-chow Wong.\n\nNo. 2.-One item of delivery of a large quantity of saltpetre or sulphur, to a man—a manufacturer of gunpowder—at Shek-tong-tsui, a village beyond West Point.\n\nNo. 3.-There were about a dozen entries of payments of very considerable quantities of cash—called \"ancient\" cash, as much as 200,000 or 300,000 cash each entry, paid for articles of consumption.\n\nNo. 4.-Three or four covers of books, the leaves being torn out, and on the back of the books was written \"Monthly payments from such and such a gambling house to Ma-chow Wong.\"\n\nNo. 5.-There were two or three entries of payments made to Ma-chow Wong, for and on account of the Sunon people.\n\nNo. 6.-Was a book shewing an account of monies received by Ma-chow Wong, a lessee of the village of Cheem-sha-tsui, on the opposite shore, and an entry of a payment of so many dollars to Kowloong Police runners, on some business connected with Cheem-sha-tsui.\n\nNo. 7.-A page of a book, an account of receipts either for or from Mr Caldwell, amounting altogether in different amounts to more than 600 taels. It did not say in respect of what.\n\nNo. 8.-A paper which was written to this effect, \"An agreement between some man in the lower bazaar, Ma-chow Wong, and Mr Caldwell, that if the lower Bazaar man was successful in an ejectment case, the property was to be sold to Mr Caldwell for a certain sum of money, I think $1000—of which certain sum $500 were to be allowed as expenses of the suit, the remainder of the purchase-money going to the vendor.\"\n\nNo. 9.-There were some papers in English in Mr Caldwell's hand-writing, receipts for wages paid to a man named Beaver, for his services on board a lorcha: some of them said \"received from Mr Caldwell\" and some \"from Wong Akee.\" Other receipts for sums paid to other Europeans for similar services; one was to the best of my recollection for a sum paid to Graham. There was one paper directed to a European shipwright—\"Please deliver the Hongkong—I think Mr Ross—bearer some spars, and place the same to my account,\" signed by Mr Caldwell, dated 1856 or 1857.\n\nNo. 10.-A letter from the Commandant at Kowloong to Wong Akee's partner—a Chinese name—thanking him for his services with reference to certain property which had been taken from Kowloong when the military went over there, and had been restored, and requesting this man to thank Mr Caldwell for his services.\n\nNo. 11.-A cover of a letter from a man who was known as a pirate—I forget his name—who, in 1856, escaped from the Police through the aid of Ma-chow Wong from Ma-chow Wong's house, and who was at the time of writing the letter in the service of Chan Kwei-tsik. The cover said \"from so and so, at such a place, to Wong Akee.\" I do not know whether the cover stated that he was in Chan Kwei-tsik's service, or whether the interpreter inferred this from the locality whence it came, or other circumstances.\n\nNo. 12.-There was a money account between Ma-chow Wong and some one at Singapore, relative to what in my memo. was described as the \"slave trade,\" the buying of persons and reselling of them at Singapore.\n\nNo. 13.-There were about ten entries of payment to lawyers, most of them mentioning Mr Stace's name, but not in respect of what business.\n\nNo. 14.-An entry of a receipt of money—it was a money account, and therefore I conclude a receipt—of a sum of money for service rendered by Wong Akee in obtaining the assistance of an English man-of-war, to recover a vessel from pirates.\n\nNo. 15.-There must have been also an entry shewing him to have been connected in some measure with the robbery of silk from Messrs Gibb, Livingston & Co.'s godowns, but what the entry was I do not recollect.\n\nNo. 16.-A paper shewing the number of guns fired at different places.\n\nNo. 17.-A memo. shewing the division of some money as shares in a Chinese boat transaction. There were twelve shares.\n\nNo. 18.-There was some paper, but I cannot recollect what it exactly was, shewing Ma-chow Wong's connection with the Sunon Wo, a house belonging to the people of the Sunon district, and under the management of Ma-chow Wong.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 247672,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12]",
        "page_number": 346,
        "title": "CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12]",
        "content_text": "342\n\n(32)\n\nThe omitted passages refer to the place of residence of the Chinese. I mention this only as an instance, but I could give many more, and Mr May is aware of three which were the subject of a conversation between us.\n\nThat Mr Caldwell was guilty of the denial referred to in my letter, is, I apprehend, admitted; it certainly is proved; whether it is audacious is a matter of inference, and I adhere to the expression. I heard His Excellency yesterday. When stated, they will shew that since this state on the 10th ultimo, as recorded in my letter of the inquiry began, Mrs Caldwell has been sending round to every person from whom she can recollect to have received what they call presents, and desiring them, if called upon, to deny having given such presents, for that the charges are false.\n\nMr May and the Chief Magistrate, who were the Committing Justices, will be able to inform the Commission who procured bail for Ma-chow Wong, and whether the Chief Magistrate warned Mr Caldwell that it would be more decent for him to stay away from the inquiry upon his sitting on the bench, and offering suggestions favourable to the culprit. It came out in evidence before the Chief Magistrate, while I was present, that the witnesses in one of the cases were threatened with personal violence by Ma-chow Wong's friends—and I think either then or upon a previous day, as much as $1,000 was offered to buy off one or more of the Crown witnesses. The Chief Magistrate himself, and afterwards I, by his permission, addressed the Crown witnesses, and the Chinese audience through an Interpreter, and we dared them, telling them what would be the consequence to themselves if they attempted to execute their threats. This was my last appearance in any Court before proceeding the following week to India on sick leave. Captain Twiss and Mr Hannen, who were with me, can confirm what took place in Court that day.\n\nIt was on that occasion that, as stated in my letter, some of the business accounts of the pirate's hong were produced and read. I distinctly remember several entries of monies entered to Samkwei's credit. The word \"Sam-kwei\" was the first word I heard upon entering the Court. As to the bail having been but a month before in prison for debt—the man himself, Szekai, has proved that—and also that he was or had been Mr Caldwell's servant.\n\nI cannot understand how, after my repeated and solemn references to the danger of employing Mr Caldwell in any matter of State or Police—of which my official correspondence with the Executive Government subsequently to the proceedings in Executive Council, furnish some of the instances—His Excellency or any member of his government would venture upon the destruction of a single portion, much less the whole, of what I must pronounce to be the damning proofs of his guilt. I submit to the Commission, that this spoliation of evidence compels them to act upon the universal principle of all jurisprudence, \"Contra spoliatorem, omnia præsumuntur.\"\n\nI make these observations, because I am informed that shortly before, or shortly after, the ventilation of the subject-matter of the present inquiry, Mr Mongan having consulted the Executive Government through one of its officers as to what was to be done with the Ma-chow Wong papers still in his hands, was directed to destroy them. Not a syllable of this transpired, until subsequent to Mr May's examination before the Commission in this case. I had made inquiries of Mr D'Almada, [Clerk of the Councils,] who was sent for by the Commission on that occasion, and all that he told me was, that they had disappeared, and no one knew what had become of them.\n\nI wish to add, if Mr May be asked he will disclose a still more flagrant attempt to leave Ma-chow Wong at liberty to escape, to which Mr Caldwell's present assistant, Mr Grand-Pré, was party. I refer to the fact of Ma-chow Wong having been allowed by Mr Grand-Pré to remain an entire night, more than 12 hours, at entire liberty upon his personal parole. This was immediately before he was called upon to find bail.\n\nAs to the proceedings in Executive Council, Mr Dixson has proved, Mr Lane and Mr May will prove, what took place there. These correspondence with Mr Dixson, printer, in the China Mail of October last, will show the extraordinary method taken by His Excellency in dealing with the case, and which had the effect of putting at least one witness upon his trial on that occasion. I presume those papers are on record in the Colonial Secretary's office; if not the Newspaper will speak for itself.\n\nWade. I then volunteered my evidence to the Commission, which shewed that that was impossible; and now at the last moment it is suggested they have been burned. Eye-witnesses have assured me, that Mr Caldwell did admit at the trial at the Supreme Court his character of partner in a Lorcha with Ma-chow Wong, and that his share in it was still undisposed of. I was then in India, but I believe the Commission have in evidence before them a letter from Mr Caldwell to the same effect. The entries that appeared in the destroyed documents, will be proved by those who read or prepared them. My charge against Mr Caldwell with respect to them, was not that those entries were true, but that he has always acted as if they were true, and although they were brought to his knowledge, continued to the last steadily and zealously to befriend the pirate, whose hand had recorded them.\n\n(33)\n\nAppendix A to my letter of the 13th May, is a document prepared from Chinese information with a view to the proceedings against Ma-chow Wong, and not with a view to any proceedings against Mr Caldwell. Mr May lent it to me for my perusal, and I thought it so important, that I copied it. It throws much light upon a great deal of my evidence of to-day. His Excellency has not inserted amongst what he calls \"my charges\" the application made by Mr Caldwell at the Police office for the residue of the pirate's books and papers mentioned in my letter of the 13th. That application having been made as a friend of the convict, was of necessity acceded to by Mr May, the Superintendent of Police, under His Excellency's orders. Mr May therefore is here the proper witness, and I do hope that he will be examined as to it.\n\nThe result of the surrender of the one set of documents and the loss or destruction of the rest, is simply this: The Commission must now have recourse either to secondary evidence of their contents, or, which would be the fairest and more reasonable method, to the rule to which I have already adverted, of presuming every thing against the despoiler.\n\nI have not charged that any wife of the pirate after his conviction found a shelter in Mr Caldwell's house, but that the statement had been made to me, and that the affair of the application at the Police office induced me rather to give credit to that statement. I say so still, and Mr May to whom the statement was made, did but repeat it to me. This I believe to be the woman who had been previously mentioned in one of my letters to the Colonial Secretary, now in evidence before the Commission. It is notorious that Mr Caldwell's house is the resort for numbers of the wives and families of the Chinese. I have seen them myself coming out of his house.\n\nIn contrast with the course taken in the case of supposed pirates, I may mention another circumstance which occurred about the same time, and I think on the same day. A respectable Chinese trader, so it was represented to me by Mr Cooper Turner, his attorney, had arrived in the Colony with a quantity of merchandize. Before he could dispose of it he was seized by Mr Caldwell and thrown into prison under the deportation ordinance, as a suspected or dangerous character, and upon no other charge. Mr Cooper Turner applied to me for the liberation of the man upon heavy bail, not believing there was any opposition to it. I said, that when the application was made in form, I would grant it; it was made in form, and Mr Caldwell opposed it. He said, he believed that the man was a very bad character, and had been guilty of some offence which he did not specify; he was not prepared with any witnesses, but would get them in a few days. He said he could not give me an inkling into the case, for if he did, it would frustrate a great plan he had in view, for the detection and seizure of a great number of other offenders. I very reluctantly consented that the application for bail should stand over for a few days, when Mr Caldwell undertook to be prepared. He did not tell me that he had any intention to cause the man to be deported, or I should have liberated him on bail; but the Phoebe Dunbar, which was then taking on board her Emigrants for deportation to Hainan, sailed in two or three days afterwards, having, as I was afterwards to my great indignation informed, this merchant on board.\n\nThe deportation ordinance was not intended to apply to any case where security for the good character of the suspected person was offered. The books—particularly the Visiting Justices' book—of the Gaol, for the years 1857-8, contain other, and perhaps more glaring, proofs of the capricious and improper manner in which Mr Caldwell, as a Justice of the Peace, exercises his power of commitment. I suggest that the Commission send for those books. I refer particularly to a minute in the Visiting Justices' book during this year, signed by a member of this commission (Mr Lyall) and myself.\n\nI think there were about five-and-twenty people, whom I discharged on the occasion next in question. I was sitting in my rota as Justice of the Peace, according to a then recently gazetted arrangement. The police brought them up, and charged them with being notorious pirates. The deportation ordinance was then in full vigour, and my thought was to send them before His Excellency in Executive Council for deportation. But Mr Caldwell came before me, and on oath declared them to be peaceful traders: upon and not pirates not reputed pirates. This was in January, 1857, I think. At all events I had not then formed more than a very unpleasant suspicion of Mr Caldwell as stated in my first examination. I therefore gave credit to Mr Caldwell's evidence of reputation in favour of the accused, and there was only evidence of the Police to reputation of the opposite kind. I discharged every one of those persons on his application, ordering at the same time their boats to be restored. I therefore repeat what I said in my letter of the 13th on this subject, with what I have added there, viz, that within the last few weeks I had been informed by Mr May they were in fact pirates, and that the circumstances were such as to make it impossible for Mr Caldwell not to know of the fact.\n\nCHARLES MAY, Superintendent of Police,—Called and examined.\n\nThe preliminary remarks regarding my intimacy with Mr Caldwell, which I made on my previous examination, apply to this branch of the inquiry also. The conversations I had with Mr Caldwell on the subject of what he considered the injustice of making him responsible at the time of the conversations, for actions and incidents of his early...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 247674,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12]",
        "page_number": 348,
        "title": "CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12]",
        "content_text": "CAL\n\n344\n\n(36)\n\nColonial Secretary replied, that he did not see that we could legally hold the shops and that he did not see the utility oranda as referred to the second charge, which was, that the books and papers would shew the purchase of such immense quantities—thousands of dollars' worth of munitions of war, including gunpowder, shot, guns, muskets, shields, stinkpots, &c., as could by no possibility have been employed for any purpose but that of piracy, and His Excellency was evidently staggered, as were also the members of the Council, as I proceeded reading the different items. His Excellency did not refer to any more charges. I read some other extracts from other portions of the memoranda, and I could not help observing that the reading of these memoranda produced a considerable effect on the Council. The Acting Colonial Secretary said he did not know of the existence of the memoranda till that time, and His Excellency the Governor was very angry, that papers of such importance had not come to his knowledge before.\n\nHis Excellency said that he had relied very much on a report as to the examination of the books furnished him by Mr Mongan, which report clearly stated that the books and papers shewed only such purchases of munitions of war as any respectable trader might have dealt in. Mr Mongan was desired to attend at the Council, and did so, and in reply to the Governor's questions said that he had not made a very close examination of the books, that he had been assisted in the examination by Mr Caldwell, and that he had had no data and no particular information, and that he had made his report from his cursory examination.\n\nThe Council broke up, and in the Council room after the trial and conviction, the memoranda remained in my possession. I heard that appeals had been made to His Excellency the Governor in Council to pardon the prisoners. I firmly believed that the existence of the memoranda was then known to the Acting Colonial Secretary, because the existence was known by the Chief Magistrate and Acting Attorney General, to whom I knew the Acting Colonial Secretary had spoken on the subject of the prisoner's pardon. I did not make a direct communication to the Government on the subject of those memoranda. I thought it certain that a communication would be made to me by the Acting Colonial Secretary on the subject of the prisoner's pardon, when of necessity the memoranda would have been exhibited. No such communication was made to me until the appearance of an article in the China Mail newspaper, which article adverted to the existence of the information contained in these memoranda.\n\nI was summoned to attend a meeting of the Executive Council, and found that Mr Dixson, Mr Lane, and some other civilian, had also been summoned to the Council. When I was called into the Council room, His Excellency the Governor said he had noticed certain statements in the China Mail, and asked me if I had in any way authorised those statements. His Excellency the Governor said he would take the statements as they appeared seriatim, and reading the first charge asked me if I had authorised that. I do not now know what the first charge was. I said \"No, I had not authorised it,\" the Governor then read the second, and to the same query I answered in the affirmative.\n\nHis Excellency asked what proof I had, and I then produced the memoranda referred to. It was apparent to me, that His Excellency up to that time had not known of the existence of the memoranda. With the permission of the Council I read such portions of the memoranda as I thought fit.\n\nAfter the prisoner, Ma-chow Wong, was committed for trial, application was made that he should be admitted to bail. The Committing Magistrate refused to accede to the application, and an application was then made to the Judge in Chambers, for the admission of the prisoner to bail. The prisoner was bailed, and I saw Mr Caldwell come with the bail to the Police Court, I think at the time it was accepted by the Chief Magistrate.\n\nIn consequence, it was arranged that one shop, which was considered more as the family residence of the prisoner, should be given up, but that the remainder of his premises should remain in the hands of the Police. I was Acting Assistant Magistrate at this time. My belief is, that Dr Bridges interested himself because of the movement of Mr Caldwell in the matter.\n\nI handed to the Acting Colonial Secretary the papers containing the memoranda, saying, when I did so, \"I leave these in your hands.\" I have not seen the memoranda since. With regard to the original books and papers seized in the house and shop of Ma-chow Wong, were sent up to the Government Offices; but whether to the Acting Colonial Secretary's office, or to the Chinese Secretary's office, I do not know. To the best of my knowledge they passed from the hands of the Police to the Chief Clerk in the Magistracy, and from him to the Government Offices.\n\nMy impression at the time was, that these memoranda did not contain evidence of matters which formed the subject of either of the two pending inquiries, or which could have been adduced in evidence on the trial on either of the indictments before the Supreme Court, because the investigation, those found in the house are those from yik Loong shop related exclusively to the two cases under which alone the memoranda were extracted, and these were taken from the house to the Central Station in an iron chest, of which Mr Jarman had the key.\n\nI believe that all the books, papers, and writings, taken possession of by Inspector Jarman, remained to the best of my knowledge in his custody, until they were examined by Tong Aku in my presence, after which they still remained in Jarman's custody. From the Central Police Station the books, &c., found in the house, were taken to the Police Court, under charge of Jarman, and they were still in his charge when examined by Mr Stace, Mr Caldwell, and an Interpreter, and remained so I believe until the time they were sent to the Magistracy for transmission to the Government.\n\nI believe, but am not certain, that when so sent they were sealed up, but when or by whom I do not know. I do not know anything as to their transmission up to the Government Offices after they were sent to the Magistracy. To the best of my knowledge all the books, &c., found in the house, were sent from the Station to the Police Court, to be transmitted to Government Offices.\n\n(37)\n\n[The Commission then proceeded to take secondary evidence tendered by Mr May, of the contents of these memoranda to the best of his recollection, reserving for after consideration the question of the admissibility of such evidence.]\n\nNo. 1.—There were about 15 items, with dates of purchases of guns, gunpowder, stinkpots, shot and muskets. I cannot say within what years. There were some single payments of as much as 50 taels for powder and 600 taels for cannons. The books bore on them the seal and some the name of Ma-chow Wong.\n\nNo. 2. One item of delivery of a large quantity of saltpetre or sulphur, to a man—a manufacturer of gunpowder at Shek-tong-tsui, a village beyond West Point.\n\nNo. 3.—There were about a dozen entries of payment of very considerable quantities of cash—called \"ancient\" cash—as much as 200,000 or 300,000 cash each entry, paid for articles of consumption.\n\nNo. 4.—Three or four covers of books, the leaves being torn out, and on the back of the books was written \"Monthly payments from such and such a gambling house to Ma-chow Wong.\"\n\nNo. 5.—There were two or three entries of payments made to Ma-chow Wong, for and on account of the Sunon people.\n\nNo. 6—Was a book shewing an account of monies received by Machow-Wong, a lessee of the village of Cheem-sha tsui, on the opposite shore, and an entry of a payment of so many dollars to Kowloong Police runners, on some business connected with Cheem-sha-tsui.\n\nNo. 7.—A page of a book, an account of receipts either for or from Mr Caldwell, amounting altogether in different amounts to more than 600 taels. It did not say in respect of what.\n\nNo. 8.—A paper which was written to this effect, \"An agreement between some man in the lower bazaar, Ma-chow Wong, and Mr Caldwell, that if the Lower Bazaar man was successful in an ejectment case, the property was to be sold to Mr Caldwell for a certain sum of money, I think $1000—of which certain sum $500 were to be allowed as expenses of the suit, the remainder of the purchase-money going to the vendor.\"\n\nNo. 9.—There were some papers in English in Mr Caldwell's hand-writing, receipts for wages paid to a man named Beaver, for his services on board a lorcha: some of them said \"received from Mr Caldwell\" and some \"from Wong Akee.\" Other receipts for sums paid to other Europeans for similar services; one was to the best of my recollection for a sum paid to Graham. There was one paper directed to a European shipwright of Hongkong—I think Mr Ross. \"Please deliver the bearer some spars, and place the same to any account,\" signed by Mr Caldwell. These were dated 1856 or 1857.\n\nNo. 10.—A letter from the commandant at Kowloong to Wong Akee's partner—Chinese name—thanking him for his services with reference to certain property which had been taken from Kowloong when the military went over there, and had been restored, and requesting this man to thank Mr Caldwell for his services.\n\nNo. 11—A cover of a letter from a man who was known as a pirate—I forget his name—who, in 1856, escaped from the Police through the aid of Ma-chow Wong from Ma-chow Wong's house, and who was at the time of writing the letter in the service of Chan Kwei-tsik. The cover said \"from so and so, at such a place, to Wong Akee.\" I do not know whether the cover stated that he was in Chan Kwei-tsik's service, or whether the interpreter inferred this from the locality whence it came, or other circumstances.\n\nNo. 12. There was a money account between Ma-chow Wong and some one at Singapore, relative to what in my memo. was described as the \"slave trade,\" the buying of persons and reselling of them at Singapore.\n\nNo. 13. There were about ten entries of payments to lawyers, most of them mentioned Mr Stace's name, but not in respect of what business.\n\nNo. 14. An entry of a receipt of money—it was a money account, and therefore I conclude a receipt—of a sum of money for service rendered by Wong Akee in obtaining the assistance of an English man-of-war, to recover a vessel from pirates.\n\nNo. 15. There must have been also an entry shewing him to have been connected in some measure with the robbery of silk from Messrs Gibb, Livingston & Co.'s godowns, but what the entry was I do not recollect.\n\nNo. 16. A paper shewing the number of guns fired at different places.\n\nNo. 17. A memo, shewing the division of some money as shares in a Chinese boat transaction. There were twelve shares.\n\nNo. 18. There was some paper, but I cannot recollect what it exactly was, shewing Ma-chow Wong's connection with the Sunon Wo, a house belonging to the people of the Sunon district, and under the management of Ma-chow Wong.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 248000,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "page_number": 72,
        "title": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "content_text": "79\n\n14\n\nof the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan to any deported person to such port as aforesaid, or to England, as provided in Articles XIX, XX, and XXI of this Order, the Consul sending him out shall forthwith report such act of deportation, with the grounds of his decision, to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or, in a case where the party so deported is a native of the aforesaid territories, to the Governor-General of India.\n\nXXIII. And it is further ordered that a report of every sentence passed by a subordinate Consular officer in the matters referred to in Articles XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, and XXI of this Order, and awarding a fine exceeding twenty dollars, or imprisonment for more than ten days, shall be sent in to the superior Consular officer of the district; and, on the receipt of such report, such superior Consular officer shall proceed, without assessors, to revise such sentence as to him may seem fit; and if the sentence should have been pronounced by the subordinate Consular officer, without assessors, or with the concurrence of assessors, then the decision pronounced by the superior Consular officer, on revision of the proceedings, shall be final; but if the sentence of the subordinate Consular officer shall have been pronounced, with dissent on the part of the assessors, or of any of them, then the superior Consular officer shall not proceed to revise such sentence, but shall submit the whole proceedings to the Consul-General in the same manner as if the case had been originally heard and decided by the superior Consular officer, with dissent on the part of the assessors, or any of them.\n\nPersons sentenced by Consuls may be sent to Hong Kong for imprisonment.\n\nXXIV. And it is further ordered, that it shall be lawful for any of Her Majesty's Consuls to send any person sentenced to imprisonment under this Order, at any time while such sentence of imprisonment is in the course of execution, to Hong Kong, in any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or in any British ship or vessel, to undergo his term of imprisonment in any jail in Hong Kong, and it shall be lawful for the commander of any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or of any British ship or vessel, to receive any such person on board, with a copy of such sentence and a warrant from the Consul for its due execution, addressed to the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said Colony of Hong Kong, and thereupon to convey him in custody to Hong Kong, and on his arrival there, to deliver him with the said copy of such sentence and warrant, into the custody of the said Chief Magistrate of Police, or other officer of Her Majesty within the said Colony, lawfully acting as such, who, on the receipt of the said warrant, and of the person therein named, shall be authorized to commit, and shall commit, such person to any jail of the said Colony; and such sentence shall be enforced to execution in the said common jail in the same manner as if the sentence had been awarded by the Supreme Court of the said Colony.\n\nXXV. And it is further ordered, that in cases of assault not coming within the terms of Article XX of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Consul before whom complaint is made, to promote reconciliation between the parties, and to suffer compensation and amends to be made, and the proceedings thereby to be stayed.\n\nXXVI. And it is further ordered, that save and except as regards offences committed by British subjects against the stipulations of Treaties between Her Majesty and the Tycoon of Japan, or against rules and regulations for the observance of the stipulations of such Treaties, duly affixed and exhibited according to the provisions of Article IV of this Order, or against rules and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan, duly exhibited and affixed as aforesaid, and save and except as regards the offence of engaging in trade, declared in Article XXIII of this Order to be unlawful, no act done by a British subject being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan shall be deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person committing it liable to punishment, which, if done within that part of Her Majesty's dominions called England, would not, by a Court of Justice having criminal jurisdiction in England, have been deemed and taken to be a crime or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person so committing it, liable to punishment.\n\n15",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 248073,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "page_number": 145,
        "title": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "content_text": "14\n\n152\n\nand\n\nBoard\n\nof the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan to any deported person to England, or vary such port as aforesaid, or to England, as provided or remit his punishment. The Consul sending him out shall forthwith report such act of deportation, with the grounds of his decision, to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or, in a case where the party so deported is a native of the aforesaid territories, to the Governor-General of India.\n\nXXIII. And it is further ordered that a report of every sentence passed by a subordinate Consular officer in the matters referred to in Articles XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, and XXI of this Order, and awarding a fine exceeding twenty dollars, or imprisonment for more than ten days, shall be sent in to the superior Consular officer of the district; and, on the receipt of such report, such superior Consular officer shall proceed, without assessors, to revise such sentence as to him may seem fit; and if the sentence should have been pronounced by the subordinate Consular officer, without assessors, or with the concurrence of assessors, then the decision pronounced by the superior Consular officer, on revision of the proceedings, shall be final; but if the sentence of the subordinate Consular officer shall have been pronounced, with dissent on the part of the assessors, or of any of them, then the superior Consular officer shall not proceed to revise such sentence, but shall submit the whole proceedings to the Consul-General in the same manner as if the case had been originally heard and decided by the superior Consular officer, with dissent on the part of the assessors, or any of them.\n\nthe.\n\nXXIV. And it is further ordered, that it shall be lawful for any of Her Majesty's Consuls to send any person sentenced to imprisonment under this Order, at any time while such sentence of imprisonment is in the course of execution, to Hong Kong, in any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or in any British ship or vessel, to undergo his term of imprisonment in any jail in Hong Kong, and it shall be lawful for the commander of any of Her Majesty's ships of war, or of any British ship or vessel, to receive any such person on board a copy of such sentence and a warrant from the Consul for its due execution,\n\n2\n\n?\n\nConsuls may promote reconcilement in cases of assault.\n\nDefinition of\n\n15\n\naddressed to the Chief Magistrate of Police of the said Colony of Hong Kong, and thereupon to convey him in custody to Hong Kong, and on his arrival there, to deliver him with the said copy of such sentence and warrant, into the custody of the said Chief Magistrate of Police, or other officer of Her Majesty within the said Colony, lawfully acting as such, who, on the receipt of the said warrant, and of the person therein named, shall be authorized to commit, and shall commit, such person to any jail of the said Colony; and such sentence shall be enforced to execution in the said common jail in the same manner as if the sentence had been awarded by the Supreme Court of the said Colony.\n\nXXV. And it is further ordered, that in cases of assault not coming within the terms of Article XX of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Consul before whom complaint is made, to promote reconciliation between the parties, and to suffer compensation and amends to be made, and the proceedings thereby to be stayed.\n\nXXVI. And it is further ordered, that save and except as regards offences committed by British subjects against the stipulations of Treaties between Her Majesty and the Tycoon of Japan, or against rules and regulations for the observance of the stipulations of such Treaties, duly affixed and exhibited according to the provisions of Article IV of this Order, or against rules and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan duly exhibited and affixed as aforesaid, and save and except as regards the offence of engaging in trade, declared in Article XXIII of this Order to be unlawful, no act done by a British subject being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan shall be deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person committing it liable to punishment, which, if done within that part of Her Majesty's dominions called England, would not, by a Court of Justice having criminal jurisdiction in England, have been deemed and taken to be a crime or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person so committing it, liable to punishment.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 248150,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "page_number": 222,
        "title": "CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859",
        "content_text": "ESS\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO THE NEWCASTLE CHRONICLE AND NORTHERN COUNTIES ADVERTISER, JUNE 25, 1859.\n\nCallwell for his sucenda cbr si ku\n\nTlus\n\nsery Betro and a very indies direction was giben to Tay Filati and Clines, in every part of this clogy and the and lathe ca le game complete em 16 happened rideanly under the time is wan movement forming is that they were about to prossud-on province, which Loval Elgin, at willow was, at teplo\n\nthat Mr. Davis, the Govermens printer, who is tho pro earplugin diétly of arrangement that race o coafated to me to effect any period by the position of affis m pinions by those who must to bato Lucy bettoni Clima nets, that Stone Thin si formar Mahebos Wong In the heat setupon I ftowed their dircase, Rod 1 ceased fole solated way way with My Caldar. pr bay of all, but acted with erent tas made Hoes it a rate the deceatens of the Executirs Council, led quietly and won that treaty of peace which he has rectly\n\nor with the Hong Kong putice: 1 zece monded tomto prema, ected thỏ China Mark watch out, but not to Chin te written on pops of 7 eur, tamparately, list I would be very happy to attaul the Ryecond with China--1 Buy it apours to be not ply Bonn fernd, what will cal by the militar term\n\nDamer the Feng Kong Govt tiszts, heard ally rest, and the rod po del doblard' tras sutive Council whenever ont laid upon the Queen's previointion of that treaty, bat a violate of the p poble, deir riske, and I reported to Gem and apply to two pes of big authority is that of a\n\nwith any clut priests war in piracy, Sir, Andry Tui is wherever the auilt as it was sat in a porta Gercent coner. I forged chai to the. Specibody dline TheRD RET, we bag made to er en Cum 21 of all the no person che serpent\n\nxecutive, a repartol in the recently teavad China hours periment. I pushed my inquiries furter, best, it was a Puties, who had been 3 year in a dy, and he Wide, part, a thirds. Mr. C til 1 had been the colony about a year and fed that magistrate, 291 tl korubarist ler Blojek:yol, Ar Mr. Caldwe. tr. U the \"onsel for #1 pol. ) widet. that. It lirat Cell: ano die atramentis le lle [ from an all-ce of lam kipe willwal heing tre\n\nConnell, however, proasted my lace and without giving pera, the turks by Saglish vowele në wa un village va the real state of the case bow and, but 30, a purte: acl & auf: er, at du head of youto! Umi. Mr. Calendars it at the yangperty of being rist Preng the gross in f\n\nhsburs, on the plesat they had earlcared pices Triviy de hocen to me by the fovercrant printer of 2 let this goal of how Wong depend on the report remember chest as you we who Dr. Bridges was er 1,000 Gollers raiving to and therrunt 50 dus een which they were proceeding, di suport\n\nwhich ore pentlemen, when called opon, ali ratke to barciales, ut, as he calls huself, a legal pencationer feat. Coldwellers and items which reqmen, with a the line pod nadering complnews\n\nHac plutter money aget of ir. Caldwell-tas ufficere Kong, all Covernment officer, whu permitted ans le\n\ncod vessels ringte c his name, wao hat piren tidetres of something 26 tim you. This document anting bera land bucre the Caldwell untie the functions: attracy and brister, and culting less crevicted bobow Wang of pirney and of being appendel, was fed l huew of the\n\n\"\"\"\"The misunsorted catury of Colwell toffees, and who I believe is at tila murent Sau Compilation to the subject to the then vry indiferently wells practitioner, in fat, called engaged in the den Trade,\" \"online! This trade maltet. But, gertlemen, there was netuin which ne\n\nwas hail chwired with compliory with praus Old Daney practiones; and his practice lay shot the salve trades every effort made by Sir Je pred the course of the equity, and which has led simme land; artiny his not la Hong Kong. Tee of opinia Hong Kong papers and allowed to be perated by any\n\nms is out these proceedings blr. Caldwell was the dups of stranger who is have the carically to read it. Iture Chise, abest cutirely, and he was greatly indebted to Mr. Bring to shark any faded millise read eile verr subscrit and indepent quiries befinnestesion the curble genting\n\nbelove luve answared the cations which can ge labelu Wang, that he was rulla scecmplici--his will format 18 a dreamed to longer peizeted by f leg and renneita ascota plice, objectcà dílication which estes, but pulslsked by stance of her Majesty Hóux Koaɛgen; fema watsentations among that body. This doesmeat when fails thaioninate pleinls warga duty Iribunes of quite soother falion Lann a parko Camisin\n\ntrous Lavalon 10 answer. I lepe I have decu suflies dated to All the oflice of Con is is és clear the onia elips and the migrat sipeof Hong Kong icials appointed by a dishonest man. 1 Hy\n\namie Ant in lieu de not what Goschent. They dI makerelerence withose two kentk chlor, and Neting Cokersin! Aureurs 3 bed of rik: the Cene siger cut to whether it is in the course of this savastiguin Liga ti Set time for one your that I have aldened ajab 20 prevented me from coming to lie same siomablá consis\n\nEurope, he retailing the besty the labour contracts in Culan ve réxionable or they age of the tuiszton in theit repor- that previous :0 in, king in and statements as true, and he smitted to, 22 (Dave wagertenice dil return their reports and the Celudis Secheterg the difficulter id exist, and tho ba latterly bemorijay went tur begantu 'he points as wel: I la ramended at 1vano Came of polenta piemetine dating as while of the\n\nsiginta melni y la givere, engin of jingle, the sugoistens of the Camicies, sortsin papers comunes steady no que fully salarised, that when bow instider. trouble with doubts. 1 lien auk apan my the depth overnacht to them. They armed my state perind of his trunce et odice. Chargenti, every Chamwig te taky is overall, a tota aurten with 3\n\nWerg's frin, and which might be but 20derstood, that any gardians yo\n\nsolicita farlor infamathai vil, siguity his wear to c man tho give tim b's versiout had che right to conzerve, ce state of the Colica where it to be stupreetervslus to the Countiesien, lost be dotzegel it find trap- ot trans the plate hume, of speaking of Marlow Wegretta tus com the fast of Mchoho, and they in 2nd Di baling is conviction, but try antepriri culpated very procedony Mr.Childwell. odorandut bich End did sure, that is zeliter had both innuente: iseczunder the\n\nof Corps from Cibo to ong Kong bow toket moest kept the act ever contiment. -\n\npire, but the Ceramic forgot to say 18ct the G-fly it wil eeply with. Br. Asey\n\nsmuted dea seat assist Loud appren50. clerance obtain infertilen veto woke on the cape rock of which, diy had harkeen on citythone wid hato zatit, ClineRoy Government. Tola gelen placed me t\n\nStr. Chawalay salt only remained now the he It has been swurn to the chief, M. Levis the bent of the 'wament te blanche perdon of 3aadow plure. Then there is also number of entries relating some pele. It was iftowards wam to by kir 1 hare before spoke, hauling of the Chine\n\ngunpowder, cufim balls mushais, silk peta, everly, Mr. Dixies, others, in flea kuotave the alterom whics hail for Rive vidence against the gres! Jannthon Wild of England USB come the Cowlingly, herwarde #gured enz. Mr. the bed shon this the evilred a little purchases\n\nagainst Tarrant,” and why were piressaar as Lisé Goundli Bjørð, pap by wit'wet lukorg op ee were in their junes ko\n\nhave that statetent jár before Parliamecut. (Applause.) To me in wel: dolezas witute in the Folies Curt is the \"Cura plustering to the past tween Mulicho Wong is all of tens of war thire se reference call\n\nBevel us Tarrant, by then Clankins of the Comics, terms, and air. Caldwell, and, steve, ilere upprated the uskus tunccties with the Saudiar with ag solenyalur the depare cok place, that Air Joh. Bowring and 1. I reduced his pene in writing in the orthography of t Chicos printing, and 1 kept it on the wall before my desk who was 'cient duly a wine at the Police Chart pater a ser elaborate article September, 1857, & unicat, sie which tice, unter I read Beiges noth awe 10 te consail then on the table one to bem chuqur of a tition by Alt Aut\n\nakutsent in Calia, in which of Manche Wu's he hates, world bat underētur This but an index under and guix on the 14th, reler to lure Aide, statement, a petition to be saloptert to the Queen, Landa, Ban Dat also al tipo ili te pra Chert in the and day from the perind my fras receving e fertation down to the day when the Serenowende of caus They desired walk was pridwally crimes were eatmerated and it was adeffus is to be for the prose of tabling the great to see the\n\nand to cry one of the books and papers as existing denominona, foliowa:-- Whold of the pirater boolé àvul phitest. It ja vakit valuable, nculpated by the reports 'bent in by those ta reperierend pardoned for title that this with ke guilt of many aller\n\nes dy sick that notedy 14 av hea soppra but a Navester, JR, \"Police called upon the, and coke You have cried your\n\nés paid offices, ut lite sails or Tiger nature, po bioause there boil un puhe, a have now been destroyed by\n\nlam ny big which feil fron D. Bulgea or frran Si: Jake at Wil Tarrat, publishes of the Long Kong pois as a ave arrested the sedel, and liavoces, and that hardins erment an oath, Pain\n\npill the end of Chin, was in the 'the' hårda\" of the Hung Kane Covergent, this meinenze\n\nBlock Cum by Liu Govername of t that. Quo him to study on two charges of piracy, Applause). I sony to it by Dr durs, oth nemain the Acting his ca, me of whey be provad is dancreationa\n\nthere was any atention to doutor them. On the stray, lbited by the police count and at die trial were looked \"to prelom leninitim. Sorrest replicationswmulleritsbea Laaksi, Will diese papers be forthcoming the is wht hely a mally Trong and public At that very women bu application is 150 pardon was made, but they all lod. The public age when war awer was Coctaily, tasy will ho forthesising Chetumal miny, of a cele d Governint of Hong Kong, to fit the the i pendina brez the Executive Council, bad baľova a do- up in 196 101minant. 1 Setinal From Callejattu.\n\nwat rond to you this watch of Mr. Dixon, printed Celóuipi Seref.tg-roat will be-1 don't say état with hefurret aby Cian, the pepers en bools which šúré éx bdag too mackerel for Sir Juiz Bowring Stahoe Fogg that these utsnoruuda'ha dolroyd, et troch nieruction cangad the apud Wilham Tut\n\nWithin one week triad crossed that 1 u raken\n\nWaficul reported to me that had upperolie\n\nimoweh, af Tan, aldussed an offels, ferie, tu the goverment\n\nmistion zutenu 57th May. 1 cdled for flow, papers, 014\n\nthe sewer still was, huy s pro3acer May,\n\nthe Chairman of the Come-speaking to what\n\nCarls\n\nren ufereeing one of the LM-\n\nTutte and Within Tarrat peale not pully mil. jabetu, te the Willing Thon BOS, 10\n\nCotinal Sury-by umiva with 517 3 wing, do Govern, duce auch pal and coetic pubic papera a vecius cụ #8 burn, le prevent than tror në tuladhand of teatriinal\n\nThomus Bridgun act\n\nin\n\nJUN PO\n\n1.9\n\nby Sir John Bow-no, not thatatemens 6 M Dixson, the truth-bat ecide not beenvelded by them wil'honey, hit which beleg rund him no the tecore of what had or ne'sunted for in any way on the sapotion of an from wat taken older, M.. Disnou stated was purfacily tree-Theese. You are the kratay of my words, Wall, geûtie- Ch'oet were in luence of their liveandbence begins of e, what did the Govereat do! Nacida That term katson hid in ace to that the parden abel to Premye at Hong Kong The Sup of Police\n\nthe Superintendent of Police, vel sia papers they were, in glee taustmankt Midland. Vältweite Regattar tenor of the Water y lo had the police of the long smakt at his dis in the month of July, 1857. We are now in the sofaxuated; hat the articlo was oothie, for the Fals were\n\nang silence, tid, I can't go on wirdwat my papers. wture Colany, Lotion gave a collops plan\" pesul though, the blud frastarlet: Mr. Calder report fort. 1808 after the firfficial repost do mora, but it be dry for Jorn Rawing an\n\nwale wasiporadia Court as a bit of the Queen again\n\nwhich had bain perferred against hum--to the ellệch that de at the Goved mud of twich ought to have beea pend Hic exartition of Flapot, kiha of re\n\nThay ate prodlacil I will pursue my culence. The answer No one of them cool to lay information apolo\n\nback beca u ursave win ons Machowe Wong lan lo hurtu appene ja support of she another when wrong y cotisidered sacou to disqually Me, Ozidwell from the Cicating letter Was oderossed to the peper of the Tarrant, van de turney General &quited that ever wor, \"They all he rearly 1 C\n\nLa participated in los sela of prasy grof, dasiting him to attend Le Coute (they had set power seruitrios cul ales o cursale should eat feralga, and one morning win ga tuy way to 14- accused 171. Ile was the Jattham Wie de ce. Dission of the event; and still be in there, hod\n\nto try him, tot he was the Goverɔment priaser, Real de night aliteed to tempire 10 Ms. Caldri og Ang'oiler friade of head as a speculturefor I was tune ure Espe when The people were inkry out of thick boats, delube and\n\nhe made these repusta are wet cullat\n\nbave lost cle Govorodent CRITIC). And why? To gite Marchew Weg. Iudouter I got was, that my\n\nappeared as a walness at the diting of the Comarisuon * liberated atmost as he thought. He was I league 10 explain their code is making them, or to dalend\n\nKformation whien manche ebatte ilem to judge of the pro- dalien was on hingartuus and nad għɔeld rescivo apery sten- the worst of proles west theic waters and them; ed on deve at the moment this citron frat, villamenters of Aude. He was the rod of the is the outer and the sccused wit together on the same priety of dehang chow Wos? : ut in followed it up by a cheinending Tetter, and the last to by is gentlenus thut was for the Cen va Berriers of State Bar the Clay time derved probe, and the arreman who repeat to the sarafatio of the Count the gly offend it was my own but in the following teoksile into the Coversio's own verlas d 1st the nad Duiel Dichard Aldest a 1stcat and store. Be informatie and his piratea\" The bad out a speed ease forsoort pesed loss to Sale Whig, wich had a proppo. E in Chatwill interfered with the Bantuñer the rot. The papere leve uit bee a burnt.\" I said, ut papula and then: the publication was for the palie The wil, \"Xo the Governor says he bene in der 11 the lawsti poobslupent of che saith Wa poo them the forgot ng se vitut an exquiry.de fast bivice, Me. Dixon It becued as if a pattiouimely dan pocah as where these the Though the Gerranean'dak noriver, stre Chinese di cozel.. bad be used by may trial. My. Dixon, berdear, while it in the \"realevikov ning meirande; but that the cable\n\nelius amgunnelled to try the sald inferrinse,\n\nvolens be the ustuution qu' bothering til legit, apeared, and with a good deal of virgstol good, we sitesine, to the moverslerved to be ail book burne By wum? I did. An licces Scottir warinda, ses to here for borb the G-scrion fine 'statud jrry the guest relay say his order. I sat Very wel; we ra dialed fa verdict for tlu edenduť sa bech plans; unos ellskog palmat Maheton Wong by Chumer, and upon the first termoz at the out the mad, and said that unicos they tinted be tat me, but yet was zur Tega aga leirit. We have a win in our low that against truth of the churges brought against she al\n\nspoliation navirense da things are to be presumed, and i meat Hong Kong, and that it was for the Tabakor\" of these fay be as convicted, and on the weakest of the behaved to Yew with binabar décenay to would give them one, baterie Pentaton se s tamuuttori 10 'miére jäi prisbas\n\nsil psk you as an hormmable man to 3708 That thesa\n\nIs to jure:nlicy Judge anal coul\n\nthose cinga lid on printed and Lwcase, the stroper ese being fat of all hepsi res information to which they expressed a wish to behet for a cuine of genes; and at lie samé tanie a controa\n\nugulaste si Welt: redentes y lisaks formed me sy se Ori- better informed, and he then third them he could per i prestitute of the town Cathie proton-copale au raping too evides of the gall of the Gospeter Gavravent\n\n4' principal for those il Chizes to the deptpl' süter of the Chis wo\n\narxistence. It is 10 luge, eramus justice, and sound That deal. Machow Wong was marred Sister pered with the tatereating investigation into Mahonjw cl.argue is the publikācá odalineseľ pupure of\n\nneut of Latin. had anguired by consulting' lud nine ended inedin pawnslegs the sem bone Hanece dolars, because sea- Weng'e caso had neily reached itu eczaleca in the Pelico\n\ncgrbury evidence of their cutems, through weld e- zuota, prepared, fre the purpose of tildides kehitet Matolaw innen the pawroker who clonged the scen Court. very last day I was suffering excediating paip\n\nfair in yen to sit it, there are 2 us who can kissin\n\ner (Le 2ad way of led by the \n51 Police, Mr. May. Acsonlingly Malay wis keat for sind be the calvo a farette suni unily Dollars for her person celiginal to hout it. I only to the neuted aleht saiut the aid Duum. Richard Cabluit, it me Jame and bropl his mud with dai, and Ure to nie mate. The coins and it proval batus est quicy. The shain so to be of uly proeid tust a long and iniunaté euangetan\" ja esitt\n\nbetween the Last tratat the whi to mars war Connise Terdila, namen Stieg Lol, who had bees in frequene opinion. I did, 'As to the Tetonada, that is a re publishra, the mud contests of the papers, 27.se, youclow witte : Caldwyn in corted, but rust Calanbend, for they are now Lural, en tan Garethe 2016\n\nallen version had been gled zipost ity Mt. Caldwe-insed to be a hacer by Clause Longe of Mrs Calcon, egg where they are, for they beat Lugu in bis 10 ::fic Governor, to the effect that the entries la Cie Laake reteived from his pawshop Lead a of nonly. Th were mi pogut entrcs, that there was curing leatp dildof the fact wing which they ray n tha hery of the pizate to them-acting whatever, and jority of the Commission are of opinion but it wank het\n\nthis bold step, tw zdevastorm of Tresh crimen were fail\n\nthe Chitovas; they always coupled time with seentza, a less tekig climate the Hong Kong: so the ety-f-every one of the Factz; because of the piestembe: vom Ur.l. for weed trout le Fou Tsepse. You have uses 1392 meat what is culed 1867, ad pracy, went transgrated for 1:15 to the purl 160\n\nMr. May, the Superintendent Police as magistrate or Hog Snar, M. Mar hee nos bem suaded for giving evidence al Mr. Catdoll, and he says konw the a, kowa ce allow Wook, was 57. Caldwell'in pol and trees relied upon to formar. During the whole oftaistime-that leave 1980. never reĥrened wa mate to biolohow Wong, either by the subordinate oleum of the police, ky old kuropan dents, or by\n\nepithetlaring selezenne to his bad chamater. Aes multimel repute and retoriety, I know the Mabel Wong hos for Jezz bron vorsiderad sectortionet, & respect of mines 3. from gambling-house keepers, a condectrale of pirates, SON recrow of telek gooo I Mama plastist nerause of ca 1. work bom postiar witlitegazu to Mr{akdwell—winters\n\nCimen in the coinsy very well knew-that Matchc .. Wong wat sopposed to da in possesion of great down, a ut wan belil in gest dread. Ot the exteat of us dread.\n\nbeste faly aware whenever it was my duty tu laverigune the case ignibet him. Igoko to maug Chinese of stundige 1. and property, and shey all exhuired a bowledge of his\n\neni curacter, but a relualase to do more tia This gentleman was a picnes of a juste vľ the porco, wlas navenbetes is considered a proper person to remain in tikt Chu). Geaca, en son as Sir Walter belt dhe\n\n• covered that 3. Gilbert Alusz, tas Laird of Pargowa, had been code of the press D.nks Flatserais, Book vilectual mesum to hee the Commicion of Price i\n\nBland From !be d'agence of his novion; and foetal y that a literary character like Sir Jatin Bos ring might have very robiy been expected to fellow the exacte setli by Bir Walter Scott. App, chinmay\n\nE Mackow Potrg seded ahir vonviction sp\n\ntraneporation. But no mark the prosem, beause this\n\nbring the a bow head of aging, which, theagh\n\nip of two onlilery others to the court clost 1 might dear the ovalent of the pirate book, andard shose hooks send in the Police Court de slag purled open the dose collow me to pass frena the the is on which was carried into the const; so I hoped to Potion Court interpreter in a loud waies, that it the world, motulit. hack him it in interpretation more wrong, read 11:\"Fə\n\n·Sam Kwei' (bet ie, dr. Calduril, the torturing or kerkida, Need) toey\" ist was an estry, earleazen; ju\n\neate an the all to particular\n\nvaid, \"I will go in again.\" He woak in, and the Governor\n\nI share Caldava 1 cher Wong mad the sail\n\n10, soma, by the said commuistion, Dalit Dad Richard Coldwed bad been, until very best À parter with the sad omviet in a lɔrelia, zrul the mirë,\n\nfursher show that the yard She of the sail.com clas\n\n1a jike parcneshly Jai! 16 between basi and the said venyter met lecat fenci yessels, and that a number of una in their day deơn, at vagina timas, guilty of pray\n\nThat die restliny Eve under the sail Cerriku was gevately printre and culo by truong sung Tern, but väheul indoegmentary videtza Taller! ski the sitesi, el coatiars to the protes of th been the, as was statel oa onth by the arimarenie\n\na. Lan, DONT MICRO, T\n\nQty of Sambon, in Suno which, after a calmed\n\nthe\n\nding, resulted in, obra vùng tha prasiat pagundy pic\n\nsud, \"I kus ibing of the benene of the papera. durd calew ware bort, they were bucat by Dr. Hridge, and not lag sa La broke of the pirate then conter excisation. Olier her speed that own the stricle in the China harsh lemore Mr. Careil on the Commisions for lie sansauranda, 3 know nothing of Lin\" \"he w\n\niesasperateri ilia'j aiges, exspe- hear da the eye of the Govenor, he had applied This? stein is to her gun sence to arcs of various kloun; dietasloudly sessionis flat bosh aya sud see if there were taled 194, and its proton avery' Inquest amus alb sead, it daw was open, nant I could boar hits, stud be was very \"C.\n\nany swab cutes in thdia, And why do you tilus be up theur vers partionfctly Tirumakt. itemquatracce e il ficus imputenbel to neve he solint wort of projectile kunwa drog Paliced by this 1000\n\n2. 118 425 of the the to? Wit, of all men, do you this he employed on the subject, and was again divined to fold is proce The Soaking Berhey mast have own full well had been about of stinkt pat\". payee of Life You a rezolves the book thay cured this var tuusuciata winxber there were any entries in the truth in that Dr. Bridge the Acting Unlonal Secretary tune unsay shout thuthum, Laven Laborants pargnuts,Gestalo Bub Sigler's coins, winch pirate's books incupatory either of the pirate the part who advised the censur, id, sir. Davel was eppo wapiz, then he gitty as, Dr. Bojes, Mid Commission on the ane tril of the Quetu . T\n\nareas were ação by the Canis Eigh me as instants need by picator Sam thaques. Why die parmer, gentediet? This fhda. Lattez to whom he apples wx All this was petal catfury ma vida e con exile in\n\nColwell, after the conviction of tar sa Machow 5 appointment discoting to acting Chineze scoretary to go berwuda before the Commission that let linge was aleau works heftest be wrong thement of the si sūdens 118 parla. immanian theme soboto prazposes of desunto. They\n\nand assist - Durdwell in the inquiry which heal. Can a casing about for a further opportunity and relega pole back paneme ta por seul as other this extructed to the api lagi. profile a catcmple as to bewilder their oppo-\n\nmily had been ducted to make sure prudineert bother the afbringing the Government to save tried sidi de pequena co muy first preferring rise toer hie darges against Mr. Rielar wel! bu is expecially charged with did cre nesta a leg who are about to board, in slu anpe of setting in to tie voocel. kere were numero Commission of Inggning, out in my leg, bead aguchi veu dus sirenastade med. The Government at Caldwell and piles in my place in the Legisle is Majesty's cura in motion against persons whol\n\nall vessels wi entries us of dortrustion as illa, and over sidste to be the witness for the Uras, on the trial one disproved of the chair power confered spend Theftey were they me butt with alleges the pirates, and against all\n\nto je, na galust all places where he algimin· anou een oudceived from Skor Koneen spinet Tarerne, and there a bean doubt of the aduc Mr. Caldwell, and we were able to recourt knowles they were och be useful to Path, go drabt, un videre-thane to fact-Mr. Under the related vend kid mal was in committa the accusel sy wers bau after produ\n\nTait in the pic af ar Malety's outers - I have mest enamcuted them to 300 so I went on, I leave\n\ncott Bad Kwag na he is called, of any purchase of and Mr. Mans asked to must fan and Mr. Modzin when I received fine in peritcedent of bien a letter to presturs them had to have them bed by fur produccion vice plus sole multial inflation of the el aladdy hops in my to: The way was thila—A young\n\nGen ego. And what you they deal and Caldwell in all arch of lige Tak Art of educadou, ef grea: personal-I Acer of Jerodox.0, thein arapaiment, there is LLC chart det til him by tomatogne sunce mages of evidcide to the eff chat held i\n\nTai since the signing of che la ray of p asy beunty, her his aprestake was as that of a fede abondamen there to w Any ROVEor, zealous for herpes to lines that no bundle was very hierdie wise his power for Wing, unfortunely, long\n\nGlina, uvasis of the, Chape coast, in violation IT MA one of it, thus the man who had at all, and that ou the other bundle the bestowed what he abuser of thels in this way, hili he was granting the acting Chinese secratur;) is mee to cama inter car\n\n1rea, lava berume Publiwa, guided and directed by Gešti ... of 1925-lure description in kv 63 2. Was\n\nChina **U WIScuration.\" He says is the dish to bredelskont of his down property, and prae- ryceriu desunie mors, fouad to encumber pas Denici Richand Cudil Brave Cock thick acidéy (tor Mr. Cool: wat pituus elite-341 h a secured wae 220; fix to ra\n\nnot cause all the textements he pub to Mr. Cromwell, eating with effect ultricies that there untied, to se ging Clumése Ofies. They diù in bing to the Chase Ofe 15 the following mes ocurral in the wqeriş il 2. At Une trial in Lile book which he beat writea oui Ciminin Quotes of the Fuzon (Apple)\n\nand he does not think Me: Cafdwell torstited tum, chance our prasowe property. According tid The Leugd de Palin fce, it is true might Apr: st: u of uret, as evide and where we believe, was inckie oue stated like being the Ostwall Commi, nd Mr. ther be gh: mot disse his fly in Anzies, she Davies, wind, and when the oil age to know that Mr. Caldwell was bore Wirk, berise se thakter, with the wires, believe sunt them there and ought to take the pubes her Majesty's valicza plesal the sole er upperial allegat of th were of the best cepeccability-in Earth me of Este, even to the poial of the full towards with a number of the when Ireland Council, and I sakithar duodin ruveta test faluzea du bat i asked tise Guarner and he told\n\nDaniel Ric Caldwelt: he had cuker and give to Mic Morgan to perse and Mr. the ordinate for the purse veftig das Legistar merak The Bulger, and De. Trigga yaki • Thụp only ruchan, 1 expediu 10th of Mr fast ga Boys, and he was to my proseptic, at Attorney Genry), I rekla ile ago, at de woods [aan? to tried and evicted-1 au sorry to y, c the 4 were defano I went into the court resapan, without staring them with the date\n\nto heridong any pecay void the ral aid \"Tyler is ofte the dus of the Ladeperdendof the enuio of piracy, the xys this The Antorery Geotul's shot when our they were all rigs and the report was diawn up and eat from the for! size string to aty ko mase Ti said be Tacy are mere end undertaler were banale\n\nwastog : Weng grunt-end volevo che grad-very properly not be Mr. Nenu,\n\nof the power ferret an M. Caldweb...) Deaked wat was uneven plan is the site out of bagi the Loring of opinion dit he had not convicted e\n\nis is feetly opmeet. We has only wired ac, Mr. Chudwell. Mr. Clewell reported to the Govi moric motely, but Me Colwell spent. A lire put of the day due to create der is so that he was merely convicted of piracy, smal\n\nEst addressed her pabely happen ontiment which have sexa, aut wiret 1 hp will be and reported Shubho was hity the azett. Est de properly sting of the cuss in depatruling w \nke,\" Free which cut is Chinnan Day the\n\nvaez the Funga V Danë newspaper, qüuhag fas published at less eleverd het book. You may chuka urtean city of Wade Wig Tit Sourke,\n\n--Fast flokit - statuiest, teic, \"Tuus the pinaka charge, it ALANYAGİLİNDARION I am labouring & avatare wies) 43 30 pacer. w you wish to set pure so to sey e vet toptir He began in crale\" vie\n\n@miate or uw why I did it. We crmitory, o'i chy' way incapatory; if bind when I was spinel Libes Way, seven weeks at that knd la that safe of as they\n\nDodwell come all took us session the Hundwist Bisur ne lastics tim this, bet no cler yet, it is lyriba for his was consolib and date ich t kad mad prizes old bundy, watery Chinese Jesele and good, but of ureja veeeels and get porter on the art flow Cart Mr. Called Buklear?But it get farther on this. Megan, on stated alub, Le way adding the Guercituent, whi\n\n- Thi ly ra cho tiện, việc nghind: 1 Júlio Kucose, is 'nce, 'crite end to abile,\n\nestiollant Wind in partueze of: che meses\n\nhunder to avitas tenser sind, herefte We\" who ale to be thic ecofioing theres to tlit \"bom juscy wi it is entered vesla og Chistice, eye care, trig winds to how were wilt duration et dedans want. 11 ist fuch has evo sing the appointment in these Le\n\nA proceeded to take aud' wakt prizes of Potgier and even of English It could be .icd-bigbut them we were duething to stay away or tu forges they to ir healthy why do te dore Sime' and look us et Mens specifice- these day a wine to the Crown site pircle beta oponed and face way, that even casi toto hepere forts had básn ichkir tó\n\nHe, Caldwell out on so Desk While the Chief Maglenkad bet akarate the dress of pure atentia to the age of her with tweed in the driting, and who was the marterly speeches I ever lado ati ang dile-iliat did no Berred; baie wuld he lied dot the listed og bin rated 1.16 118 REBOZDey-Centrul Zur the Crown, were] Lind Hberation of Mahshow 'Won, fecia the clucose that Fredd2 attunewars I'died the confoluit of Vedelendum is, these referral to, in this case of the Conferuerteve) Non him by a pirate und ( nviting atmose tire pel the bar and file wiends toere le cos hand that i helion well to Sir Bowl of 9. Jest Tarar chat him out from his chues of just\n\nla reging by \"verbering to her Majesty the can.\" -¿Lead cyplinsé:)' Wit By such they preted to ocnyvaz editions, thors bei gwa sila, and otheeatunc\n\ncant Ohmamen ging video liber was the peper or fabricion of do you think the govt to my of Intent freibe becaues te jugs, who always to grow ranting i\n\nsideration they were struck with the vente of barget, or confort of main, lad deteraped that gul angle, jugil a Lehmkomptly honnante unek bad been re- Mr. Davies is an pourable and opright, but u moet olen and that\n\nbuk shio was deo much uses on a Torted in enter to procure the lure or Latest they new grups to into iteme tarp barat tify a splations liel, soit un\n\nLiyur petitioners ate infor not the public pessa ut excuse to for you to judge af ik validity. Bat I have a\n\nthe commutes at the ears Mspite a Grown wines add beca bring to to say the Bar appened to Car, nodingly this was declare is a pufed with the bobeer defence. Br what actity\" do you, the men of\n\nbit, thend or hisgistrate who was on the Benus, said to me the Cow 489, nd he was akhez of lore furodde teulement of ants or inphns; fest to bring the avertent isto uttal i con- Hong Kong was with the gravest sharges against her uro Ebook, I think you ought torkowest Mank is an generally falls ad the fut of Hong Kong sila, banghts one in Secretary of State se ga je ten, Sw, Mr. arrunt ipad vg for alué deine, 1 blogg's local unit, suising out of the sets of the ni Tunel Fabia Caldwell, witasub ny stopa bʊng teken Hong Kong, prosamo to tyo, ka Ararian cisÓN, DE\n\nrest in which ouius fi torebet upan hi h serious, and he been cool of he told the that Me.\" Mag'a ↑ W Many palmerit; trest, siunt is prasandhang no, preg as\n\nAriel enly echte boned having followed the ukamulu saslim\n\njusty's Gurraient at horny, Jby the British comede e period of Jig de good)Malawidity rephormorandy were to the Courel, de milite of should says, whenever let me extence: not a tal on w, by tur ecce as\n\nulo kauly, Theta quite a misuke, Nix. Eug in ne subtitri Coupe,\" ays My Dixsongengrene, mm, Fabere ready to righend what was sad, ra, wana boju til, denying to That you diners e farther informa chot ́́s Youlo en ability hoy resucher: sis cake of Mr. Caldwell, who she promett, Alferplant in Jeppe.tjie\n\nin consequence or be acts Court. The young picafe turbel, un lam with TRON\n\nhar for life. This pewnią kair, whose appearance oply ja ¿very respect most preprenenting, lidil, nesici furlega, \"Litez +the cance of this phraga ditere perods\n\na from the are 1855, 1856, ADG 1857, for as long an x-\n\nde, hoving her treat it the posite by what, gezišlą miejų a\n\nsoftly exjoyment out of a lui Delagian\n\nNalci Poiy,\" and supped fra te te sime with\n\npas pedagowa by the struct\n\nsul collars in money, and welty for cos janda\n\nof those from. Mol whore willing the\n\nof to re\n\nShu or anong gani, the tuik of whic\n\nand Led by resi\n\nHow was unt invest gatal. Batore The Beaton Bona's a li\n\n· Mu brei, nad who exprend is read\n\nto\n\nadjuskuse on the case, and it new apposes fram, eisal decoration of the Case Castor At B\n\nLut the legal piracy Ye\n\nJaw jacc\n\ndatid cerfi-zion of a Sales\n\nat the corn the gastropod the test -1, exquis ook pult, I was pureaued tri the Atrey-\n\nyies distant from Peng Kang, viktse\n\nFWninos 4 ใน Mu\n\nJun+\n\nacity were onwering the waller or city with Chinese cứ duratione pre by me, they m;,\"store, L'insverfus Ceageer be thhed infuñà÷hoi si't the very chané de \"wasture Legs undertaken atlasswise păzi şJelitoraizly, quid rich di alluzbi àltevės ro angelu salt into the saidilir. and dezambiaron und muraus où desituelium and deadh, tiež pevaaja this most Ring'hérorë · Henriečkkaemisă when'] Conkeret ón metody. (Rudnnà těšiai vah tribal with bad de Guabip. Processing wers commod in the Pulica / voliars were under preple\n\nCual will your to a prosecution ser libel of the sail towns with two hours,\n\nlisa proprietor of that jupur Sir Th\n\nasenBalion Charmy of Expeti funt:c:ky m5- per with British dominion), tor property hall 19 bapa luier. tu2+)?) \n\n| peurs ing Lo maid mutes u flazbe Woo), but willing any peccf, or injẢ ĐỀ\n\npref, 13 coline; the sald sewn with this ad allest\n\nto petablish the truth of such si logetion. Towing the said verds in thus suidtuint of\n\nand the prizeutics of clues weioner's Report, i\n\nquica by bis partadi, Sri Culkin Ayplay.j'. Pagkus Mache Wang, M. Caldwelź ext 20 the Bestivité decurrente, the fin# Peľ was tete 10 där fets, abg no wories of hopeat knutý, Ahri saytigt, on rebooveything in the law tit jouds to the liberty or places Five Queed to Ja!! Rhad calli\n\nzeli yua win he riv \"Yes, graden.cu buld centered these pirnoje, I basoetatud may\n\nwell, you shoổ tut teava, the Coat. It 1 sog\n\n- In\n\n-1\n\ncontinue to bold la ulices of epistur-Borland Pro-\n\nfasten object, and Justion of the Pen\n\n-\n\nopas\n\nThat one piles huully pray your Maganly tost The Dichand Sawell as the anodica phed from extresings said does of gist-renca\n\nyour Majesty was fiber, state such sy\n\nut your Alaiys Critical. -\n\ne naved\n\nThis yields totank to tini) zei; flua elitize\n\nTeplagent on board'éco ether piste junk, dist c£5 on krainie Mchoben Wong. I day day i dennepéviter is primasda eru re” Cure of 9.964 Kiz the toho, ability;\">ub' #1 to Flis millest was 13, 11 to jrove the justi ofera zné 'bu fiɔmė gl Gran Maxis, he adopted, amig\n\noy the Mayur se belesif of 11e meetings una chut the See petilien to clean, Lyk Lyness to the fart Bluts for biome Afain the requested to press the abu Bin Silben : the Ainge of Commiting\n\nBog ur Neeraden cephes, 1 for F and Northumberless be formed with appien se sa notition, and requested to support is pron,\n\nthe\n\nNar\n\nsinty ever happened. Toward the end on aller case der is met. Promate. Cats?#eliftektálation Jowy cerunkenyíčel, † sleges vanitý tu da in Boug Kong. · (Apple) I kids in, but afttraing that he wrote dijose only of a 3k)- j offiser of known el which your petitions - Bohinch 1 new before saw equales, and it ben boxks pered to sa ikat is, the Ott hectate)-Mr. ULIENTE This front mas altérfi sa' Mr. Beyond wilmot hafte u work I stukut bajene it. vienmant sälja vasant clue $2000 18 Guseramcul, all hasing ban aakrod to: recueile unencre, - nepest of tetth He Mind My Cali-Gadwol in Mashow Wong's adapter. 2, in may have dr. Moun n this white car; oist I live desires norieteni which sa stuffziest to gue secres, such as, e con las cerefore ether nigrisane ne kely to low.\n\nmil adoped father, I do know 1-made of the teak up del did I bet white m\n\nTelit for the subjput of the thugplit his to take up that they rely institute en iy te teece to have entered this Et any or stannak a the time but the end of the case al beat fit to hy weed the traits de trait in and tie was, beet this honour last selgus, and the Judge of the culpis hold the rare of the petition to the Bouses of Lek's bu Ame of thee. bis are here, you, who quietly to br. Caldwed, are heard thank Mrforcuccino w This is of the resty je dny, day in atribut to delete the honour, Crown gut ferised: me time this career of orhng thall be caldwell, abent, your patios with the vase, was there wadh son why He bave tent with the date the 17th of May, 1938 verli, by the Crava prassence, wild as suid was opes Justine, but the prayer of the polition to the Queen was us aland with the exceeded, wit alig volubility. were sur stod say they wereteeming of nettur-argir the nor this roler received master tour the Secretary or to trove (by gality of the cavenient, and having fo\n\ntions contéptet ut per the indin dietider Sveces of Bahar One you Brus kete but in jautify the bed, for it woul A late costance będe tamu Walbe present at the inquiry, the you le coună-\n\nder wet br, 1 of the you struction by us that promet, pa ih the more in loved in reported. ll, gentlesser, e il be. For m piece of polios of European xures, such pe chara\n\nlierter thing, tid old role puude hink you go. Prot. I said no more excel, had her mull I have no large, penta Tanpired the trial sint tag were decle of in the Chincre, 'and 'which has said lid al com from Mi. chatyour penceration I have inter reeds graminacey kist ever themiubit of ang us Job By illegal enguant nur short pet she hinten, end Faction of ds: Pease pu Caldwell. Els declared his red padon, and I bar. 22201 Wes 11. ca corte e (9-12 chapter conveyed in the hose leidu libus petition is at to the cold try me that tetece prated suit circuled, but nav ar pilkul in the berzerie, in deferi he had shton s prson, popne in which altere med acts. Doudy, Jay, the mind one part of the needs office. I let it has previouidered themed parts as at the agreeing \"The información rize is functions were detepeisles de Messina. *Caldwellende brother, Mulishow Wong, boating Colonel Mexicozy requetudo so take a vase pooch Ms. Monpais. 19isit there is how to me hall work in the Maglażba përt of cha\n\nErs Lovereanett warno longer thrë qi | er himself to have bòân”- chicago-wiens, M. Card it as is May's case. Day Bekles, the Aoting Colegiary'sy And Siver : \"they clä salis dots i had e, mladinkoneiden 2011 (5)\n\nwellen into a sent, ithead of bustin By original par Services, axplained to me that ho-bellevad bir. Any toe papers entrere, but netan ere were states are with her disputs this postion the did not prove it by ban wings, me he was sing Folded in the magnity of policing & levels -pose, and leaving the conce, or pyvalme to the curt te 10 rowe way pajudined sponu (whom day-thak, penele tormeil the subject of agres' o'what's the ahy, for while, at the word things, tien j\n\nditions viice cheek Crowu wănesiép, far, Irlikes, T. Môngán, 1. Youll here: China bưng v? tự nghe Hob Reig I new nit! new show h, tht to chat retr -proteo! kin, or askroje leuve for one in Mr. Calovali? No † sgaipet).MuleLow Wang.\n\nBet him in the end i Amk fasi ya desch wert hate Bowed it, arc wies and a Con Me two tur conuicted to theke animement when the retele dena; be ligicha zaid against in. Caldeuil sound he beerture\n\nstein and tornou mierer the fuse \"szért made bye debet my Bi peace, une with a head & mods Setween fives, and couple it very cosible that would take my are John Bosdag Mi. Wade's reporte feicis alliesenstar and piratant explain is al even un acknow\n\nFred, nad valeur was giche che il sola hile manner carrying witle is convxtion of the truth of the bention to doing so had solely we tras sie dasise: Vitalne the Chilies State Stad ductinenda, no he is bunds: llame Gentieren bi the charse of this wel die tui rilaktin senfessions of Dr. Bridgy instit, Lord Lyndhurst tank they, interes, it is not\n\nSecretaty a theory, lemort me cretary gra street. ket ky eye'sed en thas unter -May focuya sheld poke hazz, nach ki mua jimata'y Ark whit a Na\n\nin the inghest terms the petitions freia this tea Pannte man, an his sat there under the allerlag demanesi\n\narranged that we zi.ould hath with Then it big avil swenney-General Mi; Aditz? tals Rated; wart referred 'te li kiengrity whel, masel tuplasente, at å which they acheidint The jury issing of the morient I 2054 to live Twish His Old Crawstway's) Buty cümiselled h ting if the young pirate, and I saw in's deco the\n\naridanse ho goes on to say shas Mr. Catwell, corac! ene basereperietes bere thou and Bi. \"Caldwell's tagdermit sipan 1992 finds of them on seat or é difractal We donder the bulȚ most abject ped the most complete ecofen his guit, use of the sopranotation which have to the gut being discovered, but on when do that'dule the kit, and which they reledere etract fra jast bed by the evidite of the Chow it to remind apture from the primary f The Fout Atheriyan te vektoriced and prukaḥed, bas it\n\nCoperto, adul not to alter a future, as a note his eye. Note that it is tuc late for a while but when & boy well lavori Urresting bars for the brought to pressure politi\n\nbe maling; and taped that Mr. Edila Janes Skul jameting, thinkingrachtdi duetzibál, eď trials Enlu Karena lester to clears pederskil to inquirero\"\". (Apple) libre o letroduced during de tre petiolo probability which is, you wil of my career what was gutted to Bir Jolin Howalny ió qu consider a very probablu jebak de Walpole, and who is full order dứt the I put me in the of the Combat is the defence et gallly even notice in a los 67 Court on this He herbure, poskirted skal pla ne, was committing to the huge of lesbiete or inferabuty, rape they iron going to jure in the dataset made pés justa 2 Wand they uid, que\n\nquestions of etiquette agits zu Lin waived, st that it Tầng ki the tiásẽ of every mandlily édes of the\n\ndece did de desert-lum Att. Ha di 201 forell possinterpret the Hugh find withly my enter the Ses of Bret' I' prutekidit in die name or Theron appisil to the judge for costs, all. eet the low/high af te dzieje 1.5in pha Sapd bubbly fut he had hail and who had the bài)? Panimadiratokeo Motion Manama wakiel cortese again it that-ridistrikt, The viler bf the | gj\n\n\"Well, under Lord Cupbell's Ko, and appe be there did so the court sec on this Calls. And what bids Mr. Caldwed, aduca be the feat-by-1 Patio, Ingileifilutleie het urituli eie se lest is labele se ili beg capered he wwn sees of the car by giving their day siege the harsin af Mr. Jones. Ep erine Fant doch and maile report of thuto welched magicTalen top? Way, clasped Co. by one dette noen taryf die stider in or on Bareng dati, bis spits against the Crown (ie will it pr. A skal med to add, but Afr. Zuniga, Devoting theesin the principal portion to the trial of mion--. 19 old do not forex Burette, user einiglitz traway! -it we never intended to a tie mors will repect to the asthey sweary of longer euitendag with the misrule of the British\n\ndaily in runt litet habeating cocutare. hát to thee tới mướn that the demandar obale trave power to intulegt at, mal bei 1 600 6. Every harding will invest at long Rog, had exchang Bags, the barone of what the sail, ed I desired, found that the magistrato was in kyler Milmiy's later, and bore the com\n\nsha mabject of a terrenet to Mr. Whe, the belt Crizelse i uthe Sometime of Moet dank the sulfat peckers the pot of the clung being tiled fur by: of han ritate infesty or be a corp\n\nImperio Major the inspaene på.China, al luced by Mr. Gibidwalk to syrept of dreindly low. Ieder\n\nand Ferlinuculary grant. is not er mis to nevid Passion of the peace ng Kai-for 1 yo amend in vana, de haciz Mahshow Wong Seo have here ofered in whichrit-lan at leiðarokk of isim num amzkurt, and then\n\nJr. Pouncilor Disparas had great paying -the grace of attlag is the same commission with Mr.\n\nJuden in your for debt for a few days storm which was, wiesenet was the thing trial selbe just denial, the wasthead like on of Xeconds whey should Gard well stated, I say, die sold pity the time previous levertheless, Mahshow Tong was conan the inquirix: 2 . Monti Multish Mit John da to re e thuit made of this Bits This la cuve of the meta, mut had lead her than su\n\nPA Take y ethere of serall be real, and all\n\nmatic aire dent where of Mr. Anne, Justy par foto bn up and vend au wordt had his bovision, tabe ploca examination every and the by, beg byg\n\n·Topptation and Palipahoy world i purua exopt up this line got store' Jer, that public sandal bed but unt evary at: was made By 31s. Caldwell specə > where: Weijl.\n\nlowers and now; & fou verds buice's lake wave of you a The motion was carried shotiniously. Moines unlock to do this there by the look of saying Whit cheaped in Net of begin by requatuo: there in\n\nMr. To HET. LE. Weid bus tree the ter seun which the-hop gelo x want wien, si mor of 16 slet Buc me to my how much ist das picot's stal\n\nbeing met. Et the dayvalter I had that vidunderlie the prevés szacujalise Kaving Goch. RIMI, o l'alvo,amt ákotek Mr. Caldwell'; but the I imew\n\nMelchion, Fung may Birthink that by as: Alengan akute todo che continue miter which has earninus of miley clite Tr wickelly of churae, that it win pofidetty true that Max. Los reparted LTE WHICH TO: + with lenth of coma de double all ye hi! I want to perfore by suols Bands Racid, the pipe that having bags to the May, des -terpie fri eventibử with the Afti dhanon or getting off???ed:hu nad a perk von Grace | Pelketeart' scathifi. Mit Pulbosat sitt which in med tobeat du the puLE U VARse to you by Mr Crświley. Yən muşť 1.22 sagpry this term\n\nhew Werk, who was storeddy beefed with\n\nTechpod, 30 in abm.com. To juman who actuel far as 37. 3. Tinker went the not by let the great chase motor and bridal suites and find a bygons matter. 1 were, hub is me rent Why 5, whethe\n\ncoction, plow, stall be same. The Constant at se injured into, and the guilty paulühe becue, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TINE: Maya cha kar moer Urinalty.” The » de is a liesing sakit and in werial agent, if\n\nIf not 'somotáing more than my Kingsky was a young maling in\n\n- Str. Gæstwa Pradoodle for disproves in cybe long ng this first of things last né make up r impant, fur Nejeng's Arte Karilor; and (riffet laat, if so vary w pipe of stem of\n\n• A Lake? Kako se kockat ng ma¦¦:00 Unilure - Chelausen | *apen som to neposers' Chaetesi Por jo mirik, kalya Aith is shorty sit bonarofublimitlam of\n\ndot pri e nuhrer, in the jolske dit Manwhere. hald rentours/niche e victime to the fokus, or out apposte, 1 won by oral by allies in a hit doe\n\nGoverment aut tømn-it. Nag hat dare to train so my lets tred that di Ihres most prouxing toidetle in which a slaan Kong. I maat, kovretta, say 'dolara, `· Eltem, hear dibéo be a f“ „Antikks sward and spank the broth, and I näded: \"Thein sa det aru Koz brady, given\n\nEd 9 wat gate yek böcker at Fangio go that they considerare ding with Mr. Cash has drawn ittich, whit szer kle bir that choctagonar Dagisee. Wain of A Kimpoti in his shade-tzat, lac did lesa quets At ja pelamath now to be to ice for Age in weid, and 70 at hall to say one of the praling the last 92 ci ad pedas entry-it-14) beendal this is (open toyiq queue o to me to be not vil poting that stenty of\n\n· Kgreat improvements Fita a intrbelicëdürzatean of GTE\n\nto\n\nis\n\nreach Een the book in the Kunde DL.\n\njust-abs that they havʻstake' is \"die\" \"chinë '18 Do ↑ Deen ashamed to' hace punimi, sext which I povedled agains l'stä! Is your variet 11 yes that ly | Phèz họ to come how chèt couhl as the objects of\n\ncbeth\n\nונו\n\nMaliciru: w' pa oval 10 joule the supension of this en de 1e eit.al Crown gut áľ sestdise Prielled it 4, Grey Strare, by. WALK Winajan k\n\nresiding eV hit; and publisket by biel Atistis Sunet Neroun-Xn-Tymer, 50, Hommed B Sieci: Digli Studi Samiecians; and Kesant g Durban, i am as gunu gharama\n\nSaturday, Jun 25, 1959.\n\n3974\n\n229\n\n\"Hirveastly for 27 1854\n\nI have the honor\n\nto forwurdt\n\nBook Prst le\n\nZen\n\nAug\n\nby\n\n& Pettern\n\nfrom the down yerrwonath\n\nther Miprsty, which\n\non behalf of the public meeting, at which it was allatibit.\n\nA is\n\nmy duty respectfully to mequest",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-075 - Public Offices - 1859.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 248487,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859",
        "page_number": 90,
        "title": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859",
        "content_text": "88\n\nhimself that they had been entrusted for that purpose, and that the examination (if any) was made by himself and not by Mongan. W. Wade, not yet undeceived;\n\nJames now advances their erroneous belief to explain a fact not known when I left the Island – namely that he, (Mr. Wade) \"never went through\" and \"never looked into\" the papers, so referred to her, during the period of their being in his hands; - for, if Mr. Mongan had searched them, his search, he thought, would be labor in vain. Before he returned to his office, the burning had taken place, and it was then too late. He therefore gives no opinion upon the accuracy of the references, contained in the \"Memoranda\", having no longer judgment. But he acknowledges that they are documents of important character, and that being amongst the destroyed documents, other means are note, as an important papers, gravely reflecting Mr. Caldwell.\n\n37.\n\nMr. Mongan, who had the Originals in his Custody, before and after Mr. Wade has deposed in open Court that \"the 'Memoranda' were too circumstantial to be forgeries!\n\nCross examination of Mr. Wade at the Trial of the Queen vs. Tarrant Ubi supra,\n\nPrinted Minutes, Vic, Seventeenth and Eighteenth, May 1858.\n\n58. The Queen's printer, Mr. Bigon, and the Acting Attorney General Mr. H. Ingham - each of whom had at the time a peculiar reason of his own for noting their accuracy, conform the former upon Oath - Mr. May's narrative, as to the nature of the Entries in the destroyed documents, so noted \"in his 'Memoranda'.\n\n59. The Chief Magistrate, Mr. Davies, himself the Committing Magistrate in Mah Chow Song's case, and afterwards a Commissioner of Enquiry into that of Mr. Caldwell, saw the \"Memoranda\" soon after they were made, had them in his possession, two or three days while the originals were in the hands of the local Government; and says that if Mr. May did not then volunteer their production to the Government, it was because he, Mr. Davies, dissuaded him from parting with a document, which he thought would be Mr. May's safeguard against imputations already hinted by Dr. Bridges, of malicious meaning towards Mr. Caldwell. - Mr. Davies really does not think that Mr. May was guilty of even the smallest act, from which, even now, when he (Mr. Davies) looks back on Mr. May's conduct, with the further knowledge of his relations with W. Caldwell, he (Mr. Davies) could, even if he had the greatest wish to do so, conclude that Mr. May acted unfairly or with hostile feelings towards Caldwell. He confirms the secondary evidence given by May as to the general nature of the contents of the \"Memoranda\".\n\n60. It follows then that, on the face of these papers, Mr. Caldwell is now at least convicted of having had pecuniary accounts and dealings with a Chinaman, whose only way of life at that very time was notoriously the way of piracy and murder, and, further, of having deliberately deceived the Executive Council, as to the nature of those papers and their contents, by preparing and presenting to\n\n33\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 248537,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859",
        "page_number": 140,
        "title": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859",
        "content_text": "by the same\n\nMail, via Southampton, and\n\nwill arrive at that port, on P. & O. Company's Steamer from there to-morrow afford\n\nheat day.\n\nboard\n\nAri\n\nAlexandria, could\n\nHe will, no doubt; you from very reformation in his\n\npower suspecting it.\n\nI am,\n\nMy Lord Duke,\n\nYour Grace's most obedient and\n\nhumble Servant,\n\nF. Thesiger Astley\n\nof Newcastle\n\nThe Most Noble the Duke\n\nof state for\n\ntheir\n\nH.M. Principal Secretary\n\nthe Colonies\n\nDouring\n\nacknowledge with the\n\nAnstey. The Corps on\n\nMr. Merivale\n\nprevious letter\n\n8492.\n\nAug 31\n\n2.-9.\n\nAppendix.\n\nIn 8647/19\n\nAppendix.\n\nOVERLAND FRIEND OF CHINA,\n\nTHE case of the Tepo of Choongwan was enquired into by Mr May, Acting Assistant Magistrate, on Wednesday, and stands postponed until Tuesday—the Tepo in the mean time being out on bail. From what we can hear it is likely that he will then be discharged; the trouble of carrying the case on being unsuited during the present hot weather, to the energies of the Colonial Office.—Friend of China, June 25,\n\nTHE Tepo case was duly entered on on Thursday, both Dr Bridges and Mr Parsons appearing for the prisoner. The only witness was Mr Acting Superintendent Jarman, who, sworn, stated that on the previous day the Chinese prosecutors in the trial at the Supreme Court, out of which the present case arose, were duly in attendance; but now they were not; nor could they be found;—he did not think they could be produced.\n\nUpon this Dr Bridges moved for a discharge, and in the course of his address to the Court turned round on Mr Parsons, the Solicitor in defence of the pirates for whom the Tepo was security. He believed, he said, that Mr Parsons was the most to blame,—Mr Parsons's persuasive powers were well known.—\n\n[Would this worthy and most learned member of the Hongkong bar have it to be supposed that Mr Parsons concocted the defence? No one in Hongkong will credit such a supposition. We thought the Crown Solicitor was chaffing when he said, in a jocular way the day before, that Mr Parsons ought to be prosecuted as well as the Tepo]\n\nHis Worship, Mr May replied that as the case stood there was certainly not enough evidence to warrant him in committing the Tepo for trial at the Supreme Court. But with regard to a discharge, why, under the circumstances, it was as unfortunate for him, the Tepo, as for the ends of justice. He, the Tepo, would leave that dock a deeply disgraced man. By the representation of a Jury he stood implicated as the confederate of Pirates—a nice position for one whose office gave him the power to be a blessing instead of a curse to the thousands who looked up to him.\n\nThe prisoner was then discharged.\n\nThe case had been forced on so hurriedly, that the Crown Solicitor did not arrive till the matter was ended; so that the evidence touching the Tepo's ownership of the piratical boat was not gone into—Friend of China, July 2.\n\nOUR Police Court Reporter was present at a curious investigation by Mr Mitchell this morning. Seven Fish stall holders in the Central market complained to Mr May that certain clansmen of the notorious Mah chow-wang were in the habit of extorting cash from them daily, so summonses were granted and they were brought up. A defendant forcibly took fish from him. The value of the fish carried away on that occasion (the 26th ult.) was 1300 cash Evidence being adduced of this forcible seizure, Mr Mitchell said he should treat it as a larceny, and award a punishment of three months imprisonment, and two dozen lashes to be inflicted this evening in the Central Market where the extortion was effected. Evidence was also given of three similar larcenies, and for each the Magistrate awarded three months imprisonment, in all one year.\n\nMr Caldwell took his place on the bench beside the Magistrate, and on behalf of the prisoners said they took the cash as for dues to the Lan provided by Ordinance.\"\n\nThe Magistrate rejoined that that point had long since been settled. The Lan is provided for the accommodation of market men. If they make use of it they pay—if they do not go into it, payment cannot be sought. There had been quite enough of it, and so far as lay in his, the Magistrate's, power, the terror of Mah-chow-wang's name should be removed.—Friend of China, June 23,\n\nWE stated in our last that the case of the Tepo of Choongwan, the security for the pirates convicted at the Criminal Sessions, was postponed until Tuesday. But yesterday happened to be the Queen's Coronation Day, and the Courts had a holiday, so it had to stand over until today. To-day again Dr Bridges applied for a postponement until to-morrow at two, and it stands so postponed. Dr Bridges, Mr Parsons joining, was very anxious to know what the Crown proposed to do with the Tepo—on what charge was he to be prosecuted? \"Well,\" said the Crown Solicitor \"I have some evidence of his being the actual owner of the piratical boat, or I may go on the perjury—Mr Caldwell's evidence proving perjury so far as the allegation went that the people who were robbed were on a list of Heangshan denounced.\" We repeat, this case though the most important ever brought into our Police Court is likely to fall through by reason of want of energy in the Colonial Secretary. We predicted, he has not troubled his head one jot about the indicated communication with Heangshan authorities Now we would recommend this functionary to be careful what he is about. Sleuth hounds are on the trail of all the Hongkong officials, and we know what Solomon has told us a listless man may be likened to.\n\nAttending the Police Court to hear the above Tepo case, we found Mr May engaged in hearing another of the Central Market Fish \"Pidgins.\"\n\n* The Lan are entrepôt for wholesale dealers in 'swine fish fowl, vegetables, & fruit—authorised by the Markets Ordinance, No. 4 of 1858.\n\none of the complainants, stated that prior to Mah-chow-wang's deportation the Fishmongers were in the habit of paying him fees for presumed protection, either by himself or some one in higher authority.\n\nThe levy was usually after the rate of 20 cash of every thousand at which their fish was valued. Deponent's proportion was sometimes as much as one hundred and fifty and 200 cash a day. Altogether there are 47 stall holders, and the average amount collected by the minions of Mahchow-wang or some one in higher authority, might be 5000 cash a day. On one occasion deponent objected to pay, and then the defendant...\n\n137",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 251385,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7]",
        "page_number": 395,
        "title": "CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7]",
        "content_text": "## [88]\n\nquarrel, the Council considered that Mr. May's view of the character of Mah-chow Wong was the correct one, and that he (Mr. May) rendered very valuable services to the Colony in prosecuting to conviction - notwithstanding the powerful opposition he had to contend against - that notorious offender who had for so many years, by the unscrupulous exercise of the means at his disposal, contrived to escape the punishment due to his crimes.\n\nThe Council entirely concurred in the view expressed by the Executive Council in the 2nd Resolution of the Minutes of the 25th October, 1858, already referred to, as to the great value of Mr. May's long and meritorious public services, and expressed their unanimous opinion, that his removal from Government employment would be a great loss to the Colony.\n\n* Letter from Mr. Davies above referred to.\n\n**STEAMER Imperatriz, HONGKONG HARBOUR, MONDAY, 12th November, 1860**\n\nSIR, - I have the honor to request you to lay this letter before the Executive Council. Had my health permitted me to offer myself to the Council for examination in reference to the Civil Service Inquiry in which they are now engaged, I should have done so; but I am quite unable to leave this ship, which sails for England to-morrow.\n\nI learn however from Mr. May that some of the ancillary subjects of the Inquiry involve either directly or by implication charges against him, \"firstly, of acting in a hostile spirit (I presume maliciously) towards Mr. Caldwell, and secondly, of withholding from government valuable information touching Mah-chow Wong's guilt, which he nevertheless furnished to the newspapers.\n\nI trust therefore that I may not be considered presumptuous or impertinent, if, in compliance with Mr. May's request, I offer to the Council this written testimony on the above charges.\n\nI was Chief Magistrate of the Colony for two years and seven months; I was a member of the Caldwell Inquiry Commission, and I was the committing Magistrate in the case on which Mah-chow Wong was tried and convicted. I have had therefore the fullest opportunities of becoming acquainted with Mr. May's character generally, and especially in reference to the proceedings against Mr. Caldwell and Mah-chow Wong.\n\nMy opinion of Mr. May's character and conduct is fortunately on official record in the printed Minutes of evidence of the Caldwell Inquiry Commission (last paragraph of page 87 and first paragraph of page 88), and in a letter written by me as Chief Magistrate (No. 4 of the 11th October, 1858) to the Colonial Secretary; and as regards the latter I may mention that it was written without the solicitation, suggestion, or knowledge of Mr. May. It will be sufficient for me now I hope to state, that I most strongly and confidently re-enunciate the opinions expressed in the documents referred to. Recent experience has only strengthened my belief in their correctness. Mr. May has doubtless in word and deed often shown strong disapproval of the acts of which he supposed Mr. Caldwell to be guilty and no honest man, in his position in relation to Mr. Caldwell, so believing, could have done otherwise; but he never, to my knowledge, exhibited malice or vindictiveness.\n\nWith every feeling of respect for the Council - I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,\n\nTo the CLERK OF COUNCILS,\n&c., &c., &c.,\nHongkong.\n\nThe Council adjourned sine die.\n\nII. TUDOR DAVIES.\n\nPage 399\n\nYou are well acquainted with the circumstances of the enquiry into his dismissal from office, and what allegations were made against him. The Attorney General's report on that enquiry will also be remembered. The charges against Mr. Caldwell, as well as the allegations which were held against him in Hongkong, were investigated by the two gentlemen who remained in the Office, namely Mr. May, the Attorney General, and Mr. ... Superintendent of the Police. This was in 1859.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-081 - Sir Robinson - 1861 [4-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 252271,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-083 - Public Offices - 1861",
        "page_number": 97,
        "title": "CO129-083 - Public Offices - 1861",
        "content_text": "## AGR 0 16\n\nsaid Colony, and, thereupon, to convey him in custody to Hong Kong, and on his arrival there to deliver him, with the said warrant, into the custody of the said Chief Magistrate of Police, or other officer within the said Colony lawfully acting as such, who, on the receipt of the said warrant, and of the party therein named, shall be authorized to commit, and shall commit, such party so sent for trial to any jail of or in the said Colony, and it shall be lawful for the keeper of the said jail to cause such party to be detained in safe and proper custody, and to be produced upon the order of the said Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court at the sessions to be next holden shall proceed to hear and determine the charge against such party in the same manner as if the crime with which he may be charged had been committed within the Colony of Hong Kong.\n\nAnd it is further ordered, that Her Majesty's Consul on any occasion of sending a prisoner to Hong Kong for trial, shall observe the provisions made with regard to prisoners sent for trial to a British Colony in an Act passed in the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty's reign, intituled \"An Act to remove doubts as to the exercise of power and jurisdiction by Her Majesty within divers countries and places out of Her Majesty's dominions, and to render the same more effectual.\"\n\n## XXVIII\n\nAnd it is further ordered, that the Supreme Court of the Colony of Hong Kong shall have, and may exercise concurrently with Her Majesty's Consul, authority and jurisdiction in regard to all suits of a Civil nature between British subjects arising within any parts of the dominions of the Emperor of Japan: Provided always, that the said Supreme Court shall not be bound, unless in a fit case it shall deem it right so to do, by writ of \"certiorari\" or otherwise, to debar or prohibit the Consul from hearing and determining, pursuant to the provisions of the several Articles of this Order, suit of a Civil nature between British subjects, or to stay the proceedings of the Consul in such any matter.\n\n**Supreme Court of Hong Kong to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Consul in civil suits between British subjects.**\n\n## XXIX\n\nAnd it is further ordered, that in cases of assault not coming within the terms of Article XXII of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Consul before whom complaint is made, to promote reconciliation between the parties, and to suffer compensation and amends to be made, and the proceedings thereby to be stayed.\n\n**Consuls may promote reconcilement in cases of assault.**\n\n## 17 93\n\n## XXX\n\nAnd it is further ordered, that save and except as regards offences committed by British subjects against the stipulations of Treaties between Her Majesty and the Tycoon of Japan, or against rules and regulations for the observance of the stipulations of such Treaties, duly affixed and exhibited according to the provisions of Article V of this Order, or against rules and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan, duly exhibited and affixed as aforesaid, and save and except as regards the offence of engaging in trade, declared in Article XXXII of this Order to be unlawful, no act done by a British subject being within the dominions of the Tycoon of Japan shall be deemed and taken to be a crime, or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person committing it liable to punishment, which, if done within that part of Her Majesty's dominions called England, would not, by a Court of Justice having criminal jurisdiction in England, have been deemed and taken to be a crime or misdemeanour, or offence, rendering the person so committing it liable to punishment.\n\n**Definition of crimes and offences**\n\n## XXXI\n\nAnd it is further ordered, that a minute of the proceedings in every case heard and determined before a Consul, in pursuance of this Order, shall be drawn up and signed by the Consul, and shall, in cases when Assessors are present, be open for the inspection of such Assessors, and for their signature if they shall concur therein; and such minute, together with the depositions of the witnesses, shall be preserved in the public office of the said Consul, and a copy of every such minute and of such depositions shall, if the Consul-General see fit to require them, be transmitted by the Consul to the said Consul-General.\n\n**Minutes of proceedings before Consuls to be drawn up and preserved.**\n\n## XXXII\n\nAnd whereas it is stipulated in and by the said Treaty agreed upon and concluded between ... \n\n**Trade of British subjects in contravention of Treaty**",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-083 - Public Offices - 1861.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 254226,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-087 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [7] & Acting Governor Mercer - 1862 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 329,
        "title": "CO129-087 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [7] & Acting Governor Mercer - 1862 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "# \n48 \n\nThe Sun-fook-tie, otherwise the Pak-ma hong in Hospital Street (the house in former days known as the Canton Register Office).\n\nThat being in this hong, the forty-five were dealt with as slaves and frightened into assenting to execute labour contracts to go to Havana. One of the forty-five escaping, returned to Hongkong, and informed the Registrar General; and that officer, after a delay of a week, laid the story before His Excellency the Governor, by whom he was authorized to proceed to Macao and obtain the release of the men alleged to have been kidnapped.\n\nThe Registrar General accordingly, accompanied by Ahsoong, the escaped—or supposed to have escaped—Cooler, landed in Macao on the 21st of January 1850; and as by the advertisement in the Daily Press of that date appended*, no steamer left Hongkong for Macao before noon, the hour at which they so landed must have been late in the day, a circumstance of moment as will be shown anon.\n\nAhsoong has stated in evidence—that after landing, he saw the thirty-two whom—when he escaped—he left at the Sun-fook-tie hong, in a boat.—The 22nd of January being Sunday, nothing was done by Mr. Caldwell towards finding the men so seen in a boat, and when he went with the Procurador and other Macao officers to the Sun-fook-tie hong on Monday the 23rd, finding that some thirty Coolies had been sent to the French ship Emilie Percire two days previous, it was assumed that these were the thirty-two for whom he sought—Mr. Caldwell, indeed, has sworn that the names and description of the men who had so left the Hong answered to the names and descriptions given to him by Ahsoong as being a portion of the forty-five, and to this swearing I shall refer presently.\n\nThey then went to the St Antonio barracoon, and finding there four of the forty-five, arrangements were made for their release, and eventually they were released.\n\nAfter that, another man was brought by Ahsoong, as being one of the forty-five, and he, too, was released.\n\nMr. Caldwell then returned to Hongkong, and, with Ahsoong, and another man calling himself Kwon-sun-quan, gave such evidence to the Police Magistrate as warranted His Worship in committing Shum Abing for trial. And the circumstance must be noted at the outset, that neither at this preliminary investigation, nor at the Supreme Court did either of the five that were released at Macao give evidence; neither of the names of the released men being Kwon-sun-kwun;—while all the released men signed their names to Contracts, and Kwon-sun-kwan could not write. Upon evidence of which the above is the general tenor, Sham Abing was convicted and sentenced as stated.\n\n## Advertisement of Feima at Noon—Shamrock at One v. A.\n\n20 \n\nIn his defence at the courts, and in a statement which he sent to me during the time I was in the Criminal gaol expiating my sentence for the theft found at the Sessions of September 1859, Shum Abing denied that he deceived the men—denied that he sold them—denied everything criminatory but the receiving some two hundred and two or three dollars in liquidation of a debt to him for board of 120 of whom the 45 that went to Macao formed a section—He admitted that he went to Macao with the men;—asserted that, on landing, the forty-five went to the bungalow of a respectable East coast firm called Maun-shing;—that thence ten went to The Sun-fook-tie hong on agreement to go to Havana, and that of the money which they obtained in advance of wages, he received what was due to him, viz $2.25. What amount was actually given in advance he did not know; for Eng-Atuk, one of the forty-five, acted as broker, and received all over what he got.\n\nWell, if this defence had been substantiated at the trial, the indictment would have fallen to the ground; for in so receiving, out of an advance of wages, money bona fide due to him, he committed no crime;—he did, in short, what any other person in business would do, and no more.\n\nInstead of employing a lawyer to defend him, and there is this excuse that he had no money for a retainer,—Shum Ahing sent a letter to Mr. Caldwell from the gaol, in which he said that, knowing he wanted for Ma-elow Wong's wife the house which had been built for carrying on the business of the Kwong-yee-loong, he would give it up, and would also give him four hundred dollars if he would cause the charge against him to be dropped.\n\nBut it is necessary that I should tell you how I have arrived at this knowledge. It was in this wise. When His Excellency said he was willing to receive from me any statement tending to show that Shum Ahing was innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, I referred to my diary of the period when Shun Alting was in gaol on remand, and I found that I had noted that a man, described as Mr. Grandpre's servant, had taken a message or letter from a prisoner to Caldwell, in which the prisoner in question had asked Caldwell to help this Shum Ahing; and knowing that this prisoner had been released, and was in Canton, I sent for him, and asked him to tell me what he remembered of the matter. The Rev. D. Vrooman happened to call just as he arrived, and in order to do away with any appearance of collusion between us, I asked him to put the necessary questions and finally to request the deponent to put in writing all he had to say. The result was a paper of which the following is Mr. Vrooman's translation.\n\nPage 325",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-087 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [7] & Acting Governor Mercer - 1862 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 256694,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10]",
        "page_number": 52,
        "title": "CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10]",
        "content_text": "३४.\n\n51\n\nPrison Dress.\n\nGovernor of Gaol to provide Employment for Prisoners, &c.\n\nMedical and spiritual wants.\n\nGovernor of Gaol to deliver a Daily List to Surgeon.\n\nIn case of the Death report to be made.\n\nXXXV. He shall cause every Prisoner convicted of Felony, every Prisoner committed for trial for Felony, and every Misdemeanant sentenced to more than Four Weeks' imprisonment with Hard Labour, to be supplied with (and constantly wear) a parti-coloured Dress, and with two suits of all Clothing worn next the Skin, and all other Prisoners shall be duly supplied with Clothes, if their own be insufficient, or unfit for use, or necessary to be preserved for purposes of Justice; but the Dress of such other Prisoners shall not be conspicuously marked, and every Prisoner shall be supplied with sufficient Bedding. If Sheets or Blankets be used, he shall see that they be washed at least once a Month, and that a Sheet used by one Prisoner be not transferred unwashed to another.\n\nThe said Governor shall provide useful Employment, and the necessary materials and instruction for all Prisoners, and shall record the expense on the Debtor side of the Prisoners' Work Book, and on the Creditor side the price at which the product of the Prisoners' Labour is from time to time sold, or, (if for Government use) estimated, and shall balance the account at the close of every Month; and he is hereby empowered to make Contracts for the supply of Labour by the Prisoners, consistently with these Regulations, and to sell the produce of the Prisoners' Labour in other cases, recording in the proper Book all Contracts or Sales so made, and the amount of Money received.\n\nXXXVI.\n\nXXXVII. He shall without delay call the attention of the Chaplain or Medical Officer to any Prisoner whose state of Mind or Body may appear to require their assistance; and he may, until further orders, change any Treatment (not strictly Medical) appearing to affect such Prisoner injuriously.\n\nXXXVIII. The said Governor shall deliver daily to the Medical Officer a List of the Prisoners in solitary Confinement, of the Sick, and those who have complained of illness, Sores, or otherwise, (not withholding the Name of any Person merely because he may not deem such Person in need of Medical assistance); and of Prisoners having suffered or being about to suffer corporal Punishment.\n\nXXXIX. The said Governor shall give immediate notice of the Death of a Prisoner to the Medical Officer, and to the Coroner, and when practicable to the Relations or Friends of the Deceased.\n\nNo Gambling allowed in Prison.\n\nHow Prisoners to be ironed.\n\nPrison offences.\n\nWarden to attend corporal Punishment.\n\nXL. The said Governor shall permit no playing of Cards, or gaming of any kind to be carried on in the Gaol, and will seize and destroy all Dice, Cards, or other instruments of gaming he may find there.\n\nXLI. If Misdemeanants sentenced to Hard Labour be required to Work without the Gaol Walls, the said Governor may at his discretion direct that such Misdemeanants be kept in Irons; but, except in the case of convicted Felons, or in case of necessity, he shall not handcuff or iron any other Prisoner, and he shall record every such case of necessity, and his reasons in his Journal; and every convicted Felon shall constantly wear around one of his legs an iron ring of such description as the said Governor may approve.\n\nXLII. The said Governor shall record in his Journal every case of alleged misconduct on the part of the Prisoners, the nature of the supposed Offence, his Decision thereon, noting the Date, Names of Prisoners, and the Punishment actually inflicted.\n\nXLIII. The Warden shall attend every corporal Punishment inflicted within the Gaol, and enter in the Journal the Hour at which it was inflicted, the Number of Strokes or Lashes, and the orders of the Medical Officers thereon; and he shall not inflict any corporal Punishment exceeding Six Strokes, without the sanction in Writing of the Medical Officer of the Gaol, that the Person to be punished can receive the Punishment awarded to him without injury to Health.\n\nSentence of corporal Punishment.\n\nOn the discharge of Minors, &c., notice to be given to their friends or superiors.\n\nXLIV. Previous to the discharge of any Prisoner under the Age of 21 Years, the Governor of the Gaol shall inform such Prisoner's Relatives or Friends, (if any of good character can be found,) of the time of the intended discharge, that they may attend to receive the Prisoner; and in case of a Soldier or Sailor, he shall, if possible, inform the superior Officer of such Person.\n\nAs to admission of legal advisers.\n\nXLV. The said Governor shall allow Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or committed for Re-examination or Trial, to see their Legal Advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required; but he may withhold this Privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the fact and his reasons in the Journal, noting also the Names of the Applicant and the Prisoner; and he shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their Legal Advisers, if a Visiting Justice, the Sheriff, or the committing Magistrate so order; but every Person claiming admission as a Legal Adviser must be a Lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the authorized Clerk or Pupil of such Lawyer.\n\nPrisoners for Re-examination may see their Friends.\n\nXLVI. The Governor of the Gaol shall allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination to see their Friends and Relations at reasonable hours, unless the Committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as provided in the last Clause.\n\nPrisoners committed for Trial.\n\nXLVII. Unless he receive orders to the contrary, he shall allow Prisoners committed for trial to see their Friends and Relations at reasonable Hours Twice a Week or oftener, if the Committing or a Visiting Justice so order; but he may withhold this privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation.\n\nXLVIII. He shall allow convicted Prisoners to see their Relations and Friends, once in the course of each successive Three Months; but if in case of Sickness or otherwise he see sufficient reason, he may allow the privilege oftener, recording the particulars in his Journal as directed in the last Regulation. Prisoners committed for non-payment of Penalties or want of Sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as those committed for Re-examination, if the objects of the visits appear to be to make arrangements for the payment of the Penalty, or to procure the required Sureties, otherwise they shall be subject to the same rules in this regard as convicted Prisoners.\n\nConvicted Prisoners and defaulters.\n\nObjectionable articles.\n\nXLIX. He shall take proper and discreet means to ascertain that no Visitors bring into the Gaol any objectionable Article.\n\nL. If a Prisoner do not belong to the Established Church, the Governor of the Gaol shall allow him the visits of known Ministers of such Prisoner's own persuasion, or of whom such Prisoner may approve.\n\nMinisters of Religion.\n\nAs to Letters of Prisoners.\n\nLI. The said Governor shall demand the Names of Visitors to Prisoners, and enter them and the particulars of their visits in his Journal, and on reasonable suspicion, he (or the Matron in the case of Females), may with their permission search them, and, if they decline to give their Names, or to be searched, may refuse them admittance.\n\nLII. Unless the Committing or a Visiting Justice order to the contrary, he may allow Prisoners committed for Re-examination or trial to send and receive Letters; but he may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the particulars and reasons in his Journal; and, subject to the same restrictions, he shall allow each convicted Prisoner to send and receive One Letter in the course of every Three Months; but he shall inspect every Letter or Paper so sent, unless it be addressed to a Visiting Justice or other authority, keeping the Contents of the same strictly private, unless it be necessary to report the same to a Visiting Justice. He may also inspect Letters to or from Prisoners confined for Debt, or on Civil Process, or for want of Sureties, if he reasonably suspect them to refer to a projected escape, or infringement of Prison discipline, recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons for so acting, and marking the Letters with his Initials; but he may withhold a Letter to or from any Prisoner, upon recording in his Journal the particulars and reasons.\n\nLIII. He shall cause to be kept in the proper Books an Inventory of all Furniture and moveable property belonging to the Gaol, a Catalogue of all Books and printed Papers allowed to be brought into the Gaol, an account of all Provisions and Stores supplied for the use of the Gaol or Prisoners, and an account of all Money paid and received by him.\n\nInventory of Gaol Furniture.\n\nFines paid by Prisoners.\n\nLIV. He shall on payment of a Fine by a Prisoner, immediately transfer the Money to the Person authorized to receive it, noting the particulars in the Fine Book.\n\nCertain parts of Gaol to be used as Sick Wards.\n\nLV. He shall reserve certain parts of the Gaol to be used as Infirmaries for Prisoners of both Sexes, paying strict regard to the Regulations herein provided for the separation of Male and Female Prisoners.\n\nReturns to be made by Governor of Gaol.\n\nLVI. On the 3d Day of every Month he shall lay before the Colonial Secretary for the information of his said Excellency, a Return in the following form, and shall retain copies of all such Returns:\n\nRETURN OF PRISONERS CONFINED IN\n\nSentenced to Transportation or Penal Servitude,\n\nImprisoned for more than One Year,\n\nImprisoned for more than Six Months, and not more than One Year,\n\nImprisoned for not more than Six Months,\n\nCommitted for Trial,\n\nRemanded for Re-examination\n\nCommitted for want of Sureties,\n\nDebtors and others confined on Civil Process,\n\nCrown Witnesses,\n\nGAOL ON\n\n  \n    \n    EUROPEANS\n    CHINESE\n    INDIANS\n    MALAYS\n    SUMS\n    REMARKS\n  \n  \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    185\n    \n  \n  \n    Total,\n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n    \n  \n\nForm of Monthly Return to Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 261889,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-105 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [5-7]",
        "page_number": 60,
        "title": "CO129-105 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [5-7]",
        "content_text": "59\n\nat the Inquest held on the body of the soldier of the 99th Regiment, who was shot on that occasion and subsequently on that of the Police Constable who was murdered.\n\nThe Inquisition was adjourned from time to time, in the first murder against certain Police Constable unknown, and in the second case \"Wilful murder\" against Soldiers of the 99th Regiment.\n\nThe case was then brought before the magistrate for investigation and on the 24th October resulted in committing for trial at the Criminal Sessions the eleven Soldiers.\n\nThese were finally put on their trial before the Supreme Court at the December Sessions, when the Jury returned a Verdict \"Not Guilty\".\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n(signed) **mm Qumi**, Captain Superintendent.\n\n(True Copy) **MAllexand**, Acting Colonial Secretary.\n\nPage 60\nPage 61\n\nDespatch N.49 of 1865\n\nInclosure in",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-105 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [5-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 262682,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9]",
        "page_number": 284,
        "title": "CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9]",
        "content_text": "# 1280\n\nThe Attorney General's Office, Hong Kong, March 18.\n\nI have the honor to inform you that, in pursuance of the directions of His Excellency the Acting Governor, I attended yesterday at the Police Court to watch the case, in the interest of the Crown and was prepared, if necessary, to contend that the evidence certainly justified the presiding Magistrate in committing the prisoner to abide the further order.\n\nThe Honorable  \nW.K. Alexander Sque",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 265060,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-111 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1866 [1-2]",
        "page_number": 440,
        "title": "CO129-111 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1866 [1-2]",
        "content_text": "Guns of Pak-shin Battery 3,\n\nI have to.\n\n(signed) H. L. St. John.\n\nP.S. I made every enquiry but failed to gain any particulars relative to the perpetrators of the various recent attacks on European vessels in the vicinity of Hongkong.\n\n(Signed) H. St. J.\n\nForwarded to the Commander in Chief.\n\n(Signed) M. S. Nolloth,\nCaptain of H.M.S. Princess Charlotte.\n\n# \n\nCopy of a translation of document left with Lieutenant St. John, by the Mandarin Commanding the transport Junks at Pak-shan. By J. Lewis, Acting Registrar General at Hongkong.\n\nWong Soi-Sing, Chief Magistrate of Heung Shan.\n\n(Macao)\n\nThis dispatch is to command you to await certain persons. Whereas now on the coast there are many piratical Junks which you have no certain knowledge of, and already I have appointed a place of rendezvous, continually committing robberies, I have certified the same...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-111 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1866 [1-2].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 265901,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-113 - MacDonnell - 1866 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 371,
        "title": "CO129-113 - MacDonnell - 1866 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "## N11.\n\n370\n\nThe prisoner applied for a rehearing of the case. The case was therefore heard partially by the Magistrates on the 14th instant, but the Counsel for the prisoner was unable to proceed with his defence due to the absence of the witness against him, who had left Hongkong.\n\nThe Magistrate granted a rehearing because the prisoner's Counsel expressed his belief that he could clearly prove the presence of the prisoner in Hongkong at the time when he was alleged to have been committing a robbery at Sham Shui Po.\n\nThe Attorney General now declares that as a rehearing was granted, the prisoner's Counsel is entitled to cross-examine all the witnesses who had previously appeared against the Prisoner. This would necessitate those witnesses being sent once more to this Colony, and His Excellency The Governor is anxious to know whether it is considered desirable to take this trouble. If so, it would have to be done at once as His Excellency cannot detain the prisoner much longer.\n\nIt is right also that you should be aware of another difficulty which His Excellency feels in this matter. It is quite impossible that the Governor give up any prisoner to the Chinese Authorities unless he has a distinct reason...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-113 - MacDonnell - 1866 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 266310,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-114 - MacDonnell - 1866 [7-8]",
        "page_number": 203,
        "title": "CO129-114 - MacDonnell - 1866 [7-8]",
        "content_text": "294\n\nNo person to engage a Servant without Certificate of Registration.\n\nTHE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 28th JULY, 1866.\n\nNo Servant to engage himself without Certificate of Registration.\n\nServant hereafter engaging himself as such to produce Certificate to Registrar General's Office within Seven Days.\n\nXXVII. It shall not be lawful for any Person other than a Chinese to engage and employ any Servant who shall not be provided with a Certificate of Registration.\n\nXXVIII. It shall not be lawful for any Person to engage himself as a Servant without being provided with a Certificate of Registration.\n\nXXIX. Every Person who shall engage himself after the commencement of this Ordinance, as a Servant, shall within Seven Days thereafter report the same at the Registrar General's Office and produce his Certificate of Registration for the purpose of having the Name of his Employer endorsed thereon and recorded in the said Office.\n\nPunishment for furnishing untrue Particulars.\n\nPunishment for unlawfully using Certificate of Registration.\n\nViolations of this Ordinance to be misdemeanours.\n\nCertified Copies and Extracts from Registrar General's Office.\n\nXXX. Every Person who shall knowingly furnish untrue Particulars to the Registrar General concerning any matter required to be recorded by him under this Ordinance shall be liable to Imprisonment with or without Hard Labor for not less than One and not more than Six Calendar Months, and to a fine either in addition to or in substitution of such Imprisonment of not less than Five Dollars and not more than One hundred Dollars.\n\nXXXI. Every person who shall use or attempt to use any Certificate of Registration which shall not have been duly obtained by him at the Registrar General's Office shall be liable to Imprisonment with or without Hard Labor for not less than One and not more than Six Calendar Months and to a fine either in addition to or in substitution of such Imprisonment of not less than Ten Dollars and not more than One hundred Dollars.\n\nXXXII. Every person violating any of the Provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a Misdemeanour and in all cases not otherwise provided for shall be liable to be fined on Summary Conviction before a Magistrate of Police not more than Thirty Dollars nor less than Five Dollars for each Offence, or in default of payment of such fine or fines to be Imprisoned with or without Hard Labor for a period not exceeding One Month nor less than Seven Days.\n\nXXXIII. All Copies or Extracts of or from any Register or Public Record kept in the Registrar General's Office for the purpose of this Ordinance and purporting to be Records to be received sealed with the seal of the said Office and to be certified as true Copies or Extracts by the Registrar General shall be received in Evidence in all Courts in the Colony in lieu of the originals.\n\nFees to be charged under this Ordinance.\n\nPower to Governor in Council to alter Scale.\n\nXXXIV. The several Fees specified in the Second Schedule hereto shall be charged in respect of Registration under this Ordinance.\n\nXXXV. The Governor in Council may from time to time alter the Scale of Fees payable under this Ordinance.\n\nGovernor to make Bye-Laws.\n\nXXXVI. The Governor in Council is hereby empowered from time to time to make such Regulations and Bye-Laws as may be deemed necessary for carrying into effect the Provisions of this Ordinance.\n\n(First Schedule.)\n\nCERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.\n\n[No.]\n\nThis is to certify that [ ] has been duly registered as a Servant under the Provisions of the Victoria Registration Ordinance 1866.\n\nSpecial Capacity:\n\n(List of Employers at the Back.)\n\n(Second Schedule.)\n\nRegistration Fee of Owner of a House, $1.00\n\nBond by non-resident Owner of a House, $5.00\n\nRegistration Fee of Servant, $0.28\n\nTHE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 28TH JULY, 1866.\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to amend the Law relating to Piracy and for the more effectual Suppression thereof.\n\nWhereas Piracy has of late so greatly increased in the Vicinity of Hongkong that unless more stringent measures be adopted for its Suppression it cannot but materially affect the Interests of Trade and Commerce: Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n200\n\nTitle.\n\n295\n\nPreamble.\n\nI. This Ordinance shall commence and take effect on such Day as shall hereafter be fixed by Proclamation under the Hand of the Governor.\n\nII. The following Words and Expressions used in this Ordinance shall, in the Interpretation of Construction thereof, have, except where the Nature of the Provision or the Context shall be repugnant to such Construction, the respective meanings hereinafter assigned to them (that is to say)-\n\nThe Terms \"The Governor,\" \"The Chief Justice,\" \"The Attorney General,\" and \"Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction\" shall include the Persons for the time being exercising the said Office.\n\nThe Word \"Piracy\" shall include every Act of Assault, Robbery or Attempted Robbery on the High Seas or the Waters where the Supreme Court of this Colony or the Court to be hereby constituted hath or hereafter may by Imperial Enactment, Order in Council, Treaty or otherwise acquire any jurisdiction, other than within the Harbor of Victoria in this Colony, and also the Act of Cruizing on the said Seas or Waters other than within the said Harbor, without commission and with intent to rob.\n\nThe Expression \"Piracy with Violence\" shall include every Act of Piracy on the Water within the said Seas and Waters, other than within the Harbor of Victoria in this Colony, committed by any Person who at the time of the Commission by him of such Act shall be armed with any Offensive Weapon or Instrument, or who with intent to commit, or at the time of, or immediately before, or immediately after committing, or attempting to commit such Act shall have fired at, wounded, beat, struck, assaulted or used or aided and abetted any other party in using Personal Violence to any other Person.\n\nThe Words \"Piracy with Murder\" shall include every Act of \"Piracy\" on the said Seas and Waters, other than within the Harbor of Victoria in this Colony, and where any Person shall with intent to commit, or at the time of, or immediately before, or immediately after committing such Act shall have Killed and Murdered or been accessary to the Murder of any other Person.\n\nThe Word \"Pirate\" shall include every Person who shall have committed an Act of Piracy as above defined.\n\nThe Expression \"received or taken into his Custody\" shall be satisfied by proof that the Goods and Chattels alleged to have been received and taken into Custody were found in any House or Premises, or on Board any Junk, Vessel or Boat within which the Person charged shall be found and of which said Goods and Chattels he shall be unable to give a satisfactory account.\n\nThe Words \"Goods and Chattels\" shall include Money, Bills, Bonds, Notes and Personal Property of any kind or description whatsoever.\n\nIII. This Ordinance may be cited for all Purposes as \"The Ordinance for the Suppression of Piracy (Hongkong) 1866.\"\n\nIV. In order to bring to adjudication with as little delay and inconvenience as possible any Person who shall be charged with the Crime of Piracy or with any of the Offences hereinafter mentioned, and by this Ordinance defined, there shall be constituted in this Colony a Court of Record to be styled \"The High Court of Hongkong for the Suppression of Piracy.\"\n\nV. The said Court and the President thereof for the time being shall have all such Powers as are possessed by the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice respectively so far as they are necessary for carrying into effect the Provisions of this Ordinance and Consistent with the object thereof.\n\nCertified Copies or Extracts from Registrar General's Office 25 cents and for every folio above the first 10 cents.\n\nVI. The said Court shall consist of the Chief Justice, the Admiral of the Station, the Senior Naval Officer for the time being at Hongkong, and Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-114 - MacDonnell - 1866 [7-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 272181,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-127 - Public Offices - 1867",
        "page_number": 374,
        "title": "CO129-127 - Public Offices - 1867",
        "content_text": "## 2\n\nIn the event of the consul's perseverance in insisting upon this claim, you had probably better intimate to him, that until he has taken the ordinary legal steps to obtain the decision of the competent court, all further correspondence must be useless; that if he will not formally and legally make and support his claim, it cannot be considered as rejected; that the question is one of law, and not merely one of executive administration; and that until a competent court has fully heard and decided upon the claim suggested by the consul, it is impossible to know whether it legally exists or not. You may perhaps also suggest, that you are not aware that the Portuguese subjects suffer any serious hardship or practical inconvenience from the prevailing system, nor that they would derive any substantial advantage from the alteration now suggested. You may add, that if the consul were to establish his claim, he would be, as temporary administrator, subject and accountable to the colonial courts, and possibly exposed to much legal responsibility and annoyance; and, finally, you may observe, that the circular does not instruct the consul to advance the claim in question, and does not seem to apply specially to the colony, or extend to cases but those in which the consul is actually in the possession and exercise of the right suggested.\n\nThese topics, however, I merely suggest, in the event of your finding yourself, as I repeat, however, that you should as far as practicable decline all discussion with him upon the matter, leaving him to make such representations on the subject as he may think fit to his own Government.\n\n**Governor Wodehouse,**\n&c. &c.\n\n(Copy.)\n\n&c.\n\n## No. 3.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) **NEWCASTLE**.\n\n## PROPOSED NOTE from Lord JOHN RUSSELL to Count PERSIGNY.\n\nM. L'AMBASSADEUR,\n\nForeign Office, June 1840. HER Majesty's Government have had under their consideration the question which had arisen at the Mauritius as to the liability of the French consul at that island to be summoned to appear before the law courts, and to produce the archives of his consulate, for the purpose of forwarding the ends of justice, which formed the subject of your Excellency's note of the 1st of August, and of Baron Malaret's note of the 23d of September of last year. And I have to acquaint your Excellency that the matter appears to Her Majesty's Government to be one in which they have no power whatever to interfere.\n\nThe French consul has no personal exemption from attendance in a court of justice in obedience to a subpœna. He should have attended, and stated his objection to produce his consular registers, and it would have been for the court to decide upon the validity of such objection.\n\nIt is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to interfere with its courts of justice, or the rules of procedure therein.\n\nThere is no rule of international law which entitles consuls to any diplomatic privileges, or any legal exemption from ordinary judicial process. They enjoy no such privileges by English law, and Her Majesty's Government have never insisted upon British consuls being entitled to such privileges or exemptions in France.\n\nIt is not of course practicable to lay down beforehand any positive rules as to the questions which a consul, when examined as a witness, may or may not be compelled to answer, or as to the documents which he may or may not be compelled to produce.\n\nEither he or one of the parties must formally object to such production, stating the grounds for such objections, and the court must decide upon the validity thereof.\n\nI have to add, however, that I understand that it is the intention of the judges of the Supreme Court at Mauritius to pass a rule of court, with a view of preventing the recurrence of questions similar to the one raised in the present instance by the French consul in that island.\n\n(Copy.)\n\n## No. 4.\n\n### (No. 83.)\n\n**Sir G. LEWIS to Governor Sir E. HEAD.**\n\n372 Downing Street, July 12, 1860. I HAVE to acknowledge your despatch No. 27, of the 29th March, enclosing for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government a **note verbale** placed in the hands of the Provincial Secretary by the French consul at Quebec.\n\nIt is in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government most unadvisable that the Canadian government should enter into any correspondence on this subject with the French consul, who should be informed that any representations which foreign consuls may have to make to British authorities on matters of this kind must be addressed through their respective governments to Her Majesty's Government. The very irregular course taken by M. Gauldrée Boilleau appears, on inquiry, to have been taken without the sanction or even knowledge of his own government.\n\nThat government, however, in disclaiming M. Boilleau's act, expressed their opinion that a French consul should be deemed entitled in British dominions to the following privileges:\n\n| Privileges |\n| --- |\n| (1.) Personal immunity, except in case of his committing any crime. |\n| (2.) Exemption from all national and municipal burdens or taxes, either direct or indirect. |\n| (3.) Exemption from all personal service in the militia or otherwise, as well as from having soldiers billeted on him. |\n| (4.) Permission to place over the door of his house the Imperial Arms, and to hoist the French flag. |\n\nHer Majesty's Government have replied, that they cannot grant to foreign consuls in the Queen's dominions any of the first three exemptions or immunities mentioned above, but that as no formal permission is required to enable a consul to display the arms or flag of his nation, every consul is at liberty to do as he pleases in this respect.\n\n**Governor Sir E. Head, Bart.,**\n&c.\n\n(Copy.)\n\n(No. 240.)\n\n&c.\n\n&c.\n\n## No. 5.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) **G. C. LEWIS**,\n\n**Sir G. Lewis to Governor STEVENSON.**\n\nSIR,\n\nDowning Street, July 30, 1860. I HAVE to acknowledge your despatch No. 36, of the 29th of February last, requesting the instructions of Her Majesty's Government respecting the extent to which criminal jurisdiction may be exercised in Mauritius by foreign consuls.\n\nThe question has been referred to the law officers of the Crown, with whose advice I have to give you the following directions:\n\nForeign consuls have no legal power or right whatsoever to order or to authorize the arrest, detention, imprisonment, or punishment of any person whatsoever in any British prison or place of confinement, or to require or receive the assistance of the British authorities in carrying out within British jurisdiction any sentence or order, whether criminal or civil, which they may pronounce or issue, excepting in the case of desertion, and then only when, in accordance with the `Foreign Deserters Act, 1852`, 15th and 16th Victoria, Cap. 26., Her Majesty has issued an Order in Council relating to the particular government in question, and when the consul of such government may regularly apply to the competent magistrate, under the provisions of that statute and the Order in Council issued in accordance therewith.\n\nWith this exception, British officers have no authority to carry into effect the orders or sentences of foreign consuls, by arresting or confining in British custody any persons against whom those consuls may have assumed to pass criminal or quasi-criminal sentences; and all consuls, gaolers, and others concerned in proceedings of this nature will, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, incur a severe criminal and civil responsibility in any court of this country, and probably in any colonial court before which civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted by any party aggrieved.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-127 - Public Offices - 1867.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 276875,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "page_number": 175,
        "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "content_text": "502\n\nPolice.\n\n2° & 3° VICTORIÆ, Cap.47.\n\nin addition to any other Punishment to which he may be liable for such Offence, be liable to a Penalty not more than Ten Pounds.\n\nPenalty for\n\nXVIII. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall assault or resist any Person belonging to the Metropolitan Police Force in the Execution of his Duty, or who shall aid or incite any Person so to assault or resist, shall for every such Offence be liable to a Penalty not more than Five Pounds, or, in the Discretion of the Magistrate before whom he shall be convicted, may be imprisoned for any Time not more than One Calendar Month.\n\nEmployment in the Police\n\nXIX. And be it enacted, That no Office or Employment in the Metropolitan Police Force shall prevent the Holder thereof from receiving any Half Pay to which, if he did not hold such Office or Employment, he might be or become entitled.\n\nnot to prevent receiving Half Pay.\n\nIncreased\n\nXX. And be it enacted, That instead of the Salary heretofore payable to the said Commissioners of Police, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to direct that a Salary not exceeding the Rate of Twelve hundred Pounds by the Year shall be paid quarterly to each of the said Commissioners out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.\n\nSalary to the Commissioners of Police.\n\nr. 24.\n\nXXI. And be it declared and enacted, That the said Commissioners of Police, and also the Surgeon, Receiver, and Clerks employed in the Metropolitan Police Office, are within the Provisions of an Act passed in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty, intituled 4 & 5 W. 4. An Act to alter, amend, and consolidate the Laws for regulating the Pensions, Compensations, and Allowances to be made to Persons in respect of their having held Civil Offices in His Majesty's Service; and that the Clerks and Officers who were appointed to the said Office in the Year One thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine shall be deemed to have been employed therein before the Fourth Day of August in that Year.\n\nSuperannuation Fund to be provided for Constables.\n\nXXII. And be it enacted, That there shall be deducted from the Pay of every Constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police Force a Sum after such yearly Rate as the Secretary of State shall direct, not being a greater Rate than Two Pounds Ten Shillings in a Hundred Pounds, which Sum so deducted, and also the Monies accruing from Stoppages from any of the said Constables during Sickness, and Fines imposed on any of the said Constables for Misconduct, and from any Portion of the Fines imposed by any Magistrate upon drunken Persons, or for Assaults upon Police Constables, as shall be directed to be paid to the Receiver for the Benefit of this Fund, and all Monies arising from the Sale of worn or cast Clothing supplied for the Use of the Police, shall from Time to Time be invested in Government Stock by and in the Name of the Receiver, and the Interest and Dividends thereof, or so much of the same as shall not be required for the Purposes herein-after mentioned, shall be likewise invested in such Stock, and accumulate so as to form a Fund to be called \"The Police Superannuation Fund,\" and shall be applied from Time to Time for Payment of such Superannuation or retiring Allowances or Gratuities as may be ordered by the Secretary of State at any Time to any of the said Constables as herein-after provided.\n\n503\n\nfrom the\n\nXXIII. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to order that any of the said Constables may be superannuated, and receive thereupon out of the Police Superannuation Fund a yearly Allowance, subject to the following Conditions, and not exceeding the following Proportions; that is to say, if he shall have served with Diligence and Fidelity for Fifteen Years and less than Twenty Years, an annual Sum not more than Half his Pay; if for Twenty Years or upwards an annual Sum not more than Two Thirds of his Pay; provided, that if he shall be under Sixty Years of Age it shall not be lawful to grant any such Allowance unless upon the Certificate of the said Commissioners of Police that he is incapable, from Infirmity of Mind or Body, to discharge the Duties of his Office; provided also, that if any Constable shall be disabled by any Wound or Injury received in the actual Execution of the Duty of his Office, it shall be lawful to grant to him any Allowance not more than the whole of his Pay; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to entitle any Constable absolutely to any Superannuation Allowance, or to prevent him from being dismissed without Superannuation Allowance.\n\n;\n\nXXIV. And whereas it is expedient to amend and simplify the Laws now in force relating to Depredations committed on the River Thames, and in the Docks and Creeks adjacent thereto: Be it enacted That from the passing of this Act an Act passed in the Second Year of the Reign of King George the Third, intituled An Act to prevent the committing of Thefts and Frauds by Persons navigating Bumboats and other Boats upon the River Thames, shall be repealed.\n\nProvisions of\n\nXXV. And be it enacted, That from the First Day of August in the Year One thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine every Person who shall use, work, or navigate any Boat whatsoever upon the River Thames for the Purpose of selling, disposing of, or exposing for Sale to and amongst the Seamen or other Persons employed in and about any of the Ships or Vessels upon the said River any Liquors, Slops, or other Articles whatsoever between London Bridge and Limehouse Hole shall be deemed to keep such Boat for Gain, and shall be within all the Provisions of an Act passed in the Eighth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled An Act for the better Regulation of the Watermen and Lightermen on the River Thames between Yantlet Creek and Windsor, concerning Persons who keep, within the Limits of the said Act, any Boat to be let out for Hire or Gain,\n\nXXVI. And be it enacted, That every Person who within the Metropolitan Police District shall knowingly take in exchange from any Seaman or other Person, not being the Owner or Master of any Vessel, anything belonging to any Vessel lying the River Thames or in any of the Docks or Creeks adjacent thereto, or any Part of the Cargo of any such Vessel, or any Stores or Articles in charge of the Owner\n\n173\n\nP\n\nB",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 276878,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "page_number": 178,
        "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "content_text": "176\n\n508\n\nFreemen of Vintners Company subject to provisions.\n\n2° & 3° VICTORIÆ, Cap.47.\n\ntaking such Recognizance shall forthwith transmit the same to One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, to the end that the same may be filed in the said Court, and such further Directions may be given thereon as to such Secretary of State may seem fit.\n\nXLI. And be it declared and enacted, That after the passing of this Act every Person who by reason of his or her Freedom of the Mystery or Craft of Vintners of the City of London, or of any Right or Privilege of such Mystery, shall claim to be entitled to sell Foreign Wine by Retail, to be drunk or consumed on the Premises, within the Metropolitan Police District, without Licence, shall be subject to all the Provisions of all Acts made for the Regulation of Persons so licensed (except those Provisions which require or refer to the taking out of a Licence either from any Justice of the Peace or from the Commissioners of Excise), and, in the Case of any Offence committed by him or her against the Tenor of the Licence granted under the Provisions of any Act for the Sale of exciseable Liquors by Retail, to be drunk or consumed on the Premises, shall be liable to be dealt with, proceeded against, and punished in like Manner as if selling Wine by Licence and not by virtue of such Claim or Privilege.\n\nPublic\n\nXLII. And be it enacted, That no Licensed Victualler or other Person shall open his House within the Metropolitan Police District, for the Sale of Wine, Spirits, Beer, or other fermented or distilled Liquors, on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, before the Hour of One in the Afternoon, except Refreshment for Travellers.\n\nPublicans prohibited from supplying Liquors to Persons under Sixteen Years of Age.\n\nXLIII. And be it enacted, That every Person licensed to deal in exciseable Liquors within the said District who shall knowingly supply any Sort of distilled exciseable Liquor to any Boy or Girl apparently under the Age of Sixteen Years to be drunk upon the Premises, shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Twenty Shillings, and upon Conviction of a Second Offence shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Forty Shillings, and upon Conviction of a Third Offence shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Five Pounds.\n\nRegulations of other Houses of public Resort.\n\nXLIV. And whereas it is expedient that the Provisions made by Law for preventing disorderly Conduct in the Houses of Licensed Victuallers be extended to other Houses of public Resort: Be it enacted, That every Person who shall have or keep any House, Shop, Room, or Place of public Resort within the Metropolitan Police District, wherein Provisions, Liquors, or Refreshments of any Kind shall be sold or consumed, (whether the same shall be kept or retailed therein or procured elsewhere,) and who shall wilfully or knowingly permit Drunkenness or other disorderly Conduct in such House, Shop, Room, or Place, or knowingly suffer any unlawful Games or any Gaming whatsoever therein, or knowingly permit or suffer Prostitutes or Persons of notoriously bad Character to meet together and remain therein, shall for every such Offence be liable to a Penalty of not more than Five Pounds: Provided always, that if the Offender be a Licensed Victualler, or licensed to sell Beer by Retail to be drunk on the Premises, this Enactment shall not be construed to exempt him from the Penalties or penal Consequences to which he may be liable for committing an Offence against the Tenor of the Licence to him granted.\n\n509\n\nXLV. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall make or use or allow to be made or used any internal Communication between any House, Shop, Room, or Place of public Resort not licensed for the Sale of Wine, Spirits, Beer, or other exciseable Articles within the said District, and any House, Shop, Room, or Place licensed for the Sale of Wine, Spirits, Beer, or other exciseable Articles, or in which Wine is sold by a free Vintner, shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Ten Pounds for every Day that such Communication shall be open.\n\nTheatres\n\nXLVI. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners of Police, by Order in Writing, to authorize any Superintendent belonging to the Metropolitan Police, with such Constables as he may think necessary, to enter into any House or Room kept or used within the said District for Stageplays or Dramatic Entertainments into which Admission is obtained by Payment of Money and which is not a licensed Theatre, at any Time when the same shall be open for the Reception of Persons resorting thereto, and to take into Custody all Persons who shall be found therein without lawful Excuse; and every Person keeping, using, or knowingly letting any House or other Tenement for the Purpose of being used as an unlicensed Theatre shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Twenty Pounds, or, in the Discretion of the Magistrate, may be committed to the House of Correction, with or without Hard Labour, for a Time not more than Two Calendar Months; and every Person performing or being therein without lawful Excuse shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Forty Shillings; and a Conviction under this Act for this Offence shall not exempt the Owner, Keeper, or Manager of any such House, Room, or Tenement from any Penalty or penal Consequences to which he may be liable for keeping a disorderly House, or for the Nuisance thereby occasioned.\n\nXLVII. And be it enacted, That every Person who within the Metropolitan Police District shall keep or use, or act in the Management of any House, Room, Pit, or other Place for the Purpose of fighting or baiting Lions, Bears, Badgers, Cocks, Dogs, or other Animals, shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Five Pounds, or, in the Discretion of the Magistrate, may be committed to the House of Correction, with or without Hard Labour, for a Time not more than One Calendar Month; and it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Police, by Order in Writing, to authorize any Superintendent belonging to the Metropolitan Police Force, with such Constables as he shall think necessary, to enter any Premises kept or used for any of the Purposes aforesaid, and take into Custody all Persons who shall be found therein without lawful Excuse; and every Person so found shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Five Shillings; and a Conviction under this Act of this Offence shall not exempt the Owner, Keeper, or Manager of any such House, Room, Pit, or Place from any Penalty or penal Consequence to which he may be liable for the Nuisance thereby occasioned.\n\nXLVIII. And ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 276882,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "page_number": 182,
        "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868",
        "content_text": "516\n\nMad Dogs, &c. \n\nCompensa- tion for Hurt or Damage not exceed- ing £1.\n\nConstables may appre- hend any Of- fender whose Name and Residence are not known.\n\nConstables may appre- hend without Warrant in certain Cases.\n\n2° & 3° VICTORIÆ Cap.47.\n\n8. Every Person who, to the Danger of Passengers in any Thorough- fare, shall leave open any Vault or Cellar, or the Entrance from any Thoroughfare to any Cellar or Room underground, without a sufficient Fence or Handrail, or leave defective the Door, Window, or other Covering of any Vault or Cellar, or who shall not sufficiently fence any Area, Pit, or Sewer left in open or adjoining to any Thoroughfare, or who shall leave such open Area, Pit, or Sewer without a sufficient Light after Sunset to warn and prevent Persons from falling thereinto.\n\nLXI. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police Force to destroy any Dog or other Animal reasonably suspected to be in a rabid State, or which has been bitten by any Dog or Animal reasonably suspected to be in a rabid State; and the Owner of any such Dog or Animal, who shall permit the same to go at large after having Information or reasonable Ground for believing it to be in a rabid State, or to have been bitten by any Dog or other Animal in a rabid State, shall be liable to a Penalty not more than Five Pounds.\n\nLXII. And be it enacted, That every Person who, by committing any Offence herein forbidden within the said District, shall have caused Hurt or Damage to any Person or Property, may be apprehended, with or without any Warrant, by any Constable, and if he shall not, upon Demand, make Amends for such Hurt or Damage to the Satisfaction of the Person aggrieved, he shall be detained by the Constable in order to be taken before a Magistrate, and upon Conviction shall pay such a Sum, not more than Ten Pounds, as shall appear to the Magistrate before whom he shall be convicted to be reasonable Amends to the Person aggrieved, besides any Penalty to which he may be liable for the Offence, and the Evidence of the Person aggrieved shall be admitted in Proof of the Offence: Provided always, that if the Person aggrieved shall have been the only Witness examined Proof of the Offence, the Sum ordered as Amends shall be paid and applied in the same Manner as a Penalty.\n\nLXIII. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police District, and for all Persons whom he shall call to his Assistance, to take into Custody, without a Warrant, any Person who within View of any such Constable shall offend in any Manner against this Act, and whose Name and Resi- dence shall be unknown to such Constable, and cannot be ascertained by such Constable.\n\nLXIV. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Con- stable belonging to the Metropolitan Police to take into Custody, without a Warrant, all loose, idle, and disorderly Persons whom he shall find disturbing the public Peace, or whom he shall have good Cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any Felony, Misdemeanor, or Breach of the Peace, and all Persons whom he shall find between Sunset and the Hour of Eight in the Morning lying or loitering in any Highway, Yard, or other Place, and not giving a satisfactory Account of themselves.\n\n517\n\nLXV. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Con- stable belonging to the Metropolitan Police Force to take into Custody, without Warrant, any Person who within the Limits of the Metropolitan Police District shall be charged by any other Person with committing any aggravated Assault, every Case in which such Constable shall have good Reason to believe that such Assault has been committed, although not within View of such Constable, and that by reason of the recent Commission of the Offence a Warrant could not have been obtained for the Apprehension of the Offender.\n\nLXVI. And be it enacted, That any Person found committing any Offence punishable either upon Indictment, or as a Misdemeanor, upon summary Conviction, by virtue of this Act, may be taken into Custody without a Warrant by any Constable, or may be apprehended by the Owner of the Property on or with respect to which the Offence shall be committed, or by his Servant or any Person authorized by him, and may be detained until he can be delivered into the Custody of a Con- stable, to be dealt with according to Law; and every such Constable may also stop, search, and detain any Vessel, Boat, Cart, or Carriage in or upon which there shall be Reason to suspect that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any Person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in anything stolen or unlawfully obtained; and any Person to whom any Property shall be offered to be sold, pawned, or delivered, if he shall have reasonable Cause to suspect that any such Offence has been committed with respect to such Property, or that the same or any Part thereof has been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, is hereby authorized, and if in his Power, is required, to apprehend and detain, and as soon as may be to deliver such Offender into the Custody of a Constable, together with such Property, to be dealt with according to Law.\n\nLXVII. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any Constable to stop and detain, until due Inquiry can be made, all Carts and Car- riages which he shall find employed in removing the Furniture of any House or Lodging between the Hours of Eight in the Evening and Six in the following Morning, or whenever the Constable shall have good Grounds for believing that such Removal is made for the Purpose of evading the Payment of Rent.\n\nLXVIII. And be it enacted, That whenever any Person having Charge of any Horse, Cart, Carriage, or Boat, or any other Animal or Thing, shall be taken into the Custody of any Constable under the Provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for any Constable to take charge of such Horse, Cart, Carriage, or Boat, or such other Animal or Thing, and to deposit the same in some Place of safe Custody, as a Security for Payment of any Penalty to which the Person having had Charge thereof may become liable, and for Payment of any Expenses which may have been necessarily incurred.\n\nPage 180\n\n1",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 277732,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-136 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 205,
        "title": "CO129-136 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "201\n\nGovernment to undertake the grave responsibility and great expense of dealing with a class of Criminals essentially Chinese, in nine cases out of ten could be satisfactorily disposed of by Chinese authorities having ready access and means of both discovering and compelling the attendance of necessary witnesses. It seems to me an unfair deduction that because the British Government assists that of China in clearing Chinese waters of Pirates, such assistance is not merely unrequited but is to become the cause of serious subsequent expense and inconvenience to this Colony.\n\nI observe that the difficulty of procuring evidence, was foreseen and anticipated in the Duke of Buckingham's despatch, and in his reply to me, His Grace informs me that Her Majesty's Government is actually communicating with that of Peking with a view to making arrangements for the production here of the evidence necessary in such cases.\n\n8. I apprehend that the fact of such negotiations for the transport of witnesses requires a great quantity of additional correspondence with its unavoidable interruptions and delays which would attend the trial of almost all such criminals, together with the double production of the witnesses before the Committing Magistrate in the first place and before the Supreme Court.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-136 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 278866,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7]",
        "page_number": 435,
        "title": "CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7]",
        "content_text": "# SCHEDULE\n\n# OF CRIMES AND OFFENCES.\n\nMurder and attempt to Murder.\n\nRobbery from the Person or in a Dwelling House with Violence.\n\nRape and attempt to commit Rape,\n\nKidnapping.\n\nThe Forgery, Uttering, or unlawful Possession of any forged Note, Bill, Deed, or other Document whatsoever. The Counterfeiting any Puncheon,\n\nCounter Puncheon, Matrix, Stamp, Die, Pattern or Mould for making or impressing any Current Coin or Public Stamp and the unlawful Possession or Uttering of the same being counterfeit.\n\nArson.\n\nBurglary or House-breaking,\n\nLarceny by Clerks or Servants.\n\nFraudulent Bankruptcy.\n\nEmbezzlement.\n\nMalversation or fraudulent Dealing of Property by any Trustee or Bailee thereof.\n\nObtaining Goods or Money under false Pretences, Receiving Stolen Goods.\n\n# FORMS. 1.\n\n(Governor's Warrant to Magistrates.)\n\n\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"\n\nBy His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion\n\nof the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of\n\nthis Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same,\n\nTo\n\nPolice Magistrates.\n\nWhereas Requisition has been duly made to me pursuant to the above Ordinance for the Surrender of one now in this Colony charged with having committed the Crime of\n\nwithin the Territory of Macao\n\nand with being a Fugitive from Justice.\n\nYou are hereby required to govern yourselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive and in committing him to Gaol for the Purpose of his being delivered up to Justice according to the Provisions of the said Ordinance and for so doing this shall be your Warrant.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal at Victoria, Hongkong, this\n\n18\n\nL.S.\n\nBy Order,\n\nColonial Secretary.\n\nDay\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\n(Warrant of Apprehension.)\n\n\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"\n\nHongkong To all and each of the Constables of the Hongkong Police Force.\n\nto wit.\n\nWhereas His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same by Warrant under his Hand and Seal hath signified that pursuant to the above Ordinance, Requisition has been duly made to him for delivering up to Justice\n\none\n\nnow in this Colony charged with having committed the Crime of\n\nwithin the Territory of Macao and with being a Fugitive from Justice and has required the Police Magistrates to govern themselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive.\n\nThis is therefore to command you in Her Majesty's Name forthwith to apprehend the said Fugitive pursuant to the said Ordinance wherever he may be found in this Colony and bring him before me or any other Police Magistrate sitting in this Court to answer unto the said Charge and for which this shall be your Warrant.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal at the Magistrates' Court of this Colony this\n\nDay of\n\nin the Year of Our Lord, 18\n\nL.S.\n\n3.\n\nPolice Magistrate.\n\n(Order to Superintendent of Gaol to bring up Prisoner.) \"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"\n\nTo the Superintendent of Victoria Gaol.\n\nWhereas His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same by Warrant under his Hand and Seal has signified that pursuant to the above Ordinance, Requisition has been duly made to him for delivering to Justice,\n\none\n\ncharged with having committed the Crime of\n\nwithin the Territory of Macao and now detained in Victoria Gaol under your Custody and has directed the Police Magistrates to govern themselves accordingly for the Purpose of his being delivered up to Justice under the Provisions of the said Ordinance.\n\nYou are hereby ordered to bring up the said\n\nforthwith before me or any other Police Magistrate sitting in this Court to be dealt with as provided by Law.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal this\n\n18\n\nDay of\n\nat the Magistrates' Court of this Colony.\n\nL.S.\n\nPolice Magistrate.\n\nC\n\n432",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 282386,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]",
        "page_number": 24,
        "title": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]",
        "content_text": "# ORDINANCE No. 4 of 1865.\n\n## Offences against the Person.\n\n### Forcible Taking or Detention.\n\n50. Whosoever shall, by Force, take away or detain against his Will any Man, Boy, Woman, or Female Child with Intent to sell him or her or to procure a Ransom or Benefit for his or her Liberation, shall be guilty of Felony and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Fourteen Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years with or without Hard Labour.\n\n### Child Stealing.\n\n51. Whosoever shall unlawfully, either by Force or Fraud, lead or take away, or decoy or entice away or detain any Child under the Age of Fourteen Years, with Intent to deprive any Parent, Guardian, or other Person having the lawful Care or Charge of such Child of the Possession of such Child, or with Intent to steal any Article upon or about the Person of such Child, to whomsoever such Article may belong, and whosoever shall, with any such Intent, receive or harbour any such Child, knowing the same to have been, by Force or Fraud, led, taken, decoyed, enticed away, or detained as in this Section before-mentioned, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Seven Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and, if a Male under the Age of Sixteen Years, with or without Whipping: Provided, that no Person who shall have claimed any Right to the Possession of such Child, or shall be the Mother, or shall have claimed to be the Father of an illegitimate Child, shall be liable to be prosecuted by virtue hereof on account of the getting Possession of such Child, or taking such Child out of the Possession of any Person having the lawful Charge thereof.\n\n### Bigamy.\n\n52. Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other Person during the Life of the former Husband or Wife, whether the second Marriage shall have taken place in this Colony or elsewhere, shall be guilty of Felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Seven Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour: Provided that nothing in this Section contained shall extend to any Second Marriage contracted elsewhere than in this Colony by any other than a Subject of Her Majesty, or to any Person marrying a Second Time whose Husband or Wife shall have been continually absent from such Person for the Space of Seven Years then last past, and shall not have been known by such Person to be living within that Time, or shall extend to any Person who, at the Time of such Second Marriage, shall have been divorced from the Bond of the First Marriage, or to any Person whose former Marriage shall have been declared void by the Sentence of any Court of competent Jurisdiction.\n\n### Administering Drugs to procure Abortion.\n\n53. Every Woman, being with Child, who with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of Felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and with or without Solitary Confinement.\n\n### Procuring Drugs, &c., to cause Abortion.\n\n54. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any Poison or other noxious Thing or any Instrument or Thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for the Term of Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.\n\n### Concealing the Birth of a Child.\n\n55. If any Woman shall be delivered of a Child, every Person who shall, by any secret Disposition of the Dead Body of the said Child, whether such Child died before, at, or after its Birth, endeavour to conceal the Birth thereof, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour: Provided that if any Person tried for the Murder of any Child shall be acquitted thereof, it shall be lawful for the Jury by whose Verdict such Person shall be acquitted to find, in case it shall so appear in Evidence, that the Child had recently been born, and that such Person did, by some secret Disposition of the Dead Body of such Child, endeavour to conceal the Birth thereof, and thereupon the Court may pass such Sentence as if such Person had been convicted upon an Information for the Concealment of the Birth.\n\n### Unnatural Offence.\n\n56. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable Crime of Buggery, committed either with Mankind or with any Animal, shall be guilty of Felony and shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life, or for any Term not less than Ten Years.\n\n### Sodomy and Bestiality.\n\n57. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable Crime, or shall be guilty of any Assault with Intent to commit the same, or of any indecent Assault upon any Male Person, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Ten Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.\n\n### Carnal Knowledge defined.\n\n58. Whenever upon the Trial for any Offence punishable under this Ordinance it may be necessary to prove carnal Knowledge, it shall not be necessary to prove the actual Emission of Seed in order to constitute a carnal Knowledge, but the carnal Knowledge shall be deemed complete upon Proof of Penetration only.\n\n### Making Gunpowder to commit Offences and searching for the same.\n\n59. Whosoever shall knowingly have in his Possession, or make or manufacture, any Gunpowder, explosive Substance, or any dangerous or noxious Thing, or any Machine, Engine, Instrument, or Thing, with Intent by means thereof to commit or for the purpose of enabling any other Person to commit, any of the Felonies in this Ordinance mentioned, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and with or without Solitary Confinement, and, if a Male under the Age of Sixteen Years, with or without Whipping.\n\n### Searching Houses, &c.\n\n60. Upon reasonable Cause assigned upon Oath or Declaration by any Person that any such Gunpowder, or other explosive, dangerous, or noxious Substance or Thing, or any such Machine, Engine, Instrument, or Thing, is suspected to be made, kept, or carried for the purpose of being used in committing any of the Felonies in this Ordinance mentioned, a Police Magistrate may issue a Warrant under his Hand and Seal for searching, in the Day-time, any House, Mill, Magazine, Storehouse, Warehouse, Shop, Cellar, Yard, Wharf, or other Place, or any Carriage, Waggon, Cart, Ship, Boat, or Vessel, in which the same is suspected to be made, kept, or carried for such purpose as hereinbefore mentioned; and the same Substances and Things shall be brought before a Police Magistrate, and, upon due Proof that the same has been made, kept, or carried for any of the purposes aforesaid, whether in the Presence or Absence of the Owner of the same Substances and Things, a Police Magistrate may declare the same to be and the same shall be forfeited accordingly; and every Police Magistrate and Person acting in the Execution of any such Warrant shall have, for seizing, removing to proper Places, and detaining all such Gunpowder, explosive, dangerous, or noxious Substances, Machines, Engines, Instruments, or Things, found upon such Search, which he shall have good cause to suspect to be intended to be used in committing any such Offence, and the Barrels, Packages, Cases, and other Receptacles in which the same shall be, the same Powers and Protections which are given by `Ordinance No. 10 of 1844`.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 282676,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]",
        "page_number": 314,
        "title": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]",
        "content_text": "## Ordinance \n**RESTRICTIVE** \n\nUnder Ordinance 35 12 of 1865, before the feature in Council shall be discussed, offenders may be deported to the nearest foreign settlement.\n\n2. Whoever, not being a householder or occupier of a house, is found in a gaming house without authority or permission, shall be punished on the party accused if found guilty, and subsequent complaint may be made to a Magistrate.\n\nWhoever shall be found in such a house, office, or other place wherein gaming is taking place, whether taking part in any apparent game or not, shall be fully convicted thereof and shall, for the first offence, be subject to a fine not exceeding $... or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding six months.\n\nFor the second offence, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, and for the third offence, the Court shall direct the offender to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year and also to solitary confinement.\n\n7. When any person shall be charged under this Ordinance, the depositions of all persons who may give evidence against or for the person charged shall be taken by the police and passed to the Magistrate before whom the charge shall be made. \n\nIn the circumstances of the case, if in the opinion of such Magistrate it appears not to require a fine exceeding $..., it shall be lawful for such Magistrate, instead of committing the offender for trial before the Supreme Court, to hear the case against the accused before two Justices, and the depositions and further evidence both against and for the accused shall be tendered and heard.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284142,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "# Report of the Attorney General upon \"The Hongkong and Macao Extradition Ordinance.\" (No. 13 of 1870.)\n\nThe original Draft of this Ordinance, which is one of much local importance, was transmitted to the Colonial Office by Governor **SIR RICHARD GRAVES MACDONNELL**, in a Despatch to the Secretary of State dated 21st July, 1869, (No.758).\n\nThe Draft met with approval subject to certain Amendments directed to be made in it by Earl **GRANVILLE** in his Lordship's Despatch No. 25 of the 16th of February, 1870. It was amended in accordance with the instructions contained in that Despatch, and laid before the Legislative Council. Before the second Reading, however, I received most opportunely a copy of the Imperial Extradition Act of last Session (`33 & 34 Vic. c. 32`), which proved of great service, especially in revising the Schedule of Crimes.\n\nThe Ordinance was finally passed on the 2nd of September last, and the following explanatory Notes upon its several Sections will show in what respect it differs from the original Draft submitted to the Secretary of State.\n\nIn order to facilitate reference to the Amendments, I enclose a copy of the original Draft as well as of the Ordinance as passed, in which the material words or passages omitted in the former, and substituted or added in the latter, are underlined in red ink.\n\nN.B.-The Sections at the head of each Note refer to the Sections of the Ordinance as passed.\n\n## SECTION II\n\n\"And shall include the High Seas.\" These words are inserted in order to include Piracy \"jure gentium,\" it having been held in the case of Reg. v. Ternan (9. Cox's C. C. 522) that in the Extradition Treaty with the United States, the word \"Jurisdiction\" means \"exclusive\" Jurisdiction and therefore that \"Piracy jure gentium\" is not within its Terms.\n\n## SECTION III\n\nIn accordance with the directions of Earl **GRANVILLE**, the words \"not being a natural born or naturalized British Subject\" have been struck out, as also the words \"after the commencement of this Ordinance,\" and the words \"if he shall in his Discretion think fit\" have been introduced.\n\n## SECTION V\n\nSub-Sections V and VI of the original Section have been transposed. In Sub-Section V, the words \"and his Authority to take Cognizance of the Crime or Offence charged,\" though not found in the Act for the Amendment of the Law relating to Treaties of Extradition (`29 and 30 Vic. c. 121`), are inserted to meet expressly the requirements of Sub-Section I.\n\nIn Sub-Section VI instead of the word \"surrendered,\" the words \"committed to Gaol, &c.,\" have been introduced, as the Magistrate's functions are now limited to either committing the Fugitive to Gaol, or not. His surrender is a matter of discretion for the Governor (see Section X.)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284147,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 42,
        "title": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "# SCHEDULE \n## OF CRIMES AND OFFENCES\n\n* Murder and attempt to Murder.\n* Robbery from the Person or in a Dwelling House with Violence.\n* Rape and attempt to commit Rape. Kidnapping.\n* The Forgery, Uttering, or unlawful Possession of any forged Note, Bill, Deed, or other Document whatsoever. Counter Puncheon, Matrix, Stamp, Die, Pattern or Mould for making or The Counterfeiting any Puncheon, impressing any Current Coin or Public Stamp and the unlawful Possession or Uttering of the same being counterfeit.\n* Arson.\n* Burglary or House-breaking.\n* Larceny by Clerks or Servants.\n* Fraudulent Bankruptcy.\n* Embezzlement.\n* Malversation or fraudulent Dealing of Property by any Trustee or Bailee thereof.\n* Obtaining Goods or Money under false Pretences, Receiving Stolen Goods.\n\n## FORMS\n\n### 1. (Governor's Warrant to Magistrates)\n\n**\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"**\n\nBy His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same,\n\nTo the Police Magistrates.\n\nWhereas Requisition has been duly made to me pursuant to the above Ordinance for the Surrender of one now in this Colony charged with having committed the Crime of ... within the Territory of Macao and with being a Fugitive from Justice.\n\nYou are hereby required to govern yourselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive and in committing him to Gaol for the Purpose of his being delivered up to Justice according to the Provisions of the said Ordinance and for so doing this shall be your Warrant.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal at Victoria, Hongkong, this ... Day of ... 18...\n\nL.S.\n\nBy Order,\nColonial Secretary.\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\n### 2. (Warrant of Apprehension)\n\n**\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"**\n\nHongkong To all and each of the Constables of the Hongkong Police Force.\n\nTo wit\n\nWhereas His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same by Warrant under his Hand and Seal hath signified that pursuant to the above Ordinance, Requisition has been duly made to him for delivering up to Justice one now in this Colony charged with having committed the Crime of ... within the Territory of Macao and with being a Fugitive from Justice and has required the Police Magistrates to govern themselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive.\n\nThis is therefore to command you in Her Majesty's Name forthwith to apprehend the said Fugitive pursuant to the said Ordinance wherever he may be found in this Colony and bring him before me or any other Police Magistrate sitting in this Court to answer unto the said Charge and for which this shall be your Warrant.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal at the Magistrates' Court of this Colony this ... Day of ... in the Year of Our Lord, 18...\n\nL.S.\n\nPolice Magistrate.\n\n### 3. (Order to Superintendent of Gaol to bring up Prisoner)\n\n**\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"**\n\nTo the Superintendent of Victoria Gaol.\n\nWhereas His Excellency Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Knight, and Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies and Vice-Admiral of the same by Warrant under his Hand and Seal has signified that pursuant to the above Ordinance, Requisition has been duly made to him for delivering up to Justice, one charged with having committed the Crime of ... within the Territory of Macao and now detained in Victoria Gaol under your Custody and has directed the Police Magistrates to govern themselves accordingly for the Purpose of his being delivered up to Justice under the Provisions of the said Ordinance.\n\nYou are hereby ordered to bring up the said ... forthwith before me or any other Police Magistrate sitting in this Court to be dealt with as provided by law.\n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal this ... Day of ..., at the Magistrates' Court of this Colony.\n\nL.S.\n\nPolice Magistrate.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284413,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 308,
        "title": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "# Extract from Despatch No. 3 of the 26th December, 1885, from The Right Honorable Edward Cardwell, M.P.\n\n## 5th Point\nThere has been no complaint, information or communication by any officer of the Chinese Government made or forwarded to the Committing Magistrate or to his Court desiring the arrest of any Person being a Chinese subject and alleging, &c., &c., to give the Magistrate Jurisdiction under Section 1 of Ordinance 2 of 1850, and no Warrant or Order from the Governor to the Magistrate under Section IV.\n\nThe Prisoner was already in custody upon a charge then under Investigation. Section I of Ordinance 2 of 1850 therefore applies and no Warrant from the Governor under Section IV was required.\n\nThe letter from the Colonial Secretary to the Magistrate informing him of the Demand for Extradition is annexed to the depositions. The practice in England is similar. (See Report of Select Committee on Extradition page 18.)\n\nEvidence of Sir Thomas Henry.\n\n| Question | Answer |\n| --- | --- |\n| 319.-Do you get all the London Cases? | The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs examines the papers, and if he sees that the offence is one of those named in the Treaty, he sends the papers on to Home Secretary. The papers are examined at the Home Office again, and if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is a Case within the Treaty, he then sends to the Chief Magistrate at Bow-street a letter, signifying that requisition has been made in the proper manner by the Ambassador or the Minister of the Foreign Country to have the accused delivered up. |\n| 320.-That letter sets you in motion? | That sets me in motion. |\n\nThe Practice to be followed in Hongkong is prescribed in a Despatch from the Secretary of State, of which the following is an extract:\n\n\"Questions have been raised both as to the forms in which the extradition shall be demanded and to the cases to which it shall apply, on both of which I am desirous that you should be fully informed of the views of Her Majesty's Government.\n\n\"On the first head I am to instruct you that the Consular or other Diplomatic Officer is in all cases the recognized Channel of communication between Chinese and British functionaries. That all ordinary communications should be carried on through that Officer and that without his concurrence direct communications should not take place between Colonial Officers and the Chinese Government. Requisitions for the delivery of Criminals should therefore be conveyed to the Colonial Government through the Consular or Diplomatic Officer or with his authority.\"\n\nUnder `6 & 7 Vic. cc. 75 & 76`, the Statutes passed to carry out the Treaties with France and the United States, the communication to the Magistrate must be by Warrant under Seal. Under Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, it is not even required to be in writing. The Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case is a Writ at Common Law and the Return cannot be traversed (3 Chitty's Stat. 3d. Ed. p. 69 note).\n\n## 6th Point\nThere is no evidence whatever before the Court, nor was there before the Magistrate to show that the offence charged against the Prisoner is an offence against the Laws of China. The alleged offence having been committed on board a French ship on the high seas, the presumption is the Chinese Courts have no jurisdiction, and the evidence shows that Chinese Mandarins having the opportunity to arrest and try the Coolies from the \"Nouvelle Penelope,\" took no steps to punish them, (Phil. 377, 413) and no right to claim Extradition.\n\nThere is nothing in the Treaty of Tientsin or in Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 which imposes upon the Magistrate the duty of ascertaining that the crime charged is a crime against the Laws of China;-but in any Case the Court will assume that Murder being a crime malum in se as distinguished from malum prohibitum, is a crime against the Laws of all civilized nations.\n\nIf the Description of Crimes for which Chinese may be surrendered under the Treaty of Tientsin is to be limited at all, it is submitted that it should be limited to such crimes as by our Statute or Common Law would, if committed by a British subject, be justiciable by the Courts of this Colony. This Rule was adopted in the Ashburton Treaty. (See In re Windsor, 10, Cox C. C.), and is also adopted in the Imperial Extradition Act of 1870, in which the following heading to the Schedule of Crimes is prefixed:\n\n\"The following List of Crimes is to be construed according to the Law existing in England, or in a British Possession (as the case may be) at the date of the alleged crime, whether by Common Law or by Statute made before or after the passing of this Act.\"\n\nIf the Murder charged in this Case had been committed by a British subject, it would have been justiciable by the Courts of this Colony. (`Reg. v. Azzopardi. 2 Moody, C. C. 288.`)\n\n## 7th Point\nThe depositions disclose no offence whatever. The conduct of the Coolies in getting possession of the ship being justifiable, they being illegally restrained of their liberty and there being no excess. Unless the acts charged against the Prisoner are such as English Laws attach criminal responsibility to, the Extradition Treaty does not apply.\n\nThe depositions disclose the Murder of nine persons.\n\nAll homicide is prima facie Murder subject to be reduced to justifiable homicide by the particular facts proved in defence. (1 Russell on Crimes, p. 668.) The Prisoner is identified as being one who actually took part in the Murder of the Captain and was an accomplice in the general massacre of the other victims. There is no evidence of his having been illegally coerced and much less of his having been reduced to slavery by the Master of the ship, Captain Le Vigoureux, whom he murdered, or by any one connected with the ship. In Anderson's case (that of the fugitive slave) it was admitted that the case was one of Slavery. (See Wheaton's Int. Law, 8th Edition, Note 75.) Here the question whether the homicide was Murder or excusable homicide on the plea of self defence is not raised on behalf of the Prisoner in the depositions. One of the witnesses states that he was kidnapped by a Barber, Chea Afook, but nevertheless that he told the Macao Authorities he was willing to go and did contract to go to Peru. He likewise says that he heard others say they had been kidnapped. But he does not accuse the Master of the ship or any of the crew of the kidnapping but on the contrary describes their conduct to have been most kind.\n\nThe \"proof of guilt\" required to justify the Surrender under the Treaty of Tientsin is thus stated in a Despatch of the Duke of Newcastle:\n\n\"It is at the same time quite clear in the letter of the Tientsin Treaty that it is only on proof of their guilt that Chinese Criminals can be demanded by Chinese Officers and the proof intended can of course be no other than proof satisfying the minds of those,--the British Officers--who have to determine the question at this preliminary stage. On this head I have to instruct you that as a general rule reasonable evidence ought to be accepted as sufficient, such for example as would lead a Grand Jury, in this Country to find a true bill where the evidence is ex parte only, or such as with evidence on both sides, would induce a Magistrate to commit for Trial.\"\n\nThe Expression \"Proof of Guilt\" in the Treaty of Tientsin has had legislative interpretation, so far as our Courts are concerned, by Section III of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, which directs the Magistrate to commit on \"probable cause of guilt.\" There is abundant \"probable cause\" within the meaning of Section III of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, to warrant the Committal. (Wheaton's International Law, Section CXVII, Note 75, by Professor Dana, 8th Edition.)\n\nTernan's case. 9 Cox, C. C.\n\nTernan's Case shows that a Court or a Judge, upon such a Proceeding as the present, is not to weigh the effect of the evidence; that is a matter for the Magistrate. The Court can only consider whether there is enough evidence to justify a Committal, and it is unnecessary to add that in the present case no Magistrate could hesitate to commit the Prisoner for Trial if the case were cognizable by the Supreme Court.\n\nIt has been doubted in the United States whether evidence of Justification of killing can be received at all under the Extradition Treaty with Great Britain. (See In re John Bennett, Southern District Court of New York, reported in 11 Law Times N. S. page 488.)\n\nThe King v. Marks (3 East) shows that if there be a corpus delicti on the depositions, the Prisoner must be remanded, and the cases collected by Mr. Forsyth at page 451 of his work on Constitutional Law show that the Return (if necessary) may be amended. Finally it is again submitted that all Decisions upon other Extradition Treaties are inapplicable so far as the nature of the crime charged is concerned, inasmuch as the Treaty of Tientsin embraces all crimes. The facts alleged in the Return cannot be traversed. [The Writ of Habeas Corpus taken out in this case is a Writ at common Law. As to contradicting the Return...]",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284763,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 207,
        "title": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "# THE unfortunate man Nicks, it appears now settled, is to be the means of re-establishing the eternal harmony of things when magisterial duties are placed in inexperienced hands.\n\nWe recently set forth the grounds upon which the decision of the Junior Police Magistrate appeared altogether unwarranted; and as it seems that the Executive are not prepared to do anything in the matter, it is to be presumed that NICKS is to be the vile body on which Sir RICHARD MACDONNELL'S experiment of placing comparatively young men upon the Bench is to be illustrated. Experience both of the Law and of life are always looked upon as essentials in the Magisterial character; and where both cannot be obtained, the latter is in all places regarded as a sine qua non. It is no disparagement to the Junior Magistrate to say that he has neither of these qualifications. He is no lawyer, and his experience of public matters is limited to some five years. The results are what may be naturally expected, that is, that occasionally very serious mistakes are made. For this, Mr. RUSSELL individually is not to be blamed. It would be as absurd to expect him to be infallible as to look for the same qualification in any other Magistrate or Judge, and, as we have been glad on many occasions to point out, while at the same time not sparing condemnation of his errors, the Junior Police Magistrate has often evinced an amount of penetration and shrewdness, as well as of patience and industry, such as augur the best things when combined with sufficient experience. But the want of the latter qualification ought to be a conclusive bar to his appointment to the Bench with the large powers which the Police Magistrates in this Colony possess, and it is impossible to overstate the responsibility which rests upon those who have thought fit to appoint as Magistrate a person who could not, by any argument, be considered qualified for so difficult a post.\n\nIf there is any profession in which experience is almost everything, that profession is the judicial. From the grey-headed Judge to the Barrister of two or three years' standing, the same answer as to what is most necessary to make a man efficient in the profession will be given. DEMOSTHENES was asked what was the first necessary to make a good orator, and his reply was \"action,\" and \"what next?\" \"action;\" and \"what next?\" and he again said \"action.\" So, if it be asked what is wanted to make a good man in the judicial profession, whether as a judge, a barrister, or a magistrate, the answer is: \"practice, practice, practice.\"\n\nWithout experience, grievous errors must be committed, and it is a very terrible thing if those errors result, as we firmly believe is the fact in the case which has called forth these comments, in the unjust condemnation of unfortunate men, whose position and means render it impossible for them to find any other defence when they are arraigned, than that which everybody is entitled to look for when he is undefended, in the wisdom, experience, and temperance of the Magistrate or Judge before whom he is brought. In all cases where Summary Jurisdiction is allowed, it is recognised that the gravest responsibility rests upon the Magistrates. An authority says:--\n\n| Original Text | Reformatted Text |\n| --- | --- |\n| \"An Act of Parliament which takes away the right of trial by Jury and bridges the liberty of the subject, ought to receive the strictest construction. Convictions must be taken strictly where the offence has penal consequences, without carrying the word farther than their natural sense, they must be taken against the defendant, to be true, and, therefore, they must be construed with strictness. The construction ought to be more strict upon convictions than upon indictments, because the jurisdiction is summary. Penal statutes, however executed, in their construction should be taken favourably for them upon whom the penalty is inflicted.\" | \"An Act of Parliament which takes away the right of trial by Jury and bridges the liberty of the subject, ought to receive the strictest construction. Convictions must be taken strictly where the offence has penal consequences, without carrying the word farther than their natural sense, they must be taken against the defendant, to be true, and, therefore, they must be construed with strictness. The construction ought to be more strict upon convictions than upon indictments, because the jurisdiction is summary. Penal statutes, however executed, in their construction should be taken favourably for them upon whom the penalty is inflicted.\" |\n\nIt surely cannot be said that in the case of NICKS the facts or the law were taken in any sense favourably for the accused.\n\nIt is quite true that it would be impossible for anybody in so difficult a position as that of a Magistrate, constantly before the public, and every day called upon to decide a number of cases, all requiring thought, care, and attention, to avoid occasionally committing errors. But our point is this, that, while experienced and inexperienced men will both err at times, the mistakes of the former will be on the safe side, while those of the latter will commonly be on the dangerous side. An experienced Magistrate may err in letting off a man who ought to be convicted, but he will seldom make the mistake of convicting one who ought to be set at liberty; and it is so important that this spirit should pervade judicial proceedings, that nobody not possessing large experience should be empowered to inflict sentences without appeal.\n\nIf men brought before the Police Magistrates in Hongkong had the right, as is the case in Shanghai, to appeal to the Supreme Court, there would be no harm likely to arise from comparatively inexperienced men, provided they were industrious and well informed, hearing criminal cases of the kind which ordinarily come before a Police Magistrate; but the matter stands very differently when they are endowed with plenary powers, which they may exercise through error unjustly, and to the grievous injury of those who are brought before them. Indeed, apart from this special case, or the special Magistrate concerned in it, it would seem highly desirable that some simple rule be made to secure appeals from decisions given in Magistrates' Courts. Security might easily be provided against appeals being made where there is not sufficient ground for them; but it would be far better to err on the side of useless appeals than unjust sentences.\n\n## THE public will doubtless be glad to notice from to-day's Police Reports that Mr. RUSSELL has, in a commendable spirit of justice, reconsidered the sentence passed on NICKS, and upon the grounds of his certificates of good character, of which the Magistrate was not aware before, commuted his sentence to three months, instead of six months' imprisonment with hard labour.\n\nAfter what has already appeared in these columns, it is needless to state that we should be glad to see even this sentence withdrawn, and it is satisfactory that steps are being taken to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. According to the Magistrate's statement, it seems that the man was engaged for the Police Force without any enquiries as to his character, Mr. RUSSELL having asked Captain DEANE, who sat next to him on the Bench, whether he knew anything of the accused's antecedents, and being replied to in the negative. This certainly seems a very extraordinary way to engage the services of policemen, and calls for some attention on the part of the Authorities.\n\nIf men are taken into the Force in so off-hand a manner, it is not to be wondered at that it is not in a satisfactory condition.\n\n* This is all a mistake. The night of Courts Cycle by appeal to Supreme Court Ordinances to 4 of 1858.\n\nPage 204",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284765,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 209,
        "title": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "# China Mail Hongkong \n## 2.5th March 1871 \n\nThe quality of Executive mercy will not be strained by its exercise in behalf of the unfortunate man Nicks who has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the alleged crime of stealing a bat. There are circumstances about this case which will justify Executive interposition. The antecedents of the prisoner's career do not warrant the idea that he is a common thief. He had served in the British Artillery and (we are informed) he has won the Victoria Cross for deeds of valour. Such a man cannot be of such a bad character as Mr Russell's sentence suggests. A police magistrate's jurisdiction is ordinarily fenced in by considerations of legal and judicial propriety. He may fairly be allowed to deal extremely with an incorrigible vagabond, or with a well-ascertained thief who practices in the minor walks of Faginism; but in the case before us, Mr Russell, so far as the published evidence enables us to judge, has done a cruel thing—cruel, and unnecessary in any respect of public justice. So far as we have read or learnt, there is nothing in the poor soldier's conduct that is not reconcilable with the notion of a mere thoughtless freak, perpetrated perhaps under the excitement of an artificial stimulant. Mr Russell's severe sentence has excited a great deal of angry comment—not disrespectful to his Worship, but in a tone of surprise that under the circumstances before the bench he condemned a man, unless his sentence is reversed, to absolute but undeserved ruin. We trust that His Excellency will take this matter into his consideration.\n\n## China Mail \n### 31st March 1871\n\nThe case against Edward Nicks, who was sentenced by Mr. Russell to six months' hard labor for stealing a hat from the estate of the late Signor Pellico, was heard to-day, in consequence of a representation having been made by the Captain Superintendent of Police that prisoner had heretofore borne a good character, and had copies of certificates showing that he had served for some time in the army. Thomas E. Hawkins, formerly Lieutenant-Major in the 2nd Brigade Bengal Horse Artillery, testified that he did not hesitate to state on oath that prisoner did belong to the same Brigade as a trumpeter. There were two brothers in the Company, and he could not say which of them the defendant was, but they both bore an excellent character. Defendant explained that the original papers relating to his service in the army were burned in 1868 in Allahabad, and the copies were given him by Captain Dalmahoy. He did not produce the papers when he was first tried because they were in his carpet bag in his quarters. Under these circumstances the Magistrate amended the former sentence to three months' hard labor, under the provisions of `Ordinance No. 5 of 1850, Section 11`.\n\n## China Mail - 18th April 1871\n\n...err on the safe side in such cases we still entertain the hope that His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor will still more favorably consider the case of this man, Nicks.\n\nThe action taken by the Junior Police Magistrate yesterday relative to the sentence passed on the Policeman, Nicks, whose case we alluded to in our issue of the 25th ultimo, has been viewed with surprise, as it was generally anticipated that the executive would have advised His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to extend full clemency to this unfortunate man.\n\nIt has been urged that the practice here might with advantage be assimilated to that in England, where in such a case as that under consideration the accused person would be accorded the option of having his case summarily disposed of or sent to a superior Court where he would have the advantage of a jury. A simple mitigation of the sentence to three months' imprisonment cannot be considered a satisfactory settlement of such a case, more particularly as grave doubts existed as to the guilt of the accused, whose position we may add will not be much improved by the change of sentence, considering that he will come out of prison a marked and ruined man for life.\n\nThere appeared three courses, any of which might have been pursued upon this occasion in preference to that adopted: the first, which we indicated, a free pardon; secondly, by committing the accused for trial at the Supreme Court, where he would have been tried by a jury; or third, by granting him a new trial, which might have been presided over by the Senior or some other Magistrate or Magistrates. We say advisedly \"some other Magistrate or Magistrates,\" in order that Mr Russell's original judgment might have been fully revised. With such a long list of Magistrates as we possess, it would not, we apprehend, be difficult to secure the attendance of one or two of the number in such an emergency, although it would seem as if these gentlemen seldom attend the sittings excepting to assist in the granting of spirit licenses. It would really appear as if the Police Court practice were amenable to some improvement, although we are not at the present moment prepared to suggest the precise... \n\nPage 206",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 284794,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 238,
        "title": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "## Supreme Court of Hongkong\n\nMay 22nd, 1871\n\n**Before the Hon. Chief-Justice Smale**\n\n**Coolies Not Criminal for Rising on the Captain of a Coolie Ship from Macao to Peru**\n\n**In re Kwok a Sing - Judgment**\n\n... a house, in which he had been arrested, and in one of the charges to those in the other two towards which I presume he was proceeding documents.\n\nAs to his case, referring to what was said by the Court in re Douglas, in Q B. Rep. I make no observation, because in the view I take of this case to do so is unnecessary; but if necessary it is open to the prisoner to contend that such arrest vitiated the whole of the subsequent proceedings against him, or such of them as it is his interest to allege were unsustainable in law. Such arrest was on a demand by the French Consul for the prisoner's arrest, made pending the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus before me, and upon a warrant granted for his arrest dated the 16th day of February last, at which time also that hearing before me was actually pending. An investigation upon this new demand by the French Consul proceeded in the Council Chamber before the Executive Council, but the Attorney-General on the 26th day of April, 1871, announced that the French Consul withdrew his demand, and that investigation terminated suddenly, the prisoner being present. Immediately thereupon the Attorney-General directed the Superintendent of Police to arrest, and he did arrest, the prisoner, in the Council Chamber, on a charge of piracy jure gentium.\n\nThe following judgment by Chief-Justice Smale, on the return to a second habeas corpus was delivered.\n\n## Judgment\n\nAfterwards stealing a boat. \nFeloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea.\n\nPiratically and feloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea.\n\n| Charge | Offence |\n| --- | --- |\n| No. 1 | Piratically stealing $10,000 and 10 watches, in custody of the Captain and Crew, on 4th October, 1870, at sea, and in peace of the Queen. |\n| No. 2 | Murdering Captain and certain of the Crew, naming them, on 4th October, 1870, at sea, and in peace of the Queen. |\n| No. 3 | Piratically and feloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope and her apparel and tackle at sea, throwing them into the sea, on 4th October, 1870. |\n\nExcluding consideration at present entirely from the charge before me on the testimony of credible witnesses for that the said defendant, on 4th October last past, with a number of other evil-disposed persons unknown, with arms upon the high seas within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, in and on board a certain ship or vessel called the Nouvelle Penelope, being piratically and feloniously did make an assault on the said ship, and the apparel and tackle of the said ship, feloniously and violently did steal, take and carry away; and immediately before the commission of the said felony, the said defendant and the evil-disposed persons aforesaid did feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought, kill and murder the said Vigoureux, the master, Manfllent, the chief officer of the said ship, and Le Jusaat, Paul Gigot, Francis Labert, Edmund Mongaret and Ishmael Alphonce, seamen, and a certain Manila seaman, whose name is not known, of the crew of the said ship.\n\nNow, considering that the said defendant is a subject of China and has committed the said crimes against the Laws of China by feloniously seizing the said ship at sea, and by murdering the Captain and certain of the crew of the said ship on the 4th October last past, at sea; and further that after committing the said crimes did feloniously seize a boat belonging to the said ship, and land at a place called Pahka, in Chinese territory, on the 4th October aforesaid...\n\nThe prisoner was committed to Gaol by warrant of Mr. May, Police Magistrate, dated the 7th February, 1871...\n\nMr. Francis contends that under sec. 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act the prisoner is entitled to be discharged from custody. \n\n...no person set at large upon any habeas corpus shall be again imprisoned or committed \"for the same offence\" by any person, other than by the legal process of the court having jurisdiction of the cause.\n\nCan Mr. May, or can his Court, be so designated? Cox v. Coleridge, 1 B and C, 87... shows that although when sitting to punish under a statute, Mr. May sits as a Court, yet that when he sits as a magistrate with a view to committal for trial before this Court his magistracy is not a Court. His is a preliminary inquiry and not a \"trial.\"\n\n...the depositions on which his warrant was founded.\n\n| Commitment | Charge |\n| --- | --- |\n| 1st | Offence as set out in \"Habeas Corpus\" prisoner was set at large. |\n| 2nd | Offence as set out stealing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea. |\n\nThe Attorney-General now also relied on the fact that an information equivalent to a true bill on an indictment by a grand jury has been filed.\n\n...the words of section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act...\n\n...delivered and set at large upon that \"habeas corpus.\" The prisoner was, as I understand, immediately after his having been so set at large, seized within a gun shot of the Court...\n\n...as he was proceeding towards Taipingshan...\n\nThe following Table shows the sameness of the charge contained in the information filed by the Attorney-General now also relied on.\n\nPage 363 \n\n## Inclosure No 3 in Attorney General's printed Report of 25 May 1871\n\n**up in the case of Kwok a Sing**\n\n(From the \"Daily Press,\" May 23rd, 1871.)\n\n...\n\n`GR1178/1922/32(III)` \n`XCR(85)72` \n\n## Artiebo \n\nboard the ou \n\n...the said Master in and in ship and then in the custody and possession o said Master Mariners and crew against and possession ession and Master Mariners and crew from the Will ofst the care and of the said felonially violently did steal täple and carry away atid of \"the Court is also informed that at the Piracy teece a bing the said the said Quot assault with intent to murder the firatically did fel committing felonionoly felonienaly ouide Le Vigenrens the Master of the ound ship and de and unlawfully throw the body of the The Vigoureux into the sea- life of Ligoureux wa o whereby endangered. \n\n**(Signed) Julian Pannafate Attorney General.**\n\nPok bing. Take Notice that You will be tried `022` this Information at the General Criminal Session above mentioned to be holden at Victoria in and on the Nivelan for the thi Colony Colony of HongKong day of may 1071 \n\n**[illegible] M. H. Alexander Registrar**",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 285410,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-152 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [9-10]",
        "page_number": 24,
        "title": "CO129-152 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [9-10]",
        "content_text": "# X. \nIt shall be lawful for the Supreme Court when any Chinese Banishment Person shall be convicted before it of any Felony, not a Capital Felony, if it shall see fit, to adjudge and sentence that such Person shall, in Addition to any other Punishment, or without any other Punishment, leave this Colony after, or at the Expiration of such other Punishment, where other Punishment may be adjudged, and within a Time to be named by the Court as Part of the Sentence; and that the Person so adjudged to leave, shall remain away either for a Term of Years or for Life.\n\n## Order or Sentence of Supreme Court.\n\n# XI. \nEvery Person who shall have been banished by the Governor in Council under this Ordinance, or under Section VI of Ordinance No. 9 of 1857 (hereinbefore repealed), or by the Sentence of the Supreme Court under the Provision in that Behalf hereinbefore contained, and who, without lawful Authority or Excuse, the Proof of which shall lie upon him, shall be found in the Colony after or before the Expiration of Time fixed for his Departure therefrom, the Term of his Banishment, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and upon Conviction thereof before the Supreme Court, shall be liable to a Fine not exceeding Five hundred Dollars or to Imprisonment with or without Hard Labor for any Period not exceeding One Year: Provided always that in all Cases in which the Prisoner when brought before a Magistrate shall plead guilty to such Charge, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the Case instead of committing the Prisoner for Trial at the Supreme Court.\n\n## Penalty for Disobeyance or Violation of Banishment.\n\n# XII. \nIt shall be lawful for the Governor in Council, if he shall think fit, to issue a new Order of Banishment against any Person who shall have been convicted of an Offence under the last preceding Section, and such Order shall commence to take effect at the Expiration of any Term of Imprisonment to which the Prisoner shall have been sentenced.\n\n## Prisoner may be banished again.\n\n# XIII. \nAny Person who shall knowingly harbor or conceal in the Colony of Hongkong any Person guilty of the Offence specified in Section XI, shall, on Conviction thereof before a Magistrate, be liable to a Fine not exceeding Fifty Dollars or to Imprisonment with or without Hard Labor for any Term not exceeding Six Months.\n\n## Penalty for harboring Person under Order of Banishment.\n\n# XIV. \nA Copy of any Order of Banishment issued under this Ordinance, certified under the Hand of the Colonial Secretary, shall be admissible in Evidence as prima facie Proof of such Order in every Court in the Colony.\n\n## Copy of Order to be prima facie evidence of Proof.\n\n# XV. \nThe Forms given in the Schedule to this Ordinance or Forms to the like effect, with such Variations and Additions as Circumstances require, may be used for the Purposes therein indicated and Instruments in those Forms shall (as regards the Form thereof) be valid and sufficient.\n\n## Forms in Schedule may be used.\n\n# XVI. \nThe Provisions of this Ordinance as to Banishment shall not apply to British Subjects, but the Burden of Proof as to the Nationality of the Prisoner shall lie upon him.\n\n## No British Subject to be banished.\n\n### SCHEDULE OF FORMS.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-152 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [9-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 286466,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871",
        "page_number": 422,
        "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871",
        "content_text": "421\n\nsentence of a primer (consult the committing magistrate, and give him an opportunity of offering his observations. Then the Administrator is thus placed in possession of all the facts bearing on the case, it will, of course, be his duty to exercise his own discretion and judgement, and then act as the interests of justice and of the public may appear to him to require.\n\nThere a prisoner, has in coming before a decision to be made should in all cases be careful to ...\n\n083 Antud 4 deer 1871! 10! Esbil Sir Ric I NOV 29 1871 / 28 Nov 1871.\n\nI am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th Instant, transmitting copies of telegraphic messages which have passed between the Colonial Office, and the Acting Governor of Hong Kong, relative to the employment of Native police force to perform night entry-duty upon the withdrawal of the Madras Regiment from that colony.\n\n11278 In reply, I am to repeat to the Earl of Kimberley \"that, inasmuch as the General Officer the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 287796,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]",
        "page_number": 366,
        "title": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]",
        "content_text": "$34\n\n\"a peculiarity, and also shows such an obvious neglect of the most natural and important way of obtaining information, that it requires some strong justification before it can be considered as anything else than a defect. It is remarkable that this omission, which is one of the most characteristic peculiarities of the English system of procedure, owes its origin to nothing else than recent practice. It rests upon no express authority, and no general principle recently laid down,\" he remarks.\n\nThe practice of the Courts, up to the time of the Revolution of 1688, and for some little time after, was that the prisoner should be questioned at his trial; and till the year 1840, the Committing Magistrate were bound by statute to take his examination—a word which materially suggests questioning and was held to justify it.\n\nAt the risk of unduly lengthening this Report, I cannot refrain from quoting the following pertinent observations from the same learned writer, premising that the remarks have a peculiarly forcible bearing on the case of Chinese prisoners, who, through stupidity and entire ignorance of our forms of law,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 290480,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 121,
        "title": "CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "118\n\n(2) The Ship in respect of which any such Offence is committed and her Equipment shall be forfeited to Her Majesty:\n\nProvided that a Person committing any of the Acts prohibited by this Section, in pursuance of a Contract made before the Commencement of this Ordinance, shall not be liable to any of the Penalties imposed by this Section.\n\nProviso.\n\nV. Any Police Magistrate upon being satisfied that there is reasonable and probable Cause for believing that a Ship within the Waters of the Colony has been, or is being built, altered, repaired or equipped, or is about to be despatched and taken out to Sea contrary to the Provisions of this Ordinance, may issue a Warrant stating that there is reasonable and probable Cause for believing as aforesaid, and upon such Warrant, the said Ship may be seized and searched and detained until it has been either condemned or released by Process of Law or in the Manner hereinafter mentioned.\n\nVI. Any Officer authorized to seize or detain any Ship in respect of any Offence against this Ordinance may, for the Purpose of enforcing such Seizure or Detention, call to his Aid any Constable or Officers of Police, or any Officers of Her Majesty's Army or Navy or Marines, or the Harbor Master, or any Officer having Authority by Law to make Seizures of Ships, and may put on board any Ship so seized or detained any one or more of such Officers to take Charge of the same, and to enforce the Provisions of this Ordinance, and any Officer seizing and detaining any Ship under this Ordinance may use Force, if necessary, for the Purpose of enforcing Seizure or Detention, and if any Person is killed or maimed by Reason of his resisting such Officer in the Execution of his Duties, or any Person acting under his Orders, such Officer so seizing or detaining the Ship, or other Person, shall be freely and fully indemnified as well against the Queen's Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, as against all Persons so killed, maimed, or hurt.\n\nVII. The Governor may, at any Time, release any Ship seized and detained under this Ordinance, on the Owner giving Security to the Satisfaction of the Governor that the Ship shall not be employed contrary to this Ordinance, or may release the Ship without such Security if the Governor thinks fit so to release the same.\n\nVIII. The Owner of the Ship seized and detained under this Ordinance, or his Agent, may apply by Petition to the Supreme Court for its Release.\n\nIX. The Crown Solicitor shall, upon the Seizure of any Ship as aforesaid, cite the Owners thereof by a Notice which may be in the Form contained in the Schedule to this Ordinance, to appear before the Supreme Court to show Cause why the said Ship should not be condemned and forfeited to Her Majesty for Breach of the Provisions of this Ordinance; and in Case there shall be no Owner of the said Ship in the Colony, the said Notice shall be published twice in the Gazette, and such Publication shall be equivalent to personal Service of the Citation.\n\nX. On the Day appointed for the Hearing of any Petition for the Release of the Ship or for the Appearance of the Owners in obedience to a Citation to show Cause why the same should not be forfeited, the Court shall proceed to enquire into the Matter and to make such Orders as may be necessary to put the Matter of the Seizure and Detention of the Ship in course of Trial between the Owner and the Crown, and for such Purpose, may direct the Trial of any Issue of Fact before the Court, either with or without a Jury; and during or before such Proceedings may grant Warrants for the entering and searching of any Premises and the Seizure of any Papers or Documents in such Premises, or may summon any Person to appear before the Court, and to produce any Papers and Documents, and may interrogate such Persons on Oath touching the subject Matter of the Inquiry.\n\nXI. Whenever any Person shall have been convicted before the Supreme Court of an Offence against this Ordinance, the Evidence taken upon the Trial of such Offender shall be received in Evidence, in any Proceedings instituted for the Condemnation or Release of the Ship in respect of which such Offence shall have been committed.\n\nXII. The Fact of a Ship being apparently fitted and equipped, or in course of being fitted and equipped for the Conveyance of Chinese Emigrants without a License from the Governor shall be prima facie Evidence that such Ship is intended for the Conveyance of Chinese Emigrants to be embarked at some Port or Place out of the Colony.\n\nXIII. If on the Proceedings for the Condemnation or Release of a Ship so detained, the Owner establish to the Satisfaction of the Court that the Ship was not and is not being built, altered, repaired or equipped, or intended to be despatched contrary to this Ordinance, the Ship shall be released and restored.\n\nMemorandum by the Attorney General (The Honorable Julian Pauncefote), to accompany the Draft of “The Hongkong Emigration Ordinance, 1873.”\n\nI have been favored by His Excellency the Governor with a copy of the Earl of Kimberley's Despatch No.173 of the 20th November, 1872, enclosing a copy of \"The Kidnapping Act, 1872,\" and recommending the passing of an Ordinance in Hongkong embodying some of its provisions with the view of removing any pretence for the imputation that \"British Subjects in Hongkong partake in and profit by the Macao Coolie Trade.\"\n\nI believe that every British Subject in the Colony, from the Governor down to the humblest resident, will hail such a measure with the greatest satisfaction, and after a perusal of the Earl of Kimberley's Despatch, I applied myself at once to the task of preparing a Draft Bill, or rather a sketch of a Bill, which, if approved of by His Excellency the Governor, it might be desirable to submit to the Secretary of State before introducing the subject to the Legislative Council, in case its provisions should be deemed too stringent or likely to conflict with Treaty obligations.\n\n\"The Kidnapping Act, 1872,\" is most skilfully drawn, and admirably fitted for the suppression of the fearful traffic carried on in the seas adjoining our Australasian Colonies,-and therefore from that Act and the Foreign Enlistment Act (33 & 34 Vic., c.90), most of the Clauses of my Draft Bill are taken.\n\nThe offences of detaining and carrying away by force or fraud any Chinese for the purpose of the Coolie Trade, as will be seen by reference to Section 19 of Ordinance No.12 of 1868, are already provided for by Law and the offender is declared to be guilty of Felony and liable to as severe a punishment as penal servitude for seven years. That enactment, however, appears to apply only to the forcible or fraudulent detention of Chinese for the purpose of Coolie Emigration from this Colony. A perusal of the Hongkong Ordinances relating to Chinese Emigration, must satisfy every one that more stringent laws than those which already exist for the prevention of abuses, in the Colony, can scarcely be devised, and indeed, they are so stringent, that Chinese Emigration under the \"Chinese Passengers' Act, 1855,\" has practically ceased to be carried on in Hongkong, and no case has ever occurred of an offence under Section 19 of Ordinance No.12 of 1868. The efforts of the local Legislature, therefore, can only be usefully directed to the prevention of any participation whatever by British Subjects or other residents of the Colony, in Chinese Emigration from ports or places out of the Colony.\n\nWithout entering into the question as to whether the Laws of Macao for the prevention of abuses in relation to Chinese Emigration are as good as our own Laws on that subject, or whether the Laws of Macao are or are not diligently put in force and carefully administered by the public functionaries of that Colony, it is an incontestable fact that instances of great cruelty and injustice towards the Emigrants after they have left Macao, and especially after their arrival at the port of destination, are constantly brought to light, and it seems to me that the Legislature of this Colony is quite justified in passing a measure to prohibit any person, while within this jurisdiction, from taking any part whatever in promoting a system which is attended with such deplorable results, and which has earned for itself so unenviable a notoriety.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-162 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 292976,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873",
        "page_number": 406,
        "title": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873",
        "content_text": ": threatened the turn affairs had taken as they considered the possibility of a diplomatic embarrassment. Questions arising would be cumbersome to say the least of it, but things having gone so far, I saw no way of avoiding it. I, however, suggested to the Viceroy the expediency of awaiting the results of the action of the Police Court in committing Chen-shu-hsien for trial, as it was only a preliminary step, and possibly no conviction would be obtained in the Supreme Court. I did not say that I believed no conviction would be obtained because I knew that even the best and most enlightened Chinese jurors are inclined to interpret suggestions their own way, but nevertheless, I thought so. And, in another shape, such proved to be the case.\n\nI need do no more than glance at what followed; the copies of the correspondence that ensued fully show it. The Attorney General, having read over the depositions taken in the Magistrate's Court, saw at once that there were no grounds for a Crown prosecution, and Chen-shu-hsien surrendered to his bail and was discharged by proclamation.\n\nThis affair caused me some anxiety, and Chen-shu-hsien returned to Canton. But I took the opportunity of impressing on the Viceroy the mistake made by the officers he had applied to in pushing this case forward against Lo-chu-ping, and the necessity in any future case of sending officers of sufficient rank and authority to ensure respect for their position.\n\nI told him what I had discovered, namely, that Chen-shu-hsien, who had formerly resided in Hongkong, had served as a runner in the Post Office there, and had been taken into the Chinese Police force at Canton as a detective with a view to utilising his knowledge of the colony and its institutions. The first exhibition of it in that line was to retain a lawyer there.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 293890,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-167 - Sir Kennedy - 1874 [1-8]",
        "page_number": 550,
        "title": "CO129-167 - Sir Kennedy - 1874 [1-8]",
        "content_text": "545\n\nAmerican (or any other foreigner) by his Consul at Shanghae, if he were found at that port after committing a crime in this Colony. It seems to me that if a foreigner, or any other person, committed murder or any other crime in Hong Kong, and then escaped to a treaty port, he would be beyond our reach and would be safe; unless upon application to the Chinese Authorities they allowed our officers to apprehend the offender, or seized him and handed him over to our officers. I think, on the other hand, that the American Consul at Shanghae would have a right under the treaty to demand the rendition of an American Criminal who escaped from the Consular jurisdiction and was found in Hong Kong: but it would be the duty of the Governor to strictly carry out the mode of procedure adopted in England - of which perhaps the most important element is that the proof of the crime is submitted to the judicial investigation of a Magistrate, whose certificate of its sufficiency is an indispensable preliminary to the surrender of the fugitive. I would suggest that the case be referred for the opinion of the Law Officers.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-167 - Sir Kennedy - 1874 [1-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295414,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-169 - Others - 1874",
        "page_number": 638,
        "title": "CO129-169 - Others - 1874",
        "content_text": "# ORDINANCE No. 3 of 1874\n## Chinese Emigration\n\n7. The Medical Inspection of Emigrants required to be made after their Embarkation in any Chinese Passenger Ship shall take place at such Time as the Emigration Officer shall appoint.\n\n### Medical Inspection after Embarkation\n[Ibid, Sec. 12.]\n\n8. Any Chinese Medical Practitioner properly qualified to the Satisfaction of the Colonial Surgeon shall be eligible with Approval of the Governor for the Office of Surgeon of a Chinese Passenger Ship within the Terms of Schedule A of \"The Chinese Passengers' Act, 1855.\"\n\n### Chinese Medical Practitioners may be Surgeons of Chinese Passenger Ships\n[Ibid, Sec. 14.]\n\n## Modified Regulations for Voyages of not more than Thirty Days' Duration\n\nVIII. All Ships clearing out or proceeding to Sea upon Voyages of not more than Thirty Days' Duration, shall be subject to the modified Regulations contained in Schedule E of this Ordinance which as regards such Ships shall be substituted for those contained in Schedule A of \"The Chinese Passengers' Act, 1855,\" but nothing in this Section contained shall be deemed to relieve Chinese Passenger Ships from the Operation of the said Act, except so far as the same is by the said Schedule expressly modified.\n\n### Voyages of not more than Thirty Days' Duration\n[See Ord. 8 of 1871.]\n\n2. The Voyages specified in Schedule F to this Ordinance annexed, are hereby declared to be Voyages of not more than Thirty Days' Duration, subject as regards Steamers to the Conditions as to their Rate of Speed and as regards Sailing Vessels to the Conditions as to the Periods of the Year during which the Voyage shall be performed, in the said Schedule respectively expressed and contained.\n\n### Voyages declared to be of not more than Thirty Days' Duration\n[Ibid, Sec. 4.]\n\n3. This Section shall not be construed as affecting any Chinese Passenger Ship which is about to proceed to Sea on a Voyage of not more than Seven Days' Duration.\n\n### Not to affect Ships not within the Chinese Passengers' Act\n\n## Depôts to be provided for the Lodging of Emigrants under Contract of Service\n\nIX. The Owners or Charterers of every Chinese Passenger Ship which is about to convey Emigrants under Contracts of Service shall, as soon as such Ship is laid on for the Conveyance of Emigrants, provide a Depôt or Depôts to be approved of by the Emigration Officer wherein every intending Emigrant by such Ship may lodge as hereinafter provided, and every such Depôt shall be maintained and every Emigrant lodging therein shall be supported at the Expense of such Owners or Charterers.\n\n2. Every intending Emigrant by such Chinese Passenger Ship shall lodge, at the least Three clear Days previously to his Embarkation, in the Depôt provided by the Owners or Charterers of such Ship.\n\n### Emigrants to lodge in Depôt Three clear Days before Embarkation\n[Ibid, Sec. 6.]\n\n3. Every such Depôt as aforesaid shall be under the Supervision of the Emigration Officer who may inspect the same at such Times as he shall think fit, and there shall be at all Times free Ingress and Egress allowed to all Persons to and from such Depôts, from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M.\n\n### Supervision of Depôts\n[Ibid, Sec. 7.]\n\n## Orders in Council relating to Quantity of Water\n\nX. All Orders of Her Majesty the Queen in Council relating to the Quantity of Water to be carried by Passenger Ships having a certain Description of Condensing Apparatus shall apply to Chinese Passenger Ships.\n\n### Orders in Council to apply to Chinese Passenger Ships\n[Ibid, Sec. 15.]\n\n## No Chinese Passenger Ship unless propelled by Steam to clear between April and September\n\nXI. No Chinese Passenger Ship, unless a Vessel propelled by Steam, bound to any Port Westward of the Cape of Good Hope or to any Port in Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, or Tasmania shall be permitted to clear from any Port in the Colony between the Months of April and September inclusive.\n\n### No Chinese Passenger Ship to clear between April and September\n[Ibid, Sec. 16.]\n\n## Unwilling Emigrants\n\nXII. It shall be lawful for the Emigration Officer at any Time when he is satisfied that any Emigrant who is unwilling to leave the Port has been obtained by any Fraud, Violence, or other improper Means, to land such Emigrant and procure him a Passage back to his native Place or that from which he was taken, and also to defray the Cost of his Maintenance whilst awaiting a Return Passage, and all such Expenses with all legal Costs incurred shall be recoverable by the Emigration Officer before any Police Magistrate from the Emigration Passage Broker of the Vessel in which such Emigrant was shipped or intended to be shipped.\n\n2. Whosoever shall unlawfully either by Force or Fraud take away or detain against his Will any Man or Boy with Intent to put him on board a Chinese Passenger Ship and whosoever shall with any such Intent receive, harbor, or enter into any Contract for Foreign Service with any such Man or Boy knowing the same to have been by Force or Fraud taken and obtained as in this Paragraph before mentioned, shall be guilty of Felony and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Seven Years and not less than Three Years, or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years with or without Hard Labor.\n\n### Punishment for improperly obtaining Emigrants\n[Ibid, Sec. 19.]\n\n## Penalties for Breach of Ordinance\n\nXIII. The Owners or Charterers of any Chinese Passenger Ship and any Emigration Passage Broker and any intending Emigrant by a Chinese Passenger Ship and any Master or other Person in Charge of a Chinese Passenger Ship who shall fail to comply with or commit any Breach of the Provisions of Part II...\n\n### Punishment of Persons committing any Breach of Ordinance\n[Ibid, Sec. 21.]",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-169 - Others - 1874.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295635,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 97,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "1\n\nThe Magistrate acted with great energy loyally in capturing and convicting a number of those implicated in this crime.\n\nThe prisoner, for whom the Magistrate justified the committing trial in this colony, ought to have been daring... \n\nThere are many more still at large, and by taking refuge in this decision of the Magistrate, it would appear to afford them practical immunity from punishment for their crime.\n\n6.\n\nThe Despatches of the Secretary of State before adverted to, appear to me sufficient for the guidance of Magistrates and the Law Officers here, and I am of opinion that the evidence taken is sufficient for his rendition, subject (as provided) to the review and decision of the Governor in Executive Council.\n\n7.\n\nI am of opinion that an error has been committed calculated to interrupt the cordial understanding which has hitherto existed between this Government and that of the Viceroy of Canton, as well as to defeat the ends of Justice.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295636,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 98,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "93\n\nThis may be obviated in the future by a distinct instruction to the Presiding Magistrate to submit all cases of rendition with the evidence and his report thereon, for the decision of the Executive Council previous to committing them for trial before the Supreme Court of this Colony.\n\nIn this manner the Governor of the Colony would have the opinion of the Attorney General, and experienced officers in guiding him to a final decision.\n\nI have the honor to be,\nMy Lord,\nYour Lordship's most obedient humble servant,\nGovernor.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295638,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 100,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "## 2.\n\n95 Cu charge of committing murder and piracy on board the British Steamer Spark in August 1874 and who, having been committed for trial to the Supreme Court, although the Chinese Authorities had applied for their rendition, were eventually discharged on their recognisances without trial. The Chinese Viceroy declining to send such witnesses as were under his control. The case is peculiar from the circumstances that the accused were amenable to the laws of both Countries; and I have (as desired by His Excellency) briefly dissected the facts, and distinguished the several questions they involve - These questions are - \n\n1. Assuming the evidence to be sufficient, do the terms of Article LI of the Treaty of Tientsin give to the Chinese an absolute right to the rendition of criminals over whom both Countries have concurrent jurisdiction? If not a matter of right, is it the duty of the Governors in all cases to surrender the accused and always to waive the right of trying them in our Courts?\n\n2. What is the duty of the Magistrate in cases of concurrent jurisdiction?",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295671,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 133,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "1 \n\nAnd dealt with Crime properly against British Law, and not as a crime against Chinese Law; the Magistrate therefore exercised a proper discretion in committing the accused for trial at the Supreme Court of the Colony. \n\nAt the same time I may state to you in opinion that in cases as you observe in which womens' went parasitation may it seem... be desirable in the interests of justice that the Executive should have the power in its discretion to surrender the accused notwithstanding the existence of concurrent jurisdiction; and provided it is quite clear that no injustice will be done to the accused and it may even be expedient to exercise such power where refusal to comply with the wishes of the Chinese Authorities might tend to disturb unnecessarily.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295685,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 147,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "jurisdiction, was committed \n\n$20 bound. \n\nBukish ship. \n\nsiew property dealer \n\nAut \n\nwith \n\nIt \n\nCrime against \n\nBritish Law, and \n\ncrime against Chinese Law; the \n\nthe magistrate therefore exercised proper discretion in committing the accused for trial at the Supreme Court \n\n142 that the Executive should have the power in discretion to surrender the accused notwithstanding the existence of concurrent jurisdiction and it may even be expedient to exercise such power provided it is quite clear that the interests of justice will not be injured and it may be desirable in some cases to comply with the Chinese claim Authorities may tend to \n\n## \nAt the same time, there may be cases where the refusal to comply with the Chinese Authorities may tend to ... DONALD",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 295725,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "page_number": 187,
        "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]",
        "content_text": "The prisoners Chan, A. Tuk, and Kwok, A. Tvoi. Although the case was in the hands of Mr. May, yet I was present on several occasions during the inquiry, and I consulted with him on its various aspects together. Mr. May's action in committing the prisoners was in accordance with my opinion of a Magistrate's duty under the circumstances.\n\nThe facts are briefly these: The British Steamer \"Spark\" left Canton for Macao on the morning of the 22nd August, in the course of her usual daily employment. Her Master was a United States named Brady, and her Crew, one mixed, consisted of Chinese, Portuguese, and Manilamen. When at or near Jan-Keel Island, Latitude 22:34′ N., Longitude 113, 48′ E., a place within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of the Empire of China (Regina V. Anderson, A Law Reps: Crown's Cases Reserved 16: ...).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 296541,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "page_number": 271,
        "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "content_text": "duties imposed upon \n\nhim \n\nImperial Extradition Act \n\nby \n\nthe \n\nbe more \n\nto sever \n\n268 \n\nconvenient \n\nseemly and \n\nthe Judicial from the \n\n1870. \n\nof taking the preliminary ex- \n\nWitnesses in Extradition duty which in England \n\n-amination of \n\nCases \n\na \n\ndevolves \n\non \n\nPolice magistrates. The Imperial Act places \n\nthe Governor of the Colony \n\nin an invidious \n\nand disagreeable \n\nposition. He is called upon \n\nlegal Inquiry \n\nto preside at \n\nand to decide questions between \n\nContending Counsel \n\n& \n\nAttorneys \n\nand in his \"Magisterial\" capacity \n\nhis committal \n\nliable \n\nto be \n\nset \n\naside \n\nby \n\nthe Supreme Court. It would \n\nbe \n\nExecutive functions \n\nin \n\nall \n\nthe \n\nColonies, by conferring on Police Magistrates, as in England, the duty of taking the pre-liminary evidence \n\nand committing the fugitive to prison, \n\nsubject to proceedings by Habeas Corpus before the \n\nhis release; \n\nSupreme Court \n\nfor \n\nand to limit the functions of \n\nthe Governor to the making \n\nthe Requisition to the Magistrate \n\nthe Warrant of apprehension and to the final granting of \n\nand \n\nthe Warrant of \n\nnecessary. \n\nin \n\nExtradition when \n\nThis improvement \n\nthe administration \n\nof Extradition",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 296547,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "page_number": 277,
        "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "content_text": "Extradition Cases arising in the Colonies were facilitated by conferring on the Police Magistrates, as in England, the duty of taking the preliminary evidence and committing the fugitive to prison, subject to proceedings by Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court for his release; and to limit the functions of Governor in regard to the requisition to the magistrate to issue the Warrant of apprehension, and to the final granting of the warrant of Extradition when necessary.\n\nThis improvement in the administration of Extradition Law in Colonies under the Imperial Act 1870 was first introduced by the New Zealand Act 38 Vict. C. 83, a copy of which was transmitted to the Hong Kong Government by Lord Carnarvon, as referred to in the despatch mentioned earlier.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 296759,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "page_number": 489,
        "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "content_text": "485\n\nintercolonial rendition of absconding offenders.\n\n2.\n\nA Chinese bankrupt having it was supposed with Penang exposed absconded from moneyed property on his person belonging to the bankrupt estate, thereby committing a breach of the 421st section of the Penal Code of Penang, a telegram was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Superintendent of Police in Penang on his arrival in Penang requesting arrest upon the arrival of the Surat by which Steamer he was a passenger. Upon the arrival of the Steamer the arrest was made, there being found upon his person amongst other things Bill of Exchange for $1,500 payable to Denny, and the prisoner thereupon taken into custody pending the receipt of the Warrant.\n\nCarnarvon followed from Penang with the Warrant the Superintendent of Police in that Settlement, which under the provision of Act 6 and 7 Vic. Cap. 34 was endorsed by the Person. Judge, Camel here before the Magistrate, who upon hearing the evidence remanded the case pending my orders, there being in his opinion sufficient evidence to have justified the prisoner's committal for trial, had",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 296764,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "page_number": 494,
        "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "content_text": "a draft Bill for\n\n8 for the consideration of\n\nHis Excellency, and transmission to England is approved. It\n\nI may\n\nserve\n\nas the basis of another Bill if the\n\nSecretary of State thinks fit to\n\nentertain the subject.\n\nIt will be noticed that Peracy is\n\nomitted\n\nfrom the schedule. The\n\nomission is intentional, because the\n\nCourt of each Colony would have\n\njurisdiction to\n\ntry Offences, and\n\npersons accused by such offences,\n\nwhen such is the case the offenders\n\nare not\n\nto be tried elsewhere.\n\nI given use for (Signed) John Brereton\n\n14th February 1875.\n\nAttorney General\n\n(True Copy)\n\nActing Colonial Secretary\n\n \n\nA Bill\n\nfor the Better Apprehension of certain Offenders.\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law relating to the\n\nPreamble.\n\napprehension and trial of offenders who are found in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions than those in which the offences were committed Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--\n\n1. This Act may be cited as \"The Absconding Offenders' Act,\n\nShort title.\n\n1876.\"\n\nII. This Act shall not apply to persons who, being charged with\n\nThe Act not\n\nhaving committed offences in one part of the United Kingdom,\n\nto apply to\n\noffenders within\n\nin the United\n\nare in or are suspected to be in another part of the United Kingdom.\n\nKingdom.\n\nIII. Whenever a warrant has been issued in any part of Her\n\nWarrants\n\nMajesty's dominions for the apprehension of any person charged\n\nissued in one\n\nwith one of the crimes described in the schedule to this Act, and\n\npart of Her\n\nsuch person is in, or is suspected of being in any other part of\n\nMajesty's\n\nHer Majesty's dominions, the said warrant may be endorsed in\n\ndominions may\n\nsuch other part of Her Majesty's dominions by the following\n\nbe endorsed in\n\npersons, namely:-\n\nanother.\n\nIn Great Britain, by a Secretary of State;\n\nIn Ireland, by the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant;\n\nAnd in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, by a\n\nJudge of the Superior Court of law therein: Provided it be first proved to him upon oath that the seal or signature to the warrant is the seal or signature of the person whose seal or signature the same purports to be.\n\nAn endorsement shall be sufficient if made in the words\n\nForm of\n\n\"Endorsed under the provisions of the Absconding Offenders'\n\nendorsement.\n\nAct, 1870, or words to the like effect.\n\n\"3\n\nIV. Any warrant so endorsed shall authorize all persons to\n\nWhen endorsed,\n\nwhom it is directed, and all constables and officers of police of the\n\nmay be\n\nplace where it is endorsed, to apprehend any person named in the\n\nexecuted in the\n\nwarrant, and to bring him before any Magistrate having juris-\n\nplace of\n\ndiction to examine and commit offenders for trial in that part of\n\nendorsement.\n\nHer Majesty's dominions.\n\nWhen any such person is brought before him, a Magistrate shall hear the case in the same manner, and shall have the same jurisdiction and powers, as near as may be, as if the person were brought before him charged with an indictable offence committed\n\nin that part of Her Majesty's dominions.\n\nV. If such evidence is produced as would justify the committal\n\nCommittal for\n\ntrial of the prisoner, if the crime of which he is accused had\n\ntrial of accused\n\nbeen committed in that part of Her Majesty's dominions, the\n\nperson.\n\nMagistrate shall commit him to prison there to remain until he be further dealt with under this Act.\n\nother part of\n\nVI. Depositions or statements on oath taken in another part of\n\nDepositions\n\nHer Majesty's dominions, and copies of such depositions or state-\n\ntaken in another\n\nments, may be received in evidence in proceedings under this\n\nHer Majesty's\n\nAct, if authenticated in the manner for the time being provided\n\ndominion\n\nby law, or, if they purport to be certified under the hand of a\n\nreceivable in\n\nJudge or Magistrate, by or before whom the same were taken, to\n\nevidence.\n\nbe the original depositions or statements, or to be true copies thereof, and if they be proved by the oath of some witness to be the original depositions or statements or to be true copies thereof.\n\nVII. Immediately after the committal of any such person, the\n\nInformation of\n\ncommitting Magistrate shall send a copy of the evidence and of\n\ncommittal to\n\nthe said warrant,-\n\nbe given.\n\nIn Great Britain, to a Secretary of State;\n\nIn Ireland, to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant;\n\nAnd in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, to the\n\nGovernor:\n\nAnd the person to whom the said copies are sent may, by warrant\n\nWarrant for\n\nunder his hand and seal, order that the accused be delivered into\n\ndelivery of the\n\nthe custody of some person to be specified in the warrant, and\n\naccused.\n\nthe accused shall be delivered accordingly.\n\nVIII. Any person to whom such warrant is directed may re-\n\nAccused person\n\nceive, hold in custody and convey the accused person into that\n\nmay be con-\n\npart of Her Majesty's dominions in which he is charged with\n\nveyed to the\n\nhaving committed the offence, and may there deliver him to the\n\nplace where\n\nthe custody of the proper authorities.\n\nthe offence was\n\nIf the offender escapes out of any custody to which he is com-\n\ncommitted.\n\nmitted in pursuance of this Act, he may be retaken in the same manner as any person accused of any crime against the laws of that part of Her Majesty's dominions may be retaken upon an\n\nescape.\n\nIX. If an accused person committed to prison under this Act\n\nAccused person\n\nis not conveyed out of that part of Her Majesty's dominions to be\n\nis not conveyed within two months after committal (not reckoning therein the\n\nwithin two\n\ntime actually required to convey him from the prison by the\n\nmonths.\n\nreadiest way out of that part of Her Majesty's dominions),\n\nor,\n\n12968\n\n490",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 296765,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "page_number": 495,
        "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]",
        "content_text": "Requisition may be made by telegraph for apprehension of an accused person.\n\nIf a writ of habeas corpus is issued, within two months after the decision of the Court, upon the return to the writ,--\n\nThen upon application by or on behalf of the accused, and upon proof that reasonable notice of such application was given,\n\nIn Great Britain, to a Secretary of State;\n\nIn Ireland, to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant; and\n\nIn any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, to the Governor,\n\nAnd unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary,\n\nany Judge of the superior Court of law in that part of Her Majesty's dominions may order that the accused be discharged out of custody.\n\nX. If in Great Britain, a Secretary of State,\n\nIn Ireland, the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, or\n\nIn any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, the Governor, makes requisition by telegraph for the apprehension of any person charged with one of the crimes described in the schedule to this Act, and intimates that a warrant has been issued in that part of Her Majesty's dominions for the apprehension of such person, it shall be lawful,-\n\nIn Great Britain, for a Secretary of State,\n\nIn Ireland, for the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, and\n\nIn any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, for the Governor, by order under his hand and seal to signify to a Magistrate that such requisition has been made, and to direct him to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused person.\n\nXI. On receipt of the said order, a Magistrate may issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused, and any Magistrate before whom he is brought, may admit the accused to bail, or remand him to prison there to remain until the aforesaid warrant arrives.\n\nThe Magistrate at the time of remanding the accused shall fix some time which appears to him reasonable with reference to the circumstances of the case, and the accused shall be discharged if the aforesaid warrant do not arrive within the time so fixed:\n\nXII. If any person is conveyed under this Act into that part of Her Majesty's dominions in which he is charged with committing an offence, and he is not indicted for such offence within six months after his arrival, or if upon his trial he is acquitted,\n\nThen in Great Britain, a Secretary of State,\n\nIn Ireland, the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, and\n\nIn any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, the Governor, may, at the request of such person, and if he think fit, cause such person to be sent back free of cost, and with as little delay as possible, to that part of Her Majesty's dominions from which he was so conveyed.\n\nXIII. The Court before which any accused person who has been conveyed into the United Kingdom under this Act, is prosecuted or tried may order payment of the whole or any part of the expenses of apprehending such person and of removing and conveying him from the place of apprehension to the Court.\n\nThe amount of such expenses shall be ascertained by the proper officer of the Court, and he shall make out and deliver to the person entitled thereto an order upon such Treasurer or other officer, as would be by law liable to pay an order by such officer of the Court for any expenses for a prosecution before such Court. Such Treasurer or other officer is hereby required to pay any such order upon sight thereof, and shall be allowed the same in his accounts.\n\nXIV. The forms set forth in the second schedule to this Act, or forms as near thereto as circumstances admit, may be used in all matters to which such forms refer, and when used shall be deemed to be valid and sufficient in law.\n\nXV. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-\n\nThe term \"Secretary of State\" means one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State;\n\nThe term \"Lord Lieutenant\" means the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland;\n\nThe term \"Governor\" means any person or persons administering the Government of any colony, plantation, island, territory, or settlement within Her Majesty's dominions, and includes the Governor of any part of India.\n\nThe term \"Magistrate\" includes any Police Magistrate, Stipendiary Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace, and in Scotland any Sheriff, Sheriff's substitute, or Magistrate.\n\nThe terms \"Indicted,\" \"Indictable\" include proceeding by information.\n\nXVI. The Act passed in the seventh year of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, intituled \"An Act for the better apprehension of certain offenders\" is hereby repealed.\n\nNotwithstanding such repeal, any proceedings commenced under the said Act before the passing of this Act may be continued and carried on to the prosecution and trial of the accused person, and all things done therein in accordance with the terms of the said Act shall be valid.\n\nFIRST SCHEDULE.\n\nThe following list of crimes is to be construed according to the law as it existed at the date of the alleged crime in the place where the accused person is, or is suspected to be, whether by common law or by statute made before or after the passing of this Act:\n\n(1) Murder (including infanticide) and attempt to murder.\n\n(2) Manslaughter.\n\n(3) Counterfeiting or uttering money, uttering or bringing into circulation counterfeit or uttered money.\n\n(4) Forgery, or counterfeiting, or uttering, or uttering what is forged, or counterfeited, or altered; comprehending counterfeiting or falsifications of paper money, bank notes, or other securities, forgery, or other falsification of other public or private documents, likewise the uttering or bringing into circulation, or wilfully using such counterfeited, forged, or falsified papers.\n\n(5) Larceny or embezzlement.\n\n(6) Obtaining money or goods by false pretences.\n\n(7) Crimes against the law of bankruptcy or insolvency.\n\n(8) Fraud committed by a bailee, banker, agent, factor, trustee, or director or member or public officer of any company made criminal by any law for the time being in force.\n\n(9) Rape.\n\n(10) Abduction of minors.\n\n(11) Child stealing or kidnapping.\n\n(12) False imprisonment.\n\n(13) Burglary, or house-breaking, with criminal intent.\n\n(14) Arson.\n\n(15) Robbery with violence.\n\n(16) Threats by letter or otherwise with intent to extort.\n\n(17) Perjury or subornation of perjury.\n\n(18) Malicious injury to property, if the offence be indictable.\n\n(19) Being accessory before or after the fact to any of the aforesaid crimes.\n\nSECOND SCHEDULE.\n\nForm of order of [Secretary of State] to a Magistrate.\n\nTo the Police Magistrate of]\n\nWhereas requisition by telegraph has been made to me, [one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State,] by [Governor of the Colony of\n\nfor the apprehension of charged with having committed the crime of\n\nin the said [Colony of\n\nand intimating that a warrant has been issued in the\n\nfor the apprehension of the said\n\nsaid [Colony of\n\nNow I hereby by this my order under my hand and seal signify to you that such requisition has been made, and require you to issue your warrant for the apprehension of the said if he be found within the limits of your jurisdiction.\n\nGiven under the hand and seal of the undersigned [one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State] this day of 18\n\nForm of warrant of apprehension by order of [Secretary of State.]\n\nTo all and each of the Constables of the Police Force of to wit.\n\nWhereas the Right Honourable one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, by order under his hand and seal, hath signified to me that requisition hath been duly made to him for the apprehension of charged with having committed the crime of late of in the\n\n: This is therefore to command you in Her Majesty's name forthwith to apprehend the said pursuant to \"The Absconding Offenders' Act, 1876,\" wherever he may be found in the [United Kingdom or Isle of Man] and bring him before me or some other Magistrate sitting in this Court, to show cause why he should not be remanded to prison in pursuance of the said \"Absconding Offenders' Act, 1876,\" for which this shall be your warrant.\n\nGiven under my hand and seal at this day of 18\n\nWarrant remanding an accused person.\n\nTo the Constable of and to the keeper of to wit.\n\nWhereas this day was brought before me under \"The Absconding Offenders' Act, 1876,\" for that he is charged with having committed the crime of in the Colony of the said and that a warrant for the apprehension of has been issued in the [said Colony of\n\nand whereas it appears to me to be necessary to remand to prison\n\nThis is therefore to command you, the said constable, in Her Majesty's name forthwith to convey and deliver the body of the said into the custody of the said keeper of the\n\nat on the day of and you the said keeper to receive the said into your custody, and him there safely to keep until the at o'clock in the forenoon of the same day before me or before such other Magistrate as may then be there, to answer further to the said charge and to be further dealt with according to law unless you shall be otherwise ordered in the meantime.\n\nGiven under my hand and seal this day of 18\n\nRecognizance of bail.\n\nBe it remembered, that on A.D. 187. A.B. of C.D. of and E.F. of came before me personally and severally acknowledged themselves to owe to our Lady the Queen the several sums following, that is to say, the said A.B. and the said C.D. and E.F. each of good and lawful money of the sum of to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively to the use of our said Lady the Queen, Her Heirs and Successors, if he the said A.B. fail in the condition indorsed.\n\nTaken and acknowledged the day and year first above mentioned at before me.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 299900,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 230,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "228\n\n[8]\n\n85. The bedding and spare clothing of each prisoner shall be aired at least twice a week, in the open air if practicable, and washed as often as is needful. If sheets or blankets are used, they shall be washed at least once a month, and sheets used by one prisoner shall on no account be used without having been washed by another.\n\n86. Every prisoner convicted of Felony, and every misdemeanant (except 1st class) convicted for the first time, shall be supplied with and constantly wear the ordinary Gaol dress.\n\n87. Every other person confined in the Gaol shall be supplied with clothes if their own is insufficient, or unfit for use, or necessary to be preserved for the purposes of justice.\n\n88. Prisoners convicted for the 2nd and 3rd times, shall wear a parti-coloured dress distinguishing them from other prisoners. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, may wear their own clothes if suitable.\n\n89. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, shall be permitted to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required.\n\n90. The Superintendent may refuse this privilege if he see sufficient reason for so doing, recording the fact and his reasons in his journal (Daily Occurrence Book).\n\n91. A convicted prisoner may see his legal adviser, if a Visiting Justice, or the Sheriff, or one of the Police Magistrates so order.\n\n92. Every person claiming admission as a legal adviser, must be a Lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the authorised European Clerk of such Lawyer accompanied by an Interpreter.\n\n93. The friends and relations of prisoners confined for debt, or prisoners on remand, shall be allowed to see them at reasonable hours, unless the Committing Magistrates, or a Visiting Justice, order to the contrary; in the case of the latter, the Superintendent may withhold the privilege, if he see sufficient reason, recording particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n94. Convicted prisoners may see their relations once in the course of every three months, or in case of sickness, or, should the Superintendent see sufficient reason, oftener recording the fact and all particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n95. Prisoners committed for non-payment of penalties, or want of sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as prisoners on remand, if the object of the visits is to arrange the payment of the penalty, or the procuring of sureties; otherwise, they shall be subject to the same rules in this respect as convicted prisoners.\n\n96. Male and female prisoners shall always be so confined as to prevent the former from seeing, conversing with, or holding any intercourse with the latter.\n\nCLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS.\n\n97. The prisoners (unless in separate confinement), shall be, so far as the accommodation in the Gaol permits, divided into the following classes:-\n\n(1.) Felons under sentence of death.\n\n(2.) All other felons and misdemeanants (not being 1st class) undergoing a sentence under a 1st conviction. Persons confined for want of sureties as dangerous characters.\n\n[9]\n\n(3.) Persons committed to take their trial for felony or misdemeanour.\n\n(4.) 1st class misdemeanants and persons committed on civil process. Persons committed for want of sureties, who have not been before confined in Gaol.\n\n(5.) Prisoners on remand.\n\n(6.) Prisoners convicted a second or third time.\n\n(7.) Debtors.\n\n(8.) Approvers, or prisoners thought likely to turn Queen's evidence.\n\n98. No work shall be done in the Gaol beyond what is necessary on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day.\n\n99. Prisoners of the Jewish persuasion, shall not be compelled to work on Saturdays, if they claim exemption, but shall be kept in separate confinement on that day and on Sunday. They may also keep such other Festival days as may be directed from time to time by His Excellency the Governor.\n\n100. Prisoners committed for trial, or on remand, 1st class misdemeanants, or debtors may send or receive letters at all reasonable times, unless the Committing Magistrate, or a Visiting Justice, order to the contrary, but the Superintendent may withhold such privilege, if he see sufficient cause, recording the reasons and particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n101. Every convicted prisoner may, subject to the same restrictions, be allowed to send and receive one letter in the course of every 6 weeks, or 3 months, but the Superintendent shall read any letter or paper so sent, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless he thinks it necessary to report the same to His Excellency the Governor.\n\n102. Letters addressed to or written by prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or for want of sureties, may be inspected by the Superintendent for good reasons, which shall be recorded in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n103. Letters may be withheld by the Superintendent from or to any prisoner for good reasons, to be reported forthwith to His Excellency the Governor, and to be entered in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n104. Indian prisoners are not to be put to any labour which may really cause them the loss of caste, and, as regards their food, the best possible arrangement is to be made, so that they may not be forced to choose between loss of food and loss of caste.\n\nPRISONERS.\n\n105. Prisoners shall be cleanly in their persons and habits. It is forbidden to prisoners:-\n\nTo disobey the rules of the Gaol.\n\nTo spit except in receptacles provided for the purpose.\n\nTo dirty in any way the cells, rooms, or passages.\n\nTo do any damage wilfully to anything belonging to the Gaol.\n\nTo speak, or make signs, or hold any communication with any other prisoners, except by permission.\n\nTo use indecent language or gestures.\n\nTo be idle, or neglect work.\n\nTo insult, or threaten, or assault any other prisoner, or any Officer.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 299906,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 236,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "and the power to inflict fines \n\ncan only \n\nbe conferred under 'The Crown Lands Ordinance 1876' and 'The Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance 1877' under pain of dismissal by His Excellency. \n\n \n\n9. I disapprove the punishment \n\nRule 90 as to the Superintendent \n\n& refrain from allowing a prisoner accused \n\nExamined a committed prisoner \n\nto see his legal adviser, & the \n\npunishment by \n\nRule 9345 as \n\nCommitting Magistrate \n\nVisiting Justice to forbid a \n\nprisoner in similar case \n\n18. Rule 83 respecting the cutting \n\nof a prisoner's hair is at variance \n\nwith the instructions contained \n\nin my circular despatch of the \n\n22nd of April 1876 \n\n \n\n23rd \n\nthe circular despatch of the \n\n27th/22nd of April Cashquarter(?) \n\n10. You should consult the \n\nAttorney General as to the \n\nvalidity of the power to admin-\n\nister oaths conferred by the \n\n124th section, and if the power \n\neffectually conferred not vitiated by the Rule in(?) \n\nlaw. \n\nbecreated(?) by \n\nto the \n\n// \n\nThe Rules relating \n\nto Tucker's mess, I consider it \n\nfrom seeing \n\nhis friends; and I \n\nhave to request that on \n\nthe(?) taking(?) \n\nof place and should be \n\nremoved. \n\nThere are no rules \n\nin the proposed code as stated",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300016,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 346,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "of Wong a how the third convict with a European Constable in the morning after the robbery and then & there he immediately put his hand on Chan a Cheung, Leung a Fuk, and ... as two of the men who had robbed him on his boat near the Western Slaughter House. Before the Committing Magistrate and in the Supreme Court, the man made the same statement, adding that the second prisoner had presented a pistol at him. This witness had previously known all three prisoners. Two boatmen of this witness each identified the two prisoners very distinctly, being close to them at the time of the robbery under circumstances tending to excite their sharpest observation.\n\nPage 344\n\nAs to the first prisoner, Chan a Chung, his presence at the robbery is unquestioned: but then he alleges that the locus in quo was in Chinese waters beyond a Chinese Island. It is also clear that the third prisoner, Wong a Too, was well convicted as a Receiver. No substantial reason for a contrary view is put forward.\n\nThe only question which can arise upon these three statements is as to Leung a Fuk. Now he and the first prisoner were instantly fixed on by the owner of the junk robbed, out of five or six persons. That he was the second prisoner in question is beyond doubt. There was no reason why he...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300017,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 347,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "345\n\nshould have fixed on Feungafut\n\nmore\n\nother person as the secored\n\nthan on\n\nany robber. Two other men.\n\nidentify him with equal clearness. All three witnesses\n\nmust be perjured if he was not a\n\npartaker in the\n\nin the robbery.\n\nThe contrary\n\nis set up by the first prisoner I can attack no weight to what\n\nhe\n\nsays.\n\nLeung a full himself says before\n\nMr. May that he was at the time of the robbery at a different part of the ...\n\nHarbour but on this he is not.\n\ncorroborated.\n\nHe himself gives two versions\n\nof the circumstances under which he\n\nwas\n\narrested on the morning.\n\nwas\n\nafter the robbery on the premises where some of the Opium. found.\n\nWhen before the committing\n\nMagistrate he reserved his defence - In\n\nthe Supreme Court after stating that at the time of the robbery\n\nhe\n\nwas in\n\na\n\ndifferent part of the harbour at the time of the robbery he said that on the following morning he had gone to the matshed of the third prisoner and was on his return on the hill from it when the Chinese Constable met him asked him to go back to the matshed and then arrested him. a charge of serious misconduct then set up for the only time. In his statement made before Mr. May Ho.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300038,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 368,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "5625\n\n366\n\nAttorney General's Office, 17th March, 1877.\n\nSir,\n\nIn the cases of some soldiers charged with committing offences outside of British Territory in China and which have been sent up for trial to the Supreme Court by the Magistrate I have great doubts as to the jurisdiction of the Court for the trial of offences committed on Chinese territory other than the peninsula of Macao.\n\n2.\n\nHis Excellency the Administrator.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300041,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 371,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "Attorney General's Chamber, Hongkong, 24th March, 1877.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 19th instant relative to the cases of some soldiers charged with committing offences in China outside of British territory.\n\nFrom the depositions taken before the Magistrate in the case of Regina v. Britton it would appear that some of the soldiers stationed at ...\n\nThe Honourable Acting Colonial Secretary,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300049,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 379,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "of complaints would probably pass without enquiry or punishment.\n\nBritish Hongkong is now getting to be very largely populated and, with the increase of local steamers, an increasingly large number of British subjects are constantly resorting to places in China at no great distance from Hongkong.\n\nThere are no Provincial Courts in our immediate neighbourhood and I believe not a single officer of any description belonging to the Supreme Court of China and Japan or a Provincial Court within many miles of us. It therefore seems to me desirable that some further provision should be made for dealing with cases such as those under consideration and I would suggest that it would be advisable to extend the Order in Council either by allowing the Magistrate here to take cognizance of cases occurring within a certain distance of Hongkong in Chinese territory and committing for trial at the Supreme Court of China and Japan or to a Provincial Court as the case may be, and binding over the witnesses to appear thereat; or perhaps the better course would be to enable the Supreme Court of Hongkong to take cognizance...\n\nPage 377",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300085,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 415,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "prisoner.\n\n6.\n\nThis application immediately forwarded to the Magistrates who reported that the prisoner had in consequence been remanded upon the charge of committing crime on Chinese territory and that it would be necessary for the Chinese Authorities to send down witnesses to give evidence as to the alleged crimes.\n\n7.\n\nTwo witnesses having been sent down the Magistrate reported their arrival and requested that as several important questions of international character might arise in their opinion the Attorney General should be obtained before any steps were taken in the investigation.\n\n8.\n\nThis having been done the Attorney General suggested that the case should be gone into at once as the absence of sufficient evidence would cause all proceedings in the Chinese demand for rendition to fall to the ground. He advised however that notice should be given to the Portuguese Consul of the demand made by the Chinese, as in event of their objecting on the ground that the crime was committed in Portuguese Territory we could not decide any such question here.\n\n9.\n\nNotice was accordingly",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 300090,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 420,
        "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "Protection to Magistrate, Gaoler, &c. acting under Warrant.\n\nThis Ordinance\n\nfrom Proclamation of reciprocal Laws of Macao.\n\nORDINANCE No. 13 OF 1870.\n\nHongkong and Macao Extradition.\n\nXVII. If any Action be brought against a Magistrate, Gaoler, Officer of Police, or any other Person for anything done in Obedience to any Warrant or Order issued under the Provisions of this Ordinance, the Proof of such Warrant or Order shall be a sufficient Answer to such Action, and the Defendant or Defendants on such Proof as aforesaid shall be entitled to a Verdict or Judgment in his or their Favor, and shall also be entitled to his or their full Costs of Suit.\n\nXVIII. This Ordinance shall commence and take Effect when to commence and so soon as the Governor shall, by Proclamation in the Gazette, declare that sufficient reciprocal Provision has been made by the Government of Macao for the Apprehension and Surrender to the Government of Hongkong of Offenders escaping to any Place within the Territory of Macao who may be charged with having committed within this Colony, any of the Crimes or Offences in respect of which a Fugitive may be surrendered under this Ordinance.\n\nProvision for\n\nTrial,\n\nXIX. No Fugitive who may be surrendered by the Government of Macao to the Government of Hongkong in pursuance of such reciprocal Provision as aforesaid shall be put upon his Trial or detained within this Colony for any Crime other than the particular Crime for which he may have been surrendered, without having been previously restored or having had an Opportunity of returning to the Colony of Macao.\n\nForms in Second Schedule may be used.\n\nProviso as to Repeal or Suspension of Ordinance, or of any Part thereof.\n\nXX. The Forms given in the Second Schedule to this Ordinance or Forms to the like Effect, with such Variations and Additions as Circumstances require, may be used for the Purposes therein indicated and Instruments in those Forms shall (as regards the Form thereof) be valid and sufficient.\n\nXXI. In Case the Governor in Council shall deem it expedient that this Ordinance or any Part thereof should be repealed or the Operation thereof suspended for any Period, or in Case the Governor of Macao shall notify to the Governor of this Colony his Desire to repeal or suspend for any Period such reciprocal Provision as aforesaid, or any Part thereof, it shall be lawful for the Governor of this Colony by Proclamation in the Gazette to declare that this Ordinance or any Part thereof shall be suspended in its Operation for any Period, or that the same is repealed, and from the Date of the Publication of such Proclamation in the Gazette, the said Ordinance or such Part thereof as may be specified in the Proclamation shall be deemed to be suspended or repealed accordingly.\n\nFIRST SCHEDULE.\n\nLIST OF CRIMES AND OFFENCES.\n\nThe following List of Crimes and Offences is to be construed according to the Law existing in the Colony of Hongkong, at the Date of the alleged Crime or Offence, whether by Common Law or by Imperial Statute or Local Ordinance made before or after the Passing of this Ordinance.\n\nORDINANCE No. 13 OF 1870.\n\nHongkong and Macao Extradition.\n\nMurder, and Attempt and Conspiracy to Murder. Manslaughter.\n\nWounding with Intent to do grievous bodily Harm.\n\nCounterfeiting and altering Money and uttering Counterfeit or altered Money. Forgery, counterfeiting, and altering, and uttering what is forged or counterfeited or altered.\n\nEmbezzlement and Larceny.\n\nUnlawfully receiving stolen Property.\n\nObtaining Money or Goods by false Pretences.\n\nCrimes by Bankrupts against Bankruptcy Law.\n\nFraud by a Bailee, Banker, Agent, Factor, Trustee, or Director, or Member, or Public Officer, of any Company made Criminal by any Law for the Time being in Force.\n\nRape.\n\nAbduction, or Forcible Taking or Detention.\n\nChild Stealing.\n\nBurglary and House-breaking.\n\nArson.\n\nRobbery with Violence.\n\nThreats by Letter or otherwise with Intent to extort.\n\nPiracy by Law of Nations, or Municipal Law.\n\nSinking or destroying a Vessel at Sea, or attempting or conspiring to do so. Assaults on board a Ship on the high Seas with Intent to destroy Life or to do grievous bodily Harm.\n\nRevolt or Conspiracy to revolt by Two or more Persons on board a Ship on the high Seas against the Authority of the Master.\n\nDesertion from the Naval, Military, or Police Forces.\n\nSECOND SCHEDULE.\n\nFORMS.\n\n1.\n\n(Governor's Warrant to Magistrates.)\n\n\"THE HONGKONG AND MACAO EXTRADITION ORDINANCE.\"\n\nBy His Excellency\n\nthis Colony and its Dependencies.\n\nTo .........\n\nGovernor and Commander-in-Chief of\n\nPolice Magistrates.\n\nWhereas Requisition has been duly made to me pursuant to the above Ordinance for the Surrender of one\n\nnow in this Colony charged with having committed the Crime of\n\nwithin the Territory of Macao and with being a Fugitive from Justice.\n\nYou are hereby required to govern yourselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive and in committing him to Gaol for the Purpose of his being delivered up to Justice according to the Provisions of the said Ordinance and for so doing this shall be your Warrant.\n\nGiven under my Hand and the Public Seal of the Colony, at Victoria, Hongkong, this\n\nDay of\n\n18\n\nL.S.\n\nBy Order,\n\nColonial Secretary.\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\nPage 420\n\nPage 421",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 301054,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-179 - Governor Hennessy - 1877 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 182,
        "title": "CO129-179 - Governor Hennessy - 1877 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "13358\n\nwhich I asked the Police Magistrates to consider the necessity of dealing with old offenders as they are dealt with in England and in other parts of the Empire.\n\n2.\n\nI have now the honour to enclose for Your Lordship's information a copy of the memorandum made by the Magistrates on the minute in question, in which they intimate their intention of committing for trial in future all cases of second or subsequent felonies.\n\nI have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Obedient humble servant, Governor\n\nCopy Noted.\n\nstate, they 180 Magistracy. 26th September, 1877.\n\nThe Magistrates beg to will do their best to give effect to what they understand to be His Excellency's policy - viz:- to commit for trial all cases of second or subsequent felonies.\n\n(signed) C. May. Chief Police Magistrate.\n\n(true copy) Smith Acting Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-179 - Governor Hennessy - 1877 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302463,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8]",
        "page_number": 624,
        "title": "CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8]",
        "content_text": "that being given to the fact that so far it was known, Messrs Kernn Nech & Schelbags was a most respectable firm.\n\nThe United States Judge in the case of an assault resulting committed in the open street where a respectable woman was guilty.\n\nA woman from the neighbourhood of bail character named Curtis, the committing magistrate had forwarded to him a petition from her praying to be let off with a fine and three days imprisonment which had been inflicted upon her. The Judge had not the slightest hesitation in complying with this recommendation, as he felt that such assaults in the then streets ought to be dealt with leniently.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302674,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 195,
        "title": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "# POLICE COURT, 20th August, 1862\n\n**SIR**-I have the honour to report, for the information of His Excellency the Administrator of the Government, on the subject of how far, in my opinion, corporal punishment is fitting and needful to the treatment of Chinese offenders in this Colony.\n\nIt is necessary to state some peculiarities with respect to crime, and criminals, and the temptations and facilities for the commission of crime, which distinguishes \"Hongkong\" from most British Colonies, in order to exhibit foundations for the firm opinion I have formed on the subject.\n\n## Enumerated Misdemeanors\n\n1st. The proximity of this Colony to the settlement of Macao, the City of Canton and other large Chinese Cities affords opportunity for a constant influx of the vagabond classes to Hongkong for purposes of plunder. Robbers and other offenders are driven from their native places, and fly to this Colony, where they are unknown, in order to pursue their plundering avocations; the Police have in consequence to cope with an ever-changing class of thieves and vagabonds, who certainly would flourish here in greater numbers if not restricted by the dread of suffering physical pain.\n\n2nd. The general apathy shown by the Chinese Community with regard to the prevention or detection of crime, throws all the burden of that duty on the Police, which, composed as it necessarily is of natives of India and Foreigners unconversant with the Chinese character, gives a wide scope for the commission of offences. In most civilized countries, the public hand is raised to assist in carrying out the law, but unfortunately, it is not so in Hongkong.\n\n3rd. The humane system of English prison discipline, so opposite to the cruel and oppressive character of Chinese gaol management, renders some punishment beyond that of imprisonment a positive necessity to the Colony. It can readily be understood that imprisonment with hard labour in the Gaol of Victoria, wherein the prisoner is better fed, better and cleaner clothed, better lodged and less worked (inasmuch as he has rest on the Sabbath) than the honest artisan or labourer, would scarcely operate as a prevention of crime, and this more especially when such imprisonment carries with it very little of the shame and disgrace attaching to it, as in England; the prisoner comes from Gaol and consorts with his former associates or fellow workmen more as if he had suffered from misfortune than that he had received the due penalty for committing a crime.\n\n4th. The facilities for the commission of robberies is great, as property generally is ill-secured and it is especially necessary to note that women of all classes appear in the streets wearing gold or silver ear-rings, hair ornaments, bangles, &c.; they have no covering for the head and their ornaments are easily detached. The cost of living of a labouring man is about two shillings a week; consequently, the exposure of valuable articles is a great temptation to the labouring classes, the majority of whom are not restrained by any innate principles of integrity, but are honest simply because they fear the punishment for dishonesty; this renders it necessary to have a deterrent punishment, which simply imprisonment most assuredly is not.\n\n5th. It has become known to me from experience, that Chinese offenders have a wholesome dread of flogging, and that imprisonment is not regarded with apprehension. I have often become aware that prisoners would rather have a long term of imprisonment than a much shorter period with the accompaniment of flogging; in fact, corporal punishment is the only efficacious method of restraining crime, especially such offences as robberies from the persons of women, children or drunken persons.\n\n6th. The foregoing remarks apply to felony, and I beg respectfully to express my firm conviction that it is advantageous and necessary for the public weal that Magistrates should have the power of inflicting corporal punishment therein. I am assured that the withdrawal of this power would tend to a great increase of crime and the necessity for an enlarged Gaol.\n\n7th. With regard to misdemeanor, although the Ordinance is wide in its appearance, I am satisfied that in careful hands the power is not too great, especially when it is borne in mind that corporal punishment can only be inflicted for a second offence.\n\n## Specific Offences and their Characteristics\n\n8th. \n| Offence | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| Assaults with lethal weapons in brothels | ... |\n| Keeping or frequenting gaming houses | ... |\n| Exposure of person | ... |\n| Indecent assaults on women | ... |\n| Assaults with intent to rob (especially on drunken Europeans) | ... |\n| Malicious injury to property | ... |\n| Riotous assemblages | ... |\n| Destruction of shrubs and trees on public roads | ... |\n\nAs these enumerated misdemeanors have a particular Chinese character attaching to them, which should be known in order to understand their dangerous significance, I beg to attempt to give a summary of their peculiarities; there are, however, so many strange inconsistencies and anomalies in the Chinese character that it is almost impossible to convey a comprehensive view in a brief form.\n\n9th. There is one characteristic of the Chinese necessary to mention in order to aid the explanation. In all large Chinese communities, there is a class of vagabond significantly termed \"Loe-Kai\" (black legs) or \"Lan-Chi\" (broken means men) who are of irregular life and mostly subsist by their evils; many of them are professional gamblers; they are partisans in quarrels and are supported and tolerated as a necessary evil; they attach themselves to particular localities and engage themselves to defend their own district or class or those that will pay for their services; they are the recognized bullies of the place.\n\n10th. Public gambling is as pregnant of evil to the Chinese as drunkenness is to European communities. It possesses a power of fascination over the Chinese generally, which renders it the greatest of public evil in the Colony. It is the chief inducement to the commission of robbery, leads to frequent riots, and occasionally to loss of life. The keepers of gaming houses carry on their plans in an organized form; they employ touters and doorkeepers and are lavished with funds for bribing Police subordinates or others in order to obtain protection or gain information of intended interference of the law.\n\n11th. Disturbances of Chinese in brothels. It is a custom of Chinese brothels that persons may enter them and be welcomed and supplied with tea and tobacco without expectation of payment. This custom, especially with the vagabond classes mentioned in paragraph 9, is abused to the annoyance of the inmates of the brothels; if not treated with the accustomed civility, these vagabonds proceed to destroy property; a fight results, and much mischief is done before the Police arrive, and unfortunately, those principally implicated generally make their escape.\n\n12th. Indecent exposure of person. The domestic habits of the Chinese are dirty, and in one particular respect indecent. Inasmuch as no convenience of privies is made for other than women in the Chinese dwellings, the men are necessitated to seek necessary accommodation abroad; public privies are in existence, but unless stringent regulations were enforced, the roadside would be considered as a fitting place of convenience, to the readily understood annoyance of all other than native residents.\n\n13th. Riotous assemblage. Feud fights, arising from district or clan feeling, are of annual occurrence, and are most violent and savage in their character; they arise suddenly from trivial causes, frequently having their origin in gambling quarrels; they seem to spread over the entire City almost at the same time, and when quelled by the Police at one quarter, to start up in another; in these fights, all descriptions of weapons and implements are brought into use; wounds are inflicted and occasionally loss of life occurring. There is always difficulty in these cases in obtaining reliable evidence, because of the strong partisan feeling evinced.\n\n## Conclusion\n\nI also respectfully state, for the information of His Excellency, that the Magistrates exercise the power of flogging in a careful and guarded manner, reserving this punishment for the hardened offender or such as are guilty of some violence, brutality or outrage, which distinguishes their cases from the common description of offences, or mode of committing offences.\n\nThere are some misdemeanors, which I beg to indicate, so productive of evil to the community and their suppression so earnestly to be desired, that I look upon the power of inflicting corporal punishment as a great boon to the Colony.\n\nIn conclusion, I respectfully and strongly reiterate the opinion I have hereinbefore expressed, that corporal punishment is absolutely requisite for the well-being of this Colony.\n\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour most obedient Servant,\n**C. MAY, First Police Magistrate**\n\nTo the Honourable W. H. ALEXANDER,\nActing Colonial Secretary. \n## Page 189",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302675,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 196,
        "title": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "# [No. 4.]\n\n## POLICE COURT, HONGKONG, 190\n\nReturn of Public Floggings ordered by the Magistrates, from 1st of June, 1872, to 31st of May, 1877.\n\n4th February, 1863. * SIR,--An Ordinance being now before the Legislative Council to amend Ordinance 6 of 1862, we have the honour to place before you, for submission to His Excellency the Acting Governor, the following observations relating to the said amendment.\n\n1st. The offences of embezzlement and obtaining money or goods by false pretences are not included in the class of offences punishable summarily by the Magistrates, and it not unfrequently occurs that petty cases in which the broad distinction of each offence is clearly marked come under notice and which, it appears to us, would be sufficiently punished by the powers given to the Magistrates. An exception can be made with regard to the more serious class of embezzlements (as excepted in the repealed Petty Sessions Ordinance.)\n\n2nd. The general term \"Larceny\" is used in the amendment, and a question may arise if this term would include compound larcenies as larceny from the person and larceny from the dwelling house.\n\n3rd. It appears especially desirable that similar power should be given to the Magistrates (as is given in England by the Juvenile Offenders Act, 13 and 14 Vic., cap. 37) to award the punishment of flogging to boys under the age of 14 for the offence of larceny, in lieu of or in addition to imprisonment.\n\n4th. It also appears to us that it is eminently desirable that the Magistrates should have the power of awarding the punishment of flogging in addition to imprisonment to male offenders committing larcenies of an aggravated character, as exhibited in letter from this Department `No. 17`, dated 20th August, 1862.\n\n5th. The subject of deportation seems deserving to be brought under consideration. At present deportation of mendicants and persons dangerous to the Colony is effected--the first mentioned under `Ordinance 7 of 1859`, and the second under `Ordinance 8 of 1858`, sec. 21 and `Ordinance 9 of 1857`, sec. 7. Under the repealed `Petty Sessions Ordinance 1 of 1849`, sec. 14, power was given to that Court to deport mendicants and persons convicted of felony, &c.; the provisions of this section very much simplified and facilitated the administration of justice and always worked well. We consider that were the same powers placed in the hands of the Magistrates, it would have a beneficial tendency.\n\nWe have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour most obedient Servants,\n**C. MAY**,\n**Jous C. WHITE**,\n\n## OFFENCES FOR WHICH FLOGGING CAN BE LEGALLY ORDERED.\n\n| Offences | From 1st June, 1872, to 31st May, 1873 | From 1st June, 1873, to 31st May, 1874 | From 1st June, 1874, to 31st May, 1875 | From 1st June, 1875, to 31st May, 1876 | From 1st June, 1876, to 31st May, 1877 | Total Number brought before the Magistrates | Total Number Flogged Publicly |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Assaults at or in connection with riotous assemblages | 13 | 44 | 8 | 48 | 30 |  |  |\n| Assaults, indecent |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Assaults in brothels |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Indecent exposure of person by bathing or otherwise | 1 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 29 |  |  |\n| Malicious injuries to property | 47 | 392 | 31 | 978 |  |  |  |\n| Nuisances, Obeying calls of nature on any way or in any public exposed or other improper place to the annoyance of others |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Assaults with intent to rob |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Fire, for not aiding at, larceny, or any other offence punishable as simple larceny committed by boys | 25 | 48 | 15 | 47 | 22 |  |  |\n| TOTAL | 86 | 295 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  | 68 | 295 | 81 | 987 | 18 |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | 320.00 | 6 |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | 528 | 5 |\n| Yearly Average of Five years |  |  |  |  |  | 28.40 | 0.2 |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | 61.44 | 2.8 |\n| Average Number Flogging |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| from 1st June, 1877, to 31st May, 1878 | 21.60 | 82.20 | 0.4 | 5 | 6.40 |  | 0.2 |\n|  | 3R | 0.08 | 0.2 | 27 | 1 |  | 0.2 |\n|  |  |  |  | 22 | 81 | 1 | 0.2 |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | 114 |  |\n|  | 36.60 | 0.8 | 52 | 61.44 | 2.8 |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  | 028.06 | 5.2 |\n\n* Private Flogging only is authorised by `Ordinance 16 of 1875`.\n\nMagistracy, Hongkong, 23rd July, 1878.\n\n**C. V. CREAGH**,\nActing Police Magistrate.\n\nIt is evident that, judging from the number of cases brought to trial, no increase has taken place.\n\n**C. V. CREAGH**, Acting Police Magistrate.\n\n25th July, 1878.\n\nTo the Honourable **W. H. ALEXANDER**,\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\n## [No. 30.]\n\n## Police Magistrates [No. 164.]\n\n## MAGISTRACY, HONGKONG,\n8th July, 1878.\n\nSIR--In reference to your letter of the 30th May last, I have the honour to enclose, for the information of His Excellency the Governor, a table shewing the total number of offences for which the Magistrates are empowered to flog, which have been adjudicated upon during the last three years in this Court, and also the number of cases in which Public Flogging formed part of the sentence.\n\nThe last two columns of the return shew the total number of such offences brought to trial during the first half of 1877, while Public Flogging was still in force, compared with the total for the corresponding months of the present year, after its discontinuance.\n\nThe total of the first of these being 96, compared with 92 the total for the first half of the present year, it is evident that, judging from the records of this Court, no increase has taken place in the crimes referred to, since the abolition of Public Flogging.\n\nThe Honourable **J. M. PRICE**,\nActing Colonial Secretary,\n&c., &c.\n\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour most obedient Servant,\n**C. V. CREAGH**, Acting Police Magistrate.\n\n## VICTORIA, HONGKONG, 18th July, 1878.\n\nSIR--In reply to your letter `No. 331` of 30th April, 1878, I have the honour to forward a return of certain offences reported to the Police from June 1st, 1874, to May 31st, 1877, and from June 1st, 1877, to May 31st, 1878; the punishment for which might be Public Flogging.\n\n2. `Ordinance 12 of 1865` authorises the Supreme Court to order the Public or Private Flogging of any male person convicted of a crime, who at the time of the committal thereof shall have been armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or who at the time of or immediately after the commission thereof shall have wounded, beat, struck, or used any personal violence to any other person, or who shall at any of the times aforesaid by any means whatsoever have attempted to render any person insensible, unconscious, or incapable of resistance.\n\n3. The returns of this Department are not made out with reference to the punishment, actual or possible, of offenders; but are confined to the mention of the alleged crime and the fact of the conviction first reported to the Police, and when afterwards investigated at the Courts, often differ materially. To make up the return now called for has involved the perusal of some 9,000 pages of manuscript daily reports.\n\n4. Besides the offences subject to the provisions of `Ordinance 12 of 1865`, Public Flogging can be inflicted for kidnapping children, but as only males can be flogged, and this is an offence in which women often are culprits, it is obviously impossible to say, when no arrest has been made, whether or not the offender was liable to Public Flogging. I have therefore omitted cases of this class.\n\n5. Similarly with regard to cases committed a second time or under aggravated circumstances, for which `Ordinance 15 of 1875`, § VII, authorises a Magistrate to order Public Flogging, viz.:-\n(a.) Indecent assault.\n(b) Indecent exposure of person.\n(c.) Assault with intent to rob.\n(d.) Common assault committed in a brothel.\n(e.) Common assault committed at or in connection with any riotous assembly.\nMalicious injury of property.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302724,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 246,
        "title": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "# Proceedings of the Legislative Council\n\nThe total of ships entered into the two import-aut colonies of South Australia and Western Australia put together are actually less than the increase we have made this year. In truth, gentlemen, when I compare the position of this Colony with that of other colonies, and especially when I remember—and we are bound to do that, I think, in fairness—that in the nine months to which I have been referring, and of which I have the authentic returns now before me, it may be said that our prosperity is due to no real activity of trade in the United Kingdom or India, we surely have the utmost cause for satisfaction. In the United Kingdom during that period, there has been great depression. In India, we have had during the same period great mercantile uncertainty, an uncertainty that still continues. In China itself, we have had a severe and desolating famine, and even down to the Kwang-tung province, which this Colony adjoins, there has been during the same period unexampled and severe distress. Therefore, it is some satisfaction to me to-day in making to you this preliminary financial statement—sketching out to you the proposals I may have the honour to submit to you, I hope at the usual time next month—to know that in the history of this Colony, no Governor was ever before able to put before his Council such indisputable proofs of growing, steady, and safe prosperity as the facts that you have before you to-day. And, gentlemen, knowing that, I have every confidence that you will assist me cordially in dealing with the finances next month in such a way as to effect for the taxpayers of this Colony a considerable reduction. It will be our duty, no doubt, to maintain our revenue at a safe figure, and I would throw out to my unofficial friends this for consideration, that something like $900,000 a year ought at present to answer for all the requirements of the Colony. If you agree with me that we ought to determine our revenue this year at something like that figure, then you will at once see the feasibility of our making some considerable reductions of revenue; and this point, of course, we shall bear in mind in doing so, namely, that if we stimulate the opium farm, and if we gain much increase of revenue from the spirit farm, we ought at once to reduce taxation upon those who are producing the wealth of the Colony. The native junk trade, of course, is employed in producing the wealth of the Colony, but every householder here, every poor Portuguese clerk who works away with his pen in a merchant's office, is producing wealth by his labour, and I think it hard we should be deriving from the householders here such an exorbitant taxation as we have been doing. Therefore, gentlemen, in the sketch I have ventured to put before you, I have indicated on the one hand the exact state of the finances; you see how prosperous they are; I have also told you frankly the general idea I have of how we should deal with them, and when next November I submit my schemes to you more in detail, I shall look forward with confidence to receiving your support.—(Applause.)\n\nHon. P. RYRIE asked His Excellency if, in the estimate he had made of the expenditure for the end of the year, he had taken the full amount voted for the different departments, because he had been given to understand occasionally some of the departments did not spend the amounts voted. For instance, the Police sometimes did not spend the entire amount voted, and he would ask if in his estimate His Excellency had taken the full amount voted or only the amount actually expended.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY said he had only taken the actual expenditure of the nine months. It sometimes happened, indeed, it almost invariably happened, that a little more was voted than was required during the year, so that in almost every case there remained a small amount to be spent, but speaking generally, he could say that for the ensuing portion of this year, the expenditure would be in the same proportion it had been. He had not the figures before him, but there were some items which appeared in the estimates last year, some of which no expenditure whatever had been incurred. For instance, one for which his hon. friends, the unofficial members, kindly supported the vote, still he knew they entertained some little doubt about, and that was the item for a time ball. A considerable sum was voted for the establishment of an observatory and time ball, but hon. members entertained a little doubt about it, and accordingly, his hon. friend the Surveyor-General had not spent one farthing of that vote for an observatory. From time to time, as his hon. friend was aware, the Finance Committee had voted certain sums. These were all included.\n\nHon. P. RYRIE—They are supplementary.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY—They are supplementary, but they are included and appear in the statement submitted to me by the Treasurer. Sometimes money has to be spent immediately; for instance, after that heavy rainstorm, my hon. friend the Surveyor-General had to set to work immediately, and the Finance Committee then dealt with it.\n\nHon. P. RYRIE said that with regard to the Police rate, it was during the time of General Bunker that it was eleven per cent., and when he was superseded, it was put up.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY said that was so.\n\n## REFRACTORY PRISONERS\n\nHis EXCELLENCY moved the second reading of an Ordinance to amend Ordinance 4 of 1863.\n\nThe object of the Bill is to remove doubts as to whether punishments for breach of regulations or of prison discipline can be carried out after the expiration of the term for which the offender was originally sentenced. The Bill provides that such punishments can be carried out as if the original sentence had not expired.\n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was one point that might be raised with regard to the Bill, and that was that it made provision only for carrying out the sentence that was inflicted during the time the prisoner was under the sentence of some court or magistrate, but it had struck him it might happen that the prisoner was again refractory while undergoing his additional sentence. The Bill was brought in to prevent a system adopted by prisoners, whose term of their imprisonment was just about to expire, of becoming insubordinate and abusive, and it was thought there was no authority to keep them in prison after the expiration of the sentence. This Bill was therefore introduced to remove doubts, and authorised the prisoner being kept in gaol for any time to receive punishment under Ordinance 4 of 1863. But hon. members would observe that it only dealt with the sentence inflicted by the Visiting Justices while the prisoner was undergoing his original sentence. It was possible they might get hold of a refractory prisoner, who, at the expiration of the punishment imposed by the Visiting Justices, would be again insubordinate. The Bill might be referred to a Select Committee.\n\nThe ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY said that, subject to the correction of his hon. friend, and to make the object of the Ordinance quite clear, he might say there was a great difficulty indeed when men were under sentence in bringing them before a magistrate, so that after committing some breach of prison discipline, there was no means of punishment. They could not be punished in gaol because their time was just expiring, nor could they be brought before a magistrate because they were under gaol discipline at that time. There had been one or two cases of that kind, and it was believed the magistrate had no power in them. Therefore, the position of the Superintendent was particularly annoying, because the conduct of these men showed to others how far they might go without committing themselves.\n\nThe ACTING CHIEF-JUSTICE suggested that Ordinance 4 of 1863, which this Ordinance was to amend, might be repealed altogether. The Gaol Commission, which he had the honour to sit upon some time ago, recommended that that Ordinance should be altered, and perhaps a new Ordinance drawn up. If this course were adopted, then the provision the Attorney-General suggested might be made in the new Bill.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY—Gentlemen, I think that is a most admirable suggestion of His Honour the Chief Justice. There is no doubt the Commission has pointed out the fact that our present Ordinance is defective. The time has come when it ought to be remodelled, and I agree with the Attorney-General that we might refer this little Bill to a Select Committee, and perhaps at the same time, it would be proper to ask the Committee to consider the propriety of dealing with Ordinance 4 of 1863. Therefore, with your permission, I will refer this Bill. I hope, however, the Committee will get through with it as quickly as possible. The cases it applies to do not occur very often, but still they do occur. A prisoner gets three months; the very day he is released, he commits an offence, and we have no means of dealing with it. Therefore, I should like the Committee to pass it rapidly through, and perhaps also to deal as rapidly as possible with Ordinance 4 of 1863.\n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the difficulty he had referred to struck him in reading...\n\nPage 233",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302742,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 264,
        "title": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "# [No. 40.]\n## His Excellency Governor Sir Arthur Kennedy, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 28th February, 1877.\n\nMY LORD,-With reference to your Lordship's Despatch No. 100 of the 29th July, 1876, I have the satisfaction of being able, on the eve of my departure, to inform your Lordship that the questions connected with the discipline and dietary of Victoria Gaol, Hongkong, have at length been satisfactorily settled, and put, I trust, upon a basis which will eventually result in a material decrease in its inmates. The long delay which has taken place not only in the preparation of the report, but in the final adoption of the regulations and dietary scale, has been owing to the thorough and exhaustive manner in which the Commission prosecuted its enquiries in the first instance, and to the desire by which the Executive was animated to allow every variety of opinion in matters of detail to be thoroughly ventilated and weighed before finally reducing to a system the suggestions recommended by individual members of the Commission.\n\n7. With regard to the proposed Regulations, I have to observe that the power given by the 7th Regulation to the Superintendent to put his subordinates in irons appears to me wholly illegal, and the infliction of fines can only be enforced under pain of dismissal.\n\n8. Rule 83, respecting the cutting of women's hair is at variance with the instructions conveyed in my Circular Despatch of the 22nd of April, 1876.\n\n9. I disapprove the power given by Rule 90 to the Superintendent to refuse to allow a prisoner under remand or committed for trial to see his legal adviser, and the power given by Rule 93 to a Committing Magistrate or Visiting Justice to forbid a prisoner in similar circumstances from seeing his friends; and I have to refer you on this subject to my Circular Despatch of the 27th of April last year.\n\n10. You should consult the Attorney General as to the validity of the power to administer oaths conferred by the 124th Section, and if the power is not effectually conferred by the Rule it should be created by law.\n\n11. The Rules relating to the Turnkey's mess, I consider are out of place and should be removed. There are no rules in the proposed Code as to labour. This important omission should be supplied.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nWith these remarks I will leave the report of the Commission, together with the evidence taken by it, and the code of regulations and scale of dietary finally adopted by the Executive in your Lordship's hands.\n\nThe Right Honourable The EARL OF CARNARVON, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.\n\nA. E. KENNEDY, Governor.\n\n## [No. 57a.]\n### The Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon to His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G.\n\nCARNARVON.\n\nDOWNING STREET, 28th May, 1877.\n\nSIR,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. AUSTIN'S Despatch No. 62 of the 28th of March, respecting the Report of the Prison Commission. *The Report of the Commission, together with the Regulations and Dietary Scale as approved by the Executive, appeared in the Government Gazette of 10th March, 1877, Vol. XXIII, p. 116.\n\n## [No. 45.]\n### The Right Honourable The Earl of Carnarvon to His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G.\n\nDOWNING STREET, 7th May, 1877.\n\n2. You will gather from my Despatch No. 45 of the 7th of May, that as regards the discipline and dietary of the Victoria Gaol, it is my desire that more should be done than merely \"remedying\" such defects in detail as were incidentally brought to light, and as were capable of immediate \"amendment.\"\n\n3. My desire is that you should take into your early consideration the whole question of Prison Discipline on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, with the modifications indicated in my Despatch No. 45 of the 7th ultimo.\n\n4. With reference to Mr. AUSTIN's request that I would procure for the Government of Hongkong information relative to the use of Cranks, I have directed the Crown Agents to obtain such information, which will be forwarded to you by an early opportunity.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nGovernor HENNESSY, C.M.G.\n\n2. I do not gather from Sir ARTHUR KENNEDY'S Despatch what action the Hongkong Government has taken in regard to the Code of Regulations which has been drawn up by the Commission. I shall assume that those Regulations have not yet been promulgated and that it is therefore open to me to comment on them fully with a view to their amendment before promulgation.\n\n&c., &c., &c.\n\nCARNARVON.\n\n## [No. 72.]\n### The Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon to His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G.\n\nDOWNING STREET, 20th June, 1877.\n\nSIR,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. AUSTIN's Despatch, No. 75, of the 11th of April, respecting certain matters of Prison Discipline.\n\n2. I rely on you to review the whole question of Prison Discipline in Hongkong; and to make such proposals as will place the system upon a sound basis for the future.\n\n3. In the letter from the Acting Colonial Secretary, which forms the enclosure to Mr. AUSTIN'S Despatch, I observe a direction that the practice is to be discontinued of Turnkeys employing prisoners to cook their meals for them and act as their body servants, \"when their quarters are so situated as to necessitate the prisoners passing outside of the office gates whereby they are enabled to communicate with the outside world.\"\n\n4. I am not disposed to disagree with the criticisms of the Committee on the subject of Prison Labour, and, as at present advised, I concur in their recommendation that the eight cranks now in store should be put up and made use of.\n\n5. If it is thought desirable to introduce a tread-wheel, one can be procured through the Crown Agents, and sent out to the Colony, with instructions how to put it together and use it.\n\n4. I do not know whether any Turnkeys have their quarters within the office gates. If there are any such, then under this letter they may continue to employ prisoners as their cooks and body servants. I consider that they should not be in any better position than those residing beyond the office gates, and should provide for their wants at their own expense. If your experience of climate suggests that it would be expedient to provide them with this assistance from public sources, the boon should be applied equally to Turnkeys residing beyond the office gates, and in some form less objectionable on grounds of discipline than prison labour.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n6. The Committee seem to have considered the question of the reconstruction of the Gaol upon the separate system beyond the scope of their enquiries, though expressing an opinion in favour of the plan.\n\nI consider the separate system to be the only true basis of Prison Discipline, and among Chinese prisoners there are very special reasons for its adoption. It is mentioned in the Report that few of the Warders know Chinese, and the terrible outbreak in the Singapore Prison is a warning of the danger of affording Chinese prisoners an opportunity to combine. I have to request that you at once call on the Surveyor General to draw out plans for consideration showing the alterations that would be requisite and the surrounding ground and buildings,\n\n&c., &c., &c.\n\nCARNARVON.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 302914,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 436,
        "title": "CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "# After what you once said...\n\nThe marry belonging to Lyall still is. But replies will not be forthcoming. I with... sake upon anzelf to give sanction endorsed on the margin of the written... allow information to proceedings being instituted, although I fear that Magistrate might require further particulars before granting a warrant.\n\nI also said \"But I do not quite understand what is proposed, or have the issue of a warrant.\" Warrant will prevent Mr. Huffam committing suicide. M. Quander also said and said more than have told me I must take actions at any risk or I could not be doing my duty.\n\nW. Wotton said \"I have reason to know that he has been contemplating suicide, but up to the present moment he has not been able to muster sufficient determination to do so, and he has been well watched by Mr. Haffam. If a bailiff or policeman were to interfere with him before... I think that it might give him sufficient courage to carry out his purposes.\"\n\n\"What should propose,\" continued M. Wotton, \"would be that the first Justice should send Mr. Saunderson up to see Mr. Sheffard, with instructions not to lose sight of him and to tell him that they wished to see him for a short time. I have no doubt,\" continued M. Wotton, \"that Mr. Saunderson could easily persuade... \n\n425 \n...Sheffard has been contemplating suicide but up to the present moment he has not been able to muster sufficient determination to do so...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 303423,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 15,
        "title": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "# THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 19TH OCTOBER, 1878.\n\n## Governor Hennessy, C.M.G., to the Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon\n\n494\n\n7. With regard to the proposed Regulations, I have to observe that the power given by the 7th Regulation to the Superintendent to put his subordinates in irons appears to me wholly illegal, and the infliction of fines can only be enforced under pain of dismissal.\n\n8. Rule 83, respecting the cutting of women's hair is at variance with the instructions conveyed in my Circular Despatch of the 22nd of April, 1876.\n\n9. I disapprove the power given by Rule 90 to the Superintendent to refuse to allow a prisoner under remand or committed for trial to see his legal adviser, and the power given by Rule 93 to a Committing Magistrate or Visiting Justice to forbid a prisoner in similar circumstances from seeing his friends; and I have to refer you on this subject to my Circular Despatch of the 27th of April last year.\n\n10. You should consult the Attorney General as to the validity of the power to administer oaths conferred by the 124th Section, and if the power is not effectually conferred by the Rule it should be created by law.\n\n11. The Rules relating to the Turnkey's mess, I consider are out of place and should be removed. There are no rules in the proposed Code as to labour. This important omission should be supplied.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n**Governor HENNESSY, C.M.G.,**\n\n[No. 57A.]\n\nThe Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon to His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G.\n\n**CARNARVON.**\n\nDOWNING STREET,\n28th May, 1877.\n\nSIR-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. AUSTIN'S Despatch No. 62 of the 28th of March, respecting the Report of the Prison Commission.\n\n2. You will gather from my Despatch No. 45 of the 7th of May, that as regards the discipline and dietary of the Victoria Gaol, it is my desire that more should be done than merely \"remedying\" such defects in detail as were incidentally brought to light, and as were capable of immediate \"amendment.\"\n\n3. My desire is that you should take into your early consideration the whole question of Prison Discipline on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, with the modifications indicated in my Despatch No. 45 of the 7th ultimo.\n\n4. With reference to Mr. Austin's request that I would procure for the Government of Hongkong information relative to the use of Cranks, I have directed the Crown Agents to obtain such information, which will be forwarded to you by an early opportunity.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n**CARNARVON.**\n\n[No. 117.]\n\n## THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 19TH OCTOBER, 1878.\n\n## His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G., to the Right Honourable The Earl of Carnarvon.\n\n495\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG,\n15th September, 1877.\n\nMY LORD, I have from time to time furnished your Lordship with information showing that the Gaol is not as efficient an instrument in the suppression of crime as it ought to be, and I have also pointed to what seems to me a grave error in the Administration of Justice, that is, the imposition of repeated Short sentences on old offenders.\n\nBut whilst I hope, in course of time, to make some reforms in those two subjects, there is a third element in the suppression of crime with respect to which I venture to ask for your Lordship's assistance: I mean the establishment of a system of transportation.\n\nIn the year 1857, Sir JOHN BOWRING was authorized to transport to Labuan sixty of the worst class of Hongkong criminals. Soon after I arrived at Labuan I applied to the Secretary of State for permission to get a hundred convicts from Singapore. With Sir HARRY ORD's co-operation this was done; and I found the comparatively large number of Chinese convicts I then had to deal with could be managed without much difficulty, and that their work was most beneficial to Labuan. The large wharf in the Harbour alongside of which steamers can take in coal, the fish market, the beginning of the railway to Tanjong Kubong, the heaviest part of the overground work at the colliery, the drainage of the land where I put the barracks of the new armed Police Force, all these things were done by the Hongkong and Singapore convicts.\n\nOn the other hand, the arrangement was of manifest advantage at the moment to Hongkong and Singapore. But as the system was not kept up, its benefit to the two larger Colonies soon ceased.\n\nWhat I now propose is that your Lordship should authorize me to arrange with the Governor of Labuan the transportation from time to time of convicts from Hongkong.\n\nTo save time, I have written to Governor USHER asking him to consider the question and lay his views before your Lordship. I have the honour to enclose a copy of the letter I have addressed to him. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice SNOWDEN, the Members of my Executive Council and the un-official Members of the Legislative Council, all approve of the idea, and agree in thinking that the transportation from time to time of our worst criminals to Labuan would do more than anything else to put a check to the increase of crime in Hongkong.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nThe Right Honourable The EARL OF CARNARVON,\nHer Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,\n&c.,\n&c.\n\n**J. POPE HENNESSY, Governor.**\n\n## His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G., to the Right Honourable The Earl of Carnarvon.\n\n[No. 72.]\n\nThe Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon to His Excellency Governor Pope Hennessy, C.M.G.\n\nDOWNING STREET,\n20th June, 1877.\n\nSIR,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. AUSTIN's Despatch, No. 75, of the 11th of April, respecting certain matters of Prison Discipline.\n\n2. I rely on you to review the whole question of Prison Discipline in Hongkong; and to make such proposals as will place the system upon a sound basis for the future.\n\n3. In the letter from the Acting Colonial Secretary, which forms the enclosure to Mr. AUSTIN's Despatch, I observe a direction that the practice is to be discontinued of Turnkeys employing prisoners to cook their meals for them and act as their body servants, \"when their quarters are so situated as to necessitate the prisoners passing outside of the office gates whereby they are enabled to communicate with the outside world.\"\n\n4. I do not know whether any Turnkeys have their quarters within the office gates. If there are any such, then under this letter they may continue to employ prisoners as their cooks and body servants. I consider that they should not be in any better position than those residing beyond the office gates, and should provide for their wants at their own expense. If your experience of climate suggests that it would be expedient to provide them with this assistance from public sources, the boon should be applied equally to Turnkeys residing beyond the office gates, and in some form less objectionable on grounds of discipline than prison labour.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\n**CARNARVON.**\n\n[No. 121.]\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG,\n21st September, 1877.\n\nMY LORD-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt to-day of a Telegraphic Despatch from Your Lordship in the following terms --\n\n\"Twentieth, Governor (of) Labuan reports arrangements for despatch of Coolies from Hongkong. Grant all proper facilities.\"\n\nIn reference to this subject I beg to lay before your Lordship copies of the correspondence which has already passed, by which your Lordship will observe that I had long since given instructions that everything should be done in Hongkong to facilitate the despatch of Coolies to work the coal mines in Labuan.\n\nThere is also however another method of assisting the Government of Labuan in developing the natural resources of that Colony, and to this I have referred in my Despatch No. 117 of 15th instant in which I have requested your Lordship to sanction the transportation of Hongkong Chinese Convicts to Labuan. Judging from past experience there can be no doubt that the interests of both Colonies would be promoted by such an arrangement.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nThe Right Honourable The EARL OF CARNARVON,\nHer Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,\n&c.,\n&c.\n\n**J. POPE HENNESSY, Governor.**",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 304180,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12]",
        "page_number": 125,
        "title": "CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12]",
        "content_text": "## 124\n\n### No Officer under this Ordinance to act as Advocate, &c.\n\nIV. No Officer or Clerk of the said Supreme Court in its Probate Jurisdiction shall during the Time of his holding such Office directly or indirectly practice as an **Advocate**, **Barrister**, **Proctor**, **Solicitor**, or **Attorney**, or receive or participate in the Fees of any other Person so practising.\n\n### Seal of Court to be provided.\n\nV. The Judge shall cause a Seal to be made for the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction and may cause the same from Time to Time to be broken, altered, and renewed at his Discretion; and all Probates, Letters of Administration, Orders and other Instruments, and Exemplifications and Copies thereof, respectively, purporting to be sealed with such Seal shall be received in evidence without further Proof thereof.\n\n### Power to examine witnesses.\n\nVI. The said Court may require the Attendance of any Party in Person, or of any Person whom it may think fit to examine or cause to be examined in any Suit or other Proceedings in respect of Matters or Causes Testamentary, and may examine or cause to be examined upon Oath, Declaration or Affirmation, as the Case may require Parties and Witnesses by Word of Mouth and may, either before or after or with or without such Examination cause them or any of them to be examined on Interrogatories, or receive their or any of their Affidavits, Declarations or solemn Affirmations, as the case may be: And the Court may by Writ require such Attendance, and order to be produced before itself or otherwise any Deeds, Evidences, or Writings, in the same Form, as nearly as may be as that in which a Writ of Subpoena ad testificandum or of Subpœna duces tecum, is now issued by the said Court in its Common Law Jurisdiction, and every Person disobeying any such Writ shall be considered as in Contempt of the Court and also be liable to forfeit a Sum not exceeding One Hundred Pounds.\n\n### Power to enforce Orders.\n\nVII. The said Court shall have the like Powers, Jurisdiction, and Authority for enforcing the Attendance of Persons required by it as aforesaid, and for punishing Persons failing, neglecting, or refusing to produce Deeds, Evidences, or Writings, or refusing to appear or to be sworn or make Affirmation or Declaration or to give Evidence, or guilty of Contempt, and generally for enforcing all Orders, Decrees, and Judgments made or given by the Court under this Ordinance and otherwise in relation to the Matters to be inquired into and done by or under the Orders of the Court under this Ordinance as are by Law vested in the said Supreme Court for such Purposes in relation to any Suit or Matter depending in the said Court in its Equitable or Common Law Jurisdiction.\n\n### Order to produce any Instrument purporting to be Testamentary.\n\nVIII. The said Court may, on Motion or Petition, or otherwise, in a summary Way, whether any Suit or other Proceeding shall or shall not be pending in the Court with respect to any Probate or Administration, order any Person to produce and bring into the Registry, or otherwise as the Court may direct, any Paper or Writing being or purporting to be Testamentary, which may be shown to be in the Possession or under the Control of such Person: And if it be not shown that any such Paper or Writing is in the Possession or under the Control of such Person, but it shall appear that there are reasonable Grounds for believing that he has the knowledge of any such Paper or Writing, the Court may direct such Person to attend for the Purpose of being examined in open Court, or upon Interrogatories respecting the same, and such Person shall be bound to answer such Questions or Interrogatories, and, if so ordered, to produce and bring in such Paper or Writing, and shall be subject to the like Process of Contempt in case of Default in not attending or in not answering such Questions or Interrogatories, or not bringing in such Paper or Writing, as he would have been subject to in case he had been a Party to a Suit in the Court and had made such Default; and the Costs of such Motion, Petition, or other Proceeding shall be in the Discretion of the Court.\n\n### Registrar, &c. to have Power to administer Oaths.\n\nIX. The Registrar and any other Persons whom the Judge shall, under the Seal of the Court, from Time to Time appoint shall respectively have full power to administer Oaths and Declarations and perform such other Duties in reference to Matters and Causes Testamentary as may be assigned to them from Time to Time by any Rules and Orders under this Ordinance and the Commissioners for taking Oaths in the said Court in its Common Law and Equitable Jurisdiction shall be Commissioners for taking Oaths and Declarations in the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction.\n\n### Affidavits, &c. before whom to be made when Persons making them reside in Foreign Parts.\n\nX. In Cases where it is necessary to obtain Affidavits, Declarations, or Affirmations to be used in the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction from Persons residing in Foreign Parts the same may be sworn, declared, or affirmed before the Persons empowered to administer Oaths under the Act of the `6th Geo. IV. c. 87` or under the Act of the `18th and 19th Vict. c. 42`: Provided that in places where there are no such Persons as are mentioned in the said Acts, such Affidavits, Declarations, or Affirmations may be made, declared, and affirmed before any Foreign local Magistrate or other Person having Authority to administer an Oath.\n\n### Affidavits made in British Dominions before whom to be sworn.\n\nXI. Affidavits, Declarations, and Affirmations to be used in the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction may be sworn, made, and taken in any Place out of the Colony of Hongkong under the Dominion of Her Majesty before any Court, Judge, Notary Public, or Person lawfully authorised to administer Oaths in such Place: And all Officers of the said Court shall take judicial Notice of the Seal or Signature, as the Case may be, of any such Court, Judge, Notary Public, or Person which shall be attached, suspended, or subscribed to any such Affidavit, Declaration, or Affirmation or to any other Document.\n\n### Penalty on forging or counterfeiting Seals or Signature.\n\nXII. If any Person forge the Signature of any Registrar or Commissioner for taking Oaths or forge or counterfeit any Seal of the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction or forge or counterfeit any such Seal or Signature as in the last preceding Section is mentioned or any Seal or Signature impressed, affixed, or subscribed under the Provisions of the said Act of the `6th Geo. IV. cap. 87` or the `18th and 19th Vict. cap. 42` to any Affidavit, Declaration, or Affirmation to be used in the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction or willingly use or concur in using any such forged or counterfeit Signature or Seal or tender in Evidence any Document as aforesaid with a false or counterfeit Signature or Seal Knowing the same Signature or Seal to be false or counterfeit, every such Person shall be guilty of Felony, and shall upon Conviction be liable to Penal Servitude for the Term of his Life or any Term not less than Seven Years or to Imprisonment for any Term not exceeding Three Years with or without Hard Labour: And whenever any such Document has been admitted in Evidence by Virtue of this Act, the Court or the Person who has admitted the same may at the request of any Party against whom the same is so admitted in evidence, direct that the same shall be impounded and be kept in the Custody of some Officer of the Court or other proper Person for such period and subject to such Conditions as to the said Court or Person shall seem meet; and every Person charged with committing any Felony under this Act may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and, if convicted, sentenced, and his Offence may be laid and charged to have been committed, and every accessory before or after the fact to any such Offence may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and, if convicted, sentenced, and his Offence laid and charged to have been committed in the said Colony of Hongkong.\n\n### Practice of the Court.\n\nXIII. The Practice of the said Court in its Probate Jurisdiction shall, except where otherwise provided by this Ordinance or by the Rules or Orders to be from Time to Time made under this Ordinance be so far as the circumstances of the Case will admit, according to the Practice heretofore prevailing in the said Court in its Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.\n\n### Mode of taking Evidence in Contentions Matters.\n\nXIV. Subject to the Regulations established or to be established by such Rules and Orders as aforesaid, the Witnesses and where necessary the Parties, in all contentious Matters where their attendance can be had, shall be examined orally by or before the Judge in open Court: Provided always, that, subject to any such Regulations as aforesaid the Parties shall be at Liberty to verify their respective Cases, in whole or in part, by Affidavit, but so that the Deponent in every such Affidavit shall, on the application of the opposite Party be subject to be Cross-examined by or on behalf of such opposite Party orally in open Court, as aforesaid, and after such Cross-examination may be re-examined orally in open Court as aforesaid by or on behalf of the Party by whom such Affidavit was filed.\n\n### Court may issue Commissions or order Examination of witnesses abroad or who are unable to attend.\n\nXV. Provided, that when a Witness in any such Matter is out of the Jurisdiction of the Court, or when by reason of his Illness or otherwise, the Court shall not think fit to enforce the Attendance of the Witness in open Court, it shall be lawful for the Court to order a Commission to issue for the Examination of such Witness upon Interrogatories or otherwise, or if the Witness be within the Jurisdiction of the Court, to order the Examination of such Witness upon Interrogatories or otherwise, before any Officer of the said Court, or other Person to be named in such Order for the Purpose and all the Powers given to the Courts of Law at Westminster by the Acts `13th Geo. III, cap. 63`, ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 306777,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 533,
        "title": "CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 31st JULY, 1880.\n\n530\n\n$78\n\ntrees when in the nurseries were not thinned as they should have been; and when they were planted they were pulled out of the ground, thus greatly injuring their roots, instead of being carefully lifted; the roots were not properly protected from sun and weather, consequently, before reaching their distant destinations the plants had frequently greatly suffered from lack of moisture in their tissues, which, after planting, the lacerated roots were unable to repair. The plants, from overcrowding in the nurseries, were also weakened in the parts proceeding from the plumule, so that both radicle and plumule being so much damaged, the vitality of the plant was reduced to its lowest ebb. When planting, the holes also were not filled with soil, but were receptacles for a superabundance of water during every shower, which kept the roots in a miniature swamp, at a time when the plants, with their damaged organs, were not in condition to assimilate so much moisture. The trees were also planted too deep; in many cases I found the small stems were covered with soil to a depth of six inches.\n\n14. Had experience and intelligence, such as could only have been obtained by careful observation and study of the science of plant life, and a knowledge of expedients for the greatest economy of labour, been continually brought to bear on the direction of the work, we should not now have to record the sad result of the year's work.\n\n15. As bearing upon the foregoing remarks, it might be well to call to mind a few physiological facts upon which vegetable life depends.\n\n16. In many seeds the vital principle is so strong that, to scatter them upon the soil, and to cover them slightly with earth, is sufficient to insure their rapid germination; but in others, the powers of growth will only manifest themselves under more favourable conditions; it is therefore necessary to consider well upon what the circumstances most suitable to germination depend. In dealing with many varieties of seeds, the greatest care in applying the agencies of moisture, shade, soil, covering, &c., is essential. Different kinds of seeds require different kinds of treatment to meet their varied demands; and not only this during the process of germination, but between the time of collecting the seeds and committing them to their seed-beds, boxes, pots, or whatever may be the situation demanded. The nature of the seed, whether oily, resinous, hard, soft, having a thick or thin testa, &c.; the known duration of retaining vitality under ordinary circumstances and under altered and varying conditions, must all be taken into account, weighed and considered from manifold views; all this requiring the time and skill of an expert to deal successfully with.\n\n17. The extreme points of roots are exceedingly delicate, and are injured by trifling causes; moreover, since all newly-formed vegetable matter is extremely hygrometrical, they have the power of absorbing, with rapidity, any fluid or gaseous matter that may be presented to them. In roots of ordinary exogens, the tip or spargelet consists of very loose, tender cellular tissue, resting upon a blunt cone of woody matter, composed principally of woody tubes, and connected with the albumen of the stem. It is the opinion of most vegetable physiologists that the absorbing or feeding powers are conducted principally at the points, and that the general surface of the root possesses little or no feeding power. It is almost entirely through their action that the enormous waste of fluid, which takes place in plants by perspiration, is made good; hence their importance to plants, and the danger of destroying them becomes manifest.\n\n18. The functions of respiration, perspiration, and digestion, which are the particular offices of leaves, are absolutely necessary to the health of a tree, its healthfulness being in proportion to the degree in which these functions are performed, hence the importance of preserving those in a healthy condition is seen.\n\n19. An excellent authority on forest management says:- \"How necessary it is that foresters should become thoroughly acquainted with the laws that govern the healthy development of trees before they have the management of rearing them.”\n\nIII.—DEDUCTIONS ARRIVED AT FROM EXPERIENCE IN DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT.\n\n20.—The consideration of the foregoing, and much more which, if recapitulated, would render this report too prolix, confirms me in the belief that it is most important that the Botanical and Forest management should be in charge of one and the same person, and that the Superintendent of the Gardens; as botanical, arboricultural and horticultural works are all so intimately connected, that in a small Colony like ours the three branches of one profession cannot be separate without detriment to one and all. The Superintendent has so many things to deal with in the three branches, that he should be as unfettered as possible by official routine and circumlocution, such as existed when the gardens were a sub-department of the Survey Department, when delays occurred in dealing with subjects requiring prompt attention, which were fatal to the business in hand. As one instance, I may mention the delay in dealing with the plants of Pithecolobium Saman last year, which ended in disastrous results. This plant was introduced, through Kew Gardens, from South America, and was successfully treated in our nursery, 1300 plants being reared, but the Survey Department could not be induced to move in the matter of transferring them to the forest establishment until after more than three months after I had reported them as requiring prompt attention. The importance of these things seems to be unappreciated by the officials of the Survey Department, which is, perhaps, not much to be wondered at, seeing that the knowledge of such things does not form part of their professional training. As one more instance of that department's inability to cope with this department's affairs, I may mention that during my absence in England one hundred and eighty species of plants were lost to the gardens, as I reported and furnished the names of to the Acting Surveyor General on the 28th August, 1878. Some of these plants, which had been introduced from England and Germany, and of which we had only single plants of many species, I found had been removed in pots to the Cemetery, and although I several times asked for their return, so that we could propagate them and thus preserve the species, I offering to let them have, after propagation, plants in return, my applications were never replied to, nor have we to this day received the plants.\n\n21. Mr. MARIES, a traveller from the Messrs. VEITCHS' Royal Exotic Nursery, London, brought for presentation to the gardens a valuable collection of plants, which, on a second visit to the Colony, he found in a dying or already dead condition, although, I heard plants of the same kinds presented to private individuals here were flourishing. Mr. Veitch, when I saw him in London, reported this to me. Foreseeing, before I went home, that valuable consignments of plants could not be successfully well cared for, I requested my correspondents not to furnish the plants, &c., of my lists of desiderata until my return.\n\n22. Simultaneously with its own investigations, this department, by correspondence, can assist the forest work, by introducing rare and valuable trees; and also in rearing such tender kinds as require more careful treatment than they could receive in the tree nurseries; and also in applying such information and experience as by correspondence, &c., are being continually supplied. The different operations, also, could be brought into a better system and state of organisation, by the staffs, &c., being able to reciprocate, if the whole of the two establishments were under one practical and professional direction.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nSir,\n\nThe Honourable THE COLONIAL SECRETARY,\n\nNo. 182.\n\nYour most obedient Servant,\n\nCHARLES FORD, Superintendent Botanical Gardens.\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nMr. C. V. CREAGH has obtained twelve months' leave of absence from the 24th instant.\n\nThe following Acting Appointments have been made by His Excellency the Governor :\n\nMr. J. J. FRANCIS to be Acting Police Magistrate.\n\nMr. G. HORSPOOL to be Acting Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\nMr. T. GUEY to be Acting Deputy Superintendent of Police.\n\nInspector CRADOCK to be Acting Chief Inspector.\n\nMr. J. P. McEUEN to be Acting Superintendent of Fire Brigade.\n\nMr. J. PARKER to be Acting Assistant Superintendent of Fire Brigade.\n\nBy Command,\n\nColonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 26th July, 1880.\n\nNo. 183.\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nFREDERICK STEWART,\n\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\nPending instructions from the Earl of KIMBERLEY, His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to make the following temporary and provisional appointments, under \"The Merchant Shipping Ordinance\":\n\nMr. R. H. SLEEMAN, R.N., Acting Engineer Surveyor.\n\nMessrs. TROMSETT and McEUEN, R.N., Acting Shipwright Engineers.\n\nBy Command,\n\nColonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 29th July, 1880.\n\nFREDERICK STEWART,\n\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\n579",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 307416,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12]",
        "page_number": 534,
        "title": "CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12]",
        "content_text": "(6)\n\n72. Visiting Justices shall hear all complaints for breaches of prison discipline the punishment for which is beyond the powers conferred on the Superintendent by Rule 6, and shall award such punishment as may be sanctioned by any Ordinance, or by the Gaol Regulations, as the justice of the case may seem to require.\n\n73. They shall examine witnesses upon oath, and shall enter in a book a note of the evidence brought in support of a complaint, and of their judgment and sentence thereon. They shall enter in the Justices' Visiting Book any suggestions or remarks they wish to bring to the notice of His Excellency the Governor as to the state and discipline of the Gaol.\n\n74. No Officer of the Gaol shall be Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, or Bailiff, or be concerned in any trade or other occupation, except in the Government service.\n\n75. No such Officer shall sell, let, or derive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the sale or letting of any article to any prisoner. No such Officer shall have, directly or indirectly, any interest in any contract or agreement for the supply of the Gaol, or use for himself or his family any oil, rations, food, or other article supplied for the use of the Gaol.\n\n76. A light shall be kept constantly burning throughout the night in every ward or division of the Gaol in which prisoners shall be confined, but such light shall not be placed inside the cell or within reach of the prisoners, and a light shall be kept burning in each of the sleeping rooms of the Officers of the Gaol not on duty.\n\n77. Every part of the Gaol premises shall be swept clean daily as often as is necessary, and the Gaol shall be washed throughout once in every week, except during damp weather.\n\n78. Every prisoner shall wash himself daily, and every prisoner shall have at least one hot or cold bath once a week.\n\n79. The clothes worn by each prisoner next to the skin shall be exchanged for a clean suit at least once a week.\n\n80. The hair of each male European prisoner shall be cut to such moderate length as health or cleanliness may require.\n\n81. The tails of Chinese prisoners sentenced to incarceration for two years or upwards, shall be cut off, and their hair shall be so kept until within 6 months of their enlargement. Provided that, at any time, for purposes of health or cleanliness, the tail of any Chinese prisoner may be removed.\n\n82. Every male prisoner shall be shaved once a week, according to the custom of his country.\n\n83. The bedding and spare clothing of each prisoner shall be aired at least twice a week, in the open air if practicable, and washed as often as is needful. If sheets or blankets are used, they shall be washed at least once a month, and sheets used by one prisoner shall on no account be used, without having been washed, by another.\n\n84. Every prisoner convicted of Felony, and every misdemeanant (except 1st class) convicted for the first time, shall be supplied with and constantly wear the ordinary Gaol dress.\n\n85. Every other person confined in the Gaol shall be supplied with clothes if their own is insufficient, or unfit for use, or necessary to be preserved for the purposes of justice.\n\n86. Prisoners convicted for the 2nd and 3rd times shall wear a parti-coloured dress distinguishing them from other prisoners. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, may wear their own clothes, if suitable.\n\n87. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, shall be permitted to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required.\n\nA convicted prisoner may see his legal adviser, if a Visiting Justice, or the Sheriff, or one of the Police Magistrates so order.\n\n89. Every person claiming admission as a legal adviser, must be a Lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the authorised European Clerk of such Lawyer, accompanied by an Interpreter.\n\n(7)\n\n90. The friends and relations of prisoners confined for debt, or prisoners on remand, shall be allowed to see them at reasonable hours; in the case of the latter, the Superintendent may withhold the privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n91. Convicted prisoners may see their relations once in the course of every three months, or in case of sickness, or, should the Superintendent see sufficient reason, oftener, recording the fact and all particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n92. Prisoners committed for non-payment of penalties, or want of sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as prisoners on remand, if the object of the visits is to arrange the payment of the penalty, or the procuring of sureties; otherwise, they shall be subject to the same rules in this respect as convicted prisoners.\n\n93. Male and female prisoners shall always be so confined as to prevent the former from seeing, conversing with, or holding any intercourse with the latter.\n\n## CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS\n\n94. The prisoners (unless in separate confinement) shall be, so far as the accommodation in the Gaol permits, divided into the following classes:\n\n(1.) Felons under sentence of death.\n\n(2.) All other felons and misdemeanants (not being 1st class) undergoing a sentence under a 1st conviction. Persons confined for want of sureties as dangerous characters.\n\n(3.) Persons committed to take their trial for felony or misdemeanour.\n\n(4.) 1st class misdemeanants and persons committed on civil process for want of sureties, who have not been before confined in Gaol.\n\n(5.) Prisoners on remand.\n\n(6.) Prisoners convicted a second or third time.\n\n(7.) Debtors.\n\n(8.) Approvers, or prisoners thought likely to turn Queen's evidence.\n\n95. No work shall be done in the Gaol beyond what is necessary, on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day.\n\n96. Prisoners of the Jewish persuasion shall not be compelled to work on Saturdays if they claim exemption, but shall be kept in separate confinement on that day and on Sunday. They may also keep such other Festival days as may be directed from time to time by His Excellency the Governor.\n\n97. Prisoners committed for trial, or on remand, 1st class misdemeanants, or debtors, may send or receive letters at all reasonable times, unless the Committing Magistrate, or a Visiting Justice, order to the contrary, but the Superintendent may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the reasons and particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n98. Every convicted prisoner may, subject to the same restrictions, be allowed to send and receive one letter in the course of every 6 weeks, or 3 months, but the Superintendent shall read any letter or paper so sent, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless he thinks it necessary to report the same to His Excellency the Governor.\n\n99. Letters addressed to or written by prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or for want of sureties, may be inspected by the Superintendent for good reasons, which shall be recorded in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n100. Letters may be withheld by the Superintendent from or to any prisoner for good reasons, to be reported forthwith to His Excellency the Governor, and to be entered in the Daily Occurrence Book.\n\n101. Indian prisoners are not to be put to any labour which may really cause them the loss of caste, and, as regards their food, the best possible arrangement is to be made so that they may not be forced to choose between loss of food and loss of caste.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 307966,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-191 - Public Offices & Others - 1880",
        "page_number": 543,
        "title": "CO129-191 - Public Offices & Others - 1880",
        "content_text": "578\n\nTHE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 31ST JULY, 1880.\n\ntrees when in the nurseries were not thinned as they should have been; and when they were planted they were pulled out of the ground, thus greatly injuring their roots, instead of being carefully lifted; the roots were not properly protected from sun and weather, consequently, before reaching their distant destinations the plants had frequently greatly suffered from lack of moisture in their tissues, which, after planting, the lacerated roots were unable to repair. The plants, from overcrowding in the nurseries, were also weakened in the parts proceeding from the plumule, so that both radicle and plumule being so much damaged, the vitality of the plant was reduced to its lowest ebb. also were not filled with soil, but were receptacles for a superabundance of water during every shower, When planting, the holes which kept the roots in a miniature swamp, at a time when the plants, with their damaged organs, were not in condition to assimilate so much moisture. The trees were also planted too deep; in many cases I found the small stems were covered with soil to a depth of six inches.\n\n14. Had experience and intelligence, such as could only have been obtained by careful observation and study of the science of plant life, and a knowledge of expedients for the greatest economy of labour, been continually brought to bear on the direction of the work, we should not now have to record the sad result of the year's work.\n\n15. As bearing upon the foregoing remarks, it might be well to call to mind a few physiological facts upon which vegetable life depends.\n\n16. In many seeds the vital principle is so strong that, to scatter them upon the soil, and to cover them slightly with earth, is sufficient to insure their rapid germination; but in others, the powers of growth will only manifest themselves under more favourable conditions; it is therefore necessary to consider well upon what the circumstances most suitable to germination depend. In dealing with many varieties of seeds, the greatest care in applying the agencies of moisture, shade, soil, covering, &c., is essential. Different kinds of seeds require different kinds of treatment to meet their varied demands; and not only this during the process of germination, but between the time of collecting the seeds and committing them to their seed-beds, boxes, pots, or whatever may be the situation demanded. The nature of the seed, whether oily, resinous, hard, soft, having a thick or thin testa, &c.; the known duration of retaining vitality under ordinary circumstances and under altered and varying conditions, must all be taken into account, weighed and considered from manifold views; all this requiring the time and skill of an expert to deal successfully with.\n\n17. The extreme points of roots are exceedingly delicate, and are injured by trifling causes; moreover, since all newly-formed vegetable matter is extremely hygrometrical, they have the power of absorbing, with rapidity, any fluid or gaseous matter that may be presented to them. In roots of ordinary exogens, the tip or spargelet consists of very loose, tender cellular tissue, resting upon a blunt cone of woody matter, composed principally of woody tubes, and connected with the albumen of the stem. It is the opinion of most vegetable physiologists that the absorbing or feeding powers are conducted principally at the points, and that the general surface of the root possesses little or no feeding power. It is almost entirely through their action that the enormous waste of fluid, which takes place in plants by perspiration, is made good; hence their importance to plants, and the danger of destroying them becomes manifest.\n\n18. The functions of respiration, perspiration, and digestion, which are the particular offices of leaves, are absolutely necessary to the health of a tree, its healthfulness being in proportion to the degree in which these functions are performed, hence the importance of preserving those in a healthy condition is seen.\n\n19. An excellent authority on forest management says:--\"How necessary it is that foresters should become thoroughly acquainted with the laws that govern the healthy development of trees before they have the management of rearing them.\"\n\nIII.--DEDUCTIONS ARRIVED AT FROM EXPERIENCE IN DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT.\n\n20. The consideration of the foregoing, and much more which, if recapitulated, would render this report too prolix, confirms me in the belief that it is most important that the Botanical and Forest management should be in charge of one and the same person, and that the Superintendent of the Gardens; as botanical, arboricultural and horticultural works are all so intimately connected, that in a small Colony like ours the three branches of one profession cannot be separate without detriment to one and all. The Superintendent has so many things to deal with in the three branches, that he should be as unfettered as possible by official routine and circumlocution, such as existed when the gardens were a sub-department of the Survey Department, when delays occurred in dealing with subjects requiring prompt attention, which were fatal to the business in hand. As one instance, I may mention the delay in dealing with the plants of Pithecolobium Saman last year, which ended in disastrous results. This plant was introduced, through Kew Gardens, from South America, and was successfully treated in our nursery, 1300 plants being reared, but the Survey Department could not be induced to move in the matter of transferring them to the forest establishment until after more than three months after I had reported them as requiring prompt attention. The importance of these things seems to be unappreciated by the officials of the Survey Department, which is, perhaps, not much to be wondered at, seeing that the knowledge of such things does not form part of their professional training. As one more instance of that department's inability to cope with this department's work, I may mention that during my absence in England one hundred and eighty species of plants were sent to the gardens, as I reported and furnished the names of to the Acting Surveyor General on the 28th August, 1878. Some of these plants, which had been introduced from England and Germany, and of which we had only single plants of many species, I found had been removed in pots to the Cemetery, and although several times asked for their return, so that we could propagate them and thus preserve the species, I offering to let them have, after propagation, plants in return, my applications were never replied to, nor have we to this day received the plants.\n\n21. Mr. MARIES, a traveller from the Messrs. VEITCH's Royal Exotic Nursery, London, brought for presentation to the gardens a valuable collection of plants, which, on a second visit to the Colony, he found in a dying or already dead condition, although, I heard plants of the same kinds presented to private individuals here were flourishing. Mr. VEITCH, when I saw him in London, reported this to me. Foreseeing, before I went home, that valuable consignments of plants could not be successfully well cared for, I requested my correspondents not to furnish the plants, &c., of my lists of desiderata until my return.\n\n22. Simultaneously with its own investigations, this department, by correspondence, can assist the forest work, by introducing rare and valuable trees; and also in rearing such tender kinds as require more careful treatment than they could receive in the tree nurseries; and also in applying such information and experience as by correspondence, &c., are being continually supplied. The different operations, also, could be brought into a better system and state of organisation, by the staffs, &c., being able to reciprocate, if the whole of the two establishments were under one practical and professional direction.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nSir,\n\nYour most obedient Servant,\n\nCHARLES FORD, Superintendent Botanical Gardens.\n\nNo. 182.\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nMr. C. V. CREAGH has obtained twelve months' leave of absence from the 24th instant. The following Acting Appointments have been made by His Excellency the Governor:\n\nMr. J. J. FRANCIS to be Acting Police Magistrate.\n\nMr. G. HORSPOOL to be Acting Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\nMr. T. GREY to be Acting Deputy Superintendent of Police.\n\nInspector CRADOCK to be Acting Chief Inspector.\n\nMr. J. P. McEUEN to be Acting Superintendent of Fire Brigade.\n\nMr. J. PARKER to be Acting Assistant Superintendent of Fire Brigade.\n\nBy Command,\n\nColonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 26th July, 1880.\n\nNo. 183.\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nFREDERICK STEWART,\n\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\nPending instructions from the Earl of KIMBERLEY, His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to make the following temporary and provisional appointments, under \"The Merchant Shipping Ordinance\":-\n\nMr. R. H. SLEEMAN, R.N., Acting Engineer Surveyor.\n\nMessrs. THOMSETT and McEUEN, R.N., Acting Shipwright Engineers.\n\nBy Command,\n\nColonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 29th July, 1880.\n\nFREDERICK STEWART,\n\nActing Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-191 - Public Offices & Others - 1880.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 308432,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 422,
        "title": "CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "( 34 ) \n\nrectors, if they could not be inquired into the subject, the Chamber is hardly entitled here by a jury? Where was the evidence to consider that the question lay before that Mr Nelson could not attend to the them. I learn from Chinese sources that duties of his bank ? Was that a light the Memorial which was presented the other day was got up by a gentleman rather well known in the Colony, who is in the employ of the Japanese Government, and charge came of malice. A mere outsider, who is more or less mixed up with the Opium Farm and other matters in the Colony, and who is on very intimate and friendly terms with the head of the Government in Hongkong, Now bearing in mind the manner in which equally spontaneous expressions of opinion on other matters have been utilised in the Colony, I think one may justly come to the conclusion something is to be done in this matter, and I think, in the absence of any communication from the Government. It is not unbecoming on the part of the Chamber to invite some little amount of confidence in the matter, supposing anything is being done.”\n\nMR. NELSON'S EVIDENCE,\n\nMr H. H. Nelson, said: I am the manager of the Chartered Mercantile's Bank of India London and China, and have been so for the last six years. I commenced my business life with the bank sixteen years ago. The Head Office is in London. The Bank is controlled by a Board of Directors. Mr W. Jackson a Secretary and Acting Inspector travels about and reports on the Branches. He visited Hongkong on duty in March last. Mr Jackson handed me the letter produced just as it is, with the exception of the underscoring. This was on the 30th March, the day after he got it. Mr Jackson has now gone home, to England. I knew Mr Alex MacGlashan Heaton. He was a broker in this Colony, he is now dead. He died in the latter end of 1879.\n\nCross-examined:-The Chartered Mercantile Bank issues notes, It also receives deposits from customers generally, The Bank is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and I am the Bank's representative. The Bank pays the subscription. I am also Vice Chairman. I was present at the meeting of February 23rd, I made several speeches at the meeting of the 28th February. The Report shown in the Chamber \"book\" is, I believe, taken from the newspapers. I presume it is approved by the Secretary, I am a member of Committee. I see a report here of a speech I made.\n\nMr Francis: Will you read it ? Question objected to and argued; objection overruled.\n\nReport put in and read, Mr Francis reading it, as follows:---\n\n“Mr Nelson. In the absence of any communication from the Government on the subject, I suggest the Secretary put himself in communication with the Government and make an inquiry whether anything is being done.”\n\nMr Nelson, further cross-examined said: That is a tolerably correct report of what I said. Each and every one of these references is to Mr Pitman.\n\nQuestion put \"what do you mean by 'equally spontaneous,'\" Question objected to, and objection upheld after a long argument.\n\nIn this argument His Lordship, addressing Mr Bayllar, suggested that one object in going into a long examination on this point would be that it would take the jury entirely away from the point at issue.\n\nMr Francis submitted that it would do nothing of the kind, and that his Lordship ought not to have made such a remark.\n\nHis Lordship then told Mr Francis that he would not be told by Mr Francis what he ought to do and what not, If he had done wrong, Mr Francis should take the proper course to have it put right.\n\nMr Francis submitted that he was not. The point was reserved by his Lordship, at Mr Francis' request, as to whether the question \"What did the witness mean in his speech by 'equally spontaneous,'\" should not have been allowed; several other questions of the same nature were disallowed, Counsel not being allowed to ask any questions as to the meaning of certain phrases in the letter.\n\n( 35 )\n\nThe farther evidence of Mr Nelson was to the effect that he knew that Mr Pitman had some connection with the Opium Farm, but did not know its precise nature. There was at that time $50,000 in the C. M. B. at the credit of the Opium farmer; Government had the receipts; it was a guarantee. He continued,\" Mr Jackson made no enquiry on the subject matter of Mr Pitman's letter. As a broker Mr Heaton had share transactions with me. As a matter of fact I have bought and sold shares, for myself and for the Bank's customers, I have never had any share transaction in the nature of time bargains. I have never had dealings in shares in which a settlement was to have been made by the receipt or difference, either on my own account, or on the account of any other person, so far as my memory serves me.\"\n\nMr Blogg proved Mr Pitman's signature.\n\nThe Court then adjourned for tiffin.\n\nTHE DEPOSITIONS OF MR JACKSON'S EVIDENCE NOT RECEIVED,\n\nThe Chief Justice: Cui bono, the evidence of Mr Jackson,\n\nMr Hayllar: Well, my Lord, I do not press it. That is the case for the prosecution.\n\nThe Chief Justice: I quite see, Mr Francis, some portions of it that it might have been advisable even for you to have...\n\nMr Francis: In a civil case, my Lord, no doubt.\n\nOn the Court reassembling, Mr Hayllar tendered the depositions containing the evidence of Mr William Jackson taken before the committing magistrate (Mr C. V. Creagh) on Wednesday, March 31st.\n\nMr Hayllar read sec. 2 of ord. 6 of 1864 (an ordinance to render admissible in certain cases the depositions of witnesses who cannot be produced at the trial) \"by which whenever it shall be proved by the oath of any credible witness or shall in any other manner whatever appear to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court, that the Attorney General or other person conducting a criminal prosecution on behalf of the Crown is unable to produce at the trial of the accused any person as a witness in consequence of his absence from the Colony and if it shall also appear that such person was examined before a magistrate and that the examination was taken in the presence of the accused and that he or his Counsel or his Attorney had a full opportunity of cross-examining such person and that the examination of such person was reduced into writing and read over to and signed by the person examined it shall be lawful for the Court and it is hereby required to allow to be read and received in evidence so much of the said examination as would have been admissible had the said person been produced and examined before the Supreme Court in the ordinary and accustomed manner.\"\n\nMr Hayllar contended that while he appeared on behalf of Mr Nelson as a private prosecutor, he in fact did appear on behalf of the Crown, all criminal prosecutions being in name of the Crown, the case being Regina v. Nelson.\n\nMr Francis objected to the admission of the depositions on two grounds. First it did not appear that it had been read over and signed by witness. The charge then before the Court was under Section 4 of Lord Campbell's Act; the charge now was under Section 5. The grounds of defence would naturally be different under these two sections; the line of cross-examination different. There had not therefore been a full opportunity of cross-examining the witness then; no opportunity at all in fact.\n\nTHE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.\n\nMr Francis desired to call Mr Ryrie to ask him if his Lordship would allow him to ask what his understanding was of the speech made by Mr Nelson at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, at which he was present.\n\nThe Chief Justice said he had read his evidence. Mr Ryrie did not go into the meaning of Mr Nelson's speech any further than any man of ordinary common sense could do. It was his interpretation of how this speech—Mr Nelson's remarks described as containing a gibe, a very emphatic word—was to be taken. He believed any man of ordinary common sense was quite capable of answering that question for himself.\n\nMr Francis said that as his learned friend had told them in opening this trial it had caused, he had no doubt, in the Colony a great deal of interest and possibly excitement. His learned friend had asked him and he asked them to put all that aside and ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 308632,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 622,
        "title": "CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "523\n\n611\n\n522\n\ncounterfeit\n\nCoin and Coin-ing Tools, for securing them as Evidence, and for ultimately disposing of them.\n\nWhat shall be\n\nORDINANCE No. 10. of 1865.\n\nCoinage Offences,\n\nterfeit Coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current Gold, Silver, or Copper Coin, or any Coin of any Foreign Prince, State, or Country, or any Instrument, Tool, or Engine whatsoever, adapted and intended for the counterfeiting of any such Coin, or any Filings, or Clippings, or any Gold or Silver Bullion, or any Gold or Silver in Dust, Solution, or otherwise, which shall have been produced or obtained by diminishing or lightening any of the Queen's current Gold or Silver Coin, it shall be lawful for the Person so finding or discovering, and he is hereby required to seize the same, and to carry the same forthwith before a Police Magistrate; and where it shall be proved on the Oath or Declaration of a credible Witness before a Police Magistrate, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that any Person has been concerned in counterfeiting the Queen's current Gold, Silver, or Copper Coin, or any such Foreign or other Coin as in this Ordinance before mentioned, or has in his Custody or Possession any such false or counterfeit Coin, or any Instrument, Tool, or Engine, whatsoever adapted and intended for the making or counterfeiting of any such Coin, or any other Machine used or intended to be used for making or counterfeiting any such Coin, or any such Filings, Clippings, or Bullion, or any such Gold or Silver in Dust, Solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for a Police Magistrate, by Warrant under his Hand, to cause any Place whatsoever belonging to or in the Occupation or under the Control of such suspected Person to be searched, either in the Day or in the Night, and if any such false or counterfeit Coin, or any such Instrument, Tool, or Engine, or any such Machine, or any such Filings, Clippings, or Bullion, or any such Gold or Silver in Dust, Solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, shall be found in any Place so searched, to cause the same to be seized and carried forthwith before a Police Magistrate; and whensoever any such false or counterfeit Coin, or any such Instrument, Tool, or Engine, or any such Machine, or any such Filings, Clippings, or Bullion, or any such Gold or Silver in Dust, Solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, shall in any Case whatsoever be seized and carried before a Police Magistrate, he shall, if necessary, cause the same to be secured for the Purpose of being produced in Evidence against any Person who may be Prosecuted for any Offence against this Ordinance; and all such false and counterfeit Coin, and all Instruments, Tools, and Engines adapted and intended for the making or counterfeiting of Coin, and all such Machines and all such Filings, Clippings, and Bullion, and all such Gold and Silver in Dust, Solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, after they shall have been produced in Evidence, or when they shall have been seized, and shall not be required to be produced in Evidence, shall forthwith be delivered up to the Officers of the Mint, or to the Crown Solicitor, or to any Person authorized by them to receive the same.\n\nXXVIII. Where, upon the Trial of any Person charged with any Offence against this Ordinance, it shall be necessary to prove that any Coin produced in Evidence against such Person is false or counterfeit, it shall not be necessary to prove the same to be false and counterfeit by the Evidence of any Moneyer, or other Officer of the Mint, but it shall be sufficient to prove the same to be false or counterfeit by the Evidence of any other credible Witness.\n\n07\n\nORDINANCE No. 10. of 1865.\n\nCoinage Offences.\n\nXXIX. Every Offence of falsely making or counterfeiting any Coin, or of buying, selling, receiving, paying, tendering, uttering, or putting off, or of offering to buy, sell, receive, pay, utter, or put off, any false or counterfeit Coin, against the Provisions of this Ordinance, shall be deemed to be complete, although the Coin so made or counterfeited, or bought, sold, received, paid, tendered, uttered, or put off, or offered to be bought, sold, received, paid, uttered, or put off, shall not be in a fit State to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected.\n\nXXX. It shall be lawful for any Person whatsoever to apprehend any Person who shall be found committing any indictable Offence against this Ordinance, and to convey or deliver him to some Constable or Officer of Police, in order to his being conveyed as soon as reasonably may be before a Police Magistrate or some other proper Officer, to be dealt with according to Law.\n\nXXXI. No Conviction for any Offence punishable on summary Conviction under this Ordinance shall be quashed for Want of Form, or be removed by Certiorari into the Supreme Court; and no Warrant of Commitment shall be held void by reason of any Defect therein, provided it be therein alleged that the Party has been convicted, and there be a valid Conviction to sustain the same.\n\nXXXII. All Actions and Prosecutions to be commenced against any Person for anything done in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be commenced within Six Months after the Fact committed, and not otherwise; and Notice in Writing of such Action and of the Cause thereof shall be given to the Defendant One Month at least before the Commencement of the Action; and in any such Action the Defendant may plead the General Issue, and give this Ordinance and the special Matter in Evidence, at any Trial to be had thereupon; and no Plaintiff shall recover in any such Action if Tender of sufficient Amends shall have been made before such Action brought, or if a sufficient Sum of Money shall have been paid into Court after such Action brought, by or on behalf of the Defendant; and if a Verdict shall pass for the Defendant, or the Plaintiff shall become Nonsuit, or discontinue any such Action after Issue joined, or if, upon Demurrer or otherwise, Judgment shall be given against the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall recover his full Costs as between Attorney and Client, and have the like Remedy for the same as any Defendant has by Law in other Cases; and though a Verdict shall be given for the Plaintiff in any such Action, such Plaintiff shall not have Costs against the Defendant unless the Judge before whom the Trial shall be, shall certify his Approbation of the Action.\n\nXXXIII. In the Case of every Felony punishable under this Ordinance, every Principal in the Second Degree, and every Accessory before the Fact, shall be punishable in the same Manner as the Principal in the First Degree is by this Ordinance punishable;",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-192 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 308854,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]",
        "page_number": 194,
        "title": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]",
        "content_text": "( 20 )\n\n( 21 )\n\n191\n\n# Title.\n\n## Preamble.\n\n## Short title.\n\n## Interpretation clause.\n\n### CONSOLIDATION ORDINANCE, 1876, DEPORTATION, BRANDING AND PUNISHMENT.\n\n[See Ord. 4 of 1871, Sec. 1.]\n\n### Power to arrest and keep suspected emissaries or abettors of enemies.\n\n[See Ord. 9 of 1857, sec. 6.]\n\n### Security to appear within twelve months.\n\nSIR ARTHUR EDWARD KENNEDY, K.C.M.G., & C.B., Governor and Commander-in-Chief.\n\nNo. 8 of 1876.\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to consolidate and amend the Ordinances relating to Deportation, Conditional Pardons, the Branding and Punishment of certain Criminals, and the Ordinance No. 9 of 1857, entitled \"An amended Ordinance for better securing the Peace of the Colony.\"\n\n[11th December, 1876.]\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to consolidate and amend the enactments now in force in this Colony in reference to deportation, conditional pardons, the branding and punishment of certain criminals, and Ordinance No. 9 of 1857 entitled \"An amended Ordinance for better securing the peace of the Colony,\" Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\nI. This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as \"The Deportation and Conditional Pardons Consolidation Ordinance, 1876.\"\n\nII. In the construction of this Ordinance, the expression \"order of deportation\" shall mean an order of the Governor in Council, prohibiting a person from residing or being within this Colony, for a term not exceeding five years.\n\nIII. Any Justice of the Peace may lawfully arrest, or cause to be arrested, with or without warrant, any person whom he shall reasonably suspect to be an emissary or abettor of Her Majesty's enemies, or of pirates, or of Chinese disaffected to Her Majesty's Government, or otherwise dangerous to the peace and good order of this Colony, and him safely keep until he can be dealt with according to law.\n\nIV. Any Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace may cause any Chinese person to find reasonable security for his appearance in any Court for any purpose, and at any time within twelve months, and every adjudication to that effect shall be made in open Court, and reported forthwith to the Governor; and such Chinese not finding such security shall be deemed a person dangerous to the peace of the Colony, and be liable to deportation under section V of this Ordinance.\n\n### Power to deport for five years.\n\nV. The Governor in Council may, by order under his hand, prohibit any person not being a natural born or naturalised subject of Her Majesty from residing or being within this Colony during any space of time not exceeding five years, and may by the same or any subsequent order under his hand, fix the time for the departure of such person from the Colony.\n\n### Penalty for disobedience to or violation of order of deportation.\n\nVI. Every person who either before or after the passing of this Ordinance shall have been prohibited by order of the Governor in Council from residing or being within this Colony for any space of time not exceeding five years under the provisions of this or any other Ordinance, and who without lawful authority or excuse, the proof of which shall lie upon him, shall be in this Colony after the date of such order, or after the time fixed for his departure, and before the expiration of the term of his deportation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof before the Supreme Court, shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one year: Provided always that in all cases in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate upon such charge shall plead guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, instead of committing the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\n### Governor may grant pardon subject to conditions of offenders leaving the Colony.\n\nVII. It shall be lawful for the Governor to grant to any offender convicted of any crime a pardon subject to either of the following conditions, as the case may be: That such offender shall quit the Colony and not afterwards be found at large therein; or that such offender shall, in lieu of a sentence of death which may have been passed upon or recorded against him by any Court of competent jurisdiction, suffer such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or penal servitude, as the Governor may think fit.\n\n### Breach of conditional pardon.\n\nVIII. If any offender to whom a pardon shall have been granted either before the passing of this Ordinance, or afterwards under the provisions of this Ordinance, on the condition of his quitting the Colony, be afterwards found at large therein without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie upon him, he shall be guilty of a felony or of a misdemeanor, according to the nature of the offence for which he shall have received such conditional pardon, and shall, on conviction thereof before the Supreme Court, be liable, in the discretion of the Court, to any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, such sentence to commence from the date at which he shall be tried and convicted under this Ordinance: Provided always that in all cases in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate upon such charge shall plead guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, and to remit him to gaol to undergo any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, instead of committing the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\n### Branding in what cases may be ordered by Governor.\n\nIX. In all cases where any Chinese person convicted of any crime and actually undergoing sentence of imprisonment, may voluntarily petition the Governor to be released on condition that he shall be sufficiently marked or branded, to be thereby recognised subsequently, and shall also undertake to quit the Colony and not return thereto without permission from the Governor, it shall be lawful for the Governor to order any convict so petitioning as aforesaid to be marked and branded accordingly: Provided, nevertheless, that every such convict so petitioning, shall state in his petition his willingness to leave the Colony, and, if found therein subsequently without due permission, to be dealt with as the law directs.\n\n### Governor in Council may deport prisoners.\n\nX. In all cases when it seems expedient that any prisoner convicted of any crime, and actually undergoing sentence of imprisonment should be released and deported, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to order such prisoner to be deported.\n\n### Branded convicts when liable to flogging on return to Colony.\n\nXI. Every convict so deported as aforesaid, and nevertheless returning to the Colony, shall be liable, on conviction thereof before a Magistrate, to undergo the remainder of his original sentence, and also, if male, and if convicted subsequent to his return to the Colony of any felony or other crime which the Court sentencing such convict may consider to be so brutal, inveterate, or mischievous as to justify extraordinary measures, shall be liable to be once or twice publicly or privately flogged with the regulation instrument: Provided that not more than thirty-six lashes be inflicted on any one occasion.\n\n### Regulations as to mode of branding to be framed by Governor in Council.\n\nXII. Regulations defining the mode of branding under this Ordinance shall be framed by the Governor in Council, and may be altered and amended, from time to time, by the same authority.\n\n### Prisoner may be deported again.\n\nXIII. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council, if he shall think fit, to issue a new order of deportation against any person who shall have been convicted of an offence against section VI of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner shall have been sentenced.\n\n### Prisoner returning after conditional pardon may be deported.\n\nXIV. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council, if he shall think fit, to issue an order of deportation against any person who shall have been convicted of an offence against sections VIII or XI of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner shall have been sentenced.\n\n### Mendicancy forbidden.\n\nXV. Any person convicted before a Magistrate of mendicancy in this Colony shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five dollars, or in default thereof, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, not exceeding twenty-one days, or, in the discretion of the Magistrate, shall be liable to be whipped thirty-six strokes with a rattan, and be sent to his native place.\n\n### Lepers to be sent to Chinese authorities.\n\nXVI. All persons affected with leprosy are hereby prohibited from residing or being within the jurisdiction of this Colony, and all lepers natives of China found in the jurisdiction shall be apprehended, and, subject to the order of the officer for the time being in command of the Police, be liable to be forthwith sent to Canton, and there handed over to the Chinese authorities, and on being found within this Colony a second time, shall be liable to deportation by order of the Governor.\n\n### Penalty on persons knowingly harbouring Chinese under sentence of deportation.\n\nXVII. Any person who shall knowingly harbour or conceal, in the Colony of Hongkong, any person under sentence of deportation, shall, on conviction thereof before a Justice of the Peace, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or in default of payment, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.\n\n### Repeal.\n\nXVIII. The following Ordinances and parts of Ordinances are hereby repealed:\n\n  \n    Ordinance 14 of 1845,\n    Section II, sub-section 17, the words \"shall beg,\" &c., &c., up to \"alms or.\"\n  \n  \n    9 of 1857,\n    All sections not previously repealed.\n  \n  \n    8 of 1858,\n    Sections XXI and XXII, and sub-section 9 of section XXVIII.\n  \n  \n    1 of 1860,\n    The whole.\n  \n  \n    9 of 1867,\n    Section XVII.\n  \n  \n    4 of 1871,\n    The whole.\n  \n  \n    5 of 1871,\n    The whole.\n  \n  \n    4 of 1872,\n    The whole.\n  \n\nbut such repeal shall not revive any enactment repealed by any of the said Ordinances or sections of Ordinances, and shall not affect anything duly done before the passing of this Ordinance.\n\n### Indemnity for past acts.\n\nXIX. All acts done or attempted before the passing of this Ordinance, and which would have been lawful if so done or attempted after the passing thereof, are hereby authorised and made valid, and no man shall at any time hereafter be called in question for or in respect of the same.\n\n### Suspending clause.\n\nXX. This Ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's confirmation thereof shall have been proclaimed in the Colony by the Governor.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 11th day of December, 1876.\n\nH. E. WODEHOUSE,\n\nClerk of Councils.\n\n( 21 )\n\n192",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 309151,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]",
        "page_number": 491,
        "title": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]",
        "content_text": "C. O.\n\n15773\n\nREGO 5 SEP 31,\n\n485\n\n:\n\nPolice\n\nthe Hongkong Gool acting as Rice magistrate and committing prisoners to custody. We agreed that whilst it was not illegal, it was, to some extent, inconvenient and could be regarded as a temporary makeshift which, as Mr. Marsh's leave was about expiring, might be tolerated for a little time longer.\n\nNow, however, that Mr. Marsh will not return to Hongkong this year, it is clearly better that Dr. Stewart should relieve the Superintendent of the Gool at the Magistracy.\n\nI shall go down on Monday to complete the arrangements.\n\n(Signed) N. B. Dennery\n\n23 July, 1881.\n\n3.\n\nOverland China Mail.\n\nHONGKONG, THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1881.\n\n\"To the Hon. WILLIAM KESWICK.\n\n\"Sir, The subscribers to the accompanying testimonial have confided to us the duty of its presentation, and in their names and our own of saying to you a few words of farewell. The numerous signatures appearing on the appended subscription lists, representing every class and race of this community, will afford you the best testimony of the wide-spread appreciation entertained of your public career, but it will not be out of place for us to pass in brief retrospect some of the more eminent services you have rendered the Colony.\n\n\"Chief among these stands the able and straightforward performance of your duties in the Legislative Council, where you have for so many years held a seat. In a Crown Colony, the position of an Unofficial Member of this Council is full of discouragement; having no power of initiation, and with the certainty before him of being outvoted if in opposition, his task is limited to criticism of the schemes of the Government. Your labours in this direction have been of the highest importance and utility, and more especially as a guardian of the public purse the ability you have unflinchingly maintained cannot, we think, be very well over-estimated.\n\nThe little leisure which the pressing responsibilities of a large Mercantile House have left you, you have ungrudgingly bestowed on many other public affairs. As Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce your wide experience and knowledge of business have been of the highest value. The City Hall owes much to your care and attention. Schemes of Charity and for the assistance of the poor or friendless have ever found in you a ready sympathizer; and there are but few Institutions organized in this Colony for humane or charitable purposes that have not profited by your liberal aid and advice.\n\n\"Not less worthy of mention have been your services to many of those public companies with which much of the prosperity of the Colony has now become identified. To your power of labour, business capacity and grasp of detail, these important concerns are in no small degree indebted for the prosperity they enjoy; and it is no slight to others to say that probably to you more prominently than any one else, is due the confidence which joint-stock enterprise now enjoys in the Far East.\n\n\"We now beg to bid you farewell, and with every wish for your enjoyment of your well-earned holiday, we remain your sincere friends,\n\nP. RYRIE. ADOLF ANDRE.\n\nJ. Ross ANTON.\n\nF. H. ARJANSE.\n\nGEO. MURRAY BAIN.\n\nE. R. BELILIOS.\n\nJ. BRADLER SMITH.\n\nE. BURNIE.\n\nC. P. CHATER,\n\nJ. T. CHATER.\n\nA. COXON,\n\nD. R. CRAWFORD,\n\nH. L. DALRYMPLE.\n\nWM. DANBY,\n\nWILLIAM H. F. DARBY.\n\nJ. KENNARD DAVIS,\n\nH. L. DENNYS.\n\nGEO. B. EMORY.\n\nH. DE C. FORRES. WILLIAM FORREST. H. Foss.\n\nF. GROBIEN. WILLIAM HARTIGAN. C. H. HASWELL, JR. THOS, C. HAYLLAR. GEO. HOLMES.\n\nH. HOPPTUS.\n\nT. JACKSON.\n\nKo Moor WAH.\n\nWILLIAM LEGGE.\n\nLEE TAK CHEONG.\n\nJ. LOUREIRO.\n\nE. MACKINTOSH,\n\nALFRED T. MANGER.\n\nD. McCULLOCH.\n\nA. P. MCEWEN.\n\nA. Molver,\n\nH. M. MEHTA.\n\nH. N. MODY.\n\nW. M. MORGAN,\n\nS. A. NATHAN.\n\nH. I. NELSON. A. NEWTON.\n\nJ. NOBLE,\n\nE. C. RAY.\n\nWM. REINERS.\n\nJ. A. DOS REMEDIOS.\n\nA. G. ROMANO.\n\nWa. Ross.\n\nD. RUTTUNJEE.\n\nF. D. SASSOON.\n\nD. SAYLE.\n\nE. SCHWEBLIN.\n\nA. F. SMITH.\n\nFRANCIS SNOWDEN.\n\nJ. ENSTON SQUIER.\n\nFREDERICK STEWART,\n\nThe address was tastefully engrossed on parchment and beautifully illuminated.\n\n(T.O.)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 309361,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-194 - Governor Hennessy Administrator Tonnochy - 1881 [8-9]",
        "page_number": 22,
        "title": "CO129-194 - Governor Hennessy Administrator Tonnochy - 1881 [8-9]",
        "content_text": "It appeared to me that 4th defendant, being a well-to-do woman and having no children of her own, had purchased the girl with a view to adopting her as a daughter in the belief that she did so with the father's sanction.\n\n11th June, 1879.\n\n(Signed,) C. V. CREAGH,\n\nActing Police Magistrate.\n\nWhen Acting Captain Superintendent of Police last year, I wished to prosecute a man for detaining a child under this Ordinance, but as it was shewn that the boy had been sold by his father some months previously, the Attorney General (Mr. PHILLIPPO) considered that the purchaser was in loco parentis and could not be punished.\n\nC. V. CREAGH,\n\nActing Police Magistrate.\n\n11th June, 1879.\n\n(Signed,)\n\nMINUTE BY THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ON C.S.O.1606 of 1879.\n\nI handed these papers to the Crown Solicitor with instructions to see what evidence is forthcoming and I beg to enclose his report.\n\nWith the greatest respect for the Chief Justice I doubt the policy of prosecuting the woman he refers to, having regard to the fact that the Magistrate had discharged her for want of testimony, and looking to his further report. The Magistrate should always be supported when it is possible, and if he discharged the woman and put her in the box as a witness and she was used again at the Supreme Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now as a criminal.\n\nThe other two women I could see less reason for discharging, and I think perhaps should have had them charged, but I felt that that would be a grave slight on the Magistrate.\n\nAs to the druggist's case I think that the only thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of faith to proceed against him now.\n\nThe Chief Justice reprimanded all the parties very severely when passing sentence on the others, and I think they were so frightened that they will not engage in such acts again. However in this case I am quite ready to sink my own opinion, and prosecute if it is deemed politic.\n\n5th July, 1879.\n\n(Signed,) J. RUSSELL,\n\nActing Attorney General.\n\nREPORT BY CROWN SOLICITOR ON C.S.O.1606 of 1879.\n\nRegina v. Soo A-su and another.\n\nIn this case I find that the boy LER A-PIU and also LAM A-TING of the Sun-kee Tailor's Shop in or near Canton, where the lad was apprenticed, both left the Colony immediately after the trial, and have not since been heard of. Possibly these witnesses might be got at through the British Consul at Canton, but without their evidence any charge brought against LAM PAK-CHEUNG the druggist could not be well substantiated,\n\nUnfortunately no other evidence is forthcoming, and Inspector CAMERON can find no trace of the man A-KAM who stole the lad at Canton, or of the woman A-NG, both of whom seem to have decamped on hearing that the Police had been applied to in the matter.\n\nThe druggist was himself the first to complain to the Police, and apparently bought the boy with no evil intention, and under the impression that he was an orphan without a home. The child too says that he never told the druggist that he had any home, and expressed no desire to leave him.\n\nThe purchase by Chinese (having no family of their own) of young orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep them is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant occurrence in Hongkong. These \"pocket children,\" as they are usually termed, are often treated with great affection and are far better off than they were previous to their being so bought.\n\nRegina v. Mak Loi-hi.\n\nWith the aid of Inspector LINDSAY, I have carefully investigated this case. CHEUNG A-KAI, and SEUNG A-LUK, 2nd and 4th defendants, discharged at the Police Court have already given their sworn testimony at the recent Criminal Sessions. Should it however after this be thought desirable to put them on trial. I think there may be sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. LUM A-CHAN, 3rd defendant, seems to have taken a minor part in the affair, and would be required as a witness.\n\nTwo Magistrates sitting together have power to determine cases of this nature.\n\n(Signed,)\n\nEDMUND SHARP, Crown Solicitor.\n\nNo. 900\n\nTHE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 16th July, 1879.\n\nSIR,---I have the honour to inform you that your letter of 30th May last recommending that proceedings be taken against Lau PAT-CHEUNG and LEUNG A-LUK under Ordinance 4 of 1865, paragraphs 50 and 51, was referred by His Excellency Governor HENNESSY to the Acting Attorney General who, before making a report, asked that the papers might be referred to the committing Magistrate.\n\nI have now received the report of the Acting Attorney General as well as those of the committing Magistrate and of the Crown Solicitor and I regret to inform you that after carefully considering these reports as well as the depositions forwarded by your Honour, I do not see my way to directing the prosecutions of the two persons indicated by you, first because, with all deference to your Honour's opinion, I do not agree with you in looking upon them as the principal criminals, and secondly because I think that after the evidence of these persons has been taken before both the committing Magistrate and the Supreme Court without any warning having been given to them that their evidence might be used against them, it would appear like a breach of faith to treat them now as criminals.\n\nA perusal of the depositions which you forwarded me and which I now return does not show that either of these persons obtained possession of the children for immoral purposes. It appears also from the depositions that they were led by the statements of the prisoners who have been sentenced by you, which statements were confirmed by the children themselves to believe that one of the children had no parents and that the other was disposed of with the written consent of the father alleged to be the only surviving parent. Neither of the children seem to have been ill-treated and the Magistrate has expressed the opinion with regard to the woman LEUNG A-LUK that \"being a well-to-do woman and having no children of her own, she had purchased the child with a view of adopting her as a daughter in the belief that she did so with the father's sanction.\"\n\nShould the prosecution of these persons result in their acquittal which seems to me not improbable, I fear that the good effect produced by the severe reprimand which I understand that your Honour administered publicly to all the parties concerned in these two cases might be to a great extent neutralized.\n\nAs your Honour's letter has remained for some time unanswered, I think it only right that I should acquaint you without further delay with the opinion that I have formed on the subject of your communication. But as your letter has been under the consideration of Governor HENNESSY, whose departure for Japan prevented him from finally dealing with it, there seems to me to be no reason why the matter should not be left, if your Honour wishes it for the decision of His Excellency on his return to the Colony, when it will not be too late to take proceedings against the parties should it be thought necessary to adopt that course.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nSir,\n\nHis Honour THE CHIEF JUSTICE,\n\n&c.,\n\n&c.,\n\n&c.,\n\nYour obedient Servant,\n\nW. H. MARSH,\n\nAdministrator.\n\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE TO COLONIAL SECRETARY.\n\nTHE SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG, 8th October, 1879.\n\nSIR, The Criminal calendar for September, 1879, was sent to you in due course yesterday. It comprises three cases, case No. 1, a conviction of LEE A-KAU for kidnapping and detaining a child aged ... years. Case No. 6, a conviction of TSANG SZ-TAU and U A-IN on two counts for kidnapping and detaining a boy Ho Po-SING with intent to sell him in this Colony, and on two other counts for the same offence as to another boy YEUNG-SHING, and case No. 9, a conviction of KEUNG A-TO for purchasing a female child TING-HENG for the purpose of prostitution in this Colony, and of LI A-KAK for having sold the same child for the same purpose.\n\nI thought it my duty on the occasion of passing sentences on these prisoners to enlarge on the crimes to which these crimes ministered the great increase of which in number had recently been brought to the notice of the Court especially slavery, usually designated domestic, and slavery for the purposes of prostitution and seeing that arguments, doubts and difficulties had been rather hinted at than fully expressed, I thought it incumbent on me to enter very fully into all the questions at a length which otherwise might be thought too prolix.\n\n21",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-194 - Governor Hennessy Administrator Tonnochy - 1881 [8-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 310006,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 132,
        "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "C.O.\n\n20.39\n\nRECR\n\nACGP 21 NOV 81\n\n131\n\nGeneral, a copy of which is enclosed,\n\nwill explain\n\nthe\n\nobjects\n\nand reasons\n\nfor the passing of the Ordinance.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord;\n\nYour Lordship's Most Obedient\n\nHumble Servant,\n\nE. B. Governor and Commander-in-Chief\n\nAdministrator.\n\nNo. 12 of 1881.\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hong-kong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, entitled the \"Banishment and Conditional Pardons Ordinance, 1881.\"\n\n[23rd August, 1881.]\n\nENACTED by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof.\n\nI. In the construction of this Ordinance, the expression \"order of banishment\" means an order of the Governor in Council, prohibiting a person from residing or being within this Colony, for a term not exceeding five years.\n\nII. Any Justice of the Peace may lawfully arrest, or cause to be arrested, with or without warrant, any person whom he reasonably suspects to be an emissary or abettor of Her Majesty's enemies, or of pirates, or of Chinese disaffected to Her Majesty's Government, or otherwise dangerous to the peace and good order of this Colony, and safely keep him until he can be dealt with according to law.\n\nIII. Any Magistrate may cause any Chinese person to find reasonable security for his appearance in any Court for any purpose, and at any time within twelve months, and every adjudication to that effect shall be made in open Court, and reported forthwith to the Governor; and such Chinese not finding such security shall be deemed a person dangerous to the peace of the Colony, and be liable to banishment under section 4 of this Ordinance.\n\nIV. The Governor in Council may, by order, prohibit any person not being a natural born or naturalized subject of Her Majesty from residing or being within this Colony during any space of time not exceeding five years, and may by the same or any subsequent order, fix the time for the departure of such person from the Colony.\n\nV. Every person who has been prohibited by order of the Governor in Council from residing or being within this Colony for any space of time not exceeding five years under the provisions of this or any other Ordinance, and who without lawful authority or excuse, the proof of which shall lie upon him, is in this Colony after the date of such order, or after the time fixed for his departure, and before the expiration of the term of his banishment, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one year: Provided that in all cases in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate upon such charge shall plead guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, instead of committing the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nTitle.\n\nInterpretation\n\nPower to arrest and keep emissaries or abettors of\n\nSecurity to appear within twelve months.\n\nPower to banish for five years.\n\nPenalty for disobedience to or violation of order of banishment.\n\nPage 14",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 310007,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 133,
        "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "Governor?\n\ngrant pardon subject to conditions of offenders leaving the Colony.\n\nSen Ord. of 1880, Rec. 1.1\n\nGrant of conditional pardon\n\nPrisoner may be banished Igela.\n\nFree Ord, 4 of 1871. EU, 4.]\n\nPrisoner -\n\nreturning after conditional pardon banishment may be banished.\n\nKapal.\n\nplace\n\nVI. The Governor may in his discretion grant to any offender convicted of any crime a pardon subject to either of the following conditions, as the case may be, viz.: That such offender shall quit the Colony and not afterwards be found at large therein; or that such offender shall, in lieu of a sentence of death which may have been passed upon or recorded against him by any Court of competent jurisdiction, suffer such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or penal servitude, as the Governor may think fit.\n\nVII. If any offender to whom a pardon has been granted either before or after the passing of this Ordinance, on the condition of his quitting the Colony, be afterwards found at large therein without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie upon him, he shall be guilty of a felony or of a misdemeanor, according to the nature of the offence for which he received such conditional pardon, and shall, on conviction, be liable to any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, such sentence to commence from the date at which he is tried and convicted under this Ordinance: Provided that in all cases in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate upon such charge shall plead guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, and to remit him to gaol to undergo any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, instead of committing him for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nVIII. If it appears fit to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may issue a new order of banishment against any person who has been convicted of an offence against section 5 of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner has been sentenced.\n\nIX. If it appears fit to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may issue an order of banishment against any person who has been convicted of an offence against section 7 of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner has been sentenced.\n\nX. Any person who knowingly harbours or conceals in the Colony of Hongkong, any person whose banishment has been ordered, shall, on conviction thereof before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or in default of payment, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.\n\nXI. The following enactments are hereby repealed, viz.:-\n\nOrdinance 14 of 1845,--Section 2, sub-section 17, from the words \"shall beg,\" to the words \"alms or,\" inclusive.\n\n9 of 1867,—All sections not previously repealed.\n\n8 of 1858,-Section 21 and section 28, sub-section 9, from the words \"and be deported\" to \"shall decide.\"\n\n1 of 1860,--The whole.\n\n9 of 1867.-Section 17.\n\n16 of 1870,\n\n4 of 1871, The whole,\n\n5 of 1871,\n\nProvided that such repeal shall not affect the past operation of any such enactment or anything done or suffered thereunder.\n\nXII. This Ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's confirmation thereof is proclaimed by the Governor.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 23rd day of August, 1881.\n\nReport\n\n132\n\nC.O.\n\n20391\n\nOrdinance the 12. XC3%.\n\nREGE 21 NOV 81.\n\nI have examined the accompanying Ordinance entitled the \"Banishment and Conditional Pardons Ordinance, 1881\"\n\nand am of opinion that it is not contrary to the Governor's instructions.\n\nThe object of this ordinance is to re-enact that part of the repealed Ordinance 8 of 1876 which relates to banishment with amendments to give effect to the instructions conveyed in the Secretary of State's Despatch of July 30, 1880, and in Lord Carnarvon's despatch of May 18, 1877.\n\nThe principal amendments are the words \"banishment\" has been substituted for \"deportation.\"\n\n2. the omission of the provision authorizing branding.\n\nArathoon Seth\n\nActing Clerk of Councils.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 310393,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 519,
        "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "To lift, before the said brush on Saturday the 5th day of November 1881 at 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the said day to unders\n\nthat and receive all and singular such matters and things as the said Court shall then and there consider of and concerning them and each of them in\n\nthis behalf.\n\nNow\n\nTake Notice that by virtue of the said Writ the said Yong Aham, Wong Meaning Alaun, Yong Cheong Thing, Yeung Yeong, George Dan Chor, Yong Acting, Yeong Ayik Yeong Rheing Choy, Yeong Hoon Tak, Yong Thich King, Jeong Hi Cha, Yeong Hoon King, and Yeong Kam Stung alias Tang Jehan, Wong Keong, Lam Chung, King By, Cheung Lung If You Puny,\n\nPang Bug Liyan, Law Ah Kg, Wong Ahon, Taught, Chum Atsoi, Kwok A Aye and To will be brought before the said Court the said Monday the 8th day of November 1881 at 11 o'clock in the forenoon in order that they may be discharged\n\nout of custody as to the commitment which they are now detained in the custody of the said Superintendent or Keeper.\n\nDated this 7th day of November 1881.\n\nYours re (Signed) Brereton & Wolton.\n\nSolicitors for the said Jeong Akam alias Tang Achau rollers.\n\nTo the Honourable\n\nMalcolm Struan Morrison\n\nthe Committing Magistrate Edmund Sharp.\n\nCrown Solicitor Prosecutor.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 310406,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 532,
        "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "deliver up any prisoner of their own motion and without demand. The Ordinance undoubtedly went beyond that and gave power to the Magistrate to make his warrant of committal on such an amount of evidence as would justify commitment for trial of a prisoner for an offence committed in Hongkong, but there had been no requisition by the Chinese Government, and the magistrate therefore had no jurisdiction, as the men were not legally in custody on any other charge, it being clearly the magistrate's duty, after the ruling in the Kwok Asing case, to discharge them at once when according to the evidence of the very first witness they had done nothing in Hongkong which rendered them liable to be proceeded against as dangerous to the peace and good order of the colony. The proceedings were therefore coram non judice. The whole proceedings from beginning to end, including the charge of the police constable that the men were dangerous to the peace and good order of the colony, were a sham, utterly groundless, and for the sole purpose of detaining the prisoners in custody in the hope or expectation that some application might be made by the Chinese authorities.\n\nThe Attorney-General rose to object to this language.\n\nThe Chief Justice said Mr. Francis was only using it arguendo.\n\nMr. Francis continued his argument. He contended that the provisions of section 1 of Ordinance of 1850 as to the commencement of an inquiry by the magistrate when it appeared in the course of another case that a crime had been committed in China could only apply when there was a bona fide case before him, while here there was none, as the magistrate ought to have discharged the men at once when it appeared they had done nothing in the colony.\n\nMr. Justice Russell said he presumed that if the men were murderers in China they would not be peaceable subjects here.\n\nMr. Francis said that point was authoritatively settled by the judgment in the Kwok Asing case, and again cited the passage already quoted. With reference to the other point, the unreasonableness of the length of the detention, he said he did not know that he could add anything to what had already incidentally dropped from their Lordships in the course of the case. The questions their Lordships had asked almost showed their views on the subject. Whatever might be the cause of the delay, whether they were waiting for a proper requisition for rendition or any other reason, there was no power in the Executive to detain them. The necessary conditions did not exist when the men were committed; there was no power to detain them until these conditions were complied with or until such formal requisition had been sent in.\n\nThe Attorney-General said a requisition was not made on oath and would therefore form no part of the proceedings returned by the magistrate on certiorari.\n\nMr. Francis said there were cases which showed that in England the absence of the warrant of the Secretary of State would be fatal.\n\nThe court reserved judgment and remanded the prisoners until Tuesday.\n\nSUPREME COURT.\n\n8th November.\n\nCRIMINAL JURISDICTION.\n\nBEFORE THE FULL COURT.\n\nIN THE MATTER OF YUNG AKAM AND TWELVE OTHERS, PRISONERS IN VICTORIA GAOL.\n\nThe prisoners were brought up on remand on a writ of habeas corpus.\n\nMr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Brereton and Wotton, appeared for the prisoners, and the Attorney-General (Hon. E. L. O'Malley), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. E. Sharp), for the Crown.\n\nThe Chief Justice said the court did not propose to deal with the case finally to-day. They had given it a great deal of consideration and they saw there was much that required very careful attention, and as the Attorney-General had offered to produce reasons for the detention of those men for the very long time they had been in gaol, they thought it would be well to give him an opportunity of doing so on affidavit. This was quite within the spirit of the extradition laws of the United Kingdom, because if after the lapse of two months the prisoners were not handed over or discharged, the officers of the Crown had to give the reasons. They thought, following that course, it would be well that the Crown should state by affidavit the reasons for which they had detained those men. The affidavits would be served on the other side, who would have an opportunity of answering them, and, if it should be desired, of cross-examining the witnesses. They therefore adjourned the case to give an opportunity of affidavits being filed and so on. The point was whether the magistrate had power to commit without a requisition from the Chinese authorities.\n\nMr. Justice Russell said that in Ordinance 2 of 1871 it was stated that the Treaty of Tientsin was to be read as though it had been in existence when Ordinance 2 of 1850 was passed, and in the 21st section of the Treaty of Tientsin it stated that \"if criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hongkong, or on board the British ships there, they shall, upon due requisition by the Chinese Authorities, be searched for, and on proof of their guilt, be delivered up.\" It apparently made it clear there that before the law was put in motion, there should be a requisition by the nation demanding them. By Ordinance 2 of 1850, the positions were, first, that a complaint or information was made by an officer of the Chinese Government; secondly, that some other case was going on in which the magistrate learned there was some person in the colony who had committed an offence against the laws of China, upon which he issued his warrant; thirdly, there was some person in custody and it appeared there had been an offence committed against the laws of China. The question arose under that third section, could the magistrate get rid of the prisoner by committing him and say, \"I put it now in the power of the Governor to detain him until he gets a requisition from the Chinese.\" While the prisoner was under remand, he was under the control and jurisdiction of the magistrate; could the latter put him out of his jurisdiction by handing him over to the Governor to rendite him before he had got, either directly or indirectly, a requisition from the Chinese Government? because in the second section of the Ordinance it said-In any such warrant of arrest or any subsequent warrant of committal—that was the case here—it shall be sufficient to describe the crime or offence of such person in terms the same as, or similar to, those contained in such complaint, information, or communication aforesaid.\" The question was, did not that contemplate that before there was a final committal warrant, there should be before the magistrate a requisition stating what was the crime said to have been committed in China? That was the point. All the cases he had seen seemed to show that the magistrate had before him a requisition for the surrender of the accused, and where that was not the case, the committal was held to be bad. He could not find that this was clearly decided in the Kwok Asing case; there was a good deal of discussion there in the Chief Justice's judgment, but it was not clear. He understood Mr. Francis to contend that was so.\n\nMr. Francis said that particular point had not struck him, but he thought he saw what was in his Lordship's mind. His contention was that there must be a requisition in every case.\n\nMr. Justice Russell said the magistrate had complete domination over the case as long as it was under remand, but immediately he committed it, it was out of his hands. The point was, whether, if there was no requisition placed before the magistrate, the committal was not bad.\n\nMr. Francis-In other words, whether, though he can detain under the second branch of the section, he can commit without a requisition.\n\nMr. Justice Russell-Yes; whether he can put the prisoner out of his control. In the Kwok Asing case, there was a requisition made through the Colonial Secretary.\n\n530",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 310407,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 533,
        "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "The Attorney-General said that in connection with that point it occurred to him whether the return might not be amended so that it might set out, if the fact were so, that there was a requisition before committal.\n\nThe Chief Justice said that might be done. The prisoners were then remanded until Monday next.\n\nMr. Francis said he would venture to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that these men, convicted of no offence, were brought down in chains and handcuffs.\n\nThe Chief Justice said that ought not to be, but until the men were brought into court he had no control over the authorities; it was a question for the gaoler what he thought necessary for their security, but when they came into court their handcuffs were taken off.\n\nPage 531\n\nSUPREME COURT.\n\n14th November.\n\nCRIMINAL JURISDICTION.\n\nBEFORE THE FULL Court.\n\nIN THE MATTER OF YEUNG AKAM AND TWELVE OTHERS, PRISONERS IN VICTORIA GAOL.\n\nMr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Brereton and Wotton, appeared for the prisoners; the Attorney-General (Hon. E. L. O'Malley), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. E. Sharp), appeared for the Crown.\n\nThe prisoners were brought up on a writ of habeas corpus. At the last sitting the court asked for the reasons of the Government for the long detention of the men and also for further argument as to whether a communication from the Chinese authorities to the magistrate was necessary, and whether the magistrate was required to state on the warrant the authority under which he acted.\n\nThe Attorney-General said he had not been able, or he should probably say he had not thought it right, with all deference to their Lordships, to file an affidavit setting out at length the reasons for the detention of the prisoners during the long period they had been kept in gaol, for two reasons. To state these reasons fully would involve the disclosure of matters which it was not desirable, if it could be avoided, to make public, and he had also been very much moved by the consideration that the question which was raised by Mr. Justice Russell upon the other part of the case appeared to him to be of really very much greater importance, and one upon which it was quite possible the court would dispose of the matter without reference to the long detention. Assuming the court were in favour of upholding the commitment upon that other point, he would then, after careful consideration, be quite prepared to trust the case, with regard to the long detention, upon the construction of the statute. He apprehended that although it was no doubt very desirable good reasons should be given, yet the statute was not so worded as to call for them; it might be an omission, and one that ought perhaps to be supplied, but he would submit, and he would take his stand on that ground, that in construing the statute as it must be construed it was not open to the court to insist upon such a statement of reasons.\n\nThe Chief Justice remarked it was the Attorney-General's own suggestion that such reasons should be given.\n\nThe Attorney-General said that was so, but the court would remember the way in which he put it, that if it should become material to the judgment of the court he would do so, and he certainly at the time, looking to many decisions which had been given in England, thought it might become material, but looking again to the wording of the statute, which was singularly strong, he would submit it could not become material here. Then with regard to the other point, which certainly appeared to him to be one that required consideration, the question was raised by Mr. Justice Russell, and what he said was very clearly reported in the Daily Press—There was some person in custody, and it appeared there had been an offence committed against the laws of China. The question arose under that third section, could the magistrate get rid of him by committing him and say, I put it now in the power of the Governor to detain him until he gets a requisition from the Chinese. While the prisoner was under remand he was under the control and jurisdiction of the magistrate; could the latter put him out of his jurisdiction by handing him over to the Governor to rendite him before he had got, either directly or indirectly, a requisition from the Chinese Government?—whether, in fact, the conviction was warranted by the state of facts at the time the conviction was made, whether the fact that a requisition had been made by the Chinese authorities and communicated to the magistrate was not essential, and ought that not to be in some way disclosed in the proceedings? He had filed an affidavit which had been sworn to by the now Acting Colonial Secretary, who was at the time of the proceedings Acting Police Magistrate, and he submitted that affidavit disclosed very completely the necessary facts upon that view. The learned Attorney then read a portion of the affidavit, which was to the effect that while the proceedings were pending the Hon. Frederick Stewart, Acting Colonial Secretary, received a confidential letter from Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Canton enclosing a dispatch from the Viceroy desiring the rendition of the prisoners.\n\nMr. Francis said he objected to that portion of the affidavit being taken as evidence; it was hearsay evidence; it stated the contents of a document which was not produced.\n\nThe Attorney-General said it was a confidential official letter from an officer of the Foreign Office, and he apprehended it was not open to them to make that public, especially when they were in a position to state on oath the purport of it.\n\nMr. Francis said he would maintain that the requisition must be produced and that the court could not receive secondary evidence of the nature of its contents.\n\nThe Attorney-General said he had no doubt the Colonial Secretary would be in a position to say this was a confidential document and could not be produced, and that would be sufficient to justify secondary evidence. The learned attorney continued to read the affidavit, which set out that the magistrate waited on the Acting Colonial Secretary and was informed of the receipt of the dispatch and the purport of the contents of the same, and that after the investigation, being satisfied the thirteen prisoners were the same as those described in the Viceroy's dispatch and were Chinese subjects, he committed them to the safe custody of the Superintendent of the Gaol pending the order of the Governor. The learned Attorney submitted that affidavit showed there had been an application already made from the Chinese authorities, and that this case was not the same as the hypothetical case referred to by Mr. Justice Russell of prisoners being committed to wait the subsequent action of the Chinese authorities. The requisition was sworn to have been made before the prisoners were committed. The prisoners being in custody, there being a requisition from the Chinese authorities communicated to the magistrate, the magistrate being satisfied after investigation, that the men were Chinese subjects and that there was a prima facie case against them, these facts being before the court there was a substantial ground for upholding the conviction, and that being so the court would not for any informality or deficiency in the commitment quash it.\n\nMr. Francis, having cited cases in support of his contention that the warrant must show on the face of it the authority under which the magistrate acted, argued that the receipt of a requisition by the Colonial Secretary would not be sufficient to make the proceedings before the magistrate regular; the requisition must be communicated to the magistrate in proper form, whereas that had not been done, and such information as the magistrate possessed in reference to it he had himself gone after. The affidavit stood condemned on the face of it, as whatever it might show as to there having been a requisition it also showed that the requisition was never communicated to the magistrate and did not now form part of the proceedings. The learned counsel also argued that the prisoners were entitled to have the requisition before them at the time of the investigation, on the ground that they were entitled to go into the question of identity and show they were not the persons named in the requisition, as also that there had been no crime committed. With reference to the unreasonableness of the detention, the matter stood precisely where it did before. He never supposed the Attorney-General would or could give reasons for the detention.\n\nPage 531 appears three times at the top and three times at the bottom, indicating the end of the page.\n\n \nPage 531\n\nPage 531",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 311596,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-198 - Governor Hennessy Acting Governor Tonnochy - 1882 [3]",
        "page_number": 32,
        "title": "CO129-198 - Governor Hennessy Acting Governor Tonnochy - 1882 [3]",
        "content_text": "# ORDINANCE No. 8 OF 1882\n\n## Banishment and Conditional Pardons\n\nV. The Governor may in his discretion grant to any offender convicted of any crime a pardon subject to either of the following conditions, as the case may be, viz: That such offender shall quit the Colony and not afterwards be found at large therein; or that such offender shall, in lieu of a sentence of death which may have been passed upon him by any Court of competent jurisdiction, suffer such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or penal servitude, as the Governor may think fit.\n\nVI. If any offender to whom a pardon has been granted either before or after the passing of this Ordinance, on the condition of his quitting the Colony, be afterwards found at large therein without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie upon him, he shall be guilty of a felony or of a misdemeanor, according to the nature of the offence for which he received such conditional pardon, and shall, on conviction, be liable to any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, such sentence to commence from the date at which he is tried and convicted under this Ordinance: Provided that, in all cases in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate upon such charge shall plead guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, and to remit him to gaol to undergo any sentence not exceeding the whole of his original or commuted sentence, instead of committing him for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nVII. If it appears fit to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may issue a new order of banishment against any person who has been convicted of an offence against section 4 of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner has been sentenced.\n\nVIII. If it appears fit to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may issue an order of banishment against any person who has been convicted of an offence against section 6 of this Ordinance, and such order shall commence to take effect during or at the expiration of any term of imprisonment to which the prisoner has been sentenced.\n\nIX. Any person who knowingly harbours or conceals in the Colony of Hongkong, any person whose banishment has been ordered, shall, on conviction thereof before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or in default of payment, to be imprisoned with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.\n\nX. The following enactments are hereby repealed, viz.:-\n| Ordinance | Section |\n| --- | --- |\n| 14 of 1845 | Section 2, sub-section 17, from the words \"shall beg,\" to the words \"alms or,\" inclusive. |\n| 9 of 1857 | All sections, except section 8, not previously repealed. |\n| 8 of 1858 | Section 21 and section 28, sub-section 9, from the words \"at the discretion\" to the words \"the Court and\" inclusive and from the words \"to his native\" to the words \"any other place\" inclusive. |\n| 1 of 1860 | The whole. |\n| 9 of 1867 | Section 17. |\n| 16 of 1870 | ... |\n| 4 of 1871 | The whole. |\n| 5 of 1871 | ... |\n\nProvided that such repeal shall not affect the past operation of any such enactment or anything done or suffered thereunder.\n\nXI. This Ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's confirmation thereof is proclaimed by the Governor.\n\n## Repeal\n\n## Surpaling clause",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-198 - Governor Hennessy Acting Governor Tonnochy - 1882 [3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 318000,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 251,
        "title": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "248 \n\n(6) \n\n72. Visiting Justices shall hear all complaints for breaches of prison discipline the punishment for which is beyond the powers conferred on the Superintendent by Rule 6, and shall award such punishment as may be sanctioned by any Ordinance, or by the Gaol Regulations, as the justice of the case may seem to require. \n\n73. They shall examine witnesses upon oath, and shall enter in a book a note of the evidence brought in support of a complaint, and of their judgment and sentence thereon. They shall enter in the Justices' Visiting Book any suggestions or remarks they wish to bring to the notice of His Excellency the Governor as to the state and discipline of the Gaol. \n\n74. No Officer of the Gaol shall be Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, or Bailiff, or be concerned in any trade or other occupation, except in the Government service. \n\n75. No such Officer shall sell, let, or derive any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the sale or letting of any article to any prisoner. No such Officer shall have, directly or indirectly, any interest in any contract or agreement for the supply of the Gaol, or use for himself or his family any oil, rations, food, or other article supplied for the use of the Gaol. \n\n76. A light shall be kept constantly burning throughout the night in every ward or division of the Gaol in which prisoners shall be confined, but such light shall not be placed inside the cell or within reach of the prisoners, and a light shall be kept burning in each of the sleeping rooms of the Officers of the Gaol not on duty. \n\n77. Every part of the Gaol premises shall be swept clean daily as often as is necessary, and the Gaol shall be washed throughout once in every week, except during damp weather. \n\n78. Every prisoner shall wash himself daily, and every prisoner shall have at least one hot or cold bath once a week. \n\n79. The clothes worn by each prisoner next to the skin shall be exchanged for a clean suit at least once a week. \n\n80. The hair of each male European prisoner shall be cut to such moderate length as health or cleanliness may require. \n\n81. The tails of Chinese prisoners sentenced to incarceration for two years or upwards, shall be cut off, and their hair shall be so kept until within 6 months of their enlargement. Provided that, at any time, for purposes of health or cleanliness, the tail of any Chinese prisoner may be removed. \n\n82. Every male prisoner shall be shaved once a week, according to the custom of his country. \n\n83. The bedding and spare clothing of each prisoner shall be aired at least twice a week, in the open air if practicable, and washed as often as is needful. If sheets or blankets are used, they shall be washed at least once a month, and sheets used by one prisoner shall on no account be used, without having been washed, by another. \n\n84. Every prisoner convicted of Felony, and every misdemeanant (except 1st class) convicted for the first time, shall be supplied with and constantly wear the ordinary Gaol dress. \n\n85. Every other person confined in the Gaol shall be supplied with clothes if their own is insufficient, or unfit for use, or necessary to be preserved for the purposes of justice. \n\n86. Prisoners convicted for the 2nd and 3rd times shall wear a parti-coloured dress distinguishing them from other prisoners. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, may wear their own clothes, if suitable. \n\n87. Prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or on remand, or committed for trial, shall be permitted to see their legal advisers at all reasonable times, and in private if required. \n\n88. A convicted prisoner may see his legal adviser, if a Visiting Justice, or the Sheriff, or one of the Police Magistrates so order. \n\n89. Every person claiming admission as a legal adviser, must be a Lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of this Colony, or the authorised European Clerk of such Lawyer, accompanied by an Interpreter. \n\n(7) \n\n90. The friends and relations of prisoners confined for debt, or prisoners on remand, shall be allowed to see them at reasonable hours; in the case of the latter, the Superintendent may withhold the privilege if he see sufficient reason, recording particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book. \n\n91. Convicted prisoners may see their relations once in the course of every three months, or in case of sickness, or, should the Superintendent see sufficient reason, oftener, recording the fact and all particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book. \n\n92. Prisoners committed for non-payment of penalties, or want of sureties, may receive visits in the same manner as prisoners on remand, if the object of the visits is to arrange the payment of the penalty, or the procuring of sureties; otherwise, they shall be subject to the same rules in this respect as convicted prisoners. \n\n93. Male and female prisoners shall always be so confined as to prevent the former from seeing, conversing with, or holding any intercourse with the latter. \n\n## CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS \n\n94. The prisoners (unless in separate confinement) shall be, so far as the accommodation in the Gaol permits, divided into the following classes - \n| Class | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (1.) | Felons under sentence of death. |\n| (2.) | All other felons and misdemeanants (not being 1st class) undergoing a sentence under a 1st conviction. |\n| (3.) | Persons confined for want of sureties as dangerous characters, Persons committed to take their trial for felony or misdemeanour. |\n| (4.) | 1st class misdemeanants and persons committed on civil process. for want of sureties, who have not been before confined in Gaol. |\n| (5.) | Prisoners on remand. |\n| (6.) | Prisoners convicted a second or third time, |\n| (7.) | Debtors. |\n| (8.) | Approvers, or prisoners thought likely to turn Queen's evidence. |\n\n95. No work shall be done in the Gaol beyond what is necessary, on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day. \n\n96. Prisoners of the Jewish persuasion shall not be compelled to work on Saturdays if they claim exemption, but shall be kept in separate confinement on that day and on Sunday. They may also keep such other Festival days as may be directed from time to time by His Excellency the Governor. \n\n97. Prisoners committed for trial, or on remand, 1st class misdemeanants, or debtors, may send or receive letters at all reasonable times, unless the Committing Magistrate, or a Visiting Justice, order to the contrary, but the Superintendent may withhold such privilege if he see sufficient cause, recording the reasons and particulars in the Daily Occurrence Book. \n\n98. Every convicted prisoner may, subject to the same restrictions, be allowed to send and receive one letter in the course of every 6 weeks, or 3 months, but the Superintendent shall read any letter or paper so sent, keeping the contents of the same strictly private, unless he thinks it necessary to report the same to His Excellency the Governor. \n\n99. Letters addressed to or written by prisoners confined for debt, or on civil process, or for want of sureties, may be inspected by the Superintendent for good reasons, which shall be recorded in the Daily Occurrence Book. \n\n100. Letters may be withheld by the Superintendent from or to any prisoner for good reasons, to be reported forthwith to His Excellency the Governor, and to be entered in the Daily Occurrence Book. \n\n101. Indian prisoners are not to be put to any labour which may really cause them the loss of caste, and, as regards their food, the best possible arrangement is to be made so that they may not be forced to choose between loss of food and loss of caste.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 318442,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 694,
        "title": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "# SIA, (312) \n## MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ORDINANCE COMMISSION.\n\n### (No. 1.)\n#### Secretary, C. D. O. Commission, to Registrar General,\n\nVICTORIA, HONGKONG,  \n23rd May, 1878.\n\nI am directed by the Commission appointed to enquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance to send you a printed copy of the evidence upon which their report will be founded, and to call your attention to the following points which seem to require some further light being thrown upon them.\n\n1. The Commission observe that from a time almost immediately following the coming into operation of Ordinance 10 of 1867 a practice grew up of arresting the inmates of unlicensed brothels as well as the keepers, in many instances such inmates being girls so young that it would seem impossible they should have been mistaken for keepers. The Commission would be glad to learn by what authority this practice has been sanctioned, as so far as they can find, it has not received that of the Ordinance itself.\n\n2. The Commission observe from the judicial records and from other evidence laid before them that unlicensed brothels frequented by Chinese only have been subjected to frequent prosecutions, and their inmates upon conviction sentenced to undergo medical examinations. As the inmates of licensed brothels for Chinese only are not subjected to medical examinations, the Commission would be glad to know what special reason dictated the adoption of this course.\n\n3. A practice seems to have been for a long time followed of sending women for medical examination before conviction, the result of the examination having been used as evidence affecting the finding of the Court. Looking to the terms of sections 44 and 45 of the Ordinance, the Commission, as at present advised, have serious doubts as to whether this is in accordance with their meaning.\n\n4. Evidence has been laid before the Commission to the effect that women who have been fined have been compelled to sell themselves to a continuation of prostitution in order to raise money to pay their fines. The Commission would be glad to learn whether you have any reason to doubt the correctness of such testimony.\n\n5. The Commission desire to point your attention to answers 71 to 72 inclusive (CHEANG-A-LIU's evidence) and they are anxious to learn whether and if so to what extent the practice there mentioned has received the sanction of the Registrar General.\n\n6. It has suggested itself to the Commission whether the supply of women (both keepers and inmates) to brothels licensed for foreigners is not due rather to the pecuniary advantages held out or supposed to be held out by having Government licences or carrying on business in licensed brothels than to the fear of prosecution for illicit prostitution. Supposing prosecutions for keeping unlicensed houses were not enforced, do you think that the supply of inmates to licensed brothels for foreigners would be materially diminished assuming the licences granted still to carry with them the conditions of such inmates being compelled to submit to medical examinations of their persons and of being confined in the Lock Hospital when diseased?\n\nWould you be kind enough to supply the Commission with tables showing the revenue realized under Ordinance No. 10 of 1867 both from fees for licences and from fines or from any other sources since it came into operation till the end of the year 1877, if it is within your power to do so? If it is not within your power, can you kindly inform them where to apply for such tables?\n\nIn addition to the matters above specially referred to, the Commission would be glad to be favoured with any observations upon the evidence generally which you think would forward the enquiry, and they will probably best consult your wishes by asking you to put your views in writing.\n\nI have the honour to be,  \nSir,  \nYour most obedient Servant,  \n**H. L. DENNYS**, Secretary, **Contagious Diseases Ordinance Commission**.\n\nRegistrar General,  \n&c., &c., &c.\n\n### (No. 2.)\n#### Registrar General to Secretary, C. D. O. Commission.\n\nSIR,  \nREGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated May, 1878, which reached me on the 24th inst.\n\n2. Regarding the practice of arresting the inmates of unlicensed brothels as well as the keepers, which the Commission considers grew up almost immediately after Ordinance 10 of 1867 came into operation, I would mention that I was under the impression that this was also done prior to that date, while Ordinance No. 12 of 1857 was in force. However that may be, the arrests have been effected under the general powers granted to any Police Constable to take into custody persons whom he shall have good cause to suspect of committing or being about to commit any misdemeanour. (`Section XVI of Ordinance 14 of 1845.`)\n\n3. Under `Section XX of Ordinance 10 of 1867`, a Police Officer receives authority to enter premises suspected to be used as an unlicensed brothel, and to arrest the keeper, and being therefore in such house by lawful authority he makes the other arrests indicated.\n\n4. I may add that in, I believe, the majority of cases it is only after enquiry before the Magistrate that it can be determined which of the persons arrested is to be taken as the keeper. It is simply ...\n\nDRAFT.  \n21  \nThe oaeg.  \n19660 #hong.  \nNo.263  \nMINUTE.\n\n| Name | \n| --- | \n| Mr. Qucas | \n| Mr. De Robect | \n| Mr. Wingfield | \n| XMr. Bramston | \n| Mr. Meade | \n| Mr. Herbert | \n| Mr. Ashley | \n| X Lord Kimberley |\n\nWhen this has  \nthe pafes  \nwill be  \nAns  \n₫ 5950/65  \nSin  \n7 Dec. 82  \n684  \n\nI have the honour to  \nact: the receife of  \nYou desp: no. 24. of  \nthe 28th of Sept  \ngone  \ndresing attention to  \nwrors in the statement  \nof seccifts and expenditure  \nfrom the operation of  \nCollected for printing  \nthe Contagione Sisenses",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 320653,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 32,
        "title": "CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "## \n11. Every person who, contrary to the regulations of the prison, brings or attempts by any means whatever to introduce into any prison any spirituous or fermented liquor or tobacco or opium, and every officer of a prison who suffers any spirituous or fermented liquor or tobacco or opium to be sold or used therein, contrary to the prison regulations, on conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or both in the discretion of the Court, and every officer of a prison convicted under this section shall, in addition to any other punishment, forfeit his office and all arrears of salary due to him.\n\n12. Every person who, contrary to the regulations of a prison, conveys or attempts to convey any letter or other document, or any article whatever not allowed by such regulations into or out of any prison, shall on conviction incur a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and, if an officer of the prison, shall forfeit his office and all arrears of salary due to him, but this section shall not apply in cases where the offender is liable to a more severe punishment under any other provision of this Ordinance.\n\n13. The Superintendent shall cause to be affixed in a conspicuous place outside the prison a notice setting forth the penalties that will be incurred by persons committing any offence in contravention of the three preceding sections.\n\n14. It shall be the duty of the Coroner to hold an inquest on the body of every prisoner who may die within a prison, and in no case shall any officer of the prison, or any prisoner confined in the prison or any person engaged in any sort of trade or dealing with the prison, be a Juror on such inquest.\n\n15. If any suit or action is prosecuted against any person for anything done in pursuance of this Ordinance, such person may plead that the same was done by authority of this Ordinance; and if a verdict passes for the defendant, or plaintiff becomes nonsuited, or discontinues his action after issue joined, or if, upon demurrer or otherwise, judgment be given against the plaintiff, the defendant shall recover double costs, and have the like remedy for the same as any defendant has by law in other cases; and though a verdict be given for the plaintiff in any such action, such plaintiff shall not have costs against the defendant, unless the Judge before whom the trial takes place certifies his approbation of the action and the verdict obtained thereupon.\n\n16. Offences under this Ordinance, with the exception of felonies, and of offences for the mode of trial of which express provision is made by this Ordinance, shall be prosecuted summarily before a Police Magistrate.\n\n17. The regulations contained in Schedule A to this Ordinance shall be binding on all persons in the same manner as if they were enacted in the body of this Ordinance.\n\n18. The Governor in Executive Council shall make rules for the supply to all prisoners confined in prison of sufficient quantity of plain and wholesome food, regard being had so far as relates to convicted criminal prisoners to the nature of the labour required from or performed by such prisoners, so that the allowance of food may be duly apportioned thereto, and shall make dietary tables for that purpose, and may from time to time make rules in respect of the nature of the hard labour to be performed by prisoners and in respect of any other matters relating to the government of prisons in addition to the regulations in Schedule A to this Ordinance, and may from time to time revoke, add to or alter any rules or dietary tables made under this Section.\n\n19. The Governor shall from time to time appoint with their consent Justices of the Peace to be Visiting Justices for periods to be specified in such appointments.\n\nVisiting Justices shall during the period for which they are appointed from time to time at frequent intervals visit all prisons and hear any complaints which may be made to them by the prisoners, and shall report on any abuses within the prisons or any repairs that may be required, and shall further take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity and within the powers of their Commission as Justices and do such acts and perform such duties in relation to prisons as they may be required to do or perform by the Governor, but subject to the regulations with respect to the duties of Visiting Justices contained in Schedule A to this Ordinance and to any rules in respect of such duties made by the Governor in Executive Council under Section 18 of this Ordinance.\n\n20. Ordinances 4 of 1863 and 2 of 1878 are hereby repealed, and sections 63 of Ordinance 4 of 1865, and 50 of Ordinance 6 of 1865, and 95 of Ordinance 7 of 1865, and 36 of Ordinance 10 of 1865 shall be construed as if they referred to this Ordinance and the rules made thereunder, instead of to section 15 of Ordinance 4 of 1863.\n\nPage 31",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 320667,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 46,
        "title": "CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "## 17. The Governor \n\nThe Executive Council shall, as soon as possible after the commencement of this Ordinance, make rules for the regulation and government of prisons and for the discipline, control, and conduct of the officers employed in prisons and for the classification, maintenance, employment, discipline, punishment, and correction of prisoners, and for all other matters belonging to prisons. Such rules shall not be inconsistent with anything contained in this Ordinance.\n\nThe Governor may, by other regulations made from time to time, add to or alter such rules.\n\nAll such rules shall be published in the Government Gazette and shall, from the date of such publication, be binding on all persons in the same manner as if they were contained in this Ordinance. Provided that such rules may be repealed or altered, and shall cease to have effect from the date of such repeal or alteration, if disallowed by Her Majesty.\n\n## 11. Every person who, contrary to the regulations of the prisons, brings or attempts by any means whatever to introduce into any prison any spirituous or fermented liquor or tobacco or opium, and every officer of a prison who suffers any spirituous or fermented liquor or tobacco or opium to be sold or used therein, contrary to the prison regulations, on conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or both in the discretion of the Court, and every officer of a prison convicted under this section shall, in addition to any other punishment, forfeit his office and all arrears of salary due to him.\n\n## 12. Every person who, contrary to the regulations of a prison, conveys or attempts to convey any letter or other document, or any article whatever not allowed by such regulations into or out of any prison, shall on conviction incur a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and, if an officer of the prison, shall forfeit his office and all arrears of salary due to him, but this section shall not apply in cases where the offender is liable to a more severe punishment under any other provision of this Ordinance.\n\n## 13. The Superintendent shall cause to be affixed in a conspicuous place outside the prison a notice setting forth the penalties that will be incurred by persons committing any offence in contravention of the three preceding sections.\n\n## 14. It shall be the duty of the Coroner to hold an inquest on the body of every prisoner who may die within a prison, and in no case shall any officer of the prison, or any prisoner confined in the prison, or any person engaged in any sort of trade or dealing with the prison, be a Juror on such inquest.\n\n## 15. If any suit or action is prosecuted against any person for anything done in pursuance of this Ordinance, such person may plead that the same was done by authority of this Ordinance; and if a verdict passes for the defendant, or plaintiff becomes nonsuited, or discontinues his action after issue joined, or if, upon demurrer or otherwise, judgment be given against the plaintiff, the defendant shall recover double costs, and have the like remedy for the same as any defendant has by law in other cases; and though a verdict be given for the plaintiff in any such action, such plaintiff shall not have costs against the defendant, unless the Judge before whom the trial takes place certifies his approbation of the action and the verdict obtained thereupon.\n\n## 16. Offences under this Ordinance, with the exception of felonies, and of offences for the mode of trial of which express provision is made by this Ordinance, shall be prosecuted summarily before a Police Magistrate.\n\n## 17. The regulations contained in the Schedule to this Ordinance shall be binding on all persons in the same manner as if they were enacted in the body of this Ordinance.\n\n## 18. The Governor in Executive Council shall make rules for the supply to all prisoners confined in prisons of sufficient quantity of plain and wholesome food, regard being had, as relates to convicted criminal prisoners, to the nature of the labour required from or performed by such prisoners, so that the allowance of food may be duly proportioned thereto, and shall make dietary tables for that purpose. The Governor may from time to time make rules in respect of the nature of the hard labour to be performed by prisoners and in respect of any other matters relating to the government of prisons, in addition to the regulations in the Schedule to this Ordinance, and may from time to time make, alter, or annul dietary tables made under this section.\n\n## 19. The Governor shall from time to time appoint, with their consent, Justices of the Peace to be Visiting Justices for periods to be specified in such appointments. Visiting Justices shall, during the period for which they are appointed, from time to time at frequent intervals visit all prisons and hear any complaints which may be made to them by the prisoners, and shall report on any abuses within the prisons or any repairs that may be required, and shall further take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity and within the powers of their Commission as Justices, and do such acts and perform such duties in relation to prisons as they may be required to do or perform by the Governor, but subject to the regulations with respect to the duties of Visiting Justices contained in Schedule X, and to any regulations made by the Governor in Executive Council under Section 18 of this Ordinance.\n\n## 20. Ordinances 4 of 1863 and 2 of 1878 are hereby repealed, and sections 63 of Ordinance 4 of 1865, and 50 of Ordinance 6 of 1865, and 95 of Ordinance 7 of 1865, and 36 of Ordinance 10 of 1865 shall be construed as if they referred to this Ordinance and the rules made thereunder, instead of to section 15 of Ordinance 4 of 1863.\n\nProvided always that any such regulation or alteration or annulment thereof, if disallowed by Her Majesty, shall cease to have effect from the date of such disallowance.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-207 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1883 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 325547,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 136,
        "title": "CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "## \n5. of quilt such as, on the whole, to satisfy our minds. I would further request particular attention to the following remarks of the Attorney-General in the Memorandum annexed to this despatch (`Enclosure 2`, Paragraphs 11 and 12).\n\n\"It is impossible to prevent one's judgment upon the bearing of evidence from being affected by a sense of the responsibility that attaches to a decision upon that evidence. In theory, the proof required to convict a man of a larceny is of the same kind as that required to convict him of a capital offence; but, in practice, doubts which do not prevent a jury from convicting in one case do prevent them from convicting in the other case.\n\nWhen a Magistrate is considering whether there is such a probable case as to warrant him in committing a man for trial by an English Court of Justice, he judges of the evidence, and decides, knowing that...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 325628,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 217,
        "title": "CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "216\n\nmight consider both questions,\n\nand should consider them separately.\n\n11. It is rather difficult\n\nto keep these issues distinct.\n\nIt is impossible to prevent one's judgment upon the bearing of evidence being\n\naffected by a sense of the responsibility\n\nthat attaches to a decision\n\nupon that evidence, for\n\nin theory, the proof required to\n\nconvict\n\nis\n\nof\n\nthe\n\nsame kind as\n\nthat required to convict\n\nhim\n\nof a capital offence;\n\nbut, in practice,\n\ndoubts\n\nwhich do not prevent a\n\njury convicting in one\n\ncase do prevent them in\n\nthe other.\n\n12. Where\n\na\n\nMagistrate\n\nis\n\nconsidering whether there is such a probable\n\ncase to\n\nwarrant him in\n\ncommitting a man for trial by\n\nan\n\nEnglish Court\n\nof justice, he judges of the evidence and decides, knowing\n\nthe prisoner will be fairly tried and ultimately not convicted unless he is\n\nreally guilty. But here, in considering whether or not there is a probable case, it is impossible not to feel\n\nthat\n\n \na jury\n\nwill\n\n \nbe\n\ninfluenced by the decision.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-216 - Governor Sir Bowen - 1884 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 328890,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-222 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Sir Bowen - 1885 [7-10]",
        "page_number": 149,
        "title": "CO129-222 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Sir Bowen - 1885 [7-10]",
        "content_text": "146\n\n4\n\nthat the institution is more of the nature of an Industrial School than of a \"Reformatory in the usual acceptation of that word, and that the Directors of the Institution have no legal powers of detention, but he is nevertheless of opinion that, in many cases, especially of first offence, it would be better to take the risk of a boy leaving the Reformatory than to consign him to gaol with its corrupting associations.\n\n(Signed) Frederick Stewart,  \nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\n(Copy)\n\nNo 32.\n\nAnglofrany, Hongkong, 31st July, 1885.\n\n`REGE 5 OCT 85`\n\nThe Police Magistrates  \nTo: The Acting Colonial Secretary\n\nWith reference to your letter No 727 of the 3rd instant, the Magistrates were under the impression that they had legal power to commit juvenile Offenders to a Reformatory. They will, however, be very pleased to avail themselves of the West Point Reformatory within the limits to which their powers apply, and they will be obliged if they may be informed how far they may legally go in committing Offenders to the West Point Reformatory.\n\n(Signed) H.E. Wodehouse,  \nPolice Magistrate,  \nFor the Police Magistrates.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-222 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Sir Bowen - 1885 [7-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 329940,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885",
        "page_number": 263,
        "title": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885",
        "content_text": "## Foreign Office June 17, 1885\n\nIn reference to my Letter of the 7th of February last, I am directed by **Earl Granville** to transmit to you, to be laid before **Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies**, such observations as you may have to offer on the subject.\n\nI have not seen the letter from this Department of State.\n\n3. of the Ordinance 20/1850 does apply & the Treaty of Tientsin has the former discretionary power to discharge a prisoner who has been committed to prison by the Magistrate - Referring this case, attention to the A.G's memo in `11029/80` and the papers back to F.O - Stating out that the said Ordinance applies.\n\nAs soon as the legality or otherwise of the power exercised by the Governor in Council has been established, Lord Granville will instruct his Consultant.\n\nAfter committing him duly to the 7.0., but to 7.0. immediately, they have Mt. China forth in the action the returned to Magistrate's order; Means which refer the H.E. Sec. to their letter of Feb. 23/84 in `313?` a copy of the telegram in `1972` which in `84` Ji anticipation of that letter we sent at their request?: (the F.O. ack it in `525`).\n\n34 (of State) Wh. was to 7.D: I am to inform you whether they have a copy in `20` of the helm) a copy was a point at `11029`, that the said case was taken by a Police Magistrate in open Court & that the Chinese Govt. was represented by a Counsel with Counsel's Jacobean interest & Folk fall an action pract in the proceedings; & that having his Council upon the wisdom thus obtained. It does not appear that Bp. Raimondi or any other person was admitted with Council.\n\nThe 7.0. has advised by the L.D. in this sort 7.0. of 18. Sept. Su (`16730`) on (`1459`) 70 2253 Zeng 13.1ds\". sent 21st quest 5.hid Sex, With C 261 10700.\n\nREG: 16 JUL \n\n## \nCopy of a letter from the Minister the Chinese Government in regard to their views.\n\nEnder Secretary of State Colonial Office London.\n\nJune 23. E.a 22.J \n\nD. June 23.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 330184,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 46,
        "title": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "# THE ATTEMPTED ARREST BY CHINESE OFFICIALS IN HONGKONG\nLan Man Tin, Sham Wan Tsoi, Ching Man Pan, Ng Hok Chun, Cheong Shing Fat, Young Cheung Un, and Sham Hing Wan, Chinese men-of-war's men belonging to the Chinese gunboat Ngai San, were brought before the court charged with committing an assault upon Chang Chi, master of the junk Kum Cheung Fat, on the 22nd inst.\n\nThe Crown Solicitor, Mr. A. P. Stokes, appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Caldwell defended.\n\nMr. Stokes briefly opened the case, stating the facts as disclosed by the evidence below, and informing his Worship that he charged the prisoners with committing an assault upon Chang Chi, and under Sec. 7 of Ordinance 2 of 1875, with having unlawfully detained him.\n\nThe complainant, who seemed to be unwell, was examined in a squatting position in the witness box. He said he was master of the Kum Cheung Fat junk trading between Hongkong and Taiwan. At about eight a.m. the previous morning, while he was at the Hing Fat shop in Queen's-street, a number of armed men came into that establishment, and without saying anything they at once seized him, bandcuffed him, and put chains upon his ankles. The seven prisoners and another man whom he had seen outside the court were the ones who had been concerned in this. They made him lie down upon the ground, and wanted to take him on board their ship, but the master of the shop, Akwok, and some of his fokia, who were present, would not let them. The prisoners did not say on what account they wanted him. He had never seen them before, and had no idea why they seized him.\n\nCross-examined by Mr. Caldwell—Witness had been master of the Kum Cheung Fat junk about four months, and the junk formerly belonged to his brother, Cheung Kit Kwong, who was killed by the Custom House people. His brother had been master of that junk about three years, and during that time witness never went out in her, but used to go fishing in a small boat.\n\nMr. Stokes, at this stage, applied to his Worship for a warrant for the arrest of the man outside the Court referred to by the complainant.\n\nMr. Caldwell contended that a warrant could not be issued, as this was only a charge of assault. A summons only could be issued.\n\nMr. Stokes admitted that the case was one of aggravated assault, and therefore under those circumstances a warrant could be issued.\n\nMr. Caldwell said this was not a case of aggravated assault, and a warrant could not be issued. The man referred to was an officer of the Chinese Government, and he should be ready to produce him at all times without a warrant. He should protest against the officer being charged with the other men. He was not arrested with them, and there was no fear of his running away. Mr. Stokes submitted that if this man was a party to the act in which the prisoners were concerned he should be tried also.\n\nMr. Caldwell offered, upon condition that the officer was not placed with the prisoners, to produce him.\n\nThis course was agreed to, and the officer, who gave the name of Chun Ti Hi, was then called into court.\n\nThe complainant said this was not the man he referred to, but the other man who had been concerned in his seizure was still outside the court.\n\nMr. Stokes withdrew the charge against this person, and the complainant was taken outside to point out the man he referred to. He pointed out a petty officer of the gunboat, named Lau Kok Lin, who was then arrested and made the 8th defendant.\n\nThe complainant, in answer to Mr. Caldwell's further cross-examination, went on to give evidence to the following effect. He lived at a city called Hin Wah, and never went out in the junk with his brother, who traded with Paktau, Formosa, and Hongkong. The junk was not licensed at Hongkong, but it got a paper from the Harbour Office every time it came here. There were neither English nor Chinese figures on the bows of the junk. Witness was staying at the Hing Fat shop at the time he was arrested. In the eighth moon of last Chinese year he was at home at Hin Wah, and in the ninth moon he went to Paktau, near Ping Hoi.\n\nMr. Stokes objected that this line of cross-examination was irrelevant to the case.\n\nMr. Caldwell contended that he had a right to go into any matters he thought fit in cross-examination.\n\nHis Worship ruled that the questions were not in order.\n\nCross-examination continued.—Over ten men came into the shop when witness was seized, and Lau Sin, the last defendant, was the first man who entered, and the seventh man tied him up by the order of the eighth. They put him down with his face upon the ground, and he did not see what the other men did. Witness arrived in the colony in the same junk on the 20th November last.\n\nHis Worship cautioned the defendant that he was not called upon to answer any question which might incriminate himself.\n\nCross-examination continued. When witness came here in November he came from his village, and brought no cargo. The junk left on the 16th December, but he remained behind as he was sick. His fokia cleared the junk at the Harbour Office.\n\nRe-examined by Mr. Stokes.—The eighth defendant came into the Hing Fat shop first, and the other defendants came in a crowd behind him, and acted under his orders. They were all present when he was secured, which was done by the handcuffs, chain, and padlocks in court.\n\nIt being impossible to finish the case at this sitting his Worship decided to adjourn it.\n\nMr. Caldwell applied for bail for the prisoners. Mr. Stokes rather demurred to bail, he thought at least it ought to be something very substantial.\n\nHis Worship said he should certainly require very substantial bail. On further consideration he was disposed to think that the best course would be not to grant bail, as from what he heard there seemed to be a Mandarin mixed up in the matter, and there might be some difficulty in securing the defendants' re-appearance. He thought it would be better, under the circumstances to detain them in custody.\n\nMr. Caldwell—Then am I to understand that your Worship refuses me bail for a common assault?\n\nHis Worship—I do not consider that this is a common assault.\n\nMr. Caldwell—There was nothing else, no one was bodily injured, and the offence with which the defendants are charged is only a misdemeanour. It is not one of those cases in which bail can be refused.\n\nMr. Stokes—The question of bail is entirely one for his Worship.\n\nMr. Caldwell—But it is not so in this case, as to refuse bail in a case of misdemeanour like this would be to commit an offence by the Magistrate at Common Law. (Mr. Caldwell quoted from Archbold as to what definition this case came under, and from Blackstone as showing that to refuse to grant bail to prisoners charged with offences of that class was to commit an offence against the liberty of the subject.)\n\nMr. Stokes said that under the provisions of Ord. 2 of 1875 the case if determined, should be determined by two Magistrates.\n\nMr. Caldwell said he had seen that before, and he would have taken the objection before but for the fact that he thought this was merely a preliminary trial, and that the case would be committed for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nHis Worship said that might be so, but if the case was disposed of in that court he apprehended that the usual course was for one Magistrate to take the depositions, and then call in the assistance of another Magistrate to decide, and place the depositions before him.\n\nMr. Stokes—It might relieve your Worship of the question of bail if you committed the prisoners now, and left the case to be dealt with by two Magistrates.\n\nMr. Caldwell—There is no really good and reasonable ground upon which your Worship can refuse to grant bail. It is a bailable offence, and there is no fear of the defendants running away. They have come here under certain circumstances, and they have a charge against the complainant.\n\nPage 44",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 330634,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "page_number": 97,
        "title": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "content_text": "# doubts which do not prevent a jury convicting in one case, do prevent in the other. Where a Magistrate is considering whether there is such a probable case as to warrant him in committing a man for trial by an English Court, and decides, knowing that the prisoner will be fairly tried and ultimately convicted if he is really guilty, he judges of the evidence that...  But here, in considering whether or not there is a probable case, it is impossible not to feel that for practical purposes the Magistrate regards the prisoner's fate and the responsibility in connection therewith.\n\nThe decision, though formally a decision as to probable guilt, is really a decision involving the consequences of a verdict of guilty. Such was the case submitted to the Secretary of State, and no objection was taken to the terms thereof. The Governor may therefore require more proof of guilt than a prima facie case, but not such proof as would be necessary to support a final conviction.\n\nIn forwarding the case to the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Maclean, Acting Police Magistrate, has reported that after hearing the evidence, he could not take upon himself to say that there was not a prima facie case against the prisoner, but he desired to have the case considered.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 330641,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "page_number": 104,
        "title": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "content_text": "## Page 25 \n## Page 101 \n\n\"Crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the confirmation by and by. In this case, and if the onus of proof as to the truth of 'that history' without identifying the persons, that is really on him at all.\"\n\nAs to corroboration and intimidation, I think that the expression of opinion of the committing magistrate that intimidation has been used to secure evidence is borne out by the statements of the two witnesses to which I beg to refer the Governor.\n\nTo evidence obtained by these means, little weight should, I submit, be attached.\n\nAs to the deposition of Siong Ho Sat Yip, I don't think it necessary to refer again except that it would tend to prove that the accused is known in his village as a salt trader or salt smuggler, that he has been seen wearing a witness uniform, and that he is often to be seen.\n\nThe next witness called was Sam Kine Pin, formerly a hawker, now a soldier. He said he knew the accused when he (accused) was a hawker and he knows where he lives; and he gives an account of his attempt to arrest the accused in July 1885. He stated that a Mandarin was sent with 500 men to arrest the accused and that the accused managed to get away from them.\n\nIt is very difficult to believe this story, but if it be true, it would prove that the accused was to be found.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 330836,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "page_number": 299,
        "title": "CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5]",
        "content_text": "If they were really so guilty of these crimes, would not they have been arrested long ago?\n\nLastly, in presence of the report of the Committing Magistrate who states that he remanded the accused to Gaol on the grounds that it was his duty, however slight a prima facie case had been made out against the accused, to remand to Gaol; but that were he to take upon himself the function of an Ordinary Jury, he would, for the reasons given, have no hesitation in discharging the prisoners, and that he is even more dissatisfied with the evidence and the manner in which it was given than in the case of the King a chi. In presence\n\nPage 236\n\nof this report, I repeat the Council would be assuming a very great responsibility in handing over the accused to the Chinese Government,\n\n(Signed) Edwd. Ackroyd\n\nActing Attorney General,\n\nHongkong, 12th May, 1886.\n\nSeveral",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-226 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [4-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 331468,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6]",
        "page_number": 551,
        "title": "CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6]",
        "content_text": "549\n\n812\n\n(Enclosure 1.)\n\nReport of a Commission appointed by His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government to consider a letter from the Superintendent of Victoria Gaol reporting the overcrowded state thereof.\n\n1. On the 8th April last a Commission consisting of the Honourable the Acting Attorney General as Chairman; The Honourable A. LISTEL, Colonial Treasurer; The Honourable J. M. PRICE, Surveyor General: E. MACKSAN, Esquire, Acting Police Magistrate; Major-General GORDON, Superintendent, Victoria Gaol; The Honourable W. KESWICK, M.L.C.; C. P. CHATER, Esquire, J. P.; A. P. MACEWEN, Esquire, J. P.; P. MANSON, Esquire, M.D., J. P. was appointed for the purpose of considering a report of the Superintendent of the Gaol on the insufficient accommodation in that Establishment and the steps which should be taken to remedy the present state of things.\n\n2. This Commission met at once and has held several sittings.\n\n3. Two sub-committees were appointed, the first consisting of:\n\nTHE CHAIRMAN,\n\nHonourable WM. KESWICK,\n\nE. MACKEAN, Esquire,\n\nMajor-General GORDON,\n\nDr. MANSON, and\n\nC. P. CHATER, Esquire.\n\nto visit the Gaol at night and report on the state thereof, and another consisting of:\n\nMajor-General Gordon,\n\nDr. MANSON, and Dr. AYRES,\n\nto enquire into the diet of the prisoners and to report what changes, if any, should be made therein.\n\n4. The reports of these sub-committees are annexed hereto. (Enclosures 4 and 5.)\n\n5. On the whole question submitted to us we beg to report as follows:\n\nWe deem it necessary in the first place to bring prominently before His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government the peculiar position of Hongkong, a position occupied by no other Colony of Great Britain.\n\nHongkong is situate at the very door of two of the largest provinces of China, and close to and in daily communication with Canton, one of the most populous cities of China. A famine or want of work in either of those provinces or in the city would naturally send a certain number of the inhabitants to Hongkong in search of work or of subsistence, whilst the presence in Canton of an active or severe Viceroy at once forces or induces many of the criminal class to change the scene of their depredations and to migrate to Hongkong, where even if detected a mild and lenient treatment awaits them instead of the sharp and cruel punishment which they would certainly receive in China.\n\nThis fact cannot be too steadily borne in mind in dealing with the question of punishment for offences.\n\n6. In Hongkong we have to legislate not only for the Hongkong criminal class but for numbers of that class elsewhere, who are only too ready whenever the occasion arises to repair to this Colony and prey on it.\n\n7. From a return furnished by the Superintendent of the Gaol (Enclosure 6.) it appears that of the 732 prisoners confined on the 11th April, 1886, 677 were Chinese; 274 were detained under sentences of six months; 114 from six months to twelve months; 60 from one year to two years; 39 from two years to three years; 44 from three years to five years; 142 from over five years.\n\nOf those sentenced to penal servitude many have been convicted of simple Larceny after previous convictions for the same offence, and have been so sentenced as a long imprisonment was the only punishment left to secure the public from further depredation.\n\n8. With respect to the deterrent effect of imprisonment this Commission has no hesitation in saying that under the liberal diet which at present exists in the Gaol and other circumstances attending imprisonment, a short detention, say under six months, is no punishment for an ordinary Chinaman, he is better fed and better housed in prison than outside and the work or task which he has to perform is certainly less than he would have to do to obtain a livelihood were he free. He is in almost unrestricted association with criminals like himself and has one and a half day's holiday a week, a thing which the ordinary Chinese labourer never enjoys.\n\n9. On the question of punishment the Commission have considered the legislation as to whipping.\n\n10. The law which at present regulates whipping is Ordinance 3 of 1881. It repeals the Ordinances or Sections of Ordinances hereinafter mentioned and provides whipping with a Patton when any offender has been convicted of a crime punishable under Section 19 of Ordinance 4 of 1865 or under Section 31 of Ordinance 7 of 1865, that is:\n\nSection 19 of 4 of 1865 punishes any one attempting to choke, strangle, or suffocate any other person, or who by means calculated to choke, suffocate, or strangle shall attempt to render any one unconscious or incapable of resistance, and Section 31 of Ordinance 7 of 1865 punishes robbery with violence.\n\n11. The only other case in which whipping is at present allowed is under Section 8 of Ordinance 16 of 1875 which permits a Police Magistrate to inflict whipping on any male offender whose age appears to him not to exceed 16 years when such offender has been convicted of Larceny or any offence deemed and punishable as simple Larceny.\n\n12. The present Ordinance, viz., 3 of 1881, repeals\n\n1°. No. 12 of 1865 under which whipping could be inflicted on any male offender convicted of a crime who at the time of the commission thereof had been armed with an offensive weapon or instrument or who at the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the crime had used personal violence, or who should at any of the times aforesaid have attempted to render any other person insensible unconscious or incapable of resistance.\n\n2°. Sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance 12 of 1845 which enacted banishment and branding for persons convicted of belonging to the Triad Society.\n\n3°. Section 7 of Ordinance 12 of 1856 which allowed whipping for injury to trees, shrub fences, &c., and for obeying calls of nature in any exposed or improper place,\n\n4°. Sub-section 9 of Section 28 of Ordinance 8 of 18.. relating to mendicancy.\n\n5°. Section 9 of Ordinance 1 of 1886 for the suppression of piracy which enacted whipping for offences against that Ordinance.\n\n6. Section 1 of Ordinance 3 of 1868 which prescribed whipping for persons convicted of child stealing or forcible detention of any man, woman or child for the purpose of selling them.\n\n7. Ordinance 4 of 1872 which enacted branding and flogging for criminals in certain cases, and\n\n8°. Section 7 of Ordinance 16 of 1875 which gave the Magistrate the power of whipping the offender once or twice for committing the following offences a second time or under aggravated circumstance, viz.:\n\nIndecent assault,\n\nIndecent exposure of his person,\n\nAssault with intent to rob,\n\nCommon assault committed in a brothel.\n\nCommon assault committed at or in connection with any riotous assemblage,\n\nMalicious injury to property.\n\n13. The Commission have also heard Dr. AYRES (Enclosure 7.) and Mr. WISE, the Police Magistrate, at present Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court (Enclosure 8.) and have carefully read the several despatches which have passed between the several Secretaries of State and successive Governors of Hongkong on the subject of Gaol accommodation and penal punishments (Enclosure 9.)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 331722,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 195,
        "title": "CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "12\n\n13\n\n193\n\nat once without difficulty. The Magistrate then committed the whole of them to take their trial at the next Criminal Sessions.\n\nI do not know why the Police Magistrate did not deal with\n\n6.\n\nthe case\n\nhimself instead of committing them for trial by the Supreme Court. The charge\n\nwas laid expressly,\n\nas I have already stated, under\n\nan\n\narticle\n\nof the law that left the\n\ncase within his jurisdiction\n\n7.\n\nI have, on the recommendation of Major Dempster and with the\n\nadvice\n\nof the Executive Council, authorized him to engage in\n\nlieu\n\nof\n\nChinese, ten Sikhs of\n\nvery good character who have recently obtained their discharge from the corps of Gun Lascars in the Colony. It has for years past been reported, as may be seen on reference to previous reports of Police Commissions, that the whole of the Chinese Police Force\n\nis\n\nutterly unreliable, and that many of them are\n\nbelieved to be\n\naffiliated with the Triad Society, and although\n\nit",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 331808,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9]",
        "page_number": 281,
        "title": "CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9]",
        "content_text": "22. Every Excise Officer shall be supplied with a badge bearing an official sign or mark of office as may be directed by the Governor; and before acting against any person under the provisions of this Ordinance, every such Excise Officer shall declare his office, and produce to the person against whom he is about to act his said badge. Every Police Officer acting under the provisions of this Ordinance, if not in uniform, shall in like manner declare his office, and produce to the person against whom he is about to act such badge as the Captain Superintendent of Police shall have directed or may direct to be carried by Police Officers when employed on secret or special service.\n\n23. Any person found committing or attempting to commit an offence or employing, aiding, or assisting any person to commit an offence against the provisions of this Ordinance, may be arrested without warrant by any Police or Excise Officer, and taken, with any Opium found as to which the offence may have been committed, or attempted to have been committed, to a Police Station, there to be dealt with according to law, and any person suspected to have about his person any Opium as to which an offence has been committed against the provisions of this Ordinance may be arrested by any Police or Excise Officer without a warrant and taken to a Police Station, there to be dealt with according to law.\n\n24. It shall be lawful for any Police or Excise Officer to arrest without warrant any person within the Colony whom he reasonably suspects to be conveying or to have concealed on his person any Opium in contravention of the requirements of this Ordinance and to take him before a Police Magistrate to be dealt with according to law.\n\n25. It shall be lawful for any Inspector of Police or an Excise Officer having reasonable ground for believing that there is Opium in any ship within the waters of the Colony in contravention of the provisions of this Ordinance (such ship not being a ship of war or vessel having such status) to proceed without warrant on board such ship, and search for such Opium and seize any so found and it shall be lawful for such Inspector to take the Opium so found together with the person in whose custody, possession or control it is found before a Police Magistrate to be dealt with according to law.\n\nBadge of \n\nBrine Officers. \n\nPersons aiding and abetting offenders may \n\nbe arrested. \n\nArrest without warrant. \n\nSearching ships. \n\nA copy of this permit to \n\nbe sent to the Raw Opium \n\nFarmer, by the Harbour \n\nMaster. \n\nSCHEDULES.\n\n(A.)\n\nSir,\n\nBill of Particulars (Sections\n\nTo the Harbour Master,\n\nHongkong.\n\nPlease issue a permit to land from the arrived on\n\nmarked as below.\n\nTo be landed on\n\nand stored at (godown or shop or house.)\n\nDate,\n\n18\n\nwhich\n\nchests of Opium, numbered and\n\nat\n\nwharf\n\nImporter.\n\n(B.)\n\nPermit to Land.\n\n(is) authorised\n\nto land from the\n\nchests of Opium with numbers and marks as noted below, and (is) authorised to store the same in the (godown, shop or house) of\n\nat\n\nDate,\n\n18\n\n(C.)\n\nHarbour Master.\n\nApplication to Export.\n\nTo the Harbour Master.\n\nPlease issue a permit to export by\n\nSir,\n\nchests of\n\nbelow, on\n\nthe\n\nto destination\n\npurchased by me from\n\nOpium, numbered and marked as\n\n18 day of\n\nthe said Opium having been\n\nin whose (godown, house\n\nor shop) it is now stored (or the same being now stored in my\n\ngodown, shop or house) at\n\nor sold by me to\n\nwho is desirous of exporting.\n\nDate,\n\n18\n\nExporter.\n\n279",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-228 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [7-9].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 332936,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-230 - Public Offices & Others - 1886",
        "page_number": 290,
        "title": "CO129-230 - Public Offices & Others - 1886",
        "content_text": "289\n\nReport of the Committing Magistrate\n\nand of\n\nthe Resolutions of\n\nCouncil\n\nthe\n\nIt is unnecessary I\n\nthink to\n\nadduce\n\nthat\n\nyou\n\ninstructions which have been\n\nas well\n\ngiven by the Home Govt as by the practice sanctioned\n\nby English law in such cases.\n\nI have etc\n\nJody W. H. March\n\nI am desirous to give any assistance to the Chinese\n\nYou in the rendition of prisoners. It is not the wish of this Govt that the Colony should become an Alsatia for criminals who have escaped from pursuit of Justice in China, but as\n\nyou are aware I have to be\n\nguided strictly by the\n\ninstructions\n\nHowever, to follow the exact output format requested:\n\n289\n\nreport of the committing magistrate\n\nand of\n\nthe resolutions of\n\nCouncil\n\nthe\n\nIt is unnecessary I\n\nthink to\n\nadduce\n\nthat\n\nyou\n\ninstructions which have been\n\nas well\n\ngiven by the Home Govt as by the practice sanctioned\n\nby English law in such cases.\n\nI have etc\n\nJody W. H. March\n\nI am desirous to give any assistance to the Chinese\n\nYou in the rendition of presoners. It is not the wish of this Govt that the Colony should become an Alsatia for criminals who have escaped from pursuit of Justice in China, but as\n\nyou are aware I have to be\n\nguided strictly by the\n\ninstructions",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-230 - Public Offices & Others - 1886.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334270,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 92,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "on which a local firm of Solicitors invites the Secretary of State's action.\n\nThe papers are mainly a question on Cawo d A 'I'do not know that Mine can be of min quse le marks any But as regards case - it seems that 1. The particular case the Chinese court had complained of delay in dealing with these extradition i consequence, 1 When this case Cases arose, f 231! of M. Marsh in a letter the 23th of Feb. 87 pressed upon the magistrate the need of greater expeditiousness: and in that letter he went on to expound the principles by which the magistrates were to guide themselves - though it was not called a direct order.\n\nDuring the trial the acting attorney general thought the magistrate was going wrong & his opinion was communicated to Mi Wodehouse, who guided himself by it 88 The case ended in Mi Wodehouse, although he entirely disbelieved the evidence, committing the prisoners for trial because there was, as he understood or professed to understand, a prima facie case against them, and in the acting governor ordering the prisoner because there a prima facie case had been found against him. Fortunately Supreme Court stepped in to prevent whatever the merits of the case, the gross injustice in the procedure would have taken place. The acting Attorney general says this was due to Mi Wodehouse's perversity and to his not doing his duty as a magistrate. & He does seem to have",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334300,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 122,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "to section III \n\nof Ordinance 2 \n\nof 1850 according to which the \n\nmagistrate is to commit when \n\nthere is probable cause \n\nfor \n\nbelieving that the accused has committed the crime. The \n\nof \n\nPrivy Council in the case \n\nthe Attorney General of Hong Kong \n\nv. Kwok A-sing had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers and duties \n\nof \n\nthe Magistrate under it. The Judges speak of \"prima facie\" evidence and of the sufficiency of \"prima facie evidence to justify the magistrate in committing. \n\nThere is no doubt that \n\n\"probable cause\" and \"prima facie \n\n113 \n\nfacie evidence\" are synonymous terms. \n\nBy the Treaty of Tientsin, this Government is bound, on certain requirements being complied with, to deliver up criminals who have taken \n\nrefuge in \n\nHong Kong. \n\nThe Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction; it is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a \"prima facie\" case has been made out, and His Excellency, in calling the attention of Magistrates to the Ordinance \n\nand the case above cited \n\nwould suggest that they should \n\nrestrict...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334316,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 138,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "36.\n\n! \n\nof both sides as to the course to adopt and \n\nstated that my own opinion was that the \n\nrendition case should be postponed until \n\nthe case arising out of the proceedings had been determined. No objection to this course was raised on the part of the Counsel representing the Chinese Government, while the other side asked for the immediate discharge of the prisoners in this case. My idea in postponing the case was that I thought any action taken in this case might be calculated to prejudice the perjury case in one way or another, and that therefore it would be advisable to stand by and wait until the other case was concluded. Accordingly the case has been postponed from week to week until yesterday, when it was further adjourned until to-day. During the last few days I received a letter from the Government instructing me to abide in my action by the opinion of the Attorney General \"which was transmitted to me. In that communication the Attorney General says — \n\n• I submit that the Magistrate acted irregularly and contrary to all practice in postponing the rendition case until after \n\nthe trial of the witness Leung Ayou, for perjury. I will therefore now resume the case at the point where I left it off. I left off at the point at which the witness, Leung Ayon, was being cross-examined as to the marks which he had upon his arm. \n\nI said then before the prosecution was commenced against him for perjury that I would hear the evidence with regard to this mark and would then allow the other side to bring rebutting evidence. I will now ask Mr Dennys to produce any further evidence he wishes to bring bearing on the evidence of this man, and I \n\nwill give the other side whatever opportunity they wish to bring further rebutting evidence. \n\nExtract from the Daily Press.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far therefore as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man.\n\nThe Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credit.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which if true would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard.\n\nIf, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out. But at this point I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance I have the following extract of a letter from the Government :- His Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok A Shing had to consider the Ordinance and the powers and provisions of this Ordinance. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous terms. By the Treaty of Tientsin this Government is bound on certain requirements being complied with to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. The Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and His Excellency in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\n37.\n\n134\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334349,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 171,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "a prima facie case, and had committed the prisoners to prison to await the Governor's orders, unless there were good and strong grounds sufficient to justify the Governor in Council in differing from the Magistrate.\n\nto you that in giving my decision I stated what I considered to be my position in terms which, for convenience sake, I reproduce.\n\nHis Worship—In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination.\n\nI can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce.\n\nSo far, therefore, as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man.\n\nThe Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credence.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who, with monotonous regularity, testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case.\n\nOther points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard.\n\nIf, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out.\n\nBut at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course, I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin.\n\nThe language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate.\n\nFor my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:—\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime.\n\nThe Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok Ashing had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers and duties under it. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing.\n\nThere is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous.\n\nBy the Treaty of Tientsin, this Government is bound on certain terms, certain requirements being complied with, to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong, such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction.\n\nThe Magistrates cannot require such proof. It is their duty, under the Ordinance above mentioned, to commit upon a prima facie case being made out, and His Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear arrangements of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read.\n\nThe question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence?\n\nI am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was, as it were, properly before the court.\n\nPage 166",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334357,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 179,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "his plain duty, and by endeavouring to throw the responsibility on other shoulders he deprived the accused of one of the safeguards which the law gave him.\n\nMr Wodehouse has nothing whatever to do with the grounds of the Governor's decision; he has to perform his duty conscientiously and nothing else.\n\nIt is for all. Wodehouse\n\n\"It was not within my knowledge when I committed the prisoner that the bare fact of committal in itself constituted a conclusive argument against the prisoner, primâ facie case being, as I imagine, from a Magistrate's point of view, capable of consisting of every degree of probability from that of absolute certainty to that, attenuated almost to the vanishing point, and only—\n\n\"committed as was the case in this instance from deference to the higher tribunal from which I thought the final decision on the merits of the case would more properly come.\n\nThe definition of a primâ facie case from a Magistrate's point of view which I have given is one I never saw before in any law book. It differs totally from that given by Starkie in his work on evidence, in which he says that \"a prima facie case is that which, not being inconsistent with the falsity of the hypothesis, nevertheless raises such a degree of probability in its favour that it must prevail if it be credited by the Jury unless rebutted or contrary proved\":\n\nMr Wodehouse's definition will be rejected by every one who knows how to deal with this subject, and it is to be regretted that he did not consult some work on evidence before committing himself to the statement which he has made.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334359,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 181,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "directed him not to hear evidence for the accused.\n\nI will now state what Mr. Wodehouse has done. He committed the accused to prison, that is, it must have appeared to him that there was probable cause that the accused had committed the offence with which he was charged.\n\nA.V. Wodehouse in his letter to the Colonial Secretary states \"that a prima facie case was made out, to the extent of the fact that witnesses swore they had seen each of the prisoners taking part in the burglary.\"\n\nIf the Magistrate had good reasons for disbelieving the evidence, he should have discharged the accused, notwithstanding the direct statement made by these witnesses, for it could not be supposed, to use the words of Justice Russell, that he had stultified himself by committing the accused to prison if there was not a prima facie case against him.\n\nMr. Wodehouse has no reason or justification for comparing the action of the Government in this case with the decision of the Governor in the case of Chang Chi, and I submit Mr. Wodehouse is going entirely beyond his sphere and his duties in doing so.\n\nI am perfectly able to uphold the advice I gave the Government and to show that the Governor in Council was quite justified in deciding to hand over the accused, but, as I consider that it is a matter which does not in any way concern Mr. Wodehouse, I will not deal with it here except to state that the reasons given in the case of Chang Chi commended themselves to the Council, while Mr. Wodehouse's are quite inadmissible.\n\nI submit that the tone of the last paragraph but one is not respectful.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334374,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 196,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "Mr. Francis objected entirely to any adjournment. There is a certain amount of evidence to show that the second defendant might be charged with committing perjury, but as for the first defendant, there is absolutely not a tittle of evidence against him. The charge is that he induced the other prisoner to come here and deliberately make a number of false statements, but there is no evidence to support such a charge. In fact, there is the strongest presumption against it. Colonel Li Loi came here simply as a person in the employ of the Viceroy of Canton to claim the rendition of certain prisoners, and it was his business to bring forward some evidence, but he is no more responsible for the truthfulness of his witnesses than is Mr. Caldwell, and he can no more be charged with subornation of perjury than Caldwell. There must be some evidence to prove that he paid or compelled the witness in some way to come here and make the statements that he did. You are entitled to remand the second prisoner, but as there is no evidence against the first, he ought to be discharged. As to the charge of attempting to murder, there has not been a particle of evidence produced to prove it. Not a single fact has been alleged to show any act which, if carried out, would have resulted in murder. I must ask your Worship to proceed with the case at once and insist on Mr. Dennys producing some evidence to support the very grave charges he has made.\n\nIn making these charges, Mr. Dennys has not only brought a charge against the two defendants, but it is equivalent to saying that if the prisoners were handed over by the Court, they would, whether innocent or guilty, be sent straight to death. This means that not only would the magistrate have failed in his duty, but likewise the Government here, and the Chinese officials. Mr. Dennys, as solicitor for the prisoners in the other case, has largely allowed his zeal to outrun his discretion, and has, in the interests of his clients, placed himself in a very serious position. He has taken upon himself, in the public interest, I presume he would say, to bring a charge against this man. If he was an official in the position of Captain Deane, and after making a preliminary investigation assured your Worship that he had evidence to prove this charge, a certain amount of weight might be attached to such assurance, if the prisoners were unknown. The complainant, however, is a solicitor in the colony, who, without a shred of interest in the case, comes forward and makes these reckless charges.\n\nLi Loi stands in exactly the same position as Captain Deane or Inspector Matheson would do, if after bringing a charge, they found that one of their witnesses had given false evidence. No one would think of holding them responsible for that or of charging them with subornation of perjury. As there is no evidence against Li Loi, I ask that he may be discharged, or that Mr. Dennys be required to give further evidence.\n\nHis Worship—The case will be remanded till Monday afternoon at half-past two, and Li Loi will be released without bail.\n\nMr. Dennys—On the ground that he is a Chinese official?\n\nHis Worship—No, on the ground that the evidence against him is very slight. The Court then adjourned.\n\nPage 101\n\nThe Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG, MARCH 29TH, 1887.\n\nTHE PERJURY CASE.\n\nOn this case being called, his Worship observed that he had decided to commit the defendant for trial, bail being allowed as before.\n\nTHE CHINESE RENDITION CASE. The further hearing of this case, in which the three men are claimed by the Chinese Government on a charge of burglary and murder committed within its jurisdiction, was resumed.\n\nMr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., instructed by Mr. Caldwell, prosecuted; Mr. Holmes appeared for the first defendant, and Mr. Dennys for the second and third defendants.\n\nInspector Quincey, who was first called, informed his Worship that the defendant in the perjury case had been committed for trial.\n\nHis Worship—This case will be remanded till next Monday.\n\nMr. Holmes—On behalf of the first defendant, I must beg to remind your Worship of the remarks made by you at the last sitting of the Court. I believe that you intimated that in the event of the case of perjury being proved against Chun Ayut, you would not allow the prosecution to bring further evidence. Chun Ayut being the principal witness, if your Worship was satisfied by the proceedings in the other court, that he had committed perjury, the evidence of other witnesses would be immaterial, that is to say, the principal part of the charge rested on his evidence. This being so, and the case this morning as against Chun Ayut having been proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate of the other court, and the defendant committed for trial at the Criminal Sessions, I submit that the duty of the Magistrate ended in his finding Chan Ayut guilty, as far as he was concerned, and it now remains for a higher tribunal to confirm or reject those proceedings. But so far as the Magistrate is concerned, Chun Ayut is found guilty. Even supposing he should be discharged, the prosecution are not at liberty to bring any further evidence, and therefore their case is closed. The prisoner being committed, his case is disposed of, and I therefore respectfully submit to your Worship that these men, at least, I speak on behalf of the first defendant, should no longer be detained in gaol.\n\nMr. Dennys—On behalf of the second and third defendants, following the lead of Mr. Holmes, I would remind your Worship of the remarks you made with regard to the witness Chun Ayut, who calls himself Leung Ayow. After Leung Ayow had been cross-examined at great length, your Worship said that the case depended so entirely on whether or not any credence was to be given to this man's evidence, that if the evidence called to prove the charges made against him was satisfactory, the defendants ought to be discharged. Your Worship will remember that application was made to examine Chun Ayut privately, in the presence of the Colonial Surgeon, respecting the marks on his body. Your Worship refused that application and said we must proceed with the case in the ordinary way of cross-examination. I then called Dr. Hartigan, who examined the witness in Court and who positively swore that he had on his arm tattoo marks and above that a mark which had been burned out. Your Worship then made the remark that, in consequence of the information that had come out in cross-examination, we had only to prove that to quash the case. We have had the evidence of Ho Ki, who said that these marks were on Chua Ayut's arm when he had seen him before. Your Worship said you have only to prove that the characters on the man's arm are the word \"To\" and the prisoners will be discharged. I put Mr. Chun Kaiing, the interpreter of this court, in the box, and he swore positively that these marks were \"To,\" meaning \"thief.\" This took place on the Friday, and your Worship then adjourned the case till the following Monday, in order to give Mr. Caldwell time to bring rebutting evidence. And you further stated that such evidence must prove that that mark did not exist on the man's arm. On the following Monday, no such evidence was produced. In the meantime, action had been taken in the case by a private individual, and a charge of perjury brought against Li Loi and Chun Ayut. I need not say that that private individual was myself.\n\n...for the Reports contained in the issues of the Daily Press of the 6th, 22nd, and 28th March, and 30 April requested to file in the Colonial Office Library, as they cannot be obtained here.\n\nGR1178/1922/32(III)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334375,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 197,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "whatever to do with this case. If you believe the evidence of Chan Ayut you have a right to call upon the prisoners for their defence, but you have no right to adjourn this case from week to week till the other case is finished. These defendants have nothing to do with that case. These three men before your Worship are on trial for their lives, and their case ought to be conducted in a legal, formal, and proper manner; and I submit, with all respect to your Worship, that the case is not being conducted in such a manner when it is being adjourned from week to week. If your Worship believes the evidence of Chun Ayut, if your Worship believes that Dr. Hartigan, Mr. Chun Kai Ming and Ho Ki have all gone into the box and told deliberate falsehoods, the prisoners will make their defence, but if not I submit there is no case against them. Your Worship has been a long time in this colony, and you know how difficult it is for a man to defend himself against officials who are in pay of the Chinese Government, because it is almost impossible to get witnesses to come forward and give evidence when they know that their relations are in the power of the Chinese Government, and the witnesses themselves may be spirited away before they can go down to the Supreme Court. I can assure your Worship that numbers of people have spoken to me in the street, knowing that this was a trumped-up charge, but who are unwilling to come into this court and give evidence, because they know that their relatives would pay the penalty with their lives. If you believe the evidence of Chun Ayat then the case ought to be proceeded with at once and the prisoners allowed to make their defence. The defence which I intend to make will be the proving of an alibi, and if this case is again adjourned fresh charges may be brought by the Chinese Government which it will be impossible for me to disprove, when the Government know exactly where the defendants were at such and such a date.\n\nHis Worship—I cannot agree in any way, with the statement made by Mr. Dennys with regard to the promises I have made during the hearing of the case. The action I have taken throughout these proceedings I have made public, and if I pass over what Mr. Dennys has said with regard to the promises I have made, it is not that I agree with him, but because I do not consider them worthy of further notice. I have here before me in writing the course that was pursued:—“Mr. Dennys applied to have Li Loi arrested on charge of subornation of perjury and Leung Ayow for perjury. Mr. Caldwell applied for time to bring rebutting evidence. The Magistrate declined to take any action in the matter but granted time to allow the solicitors for the defence to take what action they thought fit. The case to be remanded till the following day. In the interval action taken by a private individual, and Li Loi and Leung Ayow charged with subornation of perjury and perjury. Mr. Dennys asks for release of defendants. The Magistrate declines to take any action until the case against Leung Ayow is concluded and proposes to adjourn the case from week to week. Case came on again. Mr. Quincey states that perjury case is still proceeding. The case again remanded. Mr. Dennys on behalf of second and third defendants, and Mr. Holmes, on behalf of first, ask for their discharge. The application refused. Mr. Dennys, and Mr. Holmes ask for bail. Caldwell objects. Bail refused. The Magistrate, in reference to the application of Mr. Francis to be allowed to bring further evidence, in the event of Leung Ayow being convicted of perjury, gives formal notice that should such event occur, he will consider that a prima facie case has been made out.” I am now informed that the €430 is no prima facie case. I am now committed for trial. I cannot believe that the solicitors for the defence think that the other case is yet concluded.\n\nA criminal case is not concluded until the prisoner is either found guilty or acquitted. I shall therefore wait until the case is concluded and remand this one until Monday, April 4th, at 10 o'clock.\n\nPage 363\n\nPage 363\n\nPage 363\n\nThe Daily Press.\n\n29th April.\n\nTHE RENDITION CASE.\n\nChing Sam and Tsang Chun, whose rendition is asked for by the Chinese Government on a charge of burglary and murder, were brought up on remand.\n\nMr. Caldwell appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Dennys for the second prisoner, and Mr. Holmes for the first.\n\nMr. Caldwell stated that Mr. Francis, Q.C., who had appeared for the prosecution on the last occasion, had been called away to Shanghai.\n\nIt was decided to proceed in Mr. Francis's absence.\n\nInspector Quincey gave evidence as to the death of Shap, a prisoner in the same case, who committed suicide in the gaol on Wednesday night.\n\nMr. Dennys then addressed the court on the points of law raised by Mr. Francis on the last occasion and afterwards proceeded to analyse the evidence for the prosecution, his address occupying two hours and a half. With reference to the contention of the prosecution that the court had merely to satisfy itself that a prima facie case was made out and could not enter into evidence for the defence he argued that the Magistrate was bound to satisfy himself absolutely that the prisoners were guilty before committing them to gaol pending the Governor's orders, the Governor being in this matter merely an executive officer and bound to deliver the prisoners up if the Magistrate found them guilty; that the Magistrate was bound to hear and take into consideration the defence if there was any case to answer; but that in the present case the prosecution had utterly broken down and that the prisoners were therefore entitled to their discharge. With regard to the first point he said he thought it was utterly impossible to find any precedent outside Hongkong that would exactly guide his Worship, but several cases were heard here last year in which a man named Chung Chee was claimed by the Chinese authorities for various offences. The prosecution in the first case was conducted by Mr. Ewens, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Wotton. Evidence was there gone into on behalf of the prisoner in the case in which Mr. Ewens prosecuted, and the prisoner was discharged, or at any rate he was not given up on the charge investigated by the Magistrate. Mr. Caldwell appeared for the prosecution in the other cases brought against the same prisoner, and those cases he believed were proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. In those cases the Magistrate allowed the witnesses for the prosecution to be cross-examined, and witnesses to be called on behalf of the prisoner. In this case it had been contended that the Magistrate could not accept on behalf of the prisoner any evidence whatever, and a very eminent authority on extradition, Clark, was quoted. Nothing could be stronger than the law as laid down by Mr. Clark, and he (Mr. Dennys) would quite agree with all that had been said by the learned counsel (Mr. Francis) with regard to that if this case came under the extradition law as applied in England under the act of 1870 and the extension of that Act in 1873. But section 17 of the Act said the Act might be applied with certain modifications by Order in Council to any British possession. That had not been done with regard to Hongkong, and the law by which the court was governed was contained in Ordinance 2 of 1850 and the explanatory Ordinance 2 of 1871. Before going into those Ordinances he would ask his Worship's attention to the Treaty referred to in the second Ordinance. By the Treaty of Tientsin, section 21, two different things were provided for, one referring to criminal subjects of China who take refuge in Hongkong, and the other to Chinese offenders who take refuge on board British ships at the open ports of China.\n\nPage 364\n\nPage 364\n\nPage 364",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334377,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 199,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "In reply to Mr. Dennys one of the witnesses stated that Macao was in Heung Shan, and that Hongkong was, geographically, in Kwangtung.\n\nHis Worship-Geographically?\n\nMr. Dennys-Yes, any Chinaman here would tell you he belonged to Kwangtung. There the question arises as to the nationality of the boat. In the case of the Arrow War, it was held that a junk registered in Hongkong, even after the register had ceased, was a British ship, and we went to war with China on the question.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far therefore as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man. The Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so. Therefore, I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credit. With regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, they should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She’s house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard. It, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out. But at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers.\n\nOf course, I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:---\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850: according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong vs. Kwok A Sing had to consider the meaning of this Ordinance and the powers and duties and speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are anonymous terms. By the Treaty of Tientsin, this Government, certain requirements being complied with, is to deliver criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and his Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established. I therefore decline to receive evidence on behalf of the defence. As to whether a prima facie case has been made out, that also has to depend in a great measure upon what one may conceive to be the requirements of a prima facie case, and I am inclined to think so long as there is evidence which, whatever I may think, I am nevertheless unable to say is false, to that extent and to that extent only is the case made out. Had there been any other evidence forthcoming of the same kind as that which has been adduced in the case of Leong Ayow, I should have taken it into consideration. If, for instance, it had been proved to me that one of the watchmen was, say, at the time this affair is supposed to have taken place a constable in the Police Force of Hongkong, I should clearly have considered it within my right to take evidence on such a point. Or again, had the woman who describes herself as the amah of Yow Ma She been known to be all the time in the domestic employ of some one in Hongkong, I should also have considered it right to take such evidence. But merely contradictory evidence, such as that of an alibi, or evidence of that kind, I consider would not be within my power to allow. Considering, then, all that has been urged by the defence as against the evidence for the prosecution, admitting that it is tainted throughout, and that if I were in the position of a jury or the final decision rested with me, I should unhesitatingly throw it on one side, I nevertheless admit that to the extent of evidence having been given criminating the prisoners, there is a prima facie case made out against them. I shall therefore commit the prisoners for safe custody to prison and shall direct the gaoler to detain them in prison until he shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such persons to the nearest Chinese authorities or to such other Chinese authorities as the Governor shall think fit. And in transmitting, as by Ordinance I am bound to do, the minutes of the investigation and the documents connected with the charge, I shall state what I have stated to-day, and it will then rest with the Government to decide on their final action. Looking at the case from this point of view, the Governor appears to me to have very much the same duties as the Attorney-General or the Grand Jury. He decides on the detention, discharge, or transmission of the accused.\n\nMr. Dennys-He has no evidence before him on behalf of the defendants. The Grand Jury has, so has the Attorney-General.\n\nHis Worship-The minutes of the evidence go before him.\n\nMr. Dennys-But not evidence for the defence. I merely throw that out.\n\nPage 194",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334378,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 200,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "His Worship-That seems to me the position of affairs, and with that decision the case ends.\n\nobre.\n\nMr. Dennys-I think it very necessary the prisoners should understand how your Worship's mind works. If they are simply told they are sent to gaol they will want to commit suicide at\n\nI don't want them to do that, because I think there is still a chance, so far as my man is concerned. I am afraid it is a slender one, because I know the Attorney-General thinks that if you commit they are bound to be given up, but I don't want the man to commit suicide, at least not until the last moment.\n\nHis Worship-There is one other point--it is scarcely necessary for me to refer to it--but with regard to what I said about discharging the prisoners upon the evidence of Leong Ayow falling to the ground, in doing so I of course did not do away with my liberty of action, but merely intended it, not as a promise to the prisoners, but as a preliminary notice to the prosecution given by way of courtesy, that that would very probably be the course I should take.\n\nHis Worship's remarks were then interpreted to the prisoners.\n\nThe Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG, May 5th, 1887.\n\nCORRESPONDENCE.\n\nWe do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our Correspondents.\n\nTHE RENDITION CASE.\n\nTO THE EDITOR OF THE \"DAILY PRESS.\"\n\nNo. 60, Queen's Road Central, Hongkong, 4th May, 1887.\n\nSIR, We beg to enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to the Colonial Secretary in reference to this matter, with a request that you will publish the same in the next issue of your journal.\n\nWe also enclose, with a similar request, a copy of the correspondence that passed between the Crown Solicitor and ourselves with reference to the Perjury case arising out of the Rendition case, which was committed for trial at the last Criminal Sessions, together with a copy of the draft Information which was in the hands of the Acting Attorney-General when he informed the Acting Chief Justice that he did not think he could usefully occupy the time of the Court in prosecuting Leong Ayau for Perjury.\n\nThe extreme gravity of the case and the fact that the mail leaves to-morrow must be our excuse for any apparent discourtesy to His Excellency the Acting Governor in requesting you to publish the enclosed before we have received any answer to our letter.\n\nWe are, Sir,\n\nYour obedient servants,\n\nDENNYS & MOSSOP,\n\nSolicitors for Leong Afu.\n\n60, Queen's Road, Hongkong,\n\n2nd May, 1887.\n\nSir,-We have the honour to enclose for the perusal and information of His Excellency the Acting Governor, nine declarations--(Declarations of Ho Fook, Lik Kai Ming, Fung Sai Taun, Im Abi, Cheong Asz, Cheong Sam, Wong Ho, Li Akit, and Ng Ayak)--that we have had taken before Mr. Coughtrie as a Justice of the Peace, with reference to a man named Leung Afa, who is at present detained in Victoria Gaol under a warrant of commitment issued by Mr. Wodehouse, one of the Police Magistrates, under Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, and we respectfully ask His Excellency to immediately order the release of the said Leung Afa from Gaol, where he has been detained ever since the 19th of February last, as he has not been found guilty of any offence against the laws of China provided for by Section 21 of the Treaty of Tientsin incorporated in Ordinance 2 of 1871.\n\nAs upon the action taken by His Excellency Leung Afa depends, but also the lives, liberty and property of some two hundred hands of persons subject to the rule of Her Majesty the Queen in this Colony, we feel sure that His Excellency will pardon us if we take this opportunity of stating at some length the reasons we feel justified in urging the release of our client.\n\nWe do not intend to reiterate what Mr. Dennys urged before the Magistrate, but we cannot help feeling that His Excellency might misapprehend the position he holds with reference to the extradition of persons claimed from the Government of this Colony by the Government of China if we did not place the following explanation before him, and point out that he is not bound to hand over the prisoner to the Chinese Authorities because a prima facie case has been found against him.\n\nBefore, therefore, we address ourselves in any way to the merits of the case in which our client was the third prisoner, we purpose to draw the attention of His Excellency to what we humbly conceive to be the state of the Law with reference to the rendition of people from this Colony to the neighbouring Empire; and we feel convinced that should His Excellency come to the conclusion that our statements are worthy of even the very slightest attention, he would not in any event allow Leung Afa to be transmitted to any of the Chinese Authorities until the whole question had been referred to Her Majesty's Government in England.\n\nFor the purpose of enabling His Excellency to understand why we ask him to put the construction we claim that he should upon the two local Ordinances 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871, we must first of all point out that there is no Extradition Treaty between England and China--that is to say, there is no Extradition Treaty in the sense in which these words are used in English law books.\n\nIn treaties made for the extradition of alleged criminals between European Governments provision is made in some instances for the non-rendition of persons who belong to the state from which their rendition is claimed. For instance, France refuses to give up to the English authorities for trial Frenchmen who, having committed crimes in England, have sought refuge in France; but in almost all, if not in all, cases provision is made that the person claimed shall not be tried for political crimes or for other crimes committed before the crime for which rendition is claimed.\n\nProvision is likewise made for the non-rendition, where, according to the law of the state from which rendition is claimed, the time for prosecuting the particular offence alleged has terminated, and other provisions are sometimes inserted for the return of the accused to the country from which he is claimed and for the admission of depositions taken before the authorities of the country making the claim.\n\nNo Rendition Treaty containing these or similar provisions exists between England and China, and therefore any law books containing statements of the law based upon Treaties of this nature become to a great extent worthless when considering the action His Excellency should pursue with reference to rendition from this Colony to China.\n\nTo illustrate shortly what we have just pointed out, Franz Muller, a German living in London, after murdering Mr. Briggs upon the North London Railway, fled to the United States and was given up by them upon a claim for his rendition made by the English Government. Had he fled to Canton instead of New York, he could not have been claimed by England under any Extradition Treaty with China.\n\nTo put the converse of the case: if our client in this case had been residing in London instead of in Hongkong at the time the Chinese Official La Loi applied for his arrest, could he have been claimed from England by China under any Extradition Treaty? We think there cannot be the slightest doubt that he could not.\n\nHaving, we trust, shown clearly that no Extradition Treaty is in existence between England and China we would respectfully urge that if there is any extradition from this Colony to China, which is extremely doubtful, the whole of the law that governs it is contained in the two Hongkong Ordinances above referred to, 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871; but before asking His Excellency to read these Ordinances in the way and the only way we submit in which they can be properly read and construed, we would ask him to allow us to call attention to the case referred to by Mr. Wodehouse when giving his decision and committing Leong Afu to Gaol: we mean the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334381,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 203,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "F.\n\nI-Wong Ho, of Victoria in the island of Hong-kong, widow, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and say as follows:-\n\n1.-I know the prisoner who is charged in this case under the name of Tsang Achun.\n\n2.-The said prisoner has been my protector for more than ten years, since the death of my husband, and I have always known him by the name of Leung Afu and by no other name.\n\n3.-The said Leung Afu has been living in Hongkong since his return from Annam in 1884.\n\n4.-The said Leung Afu suffers from rheumatism in his legs, and during the whole of the 9th moon last year he was unable to walk without great pain and difficulty, and most of the time was confined to his bed on the top floor of No. 61, East Street, Victoria aforesaid.\n\nAnd I make this solemn declaration, etc.,\n\nWONG HO. (Her + mark.)\n\nG.\n\nI, Li Akit, of Victoria, in the Island of Hong-kong, coolie-house keeper, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and say as follows:-\n\n1.-I am in partnership with Tam Yau, Lam Yo, and Lam Sui in a coolie lodging-house situate in Queen's Road Central, Victoria aforesaid.\n\n2.-I know and am well acquainted with Leung Afu who is charged in this case under the name Tsang Achun.\n\n3.-To my own knowledge the said Leung Afu resided from the 3rd moon of last year up to the date of his arrest on the top floor of No. 61, East Street, Victoria aforesaid.\n\n4.-The said Leung Afu was ill in the 9th moon of last year, and on the evenings of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th days of the said 9th moon I visited him and assisted him to prepare his opium pipe, as he was too ill to do it himself.\n\n5.-I have never heard the said prisoner called by any other name than Leung Afu previously to his being charged in this case.\n\nAnd I make this solemn declaration, etc.\n\n(Signed)\n\nLI KIT.\n\nI, Ng Ayuk, of Victoria in the Island of Hongkong, married woman, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and say as follows:--\n\n1.-I reside at No. 90, Tank Lane, Victoria aforesaid, and am the wife of a man Chan Tik Cheung.\n\n2.-The said Chan Tik Cheung is at present detained in Victoria Gaol, where he is under remand on a charge of burglary and murder in Chinese territory.\n\n3.-While the charge against the said Chan Tik Cheung was proceeding before H. E. Wodehouse, Esq., one of the Magistrates of this Colony, a man named Ho Ki gave evidence on behalf of the three prisoners, of whom the said Chan Tik Cheung was one.\n\n4.-The said Ho Ki gave material evidence for the defence of the said prisoners, and upon the above-named Leong Ayau being charged with perjury before E. Maclean, Esq., another of the Magistrates of this Colony, the said Ho Ki was examined for the prosecution and gave material evidence against the prisoner Leung Ayau.\n\n5.-In the said charge of burglary and murder preferred against Chan Tik Cheung and others, a person described as Colonel Li Loi signed the information or petition upon which His Excellency the Acting Governor directed warrants to issue for the arrest of the said Chan Tik Cheung and others.\n\n6.-During the prosecution of the said Chan Tik Cheung and others, the said Li Loi appeared in Court and instructed the Solicitor who was conducting the case for the prosecution.\n\n7.-On Saturday, the 26th day of March, 1887, the said Leong Ayau was committed for trial to the Supreme Court on a charge of perjury committed in the said case against Chan Tik Cheung and others.\n\n8.-On the following day, that is on Sunday, the 27th day of March, at about 11 a.m., the above-mentioned Ho Ki came to my house and in the presence of Chow Afung and others informed me that since he had been examined as a witness in the case of Regina v. Leong Ayau the above-named Li Loi had sent a large number of soldiers to Sam Kwai, the native village of the said Ho Ki, that he had arrested two of the gentry, two tipons, the said Ho Ki's elder brother, and several of the clansmen of the said Ho Ki, about 20 persons in all.\n\n9.-The said Ho Ki further said that the said Li Loi had billeted about 100 soldiers in the ancestral temple of the said Ho Ki at Sam Kwai aforesaid and that the family of the said Ho Ki were compelled to supply the said soldiers with food.\n\n10.-The said Ho Ki further said that he had been provided with clothes and a passage to Singapore and that he could not attend any further in Court to give evidence on behalf of my husband or against the said Leong Ayau, as if he did so the said Li Loi would punish him and his relations.\n\n11.-When the said Ho Ki said this he was dressed in new clothes and was armed with a loaded revolver.\n\n12.-I verily believe the statement of the said Ho Ki to be true and that he is prevented by the said Li Loi from attending before the Supreme Court in the trial of the said Leong Ayau to give evidence.\n\nAnd I make, &c.,\n\n(Signed)\n\nNG AYUK. (Her + mark.)\n\n21st April, 1887.\n\nR. v. LEONG AYAU.\n\nA. B. Johnson, Esq., Crown Solicitor.\n\nDear Sir,\n\nWe have laid the depositions in the matter before Counsel and he advises us that if the Attorney-General considers that he is unable to proceed in this case because Ho Ki's deposition before the Magistrate is unsigned and cannot therefore be given in evidence, we had better raise no objection to a nolle prosequi being entered.-Yours truly,\n\n(Sd.) DENNYS & MOSHOP.\n\nApril 22nd, 1887.\n\nR. v. LEONG AYAU.\n\nA. B. Johnson, Esq.\n\nDear Sir,\n\nAs we understand now that Ho Ki will be able to attend at the trial of this case we have requested Mr. Brereton to draw the information and will let you have it as soon as possible.-Yours faithfully,\n\n(Sd.) DENNYS & MOSSOP.\n\n27th April, 1887.\n\nREGINA v. LEONG AYAU.\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI received your letter of the 22nd inst., but I have not received any information.\n\nThe Acting Attorney-General wishes me to inform you that the Sessions stand adjourned till Friday next at 10.30, when no information being filed the defendant will in the usual course be discharged by proclamation.\n\nI am, dear sir,\n\nYours faithfully.\n\n(Signed)\n\nA. B. JOHNSON,\n\nCrown Solicitor.\n\nMessrs. Dennys and Mossop.\n\n28th April, 1887.\n\nR. v. LEONG AYAU.\n\nA. B. Johnson, Esq., Crown Solicitor.\n\nDear Sir,\n\nMr. Brereton has sent us the draft information, which we are having copied, and will send to you the first thing in the morning.\n\nWe should be glad to hear whether the Attorney-General will apply for a special jury to try the case.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n(Sd.)\n\nDENNYS & MOSSOP.\n\n1.-The draft information consists of two counts.\n\nIn the first Leung Ayau is charged with unlawfully having committed wilful and corrupt perjury before Mr. H. E. Wodehouse, Magistrate, on the 7th March, in the case in which Ching Sam, U Shap, and Tsang Chun, alias Leung Afu, were charged with robbery and murder at a place called Wong Po in the district of Shan Tak in the province of Kwang-tung in Chinese Territory on the night of the 9th October 1886, by alleging that the said Tsang Chun formed one of a gang of robbers who, during the night of the 9th October, 1883, broke into a dwelling house at Taihow and forcibly took him, the said Leung Ayau, to a place called Wong Po, whereas in truth the said Tsang Chun was at the time stated in Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong.\n\nIn the second count Leung Ayau is charged with committing perjury by declaring that he had never been in gaol either in Hongkong or China and swearing that he had no prison marks on his person, whereas he had frequently been imprisoned for theft in China and had been branded on the arm and face with the marks denoting theft or thief.\n\nPage 198",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334382,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 204,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "The Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG. MAY 24TH, 1887.\n\nIN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.\n\nMOTION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.\n\nMr. Dennys applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus in the matter of Leong Afu, one of the defendants in the Chinese Rendition case, and who is at the present time detained in Victoria Gaol. Mr. Dennys stated that he was unable to secure the services of counsel. There were at present only three counsel acting as such in the Colony; of these Mr. Francis was prosecuting in this case. Mr. Brereton stated that he was retained by the Chinese Government, and Dr. Ho Kai had been applied to by the Chinese Government but had refused to act for either side. He therefore put in an affidavit which he had filed.\n\nThe affidavit stated that Leong Afu was at present detained in Victoria Gaol under a warrant signed by Mr. Wodehouse, although the said Leong Afu had not been found guilty of any offence against the laws of this Colony or those of China. He had been charged with others with robbery and murder committed in Chinese territory on the night of 9th October, 1886. That he had stated that the evidence of Li Loi and Leong Ayau, the chief witnesses for the prosecution, had been guilty of subornation of perjury and of perjury; and at the request of the Magistrate had called witnesses to prove that Leong Ayau was not the person he represented himself to be, but a convicted and branded criminal. He had afterwards charged Li Loi and Leong Ayau with perjury, and that while that case was proceeding, without any previous notice to himself or any enquiry as to how far he was able to support his charge, the Acting Attorney-General stopped the further hearing of the case against Li Loi. That Leong Ayau had been committed for trial at the Supreme Court, but that the Acting Attorney-General caused him to be discharged by proclamation. That at the conclusion of the case against Leong Afu, although the Magistrate stated he believed Leong Ayau's evidence to be unworthy of belief, he (the Magistrate), acting under instructions from the Government, refused to release Leong Afu. That he had since applied to the Acting Governor for the immediate discharge of Leong Afu but had been informed that it had been decided to surrender the accused to the Chinese Authorities. That the Acting Governor, so far as he was aware, had made no enquiries as to the guilt or innocence of Leong Afu nor examined any witnesses who could give evidence in his behalf.\n\nMr. Dennys then put in and read the warrant by virtue of which Leong Afu is detained in Victoria Gaol.\n\nMr. Dennys based his argument against the accused being given up on article 2 of the Treaty of Tientsin, which he said distinctly stated that a prisoner should only be delivered over to the Chinese authorities when he had been tried and found guilty of the offence imputed to him. Leong Afu had not been found guilty, and therefore his Lordship would be quite justified in granting the writ asked for.\n\nHis Lordship granted the writ and adjourned the further hearing of the case to 30th May.\n\nPage 199\n\nThe Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG, June 1st, 1887.\n\nTHE CHINESE RENDITION CASE-APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF LEUNG AFU.\n\nMr. Dennys applied for the discharge of Leung Afu, one of the defendants in the Chinese rendition case.\n\nMr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Wilkinson, appeared on behalf of the Chinese Government to oppose the discharge; Mr. Wodehouse, the Magistrate by virtue of whose warrant the defendant is detained, appeared on his own behalf; and the Acting Attorney-General watched the case on behalf of the Government.\n\nMr. Dennys objected to Mr. Francis appearing for the Chinese Government. They had no locus standi in the matter. The case was simply between the Supreme Court and the Gaol.\n\nThe Court decided in favour of Mr. Francis being allowed to appear for the Chinese Government.\n\nMr. Dennys said he applied for the return of a writ of certiorari and for the discharge from custody of Leung Afu as he was not detained under any legal warrant of conviction or committal. The warrant was bad on the face of it. It did not cite any offence over which the Magistrate had jurisdiction. Again, the warrant said \"whereas Leung Afu having been duly convicted, &c.,\" but the defendant had not been convicted of any offence.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said that the Magistrate had committed the man to Gaol pending the orders of the Governor.\n\nMr. Dennys said he was quite prepared to show that the warrant of commitment must contain a recital of the conviction.\n\nMr. Francis said that it was the usual practice for the writs for certiorari and habeas corpus to be applied for at the same time and both dealt with together.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said he did not see why this rule had not been followed in this case. Mr. Dennys said on that point he must ask for the consideration of the court. He then went on to say that he should show to their Lordships that the Magistrate had not done his duty inasmuch as he had refused to hear witnesses who were willing to give evidence on behalf of the defendant. He should also call their Lordships' attention to his affidavit which, so far as he was aware, had not been contradicted.\n\nMr. Wodehouse said that his object in appearing was that if the writ of certiorari were granted, certain documents as well as the depositions be put in. These documents would show how he was somewhat influenced in the decision he had come to in the case.\n\nHis Lordship said he thought the documents might be put in.\n\nMr. Francis said that he thought all documents having reference to the case should be admitted.\n\nMr. Dennys said he had no objection to the documents being put in, but as he had not seen them it was impossible for him to say whether they had to do with the case or not. Continuing, he said that under Ordinance 2 of 1871 and Ordinance 2 of 1850, the Magistrate was held to be in the position of a jury as regards the prisoner, and when any doubt existed, that doubt was to benefit the prisoner. He would like to call their Lordships' attention to the three phrases in the second Ordinance, \"investigation,\" \"probable cause of belief,\" and \"proof of guilt.\" With reference to the words \"proof of guilt,\" he thought the same construction must be put on them as was done by the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General v. Kwok Shing. The Magistrate in trying the case must have such a proof of guilt as would justify him in committing the prisoner had the offence been committed within the jurisdiction of Hongkong. There might be links in the chain of evidence wanting, but there must be no reasonable doubt in his mind that those links would be found when the case was heard against him in that Court. He would ask their Lordships to refer to the affidavit before them, and they would see that there was no such proof of guilt in this case. The Magistrate had said distinctly that if he were a jury, he would not convict upon such evidence.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice-The Magistrate does not exactly say that. He is not in the same position as a jury. He says if the final decision were to rest upon him, he might perhaps give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.\n\nMr. Dennys said that their Lordships could not hold that the Magistrate had reasonable grounds of belief that the defendant was guilty. One witness had sworn that in the middle of the night he had seen through four solid walls. At the time that statement was made, they had not gone far enough to see what were the facts of the case, but when other witnesses were called and the position of these walls determined, his statement meant that or nothing. From his own statement as to where he was sleeping and from the place stated afterwards in evidence as the spot where the men broke into the house, it was perfectly plain that the witness, if he looked perfectly straight, saw through four solid walls, and if he looked crooked through five. Could the Magistrate with such evidence as that before him...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334383,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 205,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "say that he had reasonable cause for believing that the prisoner committed the offence impute to him?: He did not think for one moment that the Magistrate believed the man guilty. If their Lordships would read his (Mr. Dennys') affidavit they would see that the prisoner had been committed upon the order of the Governor. The Magistrate said \"I have orders from the Government that as soon as a prima facie case is made out I am bound to commit.\" But a prima facie case was made out the moment the first witness for the prosecution stepped into the box and gave his evidence. Their Lordships must go upon that understanding now if they decided that the conviction must be upheld. He was perfectly certain that the court would agree with him that the mere fact of evidence being given of a crime that has been committed is no proof of guilt against a prisoner. The evidence of the man Leang Yi was to the effect that one of the men, at the time the burglary took place, tied him up and kept guard over him, and he swore positively to the second prisoner being the man. He should say that the second prisoner, who has since committed suicide, was not defended by anybody. The first and third prisoners only were defended by solicitors and the solicitors for these two did not consider it their duty to examine this man as he did not, in any way, incriminate their clients. Another witness was an amah living in the house, and she again could not swear to the prisoners. She simply stated that the crime was committed. The prosecution then put forward a witness who made out a nice, clear, straightforward case against the prisoners. This was Leung Ayow, who called himself the nephew of the rich old lady whose house was robbed, and who swore he was in the house at the time the burglary took place. Mr. Dennys then went on to recite at some length the evidence as given by Leung Ayow before the Magistrate. Having read this and pointed out how they had called evidence which entirely destroyed the idea of Leung Ayow being a credible witness, he went on to say that the Magistrate had stated that he did not believe one word of Leung Ayow's statement. How then could the Magistrate feel justified in signing a warrant for committal as being satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner? And then with reference to the Magistrate refusing to hear evidence on behalf of the prisoners. The prisoners were able to produce witnesses to prove their innocence, who attended at the court and were prepared to go into the witness box, but the Magistrate refused to hear them because the Government had told him that as soon as a prima facie case was made out he must commit the prisoners. There was no evidence before the Magistrate to justify him deciding that the prisoners were Chinese subjects. There was a distinction between prima facie evidence and a prima facie case. Prima facie evidence was that which established a case with a degree of probability before rebutting evidence was called. A prima facie case must show evidence against the prisoner, but in such case the Magistrate before detaining him must hold investigation. The Magistrate in this case had held no such investigation. The meaning of the word \"investigate,\" according to Webster, was to search carefully and examine accurately into. Their Lordships would agree with him that the Magistrate had not investigated this case, in the true meaning of the word. He rested his application upon two grounds, first as to there being no evidence as to the prisoners being Chinese subjects; and, secondly, that there was no reasonable amount of evidence in proof of their having committed the offence.\n\nHis Lordship then called upon Mr. Francis for reply, when Mr. Francis said he believed Mr. Wodehouse wished first to address the court.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said he thought Mr. Wodehouse was not called upon to address the Court. The statements made were merely ex parte. Mr. Wodehouse was only doing what was perfectly within his right when he signed the warrant for committal.\n\nMr. Wodehouse then withdrew from the court.\n\nMr. Francis said the only question before the Court was whether the prisoner was properly detained in Hongkong Gaol at the present moment. Undoubtedly the treaty with China said that in extradition cases the prisoner was to be handed over to the Chinese authorities on \"Proof of guilt.\" The Ordinance they had to consider was 2 of 1850, for the later one of 1871 was merely a re-enactment of the former Ordinance. The Magistrate by that Ordinance was to investigate the case in the same manner as if the offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Government of Hongkong. Now in the case of an indictable offence the Magistrate was not bound to take the evidence of witnesses for the defence.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice asked the learned Counsel if he could give any authority for that. Mr. Francis said he could not do so at the moment as he had not come prepared, not knowing that the point would be raised. There were few cases of like nature to refer to. He based his argument upon “Clark on Extradition\" and contended that the Magistrate was not legally bound to take evidence for the defence inasmuch as it would be useless for judicial purposes.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice then read an extract describing the usual course of procedure in ordinary criminal cases. It was the custom for the Magistrate after hearing the evidence for the prosecution to ask the prisoner if he had anything to say and the prisoner either made his defence or reserved it until tried at the Supreme Court.\n\nMr. Francis said that what his Lordship had just read only related to the prisoner's personal statement. He could not call any witnesses. In England in rendition cases it was the custom for the Magistrate to simply take the evidence of the prosecution, and a prima facie case having been made out the prisoner was handed over, and here he submitted the proceedings were substantially the same. With reference to the question as to whether the prisoner was a Chinese subject, he contended that there was sufficient prima facie evidence before the Magistrate for him to come to the conclusion that he was. There was evidence to show that the prisoner was at the time in Chinese territory, that he wore the Chinese dress and spoke the Chinese language, and therefore the onus of proof lay with him to show that he was not of that nationality.\n\nAt this point the court adjourned for tiffin.\n\nPage 12\n\nOn reassembling Mr. Francis stated he had looked up several books to find the authority his Lordship had asked for. The learned counsel then read a lengthy extract from \"Stephen's History of Criminal Law\" in support of his previous argument, and contended that the Magistrate had no option but to act as he did.\n\nMr. Justice Leach-Is the man then to remain under the stigma of the accusation without being allowed to call any evidence in defence until tried at the Supreme Court?\n\nMr. Francis-That is the law here.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice-Suppose a man should be charged with being in possession of stolen property and he can call a large number of witnesses to prove that he came honestly by it?\n\nMr. Francis said the Magistrate of course had a discretionary power to allow the prisoner to call witnesses to prove his innocence, but he was not obliged by law to do so. If there were half a dozen witnesses to prove an accusation against a prisoner and the prisoner could call fifty reliable and accredited witnesses to prove the contrary, of course, it would be very foolish of a Magistrate to refuse to allow him to call his witnesses; but still he would be acting quite within his powers in refusing, and committing the prisoner for trial. He believed a case had never arisen before in which a Magistrate had refused to take such evidence, but still he submitted to the court that the Magistrate had only done what he had perfect right to do. He should ask permission of the court to run as briefly as possible the chief points in the evidence before the Magistrate, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing the prisoner. The learned counsel then went over the depositions of the witnesses taken in the Police Court enquiry, and said he was certain that on much weaker evidence than that just read by him, many a man had been committed for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nHe would go further and say that on much weaker evidence than that many a man had, in that very court, been convicted by the jury and sentenced by the judge.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said that he considered the case a most important one, which would require a good deal of consideration, and therefore the Court would reserve judgment.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334384,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 206,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "The Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG, JUNE 15TH, 1887.\n\nTHE CHINESE RENDITION CASE. JUDGMENT.\n\nIn the case of Leung Afu, one of the defendants in the Rendition case, for whose discharge Mr. Dennys applied, their Lordships delivered the following judgment:-\n\nOn the application of Mr. Dennys, supported by two affidavits—one by himself and the other by Leung Afu, a prisoner in the Victoria Gaol, committed under the Extradition Ordinance,—Lung Afu was brought before the court on a writ of Habeas corpus. To his return to the writ, the Superintendent of the Gaol annexes the warrant under which he holds the prisoner. Notice of a writ of certiorari was served, and this writ was moved for and the proceedings before the magistrate were brought into court by the magistrate himself, and were referred to in the argument on the return of the writ of Habeas corpus. Mr. Francis, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the Chinese Government to support the warrant of commitment. The committing magistrate appeared in person and handed in the proceedings. The Acting Attorney-General appeared to watch the case on behalf of the Government, but took no part in the proceedings. Mr. Dennys, for the prisoner, by special leave in absence of Counsel, argued that the prisoner was detained on a warrant which was bad on the face of it, as there was no offence recited over which the magistrate had jurisdiction. He cited Regina v. King, 13 L.C., 43, and other cases, which we have examined.\n\nThe warrants in these cases omitted to state the gist of the offences for which the magistrates committed. \"In the matter of Paarle,\" 1 A. and E. N. S., bears most on this matter. It appears from the proceedings at the Police Court that the prisoner and two others were charged on the 19th February last, as subjects of China, with murder and burglary within the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China on the 9th October last. Several examinations took place, and in the course of the proceedings Mr. Dennys alleged that one of the principal witnesses for the Chinese authorities had committed perjury, and the man was charged with it, and the investigation of the case against Leung Afu and the others was postponed, pending the trial of a witness for perjury.\n\nIt appears that although the witness was committed for trial for perjury, the Attorney-General, for reasons no doubt satisfactory to the Crown, entered a nolle prosequi, and proceedings against the prisoner were thus abandoned. After this, the rendition case was resumed, and it appears from the affidavit and from the magistrate's own notes that the magistrate refused to hear any evidence on behalf of the prisoners, although Mr. Dennys on behalf of one prisoner, and Mr. Holmes on behalf of another, asked to be allowed to produce evidence.\n\nIn rendition cases of Chinese subjects in this Colony, the procedure and powers of the magistrates are to be found in Ord. 2 of 1850 and Ord. 2 of 1871. Ord. 2 of 1850 was passed to carry out the treaty of the Bogue, which provided for the rendition of Chinese subjects to the Chinese Government who had committed crimes and offences in China. Ord. 2 of 1871 was passed as a declaratory Ordinance—declaring that 2 of 1850 was to apply to the Treaty of Tientsin, the 21st Article of which provides for the rendition to China of Chinese criminals escaping here, on \"proof of guilt.\" Mr. Dennys argued that \"proof of guilt\" meant complete proof, and amplified the words in the Ordinance 2 of 1850 in favour of the accused.\n\nThe learned Counsel for the Chinese Government argued that the Court, Magistrate, and Government will only look to Ordinance 2 of 1850, as declared by 2 of 1871. Section 1 of Ordinance 2 of 1850 gives power to the magistrate to detain Chinese subjects having committed offences against the laws of China and being then in Hongkong: (1) if a complaint has been made by any officer of the Chinese Government; or (2) if it appears in the course of investigating any other matter, that a Chinese subject has committed an offence against the laws of China; or (3) if such person be already in custody, it shall be lawful to detain such person, and to investigate the alleged crime or offence in the same manner as if such person were charged with a crime or indictable offence committed within the colony.\n\nSection III says that if at the close of this investigation it shall appear to the Magistrate or Court that such person as aforesaid is a subject of China, and that there is probable cause for believing that the said person has committed such crime or offence, it shall and may be lawful for such Magistrate or Court to commit such person for safe custody to prison, and to direct the Gaoler to detain such person in prison until the said Gaoler shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong, relative to the further detention, discharge or transmission of such prisoner to the nearest Chinese authorities as to the Governor shall seem fit; and the Magistrate or Court shall, upon making such committal as aforesaid, transmit to the said Governor of Hongkong the minutes of such investigation, &c.\n\nNow, under the warrant of the magistrate the prisoner Leung Afu was committed to Gaol on 29th April, 1887, pending the orders of the Governor as to his further disposal, it appearing to the said magistrate, upon investigation of the case, that there was cause to believe that the prisoner was a subject of China, and had committed crimes and offences, viz., burglary and murder, within the Empire of China. It is not stated in the warrant when the murder and burglary were committed, nor is there any reference to the Act or Ordinance giving the Magistrate jurisdiction.\n\nIn the case of Young Achau and 12 others, brought before this Court in November, 1881, the late Mr. Justice Snowden in ordering the discharge of the prisoners, although the warrant stated on the face of it that it was under Ordinance 2 of 1850, S. III., said: \"I am unable to discover when the form now in use was adopted in this Colony. I find that the form of conviction appended to Ord. 10 of 1884, still in force, requires the following particulars—setting out the information and if the conviction is made for an offence against any Statute or Ordinance to state it.\"\n\nHe then goes on to quote from the warrant of committal: \"Whereas it hath appeared to me a magistrate for the said Colony,—is a subject of China—and that there is probable cause, &c.,” and asks if this form is sufficient and cites Baron Parke's Judgment, Ex. Chamber, in Howard and Gossett, 10 Q.B., at p. 411-452. Paley on Conviction, 182, says: \"In the case of special authorities given by Statutes to Justices or others acting out of the ordinary course of Common Law, the instruments by which they act, whether warrants to arrest, commitment orders, convictions or inquisitions ought, according to the course of decision, to show their authority on the face of them by direct averment or necessary intendment.\"\n\nMr. Justice Snowdon goes on to say: \"Of course greater nicety is required in the case of summary conviction, and where the commitment is in execution than where prisoners are remanded or committed to prison for further disposal only.\" He further states that he is of opinion that in \"cases of rendition the accused are entitled to the protection of every formality the law throws around them, and that it is the duty of this court before whom they claim their discharge to see that there has been no shortcoming in this respect.\"\n\nIn Paley on Convictions, pages 201 and 202, it is stated that the conviction must likewise specify the time and place of committing the fact complained of.\" The precise day need not be named if the fact be alleged to have happened between such and such a day—see also 2 Hawkins C. 25, sec. 82.\n\nIt is quite true, as Mr. Francis pointed out, that Jervis Acts have not been made the law of the Colony, and that so far as indictable offences are concerned the procedure would be in strict law according to 7 Geo. 4 C. 64. Jervis' Acts became law in England in 1849, and introduced certain changes which are pointed out in Stephens' History of the Criminal Law of England.\n\nBut sec. 1 of 7 George IV. C. 64, after describing two persons are to be examined in indictable offences with the view to commitment, indicates that evidence may be adduced by the accused—\"or such evidence shall be adduced on behalf of the prisoner charged, &c.\" \"Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any such Justice or Justices to hear evidence on behalf of any person so charged as aforesaid unless it shall appear to him or them to be meet and conducive to the ends of Justice to hear the same.\"\n\nNow Ord. 2 of 1850 directs that the magistrate shall investigate rendition cases as he would indictable offences. In 1849 Lord Denman, C.J., said that where a person charged with felony has witnesses in attendance at the time of the examination before the magistrate they should then be examined if the prisoner wished it. See Oke's Magisterial Guide.\n\nPage 13",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334385,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 207,
        "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "Magisterial Synopsis, Vol. II page 901, and in several previous cases where persons were charged with having stolen property and gave references to persons from whom they received the same, the Judges have stated that such persons should be sent for and examined with the view of exonerating or contradicting the accused. 30 and 31 Vic. C. 35 § 8 directs Justices in England to ask prisoners whether they have witnesses, and directs their examination and to be placed under recognisances like witnesses for the prosecution. Prisoners committed for trial are by local Ord. almost on the same terms as in Jervis' Act, to be informed that if they wish to make a statement they may do so, but that it will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence, and although the Act of 30 and 31 Vic. has not been formally made law here yet the practice has been to allow prisoners to call witnesses as “meet and conducive to the ends of Justice.\" In his argument the learned counsel called our attention to Clarke's work on extradition and the rules of practice in different countries. At page 177 the learned author states in reference to English practice that \"when the fugitive is apprehended he is brought before the Police Magistrate, who hears the case in the same manner, and has the same jurisdiction and powers as near as may be as if the prisoner were charged with an indictable offence committed in England,\" and he may receive evidence to show that the offence is a political one and not an extradition crime. The writer then proceeds to discuss the question as to the duty of the Magistrate to receive evidence for the prisoner. He cites various opinions, and gives the views of the late Lord Cairns, who referred to the minutes of a Conference held at Paris wherein it was stated that a prisoner brought before a magistrate would be entitled to deny his identity with the person named in the warrant. Lord Cairns stated “that as to an accused person being precluded from entering into any other defence than a denial of his identity he differed entirely from that view, for he apprehended that it would be quite open to him to produce any evidence in his power to controvert the allegations made in the depositions.\" Clarke page 185. The writer seems to take the view that the Magistrate should only hear evidence for the prosecution except as to political offences or that the crime was not an extradition crime but with all respect to the learned author we think that the English practice and the demands of justice are in accord with Lord Cairns' view and his view that was announced by this Court in 1831. See judgment of the late Mr. Justice Snowdon, 18th Nov., 1831. From the form of warrant of committal under the Extradition Act of 1870 it would appear that the prisoner is brought before the Magistrate \"to show cause why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the Extradition Act 1870, on the ground of his being accused of...\n\nand for as much as no sufficient cause has been shown to me why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the said Act: This is therefore, &c.\" In Oke's Magisterial Synopsis 898, in the footnote 29, dealing with indictable offences, the author cites Mr. Justice Bagley in Cox v. Coleridge as saying \"I think that a Magistrate is clearly bound in the exercise of a sound discretion not to commit any one unless a prima facie case is made out against him by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit.\" Justices ought not therefore to balance the evidence and decide according as it preponderates, for this would in fact be taking upon themselves the functions of a petty jury and be trying the case. They should consider whether or not the evidence makes out a strong, or probable, or even a conflicting case of guilt. In any one of such cases they should commit the accused for trial. We think the above gives the true rule for dealing with extradition cases here, and the Magistrate should ask himself if the offence had been committed within this jurisdiction, should he commit for trial at the Supreme Court. If so he should commit under the Ordinance, and thus enable the Governor to carry out the treaty obligation. The Magistrate after investigating the case,\n\nOn the other hand, if as he does an indictable offence, comes to the conclusion that there is no probable cause for believing that the person before him committed the crimes charged, then he should not put it in the power of the Governor to deliver him up if he thought fit, but discharge him. It seems to us from a careful perusal of the documents before us that the sitting magistrate interprets prima facie case, and \"probable cause\" to mean evidence on one side—and on one side alone—but that is too narrow a meaning to put upon those terms. There may be a conflict of testimony and yet a prima facie case, or probable cause. The Magistrate refused evidence for the prisoner apparently because of some order or other that he got from the Executive Government. He does not, from the information before us, appear to have refused it of his own sense of right, and we think that in result, from whatever cause, an injustice has been done to the prisoner by the refusal of the evidence on his behalf pressed on the Magistrate. Mr. Justice Snowden in the case already cited stated that in the depositions there was no statement that the accused were called on to plead. Above all it does not appear that they were asked what they had to say in their defence although they might have been able to show beyond doubt, either mistaken identity or an alibi, or some defence within the province of the Magistrate to hear. No opportunity was afforded them to do so\". These observations we think are in accordance with justice and the present case is much stronger, for it appears that there were eight witnesses in attendance and tendered on behalf of the prisoner, and whether their evidence was worth anything or nothing in our judgment they should have been examined. On the evidence before the Magistrate there was sufficient grounds for committing the prisoner if he believed the witnesses. There was also sufficient evidence that he was a Chinese subject. For the reasons given above we think the warrant had on the face of it, and that the prisoner ought not to have been committed without being allowed to make any defence, and the Governor thus authorised if he thought fit to deliver Laung Afu to the Chinese Authorities. The deportation to another country for trial is a severe penalty in itself\" says Sir Edward Clarke at page 190 of his work on Rendition, and we think that justice requires the putting in force of the maxim audi alteram partem in rendition cases as well as in other matters. The prisoner is discharged.\n\nPage 202",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334858,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 140,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "25. Any member, or Officer of the Board duly authorised by the said Board in writing, may, at any time between the hours of six in the morning and six in the evening, enter any shop or premises used for the sale or preparation for sale, or for the storage of food, to inspect and examine any food found therein which he shall have reason to believe is intended to be used as human food; and, in case any such food appear to such member or Officer to be unfit for such use, he may seize the same, and the Board may order it to be destroyed or to be so disposed of as to prevent it from being used as human food.\n\n26. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council from time to time to select and appoint, and by advertisement in the Hongkong Government Gazette, to notify sufficient and proper places to be the sites of, and to be used as Cemeteries or places of burial for the Chinese; and from time to time, to alter, vary, and repeal the said Notifications by others, to be advertised in the like manner; and in such Cemeteries or places it shall be lawful for the Chinese, in conformity with the provisions of the Notifications actually in force, to bury their dead, yet so as that any person who shall use for that purpose a grave of less than six feet in depth from the ordinary surface of the ground to the uppermost side of the corpse or coffin therein deposited, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding fifty dollars.\n\n27. The Governor in Council is authorised from time to time to notify by advertisement in the Hongkong Government Gazette, that any Chinese cemetery or burial ground shall, from a time in such Notification to be specified, be closed, and the same shall be closed accordingly; and whosoever, after the expiration of the said specified time, shall bury any corpse in the said cemetery or burial ground shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars.\n\n28. Whosoever shall bury any corpse or coffin in any ground not being a cemetery or burial ground authorised under this or any other Ordinance, shall (except in cases provided for by section 27 of this Ordinance) for every such offence forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars.\n\n29. Where any person is suffering from small-pox or any other contagious or infectious disease, and is without proper lodging or accommodation, or is lodged in a tenement occupied by more than one family, or is on board any ship or vessel, a Magistrate may, on the certificate of the Colonial Surgeon or any other duly qualified Medical practitioner, order the removal of such person to such suitable hospital or other like place as may be provided for the purpose.\n\n30. The keeping of cattle, swine, sheep, or goats without a Licence from the Board is hereby prohibited; and any person keeping such animals, either without a Licence from the Board, or in a manner contravening such sanitary conditions as may be endorsed on such Licence, shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine not exceeding five dollars, and, in default of payment, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding fourteen days, and, in the discretion of the Magistrate, to forfeit all animals in respect of the keeping of which he has so offended.\n\nPART II\n\n31. Whenever any part of the Colony appears to be threatened with, or is affected by any formidable epidemic, endemic, or contagious disease, the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, may, by Proclamation from time to time, direct that the provisions contained in Sections 32 to 37 of this Ordinance, both inclusive, be put in force in the Colony, or such part thereof, as by such Proclamation may be specified, and may from time to time revoke or renew any such Proclamation; and, subject to such revocation and renewal, every such Proclamation shall be in force for such period as in such Proclamation shall be expressed, and every such Proclamation shall be published in the Government Gazette, and such publication shall be conclusive evidence thereof.\n\n32. From time to time after the issuing of any such Proclamation as aforesaid, and while the same continues in force, the Board may issue Bye-Laws, as they shall think fit, for the prevention as far as possible, or mitigation of such epidemic, endemic, or contagious disease, and from time to time may revoke, renew, and alter any such Bye-Laws.\n\nAny person committing any infraction of the above-mentioned Bye-Laws shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or to imprisonment not exceeding six months.\n\n33. The Board by such Bye-Laws may provide:\n\n1. For the speedy and safe disposal of the dead.\n\n2. For house to house visitation.\n\n3. For the dispensing and distribution of medicines.\n\n4. For providing such accommodation and medical aid as may be required.\n\n5. For the destruction of infected bedding, clothing, or other articles.\n\n6. For the compulsory vacating of houses.\n\n7. For any such matters or things as may to the Board appear advisable for preventing or mitigating such disease.\n\n34. Such Bye-Laws after approval by the Governor in Council, shall be published in the Government Gazette.\n\n35. The Board shall, through its Officers, superintend the execution of such Bye-Laws, and shall act, and shall provide all such things as may be advisable for mitigating such disease, or for superintending or aiding in the execution of such Bye-Laws, or for executing the same, as the case may require.\n\n36. Any officers or persons authorised in that behalf by the Board may enter at any reasonable time during the day or night, and inspect any premises where they have ground for believing that any person has recently suffered from or died of any such disease, or that necessity may otherwise exist for executing in relation to such premises any of such Bye-Laws.\n\n37. When any such Proclamation is in force, and upon any evidence that the Board may deem sufficient that any premises are so overcrowded as to be injurious to health, the Board shall have power to make such Order as it shall see fit to abate such overcrowding, and the house-holder, tenant, or occupier of such premises who shall permit such overcrowding to continue after such Order shall have been served on him, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars for every day during which such overcrowding shall continue, and in default of payment he shall be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding three months.\n\n38. All Proclamations of the Governor in Council for executing the provisions contained in Sections 32 to 37 of this Ordinance, both inclusive, shall extend to the waters of the Colony, and the Board may issue, under the said Proclamations, by virtue of the provisions of Section 32, Bye-Laws for vacating, cleansing, purifying, and ventilating vessels.\n\nPART III\n\n39. Every owner of a new building erected within the City of Victoria shall construct the ground floor of such building at such sufficiently high level as will allow of the construction of a drain and of the provision of the requisite communication with any public sewer into which such drain may lawfully empty, at a point in the upper half-diameter of such sewer.\n\n40. Every owner of a new building within the City of Victoria shall, in the construction of every drain of such building, use good sound pipes, formed of cast iron, jointed with lead, or hard, well glazed, stone-ware socketed pipes, jointed water-tight in cement mortar composed of at least one part of good cement to three equal parts of clean sand. Black bricks shall not be used in the construction of any house-drains intended for the conveyance of sewage. Red bricks may be used, provided they are hard and sound, and that they are set in cement mortar of the foregoing description, and that the interior surface of the drain is also smoothly rendered with the same mortar.\n\n41. Every owner shall cause every such drain to be of adequate size, such size to be approved by the Board, and in no case to be less than six inches internal diameter. Where the ground is soft, such drain shall be laid in a bed of good lime concrete. Every house-drain shall be laid with a proper fall, to the satisfaction of the Board.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 334941,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 223,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "His Excellency states that the delay, consequent great expense, and shifting nature of the cases render the Viceroy unwilling to demand extradition, and that the Treaty consequently risks becoming a dead letter.\n\n2. His Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to Section III of Ordinance 2 of 1850, according to which the magistrate is to commit where there is probable cause for believing that the accused has committed the crime.\n\nThe Privy Council, in the case of the Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Kwok A-Sing, had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers of the Magistrate under it. The Judges speak of \"prima facie evidence\" and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the magistrate in committing. There is a discussion on whether \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous terms.\n\n2. By the Treaty of Peking, this Government is bound, certain requirements being complied with, to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hong Kong.\n\nThe Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would be necessary to commit under their duty, as prescribed by the Ordinance mentioned above, but only that a prima facie case has been made out.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 335019,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 301,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "1\n\nUnsupported statements coming from such a source. \"To bring evidence which\n\nBut the point is that the Excellency prisoner's guilt has not been proved\n\nto be guilty of the offence charged and we feel convinced that if Your Excellency will hear with us\n\nwhile we review the evidence that was given before Mr. Mitchell, you will be convinced that he\n\nis not bound under the Treaty to hand over the man to Chinese Officials.\n\nBefore, however, we address ourselves to the evidence as to the alleged crime, we would respectfully remind His Excellency of the circumstances under which this charge was brought. On or about the 18th February, a Chinese official named Li Zor, who in the different proceedings that have taken place has been described sometimes as Lieutenant, sometimes as Captain, and sometimes as Colonel, asked for a warrant for the apprehension of a number of men amongst whom was Mo On-thing (also known as Sam-Tik Shoony). Under the warrant that was issued, he was arrested and charged with having committed burglary and murder in October 1886.\n\nThe Magistrate, Mr. Wodehouse, who heard the case when committing the prisoner to gaol, said with regard to the whole case, \"It is generally of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it.\" If, therefore, I felt that...\n\n298",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 335029,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 311,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "to have been committed in \n\nChinese Territory in October 1836 \n\n3. had witnesses in attendance \n\nthat \n\noccasion who could \n\nupon \n\nhave proved that I had been \n\nresiding in Guangdong for the \n\nlast ten \n\nyears, \n\nand that Said \n\nnot leave the Colony for a single day during \n\nthe \n\nlast \n\n4. \n\nThe \n\nMagistrate before whom \n\nI was brought charged with the \n\nalleged offence in October \n\nor November \n\n1884 refused \n\nto hear \n\nmy \n\nalthough my \n\nsolicitor \n\nstated that they \n\nwere in attendance and asked leave to call them.\n\n3. as \n\nI was unable to produce witnesses before Norman Gilbert Mitchell Innes Esquire \n\nwho has now committed me \n\nto \n\ngaol \n\nI was informed and \n\nbelieve \n\nthat the persons able to \n\ngive \n\nevidence on \n\nmy behalf \n\nare \n\nafraid \n\nto attend.\n\nin a case \n\nin which Lihoi officer of the Shin \n\nGovernment is the complainant \n\n6. I therefore humbly pray your Lordship to grant me Her Majesty's writ of habeas Corpus to bring \n\nme before your Lordship to be discharged from imprisonment and that Lordship will be pleased \n\nto \n\norder that a \n\nwrit of certiorari \n\nbe issued to the committing Magistrate to produce before Your Lordship the examination and depositions taken before him which grounded the \n\ncommitment.\n\nAnd I do solemnly and sincerely \n\ndeclare that the \n\ncontents of this \n\nare true.\n\nDeclared etc.\n\nmy \n\ndeclaration",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 335117,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 399,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "that there is probable cause \n\nfor believing that he has committed the crime of which he is accused it shall be \n\nthe \n\nand it was \n\nlawful for such Magistrate to commit the accused to prison and to direct the Gaoler to detain him until he receives orders from the Governor respecting the further detention, discharge or transmission of such person to the Chinese Authorities. This procedure appears to be \n\nvery simple I presume the intention of the Legislature that it should be so, but in practice it has led to a great many difficulties, to long investigations before the Magistrate, to accusations that the cases have been trumped up either by the higher \n\nofficials, and to \n\ngreat expense on the part of the Chinese Authorities. Whether owing to obturacy or to inability to understand the first principles of our law of evidence, it has been impossible \n\nfor the \n\nlower \n\nin \n\nmany \n\non \n\ncases \n\nChinese Government to \n\nproduce \n\n2 \n\ncase. \n\n395 \n\nproduce satisfactory witnesses to prove a prima facie case. \n\nTheir evidence has always been open to strong \n\ncriticism \n\nand in their statements or conduct there has always been something that appeared strange and difficult to be received. In view of the long delay which took place last year in the cases of Chang Chi & Khang Yeh, dir M. March in January last caused \n\na letter to be addressed to the Police \n\nand Magistrates stating that before committing they could not require \n\nsuch evidence as would warrant a \n\na \n\nconviction; that they should restrict their investigation accordingly, and that no postponement should be allowed unless good cause were \n\nshewn, and \n\ngranted merely \n\nfor the convenience of the Solicitors. \n\n\"The first \n\ncase \n\ntried after \n\nthis \n\nwas that of Ling Sam and others who were accused of breaking \n\ninto",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 335124,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 406,
        "title": "CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "The question always been are the witnesses speaking the truth or merely repeating a story which they learnt? The Magistrate in a case should decide this and this decision should be final - whereas at present when the evidence is doubtful and unsatisfactory the Magistrate thinks himself justified in committing, leaving it to the Council to hand it to the Governor in Council or to a Court of Review to discharge the accused or to discharge him. For these reasons I would suggest that the question of rendition should be reconsidered.\n\nI to J. Ackroyd\n\nActg Attorney\n\n28th Sept 1889\n\nDRAFT,\n\nBreign\n\nMr. Pearson 24 Dec.\n\nMr. Wingfield.\n\nMr. Bramston.\n\nMr. Meade.\n\nSir R. Herbert.\n\nLord Onslow.\n\n248\n\nSir H. T. Holland.\n\n2:833–28 Left: 625 625 fore 22022\n\nI am directed by Sir H. Holland to transmit to you, to be laid before the Lord for Legge Affairs, the accompanying copy of a dispatch from the Governor of Hong Kong, with a request for which the return is requested, calling Oct.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-234 - Acting Governor Cameron Governor Des Voeus - 1887 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336004,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 89,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "The innocence of \nour client is \nnot thereby affected as the \nMagistrate stated distinctly, when committing Leongudu, \nto Gaol pending the Order \nof the Officer Administering \nthe Government that without \nhearing any evidence for \nthe defence he admitted \nthat the case for the \nprosecution was \nof a highly unsatisfactory kind, that \nthere was \na \ntaint of collusion \nrunning through the whole \nof it and that if the decision \nof the ... \nG...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336010,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 95,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "Daving.\n\nww \n\ntrist, clearly that no Extradition Treaty is in existence between England and China, we would respectfully urge that if there is extradition from this Colony to China, which is extremely doubtful, the whole of the law that governs it is contained in the two Hongkong Ordinances above-referred to, 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871; but before asking Your Excellency to read these Ordinances in the and the only way we can insist in which they properly read and construed, we would ask him to allow us to call attention to the case referred to by Mr. Wodehouse when committing Kwok Afook to gaol, **Attorney General** the case of **Hongkong v. Book a Sing**, which was decided in the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Colony. As far as we are concerned, we would respectfully submit that the only point decided by the Privy Council in that case was that the Chinese authorities could not claim the rendition of a person they accused of piracy on the high seas (piracy jure gentium), that being an offence triable and punishable within this Colony. One other important point was raised by Mr. I. I. Francis, who was at that time the attorney for Book a Sing, that the Ordinance 2 of 1850 was a dead letter, as all treaties made previously to the passing of the Ordinance had been abrogated or superseded by the war between England and China in 1857. Mr. Francis argued that the Ordinance could not be considered to be revived or to apply to cases where rendition was claimed under the Treaty of Tientsin, negotiated after the war. The question of what was a prima facie case or \"probable cause\" was not raised or argued, and there is no binding judicial decision as to what was sufficient to justify the Magistrate in saying that a prima facie case had been made out, or that the words \"probable cause\" for believing that the said person has committed such crime or offence are the legal equivalent of the words \"on proof of guilt\" contained in Ordinance 2 of 1871, the latter Ordinance not affecting the decision of the Privy Council as it was passed after Mr. Francis' objection had been raised; but Lord Justice Mellish, who delivered the judgment, stated while the appeal was being argued that he had an impression that the Colony has no jurisdiction to make such a law as Ordinance 2 of 1871. As the Privy Council decided that piracy jure gentium became an Extradition crime, it became unnecessary to decide whether Ordinance 2 of 1850 was in force, and nothing is said about it in the Judgment. With reference to the Tientsin Treaty, which, as we have above pointed out, is not an Extradition Treaty between England and China in the ordinary sense of the words, we would call the attention of Your Excellency to the fact that there are two Articles, No. 21 and 23, which refer to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the British in Hongkong over Chinese subjects, and point out these as showing that it was considered necessary in dealing with China, where extraterritoriality is in force as regards Europeans, to insert clauses which are not to be found, as far as we are aware, in Treaties in existence between civilized States. These two Articles specially provide that in case of criminal...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336019,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 104,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "# Statement of the magistrate when committing Leung a Fu to gaol.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the contrary statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far, therefore, as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man. The Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credence.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard. If, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out.\n\nBut at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course, I am bound by the **Ordinance No. 2 of 1850** read in conjunction with **Ordinance No. 2 of 1871** and the **Treaty of Tientsin**. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:-\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of **Ordinance No. 2 of 1850**, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the **Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok Ashing** had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers and duties under it. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous terms. By the **Treaty of Tientsin**, this Government is bound on certain requirements being complied with to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. The Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and His Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established. I therefore decline to receive evidence on behalf of the defence.\n\nAs to whether a prima facie case has been made out, that also has to depend in a great measure upon what one may conceive to be the requirements of a prima facie case, and I am inclined to think that so long as there is evidence which, whatever I may think, I am nevertheless unable to say is false, to that extent and to that extent only is the case made out. Had there been any other evidence forthcoming of the same kind as that which has been adduced in the case of Leong Ayow, I should have taken it into consideration. If, for instance, it had been proved to me that one of the watchmen was, say, at the time this affair is supposed to have taken place, a constable in the Police Force of Hongkong, I should clearly have considered it within my right to take evidence on such a point. Or again, had the woman who describes herself as the amah of Yow Ma She been known to be all the time in the domestic employ of someone in Hongkong, I should also have considered it right to take such evidence. But merely contradictory evidence, such as that of an alibi, or evidence of that kind, I consider would not be within my power to allow.\n\nConsidering, then, all that has been urged by the defence as against the evidence for the prosecution, admitting that it is tainted throughout, and that if I were in the position of a jury or the final decision rested with me, I should unhesitatingly throw it on one side, I nevertheless admit that to the extent of evidence having been given criminating the prisoners, there is a prima facie case made out against them. I shall therefore commit the prisoners for safe custody to prison and shall direct the gaoler to detain them in prison until he shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such persons to the nearest Chinese authorities or to such other Chinese authorities as the Governor shall think fit. And in transmitting, as by Ordinance I am bound to do, the minutes of the investigation and the documents connected with the charge, I shall state what I have stated to-day, and it will then rest with the Government to decide on their final action. Looking at the case from this point of view, the Governor appears to me to have very much the same duties as the Attorney-General or the Grand Jury. He decides on the detention, discharge, or transmission of the accused.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336032,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 117,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "## \n\nSir,\n\n106, Juccie's Road, Central, Hongkong, 17th June, 1887\n\nWe have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 15th June with reference to Leung Ah Fook and, in reply, beg to state that we still wish our letter of the 3rd May forwarded to the Secretary of State for consideration as, when the accused was liberated by the Supreme Court, the latter held that the words \"on proof of guilt\" in the Treaty of Tientsin and incorporated in Ordinance 2 of 1871 simply meant upon such a *prima facie* case as would justify the Magistrate in committing a prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court. As we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the framers of the Treaty of Tientsin intended to put a prisoner on trial before a Chinese Mandarin when torture is not only permissible but necessary unless the prisoner admits his guilt, upon a trial with a British Court of Justice where a man has all the advantages of being able to defend himself, the question of sending someone from this Colony to China is one well-worthy of attention from Her Majesty's Government in England.\n\nWe have also the honour to be,\n\nHow(3). Elewart. H.C.O.\n\nActing for Hon'ble I. Carruthers, Colonial Secretary.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336034,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 119,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "# SUPREME COURT.\n\n## IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.\n\n### (Before the Full Court.)\n\nTuesday, June 14.\n\n## THE RENDITION CASE.\n\nTheir Lordships delivered the following judgment this morning on Mr Dennys' application for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Leung Afu:\n\nOn the application of Mr Dennys, supported by two affidavits - one by himself and the other by Leung Afu, a prisoner in the Victoria Gaol, committed under the Extradition Ordinance, Leung Afu was brought before the Court on a writ of habeas corpus. To his return to the writ, the Superintendent of the Gaol annexes the warrant under which he holds the prisoner, which is as follows:\n\nBe it remembered that on the twenty-ninth day of April, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, whereas Trang Chun alias Leung Fu was on this day duly convicted before Henry Ernest Wodehouse, Esq., C.M.G., a Police Magistrate and one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said Colony, for that communication having been received requiring the rendition of the said defendant on behalf of the Chinese Government as a subject of China and as having committed certain crimes or offences against the laws of China by having committed murder and burglary within the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China, and it appearing to me upon investigation of the case, that there is cause to believe that the said defendant is a subject of China, and has committed the crimes or offences against the laws of China by having committed murder and burglary within the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China, and it was thereupon adjudged that the said defendant for the said crimes or offences should be committed to gaol for detention pending the receipt of an order from the Governor or Officer Administering the Government of Hongkong as to his further disposal.\n\nThese are therefore to command you, the said constable, to take the said defendant and him safely to convey to the said gaol and there to deliver him to the said superintendent or keeper thereof, together with this precept, and I do hereby command you, the said superintendent or keeper, to receive the said defendant into your custody in the said gaol and there to imprison him as aforesaid.\n\nGiven under my hand and seal at Victoria aforesaid this twenty-ninth day of April in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven.\n\n(Sd.) H. E. WODEHOUSE,\nPolice Magistrate.\n\nNotice of a writ of certiorari was served, and this writ was moved for, and the proceedings before the magistrate were brought into court by the magistrate himself and were referred to in the argument on the return of the writ of habeas corpus. Mr Francis, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the Chinese Government to support the warrant of commitment. The committing magistrate appeared in person and handed in the proceedings. The Acting Attorney General appeared to watch the case on behalf of the Government, but took no part in the proceedings. Mr Dennys, for the prisoner, by special leave, in the absence of Counsel, argued that the prisoner was detained on a warrant which was bad on the face of it, as there was no offence recited over which the magistrate had jurisdiction. He cited *Regina v. King*, 13 L.J.M.C., 43, and other cases, which we have examined. The warrants in these cases omitted to state the gist of the offences for which the magistrates committed. In the matter of *Peerless*, 1 A. and E., (N. S.), bears most on this matter.\n\nIt appears from the proceedings at the Police Court that the prisoner and two others were charged on the 19th February last, as subjects of China, with murder and burglary within the jurisdiction of the Emperor of China on the 9th October last. Several examinations took place, and in the course of the proceedings, Mr Dennys alleged that one of the principal witnesses for the Chinese authorities had committed perjury, and the man was charged with it, and the investigation of the case against Leung Afu and the others was postponed, pending the trial of this witness for perjury. It appears that although the witness was committed for trial for perjury, the Attorney General, for reasons no doubt satisfactory to the Crown, entered a nolle prosequi, and proceedings against the prisoner were thus abandoned. After this, the rendition case was resumed, and it appears from the affidavit and from the Magistrate's own notes that the Magistrate refused to hear any evidence on behalf of the prisoners, although Mr Dennys, on behalf of one prisoner, and Mr Holmes, on behalf of another, asked to be allowed to produce evidence.\n\nIn rendition cases, subjects of Chinese in this Colony, the procedure and powers of the magistrates are to be found in Ord. 2 of 1850 and Ord. 2 of 1871. Ord. 2 of 1850 was passed to carry out the treaty of the Bogue, which provided for rendition of Chinese subjects to the Chinese Government who had committed crimes and offences in China. Ord. 2 of 1871 was passed as a declaratory Ordinance - declaring that 2 of 1850 was to apply to the Treaty of Tientsin, the 21st Article of which provides for the rendition to China of Chinese criminals escaping here on 'proof of guilt.' Mr Dennys argued that 'proof of guilt' meant complete proof, and amplified the words in the Ordinance 2 of 1850 in favour of the accused.\n\nThe learned Counsel for the Chinese Government argued that the Court, Magistrate, and Government will only look to Ordinance 2 of 1850, as declared by 2 of 1871. Section I of Ordinance 2 of 1850 gives power to the magistrate to detain Chinese subjects having committed offences against the laws of China and being then in Hongkong: (1) if a complaint has been made by any officer of the Chinese Government; or (2) if it appear in the course of investigating any other matter, that a Chinese subject has committed an offence against the laws of China; or (3) if such person be already in custody, it shall be lawful to detain such person, and to investigate the alleged crime or offence in the same manner as if such person were charged with a crime or indictable offence committed within the colony. Section III says that if at the close of this investigation, it shall appear to the Magistrate or Court that such person as aforesaid is a subject of China, and that there is probable cause for believing that the said person has committed such crime or offence, it shall and may be lawful for such Magistrate or Court to commit such person for safe custody to prison, and to direct the Gaoler to detain such person in prison until the said Gaoler shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong, relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such prisoner to the nearest Chinese authorities, as to the Governor shall seem fit: and the Magistrate or Court shall, upon making such committal as aforesaid, transmit to the Governor of Hongkong the minutes of such investigation &c.\n\nNow, under the warrant of the magistrate, the prisoner Leung Afu was committed to gaol on 29th April 1887, pending the orders of the Governor as to his further disposal, it appearing to the said magistrate, upon investigation of the case, that there is cause to believe that the prisoner was a subject of China, and had committed crimes and offences, viz., burglary and murder, within the Empire of China. It is not stated in the warrant when the murder and burglary were committed, nor is there any reference to the Act or Ordinance giving the Magistrate jurisdiction.\n\nIn the case of Young Achan and 12 others, brought before this Court in Nov. 1881, the late Mr Justice Snowden, in ordering the discharge of the prisoners, although the warrant stated on the face of it that it was under Ordinance 2 of 1859, Sec. III, said: 'I am unable to discover when the form now in use was adopted in this Colony. I find that the form of conviction appended to Ord. 10 of 1844 still in force requires the following particulars - setting out the information, and if the conviction is made for an offence against any Statute or Ordinance, to state... \n## Page 103",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336035,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 120,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "## \nHe then goes on to quote from the warrant of committal: \"Whereas it hath appeared to me a Magistrate for the said Colony, is a subject of China and that there is probable cause, &c.,\" and asks if this form is sufficient—and cites Baron Parke's Judgment, Ex. Chamber, in Howard and Grossett. 10, Q.B., at p. 411-452. Paley Conviction 182: \"In the case of special authorities given by Statutes to Justices or others acting out of the ordinary course of Common Law, the instruments by which they act, whether warrants to arrest, commitment orders, convictions or inquisitions ought, according to the course of decision, to shew their authority on the face of them by direct averment or necessary intendment.\" Mr Justice Snowden goes on to say: \"Of course greater nicety is required in the case of summary conviction, and where the commitment is in execution, than where prisoners are remanded or committed to prison for further disposal only.\" He further states that he is of opinion that in cases of rendition the accused are entitled to the protection of every formality the law throws around them, and that it is the duty of this Court before whom they claim their discharge to see that there has been no shortcoming in this respect.\n\nIn Paley on Convictions, pages 201 and 202, it is stated that the conviction must likewise specify the time and place of committing the fact complained of. The precise day need not be named if the fact be alleged to have happened between such and such a day—see also 2 Hawkins, c. 25, sec. 82. It is quite true, as Mr Francis pointed out, that Jervis' Acts have not been made the law of the Colony, and that so far as indictable offences are concerned the procedure would be in strict law according to 7 Gen. IV, c. 61. Jervis' Acts became law in England in 1849, and introduced certain changes which are pointed out in Stephens' History of the Criminal Law of England. But Sec. 1 of 7 George IV, c. 64, after describing how persons are to be examined in indictable offences with the view to commitment, indicates that evidence may be adduced by the accused—or such evidence shall be adduced on behalf of the prisoner charged, &c. 'Provided however that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any such Justice or Justices to hear evidence on behalf of any person so charged as aforesaid unless it shall appear to him or them to be meet and conducive to the ends of Justice to hear the same.' Now Ord. 2 of 1850 directs that the magistrate shall investigate rendition cases as he would indictable offences.\n\nIn 1849 Lord Denman, C. J., said that where a person charged with felony has witnesses in attendance at the time of the examination before the magistrate they should then be examined if the prisoner wishes it. See Oke's Magisterial Synopsis, Vol. II, page 901, and in several previous cases where persons were charged with having stolen property and gave references to persons from whom they received the same the Judges have stated that such persons should be sent for and examined with the view of exonerating or contradicting the accused—3 & 3! Vic., c. 35 § 3. directs Justices in England to ask prisoners whether they have witnesses and directs their examination and to be placed under recognisances like witnesses for the prosecution. Prisoners committed for trial are by local Ord. almost in the same terms as in Jervis Act, to be informed that if they wish to make a statement they may do so, but that it will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence, and although the act of 30 and 31 Vic. has not been formally made law here yet the practice has been to allow prisoners to call witnesses as 'meet and conducive to the ends of Justice.'\n\nIn his argument the learned counsel called our attention to Clarke's work on extradition and the rules of practice in different countries. At page 177 the learned author states in reference to English practice that when the fugitive is apprehended he is brought before the Police Magistrate, who hears the case in the same manner, and has the same jurisdiction and powers as near as may be as if the prisoner were charged with an indictable offence committed in England, and he may receive evidence to show that the offence is a political one and not an extradition crime.\n\nThe writer then proceeds to discuss the question as to the duty of the Magistrate to receive evidence for the prisoner. He cites various opinions, and gives the views of the late Lord Cairns, who referred to the minutes of a Conference held at Paris wherein it was stated that a prisoner brought before a magistrate would be entitled to deny his identity with the person named in the warrant, stated that as to an accused person being precluded from entering into any other defence than a denial of his identity he differed entirely from that view, for he apprehended that it would be quite open to him to produce any evidence in his power to controvert the allegations made in the depositions.\" Clarke page 185. The writer seems to take the view that the Magistrate should only hear evidence for the prosecution except as to political offences—or that the crime was not an extradition crime—but with all respect to the learned author we think that the English practice and the demands of justice are in accord with Lord Cairns' view and the view that was announced by this Court in 1881. See judgment of the late Mr Justice Snowden, 18th Nov., 1881.\n\nFrom the form of warrant of committal under the Extradition Act of 1870 it would appear that the prisoner is brought before the Magistrate to show why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the Extradition Act 1870, on the ground of his being accused and forasmuch \"no sufficient cause has been shown to me why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the said Act: This is therefore, &c.\" In Oke's Magisterial Synopsis, 899, in the footnote 29, dealing with indictable offences, the author cites Mr Justice Bayley in Cox v. Coleridge as saying \"I think that a Magistrate is clearly bound in the exercise of a sound discretion not to commit any one unless a prima facie case is made out against him by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit.\" Justices ought not therefore to balance the evidence and decide according as it preponderates, for this would in fact be taking upon themselves the functions of a petty jury and be trying the case. They should consider whether or not the evidence makes out a strong or probable or even a conflicting case of guilt. In any one of such cases they should commit the accused to trial.\n\nWe think the above gives the true rule for dealing with extradition cases here, and the Magistrate should ask himself if the offence had been committed within this jurisdiction, should he commit for trial at the Supreme Court. If so he should commit under the Ordinance, and thus enable the Governor to carry out the treaty obligation. On the other hand, if the Magistrate after investigating the case, as he does an indictable offence, comes to the conclusion that there is no probable cause for believing that the person before him committed the crimes charged, then he should not put it in the power of the Governor to deliver him up if he thought fit, but discharge him.\n\nIt seems to us from a careful perusal of the documents before us that the committing Magistrate interpreted prima facie case, and 'probable cause' to mean evidence on one side—and on one side alone—but that is too narrow a meaning to put upon those terms. There may be a conflict of testimony and yet a prima facie case, or probable cause. The Magistrate refused evidence for the prisoner apparently because of some order or other that he got from the Executive Government. He does not, from the information before us, appear to have refused it of his own sense of right, and we think that in result, from whatever cause, an injustice has been done to the prisoner by the refusal of the evidence on his behalf pressed on the Magistrate. Mr. Justice Snowden in the case already cited stated that in the depositions there was no statement that the accused were called on to plead. Above all it does not appear that they were asked what they had to say in their defence although they might have been able to show beyond doubt, either mistaken identity or an alibi, or some...\n\nPage 120\nPage 121",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 336036,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "page_number": 121,
        "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887",
        "content_text": "within the province of the Magistrate to hear. No opportunity was afforded them to do so.' These observations we think are in accordance with justice and the present case is much stronger, for it appears that there were eight witnesses in attendance and tendered on behalf of the prisoner, and whether their evidence was worth anything or nothing in our judgment they should have been examined. On the evidence before the Magistrate there was sufficient grounds for committing the prisoner if he believed the witnesses. There was also sufficient evidence that he was a Chinese subject. For the reasons given above we think the warrant bad on the face of it, and that the prisoner ought not to have been committed without being allowed to make any defence, and the Governor was thus authorised, if he thought fit, to deliver Leung Aun to the Chinese Authorities.\n\nThe deportation to another country for trial is a severe penalty in itself,' says Sir Edward Clarke at page 190 of his work on Rendition, and we think that justice requires the putting in force of the maxim *audi alteram partem*, in rendition cases as well as in other matters. The prisoner is discharged.\n\n110",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 337437,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "page_number": 468,
        "title": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "content_text": "## And as regards the questions of torture\n\nLin referred I presume to the same paragraph of existing instructions that detailed demonstrations will illustrate (as laid down in desp. 7.0.). Write to 7.0. making above proposals, sending copy of despatch and minute. He will see from minute that a different course was followed in the Straits from what is above suggested, but pending the expected Extradition treaty with China, the above seems a desirable modus vivendi for Hongkong (para 297).\n\nThere is re Extradition Fugitive Offenders Act vis-a-vis China from the Straits. Sir G. Ferguson prefers that extradition of persons who have not resided in Hongkong for a certain period, say 2 years, should be granted on the demand of the Viceroy of the Province alleging that the person has committed an Extradition offence, without any written evidence in support of the allegation. He would not extend this \"simple extradition process\" to persons who have resided for the fixed period. He does not say whether he would exempt such persons altogether from extradition or retain the existing law as to them. As justification for his startling proposal on the grounds that the interests of Hongkong and of China require that the utmost facility should exist for extradition from Hongkong of Chinese criminals, and that Chinese testimony being unreliable owing to the imperfections of the Chinese judicial system, the requirement of proof sufficient to justify a magistrate in committing an accused person for trial affords no real security against the extradition of innocent persons while it frequently prevents the extradition of the guilty and creates such difficulties as almost to render the treaty a dead letter.\n\nI do not think that H.M. Govt. could entertain or that Parliament would countenance such a proposal, however important it may be to enable Hongkong to wash its hands of Chinese criminals and to China to prevent her criminals escaping from justice. It would be quite inadmissible to waive in the case of China the requirement which is enforced by Acts of Parliament in all other extradition treaties with whom we have extradition relations. It cannot be admitted that magistrates who are entrusted with the duty of administering justice in the Colony are incapable of forming a relatively just judgment on the evidence in extradition cases. Setting aside this proposal, it remains to be considered what amendments of the existing law are required.\n\nI believe that what has caused the greatest difficulty in carrying out the existing law is the provision that an appeal lies from the Magistrate's decision and that the Governor is bound, in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers, to satisfy himself that the evidence is sufficient to justify the extradition of the person whom he has committed to prison. If the Magistrates were placed in the same position as the Governor and if the former, as well as the latter, were placed under the Extradition Act 1870, the Magistrates would be in a better position to form a just judgment on the evidence than the Governor, and the Govt. would deal with the cases under a greater sense of responsibility. I think that Mr. Russell has shown good cause why...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 337454,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "page_number": 485,
        "title": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "content_text": "30\n\n31\n\n481\n\nwe have little, if any security better.\n\n19. if - naturally on this head than we had conceded the Chinese demand without investigation.\n\n※\n\nwith 19.\n\n* \n\nAs confirmation of the above view of Chinese evidence, I am indebted to the Attorney General for the following account of what is a frequent occurrence in the Supreme Court, especially when the prisoner is defended by Counsel. \"The witnesses for the prosecution who have given their evidence-in-chief every appearance of truthfulness, and about whose truthfulness in fact there can hardly be any doubt, break down in cross-examination under the test afforded by a comparison of their evidence with that given before the committing Magistrate. Discrepancies appear to which Juries are compelled according to all rules for judging of evidence to give weight, and the prisoner is acquitted, notwithstanding the conviction of every one who hears the evidence that the case against him was a true one and the witnesses honest.\"\n\nYour Lordship will ask how, if this view be correct, are we able to obtain satisfactory convictions on Chinese evidence in respect of crimes committed in Hongkong? To this the reply is that we are not always dependent on Chinese evidence, that, when we are, the witnesses are more usually accustomed to our Court-proceedings than are those brought from the interior.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 337476,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "page_number": 507,
        "title": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]",
        "content_text": "tive or three months in Summer.\n\n**Attorney General's Notes.**\n\n6.\n\nIf it is finally divided that one Judge should hear and determine these Rendition cases, then upon Habeas Corpus proceedings are well understood, and their scope is wider than such appeal would be. I do not see the object of the suggestion that there should be an appeal of right to the full Court, with power to examine all instead of the appeal would be: normal Habeas Corpus proceedings.\n\n7.\n\nIn the preliminary procedure of the Supreme Court, only Barristers have audience. It is proposed to admit Solicitors and Solicitors' Clerks to practice in this Court as in the Police Court, for I take it that if the Judge is to perform the functions of a committing Magistrate, as the draft Ordinance proposes, there must be a special Court. I understand that...\n\n8.\n\nThe Canton Viceroy complains of the delay and expense and want of success in obtaining the extradition of fugitive criminals. But where lies the fault? It seems to be thrown on the Magistrates. I do not think that they are to blame to any great extent. I have referred to various cases occurring during the last two years, and I find that the warrants were obtained at the instance of the Chinese Government. Lawyers make the arrest, and the remand is invariably asked for, and as a rule...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 355484,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 469,
        "title": "CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "the omission of which, indeed, I was not aware till my attention was called to it by the despatch of the Secretary of State of the 3rd September, 1894.\n\n3. The alteration was made in the Legislative Council - opposition was raised and no objection was made at the time to the amendment nor am I aware of any complaint having been made of the present state of the law either by the European or Chinese sections of the community.\n\n4. A single magistrate was allowed to sentence to 12 months in certain special cases by Sect. 6 of Ord. 16 of 1875, by Sect. 4 of Ord. 8 of 1882 (on plea of guilty), by Sect. 6 of Ord. 28 of 1889, and by Sect. 12 of Ord. 11 of 1890.\n\n5. Section 80 of Ord. 10 of 1890, however, while reserving the discretionary power of committing for trial, gave the Magistrates power to convict summarily except in the scheduled offences, and to sentence for a term not exceeding 12 months.\n\n6. It must be borne in mind that in this Colony, the Chinese are numerically in proportion to all other nationalities combined, and that probably 95 cases out of every hundred which come before the Magistrates are cases of Chinese, mostly of the Coolie class.\n\n7. I have no hesitation in saying that the Chinese would prefer that the Magistrate's jurisdiction should remain as it is.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-264 - Governor Sir Robinson & Public Offices - 1894 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 355774,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-265 - Public Offices & Others - 1894",
        "page_number": 51,
        "title": "CO129-265 - Public Offices & Others - 1894",
        "content_text": "# \nquite so \n\n(4) \n\n\"That this Committee requests the President to enquire fully into the memorial and to report for the consideration of the Committee the facts he may ascertain,—how far the existing law meets those facts, and what action, if any, he considers desirable for the Committee to take on the memorial.\" \n\nI have accordingly caused enquiries to be set on foot, and as I am about to leave Rangoon for some months, I place the results before the Committee without waiting for further evidence. \n\n2. I wish in the first place to bring to notice that the question of the annoyance caused to the public by prostitutes and their associates is an old one in Rangoon, and was gone into by the Committee to a considerable extent in 1884 and 1885, while the Indian Contagious Diseases Act, XIV of 1868, was in force. The Committee passed several resolutions in those years, in response to petitions and representations, ordering the confinement of prostitutes and brothels to certain fixed parts of the town under the extensive powers in that direction exercisable under the Contagious Diseases Act. I cannot find, however, that these resolutions were ever strictly carried out. The Committee will, however, understand that the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts (XIV of 1868, XXVI of 1868, and Madras Act, VI of 1884, so far as it related to contagious diseases) by Act IX of 1888, without the substitution of any enactment to control the proceedings of prostitutes and brothel-keepers, has entirely altered the situation, and that the matter must now be considered under totally different conditions. \n\n3. I have been requested to enquire into three separate questions raised by the memorialists:— \n\n(i) the prevalence of open prostitution and solicitation in Rangoon; \n\n(ii) the alleged \"slavery\" of some of the prostitutes; \n\n(iii) the alleged buying and selling of girls for prostitution. \n\n4. I may say at once that I have confined my enquiries to the first point, because the existing law seems to me to cover every offence likely to be committed with respect to enslaving women for prostitution and buying and selling girls for that purpose. Sections 341 to 348 of the Indian Penal Code deal with offences relating to wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. Sections 363 to 374 of the Indian Penal Code likewise deal with kidnapping, abduction, slavery, and forced labour. Moreover, the very offence chiefly complained of under the two last points of this enquiry is expressly dealt with in sections 372 and 373. Again, all the offences above mentioned, except two, are, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizable by the police, and offenders against the two exceptions can be arrested on a Magistrate's warrant. \n\nNow, anyone familiar with the Indian Penal Code will understand me when I say that when it deals with any particular class of offences, every conceivable point in relation to those offences is taken into consideration. With regard, therefore, to the prevention of the enslaving of prostitutes and traffic in girls for prostitution, it is merely a question of producing sufficient evidence to the police to enable them to act. \n\nAll that any one of the memorialists, who has such evidence at his command, need do is to lay that evidence, confidentially or otherwise, before the District Superintendent of Police, who will no doubt take such action as is proper thereon. I do not think it is in the power of the Committee to make any suggestions that would improve the existing law on these subjects, or that any change in the law is necessary. \n\n5. In reference to the first subject for enquiry, the first point I would wish to take into consideration is the extent of the evils complained of, which I would point out are two, namely, the spread of brothels and solicitation. \n\n6. Defining a brothel as a place in which a public prostitute is or remains for the purpose of prostitution, I caused, in December 1893, extensive enquiries to be made as to the exact localities of such places at that time. The result of the enquiries is to be found in the Appendix attached to this memorandum, and the localities are shown in the plan made out accordingly and attached hereto. The Committee will perceive that the plan and the list of brothels in the Appendix disclose the existence of a most serious public nuisance. Quite serious enough for the Committee to desire legislative interference, unless the present law is sufficient to meet the case. Especially is this the case when the situation of the town schools, which are also shown on the plan, are taken into consideration. \n\n7. With reference to the list in the Appendix, I would draw attention to two matters. Prostitutes form, for many reasons, a class of persons who constantly shift their residences and what, for want of a better term, may be called their places of business. A list, therefore, that is correct for December 1893 is not necessarily quite correct for February 1894, though the number of prostitutes is not likely to vary much from month to month. Secondly, it will be seen that the names of the owners of the properties in the list, as recorded in the Municipal assessment rolls, are also given. It is possible that the use to which some of the properties are put is due to the action of lessees and not of the owners themselves. The inclusion of the owner's names in the list may, however, do good by enabling members of the Committee to draw their attention to actual facts and thereby to induce some of them to take such action as may prevent the use of buildings in respectable quarters as brothels. \n\n(5) \n\n8. Now as to the existing law on the subject of suppressing brothels or confining them to certain areas, a recent case in the District Magistrate's Court will throw some useful light. On the 12th October 1893, the District Superintendent of Police laid before the District Magistrate a petition in which the neighbours complained of the nuisance and offence caused by the two large and prominent brothels in the main thoroughfares of Godwins Road and Canal Street. The District Magistrate thereupon issued a notice warning the inmates of the brothels that they were liable to prosecution if they continued to engage in prostitution. A number of the persons concerned complied with the notice, but 13 of them refused to do so and were charged with committing a public nuisance under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Magistrate found that it was proved that \"all the prostitutes in the Canal Street* are in the habit of sitting at their doorways at night with bright lights in their rooms; that in full view of the street they dress and make themselves up; that they expose their breasts and thighs to passers-by and beckon and call them, and sing obscene songs. Further, that their houses are resorted to by disorderly characters and that there are constant rows between the brothel-keepers and the visitors of the women.\" The Magistrate then goes on to say in his judgment that \"Godwins Road and Canal Street are two of the principal thoroughfares of Rangoon and the behaviour of the women has long been an open scandal.\" In the end, he inflicted a small fine upon each of the accused with a warning that a continuance of the nuisance would result in enhanced punishment. The case was appealed to the Recorder of Rangoon, who set aside the conviction on the ground that it was necessary to prove that each woman convicted had individually committed the nuisance complained of, whereas the evidence in the case had been directed against the conduct of the inmates of the brothel generally. \n\n9. The law then comes to this. In order to prevent the women of a line of prostitutes' houses, like that in Canal Street, from misconducting themselves in the outrageous manner above described, it will be necessary to procure the evidence of respectable witnesses against each woman separately on each occasion that she misbehaves. No doubt if such evidence were procured often enough the nuisance might die out in any particular neighbourhood, but what the Committee has to look at, as a practical administrative body, is: What are the chances of respectable neighbours taking a course so exceedingly disagreeable to themselves and of consenting to constantly appear in evidence against such a class of defendants? The Committee may take it for granted that they will decline to do anything of the kind, and that so far as the existing law is concerned, it is for practical purposes inoperative. \n\n10. The above relates to brothels which are openly conducted so as to be a public offence, and in any case, it would not be possible to cause the suppression or removal of a brothel, the inmates of which confined indecencies to the interior of the house. But the Committee will understand that it may well be an intolerable nuisance to householders in a respectable neighbourhood to have established among them a house of ill-fame. \n\n11. It has not been suggested to me in the course of my enquiries that there is any other enactment than section 290 of the Indian Penal Code under which the brothels can be reached, and it seems to me that nothing effectual can be done to meet the case except the making of an enactment for the purpose. In this matter, there is, I find, a recent precedent in India in the Punjab Municipal Act, XX of 1891, section 204 of which runs as follows:— \n\n### Brothels \n\n204. (1) On the complaint of three or more inhabitants of a municipality that a house in their immediate neighbourhood and within the limits of the municipality is used as a common brothel or lodging-house for prostitutes or disorderly persons of any description to the annoyance of the respectable inhabitants of the vicinity, any Magistrate of the first class having, as such, jurisdiction in the place where the house is situated may summon the owner or tenant of the house to answer the complaint; and, on being satisfied that the house is so used, and is therefore a source of annoyance and offence to the neighbours, may order the owner or tenant to discontinue such use of it; and if he shall fail to comply with such order within five days, may impose upon him a fine to the extent of twenty-five rupees for every day thereafter that the house shall be so used. \n\n(2) This section shall take effect in a municipality only after it has been specially extended thereto by the local Government at the request of the Committee. \n\nSomething of the trouble that is now upon us in Rangoon must have been felt in the Punjab towns and led to the above section, which was inserted in the Punjab Municipal Act on its amendment and reconstruction in 1891. The section seems to me to meet the wants of Rangoon exactly, for the effect will be to cause brothels to remove from respectable neighbourhoods and settle down by a course of natural selection in neighbourhoods which will tolerate them. The section, moreover, is not likely to remain a dead letter, as to give evidence on such a point as is contained in it is quite a different matter to giving evidence of the nature that the Courts tell us the existing law demands. \n\n*That is, in the brothel next door to the Municipal Girls' School. \n\n## Page 48 \n## Page 1",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-265 - Public Offices & Others - 1894.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 358268,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11]",
        "page_number": 433,
        "title": "CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11]",
        "content_text": "## 426\n\n4. Every fugitive criminal shall be liable to be apprehended and surrendered in manner provided by this Ordinance, whether the extradition crime in respect of which the surrender is demanded was committed before or after the passing of this Ordinance, and whether there is or is not any concurrent jurisdiction in any Court in the Colony over that crime.\n\n5. Whenever the requisition for the surrender of a fugitive criminal is made to the Governor of Hongkong by the Governor of North Borneo, the Governor of Hongkong may, by order under his hand and seal, signify to a Magistrate that such requisition has been made, and require him to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive criminal.\n\n6. A Magistrate, on receipt of the said order, shall issue his warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive criminal, or, if the fugitive criminal be already in custody, shall issue his order to all necessary persons to bring the fugitive criminal before him to be dealt with according to this Ordinance.\n\n7. A Magistrate may also issue his warrant for the apprehension of a fugitive criminal on such information or complaint as would, in his opinion, justify the issue of a warrant if the alleged extradition crime had been committed in the Colony. A fugitive criminal apprehended on a warrant so issued shall be discharged by the Magistrate, unless the Magistrate, within such time as, with reference to the circumstances of the case, he shall think reasonable, receives from the Governor an order signifying that a requisition has been made for the surrender of such fugitive criminal.\n\n8. When a fugitive criminal is brought before a Magistrate, he shall hear the case in the same manner, and have the same jurisdiction and powers, as early as may be, as if the prisoner were brought before him charged with an indictable offence committed in the Colony.\n\nProvided always that:\n| Clause | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (1) | Copies of depositions signed or taken before any Judge or other competent Magistrate having authority in North Borneo to take cognizance of the crime charged, and authenticated in manner hereinafter provided, may be received in evidence of the criminality of such fugitive criminal. |\n| (i) | In the case of a person convicted in North Borneo of an extradition crime, a copy of the conviction, authenticated in manner hereinafter provided, may be received in evidence and shall, where the Magistrate is satisfied that such person is according to the law of North Borneo unlawfully at large, justify such Magistrate in committing such person to Victoria Gaol to await the further order of the Governor without re-opening the case. |\n| (iii) | In every case, proof of the identity of the fugitive criminal must be given to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. |\n| (iv) | Warrants of arrest and copies of depositions, signed or taken before any such Judge or other competent Magistrate as aforesaid, and copies of convictions shall be received in evidence, if the warrant of arrest purports to be signed by such Judge or Magistrate and if the copies of depositions purport to be certified under the hand of such Judge or Magistrate, to be true copies of the original depositions, and if the copy of the conviction purports to be certified under the hand of the Magistrate by whom the conviction was made to be a true copy of the original conviction. The signature of every such Judge or Magistrate and his authority to take cognizance of the crime or offence charged shall be sufficiently proved if the document purports to be sealed with the official seal of the Governor of North Borneo, and all Courts of Justice in this Colony shall, for the purpose of this Ordinance, take judicial notice of such seal, and shall admit the documents so authenticated by it to be received in evidence without further proof. |\n\nLiability to be surrendered.\n\nRequisition to the Governor only be followed by order to Magistrate.\n\nMagistrate's warrant of apprehension.\n\nPower of Magistrate as in ordinary case.\n\nHearing of the case and evidence of crime alleged.\n\nEvidence in case of person accused.\n\nEvidence in case of person convicted.\n\nProof of identity.\n\nAuthentication of documents.\n\nPage 426",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-268 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [7-11].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 359496,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895",
        "page_number": 267,
        "title": "CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895",
        "content_text": "Van Ulrich was in bad health and was stealing. For his first offence, he stole a belt worth a few pence from the Chinese attendant at a hospital. The accused stated that the attendant had given it to him, but the Magistrate did not believe him and sentenced him to be put in prison with hard labour. \n\nHis second offence was for obtaining money by false pretences, which he falsely pretended was payable to him on shore. For this, he was sentenced to 12 months with hard labour. \n\nDue to his previous conviction, he was prosecuted in the Supreme Court. The committing Magistrate did consider that a sentence of 12 months would be sufficient, but the case was sent to the Supreme Court as the acts committed were under circumstances of petty dishonesty and the reason for his committal undoubtedly was stress of poverty. \n\nA report of the case was seen in the Daily Press and was mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Report. The prosecution had said that the man (probably a bad character) had been lured into a trap where the police were waiting to receive him. He came at one time with three others at another, they were all pounced upon and secured, and were charged with their alleged offences before the magistrate the next morning. They were released to 1 year's imprisonment with hard labour each. The matter attracted considerable attention from an article in one of the newspapers commending the proceedings and the clever way the Captain had laid the trap. \n\nThe depositions were forwarded to the Governor for reference to the Attorney General, with the result that the case was subsequently tried before the Chief Justice, who sentenced the four accused to various terms of imprisonment.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-270 - Public Offices & Others - 1895.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 363015,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]",
        "page_number": 531,
        "title": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]",
        "content_text": "## THE CHINESE EXTRADITION BILL\n\nHis EXCELLENCY-Allow me to say, it does not place the matter at the discretion of the Governor in case the Magistrate discharges him, but only in case the Magistrate commits.\n\nThe ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The Government cannot accede to the proposal that has been made, for several reasons. The present Bill is a great improvement on the law as it stands. That law has been in operation since 1850. It was made under the Treaty of the Bogue, which provided that persons who had committed crimes and offences in China were to be given up. Then came the Treaty of Tientsin, which left the matter still more vague, because you had no description of crimes and offences, but were simply told you had to give up \"criminals.\" Then, again, there was another difficulty. Under the Treaty of Tientsin you had to give them up, or place them at the disposal of the Governor, on proof of guilt. Under Ordinance 2 of 1850 the Magistrate had to place these fugitive criminals at the disposal of the Governor, by committing them to prison, if he had probable cause for believing the accused had committed such crime or offence.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY-I regret I am not able to give way to the hon. members on this point, and I think their apprehensions on the subject will be dispelled by the statement of the Attorney-General and by further consideration of the Bill. I did not wish to say so distinctly, but as a matter of fact the purpose which I hoped at one time to achieve by this Bill is now entirely set aside. This Bill, as I have always said, was an alternative which I did not prefer, but which was adopted by Her Majesty's Government.\n\nHon. P. RYKIE-If this Ordinance makes no difference what is the use of it?\n\nHis EXCELLENCY-It makes no difference whatever as regards the matter of torture. The instructions which have been received from the Secretary of State in years past will remain the same as before.\n\nHon. P. RYKIE-Otherwise than that does this Ordinance give the Government very great powers? I do not see that it does.\n\nHis EXCELLENCY-It contains very great improvements. I have them written out here and I will read them if the hon. member likes. The question is, does the hon. member oppose the second reading?\n\nHon. P. RYKIE-I do; I propose the Bill be laid on the table this day six months.\n\nThe Council divided :--\n| Member | Vote |\n| --- | --- |\n| The Acting Registrar-General | AYE |\n| The Acting Attorney-General | AYE |\n| The Acting Colonial Treasurer | AYE |\n| The Governor | AYE |\n| The Colonial Secretary | AYE |\n| Hon. J. J. Keswick | NO |\n| Hon. B. Layton | NO |\n| Hon. Wong Shing | NO |\n| Hon. P. Ryrie | NO |\n\nThe second reading was therefore carried.\n\n## Supplement to the Daily Press 10th June 1889\n\n### THE CHINESE EXTRADITION BILL\n\nThe action of the Unofficial members in opposing the Chinese Extradition Bill in the Legislative Council, after the announcement that the clause admitting evidence taken in Chinese courts was to be struck out, cannot be considered very wise. To have rejected the Bill on its account, had it been intended that the clause should remain part of the measure, would have been a perfectly justifiable and understandable course. With that clause removed the Bill in every respect tells in favour of persons whose extradition may be applied for. Not only does it substitute order for disorder in the procedure, but it gives the accused full opportunity of establishing his innocence or throwing doubt on the bona fides of the prosecution.\n\nThe real question which it was sought to dispose of by the Bill as originally drafted will now be left precisely where it was. It is alleged that numerous criminals from the neighbouring province take refuge in the colony, and that they use Hongkong as a basis from which to commit depredations in the mainland. So long as they do not offend against the laws of the colony they are practically safe and cannot be interfered with. In law they are liable to rendition, but the process is costly and cumbersome that the Chinese Authorities have given up applying for fugitive criminals.\n\nThe matter has not, however, reached the stage of finality, we believe. The Governor spoke of clause 16 of the Bill as an alternative which he did not prefer himself but which had been approved by the Secretary of State. That alternative not having been carried into effect, the Governor will probably again urge the other, to which he gives his preference, but the nature of which he has not publicly disclosed. It is impossible that things can go on as they are. The Hon. P. RYRIE says, \"give up rendition altogether,\" and that is practically what has been done, for the cost and difficulty render it prohibitive. But, having agreed by treaty to give up to China her fugitive criminals, common honesty demands that we should carry out our obligations, and self-interest points in the same direction, for not only do we not want the colony to become the resort of the rascaldom of Kwang-tung, but if we do not carry out our treaty obligations to China how can we complain if China does not carry out her obligations?",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 363639,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-276 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 473,
        "title": "CO129-276 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "ment warrant.\n\nCross-examined by Mr. Robinson- After he left the police he went to the country and returned in April, 1894. He could find no occupation and so he went back to the country, but returned to Hongkong in December, 1895. He started his present business in December, 1896. During the interval between December, 1895, and December, 1896, he was engaged in assisting Sam Yeen in distributing \"expenses,\" that is, he was engaged in gambling operations. He was not convicted in March, 1895, for larceny and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. He was convicted for committing perjury, and was fined $100. He had only been convicted once.\n\nThe Attorney-General and Mr. Francis said the conviction was for assault. Mr. Robinson had not correctly read the conviction.\n\nMr. Robinson said he was quite right. He then asked the witness about the matter and he admitted that he and another man were charged with stealing two shirts and were sent to gaol for six weeks. In addition witness was charged with assault.\n\nMr. Robinson then complained that his learned friend, a Queen's Counsel of this colony, had accused him of misrepresenting matters to the Court.\n\nMr. Francis replied that in the hasty glance he obtained of the conviction paper he certainly did make a mistake.\n\nHis Lordship thought that with this explanation Mr. Robinson's honour was satisfied.\n\nMr. Robinson bowed to his Lordship's decision and the case proceeded.\n\nIn answer to further questions witness said that the sentence was afterwards altered to a fine of $100 on the application of Mr. Dennys, who represented him. He admitted that at the Magistracy he said he did not know for whom he received $8. He was confused when he made that statement. He now admitted that he received it for Yang Fat. Cheng On gave him the name.\n\nMr. Robinson--I suppose you have seen Cheng On since you were at the Magistracy?\n\nWitness--I saw him yesterday or the day before.\n\nWhere? In the witness room?--Yes. You were both together for the greater part of the day in the witness room --We were both together, but we did not speak to each other.\n\nI suppose there was some guard over you. \nHis Lordship--Do I understand that Cheng On told you the name of this man, or do you recollect it?--Cheng On told me and I now recollect it.\n\nIn answer to further questions witness said he did not tell the Magistrate that he received some money from \"Fat Child Chi.\" He did not mention that name at all to the Magistrate. \nRe-examined by Mr. Francis.--He was not questioned at the Magistracy about the Cheung Hing Street gambling house.\n\nHis Lordship--Why didn't you mention it? \nWitness--Because I had no direct dealings with the affairs and therefore I did not mention anything about that house. The money was simply handed to me and I was asked to pass it over.\n\nWhen was the last payment you made to Chong On? 17th June last.\n\nSam Yeen, who was convicted of being the keeper of a gambling house at 2, Wa Lane, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, was then called. He said he had been connected with the house for five years, No. 3, East Street, was the outer office of 2, Wa Lane, and the money, jewellery, and accounts were kept there. There was only one gambling house in Wa Lane--only one house in which gaming was actually carried on. Gaming was sometimes carried on in No. 5. In reality there were two houses in which gaming was carried on, but both belonged to the same establishment. The playing was sometimes shifted to No. 2, Ng Kwai Fong, next to the Tam Fa Lau eating house. Gambling had been carried on in Nos. 2 and 5, Wa Lane, every day from the 2nd February this year to the 18th June. The hours were 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. Last year gambling was carried on for six months in broken periods. Witness then spoke to paying money to Tung Kum and to the conversation he had with Cheng On respecting No. 12's application for money. Witness told Cheng On that if No. 12 received $1 a day the recipient must not chase and beat witness's fokis. Witness consented to pay $1 a day and 10 cents for Cheng On. Witness paid altogether about $150 a day for distribution during the fourth and fifth months. The police who received the money were supposed not to take any notice of the gambling houses. Witness was then shown a list and he pointed out the entry \"No. 12, $1.10, Cheng On's hand.\" That meant that the money was paid to Cheng On. There was also an entry \"$23.55, paid to Tung Kam\" and another $31.05 paid to Tung Kom.\" Another entry was \"No. 12, $1, Cheng On's hand entered in Kum's hand,\" meaning that the money was paid to Tung Kam. The list was a memorandum showing the names of persons to whom money was paid and the amount of each payment.\n\nMr. Francis--I will now ask your Lordship for direction in reference to the entries in the books, such as 43, 89, and 91, and Government House and other people. Does your Lordship think that I should ask questions about those entries or should the matter be dropped entirely?\n\nHis Lordship--Mr. Robinson did ask a certain number of questions about them, but I think we should keep ourselves free of them.\n\nMr. Francis--I think it is only fair to the parties concerned that some questions should be asked about them, but I am entirely in your Lordship's hands. The matter is not a necessary portion of our case, but I cannot say what my friend in his address to the jury will say.\n\nHis Lordship--What I shall say to the jury with reference to this list is that we are not trying the question of the guilt or innocence of all the parties mentioned in this list as having received sums of money, but the defence is entitled to look at this list and if they can show there are absurd entries in it and also impossible things they could say that the list is therefore not bona-fide and the jury would be entitled to disbelieve it.\n\nMr. Francis--Then, my Lord, that lays the duty absolutely incumbent upon me to show that these entries are not absurd.\n\nHis Lordship--On the face of it these entries may be true or untrue, but we are not trying that question.\n\nMr. Francis--If it is open to my friend to say that the list is entirely false because he thinks fit to say so, the prosecution is entitled to say that they are not absurdities.\n\nHis Lordship--As far as my opinion goes he has not succeeded in showing that the entries are unreasonable and ought not to be there. Suppose the name of the Governor is there as receiving $5, or the name of the General as receiving $3, I think the gentlemen of the jury will say, \"We cannot believe that; it is so utterly impossible.\"\n\nMr. Francis--Very well, my Lord. Even the entries \"Government House\" so and so and \"Ho Kai\" so and so can be explained. Suppose the explanation is this, that it is simply an entry relating to a boy in employ at Government House or to a servant in the employ of Dr. Ho Kai. I submit I am entitled to get that explanation from the witness if the defence are allowed to make a point of those entries.\n\nHis Lordship--If they do make a point... \nMr. Francis--If they do make a point of it it will be too late for me to give the explanations. \nHis Lordship--We have no evidence that it is Dr. Ho Kai.\n\nMr. Francis--Questions were asked in reference to 89 and 91. I want to show that they were in receipt of bribes and that there is no reason why the entries should be looked upon as absurdities.\n\nHis Lordship--It came out in evidence that they had been formerly in connection with the Central District and therefore I shall put it to the jury that they might or might not have received bribes. But we are not trying that question.\n\nThe Attorney-General--I do not wish to throw dirt at anybody who is not here to answer, and your Lordship will notice that I have not introduced a single name, with the exception of Witchell's, as being in receipt of bribes, as all cases of that sort will give very...\n\nPage 472",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-276 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 364093,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-277 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 287,
        "title": "CO129-277 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "## PART II (continued)\n\nAny person who has in his possession, apparently with the intention of contravening the provisions of section 5 of this Ordinance, shall be liable, upon summary conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars or, at the discretion of the Magistrate, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding three months.\n\n8. It shall be lawful for the Captain Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent of Police, or any Police Officer authorised by either of them, to search the baggage, apartments and premises of any person found committing any offence against Part II of this Ordinance, and to take possession of any sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures and paintings, which may appear to him to have been illegally made, and to detain and deal with the same in such manner as may be directed by a Magistrate.\n\n9. Any commissioned or non-commissioned Officer in Her Majesty's Naval or Military forces and any Police Officer may, with or without any warrant or other process, apprehend or cause to be apprehended any person offending against Part II of this Ordinance or suspected of so offending, and may bring him or cause him to be brought before a Magistrate for the purpose of being dealt with according to law.\n\n## PART III\n\n**PROSECUTION BY MILITARY OFFICER**\n\n10. When any person is apprehended for any offence or alleged offence against this Ordinance, notice thereof shall immediately be given by the Police, if such person is in their custody, or by the party responsible for such apprehension, to the Officer in Command of Her Majesty's regular forces in this Colony, who, if he desires the prosecution to proceed, shall forthwith appoint some officer to prosecute in the case.\n\n## PART IV\n\n**REPEAL OF FORMER ORDINANCES**\n\n11. Ordinances No. 10 of 1891 and No. 1 of 1895 are hereby repealed.\n\nPage 286",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-277 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 367765,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10]",
        "page_number": 174,
        "title": "CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10]",
        "content_text": "as he say need to be in close touch with the 2 depts for some time to come\n\n2) Postpone sine die the proposal to separate Police & Prisons\n\nMr K's good posts of Supt of Police as to filling up the vacant posts there seems a good deal to be said for most of suggestions, but we must consult the govr. without committing the S of S we might ask the govr for his views generally sending out Mr Lockhart's memo in a Conf: Dispatch. As to Land Settlement according to their official Records neither Mr Hare nor Mr Gomperty have had any experience to consider that the Hongkong service contains no one of sufficient experience it may become necessary to appoint some Land officer from the S.S, but that need not be decided now.\n\nAs to the classification of Hongkong Officers & my suggested scheme of increases of pay with increments. I would point out at Hongkong superior officers at present are paid at distinctly lower rates than S.S Salaries and I think some such scheme as I have suggested with modifications proposed by Mr Lockhart should be adopted in Hongkong as soon as Fund admits.\n\nSee also in NTI É aug. 10/12. We cannot deal satisfactorily with Hong Kong appointments until the new territory has been taken and we can form some estimate of what additions to the staff will be involved but we can give a general outline of M. Chamberlain's views, and inasmuch as there must in any case be a magistrate - probably two. We might",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 373871,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12]",
        "page_number": 601,
        "title": "CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12]",
        "content_text": "(\n\nMaintenance\n\nand lighting of private back streets.\n\nPrivate\n\nlanes.\n\nmust be provided on every floor with a window of at least ten square feet superficial area opening into such open space. The area of such window shall not be included in calculating the window area required by sub-section (a) of section 8 of Ordinance 15 of 1804:\n\n0 feet wide.\n\nProvided always that when the owners of a block of buildings agree to make and do make a lane opening at both ends upon a public thoroughfare and free from obstruction throughout both vertically and horizontally, the foregoing requirements shall be modified as follows:-- Houses not exceeding 40 feet in depth: a\n\nlane not less than Houses exceeding 40 feet but not exceeding\n\n50 feet in depth: a lane not less than... 8 feet wide. Houses exceeding 50 feet but not exceeding 60 feet in depth: a lane not less than..... Houses exceeding 60 feet in depth: a lane\n\nnot less than ......\n\n13 feet wide.\n\nAnd must be provided on every floor with a window of at least ten square feet superficial area opening into such open space.\n\nThe area of such window shall not be included in calculating the window area required by sub-section (a) of section 8 of Ordinance 15 of 1894.\n\n(5.) In computing the depth of a domestic building for the purposes of this section the depth of the kitchen shall be included in the computation of such depth in every case except when such kitchen is separated from the principal room or rooms of such building by an open backyard of at least six feet in depth extending the entire width of the back of such building and unobstructed except by a bridge on each floor not more than three feet six inches wide.\n\n9. Every street on private land, in the rear of domestic buildings, shall be and shall be kept concreted, channelled, drained, and may if the Director of Public Works thinks fit be provided with lighting apparatus by the Government, at the expense of the owners of the land abutting on such street, and the several owners of such land shall bear the cost of such concreting, channelling, draining and providing of such apparatus in proportion to the width of their respective land at the place where it abuts on such street, and the Government may recover such proportionate cost, together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent. per annum from the date of demand for payment of such proportionate cost made by the Director of Public Works from any such owner, by a suit in the name of the Director of Public Works in the Summary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The cost of the illumination of such street shall, however, be borne by the Government.\n\nAll household refuse shall be regularly removed by the Government from every such street.\n\n10. Every street on private land, upon which domestic streets and buildings front shall, if it does not fall within the provisions of the immediately preceding section of this Ordinance, be and be kept surfaced, channelled, drained, and may if the Director of Public Works thinks fit be provided with lighting apparatus by the Government, at the expense of the owners of the land abutting on such street, and the several owners of such land shall bear the cost of such surfacing, channelling, draining, and providing of lighting apparatus, in proportion to the width of their respective land at the place where it abuts on such street, and the Government may recover such proportionate cost, together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent. per annum from the date of demand for payment of such proportionate cost made by the Director of Public Works, from any such owner by a suit in the name of the Director of Public Works in the Summary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The cost of the illumination of such street shall, however, be borne by the Government.\n\nTime within\n\nations, &c. are to be made.\n\n11.-(a.) In the case of any alterations to existing buildings being required for the purpose of complying with the provisions of section 7 of this Ordinance, a period of six months from the date of the coming into force of this Ordinance shall be allowed to the owner or owners of such buildings within which to make such alterations, and, in the event of any of such alterations not being made and completed within the said period of six months, such owner, or if there be more than one such owner, every such owner shall be liable upon summary conviction before a Magistrate to a fine of not exceeding ten dollars for each and every term of twenty-four hours beyond the said period of six months, during which any of the provisions of the said section 7 shall remain uncomplied with either wholly or in part.\n\n(b.) In the case of any alterations to or removal of any cubicles or partitions being required for the purpose of complying with any of the provisions of this Ordinance, a period of three months from the date of the coming into force of this Ordinance shall be allowed to the owner or owners of the building in which such cubicles or partitions are situated to make such alterations or removal as aforesaid, and, in the event of any of such alterations or of any such removal not being made and completed within the said period of three months, such owner, or, if there be more than one such owner, every such owner shall be liable upon summary conviction before a Magistrate to a fine of not exceeding five dollars for each and every term of twenty-four hours beyond the said period of three months during which any of the provisions of this Ordinance with regard to any alteration to or removal of any cubicles or partitions shall remain uncomplied with either wholly or in part.\n\n(c.) If upon the expiration of the respective periods of six or three months allowed under sub-sections (a) and (b) of this section, the alterations or removal referred to in such sub-sections have or has not been made and completed as directed in such sub-sections, then, in addition to the penalties that may be incurred by the owners under such sub-sections, it shall be lawful for a Magistrate in his absolute discretion to order the whole or any portion of any building or of any room containing a cubicle or partition to be forthwith closed by or under the direction of the Captain Superintendent of Police and to remain closed until the alterations or removal required by this Ordinance have or has been certified in writing by the Sanitary Board to have been made and completed to the satisfaction of the said Board. Any person found living in any building or room or portion thereof so closed as aforesaid, shall be deemed to have committed an offence against this Ordinance and shall be punishable accordingly.\n\n12. It shall be lawful for a Magistrate in any case in which it is proved to his satisfaction that any mezzanine floor, cockloft, cubicle, partition or \"ping fang\" is not in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance to order, either in addition to or in substitution for any penalty specified in this Ordinance, the immediate demolition, removal, and destruction by any officer of the Sanitary Board of any such mezzanine floor, cockloft, cubicle, partition or \"ping fang\", or any portion thereof, and no compensation whatever shall be payable to any person in respect of any damage done to such mezzanine floor, cockloft, cubicle, partition or \"ping fang\" by such demolition, removal, and destruction.\n\n13. Every act, failure, neglect, or omission whereby any requirement or provision of this Ordinance is contravened, and every refusal to comply with any of the requirements or provisions of this Ordinance, shall be deemed an offence against this Ordinance, and any owner of any premises, in connection with which omission, or refusal as aforesaid has occurred, shall be deemed to have committed an offence against this Ordinance and shall be punishable accordingly.\n\nThe secretary or manager for the time being of any company or corporation may be summoned and shall be held liable for any offence committed by such company or corporation against this Ordinance.\n\n14. Every person and the secretary or manager for the time being of any company or corporation committing an offence against this Ordinance in respect of which no penalty is otherwise provided by this Ordinance shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to pay a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and in default of payment thereof to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month, and in any case where in the opinion of the Magistrate the offence is likely to be continued, the Magistrate may require such person, secretary, or manager to comply with this Ordinance within such time\n\n598",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 376276,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4]",
        "page_number": 478,
        "title": "CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4]",
        "content_text": "## Penalty for obstructing authorised searches\n\n23. Any person who shall obstruct, hinder or resist or assist in obstructing, hindering or resisting any search or arrest authorised by this Ordinance shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour in addition to any other penalty or punishment he may be liable to by law or under this Ordinance.\n\n## Governor may establish central store for arms, &c.\n\n24. The Governor may establish a central store or magazine for the safe keeping and storing of all arms and ammunition, and notice shall be given in the Gazette of such selection and of the situation of the said store or magazine.\n\n## Governor may order removal to central store of all arms, and close arms shops, &c.\n\n25. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council during the continuance of any Proclamation issued under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Ordinance, 1886, to order the removal to the said central store of all arms and ammunition in the possession of any importers or dealers in or vendors of arms, or of such arms and ammunition only as in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council are not in safe keeping or custody, or to order the closing of all arms shops or stores and the suspension of the sale of all arms and ammunition during the continuance of such Proclamation as aforesaid. All orders made under this section shall forthwith be published in the Gazette.\n\n## Penalty for refusing to deliver up Arms\n\n26. Any person refusing after the publication of such order to deliver up any arms or ammunition, the removal of which to the said central store shall have been ordered under the provisions of the last preceding section, and any person omitting or refusing otherwise to comply with any order published as aforesaid, shall on conviction before a Magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding six months with or without hard labour.\n\n## Power of Governor to make regulations\n\n27. The Governor-in-Council may from time to time make any regulations necessary for carrying out this Ordinance, and may revoke, alter or add to the forms contained in the schedule to this Ordinance, and such regulations and forms shall have the force of law when published in the Gazette, and shall have the same effect as if they were incorporated in this Ordinance.\n\n## Penalties for breach of Ordinance or Regulations\n\n28. Except when any other penalty is specially provided by this Ordinance, any person committing any breach or infringement or contravention of any of the provisions contained in this Ordinance or of any regulation made thereunder, or failing to perform any duty imposed upon him by this Ordinance or by any such regulation, shall be liable for every such offence, upon summary conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, and in default of payment of such fine, such Magistrate may order that the offender be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, unless the fine be sooner paid.\n\n## Forfeiture of arms and ammunition connected with offence\n\n29. Any arms or ammunition in connection with which an offence has been committed under this Ordinance may, if a Magistrate thinks fit, be forfeited to the Crown.\n\n## Forfeiture of arms and ammunition without apparent owner\n\n30. Any arms or ammunition which are found in any building, vessel or place without any apparent owner, may, whether any person is charged with or convicted of any offence in connection therewith or not, be ordered by a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, to be forfeited to the Crown.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 5th day of April, 1900.\n\n## SCHEDULE\n\n### (A) The Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, 1900. (sec. 6).\n\n**APPLICATION FOR EXPORT PERMIT**\n\nHongkong,  \nTo the Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\nSir,\n\nPlease issue a permit for the export of the undermentioned Arms and Ammunition now stored at on board the `...` at present at anchor at `...` and about to proceed to `...` .\n\nThe period for which this permit is desired is `...` days, and it will be returned together with the master's or mate's receipt for all the arms and ammunition named below to (person) at (place) on or before noon of the `...` day of `...` .\n\nI am,  \nSir,  \nYour obedient Servant,  \n[Signature.]  \n`...` Dealer in Arms.  \n(or as the case may be)\n\n| Particulars of Arms and Ammunition. |\n| --- |\n\n### (B) The Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, 1900. (sec. 6).\n\n**EXPORT PERMIT**\n\nThe bearer is hereby authorised to export by the `...` named the `...` at present anchored at `...` the undermentioned Arms and Ammunition: --\n\n| Particulars of Arms and Ammunition. |\n| --- |\n\nThis permit together with a master's or mate's receipt for the whole of the arms and ammunition herein referred to must be returned to (person) at (place) on or before noon of the `...` day of `...` .\n\nDated at Victoria, Hongkong, this `...` day of `...` .\n\n[Signature.] Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\n### (C) The Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, 1900. (sec. 10).\n\n**REMOVAL PERMIT**\n\nThe bearer is hereby authorised to remove from `...` to `...` the undermentioned Arms and Ammunition, between the hours of `...` o'clock and `...` o'clock on the `...` day of `...` .\n\nThis permit must be returned to `...` before `...` o'clock on the `...` day of `...` .\n\n[Signature.] Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\nR. F. JOHNSTON,  \nActing Clerk of Councils.\n\nAssented to by His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government, the 12th day of April, 1900.\n\nF. H. MAY,  \nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\n### (D) The Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, 1900. (sec. 11, (2)).\n\nFee payable for a Licence to an importer of, dealer in or vendor of, arms or ammunition......... $1,200 per annum payable in advance.\n\nFee where a retail business only is carried on in arms and ammunition for sporting purposes only......... $10 per annum payable in advance.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 379823,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-304 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [1-4]",
        "page_number": 65,
        "title": "CO129-304 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [1-4]",
        "content_text": "# Enclosure 3\n## REGULATIONS with reference to the engagement and discharge of the Masters and Engineers of Steam-ships under sixty tons burden made by the Governor in Council, under the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, 1891.\n\n1. In these Regulations the word \"launch\" means a steam-ship under sixty tons burden in this Colony.\n\n2. Every launch owner shall report to the Harbour Master the name of, and number of the certificate held by, every launch master and engineer engaged by him, within 40 hours of such engagement.\n\n3. Every launch owner shall report to the Harbour Master the name of, and number of certificate held by, every launch master and engineer discharged by him, giving the reason for such discharge, within 48 hours of such discharge.\n\n4. Every launch master and engineer, holding a certificate, shall, on engagement, produce such certificate to the Harbour Master for registration and shall pay for such registration a fee of fifty cents for the use of the Government.\n\n5. Every launch master and engineer shall, on discharge, report such discharge to the Harbour Master within 48 hours of such discharge, producing his certificate.\n\n6. A record shall be kept in the Harbour Master's Office, setting forth the date of each engagement and discharge of each certificated launch master and engineer, the reason for his discharge, and all complaints and charges against him, and any punishments awarded in respect thereof by the Marine or other Magistrate, or by the Harbour Master. Such record shall be open to inspection by launch owners or their representatives.\n\n7. These Regulations shall not apply to launches belonging to Her Majesty or in the service of any Foreign Government.\n\n8. Any launch owner, master, or engineer, respectively, committing any breach of these regulations shall for each offence be guilty of misconduct.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-304 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [1-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 387074,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902",
        "page_number": 529,
        "title": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902",
        "content_text": "7587.\n\n# Sutor.\n\n9.\n\n## Expenses by whom payable.\n\n(No 21 of 1891, Sec. 2.)\n\n(6.) All expenses incidental to the apprehension and confinement of any seaman under this section shall be payable by the master of the ship to which such seaman may belong, to be recoverable from him, at the suit of the Captain Superintendent of Police, as a debt due to the Government of this Colony; and the subsistence money for every such seaman confined in gaol shall be paid in advance to the superintendent of the gaol, and in default of such payment, the gaoler may release such seaman: Provided that every seaman imprisoned under this section may, by direction of the Committing Magistrate, be sent on board his ship, or may be placed at the disposal of the Consular Officer at whose request the Magistrate dealt with the case, on the written application of the said Consular Officer, either on or before the expiration of his term of imprisonment.\n\n## 524\n\nSub-section (6) provides that a Foreign seaman who has been imprisoned at the instance of his Consul may be handed over to the Consul before the expiration of his term of imprisonment. (This enables the Consul to send the seaman away in another ship if opportunity occurs.)\n\nThe sixth subsection will also be referred to the Foreign Office, but before referring to that Department, Mr. Chamberlain will be glad to receive any observations which the Board may wish to offer on these provisions.\n\n3. In section 9 subsection 6 the provision that a foreign seaman convicted under the section may be placed at the disposal of the Consular Officer would appear to need further safeguards. It would be preferable to word the whole subsection as in section 238 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or otherwise the reason given by the Acting Attorney-General might be stated in the Ordinance and a paragraph equivalent to section 238 subsection 1 of the Imperial Act included.\n\nParagraph 3.-The remarks in this paragraph are to a certain extent dealt with by my notes on the Bill to clause 9 (1), (2), and (3), and, as pointed out, it will be well to bring the form of the whole of this clause so far as it relates to deserters into conformity with Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Sub-section 6, however, deals more especially with imprisonment for offences committed within the waters of the Colony, and for which punishment is prescribed in paragraphs D, E, F and G, of sub-clause 5 of clause 9.\n\nIt is presumably intended to deal with these offences, which are not under the provisions of section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act, but which are offences the punishment for which can be conveniently arranged for between the different nations. This, therefore, is, I presume, the reason why sub-clause 6 goes beyond the provisions of section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act by giving the Magistrate power, among other things, to simply hand the offender over to his Consular authority without specifying what is to become of him, As the ship to which he belonged may have sailed, this in itself may be a convenient power, but, as before stated, is not one of the powers conferred by section 238, unless it can be said that the Consular Officer is for this purpose an Agent for the owner of the vessel.\n\nIt is presumed that this sub-clause is not intended to refer to deserters who can be apprehended but not confined, but the expenses of the apprehension might well be provided for as the words at present are \"apprehension and confinement.\"\n\n(2) Sub-clause 6 of Clause 9 of the Ordinance provides that foreign seamen imprisoned under the Section \"may be placed at the disposal of the Consular Officer on the written application of the said Consular Officer.\" I think this Sub-clause should be worded like Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act.\n\nThe Colonial Office. The Board of Trade agree that some parts of Clause 9, dealing with the apprehension of seamen for various offences, should be more in harmony with Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act, but that Section deals with desertion only, while this sub-clause 6 deals with offences which do not come under Section 238 and must necessarily therefore go beyond that Section (as it does in giving power to the Magistrates to hand over offenders to a Consul). I imagine the Ordinance is not bound to be confined within the limits of Section 238, and the Solicitor to the Board of Trade certainly says the powers may be convenient. Perhaps, therefore, we may express concurrence with the views of the Solicitor and say we have no objection to such powers being given to the Magistrate.\n\nI gather from that the Board of Trade have probably already taken the opinion of Counsel on the point dealt with in that paragraph, and if it were necessary for us to go into the matter we should, of course, like to see the Counsel's opinion, assuming my conjecture to be right. But I don't think that it really is a point to be decided by the Foreign Office.\n\n## 416. Para 5 of C.O. letter, which is not an end, is it merely asked and agreed with Draft C.O.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 390487,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "page_number": 40,
        "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "content_text": "## Form E.\n\nNo. \nVictoria, \n190 \n\n**Class** \n\nCertified that I have examined the boat owned by applicant for a licence, and that I find the boat is in all respects fit and proper to be employed in the conveyance of passengers measurement.\n\n## NUMBER AND AGES OF PERSONS ON BOARD.\n\n| Length | Breadth | Measurement | Males | Females | Fee |\n| --- | --- | --- | Over 12. Under 12. | Over 12. Under 12. |  |\n|  |  | piculs |  |  | $1 |\n\nInspector of Cargo-boats.\n\n### TABLE I \n## RULES FOR LICENSING OF FISHING STAKES AND STATIONS.\n\n1. In these Rules the following terms shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them: -\n\n(a) **Inshore Stake Nets**.-Where a net attached to poles is lowered and raised by means of windlasses worked from a station on shore, or where a line of stakes is used with net attached in not more than three fathoms of water.\n\n(b) **Off-Shore Stake Nets**-Where a net attached to poles is lowered and raised by means of windlasses worked from stations built on piles in the water or where a line of stakes with nets attached is used in deeper water than three fathoms.\n\n(c) **Floating Stake Stations**.-Where a net is attached to a system of floating stakes or poles and handled by one or more boats.\n\n(d) **Boat Stations**.-Where a net is lowered and raised from boats only.\n\n2. Owners of Fishing Stakes and Stations shall pay to the officer appointed by the Harbour Master for that purpose, an annual licence fee, according to the following scale :- \n\n| Type | Fee |\n| --- | --- |\n| Inshore Stake Nets | $2 per annum |\n| Off-shore Stake Nets | $5 |\n| Floating Stations | $6 |\n| Boat Stations | $2 |\n\nAny person committing a breach of any of the above Rules is liable, under section 29 of Ordinance 36 of 1899, upon summary conviction before a Magistrate, to the payment of a fine not exceeding $60 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months with or without hard labour.\n\n### TABLE II.\n## List of \"Ports of the Colony,\" under section 2 of Ordinance No. 36 of 1899 :--\n\n- Victoria, within Harbour limits.\n- Aberdeen.\n- Stanley.\n- Shaukiwan.\n- Futau Mun.\n- Cap Sui Mun.\n- Cheung Chau.\n- Tai O.\n- Tai Po.\n- Deep Bay.\n- Saikung.\n\nGovernor. No. \nblake 526. \n1903 No \n19 N00 \n\nLast previous Paper.: `35732` `438576` \nAusd 33. 23 \n(7)-1890-200-17-2 1998-2000 10-s \n\nNext subsequent Paper.\n\nTRONG HẠNG \nNo 456 4 \n(Subject.) \n38 \n\n**DESPATCH.**\n\nC. O. \n`45672` \nReco \nRed 21 DEC 03) \n\nNaval Land & Reclamations Ab...tory \nwater are a \nstates value of land \nif these grants \ngeven \nto Naval Cluths: \ngrants continue, Military Contribution \nmust be reduced.\n\n**(Minutes.)** \n\nReply that the \nin par 4 of `38732` \nled \nthat Sir J. Blake was \nof the word \"land\" \nus to suppose \n-referring to the \nthe h \ntransfer of actual land whereas that \nDept. has in \nis \nin \nevery case it \nrecent \nys. any additional \nbelieved, paid for land wh. it has \n(x) \nthe case required, except in \nof the small area referred to in `5647/03`, & the extn, of \nin `45673` that area referred to `7/03`, wh were granted to the Admy, free was the suggestion \nof the bol Love & not of this dept, & in the (b) when Exchanges have been made betwe care of lands ook. held by the Wo. + Admy, \npointed out in desh on \n`25268` \nand \nCases \nas \nfalling under B. involve no \nexpense to the bol. Govt. \n\nS \nnow appears that is the for...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 390963,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "page_number": 516,
        "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "content_text": "# INTERPRETATION OF EXTRADITION TREATIES.\n\nIn my judgment these treaties ought to receive a liberal interpretation, which means no more than that they should receive their true construction according to their language, object, and intent. I know no head of the French law for which an exact equivalent is to be found in the law of England. The English and French texts of the treaty are not translations of one another. They are different versions, but versions which, on the whole, are in substantial agreement.\n\nPer Lord RUSSELL, C.J., In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.\n\n# ON APPEAL, NEW MATERIALS MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION BESIDES WHAT WAS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE,\n\nPer DENMAN, J.: The Act itself requires the Magistrate to inform the prisoner that he may apply for a habeas corpus, and, if he is entitled to apply for a habeas corpus, justice must have power to go into the whole matter, and I think it follows that the Queen's Bench Division in some cases, if there be certainly fresh evidence and cogent evidence, it could not say for a moment that it would feel itself crippled by the mere fact that the Magistrate, upon much less evidence, or perhaps upon the same evidence had taken a different view of the matter.\n\nPer HAWKINS, J.: If a man has a right to move for a habeas corpus in order that the case may be reviewed, it would be an absurdity to say that he might not enter into those matters which showed that he had been guilty of no offence at all; and by no means was the matter concluded by the Magistrate's decision that he be committed for trial, because the Magistrate does not sit, when he is committing for trial, as a Magistrate sitting finally to dispose of the case, and to give judgment upon it. I think that they (the provisions of the Act) are quite sufficient certainly to satisfy me that the Magistrate's decision is by no means binding, either in point of law or in point of fact, and that, when these matters come to be considered upon the habeas corpus, if the Judges have to consider the case, they must consider the case as it is before them at the time the rule is discussed, and I think that we are not bound by, though we pay respect to, what the Magistrate's views were.\n\nIn re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.\n\n(But see also later case of In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (I) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132, where Lord Russell, C.J., said: \"We are not a Court of Appeal on questions of fact from him (the Magistrate). We have only to see that he had such evidence before him as gave him authority and jurisdiction to commit.\")\n\n(See also In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23, where Lord Russell, C.J., said \"The Court is bound to see whether or not a prima facie case has been made out before the Magistrate.\")\n\nPage 7\n\n# EX PARTE BOUVIER. France.\n\n21st November, 1872.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: COCKBURN, C.J., MELLOR and BLACKBURN, JJ.\n\n42 L.J. Q.B. 17; 12 Cox C.C. 303; 27 L.T. (N.S.) 844. Committed for extradition, by Police Magistrate of Jersey, for \"fuum et banqueroute frauduleuse.\" The French warrant had been granted upon a judgment of an Assize Court, on which Bouvier had been condemned on three several charges of abus de confiance, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. Abus de confiance was not an offence included in the Convention of 13th February, 1843.\n\nContended: No power under the Convention or under the Act of 1870 to surrender for abus de confiance. No power to surrender the criminal inasmuch as no provision or arrangement had been made as required by section 3 (2) of the Extradition Act, 1870.\n\nAffidavit of the officially appointed Counsel to the French Embassy put in as to the state of French law.\n\nHeld: That under the existing law of France such provision is made.\n\n(See also case of United States v. Lawrence, 13 Cox C.C. 361)\n\n(And see now Article IV. of the treaty with France of 14th August, 1876.)\n\n# EX PARTE ELISE COUNHAYE.\n\nBelgium.\n\n23rd May, 1873.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH : BLACKBURN, QUAIN, and ARCHIBALD, JJ.\n\nL.R. 8 Q.B. 410; 42 L.J.Q.B. 217.\n\nAccused of complicity in her husband's bankruptcy.\n\nContended: (i.) Complicity in a fraudulent bankruptcy is not a crime within the Extradition Act.\n\nA treaty cannot extend the Act. (ii.) The facts charged were committed before the Act was passed, and section 6 does not apply to crimes committed before the Act was passed.\n\n(i.) The depositions were not taken before the Magistrate who issued the warrant as required by Article II. of the treaty.\n\n(iv.) The depositions are not receivable not having been taken in the presence of the accused.\n\n(v.) The Belgian warrant is bad, charging crime in France; and it is not for the same crime as the English commitment.\n\nPer COLERIDGE, A.G. - Accessories before the fact are not mentioned in the Schedule to the Act because at common law they are in effect the same as principals, and aiders and abettors can by statute be tried as well as punished as principals.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 390966,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "page_number": 519,
        "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "content_text": "POOLEY v. WHETHAM,\n\nJuly, 1880.\n\n12\n\nCHANCERY DIVISION AND COURT OF APPEAL\n\nL.R. 15 Ch. Div. (1880) 435; 30 L.J. Ch. 236.\n\nOn 20th September, 1879, an attachment was issued by the High Court against Pooley for disobedience of an order of the Court in a civil action. On 27th September a petition in bankruptcy was filed, and Pooley was adjudicated bankrupt on 22nd October, and he soon afterwards left England. On 13th May, 1880, the trustee obtained permission to prosecute Pooley for offences against bankruptcy law. Pooley was arrested in Paris on 1st June on a warrant issued on 22nd May. On 7th June an order was obtained to lodge the writ of attachment with the Governor of Newgate, and that Pooley when released from the criminal charge should be handed over to the Governor of Holloway Prison until he had purged his contempt. On 28th June, Pooley was discharged by the Guildhall Magistrate in respect of the charges in the warrant, and he was then taken to Holloway.\n\nCHANCERY DIVISION.\n\nHe applied (9th July) to Vice-Chancellor BACON to discharge him. The motion was refused with costs.\n\nCOURT OF APPEAL.\n\nFrom this order he appealed; and the Court, after hearing evidence, Held: Disobedience of an order of the High Court of Justice in a civil action, though a contempt of Court, is not an \"offence\" within the meaning of section 19 of the Extradition Act; and Pooley was therefore not entitled to his discharge until his contempt had been purged. If a warrant under the Extradition Act is obtained, not for the bona fide purpose of punishing a person for a crime, but with the indirect object of making him amenable to an attachment in a civil action, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court, and the attachment will be set aside.\n\nR. v. JACOBI AND HILLER.\n\nGermany.\n\n3rd March, 1881.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: Pollock, B., and STEPHEN, J.\n\n46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, footnote.\n\nOn 23rd September, 1880, prisoners sent from Amsterdam a letter to Heininger & Co., Mayence, ordering furniture to be sent to Amsterdam. Heininger's agent called on them, and prisoners made certain alleged false statements. Furniture was supplied, sent by ordinary carrying agents to Amsterdam; it was not paid for, but was removed to England, and prisoners absconded to England. Warrants were issued at Mayence in December for the arrest of the prisoners, setting forth that they were \"suspected of fraud\" by having, with intent to procure illegal pecuniary profit, and by a promise of payment given in writing falsely and in bad faith, induced Heininger to forward furniture, thus causing pecuniary prejudice to the said firm.\n\n13\n\nThey were committed for extradition for \"obtaining goods by false pretences\"; and on application for rules nisi for writs of habeas corpus, it was\n\nContended: That if any offence had been committed it was in Holland and not in Germany; and that the German warrant of arrest was bad for insufficiency, as it did not state upon its face that the crime charged was the extradition offence of obtaining goods by false pretences, but set out a mere fraud which could be substantiated without proving a single false pretence for which they could be indicted in England; such mere fraud was not an extradition offence in the treaty.\n\nHeld: That the offence was committed in Germany, the property being actually parted with at Mayence: and that (referring to ex parte Terraz) the warrant was sufficient.\n\nPer POLLOCK, B.-It seems to me that upon all the sound principles the course of dealing of the prisoners was an obtaining of the goods in Mayence under false pretences: and the Magistrate decided upon evidence contained in those letters, which clearly show that there was false pretence, and that under those circumstances the offence was committed.\n\n(See ex parte Terras, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. Ex. 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T. (N.S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170; and R. v. Nillins, 53 L.J.M.C. 157; and In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C, 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.)\n\nR. v. LAVAUDIER AND OTHERS.\n\nBelgium.\n\n24th August, 1881.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE and KAY, JJ.\n\n15 Cox C.C. 329.\n\n(Head note in Cox's Reports: \"To satisfy a Magistrate in committing a prisoner charged with an extradition crime, under section 10 there must be some evidence that the prisoner committed such crime within the jurisdiction of the country seeking extradition.\")\n\nOn the night of the 3rd-4th June, 1881, a burglary was committed in Brussels. These prisoners had been seen before the 3rd June in London with the person who subsequently brought the stolen goods from Belgium, who had been seen in Brussels at the time of the commission of the burglary. These prisoners pledged the stolen goods in London. They were committed for extradition for receiving and being accessories after the fact to the burglary.\n\nHeld: That there was no evidence at all to show that the accused were guilty of receiving these stolen goods in Belgium, though there was strong evidence of receiving stolen goods in England, and prisoners were discharged.\n\n(See R. v. Nillins, 53 L.J.M.C. 157; and R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, footnote.)\n\n513",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 390971,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "page_number": 524,
        "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "content_text": "22\n\nR. v. LUSHINGTON, EX PARTE OTTO.\n\nFrance.\n\n13th November, 1893.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: WRIGHT, J.\n\nL.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (1) 420; 58 J.P. 282.\n\nOne Ebstein was committed for surrender to France in connection with a larceny of jewellery and other articles. Upon the hearing of the case, certain articles were produced under a subpœna duces tecum by a witness who had purchased them from the accused in England, and were identified as part of the property stolen. The Magistrate, on committing Ebstein, orally directed a constable to take charge of the property so produced and identified, in order that it might be produced at the trial in France.\n\nThe purchaser applied under 11 and 12 Vic. c. 44 s. 5, for an order directing the Magistrate to order the property to be delivered up to him.\n\nHeld: The Magistrate was functus officio as soon as he had committed the accused; and the Court had no power to make an order on him to do something outside the ordinary course of his judicial functions.\n\nWhen the jewellery passed out of his hands by virtue of the process of the Court (subpoena duces tecum) the purchaser's possessory title became divested by order of the Court. I think it is undoubted law that when articles have once been produced in Court by witnesses it is right and necessary for the Court, or the constable to preserve and retain them so that they may be always available for the purposes of justice until the trial is concluded.\n\n23\n\nAnarchists' offences impose the government of their own choice on the other. are not political, being in the main attacks on private citizens generally, rather than on governments or on members of any particular government as such.\n\n(As to POLITICAL OFFENCE, see\n\nIn re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344;\n\n17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328;\n\nIn re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.)\n\nIN RE ARTON.\n\nFrance.\n\n21st December, 1895.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WILLS and WRIGHT, JJ.\n\nL.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.\n\nUpon a motion for a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus, four grounds were given, of which 3 and 4 were: 3. That the demand for extradition was not made in good faith and in the interests of justice; 4. That the offences imputed were all of them political in their character, and the surrender was demanded from exclusively political motives. As to 4. Counsel admitted that the offences in themselves were not of a political character, but it was contended that, if properly extradited, the prisoner, when he got into the hands of the French Government, would be compelled to disclose matters which he knew, and in which the State was interested, or undergo indefinite imprisonment.\n\nHeld: That the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Extradition Act, 1870, apply only to an offence of a political character which has been already committed; and it is not open to the Court to consider ground 3, such consideration resting with the Government: and cannot enter into the judicial consideration of the question.\n\nWrit granted on ground 1 as to falsification of accounts.\n\n(As to POLITICAL OFFENCES, see\n\nIn re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344;\n\n17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328;\n\nIn re Meunier, L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15.)\n\nIN RE MEUNIER.\n\nFrance.\n\n11th June, 1894.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE and COLLINS, JJ.\n\nL.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15.\n\nMeunier was committed for extradition for murder and attempted murder, in one case by an explosion at Lobau Barracks, and in another by an explosion at the Café Véry.\n\nApplication was made for a writ of habeas corpus in vacation by summons (Crown Office Rules, 1886, Rule 238) at chambers, and referred to the Court.\n\nHeld: That if the charges had depended upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice (which was not the case) such absence of corroboration was not conclusive in favour of prisoner's right of acquittal; but the Magistrate had a discretion as to whether the evidence was sufficient to justify committal.\n\nSeparate committals were not necessary.\n\nThe outrage at the Barracks was not an offence of a political character, to constitute which there must be two or more parties in the State each seeking to...\n\nIN RE ARTON. France.\n\n18th, 20th January, and 8th February, 1896.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ. L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.\n\nArton having been committed for various crimes, including faux (falsification of accounts and using falsified accounts), upon an application to make absolute an order nisi for a writ of habeas corpus, it was...\n\n518",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 390973,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "page_number": 526,
        "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]",
        "content_text": "26\n\n27\n\nSPILSBURY 7. R.\n\nFugitive Offenders Act, 1881. Morocco Order in Council, 1889. 24th March and 3rd May, 1899.\n\nJUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL: Earl of HALSBURY, L.C., and Lords WATSON, HOBHOUSE, MACNAUGHTON and DAVEY.\n\n1 R. App. 1899, 392; 68 L.J. P.C. 66; 19 Cox C.C. 303.\n\nThe Supreme Court of Gibraltar, by an order of 5 September, 1898, ordered appellant to be tried before a Judge with or without assessors, in accordance with the Morocco Order in Council, 1889, and not with a jury of 12 men.\n\nUpon appeal therefrom it was\n\nHeld: That \"Section 38 of the Gibraltar Order in Council expressly applied to appellant's case. It was a criminal case depending before the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, which had concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court in Morocco. When once it is ascertained that the Supreme Court of Gibraltar was rightly seised of the jurisdiction to try, their Lordships think that the mode prescribed by the Gibraltar Order in Council must be pursued.\" Appellant was entitled to trial with a jury.\n\n(Appellant was ultimately acquitted by a jury at Gibraltar.)\n\nFurther papers having subsequently been submitted by the German Government, Bluhm was again brought up on the 5th March and committed on four further cases.\n\nAn order nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was obtained on the grounds of there being no sufficient evidence within two months for his extradition; and of irregularity in any proceedings after the two months: and of there being no evidence of the identity of the accused with the person wanted in Germany.\n\nHeld: There was sufficient evidence produced in reference to the one case within two months of apprehension, and prisoner was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Article XII. In regard to the other grounds it seems to me that the proceedings were entirely regular. The right given by Article XII. to a person against whom a case had not been made is to be absolutely set at liberty: if that does not apply the procedure is to be the same as the procedure in this country. It may be that when he gets over to Germany, and he is tried there, he may be entitled to say, under Article VII., or under the provisions of the law of Germany in accordance with Article VII, I have only been properly extradited with reference to one of these charges. If that is a good point, he can make it in Germany, but he cannot make it here.”\n\nIN RE JOSEPH BLUHM.\n\nGermany.\n\n15th March, 1901.\n\nKING'S BENCH:\n\nCHANNELL and BUCKNILL, JJ.\n\nL.R. Q.B.D. 1901 (1) 764; 70 L.J. K.B. 472.\n\nBluhm was arrested on 15th December, 1900, on a provisional warrant for obtaining money by false pretences, and was remanded from time to time until the 14th February, 1901, the last day of the two months mentioned in Article XII. of the treaty with Germany, at which time the Magistrate had before him a requisition supported by a warrant and evidence in respect of one case, which was thus ready for committal-the Magistrate being satisfied with the evidence and a warrant and evidence relating to 31 other cases, which, having only been received by the Magistrate the preceding day, had not been all translated; and in respect of these 31 cases the Magistrate was not prepared to decide upon the evidence, and he therefore remanded the prisoner for a further week (at the same time informing the defendant that he considered the evidence upon the one case sufficient to justify him in committing the defendant for extradition). At the end of a week, on the 21st February, 1901, the Magistrate committed the prisoner for extradition on the one case, and on 30 of the 31 cases mentioned in the further warrant.\n\nR. v. DIX.\n\nU.S.A.\n\n14th January, 1902\n\nKING'S BENCH: DARLING and PHILLIMORE, JJ.\n\n\"Times,\" 15th January, 1902.\n\nDix had been committed for extradition for the crimes of larceny, embezzlement, and fraud by a banker or member or officer of a company, upon two informations showing (i.) that, while acting as manager of a bank, he received money on deposit knowing at the time that the bank was insolvent and in failing circumstances; (ii) that, while president and manager of a bank, he fraudulently discounted certain worthless bills with the bank, and drew cheques on the bank, which were honoured although his account was overdrawn; when the bank got into financial difficulties, the bills were found to be worthless, and prisoner owed the bank about $23,000.\n\nA summons for a writ of habeas corpus was taken out.\n\nIt was\n\nAdmitted by the Attorney-General (appearing in support of the Magistrate's committal) that the first charge did not amount to larceny according to English law, and that the prisoner could not be extradited on that charge. And it was\n\nAdmitted by Mr. Biron (appearing for the prisoner) that the depositions as to the second charge made out a prima facie case of \"larceny by embezzlement\" within the definition of that offence in the Washington Statutes.\n\nHeld: That there was evidence of an offence within section 81 of the Larceny Act, 1861: it might be that in American law that would be called \"larceny by embezzlement\"; but the essential thing was to see whether what the evidence showed prima facie that the prisoner had done was a crime in\n\n520",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 395280,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904",
        "page_number": 617,
        "title": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904",
        "content_text": "4\n\nwilling and anxious on several occasions to yield to the representations I have had occasion to make to them, but the Japanese have behaved in such a violent and overbearing manner that they have found it impossible to do so.\n\nAs illustrating what has been taking place in the interior, I may mention that recently, upon my demanding the surrender of some camphor which had been detained at Sui Kow, the Foreign Deputy was sent up with instructions to take delivery of it and bring it down to Foochow; when he arrived, however, he found the Japanese would not recognize him, neither would they recognize the local Magistrate, and they absolutely refused to allow the camphor to be touched; they lay on the cases with knives and revolvers by their side, and said, before they would relinquish it they would sacrifice their lives. Remonstrances were in vain, and finally the Deputy had to return without accomplishing the object of his mission. A few days later the same Japanese made another attempt to seize a consignment of camphor belonging to Messrs. Dodwell and Co., and upon resistance being shown by the men in charge of it, they drew revolvers, and the Chinese retaliating in like fashion several coolies were wounded; it was only on the Magistrate coming upon the scene himself that the trouble was suppressed. Since then I have heard that they broke into the Magistrate's Yamên while that official was absent at Foochow, whither he had come to ask for instructions as to how he should deal with these constantly recurring cases of violence, and made off with the camphor. How far this latter case is true, however, I cannot say, as I have only heard it from outside sources, but the two previous cases were vouched for by the officials, and they are said to be typical of what has been taking place in the interior for some time past.\n\nSo far as this Consulate is concerned, however, the only question that now remains to be considered is the one regarding the amount of compensation to be paid to Messrs. Cave-Thomas and Co. and Mr. Bucknall, and upon that Yang Ta-jên was very anxious to come to terms with me, but as he made no definite proposal, I informed him that, having referred the matter to you, I should have to await your instructions before I could do anything. His reply was that I need not wait for instructions, that if we only agreed upon the sum the case might be settled at once. After a long discussion it transpired that he was prepared to pay a sum of about 14,000 dollars, but as the value of the camphor seized came to over 13,000 dollars, I could not agree to it, and upon his repeatedly pressing me to say what I considered a fair indemnity, I at last told him that if he would double his offer I would submit it to you by telegraph for your approval. He was not prepared, however, for so large a claim, and the matter dropped.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nHERBERT W. BRADY.\n\n5\n\nInclosure 3 in No. 1.\n\nThe Board of Foreign Affairs to Consul Brady.\n\nSir,\n\nKuang Hsü, 30th year, 6th moon, 15th day (July 27, 1904.) THE instructions received from his Excellency the Viceroy regarding the abolition of the Fukien Camphor Bureau and the closing of the local camphor offices, having already been communicated to the Consular Body, the Board have now the honour to inform you that the Japanese experts in the employ of the Bureau have all been dismissed and recalled in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Camphor Agreement. The Board beg to acquaint you further that they have communicated with the Japanese Consul on the subject, and have requested him to similarly recall all the Japanese experts who had been sent into the interior for the purpose of effecting seizures of camphor; consequently, if hereafter any Japanese interfere up-country with the transport of camphor by foreign merchants, or if they commit any breach of Treaty, or do anything to cause injury to the business of such merchants, the responsibility must rest with the Japanese Consul, who will have to settle the matter with the Consul concerned.\n\nThe Board have already notified the Japanese Consul of this, and in addition to acquainting the Consular Body, they now beg to communicate it to you for information and guidance.\n\n(Seal of the Foreign Board.)\n\n(Translation.) Sir,\n\nInclosure 2 in No. 1,\n\nForeign Board to Consul Brady.\n\nKuang Hsü, 30th year, 6th moon, 11th day (July 23, 1904.)\n\nWE have the honour to inform you that we have received the following communication from the Viceroy:\n\n\"The Fukien Camphor Bureau has been closed, and all the local offices of the Bureau have been abolished. In future all merchants, Chinese or foreign, who go into the interior to trade in camphor will be at liberty to do so without restriction or interference. If hereafter any person, pretending to be in the employ of the Camphor Bureau, stops goods in transit, the local officials are to take vigorous measures for the protection of trade, the preventing of such actions, and the arrest of the persons committing them.'\n\nWe have circulated the above instructions, and directed the local officials to issue Proclamations accordingly.\n\nWe have, &c.\n\n(Cards of the members of the Board of Foreign Affairs.)\n\n614",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 396046,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-328 - Governor Nathan - 1905 [1-6]",
        "page_number": 128,
        "title": "CO129-328 - Governor Nathan - 1905 [1-6]",
        "content_text": "No.32\n\nHongkong.\n\nC.O. 7821 126 RECO Fre 1 MAR 05\n\nGoverment House, Hongkong, 8th February, 1905.\n\nSir,\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatches Nos. 353 of the 16th December and 369 of the 30th of the same month forwarding a copy of correspondence with the Merchant Service Guild on the subject of a judgment by Captain Barnes Lawrence, in his capacity as marine Magistrate, against Captain Bell Smith of the s.s. \"Wingchaf\"; and of the constitution of the Court of the Marine Magistrate at Hongkong.\n\n2. In reply I have to point out that the Merchant Service Guild appears to labour under a misapprehension in regard to this case which was not one in which a Marine Court, under section 19 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1899, was either applied for or necessary. Such Courts are held when the cancellation or suspension of Officers' Certificates has to be considered and due provision is made under sub-section (2) of the section quoted for the British Mercantile Marine being represented in the Court.\n\n3. In the case under review the Master of the \"Ying King\" applied for a summons against the Master of the \"Wingchaf\" for committing a breach of the rules of the road.\n\n**THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ALFRED LYTTELTON, K.C., M.P.,**",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-328 - Governor Nathan - 1905 [1-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 411149,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "page_number": 326,
        "title": "CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "content_text": "## \nThe date of the Magistrate's taking over and handing over charge shall be reported to the Board of Civil Office.\n\n## \n4.-(a.) In all cases, except where both parties are Chinese (and in which no foreign interest is involved*), a foreign official shall sit as Assessor. The powers of these foreign Assessors, who shall be appointed by the respective Consular representatives, subject to the Treaty rights of each nationality of foreigners, shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of section 2 of the Chefoo Convention.\n\n(6.) If the Magistrate and Assessor fail to agree after consideration upon the decision in any case, it shall be referred to the Taotai and Consul or Consul-General concerned, as the case may be.\n\n## \n3. The Mixed Court gaol shall be kept under the best foreign sanitary conditions, with the co-operation of the health authorities of the municipality. An experienced and capable Chinese medical officer shall be engaged by the Court itself to carry out this work, and the Shanghae Taotai shall set aside funds for this purpose.\n\n## \n6. No warrants and summons of the Mixed Court against Chinese in the foreign Settlement north of the Yangking-pang shall be enforced unless countersigned by the Senior Consul. In the case of respectable persons, and when the circumstances of the case are not really grave, a summons should only be issued and warrants must not be used unnecessarily. If a party fails to appear when summoned, he may then be arrested under a warrant.\n\nIf the defendant is in the employ of a foreigner, such warrants must also be countersigned by the Consul of the nationality of the employer of the defendant.\n\nEvery person arrested shall be brought before the Court within twenty-four hours of his arrest; and if the case is not disposed of, he shall be remanded until the next sitting of the Court, and so de die in diem until the case is finally decided.\n\nIn Chinese cases where parties are summoned by the Chinese Magistrate, they are to be released on bail if the hearing of the case is not at once impending, so as to avoid detention in custody.\n\nNow that no torture is employed in hearing cases, the new Regulations sanctioned by the Imperial Decree of the 21st day of the 3rd moon of the 31st year of Kuang Hsu shall be followed.\n\n## \n7. In all cases, civil or criminal, which come before the Court where a foreign Assessor is sitting, and either party is represented by counsel, before an attorney or counsel is admitted to practice in the Mixed Court, he must satisfy the Court that he is admitted to practice in the Consular Court of his own nationality at Shanghae.\n\n8. Should an attorney in any case be adjudged by the Chinese Magistrate and foreign Assessor sitting in that case guilty of any refusal to obey their lawful summons or order, he shall be for a period not exceeding one month, or with the consent of the Consul of the nationality of the attorney concerned, for a time not to exceed six months.\n\n## \n9. In cases involving principles where no precedents exist in Chinese law, the Court shall be governed by commercial custom and equity.\n\n## \n10. All parties to proceedings before the Mixed Court shall observe such rules of procedure as the Magistrate may from time to time prescribe, subject to the consent of the Consular Body.\n\n## \n11. All parts of the present Rules and Regulations for the Mixed Court at Shanghae, not in conflict with these supplementary amendments, are hereby continued in full force, and the Chinese and foreign officials shall faithfully carry out the same.\n\n**(Confidential.)**\n\n## Inclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n**Memorandum by Mr. Bourne.**\n\nI HAVE read the proposed amendments of the Rules of the Mixed Court inclosed in Sir J. Jordan's despatch No. 103 of the 22nd November, 1906.\n\nThe provision—4 (6)—that the Assessor must agree with the Magistrate before a prisoner can be released or execution can issue on a judgment—and this is, I conceive, the effect of the Rule—is a concession so valuable to British interests at Shanghae that the other provisions—excepting the question of charge of male prisoners dealt with below—are comparatively unimportant. The principle has been claimed in practice for some years, but never formally admitted by the Chinese higher authorities. It gives us nearly all we really need, or rather nearly all that is to be got under the existing conditions—namely, that a case can be hung up until justice be done. However, I suggest below some small changes that would, in my opinion, be improvements.\n\n1 (b). As the Court is to apply the general law of the Chinese Empire, it seems unnecessary to quote particular edicts which may be repealed or amended at any time. In view of the abolition of bambooing here, while it is going on nearly all over the Empire, it may be necessary some day to point out to the Chinese Government that Rules applicable only to the foreign Settlements are not laws at all, and must have the sanction of the Treaty Powers.\n\n4 (a). It is desirable, in the case of Chinese sent for trial to the Higher Chinese Courts for crimes committed in the Settlement, that the Consuls should have the right to depute an officer to watch the case as provided by the last clause of section 2 of the Chefoo Convention. Foreign interests might be held to be involved, because we are concerned to see that crimes committed in the Settlement are duly punished. The result would be, I believe, that the feeling of reluctance in committing prisoners for trial would gradually disappear, as the foreign community saw that the Chinese Criminal Courts were doing their duty.\n\nIn regard to the attendance of an Assessor, I may add that I recently told the Taotai, in reply to his question whether he could send a deputy to watch a case in the Supreme Court, that he could come or send whenever he thought Chinese interests were involved; that if he came himself, he would be invited to sit on the Bench, and that a suitable seat in Court would be reserved for his deputy. I afterwards informed Sir H. de Sausmarez of this, and he quite agreed.\n\n4 (b). I understand these words to imply the following: \"The accused in a criminal and the defendant in a civil case being kept in custody until the appeal is heard, or, if bail be allowed, until such security is given for his appearance on appeal or for satisfaction of judgment as the Magistrate and Assessor, or, on their disagreement, the Taotai and Consul, may agree to be necessary.\"\n\nThe object is to prevent a Chinese prisoner or defendant from using an appeal as a means of escape or of delaying payment. Perhaps it might be thought enough if the Assessors were instructed so to interpret the Rule.\n\n5. I think it is necessary to good order in the present state of Chinese administration that the Treaty Powers, by their Agents, the Consuls, or by their grantees of certain powers by the Land Regulations, the Municipal Council, should be in charge directly or by sufficient right of inspection of all male prisoners within the Settlement; although if the Chinese Government built a prison outside the Settlement, open at any time to the inspection of an officer deputed by the Consuls, long-term prisoners might be moved there by the joint order of the Magistrate and the Assessor. We are now subject to be swamped with criminals as Hong Kong once was with lepers and lunatics. It seems anomalous that an exterritorial trading city like Shanghae should be feeding hundreds of long-term convicts from all over China because they chance to have been once caught in crime here, as if we were an independent territorial State. All we really want is that crime committed here shall be surely and adequately punished, then the sooner the criminal leaves us the better. If some such means as the above could be found, it would be a great relief to the Settlement. In Canton, the Viceroy used to undertake that the Magistrates of their native districts should take security that deportees from Hong Kong should not return. Meanwhile, if there is to be any detention of male prisoners at the Mixed Courts, some officer deputed by the Consuls ought to have authority to inspect and report; without such inspection, a foreign-fitted prison will become a disease trap, and a much more deadly place than one run in the native manner—corruptio optimi pessima. Besides, the principle would be broken that the Chinese Government has no direct executive power in the Settlement, but can only act through the Agents of the Treaty Powers, or their grantees, the Municipal Council.\n\n6. would omit \"more than once\" in the last line but one of the first paragraph, and add \"without giving due explanation to the Court\" after the word \"fails.\" The Court should have the power to issue a warrant at once if a criminal summons is disobeyed.\n\nPage 321",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 411301,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "page_number": 478,
        "title": "CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "content_text": "## Inclosure 2 in No. 1\n\n**Memorandum by Mr. Bourne**\n\nI HAVE read the proposed amendments of the Rules of the Mixed Court inclosed in Sir J. Jordan's despatch No. 103 of the 22nd November, 1906.\n\nThe provision 4 (6), that the Assessor must agree with the Magistrate before a prisoner can be released or execution can issue on a judgment—and this is, I conceive, the effect of the Rule—is a concession so valuable to British interests at Shanghae that the other provisions, excepting the question of charge of male prisoners dealt with below, are comparatively unimportant. The principle has been claimed in practice for some years, but never formally admitted by the Chinese higher authorities. It gives us nearly all we really need, or rather, nearly all that is to be got under the existing conditions, namely, that a case can be hung up until justice be done. However, I suggest below some small changes that would, in my opinion, be improvements.\n\n1 (6). As the Court is to apply the general law of the Chinese Empire, it seems unnecessary to quote particular Edicts which may be repealed or amended at any time. In view of the abolition of bambooing here, while it is going on nearly all over the Empire, it may be necessary some day to point out to the Chinese Government that Rules applicable only to the Foreign Settlement are not laws at all, and must have the sanction of the Treaty Powers.\n\n4 (a). It is desirable, in the case of Chinese sent for trial to the higher Chinese Courts for crimes committed in the Settlement, that the Consuls should have the right to depute an officer to watch the case as provided by the last clause of section 11 of the Chefoo Convention. Foreign interests might be held to be involved because we are concerned to see that crimes committed in the Settlement are duly punished. The result would be, I believe, that the feeling of reluctance in committing prisoners for trial would gradually disappear as the foreign community saw that the Chinese Criminal Courts were doing their duty.\n\nIn regard to the attendance of an Assessor, I may add that I recently told the Taotai, in reply to his question whether he could send a deputy to watch a case in the Supreme Court, that he could come or send whenever he thought Chinese interests were involved; that if he came himself he would be invited to sit on the Bench, and that a suitable seat in Court would be reserved for his deputy. I afterwards informed Sir H. de Sausmarez of this, and he quite agreed.\n\n4 (6). I understand these words to imply the following: \"The accused in a criminal and the defendant in a civil case being kept in custody until the appeal is heard, or, if bail be allowed, until such security is given for his appearance on appeal or for satisfaction of judgment as the Magistrate and Assessor, or, on their disagreement, the Taotai and Consul, may agree to be necessary.\"\n\nThe object is to prevent a Chinese prisoner or defendant from using an appeal as a means of escape or of delaying payment. Perhaps it might be thought enough if the Assessors were instructed so to interpret the rule.\n\n5. I think it is necessary to good order in the present state of Chinese administration that the Treaty Powers, by their agents, the Consuls, or by their grantees of certain powers by the Land Regulations; the Municipal Council should be in charge directly or by sufficient right of inspection of all male prisoners within the Settlement; although if the Chinese Government built a prison outside the Settlement, open at any time to the inspection of an officer deputed by the Consuls, long term prisoners might be moved there by the joint order of the Magistrate and the Assessor. We are now subject to be swamped with criminals as Hong Kong once was with lepers and lunatics. It seems anomalous that an exterritorial trading city like Shanghae should be feeding hundreds of long-term convicts from all over China because they chance to have been once caught in crime here, as if we were an independent territorial State. All we really want is that crime committed here shall be surely and adequately punished—then the sooner the criminal leaves us the better. If some such means as above could be found it would be a great relief to the Settlement. In Canton the Viceroy used to undertake that the Magistrates of their native districts should be security that deportees from Hong Kong should not return. Meantime, if there is to be any detention of male prisoners at the Mixed Court, some officer deputed by the Consuls ought to have authority to inspect and report; without such an inspection, a foreign-fitted prison will become a disease-trap, and a much more deadly place than one run in the native manner—corruptio optimi pessima. Besides, the principle would be broken that the Chinese Government has no direct executive power in the Settlement, but can only act through the Agents of the Treaty Powers, or their grantees—the Municipal Council.\n\n6. I would omit \"more than once\" in the last line but one of the first paragraph, and add \"without giving due explanation to the Court\" after the words \"fails.\"\n\nThe Court should have the power to issue a warrant at once if a criminal summons is disobeyed.\n\nThe last paragraph seems unnecessary, especially as torture never has been permitted in the Mixed Court.\n\n8. In place of the words \"any refusal to obey their lawful summons or order,” I would suggest \"any wilful disrespect to the Court, that is to the Magistrate or to the Assessor, or any unprofessional conduct.\" This appears preferable, and if these words could be inserted they would go to include the Assessor in the Court—a point that has sometimes been disputed by recalcitrant attorneys.\n\n9. In place of \"equity\" I would suggest \"equitable dealing,\" or better in place of \"commercial customs and equity,\" by the law merchant and local customs of trade, and failing these, by natural justice and equitable dealing.\" It would be well to avoid the word \"equity\" standing alone, or it may be argued some day that the expression meant the equity doctrine of English or United States' law.\n\n11. After \"regulations\" the words \"and practice of\" would strengthen the rule in our interest. It would legalize practice past, and, by analogy, future.\n\nSeveral of these proposed changes could be made in the English version with scarcely any variation in the Chinese text. Yet the English version will, in fact, tend to govern the practice of the Court, because it is accessible to the Bar and the public, and some of the changes are really radical, e.g., \"law merchant\" is an old term of convenient elasticity which conveys the idea of international mercantile custom, exactly what the Mixed Court has often to apply.\n\nI am sending a copy of this Memorandum to the Foreign Office.\n\n(Signed) F. S. A. BOURNE, Acting Judge.\n\nSupreme Court, December 10, 1906.\n\n## Inclosure 3 in No. 1\n\n**Mixed Court Rules Amendments. Memorandum by United States, German, and British Assessors**\n\nRule 6, paragraph 1 (a)—It is desirable that this should read \"No warrants, summons, or orders of the Mixed Court, &c.,\" so as to include a class of document of which frequent use is made.\n\n(b) If a party fails to appear when summoned more than once,\" the words \"more than\" should be omitted. The practice is to serve a summons twice, but it is desirable that the Court should be free to issue a warrant after one service if necessary.\n\nRule 6, paragraph 2—After \"warrants\" insert the words \"summons or orders\" to correspond with paragraph 1. After paragraph 2, insert a paragraph to the ... \n\n2 \n\ngaol (see Mr. Ker's despatch No. 7 of the 19th April, 1906; inclosure, note from Viceroy), \n\nIf, in addition to the provision that the Municipal Health Officer should assist in keeping the Mixed Court gaol under the best foreign sanitary regulations, a clause were added that a foreign female inspector should be allowed to visit the women's ward, the rule would meet all requirements. I have, in obedience to your instructions, consulted confidentially with certain British members of the Council, and have the honour to inclose copy of a letter which I have received from the Chairman, Mr. Henry Keswick, which he informs me embodies the views of the members consulted. \n\n**(Confidential.)** \n\nI have, &c. \n\n(Signed) PELHAM WARREN. \n\nPage 26 \nPage 3 \nPage 2",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 412224,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "page_number": 724,
        "title": "CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907",
        "content_text": "## 721 \n\n### Supplemental Report of the Attorney General on the case of Walter Jackson charged with mutiny on board the \"Satsuma\".\n\nThe simple procedure suggested by Mr Seward is a matter which it is beyond the powers of this Government to introduce; or of the American Minister at Pekin to approve.\n\nSo far as it affects American criminals fugitive from Hong Kong, I cannot find any legal authority under which this Government could claim the surrender of an American (or any other foreigner) by his Consul at Shanghai, if he were found at that port after committing a crime in this Colony. It seems to me that if a foreigner committed murder or any other crime in Hong Kong, and then escaped to a treaty port, he would be beyond our reach and would be safe; unless upon application to the Chinese authorities they allowed our officers to apprehend the offender, or seized him and handed him over to our officers.\n\nI think on the other hand that the American Consul at Shanghai would have a right under the treaty to demand the rendition of an American criminal who escaped from the Consular jurisdiction and was found in Hong Kong; but it would be the duty of the Governor to strictly carry out the mode of procedure adopted in England, of which perhaps the most important element is that the proof of the crime is submitted to the judicial investigation of a Magistrate: whose certificate of its sufficiency is an indispensable preliminary to the surrender of the fugitive.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 418851,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]",
        "page_number": 429,
        "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]",
        "content_text": "23\n\nplaintiff's duty to produce the warrant; his right of action accrued on his detention and no evidence was offered by the defendant to repel it. There was a good deal of argument as to whether this rule applied in case as well as trespass: but Best C.J. said it was impossible for the Judge, the warrant not having been produced, to say whether or not the action was commenced in proper form. Then, the warrant being produced, other questions arise, whether it is void or irregular, and whether the Magistrate is liable for excess of jurisdiction or not. Holroyd v. Doncaster () seems to me to lay down the keystone of the law: Smallwood () another case which was cited, comes after in proper sequence, and is not at variance with it. The defendant comes to a Magistrate and asks him to exercise his judgment; clearly if the Magistrate exceeds his authority the party who laid the complaint is not liable. Therefore I think I was right in assuming Holroyd v. Doncaster () to be good law. Now this still has to be linked on to the facts of this case. Once admit that the action for setting the foreign law in motion will lie, the rest is plain. Castrique v. Behrens ()\n\nNow at the trial the main point discussed was, whether, the action being for causing the plaintiff to be apprehended under a Justice's warrant, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to produce the warrant: Bayley J. who tried the case held that it was not, and the plaintiff recovered damages. But the defendant moved to enter a non-suit, and the point was fully dealt with by Best C.J. And the broad principle was laid down that the action will lie, but that the rules of law applicable to the corresponding action for setting English law in motion must apply. The rule specially referred to was that the plaintiff must show that the proceedings have terminated in his favour, if they are capable of doing so, why should this other rule be excluded? Many reasons may be advanced why it should not. Once admit that this action will lie, and that we must, with all becoming deference, criticise the procedure taken by the Consul.\n\nI say as I said to the jury, that perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, the English Courts, by the large basis of competence on which they act, do provide an effective means for preventing those who are subject to their jurisdiction from committing acts of intolerable injustice, and turning the Treaties of Tientsin into instruments of extortion. I cannot imagine anything more oppressive than for persons, whether they have a good case or not, to set their Consul in motion, and through him the Chinese authorities, get property seized, and when they are asked what it is all about, to calmly fold their arms and tell the plaintiff to find out for himself. The law is a just law: and it is primitive in its simplicity. You defendants say you have a right to seize, or the Chinese authorities have a right to seize, on your behalf: produce your warrant and let us see whether they have acted rightly or not. It may be that with the production of the warrant the case might collapse. But until you do so we cannot tell.\n\nIt was said that the plaintiffs by referring to the warrant in their pleadings admitted that there was a warrant, and that this obviated the necessity of production. This is exactly what happened in Holroyd v. Doncaster (), because there the plaintiffs' counsel had opened the case as one of arrest on illegal warrant. I am therefore of opinion that my direction to the jury on this point was right, and that the verdict must stand.\n\nThe last two points raised in the motion relate to the question of costs, but as I am of opinion that the motion fails on the other grounds raised, they need not be considered.\n\nIt may be however advisable for me to state the grounds on which I acted in making the order as to costs.\n\nIt was argued that the defendant, having succeeded in getting favourable answers to the 5 questions which were independent of the question of trespass, he was entitled to have the costs of those issues. But they were not issues. The reason why they were left to the jury at all was that if the verdict of trespass was set aside on the ground of misdirection the findings of the jury on the other questions would remain, and on them the defendant could move for judgment (as he has in fact done in his amended motion) and if successful he would obtain the whole costs of the\n\n426",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 436588,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-386 - Public Offices & Others - 1911",
        "page_number": 420,
        "title": "CO129-386 - Public Offices & Others - 1911",
        "content_text": "# SII \n\nArrest of offender without warrant. \n\nRecovery of fines and penalties. \n\nForfeiture. \n\nPenalties. \n\nImprisonment on non-payment of fines. \n\n10 \n\n(3)-The master of any ship or any other person who shall refuse to allow such Revenue Officer to board his ship or who shall in any way molest or interfere with such Revenue Officer or who shall refuse to exhibit such opium or chandu to such Revenue Officer shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars in addition to any other punishment to which he may have rendered himself liable under this or any other Proclamation. \n\n48. Any person found committing or attempting to commit an offence or employing, aiding or assisting any person to commit an offence against the provisions of this Proclamation may be arrested without warrant by any Police or Revenue Officer and taken with any articles found as to which the offence may have been committed or attempted to have been committed to a Police Station there to be dealt with according to law; and any person suspected to have about his person any article as to which an offence has been committed against the provisions of this Proclamation may be arrested by any Police or Revenue Officer without a warrant and taken to a Police Station there to be dealt with according to law. \n\n49. All convictions and fines and penalties under this Proclamation may be had and recovered in a summary way before a Police Magistrate. \n\n50. All opium or chandu with regard to which any offence has been committed against this Proclamation or against any regulation made, permit granted or order issued thereunder, or in respect of which any breach of the restrictions and conditions subject to or upon which any license has been granted under such order, together with the utensils, vessels, packages, carts, carriages and conveyances in which the same may be found, may be seized by any Police or Revenue Officer and may be forfeited by a Magistrate. \n\n51. Every omission or neglect to comply with or act done contrary to the provisions of this Proclamation or in breach of any regulation made, permit granted or order issued thereunder, or in breach of the restrictions and conditions subject to or upon which any license has been issued under such order, shall be deemed an offence against this Proclamation; and for every such offence not otherwise specially provided for, the offender shall, in addition to any forfeiture of the articles seized as hereinbefore provided for, be liable to the following penalties:- \n\n(i)-For every first offence, a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. \n\n(ii)-For every subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. \n\n52. The period of imprisonment imposed by a Magistrate in respect of the non-payment of any fine under this Proclamation or in respect of the default of a sufficient distress to satisfy any such fine shall be such period, of such description, simple or rigorous, as in the opinion of the Magistrate will satisfy the justice of the case, but shall not exceed in any case the maximum fixed by the following scale, viz.: \n\nWhere the fine does not exceed twenty-five dollars, the period shall not exceed two months; \n\nexceeds twenty-five dollars but does not exceed fifty dollars, four months; \n\nexceeds fifty dollars but does not exceed one hundred dollars, six months; \n\nwith an additional two months for every one hundred dollars after the first one hundred dollars of the fine, until a maximum period of twelve months is reached: Provided always that-- \n\n(a) if before the expiration of such period of imprisonment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied as is not less than proportional to the unexpired portion of such period, the imprisonment shall terminate; \n\n(b) Where a person is sentenced to both fine and imprisonment, and the fine not being paid is commuted into imprisonment, such imprisonment shall be in addition to the imprisonment ordered by the original sentence. \n\n53. When any person having been already convicted of any offence against this Proclamation is again convicted of an offence against this Proclamation, the imprisonment for such subsequent offence shall, unless otherwise ordered, be cumulative and shall commence at the expiration of any imprisonment to which such person shall have been previously sentenced. \n\n54. All fines received under this Proclamation, except those imposed by section thirty-one, shall, after the adjudication of a portion of the same not exceeding one-half at the discretion of the Magistrate to the informer, be paid to the Farmer; and all articles subject to restriction under this Proclamation seized and forfeited shall be given to the Farmer prosecuting the case, except when such articles are declared by the Magistrate to be unfit for use, in which case they shall be destroyed. All ships forfeited under this Proclamation shall, if the Governor so direct, be sold, and the proceeds of sale thereof be paid into the Treasury for the use of the State; and all fines levied against the Farmer shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the State. \n\n55. On any trial before any Magistrate and in any proceeding on appeal in the Sessions Court relating to the seizure of articles subject to restriction under this Proclamation, it shall be lawful for the Judge of the said Court and for the Magistrates, and they are hereby respectively required to proceed to such trials and to the hearing of such appeals on the merits of the case only, without reference to matters of form, and without enquiring into the manner or form of making any seizure, excepting in so far as the manner and form of seizure may be evidence on such merits. \n\n56. Every requisition received and a copy of every permit issued shall be entered in the Office of Imports and Exports at the District in a book or books; and the Farmer shall be entitled, without fee, to inspect and take extracts from the books of entry; and the production of any extracts from the said books, or of any certificate as to requisitions for and grants of permits, certified or purporting to be certified under the hand of the Registrar of Imports and Exports of the District or his Deputy, shall, on the trial of any person charged with an offence under this Proclamation, be proof of the facts set out in the said extracts and certificates, till the contrary be shown by or for the person so charged; and the absence of requisitions and of copies of permits from the said books shall be proof, till the contrary is shown in like manner, that application has not been made for the permit required, and that the permit has not been issued. \n\n57. It shall be lawful for the Governor to suspend or stop any prosecution or proceeding instituted or proposed to be instituted under this Proclamation, and to direct the refund of the whole or any part of any fine or penalty, and the restoration of any ships ordered to be forfeited, and the restoration of the whole or any portion of any articles ordered to be forfeited to any person from whom the same may have been taken. \n\nPage 418\n\nPage 420\n\nPage 421\n\n811",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-386 - Public Offices & Others - 1911.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 437601,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4]",
        "page_number": 257,
        "title": "CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4]",
        "content_text": "Production \n\nof Warrant of Transmission. \n\nProof of Identity. \n\nAuthentication of \n\nWarrant of Transmission, \n\nOffender may show Cause. \n\nCommittal by Magistrate. \n\nMagistrate to \n\nreport to \n\nGovernor. \n\nGovernor may \n\nup of the Offender to a Consular \n\nPerson, \n\nORDINANCE No. 14 of 1872. \n\nDetention of Foreign Offenders. \n\n1. There must be the Production before the Magistrate of the Warrant or other Official Document authorizing the Transmission of the Offender for Trial or Punishment as aforesaid; \n\n2. In every Case, Proof of the Identity of the Offender must \n\nbe given to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate; 3. The Warrant or other Official Document of Transmission shall be sufficiently proved if it purport to bear the Signature and Seal of a Diplomatic or Consular Officer in China or Japan of the Foreign Government, of which such Offender is a Subject, and for the Purposes of this Ordinance the Warrant or other Document so authenticated shall be deemed and taken to have been legally issued and shall be Evidence of all Facts stated therein; 4. The Offender shall be asked if he has any valid Cause to show why he should not be committed to Gaol to await the Order of the Governor, \n\nVI. If the Offender shall fail to show Cause to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate why he should not be committed, the Magistrate shall commit him to Gaol there to await the Order of the Governor. VII. The Magistrate before whom the Offender shall be brought under this Ordinance shall, at the Conclusion of the Case, send a Report thereon to the Governor. \n\nVIII. The Governor may, after the Committal of the Offender order Delivery to Gaol as aforesaid, issue an Order directed to the Superintendent of the Gaol for the Delivery up of the Offender to the Consular Officer of the said Foreign Government, or other Person mentioned Officer or other in such Order, at such Place within the Colony, and in such Manner as may be specified by the said Order for the Purpose of his Transmission as aforesaid,\" and the Offender shall be delivered up accordingly; and if he shall escape out of any Custody to which he shall be committed, or to which he shall be delivered as aforesaid, it shall be lawful to retake him in the same Manner as any Person accused of any Felony committed within the Colony may be retaken on an Escape. \n\nDelivery to Consular \n\nOfficer, &c. \n\nThe Governor may issue Order of Release. \n\nProtection to Magistrate, Gaoler, &c., acting under Ordinance. \n\nForms in \n\nbe used. \n\nIX. The Governor may at any Time before the Offender shall have been conveyed out of the Colony, issue an Order for his Release from Custody under this Ordinance, and thereupon the Offender shall be forthwith discharged from such Custody. \n\nX. If any Action be brought against a Magistrate, Gaoler, Officer of Police, Consular Officer, or any other Person whomsoever for anything done in obedience to, or in pursuance of any Warrant or Order issued under the Provisions of this Ordinance, the Proof of such Warrant or Order shall be a sufficient Answer to such Action; and the Defendant, on such Proof as aforesaid, shall be entitled to a Verdict or Judgment in his Favor, and shall also be entitled to his full Costs of Suit. \n\nXI. The Forms given in the Schedule to this Ordinance, or \n\nSchedule may Forms to the like Effect, with such Variations and Additions as Circumstances require, may be used for the Purposes therein indicated, and Instruments in those Forms shall (as regards the Form thereof) be valid and sufficient. \n\nORDINANCE No. 14 of 1872. \n\nDetention of Foreign Offenders. \n\nSCHEDULE. \n\nFORMS. \n\n1. \n\n(GOVERNOR'S WARRANT TO MAGISTRATES.) \n\nThe Foreign Offenders Detention Ordinance, 1872. \n\nBy His Excellency the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies. \n\nTo \n\nPolice Magistrates. Whereas Requisition has been duly made to me pursuant to the above Ordinance for the Apprehension and temporary Detention in Custody of one \n\nnow in this Colony \n\ncharged with [or convicted of] having committed the Crime of \n\nwithin the Territory of \n\nYou are hereby required to govern yourselves accordingly, and to aid in apprehending the said Offender and in committing him to Gaol for the Purpose of his being detained in Custody according to the Provisions of this Ordinance; and for so doing this shall be your Warrant. \n\nGiven under my hand and the Public Seal of the Colony, at Victoria, \n\nHongkong, this \n\nDay of \n\n187 L.S. \n\nBy Order, \n\nColonial Secretary. \n\n2. \n\n(WARRANT OF APPREHENSION.) \n\nWhereas His Excellency the \n\nGovernor, &c. \n\nThe Foreign Offenders Detention Ordinance, 1872, Hongkong | To all and each of the Constables of the Hongkong Police Force. \n\nto wit. \n\nGovernor and Commander-in-Chief of this Colony and its Dependencies, by Warrant under his Hand and Seal has signified that pursuant to the above Ordinance, Requisition has been duly made to him for the Apprehension and temporary Detention of \n\nnow in this Colony charged with [or convicted of] \n\nhaving committed the Crime of \n\nwithin the Territory of \n\none \n\nand has required the Police Magistrates to govern themselves accordingly and to aid in apprehending the said Fugitive: \n\nThis is therefore to Command you in Her Majesty's Name forthwith to apprehend the said Offender pursuant to the said Ordinance wherever he may \n\nbe found in this Colony, and bring him before me or any other Police Magistrate sitting in this Court for which this shall be your Warrant. \n\nGiven under my Hand and Seal, at the Magistrates Court of this Colony, \n\nthis \n\nDay of \n\nin the Year of Our \n\nLord, 187 \n\nL.S. \n\n3. \n\n(WARRANT OF COMMITTAL) \n\nPolice Magistrate. \n\nThe Foreign Offenders Detention Ordinance, 1872. \n\nHongkong To \n\nthe Constables \n\nto wit. \n\nof the Hongkong Police Force, and to the Superintendent of Victoria Gaol. Whereas on the \n\nin the Year of Our Lord, 187 \n\nDay of \n\none \n\nlate of \n\nwas brought before me one of the Police Magistrates of this Colony, under the Provisions of the Foreign Offenders Detention Ordinance, 1872.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 437605,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4]",
        "page_number": 261,
        "title": "CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4]",
        "content_text": "Page 953\n\nof prisoners being taken to Germany from Tsingtau or the German South Sea Islands or, as extradited prisoners, from Japan, the Philippines and practically for all places wherefrom steamers pass Hongkong on the way to Germany.\n\n953\n\nAs there are wanted by the Imperial Government in Tsingtau some deserters who, as far as indications go, would probably be transported as foreign offenders under the Ordinance No. 1 of 1872 through Hongkong, I have the honour to ask you kindly to inform me whether a cause shown by the offender to the Magistrate and based on the reason that the crime was a crime for which extradition could not be granted, is likely to be considered as \"valid cause\" for not committing the offender to gaol.\n\nThe Honourable\n\nThe Colonial Secretary,\n\nI have etc.,\n\n(Sd.) E. A. Voretzsch,\n\nImperial German Consul.\n\nHongkong.\n\n10\n\nPage 954\n\n \n\n \n\n ",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-389 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [3-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 437813,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]",
        "page_number": 19,
        "title": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]",
        "content_text": "v. Best 1909, 1 K.B. 692); but to remove all doubts on the point a sub-section to that effect is added to section 12.\n\nSection 4 is based on section 4(1) of Ordinance No.1 of 1882, the first two sub-sections of section 5 are based on section 13 of Ordinance No.10 of 1886 and the last sub-section of that section carries out the evident intention of Article 111 of the China and Corea (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1910. Although as a general rule natural born British subjects are outside the scope of any banishment Ordinance, it is manifestly unjust that when prisoners have been convicted by the consular courts of crimes committed in China and have been sent as a matter of convenience to serve their terms of imprisonment in the Gaol of the Colony, that this Colony should be unable to get rid of them again on their release.\n\nSection 6 is based on section 4(1) and (2) of Ordinance No.1 of 1882, section 7 on section 4(3), section 8 on section 5, section 9 on section 6 and section 10 on section 10 thereof. The increase in the amount of the sentence has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State's despatch of the 30th June, 1911. The provisions of sections 11 and 12 providing for the automatic banishment of Straits deportees have been likewise sanctioned. Certain sections of Ordinance No.1 of 1882 have not been re-enacted although by section 13 the whole of that Ordinance is repealed. The reason is that section 3 is seldom acted on and is deemed unnecessary, and that sections 6, 7 and 9 should not, it is submitted, be re-enacted as they are contrary to the express proviso to Article XIV of the Letters Patent of the 19th January, 1688, which prevents the Governor, (except where the offence has been of a political nature unaccompanied by any other grave crime), from making it a condition of any pardon or remission that the offender shall be banished.\n\nThe remaining enactments repealed by section 13 are now rendered unnecessary as the powers conferred by this consolidating Ordinance cover the cases they were designed to meet.\n\nSince the passing of this Ordinance it has been thought desirable to make express provision for giving full force and effect to banishment orders issued under the Repealed Enactments and a short bill has been drafted to carry out this object.\n\nTo Rees Davies\n\nEnclosure 3.\n\nA BILL\n\nENTITLED\n\nC.O. 17\n\n10255\n\nRFCR\n\nFUGE 27 MAY 12\n\nNo. 17-[30.4.12.]\n\nAn Ordinance to amend the Deportation Ordinance, 1912.\n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Deportation Amendment Ordinance, 1912.\n\n2. The Deportation Ordinance, 1912, is hereby amended in section 8 thereof as follows:\n\n(a) by the insertion of the figure (1) after the figure 8 at the commencement thereof.\n\n(b) by the insertion at the end thereof of the following new sub-section:\n\n(2.) Every person who has been prohibited by an order of banishment issued under the provisions of any enactment repealed by this Ordinance from residing or being within this Colony and who without lawful authority or excuse is in this Colony after the date of such order or after the time fixed for his departure and before the expiration of the term of his banishment, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year: Provided that in any case in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate on any such charge, pleads guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, instead of committing the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\n3. The Deportation Ordinance, 1912, is hereby further amended in section 10 thereof by the insertion after the word \"Ordinance\" in the fifth line of the words \"or by virtue of an order of banishment issued under any enactment repealed by this Ordinance\".\n\n4. Form 7 in the Schedule to the Deportation Ordinance, 1912, is hereby amended by the deletion of the word \"thereof\" and by the substitution therefor of the word \"hereof\".\n\nObjects and Reasons.\n\nThis Bill preserves the punishment for those banished under repealed Ordinances who return to the Colony before the expiration of their terms of banishment and punishes those who knowingly harbour or conceal them. It also corrects a clerical error in one of the forms in the Schedule to the Principal Ordinance.\n\nC. G. ALABASTER, Attorney General.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 441107,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-396 - Public Offices - 1912",
        "page_number": 443,
        "title": "CO129-396 - Public Offices - 1912",
        "content_text": "439 \n\n(see R. v Gonez, 9 Q.B.D. 93 & Sevarkar's case 2, K.B. 1930, 1074). The order nisi calls upon the Secretary of State, the committing Magistrate, and the foreign Government to shew cause why a writ should not issue. In practice, cause is, as a rule, only shewn by one of the Law Officers of the Crown; but it is probable that the foreign Government would be entitled to shew cause separately by counsel, if, for any reason, (e.g. for the purpose of supporting a charge which the Law Officer for the Crown had abandoned) this was deemed desirable. \n\nThis I believe to be the practice in proceedings for a habeas Corpus in extradition cases; but perhaps it may be considered advisable either to consult the Crown Office, or the Director of Public Prosecutions upon the matter. \n\nAs to how the principle involved is regarded in the United States, I venture to refer to para. 268 on page 307 of Moore on Extradition, 1891, vol. 1, where it is stated that \"both the alleged fugitive and the demanding Government may be represented at their own expense\" before the Magistrate. \n\nI am, \nSir, \nYour obedient Servant, \n(signed) A. de Rutzen",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-396 - Public Offices - 1912.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 442132,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-399 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [1-2]",
        "page_number": 259,
        "title": "CO129-399 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [1-2]",
        "content_text": "## Job kati \n\nILYAN ORAL TRUTO SUT \n\nit ni dwG vedon ad LILY ST \n\nC NOLJ RSUD ON \n\nto quis son moiaioeb ent \n\nna modeloeb nomland wipe.do? nud \n\n() \n\nsoletiva wa JWT (9) \n\n1: \n\nMi Vil \n\nDr (6) \n\n-mission of the alleged offence or identifying the document with the forgery of which the prisoner was charged. Osler, J., said: 'The evidence does not come up to what is required, and would not have justified the magistrate in committing the prisoner had the offence been committed in this country'. Re Harsha, (1906) 7 O. W. R. 97, at page 103. \n\n\"In Reg. v. Ganz, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 93, at page 105, Kanisty, J., says: 'In order to give the magistrate jurisdiction there must be a crime charged which is within the treaty, and the magistrate must have before him evidence such as would justify according to the law of England' (Canada) 'the committal for trial of the prisoner if the crime had been committed in England, and there must be a foreign warrant authorizing the arrest,' etc. \n\n*In this case the crime charged in the first warrant was that the forgery, and no doubt the same crime is charged in the second warrant. But now it is proved that further additional and new evidence has been discovered or will be forthcoming, whereby the deficiencies pointed out may and no doubt will be remedied. Having regard to the character and the nature of extradition proceedings, it appears perfectly competent to take this course, and no rights of the prisoner and no safeguards of the law are thereby invaded. \n\n\"The law is very distinct that where there is no evidence or no sufficient evidence before the magistrate in these extradition matters, he is held to be without jurisdiction, and a committal for surrender is in such conditions an unwarrantable act in excess of his jurisdiction. Reg. v. Maurer, (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 513, at pages 515, 516. \n\n\"The magistrate is charged with the duty of considering whether the evidence before him is sufficient according to law to justify the committal of the accused for trial: he is not to determine and dispose of the case by giving judgment upon it, but he states his opinion (if it be so) that there is a prima facie case and on that ground issues his warrant of committal.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-399 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [1-2].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 442439,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4]",
        "page_number": 7,
        "title": "CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4]",
        "content_text": "# REPORT\non an Ordinance entitled\nAn Ordinance to amend the\nMagistrate's Ordinance 1890.\n\nThe object of this Ordinance is to bring together in one enactment and to some extent also to enlarge the powers which Magistrates possess of inflicting corporal punishment upon male offenders convicted of certain classes of offence.\n\n## \nSection 1 of the Ordinance is formal.\n\n## \nSection 2 of the Ordinance repeals Section 65 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890 (The Magistrates' Ordinance 1890) which, as amplified by the recent Ordinance No. 30 of 1912 (The Magistrates Further Amendment Ordinance 1912) gave power to the Magistrates to inflict corporal punishment in certain cases; the Section is now replaced by a new Section giving similar powers the details of the effect of which are sub-joined in the succeeding paragraph.\n\n## \nPower of inflicting corporal punishment is given to the Magistrates under the present Ordinance in the following cases:\n\n(1) Under the provisions of Section 44 of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance 1865 (No. 2 of 1865). Section 44 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1865 deals with the forcible taking away or detention against their will of any man or boy, woman or female child for the purpose of stealing such person or obtaining a ransom for such person's liberation; the offence is a felony.\n\n(2) Under the provisions of Section 45 of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance 1865 (No. 2 of 1865). Section 45 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1865 deals with the unlawful forcible or fraudulent leading or taking or decoying or enticing away or detention of any child under the age of 14 years either with the intent of depriving any parent or person in lawful charge of such child of the possession of such child or with the intent to steal any article on the person of such child; it also deals with the reception or harbouring of any such child so dealt with with similar intent; the offence is a felony and under Section 45 of the old Ordinance the Court had power to inflict corporal punishment if the offender was a male under the age of 16 years.\n\n(3) Under the provisions of Section 52 of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance 1865 (No. 2 of 1865). Section 52 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1865 deals with the committing by any male person in public or private of any act of gross indecency with another male person; by Section 2 of the Magistrates Further Amendment Ordinance 1912 (No. 30 of 1912) the Magistrate already had power to inflict corporal punishment where the act of gross indecency was committed by a male person with another male person under the age of 13. This power therefore is in no way new.\n\n(4) Under the provisions of Section 29 of the Larceny Ordinance 1865 (No. 5 of 1865). Section 29 of the Larceny Ordinance 1865 deals with the stealing of any ornament or other chattel from the person of any woman or child; under the repealed Section 65 of the Magistrates Ordinance 1890 the Magistrate had power to inflict corporal punishment in such cases, so that no new feature is introduced in this part of the Ordinance.\n\n(5) Under the provisions of Section 107 of the Chinese Emigration Ordinance 1889 (No. 107 of 1889). Section 107 of the Chinese Emigration Ordinance 1889 deals with the imprisonment or detention by force, intimidation or fraud of any man or boy for the purpose of emigration or any other purpose. By Section 110 of the same Ordinance the offender, if a male and previously convicted either under the provisions of Section 107 or Section 108 of the Ordinance, could be punished with corporal punishment.\n\n(6) Under the provisions of Section 108 of The Chinese Emigration Ordinance 1889 (No. 1 of 1889). Section 108 of The Chinese Emigration Ordinance deals with the bringing, leading, taking, decoying or enticing by force, intimidation or fraud any man or boy into or away from the Colony for the purpose of emigration or for any other purpose; similarly here, under Section 110 of the same Ordinance, power to inflict corporal punishment existed in the case of a male offender who had been previously convicted either under Section 107 or Section 108 of the Ordinance.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 442440,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4]",
        "page_number": 8,
        "title": "CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4]",
        "content_text": "## Women and Girls Ordinance 1897 (No.4 of 1897)\nSection 7 of the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance 1897 deals with the committing of an indecent assault upon any female. Under the provisions of Section 2 of The Magistrates Further Amendment Ordinance 1912 (No. 30 of 1912) power already existed of inflicting corporal punishment in these cases; this part of the Ordinance therefore introduces nothing new.\n\n## Stowaways Ordinance 1903 (No.5 of 1903)\nUnder the provisions of Section 3 of the Stowaways Ordinance 1903, Section 3 of The Stowaways Ordinance deals with Stowaways and the aiders and abettors of Stowaways on board ship. To attempt to stop this troublesome practice it is proposed to give power in these cases to inflict corporal punishment.\n\n## Deportation Ordinance 1912 (No.9 of 1912)\nUnder the provisions of Section 8 of the Deportation Ordinance, 1912 deals with, in certain specified cases, the constant and repeated return of persons who have been deported. This is a cause of great difficulty and under this Ordinance power of inflicting corporal punishment is given in four different instances:\n| Instance | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | where an individual so returning had been previously convicted of a criminal offence by the Supreme Court of the Colony or in China |\n| (b) | where an individual so returning had twice been convicted before a Magistrate of a criminal offence in the Colony |\n| (c) | where an individual so returning had been convicted of a criminal offence, had returned prior to the expiration of period of his deportation and had been on his return convicted of so returning under the provisions of Section 8 of Deportation Ordinance 1912 and on again being deported and has again returned |\n| (d) | where an individual so returning had been convicted by a Magistrate in the Colony of an offence for which he was liable for the punishment of corporal punishment |\n\nIn my opinion this is an Ordinance to which His Excellency the Governor may properly assent in the name of His Majesty and on his behalf.\n\n**S.P.**\nJohn A. Bue\nAttorney General\n\nDRAFT.\n`RAK 28/4/13`\nCoMen's 28\n\nMINUTE.\nSir G. Fiddes, 2.5*\nSir H. Just.\nSir J. Anderson. 2\nLord Emmott.\nMr. Harcourt.\n\nI have to inform you that the Hom. will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance, with respect to `Ada no 3` which you have assented to and entitled an Act to amend the Magistrates Ord\" 1890.\n\n2. The Act empowers the Magistrate to inflict corporal punishment for offences against the Deportation and Stowaway's Ordinances in cases to which corporal punishment has not hitherto been applicable. In the circumstances stated.\n\n24.2.13.\nPage",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-400 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [3-4].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 443682,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]",
        "page_number": 120,
        "title": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]",
        "content_text": "# Enclosure 1\n\nSir,\n\nWater Police Station,  \nJune 24th, 1913.\n\nI have the honour to forward for your information the following particulars re a case of life saving.\n\nAbout 3.30 p.m. on the 22nd instant, shortly after the Ferry Launch \"Evening Star\" left the Hongkong Wharf, one of the Chinese passengers jumped overboard with the intention of committing suicide when a European passenger (Mr. G. W. Sewell of Deacon, Looker, Deacon and Harston) dived from the top deck of the Ferry and went to the rescue and, in spite of the would-be suicide's struggles, succeeded in holding him up until the Ferry Boat went alongside and enabled the crew and passengers to pick both men up.\n\nThe would-be suicide, named Tsu Fuk, aged 19 years, servant boy of Beaconsfield Arcade, when brought to Station, stated that he was sick and tired of life; he was sent to Hospital and was discharged on the 23rd instant and will be brought before the Police Magistrate this morning.\n\nI attach a statement from Major Ralph of the 4th Rajputs, who was an eye witness.\n\nI have etc.,  \n(Sd.) J. Kerr,  \nInspector.\n\nThe Hon. Captain Superintendent of Police.\n\nPage 120  \nPage 121",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 444303,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 300,
        "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "# SOTTO CASE\n## 299 THE DEFENDANT DISCHARGED\n### \"1 SUCCEEDS ON THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA\n\nof the crime of abduction at Cebu. United States.\n\nWith regard to Section 16 and which had each of won in 1821 as made by Congress, all the military civil and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the existing Government should be vested in such persons and exercised in such manner as the President should direct. The Act of Congress with respect to Florida passed on March 30th, 1822, Congress passed the Act establishing a territorial Government in Florida (chapter 13 of the first session of the 17th Congress). Florida continued to be a territory until 1845, when it was admitted to the Union. Roughly speaking, in the case in which the Government of a foreign Colony is in a British Colony, there is an express distinction made by the Act. The section is so drafted that it seems doubtful whether the requisition could be made to the Secretary of State by the diplomatic representative in England.\n\nThe marginal note to this paragraph is \"Foreign Colonies,\" and Sir Francis Piggott makes it very clear that the words in Section 25 \"every Colony, dependency, and constituent part of a Foreign State\" refer to Foreign Colonies. The Philippine Islands were first acquired from Spain by military occupation and finally by the Treaty of Paris. After the Treaty of Paris and until March 2nd, 1901, the source of Government in the Philippines was the President of the United States. On the last date Congress passed an Act by way of a proviso in an Appropriation Bill, chapter 803 of the 56th Congress, which is commonly known as the Spooner Amendment, providing that all military, civil and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippines should until otherwise provided by Congress be vested in such persons and exercised in such manner as the President should direct.\n\nAt this point, I would call attention to the fact that while the Treaty of Friendship of 1819 provided for the future admission to citizenship of the inhabitants of Florida, the Treaty of Paris specifically left the determination of civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the ceded territory to Congress. On July 1st, 1902, an Act was approved temporarily to provide for the administration of the affairs of Civil Government in the Philippine Islands and for other purposes (chapter 1369 of the first session of the 57th Congress). The Philippines are still governed under the provisions of that Act.\n\nThe defendant, Vicente Sotto, was charged before me under the Extradition Act 1870 of being convicted of the commission of the crime of abduction at Cebu in the Philippine Islands within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Mr. Hodgson, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Brutton for the defence. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Brutton, solicitor for the defendant, applied for the discharge of the defendant on the grounds that the Crown had not made out their case against the defendant.\n\nThe first ground alleged was that the prosecution had not proved that the Philippine Islands were a constituent part of the United States. The second point was that the documents were not properly authenticated. The third was that there was no evidence of an extraditable crime, and the fourth was that under Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act the matter was res judicata. The fifth point was that the Orders in Council have not been proved. This last point was afterwards abandoned by the defence.\n\nI should here mention that the present defendant was charged in April, 1912, with respect to extradition proceedings. The offence, which was that of abduction, was exactly the same as the present charge. It was held with respect to the Magistrate (Mr. E. A. Irving) made an order committing him. The defendant was then brought up on a Writ of Habeas Corpus and discharged by the Full Court. The case is reported in the Hongkong Law Reports, Vol. VII., p.139.\n\n## Evidence Given at the Trial\nMr. T. C. Welsh, Assistant Executive Secretary of the Philippine Islands, was called as a witness for the prosecution. His evidence as to the political status of the Philippine Islands in relation to the United States was as follows:\n\nThe Federal Republic, originally consisting of thirteen individual States which was sovereign and all of which at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were united in a confederacy, the central government of which operated only upon the States and not upon the citizens. By the adoption of the constitution a central government was formed which the individual States yielded their attributes of sovereignty with respect to foreign relations and to some extent with respect to their relations with each other, each retaining its sovereignty with respect to the regulation of its internal affairs.\n\nBy the constitution also the Federal Government obtained full powers and direct sovereignty over the citizens of the several States. About the time that the constitution was adopted there was ceded by the several States to the United States a large amount of territory the title to which was claimed by the States. By the constitution the Congress was given power to regulate and govern the territory and other property of the United States and also the power to declare war. The treaty making power was placed in the hands of the President subject to confirmation by the Senate, which is the Upper House of Congress.\n\nCongress has from time to time provided various forms of government for the territory which I have mentioned as well as for other territory which had come into the possession of the United States by treaty or by the voluntary offer of the inhabitants of such territory. The instances of this are sufficiently numerous to have established a customary rule of practice with regard to the treatment of such territory. The case of Florida, which was instanced in the cross-examination of Mr. Anderson, furnishes an early example of the practice which has obtained.\n\nIn that case, after the cession by Spain the President succeeded the King of Spain as the source of government until such time as Congress should exercise its constitutional function of providing a Government of its own devising further in accordance with the United States Constitution and the Treaty, which provided that the inhabitants should be admitted to the privileges of citizens of the United States.\n\nI would call attention to the fact that while the Treaty of Paris specifically left the determination of civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the ceded territory to Congress. Congress has among other things legislated as to the status of the inhabitants of the Philippines, granting them what is called Philippine citizenship and authorising the naturalisation into Philippine citizenship; it has extended to the Philippines most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights and has extended other constitutional provisions.\n\nBy Exhibit 13 it extended to the Philippine Islands the provisions of the Revised Statutes with respect to extradition between the United States and foreign countries, and it follows that the provision of Article VI. of the Constitution, respecting the force of treaties, are in vigour in the Philippines at least to the extent of extradition.\n\nMr. Brutton first referred me to Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is as follows:- \"25.-For the purpose of this Act, every colony, dependency, and constituent part of a foreign State, and every vessel of that State, shall (except where expressly mentioned as distinct in this Act) be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of and to be part of such foreign State.\"\n\nMr. Brutton then stated \"The Philippine Islands are not a Colony or dependency, therefore the prosecution must prove that the Philippine Islands are a constituent part of the United States.\" Mr. Anderson, Consul General of the United States, had given evidence to the effect that the Philippine Islands were neither a dependency nor a Colony.\n\nThe question which I have to decide is what is the construction to be placed on Section 25 of the Act, and also what is its scope and object. I am of opinion that the words Colony, dependency and constituent part of a Foreign State refer to dependencies and to dependencies alone and do not refer in any way to the parent Foreign State.\n\nIf you look at the last line of the section we find these words \"to be part of such Foreign State.\" If the words \"constituent part of a Foreign State\" referred to the parent Foreign State it would not be deemed to be part of such Foreign State. The scope and object of the section is to make it quite clear that an Foreign State includes dependencies.\n\nSir Francis Piggott in his work on Extradition refers to Section 25 in three places, on pages 164, 166 and 179. Pages 164 and 166 refer to that portion of Section 25 which relates to foreign ships. The first paragraph, on page 179 is, as follows:-\n\n## Evidence of Consul General Anderson\nOn cross-examination on the 16th June, 1913: \n\n...\n\nPage 300\nPage 301",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 444306,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]",
        "page_number": 303,
        "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]",
        "content_text": "#180\n\nthem for murder and piracy was not a legal warrant and one beyond his jurisdiction, and that therefore the first order of the Lord Chief Justice for the release of Kwok A Sing was right and ought to be affirmed.\" In Stallmann's case, which was an Extradition case, it was also held that the warrant upon the inquiry before the Magistrate with respect to the first committal was itself invalid and the Court ordered the applicant to be set at liberty. In both Kwok A Sing's case and Stallmann's case it was decided that the second committal could be made. The warrant of committal by Mr. Irving was a valid order and was within his jurisdiction. The offence in the present case is exactly the same offence as in the case before Mr. Irving.\n\nI was referred by Mr. Hodgson, Crown Solicitor, to two decisions with respect to a writ of Habeas Corpus in Extradition proceedings. The first of the two cases referred to by Mr. Hodgson was in re Harsha, American and English Annotated cases, Vol. VI., 496. This is a Canadian case and was decided in 1906. The head note in this case is as follows:- \"Where a person has been arrested in Extradition proceedings and released on habeas corpus on the ground that there is no proper evidence showing the commission of the alleged offence or identifying the alleged forged document he may be re-arrested in subsequent extradition proceedings for the same offence upon the discovery of further and new evidence to supply the deficiencies.\"\n\n\"The doctrine of res judicata, former jeopardy, and autrefois acquit are not applicable to extradition proceedings.\"\n\n\"The English Habeas Corpus Act (31 Charles II., C2, paragraph 6) does not apply to extradition proceedings.\"\n\nOur law is different. The Habeas Corpus Act does apply to extradition proceedings. The second habeas corpus in Stallmann's case was under Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act. The prisoner was discharged with respect to the first proceedings by the High Court of Calcutta pursuant to a section in the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1888, which is similar to habeas corpus proceedings. In Kwok A Sing's case the second habeas corpus was under the Act. It does not state in the report whether the first habeas corpus was under the Act or at Common Law. It merely used the words \"habeas corpus.\" I might mention that the first committal was in respect of extradition proceedings. In the second committal Kwok A Sing was to take his trial at the Supreme Court of Hongkong on a charge of piracy jure gentium. In re parte Woodhall (20 Q.B.D. 827) it was decided by the Court of Appeal that extradition was a criminal matter. This was in 1888, and it was the first time that any of our Courts of Law had decided that extradition was a criminal matter. The next case referred to by Mr. Hodgson was in re Kelly 26 Federal reporter, p852. This is an American case and was decided in 1886. The head note is as follows:\n\n\"Where a party accused of crime has been arrested and had an examination before commissioner duly appointed and became discharged by order of the Executive on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify his extradition for the crime charged, he MAY be again arrested for the same offence and compelled to submit to a second examination without the issuance of a second mandate by the Executive.\n\nIf the commissioner should commit the prisoner upon the second examination and it should be apparent that he had no clearer or more convincing testimony as to the truth of the charge than was presented at the former examination, the circuit court has power to review his testimony and correct his error.\"\n\nWith respect to the above case, I need only say that it has no connection with the present case, which relates solely to Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act.\n\nAs I have just stated, my decision in Point 4 is given in favour of the defendant, having regard solely to the construction to be placed on Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act. It is the same offence in the two cases. The order in the first case was a valid order and within the jurisdiction of the committing Magistrate. Under these circumstances, the section states that such person shall not be again imprisoned or committed. My decision with respect to Point 4 is therefore in favour of the defendant. I order the defendant to be discharged.\n\nAt the conclusion of the reading of the decision the Crown Solicitor asked:\n\n\"Do I understand that in a nutshell your judgment is in favour of the Crown, but that the matter is *res judicata*, and you order the defendant's discharge, on that point?\"\n\nMr. Hazeland-Yes.\n\n(To Mr. Brutton)-\"You were going to raise a point about a political crime.\"\n\nMr. Brutton-\"Not now, your Worship.\"\n\nMr. Hazeland (to the Crown Solicitor)-\"Are you going to file an application for a case stated?\"\n\nMr. Hodgson-\"I do not know yet. I must consider that.\"\n\nMr. Brutton-\"Then in that case I hope your Worship will hear me on the point that there can be no appeal.\"",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 445210,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-405 - Public Offices - 1913",
        "page_number": 284,
        "title": "CO129-405 - Public Offices - 1913",
        "content_text": "## 283\n\n\n2 \n\nflagrant breach of the additional article to the Chefoo Agreement, but it was also a direct violation of the Opium Agreement of 1911.\n\nThe excuse now put forward is unworthy of a responsible State Department, and His Majesty's Minister requests that the Wai-chiao Pu will move the president to deliver a severe reprimand to the tutu of Anhui for his orders which have misled the li-kin station at Wan Chih into committing a gross breach of treaty.\n\nPeking, January 10, 1913.\n\n(Translation.)\n\n## Enclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n**Memorandum communicated to Sir J. Jordan.**\n\nTHE Wai-chiao Pu, who have had under consideration the memorandum of the 19th December of last year from His Majesty's Minister on the subject of the detention and burning of Indian opium in Anhui province, find themselves quite unable to admit the justice of the allegations made therein, and beg to offer the following remarks in refutation:\n\nThe memorandum observes that \"the Wai-chiao Pu insinuate that the question of redress is one between the Chinese Government and its own subjects. They forget or choose to ignore the fact that His Majesty's Government is the other party to the agreement and is justified in exacting proper reparation for its violation.\" Stringent suppression of opium in China has been going on for several years, and the fact that the import of Indian opium is still allowed is due to respect for the agreement between Great Britain and China, while this destruction in Anhui of seven chests of Indian opium resulted simply from the separation of the goods from the documents, and the province was simply upholding strictly the right, in accordance with the agreement, to regulate.\" This can hardly be stigmatised as \"forgetting\" or \"ignoring,\" and as there has been no violation of the agreement, there is no occasion to speak of reparation.\n\n4 \n\nFurther, his Excellency's memorandum interprets the circumstances of the cessation of business by the Wuhu opium merchants as proving the imposition of restrictions. This is totally at variance with the information in the possession of the Wai-chiao Pu, who received on the 11th December a telegram from the Anhui tutu quoting a report from the Wuhu Opium Business Office that, inasmuch as their business was a contravention of morality, they had unanimously decided voluntarily to enter into a common agreement binding them all to close their business by the end of the 10th moon of the present year (lunar calendar) (8th December, 1912) and adopt some other livelihood in its place, as an example to other ports. They also declared that the opium merchants in the port had always contracted for opium with the native firms in Shanghai, and had never had any direct business dealings with foreign merchants. This declaration was submitted by the police office at the port, for purposes of record, to the tutu, who sent up the information as to the voluntary cessation of opium business at the port.\n\nThis universal cessation of the merchant's business was, according to their own showing, a genuinely unanimous and spontaneous step, while the making of the agreement, coupled with the request for its registration would seem to stultify the idea that the movement arose out of restrictions imposed by the province. The assertion that the head of the Opium Prohibition Bureau stated that he would arrest everyone purchasing opium is presumably an erroneous rumour and hardly capable of proof. Again, the memorandum states that \"the responsibility for the uniform disregard of the opium agreement now rests with the Central Government, who have by the publication of the Penal Code and by other measures of encouragement, done much to reduce the treaty to a dead letter.\"\n\nThe publication of laws for the suppression of opium is expressly conceded by the agreement, and laws should rightly be of equal effect with treaties; moreover, the laws published by Government have been auxiliary to, not subversive of, the agreement, the real benefit of which to the cause of opium suppression in China is fully appreciated by the Central Government and provinces alike, and by no means ignored, as the Wai-chiao Pu can confidently affirm.\n\n**WAI-CHIAO PU.**\n\nPeking, January 10, 1913.\n\n3 \n\n## Enclosure 3 in No. 1.\n\n**Memorandum communicated to Wai-chiao Pu.**\n\nSIR JOHN JORDAN has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum of the 10th January from the Wai-chiao Pu, relating to the detention and burning of Indian opium in the province of Anhui and to the cessation of business by the Wuhu opium merchants.\n\nSir John Jordan would observe that the Opium Agreement of 1911 was a perfectly voluntary compact. So favourable were the terms to China that the arrangement made with regard to total extinction and prohibition by provinces was pronounced in the Imperial decree of the 9th May, 1911, to be entirely satisfactory, and the decree concluded with an acknowledgment of the kind assistance of a friendly Power.\n\nThis is the agreement which the present Chinese Government have openly flouted. Sir John Jordan regrets that he is compelled to repeat deliberately that the Central and Provincial Governments are alike responsible for this grave violation of international engagements. He repeats, moreover, that the responsibility for the uniform disregard for the opium agreements now rests with the Central Government. The reason for this statement has been given in the previous memorandum—the publication of the Penal Code and other measures of encouragement.\n\nAn instance will illustrate the Minister's meaning. Sir John Jordan requested that the circular instructions issued by the Wai-wu Pu in June 1911 should be reissued under the authority of a presidential order. He was given clearly to understand that this would be done. The circular instructions, as the Wai-chiao Pu will remember, were explanatory of the purport of the Opium Agreement of 1911, and were issued at the time to avoid misunderstanding in the future. They included a statement peculiarly applicable to the condition of affairs in the province of Anhui at the time of the detention and destruction of the seven chests of opium at Anch'ing. The statement reads: \"But if in any province cultivation has not yet entirely ceased and there are still a large number of smokers, no forcible repressive measures must be taken in that province in respect of the trade in and movement of foreign or native opium.\" The presidential order of the 25th December, however, omitted this and other important statements, with the result that opium suppression is now attended with scenes of violence which are unusual in civilised communities.\n\nIn their memorandum under acknowledgment the Wai-chiao Pu maintain that the regulation of the trade in the province of Anhui was simply upholding strictly the right to \"regulate\" in accordance with the agreement. The Wai-chiao Pu have forgotten or have chosen to ignore the meaning of \"regulate,\" so explicitly given in the circular instructions of June 1911, which laid down that \"in future the regulation of the trade must be restricted to the issue of smoking certificates,\" and thus the cause of opium suppression will benefit without contravening the agreement.\n\nSir John Jordan feels sure that the Wai-chiao Pu give him credit for more knowledge of China than to expect that he will accept the Anhui tutu's report on the voluntary cessation of the opium business at Wuhu. Voluntary declarations of this kind are obtained and enforced by methods perfectly familiar to every foreign resident in China.\n\nHis Majesty's Minister now repeats his demand for the payment of compensation for the opium destroyed, and the publication in the province of Anhui of a proclamation embodying the terms of the circular instructions of June 1911.\n\nPeking, January 17, 1913.\n\n## (No. 4.)\n\n## Enclosure 4 in No. 1.\n\n**Consul-General Fraser to Sir J. Jordan.**\n\nSir,\n\nShanghai, January 8, 1913. IN confirmation of my telegrams Nos. 163 and 164 of the 23rd and 28th December, 1912, I have the honour to state that the native authorities have completely stopped all sale of Indian opium outside the foreign settlements at this port.\n\nThe native dealers in the Chinese parts of Shanghai were first compelled to make a return of their stocks, and were then notified that any opium left over by noon on the 31st December would be confiscated. The latter intimation was made by the magistrate,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-405 - Public Offices - 1913.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 447576,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "page_number": 118,
        "title": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "content_text": "TO accompany No. I.\n\nHon. C.S.\n\nThe hearing before the Magistrate has just concluded, and his reserved decision is expected this week. If he decides to commit, I understand that the defence will apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and they have expressed their intention, if the Supreme Court is against them, of applying to the Privy Council also.\n\n2. I suppose that His Majesty's Minister should be asked to communicate the above to the Chinese Government, and should also be asked to explain to the Chinese Government shortly what our procedure is, namely, that a fugitive criminal whose surrender is demanded must first be brought before a Magistrate, who hears the evidence offered tending to show the fugitive's guilt, and who, if such evidence is sufficient, makes an order committing the fugitive to gaol to await the order of the Governor; that upon the expiration of 15 days from such order of the Magistrate the Governor may hand over the fugitive, provided that the latter has not in the meantime applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, a form of procedure which acts to some extent as an appeal from the Magistrate's decision; and that if the fugitive does apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, he cannot be surrendered until the Supreme Court has given a decision upholding the Magistrate's order. From this the Chinese Government will see that, while in some States extradition is an executive act, in the British dominions it is partly an executive and partly a judicial act, and that so long as the matter is before the Courts, the functions of the executive are practically in abeyance, no interference by the executive with the judiciary in the exercise of their functions being permissible. H. V. Minister might also perhaps refer to Ordinance No. 7 of 1889 of the Ordinances of Hongkong as regulating the procedure here.\n\n(Ed.) J. H. Kemp,\n\nCrown Solicitor.\n\n5.1.14.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 447578,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "page_number": 120,
        "title": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "content_text": "COPY.\n\n(To accompany No. III)\n\nTranslation.\n\nTai Chiao Pu to H. M. Minister.\n\n119\n\n11289\n\nSir,\n\nPeking, February 3rd, 1914.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's Note of the 29th January with reference to the extradition of Chung Hsiu-nan. I would observe that Article 21 of the Treaty of Tientsin states as follows: \"If criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hongkong they shall upon due requisition by the Chinese authorities be searched for, and on proof of their guilt be delivered.\"\n\nAgain in the Regulations of 1850 for the extradition from Hongkong of fugitive criminals it is stated that \"after enquiry before the Police Magistrate if it appears probable that the criminal has been guilty of the offence with which he is charged, the criminal may be committed to prison pending the Governor's decision\".\n\nIn the present case the Hongkong Police Magistrate has heard the evidence of Chung Hsiu-nan's guilt and has made an order committing him to gaol; and the Chinese Government has applied for his extradition.\n\nIt follows from the passages above quoted that the Governor should issue an order that he be handed over to the Chinese local authorities for trial and punishment, according to Treaty; he should not permit him to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus or appeal to the Privy Council in order to conform to the provisions of the Treaties hitherto observed.\n\nI have the honour to request Your Excellency to communicate with the Governor of Hongkong in order that he may order the speedy extradition of the criminal in question, with a view to his trial and punishment.\n\nI avail...\n\n(Seal of the Wai Chiao Pu.)\n\nPage 120\n\nPage 121",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 447660,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "page_number": 202,
        "title": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]",
        "content_text": "-2-\n\n(e) in the case of any person who is in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council a natural-born or naturalized subject of His Majesty's save and except in the case of any person who was born in the Colony of parents neither of whom were British subjects and who in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council is dangerous to the peace and good order of the Colony and who has not obtained a certificate of his British birth or who is not registered in a British Consulate in China as a person entitled to British protection in China.\n\nProvided that any Deportation Order issued under the provisions of this paragraph shall be forthwith reported to the Secretary of State.\n\n198\n\nSection 8 of the Deportation Ordinance 1912, Amendment of Section 8 of Ordinance No.9 of 1912.\n\n(a) by the deletion of the words\n\n\"and provided also that in any case in which the person, when brought before a Magistrate on any such charge, pleads guilty thereto, the Magistrate may deal summarily with the case and sentence such person to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year\"\n\nat the end of sub-section (1) thereof, and by the substitution therefor of the words\n\n\"and provided also that in any case in which the person is brought before the Magistrate on any such charge the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, deal summarily with the case and sentence such person to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year\",\n\n(b) by the deletion of the words\n\n\"provided that in any case in which the prisoner when brought before a Magistrate on any such charge, pleads guilty thereto, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to deal summarily with the case, instead of committing the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court\".\n\nat the end of sub-section (2) thereof, and by the substitution therefor of the words\n\n\"provided that in any case in which the prisoner is brought before a Magistrate on any such charge the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, deal summarily with the case and sentence such prisoner to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year\".",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 469664,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917",
        "page_number": 538,
        "title": "CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917",
        "content_text": "22\n\nDefinition.\n\nPassenger ship to be surveyed once a year.\n\nM. S. Act, 1894. s. 271 (1) (a).\n\nPassenger ship not to clear without certificates of survey.\n\nIb. s. 271 (1) (b) (2).\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\nunder this section may, by direction of the committing Stipendiary Magistrate, be sent on board his ship or may be placed at the disposal of the consular officer at whose request he dealt with the case, on the written application of such officer, either on or before the expiration of his term of imprisonment.\n\nPART III.\n\nPASSENGER SHIPS.\n\nSurveys.\n\n10. (1) In this Part \"passenger ship\" means every ship exceeding 60 tons register carrying passengers from, to, or between places in the waters of the Colony.\n\n(2) Every passenger ship which carries more than 12 passengers shall be surveyed once at least in each year in the manner provided in this section, except-\n\n(a) British ships which have from the United Kingdom or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey and other certificates equivalent to those required under this section, the same being in force and applicable, and which have been issued under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts or any enactment in force in any British possession; and\n\n(b) Foreign ships which have from their own country, or from the country from whose flag they have been transferred, or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey and other certificates equivalent to those required in the case of British ships; Provided that, in the event of any question arising as to the sufficiency of any foreign certificate to protect the ship holding the same from survey under this section, such question shall be referred for settlement to the Governor-in-Council, whose decision thereon shall be final.\n\n(3) No passenger ship which carries more than 12 passengers shall clear out or proceed on any voyage from this Colony unless the master has the certificates as to survey required under this Part, the same being in force and applicable to the voyage on which the ship is about to proceed, or, in the case of a foreign ship, certificates equivalent to those required in the case of a British ship. Any passenger ship attempting to go to sea may be detained until such certificates as aforesaid are produced to the Harbour Master.\n\n* As amended by No. 2 of 1909, No. 9 of 1900, No. 30 of 1911, No. 50 of 1911, No. 16 of 1912, No. 17 of 1912 and No. 4 of 1912 Supp. Sched.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\n533\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\n23\n\nsurveyors.\n\nto inspect\n\n(4) The Governor may appoint such number of fit and proper persons to be Government surveyors for the purposes of this Ordinance as he may think proper, and appoint their duties, and may remove any of them, and may fix the remuneration to be received by them.\n\n(5) It shall be lawful for the said surveyors, in the execution of their duties, to go on board any ship to which this section applies, at all reasonable times, and to inspect the same or any part thereof, or any of the machinery, boats, equipments, or articles on board thereof, or any certificates of the master, mate, or engineer, to which the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts or any Ordinance apply, not unnecessarily detaining or delaying the ship from proceeding on any voyage; and if, in consequence of any accident to any such ship or for any other reason, they consider it necessary to do so, to require the ship to be taken into dock for the purpose of surveying the hull thereof; and any person who hinders any such surveyor from going on board any such ship, or otherwise impedes him in the execution of his duty under this Ordinance, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 25 dollars.\n\n(6) The said surveyors shall execute their duties under the direction of the Governor, who may make regulations as to the mode or manner in which the surveys hereinafter mentioned shall be made, and as to the notice to be given to the surveyors when surveys are required, and as to the amount and payment of the fees due and of any expenses incurred by such surveyors in the execution of their duties, and may thereby determine the person by and to whom and the conditions under which such payment shall be made; and, until such regulations are made the said surveyors shall execute their duties in accordance with the Instructions to Surveyors issued by the Board of Trade.\n\n(7) Every surveyor who demands or receives, directly or indirectly, from the owner, agent, or master of any ship surveyed by him under the provisions of this Ordinance or from any other person, and any such owner, agent, master, or other person who offers or gives any fee or remuneration whatsoever (otherwise than is permitted by this Ordinance) to any such surveyor for or in respect of such survey shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 250 dollars.\n\n(8) The owner, agent, or master of every passenger ship being within the waters of the Colony shall, where such ship comes within the meaning of this section, cause the same to be surveyed by one or more of the Government surveyors, who shall thereupon, if satisfied, give ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 469700,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917",
        "page_number": 574,
        "title": "CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917",
        "content_text": "92\n\nTable B. Exhibition of licence.\n\nDelivery up of licence in specified circumstances.\n\nP180-\n\nInterpreta-tion.\n\nReporting of name of master, etc., engaged;\n\n29 discharged.\n\nProduction of certificate on engage-ment, etc.\n\nReporting of discharge by master, etc.\n\nRecord of engagements and discharges.\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\n15. The owner of every licensed steamship not exceeding 60 tons shall cause the licence to be framed and exhibited in a conspicuous part of the cabin, so as to be legible to all persons on board the said vessel.\n\n16. If the owner of a licensed steamship not exceeding 60 tons wishes to employ his vessel outside the waters of the Colony, for purposes other than that for which the licence was granted, the licence shall be delivered to the Harbour Master to be retained by him during the period of such employment.\n\nII. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE ENGAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE OF THE MASTERS AND ENGINEERS OF STEAMBOATS UNDER 60 TONS.\n\n17. In these Regulations the word \"launch\" means a steamship under 60 tons burden.\n\n18. Every launch owner shall report to the Harbour Master the name of, and the number of the certificate held by, every launch master and engineer engaged by him, within 48 hours of such engagement.\n\n19. Every launch owner shall report to the Harbour Master the name of, and the number of the certificate held by, every launch master and engineer, discharged by him, giving the reason for such discharge, within 48 hours of such discharge.\n\n20. Every launch master and engineer holding a certificate shall, on engagement, produce such certificate to the Harbour Master for registration, and shall pay for such registration a fee of 50 cents.\n\n21. Every launch master and engineer shall, on discharge, report such discharge to the Harbour Master within 48 hours of such discharge, and shall produce his certificate.\n\n22. A record shall be kept in the Harbour Master's office, setting forth the dates of each engagement and discharge of each certificated launch master and engineer, the reason for his discharge, and all complaints and charges against him, and any punishments awarded in respect thereof by the Marine or other Magistrate, or by the Harbour Master. Such record shall be open to inspection by launch owners or their representatives.\n\nCertificates of competency of masters and engineers of steamships not exceeding 60 tons, while under way in the waters of the Colony, are always to be on board the vessel, ready to be produced for inspection by the Harbour Master or his deputy, or by any officer of police.\n\n24. These regulations shall not apply to launches belonging to His Majesty or in the service of any foreign Government.\n\n25. Any launch owner, master, or engineer committing any breach of these regulations, shall, for each breach, be liable, upon summary conviction before a Stipendiary Magistrate, to a fine not exceeding 25 dollars.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\nIII. REGULATIONS FOR MOTOR BOATS.\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\n569\n\n93\n\nTable E.\n\n26. The preceding Regulations for steamships not exceeding 60 tons shall apply to all motor boats in the waters of the Colony, except the provisions relating to \"Machinery and Boiler,\" for which the following provisions are substituted:\n\nMachinery.\n\n(a) That the machinery of the vessel is sufficient for the service intended and is in good condition.\n\n(b) The time for which such machinery will be sufficient.\n\n(c) That the engineer of the vessel possesses a certificate of competency as \"Motor Engineer\" from the Harbour Master or such other certificate as may be recognised by him.\n\n27. The examination for certificates of competency for engineers of motor boats (to be styled **Motor Engineers**) shall be limited to the knowledge and management of the engines of motor boats. The several types of motors in the management of which each such engineer has qualified shall be noted on his certificate.\n\n28. It shall be lawful for the Harbour Master in such special cases as he may think fit to issue a permit to any motor boat carrying a certificated motor engineer who also holds a master's certificate under the rules in this Table, to be under way in the waters of the Colony with such engineer in charge of such motor boat only. Such permit shall be in writing and shall be signed by the Harbour Master and shall be subject to the conditions therein contained.\n\nProvided always that it shall not be necessary for any motor boat not exceeding 85 feet in length overall (and not plying for hire) to carry a certificated master or engineer.\n\nTable F.\n\nSCALE OF MEASUREMENT FOR PASSENGERS FOR RIVER STEAMERS.\n\n[*z. 88.*]\n\n1. On lower deck, one passenger for each 8 superficial feet.\n\n2. On upper deck and in cabins, one passenger for each 9 superficial feet.\n\n3. The above scale to be further regulated by the Surveyor's judgment as to whether or not the vessel possesses sufficient stability for that number of passengers.\n\n4. A sufficient number of life-boats, rafts and life-buoys, approved by the Government Marine Surveyor, to be supplied.\n\n5. Passengers are not to be carried on more than two decks.\n\n*As amended by G.N. 169 of 1908.*",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-445 - Public Offices - 1917.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 498973,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-487 - Others & Individuals - 1924",
        "page_number": 81,
        "title": "CO129-487 - Others & Individuals - 1924",
        "content_text": "## Hongkong-Port Regulations, &c.\n\n(f.) If he assaults the master or any mate or certificated engineer of the ship, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 12 weeks.\n\n(4.) If he combines with any of the crew to disobey lawful commands, or to neglect duty, or to impede the navigation of the ship or the progress of the voyage, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 12 weeks.\n\n(g.) If he wilfully damages the ship, or embezzles or wilfully damages any of her stores or cargo, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum equal to the loss thereby sustained, and also, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 12 weeks.\n\nProvided that in the case of a Foreign ship, the Stipendiary Magistrate may only deal with cases arising out of the offences mentioned in (e), (f), and (g) of this sub-section, and provided also that if there is a Consular Officer resident in the Colony of the nation to which such ship belongs, the Stipendiary Magistrate shall not deal with any case, unless requested to do so by such officer in writing, and unless such Officer undertakes that any such seaman shall not become a charge on the Colony in consequence of being so dealt with.\n\n(6.) All expenses incidental to the apprehension and confinement of any seaman or apprentice under this section shall be payable by the master of the ship to which such seaman or apprentice belongs and be recoverable from him, at the suit of the Captain Superintendent of Police, as a debt due to the Government; and the subsistence money for such seaman or apprentice confined in gaol shall be paid in advance to the Superintendent of the Gaol, and, in default of such payment, the gaoler may release such seaman or apprentice. Provided that every seaman or apprentice imprisoned under this section may, by direction of the Committing Stipendiary Magistrate, be sent on board his ship, or may be placed at the disposal of the Consular Officer at whose request he dealt with the case, on the written application of such Officer, either on or before the expiration of his term of imprisonment.\n\n## PART III\n### PASSENGER SHIPS\n\n### Surveys\n\n**Definition**\n\n10.-(1). In this Part, \"passenger ship\" means every ship exceeding 60 tons register carrying passengers from, to, or between places in the waters of this Colony.\n\n(2.) Every passenger ship which carries more than twelve passengers shall be surveyed once at least in each year in the manner provided in this section, except:\n\n(a) British ships which have from the United Kingdom or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey and other certificates equivalent to those required under this section, the same being in force and applicable, and which have been issued under the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Acts or any enactment in force in any British possession; and\n\n(b) Foreign ships which have from their own country, or from the country from whose flag they may have been transferred, or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey and other certificates equivalent to those required in the case of British ships. Provided that, in the event of any question arising as to the sufficiency of any Foreign certificate to protect the ship holding the same from survey under this section, such question shall be referred for settlement to the Governor in Council, whose decision thereon shall be final.\n\n### Passenger ship to be surveyed once a year.\n\nM8 Art. 1889) *. 271 (1) (8). \n\n## Page 17",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-487 - Others & Individuals - 1924.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 500245,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-488 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1925 [1-7]",
        "page_number": 649,
        "title": "CO129-488 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1925 [1-7]",
        "content_text": "# CABLES.\n\n## LATEST CABLES. [THROUGH REUTER'S AGENCY.]\n\n### EIGHT-HOUR DAY BILL.\n\n#### RATIFIED BY THE FRENCH CHAMBER.\n\nPARIS, July 9th. The Chamber unanimously adopted a Bill ratifying the Washington Eight-hour day Convention. The Bill contains a rider to the effect that the convention will not become effective in France until it has been ratified by Germany.\n\n## FAR EASTERN NEWS.\n\n### CABLE (THROUGH REUTER'S AGENCY).\n\n#### UNREST IN THE NORTH, COWS CONFISCATED.\n\nShanghai, July 8. The situation continues hopeful. The day has been quiet except for further kidnapping of servants employed by foreigners and the confiscation by strikers of hundreds of cows as well as foodstuffs intended for foreigners' consumption. The tramway services have been curtailed.\n\n### TRIPIER COMMISSION.\n\n#### THE REVOLUTIONS NOT SUPPRESSED WITH ROSE WATER.\n\n**H.E. THE GOVERNOR'S REVIEW OF THE PRESENT SITUATION, IF NECESSARY ALL ADULT NON-WORKERS WILL BE DEPORTED.**\n\nHONGKONG DAILY PRESS, FRIDAY, JULY 10TH, 1925.\n\nI am, as you know, a man of peace. I admit that I am as fond as most men of getting my own way but I have always preferred to do so by convincing others that my own is the right way by process of argument. But it takes two sides to make an argument and if the other side has no reasons to advance to support its point of view the possibility of argument ceases to exist and it is necessary to take other measures.\n\nH.E. the Governor reviewed the present position in the Colony at the meeting of the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon, and heartily congratulated the community upon the evidence already given that \"we are not so helpless as our enemies had assumed.\"\n\nAt the conclusion of the routine business of the meeting His Excellency said: Before we adjourn I think it would not be out of place for me to say a few words as to the situation with regard to what, for lack of a better phrase, we must call the Strike.\n\nAs I said at the last meeting of this Council, the present movement cannot be called a \"Strike\" in any proper sense of the word since those who have ceased to work have not done so with a view to attaining any definite object.\n\nWe find now that people will not work, they have no reason to advance therefor we cannot discuss the matter. All that we can say is Very well, if you don't want to work, don't, but we cannot clutter this small area with idle mouths. If you will not work, you must leave us.\n\nThe Government has taken power to remove such idle mouths from the Colony, we have started on a small scale and invited some of those whose presence cannot easily be dispensed with to seek other spheres of inactivity, to the number of about 100.\n\nIf necessary this process will be continued and intensified. If it were necessary I should have no hesitation in deporting from this Colony every adult who did not show by working that he was a useful member of the community.\n\nRevolutions, as the proverb says, are not made with rose-water. Neither are they suppressed by it, and this movement amounts to a revolution against law and order.\n\n## HONGKONG STRIKE SITUATION.\n\n### FOOD SUPPLIES FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AMPLE AND EASILY REPLENISHED.\n\n#### SOME MOTOR MECHANICS AND FITTERS COME OUT.\n\nAs regards the present aspect of affairs, it is difficult to say anything definite. There are, I think, signs that the strikers are coming to their senses. Many are still going out but many are returning, to work and I am not without hope that common-sense will shortly prevail over ignorance and fear. Meanwhile, we have got to carry on and see this thing through. The prospects are not such as to cause any alarm.\n\nFood supplies, so far as the European community is concerned, are ample and can easily be replenished.\n\nThe inconvenience is not entirely on one side and I trust that the strikers will shortly find that the game is not worth the candle. We have had to take somewhat drastic measures to deal with the situation. If necessary those measures will become more drastic.\n\nThese words were spoken by H.E. the Governor during the course of a welcome and reassuring statement made by him on the strike situation at yesterday's meeting of the Legislative Council. The whole speech, which is reported in full in our columns today, is precisely what has been wanted by the European community, and other loyal members of the population, who are combining with their everyday occupations a variety of irksome and unaccustomed activities in a spirit of resolute will to see the strike successfully broken. These will learn with gratification that if necessary every adult non-worker in the Colony will be deported.\n\nAn advertisement in our issue today announces that all adult males (other than members of the Government, Naval and Military services and of the medical profession) resident in the Peak district who are not rendering active assistance to Government or the public, are called upon to attend before a Magistrate at the Peak Club at 6 p.m. today to be enrolled as special constables.\n\n### SEDITIOUS LITERATURE AND INTIMIDATION.\n\nThe following regulation was made by the Governor-in-Council on Thursday under Section 2 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1922:—\n\n1. Every person who---\n   (1) prints, publishes, circulates, distributes or has in his possession any seditious matter as defined in the Seditious Publications Ordinance, 1914; or\n   (2) by violence or threats of violence prevents or endeavours to prevent any other person from doing any act which he is legally entitled to do; or\n   (3) commits any offence against the provisions of section 22 of the Summary Offence Ordinance, 1845, be liable upon summary conviction (1) imprisonment with hard labour for any term not exceeding two years; and (2) flogging.\n\nIt would appear from what has happened during the last fortnight that this movement is nothing else than an attack, organised by agencies outside the Colony, on existing standards of civilization as represented by law and order.\n\nIt is believed that now the pretence that it was a strike to show sympathy with the Chinese who suffered as a result of certain incidents in Shanghai and other parts of China has apparently been dropped.\n\nLondon, July 8. Commenting on the summaries of the strike report of the Tripier Mixed Commission, published in France blaming the British Police and the American Chairman of the Municipal Council in connection with the shooting in Shanghai, the Daily Telegraph diplomatic correspondent says:— \"The evidently calculated leakage of news should at least have the salutary effect that Britain cannot longer tolerate such intimidators, and under a regulation which has been issued to-day they will in future be dealt with in a manner which will be likely to appeal to their best feelings—that is by the cat.\"\n\n### ATTACK ON LAW AND ORDER.\n\nIn this matter Hongkong stands by itself. An attack has been made upon us, as representing the existing standards of civilization by the agents of disorder and anarchy. No doubt we have been selected for attack because we are supposed to be a small and powerless community, and also because of our propinquity to a district which owing to a long period of war and mis-government has become a fertile soil for the cultivation of all the worst growths of Bolshevism, anarchism and communism.\n\nThe attack is directed not against this Government nor against foreigners as such. It has not even the excuse of being a nationalist movement.\n\n### SEAMEN'S UNION.\n\n#### SEDITIOUS PAMPHLET.\n\nBefore Mr. S. B. B. McElderry at the Central Magistracy yesterday, two Chinese were sentenced for having joint possession of a seditious pamphlet.\n\nThe men were arrested near the Central Market on Tuesday evening, the seditious leaflet being found in the possession of one of them, who pointed out the other man as being the original owner of it. This defendant admitted possession of the document and said that he received it from a small boy in the street. He read the characters on it and passed it on to his fellow lodger, and was not aware that he was committing a crime by doing so. The other defendant said that he put the leaflet in his pocket for reading afterwards. He was not aware that it was of an inflammatory nature.\n\nHis Worship said that he considered the case against the defendant who originally possessed the document as the more serious of the two. He had read what the document contained, and knowing its nature, had passed it over to the second defendant. The sentence in his case would be six months' hard labour and he would further be bound over to be of good behaviour for one year on a $200 bond in two sureties. Failure to produce these sureties would entail a further term of a month's hard labour. The other defendant would be fined $10 and also be bound over to be of good behaviour for one year and find similar security.\n\nWhile the influx from Canton into the Colony by way of the West River boats continues, the exodus has not decreased to any appreciable extent.\n\nThe s.s. Kwony Sai arrived in Hongkong yesterday coming from Canton and brought down 467 Chinese passengers, most of whom were women of the amah class. The vessel also brought down a few Europeans, including a number of missionaries.\n\nWhen our representative went on board her he was told that all was quiet in Canton at present, despite the underlying feeling that trouble is imminent in Canton and may break out at any moment in open conflict between the Reds and the anti-Reds.\n\n### MR. CHAMBERLAIN REPLIES.\n\nIn the House of Commons, replying to questions, Mr. Chamberlain stated that he had not received any request from Shanghai that the British Government should forcibly intervene to restore normality in Shanghai.\n\n## RE-UNION AT WEMBLEY.\n\n### \"THE EMPRESS OF CANADA.\"\n\nThe s.s. Empress of Canada leaves this morning for Vancouver, via Shanghai, Kobe, Shimidzu and Yokohama. When the vessel arrived here on Monday all the Chinese crew left the ship, but their places were quickly filled. Large numbers of volunteers offered their services—both Europeans and Chinese—and the vessel was soon fully staffed. Ladies are taking the places of strikers in the first class saloons. Of the crew on strike, not one returned to offer his services.\n\nOn the waterfront yesterday the general topic of conversation was the action which the Chinese Seamen's Union are said to have taken or to be contemplating taking. According to all reports, after one day no seamen will be allowed to man the river boats. To counteract this action, orders were issued yesterday on the arrival of the Kwony Sai for her to proceed to `GR1178/1922/32(III)` without further orders.\n\n## GENERAL NOTES.\n\n### EXPORTING MONEY.\n\nAccording to police reports, Chinese are doing the work are employing a clever ruse in their attempt to export more than $85 from the Colony. Money is distributed amongst children who may be on the train.\n\n### CAFE WISEMAN.\n\nMr. R. L. Bridger, manager-director of the Café Wiseman, told a Daily Press representative yesterday that on the average 1,000 meals a day were being served at the Café Wiseman. The bakery which is now wholly staffed by Europeans turns out 5,000 pounds of bread a day.\n\nThe lady volunteers at the Café are working splendidly.\n\n### HOW TO HELP.\n\nI would, in conclusion, appeal to the community to help the Government in two ways.\n\nThe first is this: Do not listen to, or spread, rumours. For instance last week, a man was found dead near the Central Market. It was at once spread abroad that he had been killed by the \"Dare to die\" band.\n\nThe city is full of rumours. If you hear a story of this sort, do not believe it until you have asked me or the police or the Colonial Secretary's office whether it is true and do not pass it on, whether you believe it or not.\n\nThe other way is this. Will you do your best to explain to your servants and to anyone over whom you have influence that the proper way to deal with an intimidator is to intimidate him? If you send your servant to market and, as often happens, somebody threatens him, make it clear to him that his proper course is to argue the matter out on the spot and that the best argument is a good stout bludgeon. Remind him that he has the law on his side. If the intimidator injures him the cat will redress the balance. If he injures the intimidator, it is the intimidator's fault and he himself will not only be held blameless but, if he hands the man over to the police, will receive a handsome reward.\n\nIf these measures are adopted I am confident that intimidation will quickly cease and we shall all be able to go about our business in peace.\n\n### KOWLOON PROSECUTION.\n\nBefore Mr. W. Hamilton at the Kowloon Magistracy yesterday, Mr. B. Wylie, of No. 7, Torres Building, Kowloon, prosecuted his former house coolie on a charge of having absented himself from his employment on June 24th without notice.\n\nComplainant stated that defendant left with his other servants on June 24th, his servants being amongst the first of the Kowloon servants to leave their employment. Defendant was later found working in Knutsford Terrace, where it was understood that emergency servants were being paid $3 a day.\n\nHis Worship said that the paying of servants a day was a matter for the Kowloon Residents Association to deal with. As the complainant still owed the defendant 23 days' pay and as the accused owed one month wages in default of notice, he ordered the accused to pay complainant $3, with one week's imprisonment in default. Defendant was further fined $25 with the alternative of a month's hard labour.\n\n### DRAINAGE.\n\nNow that the road cleaners of the Sanitary Department are on strike, there is one important direction in which householders can assist the authorities and also safeguard their own comfort.\n\nThe drainage gratings should be kept entirely free from paper and other rubbish which might choke the drains.\n\n### MR. E. R. HALLIFAX ENTERTAINS THE PRESS.\n\nReference has already been made to the Press luncheon given by Mr. E. R. Hallifax to Press Representatives at the Hongkong Hotel.\n\nA typical Chinese meal was served by Chinese \"boys\" in blue coats, as in Hongkong, and a Chinese band did its best to maintain \"harmony.\" Beside each plate were chopsticks, and, after a vain attempt to use them on shark's fins, the guests were told they might use forks and knives and pocket the ivories as a souvenir of the occasion.\n\nThe menu included Sam Shi shark's fin, fried pork and bean sprouts, minced chicken and bird's nest soup, orange broth, lychee-syrup, chow chow, coquet, and melon seeds and roast almonds.\n\nSIR FREDERICK LUGARD'S VISIT.\n\nHongkong was expecting a visit on June 9th from their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York, and as one too traversed the Court the signs of anticipation were on all sides, says the China Express and Telegraph. The visit was timed for shortly after 2 p.m., at which hour both Mr. Hallifax, the Commissioner, and Sir Robert Ho Tung, in his rich silk costume, awaited the Royal visitors at the entrance to the Pavilion.\n\nBut at 2.30 word came that Hongkong and Ceylon had been cut out, the visits to the other Courts having encroached too far on the Royal visitors' time. Compensation came for the disappointment in the shape of a visit from Sir Frederick Lugard, a former Governor of Hongkong, who visited every section, and was as much delighted to meet old Hongkong hands as they were to welcome him.\n\n| Service        | Status            |\n| -------------- | ----------------- |\n| Kowloon Ferry  | Still operating   |\n| River Boats    | On strike         |\n| Tramway        | Curtailed services|\n| Laundries      | Some closed       |\n\nThe twenty-minute ferry service is still being run by men of the mercantile marine. Up to yesterday about 150 Chinese had registered as special district watchmen.\n\nA large number of Chinese laundry workers went out on strike yesterday and a number of the laundries closed down.\n\nFitters and mechanics of some motor firms are swelling the ranks of the strikers. Yesterday morning all the men at the Kowloon Resident Association's Russell Street Garage had left.\n\nThe Dairy Farm Ice and Cold Storage Company are carrying on very well at all depots with their voluntary assistants.\n\nAltogether over 200 idle Chinese have now been arrested, and many of these have already been sent out of the Colony.\n\nPage 218  \nPage 617  \nPage 48  \nPage 51  \n\n`XCR(85)72`  \n`GR1178/1922/32(III)`",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-488 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1925 [1-7].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 503170,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-493 - Governor Sir Clementi - 1926 [6-8]",
        "page_number": 245,
        "title": "CO129-493 - Governor Sir Clementi - 1926 [6-8]",
        "content_text": "CANTON NEWS.\n\nBoycott Parley.\n\nJuly 15.\n\nIn the brief space of time, it is only to be expected that no communiqué has come down from Canton when this edition went to press regarding the opening of the conference to settle the boycott of Hongkong.\n\nOVERLAND CHINA MAIL\n\nJuly 17.\n\nUntil what are best described as Canton's \"terms\" are revealed, a prediction as to the prospects of the peace conference can be no more than guesswork, but several important features have become evident.\n\nThe so-called Labour representatives, and the Strike Executive are asking, if not pressing, for the terms to be broadcasted in Canton prior to submission to the conference.\n\nAnother straw in the wind, which may mean much or nothing, is the change in the delegation.\n\nWriting on Tuesday evening (before the Hon. Mr. J. H. Kemp and the Hon. Mr. E. R. Hallifax arrived there yesterday as reported in the \"China Mail\"), Mr. Koo Mang-yu substituted Mr. Chan Kung-pok.\n\nAt the last minute, the \"China Mail\" correspondent indicated that today's proceedings may be restricted to the formal exchange of courtesies and credentials, after which an adjournment was expected.\n\nIt was anticipated that before discussing any terms, the delegates of both sides will endeavour to arrive at a basis of understanding as to what will come up and when, for discussion.\n\nMr. Koo is believed to have been fully instructed by General Chang Kai-shek.\n\nIn some sources, continues the correspondent, some importance is attached to Mr. Koo's joining the official delegation of Canton.\n\nBy virtue of Mr. Koo's position in the Canton Government, his close association with General Chang Kai-shek (commander-in-chief), and a report that Mr. Koo is said to be General Chang's special choice, native malcontents place considerable significance on his joining the delegation.\n\nCurrent opinion is that General Chang Kai-shek will ask Mr. Eugene Chen to effect a settlement, but that there may be a delay owing to the necessity of \"demobilising\" the strikers and pickets.\n\nCanton, June 14. Mr. Chan Kung-pok, by reason of his being engaged on General Chang Kai-shek's staff at the Northern Front, will not be one of the Canton official delegates in the boycott negotiations. His place will be taken by Mr. Koo Mang-yue, who will act with Mr. Eugene Chen and Mr. T. V. Soong.--\"Wah Tze Yat Po.\"\n\nReports from Canton are that formal proceedings began yesterday at noon when credentials were exchanged.\n\nIt is expected that full talk will be gone into today, so that detailed schemes may be presented tomorrow.\n\nFirst of all, the Strike Executive is stated to have asked Mr. Eugene Chen to announce what terms the Government will tabulate.\n\nThen when the report was current that Mr. Koo was framing the terms, they made another request for information to be given before the terms were finally approved and handed over to the Hongkong official delegation for consideration.\n\n\"The Next Step.\"\n\nA telegram to the \"Wah Tze Yat Po\" states that the agenda has been decided upon, and that both military and police are guarding the conference chamber (in the Foreign Office).\n\nIt is known that the conference sat again at 10:30 a.m. yesterday. But it is not known definitely if the terms will be presented this week or next.\n\nMr. Eugene Chen's opening address is given elsewhere in this issue.\n\nOpinion now is that the nature of the terms will be disclosed in a day or two, and the respective delegates will ascertain if such can be made to form a basis of discussion.\n\nThis preliminary over, the next step will be the actual negotiation of the \"terms.\"\n\nCANTON PROTEST.\n\n[No. 2998. July 22, 1926.\n\nJuly 17.\n\nNone is blind to see that the present phantom government in Peking is a creation of a brace of medieval militarists and a bunch of Mandarin states-boys and states-coolies whose obvious purpose is to grab the proceeds of whatever tariff doles and loans that America and the other Powers may be willing to grant in order to maintain a status quo that conflicts with every vital interest of Nationalist China.\n\nCanton, July 14.\n\nSir, I have the honour to request you to communicate to the American Minister at Peking the protest of my Government against the resumption of the Special Tariff Conference which was lately suspended owing to the dispersal of the Chinese delegation.\n\nWe are definitely and reliably informed that agents of Wu Pei-fu and Chang Tso-lin are now negotiating with the American and the other foreign delegates for the immediate reopening of the Conference.\n\nMy Government opposes and has opposed the Conference because it involves the consideration of issues which only a Central Government, representative and competent to speak and act in the name of the Chinese Nation, can negotiate in conference with the official representatives of the American and other interested Governments.\n\nAny payment of tariff moneys to Wu Pei-fu and Chang Tso-lin must necessarily mean that America and the other interested Powers--through the machinery of the unified, British-controlled Chinese Maritime Customs--will be (a) paying national revenues collected throughout the whole of China to two transient usurpers of detached pieces of Chinese territory, and (b) subsidising these two militarists to continue the prosecution of civil war against the Kuominchun and Canton who are the two modern arms of Nationalist China, and thus assist militarism to dominate and flourish in China.\n\nI have to add that any loan or loans to be contracted by the agents of Wu and Chang on the security of the promised surtaxes shall not be recognised by the Nationalist Government.\n\nAnd I have the honour deliberately to warn America and the other interested governments that Chinese repudiation of any such loan or loans may conceivably create a situation rendering it imperative for the principle of repudiation to be extended to other loans contracted in the interests of reaction and militarists and mandarin exploitation and plunder.\n\nJuly 19.\n\nTo Senator Borah at Washington, Mr. Eugene Chen (acting Foreign Minister at Canton) has addressed a message on the question of the projected resumption of the Tariff Conference.\n\nMr. Chen informs Senator Borah that he has protested to the U.S. Minister to China through Mr. Douglas Jenkins (Consul at Canton), as published in the \"China Mail\" on Saturday.\n\nThe subject matter is similar to that in the despatch to Mr. Jenkins.\n\nBut to Senator Borah, Mr. Chen says: \"I bring this to your attention because you are known among us as an American leader who is entirely opposed to the subordination of real American interest to the competitive interests of other Powers in China.\"\n\nReticence is being kept by official sources.\n\nThere is a feeling of confidence and it is said that General Chang is of the view that he can leave for the Front in a week.\n\nOwing to the difficulty in communications with Canton, news will necessarily be slow in getting through to Hongkong.\n\nThe best sign so far is the absence of any pessimistic rumours.\n\nHOME INTEREST.\n\nBOYCOTT NEGOTIATIONS IN CANTON.\n\nCOMMONS INFORMED.\n\nRugby, July 14.\n\nSir Austen Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons that the opening of the negotiations for ending the trade boycott of Hongkong had been fixed for July 15.--British Wireless Service.\n\n[Whilst this information has appeared long ago in the local Press, the cable is given as evidence of the interest being taken at Home in the negotiations opening today in Canton.]\n\nTHE BOYCOTT.\n\nCHANGE IN CANTON'S DELEGATES.\n\nGOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUE.\n\nJuly 16.\n\nHis Excellency has authorised a communiqué to the effect that Mr. Koo Mang-yu has been appointed as one of the Canton Delegates in place of Mr. Chan Kung-pok; also that the conference opened at noon yesterday when only formal business was transacted.\n\nThe conference will resume today.\n\nIt is understood that Mr. Koo Mang-yu, who was formerly Dean of the Peking University, is a Member of the Central Executive Committee of the Kwok Min Tong.\n\nTHE BOYCOTT.\n\nIt is manifest that striking and real changes are taking place in this country, socially, economically, and politically.\n\nThese changes, generally, are a necessary consequence of the structural readjustment or new equilibrium which is in process of establishment, consequent upon the definite inclusion of China in the larger system of the modern world.\n\nWhether these changes are good or bad for the Chinese people is mainly a question for them to decide if they are truly to be regarded and treated as an independent nation and not as a people suited for the exercise of international tutelage.\n\nAt any rate, it is a fundamental thesis of the Chinese Nationalist Movement--which is the greatest of the forces underlying and sustaining the boycott--that the Chinese people must be free to work out their own salvation.\n\nCanton, July 16, 1926.\n\nThe following communiqué has been jointly issued by the British and Chinese Delegations negotiating a settlement of the Chinese-British disputes in Liang Kuang:\n\n\"The Conference resumed its sittings today at 10:30 a.m. when the Chinese Delegation stated their views on the origin of the British boycott.\n\nThey refrained from formulating any conditions of settlement pending a reply to their statement.\n\nThe Conference has adjourned till Monday, July 19.\"\n\nWe believe that this statement of what is called the Chinese Question is not in fundamental opposition to the real interests of any genuinely trading Power in China.\n\nCanton, July 19.\n\nThis morning, the full Canton and Hongkong delegations resumed the conference at the Foreign Office.\n\nThe Hongkong delegates replied to Canton's official view as to the cause of the anti-British boycott.\n\nThe nature of such reply (or, in other words, Hongkong's statement of the position) was divulged.\n\nNote: An official communiqué issued on Saturday stated that Canton refrained from formulating any conditions of settlement pending a reply to their statement on the origin.\n\nBOY THIEVES.\n\nJuly 21.\n\nIn the possession of three boys were found more than twenty-five pawn tickets relating to stolen clothes.\n\nOn investigation, the police found that the boys had not been induced to commit the thefts by an elder man, who acted as receiver and pawned the articles.\n\nMr. Eugene Chen has instructed the Bureau of Information, Foreign Ministry, to publish details of the negotiations, so that rumours may be spread.\n\nIf this view of the matter be sound, then more considerations of prestige and what is known as the conference \"face\" ought not to be allowed to bar the road to a practical settlement of what is in truth one of the practical questions oft-times puzzled by the ironic spirit in history to search out man's patience, his goodwill, and his good sense.\n\nCanton, July 18.\n\nThe Strike Executive Committee has petitioned for the despatch of their delegates to attend, as spectators, the Boycott Conference, but it is not known how Mr. Eugene Chen has replied.\n\nThe Negotiations for the settlement of the anti-British boycott opened at noon today at the Canton Foreign Office.\n\nAll the members of the Chinese and the British Delegations were present.\n\nMr. Eugene Chen, Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is head of the Chinese delegation, opened the proceedings with a speech.\n\nOnly three owners of the stolen articles had so far been traced.\n\nThe result was that four were charged with theft this morning before Mr. R. E. Lindsell at the Central Magistracy.\n\nThe boys pleaded guilty, but the elder man denied the allegation that he had used the boys for committing thefts, saying that he found the articles lying on the floor of his house and pawned them.\n\nThis story was not believed by the Magistrate, who sentenced him to four months' hard labour.\n\nOne of the three boys had a previous conviction for theft and he was ordered twelve strokes with a cane.\n\nThe others received eight strokes each.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-493 - Governor Sir Clementi - 1926 [6-8].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 508337,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-501-6 Sweepstakes and Lotteries 3-1-1927 - 3-1-1927",
        "page_number": 9,
        "title": "CO129-501-6 Sweepstakes and Lotteries 3-1-1927 - 3-1-1927",
        "content_text": "## Misdemeanors, Power to prevent Felonies\n\nOffences, such as common Assaults, Affrays, and riots, are called Misdemeanors.\n\nAs it is more important to prevent and punish the Commission of great Crimes than of the lesser Offences, the Constable has a greater Power in Cases of Felonies than in those of mere Misdemeanors.\n\nBut the first Duty of a Constable is always to prevent the Commission of a Crime.\n\nWe shall therefore now show him what Power he has to arrest a Party whom, from his Situation and Character, the Law judges to be likely to commit some felony.\n\n### Felony in view; Charge of another, No charge; Suspicion of Constable\n\nThe Constable may arrest one whom he has just cause to suspect to be about to commit a Felony. Thus, when a drunken Person, or a Man in a violent Passion, threatens the Life of another, the Constable should interfere and arrest.\n\nHe should arrest any Person having in his Possession any Picklock Key, Crow, Jack, Bit, or other Implement with Intent feloniously to break into any Dwelling House, Warehouse, Coachhouse, Stable, or Outbuilding, or any Person armed with any Gun, Pistol, Hanger, Cutlass, Bludgeon, or offensive Weapon, or having upon him any Instrument with Intent to commit any felonious Act.\n\nEvery person found in any Dwelling House, Warehouse, Coachhouse, Outhouse, or Stable, or in any enclosed Yard, Garden, or Area, and being there for an unlawful purpose, may be arrested.\n\nIn each of these cases the Constable must judge from the Situation and Behaviour of the Party, what his Intention is. In some Cases no Doubt can exist, as when the Party is a notorious Thief, or acting with those who are Thieves, or when the Party is seen to try People's Pockets in a Crowd, or to attempt to break into a house, or to endeavour to take any Property secretly from another. The Constable will not act hastily, in case the Intention is not clear, but content himself with watching closely the suspected Party, that he may discover his Design.\n\nThe Constable must arrest any one whom he sees in the Act of committing a Felony, or any one whom another positively charges with having committed a Felony, or whom another suspects of having committed a Felony, if the Suspicion appear to the Constable to be well founded, and provided the Person so suspecting go with the Constable.\n\nThough no Charge be made, yet if the Constable suspect a Person to have committed a Felony he should arrest him, and if he have reasonable Grounds for his Suspicion he will be justified, even though it should afterwards appear that no Felony was in fact committed; but the Constable must be cautious in thus acting upon his own Suspicions.\n\nGenerally, if the Arrest was made discreetly and fairly, in pursuit of an Offender, and not from any private Malice or Ill-will, the Constable need not doubt that the Law will protect him.\n\n### At night\n\nIf after Sunset, and before Sunrising, the Constable shall see any one carrying a Bundle or Goods which he suspects were stolen, he should stop and examine the Person and detain him; but here also he should judge from circumstances (such as the Appearance and Manner of the Party, his Account of himself, and the like), whether he has really got stolen Goods, before he actually takes him into Custody.\n\n### Powers to arrest\n\nThe Constable must make every Exertion to effect the Arrest; and the Law gives him abundant Power for the Purpose. If the Felon or Party accused of Felony fly, he may be immediately followed wherever he goes; and if he takes Refuge in a House the Constable may break open the doors, if necessary, to get in, first stating who he is, and his Business; but the breaking open outer Doors is so dangerous a Proceeding that the Constable never should resort to it except in extreme Cases, and when an immediate arrest is necessary.\n\nThere are some Cases in which a Constable may and ought to break into a House, although no Felony has been committed, when the Necessity of the Case will not admit of Delay, as when Persons are fighting furiously in a House, or when a House has been entered by others with a felonious Intent, and a Felony will probably be committed unless the Constable interfere, and there are no other Means of entering; except in such Cases it is better, in general, that the Constable should wait till he has a Warrant from a Magistrate for the Purpose.\n\n### Aid\n\nIf a Constable finds his exertions insufficient to effect the Arrest he ought to require all Persons present to assist him, and they are bound to do so.\n\n### Escape\n\nIf a Prisoner should escape he may be retaken, and in immediate Pursuit the Constable may follow him into any Place or any House.\n\n## Misdemeanors\n\nIn Cases of actual Breaches of the Peace, as Riots, Affrays, Assaults, and the like, committed within the View of the Constable, he should immediately interfere (first giving public Notice of his Office, if he be not already known), separate the Combatants, and prevent others from joining in the Affray. If the Riot, &c., be of a serious Nature, or if the Offenders do not immediately desist, he should take them into Custody, securing also the principal Instigators of the Tumult, and doing everything in his Power to restore Quiet.\n\n### Assault\n\nA Constable, in Cases of Assault which have not been committed in his Presence, or Within his View, is not authorised to arrest or assist in arresting the Party charged, nor is he to receive a Person so charged into his Custody, unless the Party has been arrested by some other Constable who saw the Assault committed.\n\nHe may arrest anyone assaulting or opposing him in the Execution of his Duty.\n\nIf a person forcibly enter the House of another the Constable may, at the Request of the Owner, turn him out directly; if he have entered peaceably, and the Owner request the Constable to turn him out, the Constable should first request him to go out, and unless he do so he should turn him out, in either Case using no more Force than is necessary for that Purpose.\n\n### Persons about to break the Peace\n\nWhen the Offence has not yet been committed, but when a Breach of the Peace is likely to take place, as when Persons are openly preparing to fight, the Constable should take the Parties concerned into Custody: if they fly into a House, or are making Preparations to fight within the House, the Constable should enter the House to prevent them, and likewise take the Parties into Custody; and should the Doors be...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-501-6 Sweepstakes and Lotteries 3-1-1927 - 3-1-1927.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 524301,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-524-1 Reports of Salaries Commission 31-12-1929 - 27-10-1930",
        "page_number": 75,
        "title": "CO129-524-1 Reports of Salaries Commission 31-12-1929 - 27-10-1930",
        "content_text": "HONG KONG DAILY PRESS, SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1930.\n\nMONEY OBTAINED WITH MENACES.\n\nHONG KONG HOTEL | EXTRADITION CASE COLD ROOMS. CONCLUDED. DOUGLAS GIFFORD GETS YEAR'S GAOL. INDIAN DOCTOR WHO WAS INTIMIDATED.\n\nAppearing on a remand charge of fighting, Douglas Gifford, a Eurasian, was confronted with new charges when he appeared before Mr. Whyte-Smith at the Kowloon Magistracy yesterday. He was alleged to have demanded from an Indian doctor the sum of $180 with menaces and the conversion to his own use of a raincoat, watch and chain.\n\nTwo other persons, Chan Leung and Ho Yee (a married woman), were also charged with demanding money in connection with the affair. Gifford pleaded guilty to the three charges.\n\n\"MENUS\" DISCUSSED IN COURT. FISH FIRST AND CHICKEN AFTERWARDS.\n\nCold storage matters were further discussed at the Supreme Court yesterday when Mr. Rasey was cross-examined by Mr. Potter as to the accommodation of the rooms for the various classes of produce and the time taken to reduce the temperature of the goods to the figure provided in the contract.\n\nAfter a series of questions in the morning, the Court adjourned early to enable the witness to make further calculations and search authorities as to the point at which latent heat is extracted from fish and the freezing point of a chicken. In the afternoon, witness produced Mott's tables and said that latent heat was extracted from fish when the temperature was minus 15 degrees, but at what point it began to be extracted he could not say. Fish would be stored in the cold room at 18 degrees.\n\nMr. Potter: We will have fish first and chicken afterwards. Now what about our chicken? At what point is latent heat extracted from poultry?-Between zero and 10 degrees.\n\nEnters the Girl. Outlining the case for the prosecution, Detective-Sergeant Fitches said that the Indian doctor arrived in the Colony from Rangoon early this year, and took up his abode at 11, Wong Chuk Street. It was there that Gifford came to the doctor's residence on several occasions. On one of his visits, he found a young girl and her aunt in the house. The girl was taken into the house by the amah, who told the doctor that she would be a useful companion during his stay in Hong Kong. The complainant agreed to become engaged to the girl, and the amah bought a ring for $8, in accordance with Chinese custom.\n\nThe girl visited the complainant several times, and on each occasion, Gifford acted as interpreter. The doctor, however, became suspicious and decided to discontinue being \"engaged.\" Gifford, however, remonstrated and explained that the complainant had been guilty of a serious misdeed. The complainant was required to pay $400 as damages, but he agreed to pay only $200. The money was paid, and Gifford brought the girl back to her home in Apliu Street, where he handed over the $200 to the girl's aunt. He received $100 in connection with the part played by him. The aunt had since died.\n\nAlleged Breach of Promise.\n\nSubsequently, Chan Leung and Ho Yee, the second and third defendants, together with another man, visited the complainant in his house. The second defendant claimed to be the girl's uncle and the third defendant styled herself as the elder sister of the girl. Both these statements were untrue. Gifford, who was also present, then told the doctor that another $200 was demanded for his alleged breach of promise. The complainant finally agreed to pay this amount also in monthly instalments of $50.\n\nAt what point does latent heat commence to be extracted?-I cannot say.\n\nHave you, as a matter of interest, tried to freeze fish?-As a matter of money, which is more interesting.\n\nCome back to chicken, the freezing point is anything between zero and 10 degrees?-Yes.\n\nWitness had said that he could store 600 lbs. of chicken in the poultry room, and he disagreed with Mr. Potter that 2,400 lbs. could be stored.\n\nMilk and Eggs.\n\nMr. Potter: Will you give us the storage weight for eggs?-21,000 eggs, and temperature reduction from 90 to 20 degrees.\n\nWhat about latent heat-There is none.\n\nWhat is the freezing point of eggs?-Zero to 10 degrees.\n\nIn the room, there could be 2,880 bottles of milk. There would be no question of latent heat because milk does not freeze at 20 degrees.\n\nWhat is the freezing point?-I don't know.\n\nMr. Rasey: The time, according to Hacker's figures, to bring the milk down to 20 degrees is 14 days?-Yes.\n\nWill you agree that it is an unreasonable time?-Yes.\n\nMAGISTRATE COMMITS \"WANTED\" MAN.\n\nEVIDENCE RAISES A DOUBT.\n\nAt Central Magistracy yesterday, the case in which the Canton authorities are seeking the custody of a Chinese named Tang Yun, for alleged murder which is said to have taken place on April 22 last, in the village of Yuet Tong, Tung Koon district, was concluded.\n\nMr. R. E. Lindseil, in committing the defendant to prison pending the pleasure of His Excellency the Governor, told Mr. F. C. E. Rendall, solicitor for the defence, that the evidence in the case was such as to have raised some doubt in his Worship's mind, but the extent of it was not sufficient to warrant the defendant's discharge. He added, however, that in his statutory report to His Excellency the Governor, he would express the doubts which he had in his mind.\n\nOBITUARY.\n\nMR. GEORGE SHAW PASSES AWAY.\n\nWe regret to record the death of Mr. George Shaw, which occurred at the Government Civil Hospital at 6.15 a.m. yesterday.\n\nMr. Shaw, who was only 35 years of age, had been in indifferent health for the past two years, having been an inmate of the Government Civil Hospital since September, 1927. He was not, however, a bed patient, but he required constant treatment and was very popular with the medical officers and nursing staff, being always ready to lend a hand in an emergency.\n\nThe crisis in his long illness came about a week ago, when he was forced to take to bed permanently, and though he made several rallies followed by heavier relapses during the crisis, these were always the worst of these happened on Thursday night, and early yesterday morning the patient passed away.\n\nThe late Mr. Shaw was a native of Lancashire, and soon after the outbreak of the War, he joined up when he was only 19 years of age. He served with the 3rd Battalion, East Surrey Regiment, and in 1918 he was invalided home with malignant malaria, fever and general unfitness for further active service. He was also badly gassed, and was a first-class shot and first-class signaller. He held the General Service and Victory Medals and was demobilised in 1919, when he returned to China to take up an appointment with the Customs. In 1923, he resigned from this post and joined Messrs. Cary & Co., of Canton, and it was in 1927 that he was forced to leave this post on account of bad health and came to Hong Kong for treatment in the Government Civil Hospital.\n\nProceeding, Det.-Sergt. Fitches said that Gifford on several occasions borrowed the doctor's raincoat and his watch and chain. These articles were not returned, as the defendant had pawned them.\n\nIt was stated that Gifford had threatened to issue a summons against the doctor, if the $200 were not paid. The complainant, ignorant of Chinese custom, had thought that he had done a terrible thing.\n\nA Pair of Shoes-And a Fight.\n\nA summons was eventually taken out against the defendant, but it could not be served, as Gifford could not be found. On the evening of June 17, Gifford was caught fighting with a teacher. The quarrel arose on account of a pair of shoes having been borrowed from the teacher. Gifford, on being asked for the return of the shoes, struck the teacher.\n\nGifford was arrested and taken to the police station, where he made a clean breast of the whole matter.\n\nEvidence was then given by the complainant, after which the Magistrate found the three defendants guilty of conspiracy to defraud. His Worship passed sentences of one year's hard labour on Gifford, and $50, or one month's hard labour, on the other two defendants.\n\nWhat temperature do you suggest we should put it in at?-The milk would come from a dairy and be in cold storage. The only dairy I know of in Hong Kong is the Dairy Farm.\n\nThen we have to confine our activities to the Dairy Farm?-No.\n\nThe Funeral.\n\nThe funeral arrangements were undertaken by the local branch of the British Legion and the E.A.S.M.A., and the sad function took place yesterday afternoon. A number of friends, who had gathered at the Monument, followed the hearse to the Protestant Cemetery, Happy Valley, where Mr. Shaw was buried. Among others who stood at the graveside were Mr. F. W. James (President of the British Legion), Captain Laurenson (President of the Ex-Active Service Men's Association), Mr. F. P. Anslow, Mr. J. Murray, and Mr. T. Williams. The burial service was conducted by Rev. H. V. Koop.\n\nFruit and Vegetables.\n\nGiving his figures for fruit, witness said that 60 cases could be put in the fruit room. It would take 13 days to reduce the temperature of the goods from 90 to 34 degrees.\n\nMr. Potter: It is a mere farce about requiring 13 days to reduce the temperature of fruit from 90 to 34 degrees. I say you can do it in 48 hours.\n\nMr. Rasey: No, Sir.\n\nTaking the figures for the vegetable room, Mr. Potter humorously remarked that if they could finish off the vegetables, which appropriately came last, then there would be little left for Monday.\n\nAfter further questions, the cross-examination was adjourned until Monday morning.\n\nA blind man was seen shaving himself with a razor. He wielded the instrument with such skill that those watching him marvelled at it and remarked that the blind man was not one whit less expert in the use of the instrument than a barber.\n\nHaving finished his operations, the man turned to the crowd and said: \"Don't have the mistaken idea that we blind men cannot perform such delicate work as shaving. In all my life, I have never once patronized a barber! I even used to shave my children when my wife was too busy!\"\n\nWreaths were sent by the following:-Sophie and Aggie, Ivy Soong, the Easma Club, Capt. T. T. Laurenson, British Legion, Sisters and Nurses of the Government Civil Hospital, members of the Upper Levels Police Station (Sergeants' Mess), the Police Ward, G.C.H. Staff, G.C.H., and Mr. and Mrs. T. Hynes.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-524-1 Reports of Salaries Commission 31-12-1929 - 27-10-1930.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 532582,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933",
        "page_number": 29,
        "title": "CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933",
        "content_text": "31\n\n\"having \n\nUTA \n\nsituated Quatt \n\nRummany convict un \n\nSu Table of Correspondence. \n\nPenalty for obstructing \n\n(2) Any manager who at any time refuses admittance to visitors and any such visitor, or to any Judge of the Supreme Court, or others having to any Member of the Executive or Legislative Council, or inspection. to any Magistrate, or offers to him any hindrance or obstruction, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. \n\nthe right of \n\nReformatory and certified \n\nYouthful Offenders. \n\n16. Every reformatory school and every certified industrial school shall be a lawful place of detention for such youthful offenders as are ordered to be detained therein, and shall be subject to be inspected and reported on as herein provided. \n\nful places of detention. \n\nOrder of Detention. \n\n17.-(1) When a youthful offender is convicted before any court of an offence punishable, in the case of an adult, by fine or imprisonment the court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punishment, order such offender to be sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school there to be detained for any period not less than two and not longer than five years and not being in any case longer than until such offender attains the age of eighteen years; Provided that the offender shall not in addition be sentenced to imprisonment. \n\n(2) Where such an order has been made in respect of a youthful offender of the age of fourteen years or upwards, and no reformatory or certified industrial school can be found the managers of which are willing to receive him, the Governor may order the offender to be brought before the court which made the order or any court having the like jurisdiction, and that court may make such order or pass such sentence as the court may determine, so however that the order or sentence shall be such as might have been originally made or passed in respect of the offence. \n\n(3) The court may in addition to making an order of detention under the foregoing subsections make an order that the youthful offender be placed under the supervision of a probation officer. \n\n(4) The Court making an order of detention may of its own motion, or on the application of any person, from time to time by order renew, vary or revoke any such order; and may by an order of detention fix a date when such order shall come up before the court for consideration. \n\n(5) An order of detention made in pursuance of this section may, if the court think fit, be made to take effect either immediately or at a later date specified therein, regard being had to the age or health of the youthful offender. \n\n(6) IF-\n\n(a) an order of detention is made but is not to take effect immediately; or \n\n(b) at the time specified for the order to take effect the youthful offender is unfit to be sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school; or \n\n(c) the school to which the youthful offender is to be sent cannot be ascertained until inquiry has been made; \n\nthe court may make an order committing him either to custody any place to which he might be committed on remand or to the custody of a relative or other fit person or institution named by the court and he shall be kept in that custody accordingly until he is sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school in pursuance of the order of detention. \n\n18. In selecting the place of detention to which a youthful offender is to be sent the court shall have regard, so far as practicable, to the religious persuasion of the youthful offender. \n\n19.-(1) It shall be the duty of the manager of a reformatory or certified industrial school to report to the Governor immediately he considers it would be consistent with the welfare of a youthful offender for him to be discharged from the custody of the school. \n\n(2) The manager of a reformatory or certified industrial school to which a youthful offender under the age of ten years is sent, may, with the consent of the Governor, board the offender out with any suitable person until he reaches the age of ten years and thereafter for such longer period, with the consent of the Governor, as the manager considers to be advisable in the interests of the offender, subject to the exercise by the manager of such powers as to supervision, recall and otherwise as may be prescribed by rules made by the Governor in Council; and where an offender is so boarded out he shall nevertheless be deemed for the purposes of this Ordinance to be a youthful offender detained in the reformatory or certified industrial school, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly, subject to such necessary adaptations as may be made by order of the Governor in Council. \n\n20.-(1) The Governor may at any time discharge a youthful offender from the custody of any reformatory or certified industrial school, or order such youthful offender to be removed from one school to another or from a school of one class to a school of another class, but so that the period of detention originally prescribed by the order of detention shall not be increased by such removal. \n\n(2) The discharge of a youthful offender under the foregoing sub-section may be on licence and the licence may be in such form and may contain such conditions as the Governor may direct and the Governor may at any time revoke or vary the conditions of a licence. \n\n(3) Where a licence has been revoked the youthful offender to whom the licence related shall return to such place as the Governor may direct, and if he fails so to do may be apprehended without warrant and taken to that place. \n\n(4) On the revocation of a licence, any obligation to contribute to the expenses of the youthful offender shall revive and be in force during the period for which the youthful offender is detained. \n\n(5) The discharge of a youthful offender under the provisions of this section shall not affect any order placing him under the supervision of a probation officer. \n\nSu Table of Correspondence.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 532590,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933",
        "content_text": "42\n\nPenalty for \n\nobstructing visitors and \n\n(2) Any manager who at any time refuses admittance to any such visitor, or to any Judge of the Supreme Court, or others having to any Member of the Executive or Legislative Council, or to any Magistrate, or offers to him hindrance or \n\nany obstruction, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. \n\nthe right of inspection. \n\nReformatory \n\nand certified \n\nYouthful Offenders. \n\n16. Every reformatory school and every certified indus- schools law trial school shall be a lawful place of detention for such youthful offenders as are ordered to be detained therein, and shall be subject to be inspected and reported on as herein provided. \n\nful places of detention. \n\nOrder of Detention. \n\n17. (1) When a youthful offender is convicted before any court of an offence punishable, in the case of an adult, by fine or imprisonment the court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punish- ment, order such offender to be sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school there to be detained for any period not less than two and not longer than five years and not being in any case longer than until such offender attains the age of eighteen years; Provided that the offender shall not in addition be sentenced to imprisonment. \n\n(2) Where such an order has been made in respect of a youthful offender of the age of fourteen years or upwards, and no reformatory or certified industrial school can be found the managers of which are willing to receive him, the Governor may order the offender to be brought before the court which made the order or any court having the like jurisdiction, and that court may make such order or pass such sentence as the court may determine, so however that the order or sentence shall be such as might have been originally made or passed in respect of the offence. \n\n(3) The court may in addition to making an order of detention under the foregoing subsections make an order that the youthful offender be placed under the supervision of a probation officer. \n\n(4) The Court making an order of detention may of its own motion, or on the application of any person, from time to time by order renew, vary or revoke any such order; and may by an order of detention fix a date when such order shall come up before the court for consideration. \n\n(5) An order of detention made in pursuance of this sec- tion may, if the court think fit, be made to take effect either immediately or at a later date specified therein, regard being had to the age or health of the youthful offender. \n\n(6) If-\n\n(a) an order of detention is made but is not to take \n\neffect immediately; or \n\n(b) at the time specified for the order to take effect the youthful offender is unfit to be sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school; or \n\n(c) the school to which the youthful offender is to be sent cannot be ascertained until inquiry has been made; \n\nthe court may make an order committing him either to custody in any place to which he might be committed on remand or to the custody of a relative or other fit person or institution named by the court and he shall be kept in that custody ac- cordingly until he is sent to a reformatory or certified industrial school in pursuance of the order of detention. \n\n18. In selecting the place of detention to which a Religious youthful offender is to be sent the court shall have regard, so persuasion far as practicable, to the religious persuasion of the youthful to be offender. \n\nof offender \n\nconsidered. \n\n19.—(1) It shall be the duty of the manager of à Duties and reformatory or certified industrial school to report to the powers of Governor immediately he considers it would be consistent with manager. the welfare of a youthful offender for him to be discharged from the custody of the school. \n\n(2) The manager of a reformatory or certified industrial school to which a youthful offender under the age of ten years is sent, may, with the consent of the Governor, board the offender out with any suitable person until he reaches the age of ten years and thereafter for such longer period, with the consent of the Governor, as the manager considers to be advisable in the interests of the offender, subject to the exercise by the manager of such powers as to supervision, recall and otherwise as may be prescribed by rules made by the Governor in Council; and where an offender is so boarded out he shall nevertheless be deemed for the purposes of this Ordinance to be a youthful offender detained in the reforma- tory or certified industrial school, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly, subject to such necessary adaptions as may be made by order of the Governor in Council. \n\nof offender. \n\n20.--(1) The Governor may at any time discharge a Discharge youthful offender from the custody of any reformatory or certified industrial school, or order such youthful offender to be removed from one school to another or from a school of one class to a school of another class, but so that the period of detention originally prescribed by the order of detention shall not be increased by such removal. \n\n(2) The discharge of a youthful offender under the fore- going sub-section may be on licence and the licence may be in such form and may contain such conditions as the Governor may direct and the Governor may at any time revoke or vary the conditions of a licence. \n\n(3) Where a licence has been revoked the youthful offen- der to whom the licence related shall return to such place as the Governor may direct, and if he fails so to do may be apprehended without warrant and taken to that place. \n\n(4) On the revocation of a licence, any obligation to contribute to the expenses of the youthful offender shall revive and be in force during the period for which the youthful offender is detained. \n\n(5) The discharge of a youthful offender under the pro- visions of this section shall not affect any order placing him under the supervision of a probation officer. \n\n43",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 532756,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-537-9 Prisons Ordinance 1932 1-12-1932 - 8-12-1932",
        "page_number": 7,
        "title": "CO129-537-9 Prisons Ordinance 1932 1-12-1932 - 8-12-1932",
        "content_text": "than\n\nthat Judges of Appeal,\n\nc. 71 §3(2)\n\n-borne but\n\nSupplying prohibited articles to prisoners.\n\nNotice of\n\nunder ss. 11 to 13 to be placed outside\n\n(3) Any officer of a prison convicted under this section shall, in addition to any other punishment, forfeit his office.\n\n13. (1) No person shall in any prison sell any intoxicating liquor, opium or other drug, or tobacco, and no officer of a prison shall knowingly permit any such article to be sold in any prison.\n\n(2) No officer of a prison shall permit any intoxicating liquor, opium or other drug, or tobacco, to be used by any prisoner, unless such use be authorized by the prison rules or by the Superintendent of Prisons.\n\n(3) No officer of a prison shall, contrary to the prison rules, give or cause to be given anything of whatsoever nature to any prisoner.\n\n(4) Every person who contravenes or attempts to contravene any of the provisions of this section shall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.\n\n(5) Any officer of a prison convicted under this section shall, in addition to any other punishment, forfeit his office.\n\n14. The Superintendent of Prisons shall cause to be affixed in a conspicuous place outside every prison a notice, in English and in Chinese, setting forth the penalties that will be incurred by persons committing any offence in contravention of sections 11, 12 and 13.\n\n28 & 29 Vict. c. 125, s. 40.\n\nInquiry on\n\nprisoner dying.\n\n28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, s. 48; 50 & 51 Vict. c. 57, s. 3.\n\n15. It shall be the duty of a magistrate discharging the duties of coroner to hold an inquiry on the body of every prisoner who may die within a prison, and in no case shall any officer of a prison, or any prisoner confined in a prison, or any person engaged in any sort of trade or dealing with a prison, be a juror on such inquiry.\n\nMisconduct\n\nof subordinate\n\nprison officers\n\nand servants.\n\nPrison rules,\n\n16. Every subordinate prison officer or servant who:\n\n(1) after having been duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, or refuses or neglects to obey any lawful order, or is guilty of any breach of discipline or any insubordination; or,\n\n(2) on being dismissed or permitted to resign from or ceasing to belong to the prison service, does not deliver up all arms, accoutrements, appointments and things entrusted to him for the performance of his duty as such officer or servant,\n\nshall upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, and further shall forfeit all pay during any such imprisonment.\n\n17. (1) It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to make rules for the regulation and government of prisons, and for the duties and conduct of the officers and other persons employed in prisons, and for the punishment by fine, degradation to a lower rank or pay, discharge or dismissal of such officers or other persons, and for the duties of the visiting justices, and for the conditions under which visitors may be allowed in prisons, and for the classification, diet, clothing, maintenance, employment, discipline, instruction and correction of prisoners, and the remission of a portion of their sentences, and the granting of gratuities to them, and for all other matters relating to prisons.\n\n(2) It shall also be lawful for the Governor in Council by such rules to impose any punishment or penalty for the breach of any such rules.\n\n(3) Every such rule may be disallowed by His Majesty.\n\nAppointment\n\nand duties\n\n18. (1) All prisons shall be visited at least twice a month by justices of the peace appointed by the Governor to be visiting justices for periods to be specified in their appointments.\n\n(2) Such visiting justices shall when visiting prisons hear any complaints which may be made to them by the prisoners, and shall report on any abuses within the prisons or any repairs that may be required, and shall further take cognizance of any matters of pressing necessity and within the powers of their commission as justices, and do such acts and perform such duties in relation to prisons as they may be required to do or perform by the Governor, but subject to the rules with respect to the duties of visiting justices to be made by the Governor in Council.\n\n40 & 41 Vict. c. 21, ss. 13 and 14.\n\non paying of\n\nfine.\n\n4 & 5 Gen. 5, c. 58, s. 3.\n\n19. Where a person is committed to prison for non-payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction of any court, then, on payment to the Superintendent of Prisons, or to such person as the Superintendent of Prisons may authorise, or to the first clerk at a Magistracy, of any sum in part satisfaction of the sum so adjudged to be paid and of any charges for which the prisoner is liable, the term of imprisonment shall be reduced by a number of days bearing as nearly as possible the same proportion to the total number of days for which the prisoner has been sentenced as the sum so paid bears to the sum for which he is so liable: Provided, nevertheless, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any sum of money which is ordered to be paid to any person aggrieved by way of compensation or amends for any injury, damage or loss to his person or property.\n\n20. The Prisons Ordinance, 1899, and the Prisons Amendment Ordinance, 1927, are hereby repealed.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, this 1st day of December, 1932.\n\nR. A. C. NORTH,\n\nDeputy Clerk of Councils.\n\nOrdinances\n\nNo. 4 of 1899 and\n\nNo. 26 of 1927.\n\nPage 9\n\n...\n\n...\n\nPage 10",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-537-9 Prisons Ordinance 1932 1-12-1932 - 8-12-1932.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 534826,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-540-7 Dredging of Hong Kong Harbour 26-4-1932 - 1-10-1932",
        "page_number": 29,
        "title": "CO129-540-7 Dredging of Hong Kong Harbour 26-4-1932 - 1-10-1932",
        "content_text": "2\n\nZ8A\n\nthe latter, where the Committing Magistrate ...\n\nAscertain ...\n\ndues on ...\n\nmercantile ...\n\nof ...\n\nShipping to Court ...\n\nor partly cover the cost of dredging the Harbour. It would appear from the evidence that certain ...\n\n...\n\nthe Juice Companies are ...\n\nLines directly or presumably (through their local agents) interested financially in the Godown Company.\n\nA substantial contribution from that Company towards the proposed Expenditure would seem an equitable way ...\n\nto be an ...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-540-7 Dredging of Hong Kong Harbour 26-4-1932 - 1-10-1932.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 543412,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-545-8 Annual medical report 1932 2-11-1933 - 16-5-1934",
        "page_number": 184,
        "title": "CO129-545-8 Annual medical report 1932 2-11-1933 - 16-5-1934",
        "content_text": "## OFFENCES & PENALTIES.\n\n10. If any person without lawful authority or excuse does or omits to do anything which, under the provisions of this Ordinance or the regulations or by-laws made thereunder he ought not to do or omit, or if he obstructs or impedes or assists in obstructing or impeding, any Health Officer or other officer appointed under this Ordinance or any Police Officer in the execution of his duty or disobeys any lawful order of any such officer as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance.\n\n11. If any person is guilty of an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder for which no other penalty is provided, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars and if such offence be of a continuing nature, to a further fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which such offence shall continue.\n\n12. A person convicted of any offence against this Ordinance or regulations or by-laws made thereunder who is within a period of twelve months from the date of such conviction convicted of a second or subsequent like offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months either in addition to or in lieu of the fine authorised by section 11.\n\n13. (1) When a person is seen or found committing or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in committing an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder, any Health Officer or Police Officer may, without warrant, stop and detain him, and if his name and address are not known may arrest him.\n\n(2) If any person obstructs or impedes a Health Officer or other officer appointed under this Ordinance or any Police Officer in the execution of his duty under this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder, or assists in any such obstruction or impeding, he may be arrested by such Health Officer or other officer or Police Officer without warrant.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall take away or abridge any power or authority that a Police Officer would have had if this section had not been enacted.\n\n14. If any person lands or attempts to land or otherwise brings into the Colony any animal or thing in contravention of this Ordinance or of any regulation or by-law made thereunder, such animal or thing shall be liable to be forfeited: Provided that this section shall not apply to landing or bringing into a Quarantine Station any animal or thing under the instructions of a Health Officer.\n\n15. When any occupant of a house in which a case of disease occurs, or any person in charge of a diseased person, is charged with an offence against this Ordinance relative to such disease, he shall be presumed to have known of the existence of such disease in such person unless and until he shows to the Magistrate before whom he is charged that he had not such knowledge and could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge.\n\n16. The execution of the measures prescribed by this Ordinance and the Regulations and By-laws made thereunder shall be carried out under the general direction of the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services.\n\n## Part II. THE PREVENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF DISEASE.\n\n17. No person shall knowingly import into the Colony any living noxious insect, or any living pest, or any living noxious disease germ or microbe, or any bacterial culture without the written consent of a Health Officer.\n\n18. Every master of any vessel or aircraft who brings into the Colony any person suffering from leprosy or any infectious or contagious disease, or who removes any such person from one part of the Colony to the other, except on the order of a Health Officer or Port Health Officer, shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Ordinance unless such master can show to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he had no reasonable means of knowing that such person was suffering.\n\n19. Whenever information is received that any quarantinable disease has broken out, or exists, or is reasonably suspected to exist at any place or port without the Colony, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to declare that such place or port is an infected place or infected port. All declarations made under this section shall be notified in the Gazette.\n\n20. (1) All persons coming from an infected place or port otherwise than by sea may be medically inspected or examined by a Health Officer.\n\n(2) The inspection or examination shall be conducted at such place as the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services shall approve.\n\n(3) In case of persons arriving by rail, the railway authorities shall allow sufficient time and make due arrangements for the examination to take place.\n\n301",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-545-8 Annual medical report 1932 2-11-1933 - 16-5-1934.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 543616,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-545-9 Proposed reorganisation of medical and sanitary services 2-11-1933 - 10-1-1934",
        "page_number": 75,
        "title": "CO129-545-9 Proposed reorganisation of medical and sanitary services 2-11-1933 - 10-1-1934",
        "content_text": "## Offences and Penalties\n\n### Regulations and By-laws\n\n(h) for the better prevention of the danger of the spreading of infection by rats, the means to be taken on shore for minimising their numbers and destroying them, and for preventing their passing from vessel to shore or from shore to vessel;\n\n(i) for the disinfection and purification of infected vehicles;\n\n(j) for the examination of the bodies of dead persons and the certification of the cause of death in cases where the cause has not been certified by a qualified medical practitioner or where there is reason to suspect that the diagnosis made is not correct;\n\n(k) for the speedy and safe disposal of the dead; and\n\n(l) for such other matters as may appear to the Urban Council advisable for the prevention or mitigation of disease.\n\n(2) All by-laws made by the Urban Council shall be submitted to the Governor and shall be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council.\n\n## Offences & Penalties\n\n10. If any person without lawful authority or excuse does or omits to do anything which, under the provisions of this Ordinance or the regulations or by-laws made thereunder he ought not to do or omit, or if he obstructs or impedes or assists in obstructing or impeding any Health Officer or other officer appointed under this Ordinance or any Police Officer in the execution of his duty or disobeys any lawful order of any such officer as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance.\n\n11. If any person is guilty of an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder for which no other penalty is provided, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars and if such offence be of a continuing nature, to a further fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which such offence shall continue.\n\n12. A person convicted of any offence against this Ordinance or regulations or by-laws made thereunder who is within a period of twelve months from the date of such conviction convicted of a second or subsequent like offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months either in addition to or in lieu of the fine authorised by section 11.\n\n13.(1) When a person is seen or found committing or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in committing an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder, any Health Officer or Police Officer may, without warrant, stop and detain him, and if his name and address are not known may arrest him.\n\n(2) If any person obstructs or impedes a Health Officer or other officer appointed under this Ordinance or any Police Officer in the execution of his duty under this Ordinance or any regulation or by-law made thereunder, or assists in any such obstruction or impeding, he may be arrested by such Health Officer or other officer or Police Officer without warrant.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall take away or abridge any power or authority that a Police Officer would have had if this section had not been enacted.\n\n14. If any person lands or attempts to land or otherwise brings into the Colony any animal or thing in contravention of this Ordinance or of any regulation or by-law made thereunder, such animal or thing shall be liable to be forfeited: Provided that this section shall not apply to landing or bringing into a Quarantine Station any animal or thing under the instructions of a Health Officer.\n\n15. When any occupant of a house in which a case of disease occurs, or any person in charge of a diseased person, is charged with an offence against this Ordinance relative to such disease, he shall be presumed to have known of the existence of such disease in such person unless and until he shows to the Magistrate before whom he is charged that he had not such knowledge and could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge.\n\n16. The execution of the measures prescribed by this Ordinance and the Regulations and By-laws made thereunder shall be carried out under the general direction of the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services.\n\n## Part II. The Prevention of the Introduction of Disease\n\n17. No person shall knowingly import into the Colony any living noxious insect, or any living pest, or any living noxious disease germ or microbe, or any bacterial culture without the written consent of a Health Officer.\n\n18. Every master of any vessel or aircraft who brings into the Colony any person suffering from leprosy or any infectious or contagious disease, or who removes any such person from one part of the Colony to the other, except on the order of a Health Officer or Port Health Officer, shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Ordinance unless such master can show to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he had no reasonable means of knowing that such person was so suffering.\n\n19. Whenever information is received that any quarantinable disease has broken out, or exists, or is reasonably suspected to exist at any place or port without the Colony, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to declare that such place or port is an infected place or infected port. All declarations made under this section shall be notified in the Gazette.\n\n20. (1) All persons coming from an infected place or port otherwise than by sea may be medically inspected or examined by a Health Officer.\n\n(2) The inspection or examination shall be conducted at such place as the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services shall approve.\n\n(3) In case of persons arriving by rail, the railway authorities shall allow sufficient time and make due arrangements for the examination to take place.\n\nPage 96",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-545-9 Proposed reorganisation of medical and sanitary services 2-11-1933 - 10-1-1934.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 544893,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935",
        "page_number": 199,
        "title": "CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935",
        "content_text": "# Appendix H.\n\n## REPORT OF THE HONG KONG AND KOWLOON MAGISTRACIES FOR THE YEAR 1933.\n\n### HONG KONG.\n\nMr. W. Schofield acted as First Police Magistrate and Coroner from the 1st January to the 3rd November.\n\nMr. E. W. Hamilton acted as First Police Magistrate and Coroner from the 4th November to the end of the year.\n\nMr. E. I. Wynne-Jones acted as Second Police Magistrate from the 1st January to the 10th October.\n\nMr. S. F. Balfour acted as Second Police Magistrate from the 11th October to the end of the year.\n\nThe number of cases was 26,162 as compared with 19,155 in 1932.\n\n### KOWLOON.\n\nMr. H. R. Butters acted as Police Magistrate from the 1st January to the 10th October.\n\nMr. E. I. Wynne-Jones acted as Police Magistrate from 11th October to the end of the year.\n\nThe number of cases was 19,925 as compared with 14,418 in 1932.\n\nTable I shows the expenditure of the two Magistracies for the years 1932 and 1933, including the cost of all officers in the departments who belong to the Cadet, Senior Clerical and Accounting, and Junior Clerical Services.\n\nTable II shows the Revenue of the two Magistracies for the same years.\n\nTable III shows their revenue and expenditure for the last ten years in comparative form.\n\nTable IV gives an Abstract of Cases under cognizance of the Magistrates' Courts during the years 1932 and 1933 in comparative form. The number of offenders previously convicted who were sentenced during the year is shown and the number of offenders who were placed under Police Supervision in addition to their sentences is given.\n\nTable V is an analysis of the \"convicted and sentenced\" column in Table IV, showing the penalties inflicted under each of the eight main heads of crime in that table. The number of offenders previously bound over whose bonds have been enforced on committing a breach of the conditions of the bonds is also shown.\n\nPage 256",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 545006,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935",
        "page_number": 312,
        "title": "CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935",
        "content_text": "## Table XI (1). CONSPECTUS OF WORK DONE IN THE SEVERAL HEALTH DISTRICTS, 1983.\n\n| Nature of Offence | Peak | Central | Wan Chai | Aberdeen | Kowloon | Total |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Committing a nuisance in a public place | 10 | 19 | 7 | 1 | 14 | 51 |\n| Dirty condition of bakehouse, dwelling houses, market stalls, etc. | 1 | 6 | 1 |  | 3 | 11 |\n| Exposing for sale of pork, vegetable, fruit, which is not being a perishable |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Market................ |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Exposing form of vegetable, fruit, etc., in a part of the market other than that which is appropriate for the sale of such articles | 1 | 1 |  |  | 1 | 3 |\n| Hawking fish, vegetable, meat, etc., without S.B. | 6 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 19 |\n| Exposing for sale of skimmed milk not properly labelled | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |\n| Trespassing Government property.. |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |\n| Making noise in the street |  | 1 |  |  | 1 | 2 |\n| Obstructing and molesting inspector while in the execution of his duty |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |\n| Failing to have spice and legumes properly swept. |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |\n| Selling vegetables from soil. |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |\n| Stall holders in market, carrying on slaughter house business without permission from the Board... |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Obstruction of avenue, etc., in market |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |\n| Failing to notify a case of Smallpox |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Failing to limewash the premises (required by the Board) |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |\n| Carrying on pig-slaughtering practices without approval |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |\n| ... |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Total | 19 | 37 | 10 | 2 | 30 | 98 |\n| Applications for S.B. Notions | 1,877 | 1,507 | 1,705 | 1,807 | 2,137 | 9,033 |\n| Prosecutions on S.B. Notions | 199 | 165 | 74 | 180 | 154 | 772 |\n| Objections removed re light and ventilation | 11 | 7 |  |  |  | 18 |\n| Water closets installed in private dwellings | 9 | 19 | 16 | 18 | 1 | 63 |\n| ... |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Houses demolished and No. of Rooms (New Demolition Building) |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Floors | 35 |  |  |  |  | 35 |\n| ... |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n## Table XI (H). PROSECUTIONS CLASSIFIED BY HEALTH DISTRICTS 1933.\n\n|  | Peak | Central | Wan Chai | Aberdeen | Kowloon | Total |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| ... | 1 | 3 |  |  |  | 4 |\n| ... |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |\n| 1 case defendant bound over in personal bond of $25 for 6 months. |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |\n| Admonished Magistrate under lo abate the nuisance. |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1 person imprisoned 4 days. |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |\n| 7 cases imprisoned 7 days. |  |  |  |  |  | 7 |\n| 4 cases defendants imprisoned for 1 month. |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |\n| 1 case struck off. |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |\n| 5 Cases defendants discharged. |  |  |  |  |  | 5 |\n| 7 cases defendants convicted, sentences deferred |  |  |  |  |  | 7 |\n| ... |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nPage 407\n\nTotal fines: $470.00\nTotal costs: $3,976.00\n\n1 case to sign a bond of $50 to be of good behaviour for one year.\n5 cases $10 bail estreated.\n1 case $25 bail estreated.\n1 case warned.\n1 case to sign a bond of $75 to be of good behaviour for one year.\n1 case $15 bail estreated.\n1 case $20 bail estreated.\n3 persons imprisoned 14 days.\n1 person imprisoned 10 days.\n1 case imprisoned 21 days.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-548-1 Annual reports from various government departments 3-4-1934 - 11-6-1935.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 546434,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-550-7 Rex v. Ng Loi Yuen- appeal to Privy Council 1-1-1934 - 31-12-1934",
        "page_number": 66,
        "title": "CO129-550-7 Rex v. Ng Loi Yuen- appeal to Privy Council 1-1-1934 - 31-12-1934",
        "content_text": "Bothwell's case\n\n-6-\n\n16 C. A. p.104\n\nC.A. will not retry. Strong case against interference.\n\nChadwick Matthews\n\nRice Case √.\n\nHo hns on 12 C.. p.250.\n\n20 C.A. p.21.\n\nCircumstances of each particular case govern.\n\nRobertson's case\n\n9 C. A. 189\n\n66\n\nHead note.\n\nWhat inference would jury draw. Last clause.\n\nYallace's case 23 C. A. p.34 Verdict unreasonable.\n\nEvidence to go to jury.\n\nD. on bridge.\n\nD. intended suicide. Statement to magistrate.\n\nLetters.\n\nMotive for suicide. Disappointed man.\n\nBetween Eric Davies' departure and Mrs. Fairburn's arrival. Time very short for them to get down the steps.\n\nMichael's injury due to a fall by being dropped.\n\nAccused jumped in from bridge. Suicide attempt then began.\n\nNo one else on bridge. Davies and Fairburn.\n\nIf crime committed accused alone had opportunity of committing it.\n\nVery short interval in progress down the nullah.\n\nChildren seen all the way. Water swirled at places.\n\nD. only one who did not get out until he reached the tunnel.\n\nD. seen by Mrs. Vincent and Mrs. Thompson.\n\nHat Stone, the 2 Pines, and the accused.\n\nD. conscious.\n\nMrs. V. saw him sitting up.\n\nSellars do.\n\nMc Carthy saw no one in tunnel except accused, and helpers.\n\nD. was hiding tight against wall. Resisted capture.\n\nEvidence negativing accident.\n\nDifficulty of steps for children. Coincidence of 3 children failing in together.\n\nLetters.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-550-7 Rex v. Ng Loi Yuen- appeal to Privy Council 1-1-1934 - 31-12-1934.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 552457,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-559-4 Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance 1936 4-2-1936 - 4-2-1936",
        "page_number": 12,
        "title": "CO129-559-4 Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance 1936 4-2-1936 - 4-2-1936",
        "content_text": "## 12.--(1) When a person is seen or found committing or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in committing an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation made thereunder, any Health Officer or police officer may, without warrant, stop and detain him, and if his name and address are not known may arrest him.\n\n(2) If any person obstructs or impedes a Health Officer or other officer appointed under this Ordinance or any police officer in the execution of his duty under this Ordinance or any regulation made thereunder, or assists in any such obstruction or impeding, he may be arrested by such Health Officer or other officer or police officer without warrant.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall take away or abridge any power or authority that a police officer would have had if this section had not been enacted.\n\n## 13. If any person lands or attempts to land or otherwise brings into the Colony any animal or thing in contravention of this Ordinance or of any regulation made thereunder, such animal or thing shall be liable to be forfeited: Provided that this section shall not apply to landing or bringing into a quarantine station any animal or thing under the instructions of a Health Officer.\n\n## 14. When any occupant of a house in which a case of disease occurs, or any person in charge of a diseased person, is charged with an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation made thereunder, relative to such disease, he shall be presumed to have known of the existence of such disease in such person unless and until he shows to the magistrate before whom he is charged that he had not such knowledge and could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge.\n\n## 15. The execution of the measures prescribed by this Ordinance and the regulations made thereunder shall be carried out under the general direction of the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services.\n\n# Part II.\n## THE PREVENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF DISEASE.\n\n## 16. No person shall knowingly import into the Colony any living noxious insect, or any living pest, or any living germ or microbe of disease, or any bacterial culture, without the written consent of the Director of Medical and Sanitary Services.\n\n## 17. Every master of any vessel or aircraft who brings into the Colony any person suffering from leprosy or any infectious or contagious disease, or who removes any such person from one part of the Colony to the other, except on the order of a Health Officer, shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Ordinance unless such master can show to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he had no reasonable means of knowing that such person was so suffering.\n\n## 18. Whenever information is received that plague, cholera, yellow fever, typhus or smallpox has broken out, or exists, or is reasonably suspected to exist, at any place or port.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-559-4 Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance 1936 4-2-1936 - 4-2-1936.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 556320,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-565-11 Naval Establishments Police Amendment Ordinance 1937 1-10-1937 - 4-10-1937",
        "page_number": 4,
        "title": "CO129-565-11 Naval Establishments Police Amendment Ordinance 1937 1-10-1937 - 4-10-1937",
        "content_text": "HONG KONG\n\nNo. 19 OF 1937.\n\nI assent.\n\nN. L. SMITH,\n\nL. S.\n\nOfficer Administering the Government.\n\n1st October, 1937.\n\nAn Ordinance to amend the Naval Establishments Police Ordinance, 1875.\n\n[1st October, 1937.]\n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hong Kong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Naval Establishments Police Amendment Ordinance, 1937.\n\n2. Section 2 of the Naval Establishments Police Ordinance, 1875, is repealed and the following section is substituted therefor:\n\n2. Every member of the police force employed in the Royal Naval Establishments shall-\n\n(1) within the said Establishments as well on water as on land;\n\n(2) without the said Establishments, in the waters of the harbour not more than 100 yards from the sea-wall of the said Establishments and also within the limits for the time being of any anchorage set apart for ships of war under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1899;\n\nmembers of the force.\n\n(3) without the said Establishments, in so far as may be necessary for the arrest of any person whom he finds committing or whom he may reasonably suspect of having committed or of being about to commit an offence within the limits mentioned in paragraphs (1) or (2), or for conveying any person lawfully arrested to a police station or before a magistrate,\n\nhave the powers of a police officer of corresponding rank.\n\nPage 4\n\n \n\n( Ordinance No. 1 of 1875, s. 2. )\n\n( Ordinance No. 10 of 1899. )",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-565-11 Naval Establishments Police Amendment Ordinance 1937 1-10-1937 - 4-10-1937.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 566128,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-579-11-1 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940",
        "page_number": 44,
        "title": "CO129-579-11-1 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940",
        "content_text": "SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST\n\ndated\n\n24th October, 1939.\n\nEnclosure No.\n\n44\n\nILLEGAL RADIO\n\nSix Men Fined Total Of $16,000\n\n\"SERIOUS OFFENCE\"\n\nFines of $16,000 were imposed on six men by Mr. Himsworth at Kowloon Magistracy yesterday on charges concerning an illegal wireless station.\n\nMr. M. J. Abbott, Assistant Crown Solicitor, who prosecuted, stressed the seriousness of the offence but said a redeeming feature was that no threat had been caused to Hong Kong.\n\nThe Postmaster General, Mr. Wynne-Jones, was in court.\n\nMr. Peter H. Sin, acted for all defendants who pleaded guilty.\n\nDefendants were Yuen Lap-kwan, 29, unemployed, Tsui Pak-ming, 30, clerk, Chiu Chi-fong, 23, secretary, Shum Kim-chow, 30, clerk, Tin Yuk-yan, 35, clerk and Chau Sze, 25, unemployed. They were all charged with possession of an apparatus for radio without a licence. Chan and Yuen were also charged with working a radio communication station otherwise than in accordance with a licence. Tsui, Chiu, Shum and Tin were also charged with maintaining a radio station without a licence and possession of codes and ciphers contrary to the Defence Regulations. Every defendant was fined $1,000 on each of the charges.\n\nThree Raids\n\nMr. Abbott said on September 25 shortly before midnight simultaneous raids were made on three flats in Nathan Road, one in the Mongkok district and two on the corner of Hillwood Road. At Mongkok a combined transmitter-receiver and a receiving set were found. They were in operation at the time and Yuen was engaged in receiving a message. The combined transmitter-receiver connections appeared to have been hurriedly disconnected.\n\nDuring the night, the Police who were left in charge of the flat arrested Tsui, Chiu, Tin and Chau who entered at various intervals.\n\nOne of the Tsimshatsui flats, said Mr. Abbott, was the main office of the organisation and the other appeared to be a sub-office.\n\nInvestigations showed that Yuen and Chau were the actual operators at the station and Tsui, Chiu, Shum and Tin were senior members of the staff. The station was extensively used as was shown by the very large number of messages found.\n\nPublicity a Deterrent\n\nIn mitigation, Mr. Sin assured the Court that there would be no repetition of the offence and the publicity given to this case and the colossal sum asked for bail, was sufficient deterrent to anyone thinking of committing a crime of this nature.\n\nMr. Sin said he anticipated Mr. Abbott asking for the maximum penalty and submitted that the maximum penalty was imposed only in absolutely the worst cases with aggravating circumstances.\n\n\"Normally, offences of this kind are not regarded as serious and it is only since the outbreak of the war in Europe that they are regarded as serious,\" said Mr. Sin.\n\nMr. Sin submitted there were no aggravating circumstances and it was not suggested, nor was it alleged that defendants, aside from having the apparatus and code, had anything to endanger the safety of Hong Kong or the British Government. There was no suggestion of malpractice. It was true that defendants were employees of an organisation, but it was not the worst case nor one where there was anything to aggravate the offence.\n\n\"The defendants are young men with the highest character and they have never been in trouble of any sort,\" he said. \"Their characters are unblemished and they are men of high integrity. They have given every assistance to the prosecution.\"\n\nMr. Abbott said he did not think it strictly correct to say defendants had given the prosecution every assistance. They had done so when asked, but, if they had desired, they could have given the prosecution much more assistance than they did. Investigations had been carried out without assistance from defendants at all.\n\nMr. Abbott said if defendants had not pleaded guilty he would have proved that the station was being worked in open defiance of the law. \"It is difficult to think of a more serious offence than to work a wireless transmitter without the knowledge of the authorities at a time when this Colony, as part of the British Empire, is at war,\" said Mr. Abbott.\n\nColony Not Endangered\n\nMr. Abbott continued that he did not suggest defendants had committed an offence against the Colony's Official Secrets Act; there was nothing to show that they had; rather the contrary.\n\nMr. Abbott said that he was not pressing for a sentence of imprisonment, but he was asking that the maximum fine be imposed on each defendant on each charge. He thought it extremely difficult to find a more serious set of aggravating circumstances than what he had detailed.\n\n\"Mr. Sin has said that offences of this kind are not regarded as serious. That is completely incorrect. These offences are regarded, whether in peace or in war, as most serious,” declared Mr. Abbott.\n\nMagistrate Comments\n\nMr. Abbott said the charges were not alternative, but cumulative.\n\nMr. Abbott asked for forfeiture of the goods seized.\n\nMr. Himsworth said he was in complete agreement with Mr. Sin when he had mentioned that a penalty should act not only as a deterrent to people who have committed an offence but also to people who might attempt a like offence.\n\nThis was not the first time a case of this nature had appeared in his Court, and therefore, it would appear that punishment he imposed in the past was not sufficient to act as a deterrent.\n\nIt was only because defendants had good characters that he considered the imposition of a fine and not a term of imprisonment.\n\nDefendants were then fined $1,000 on each of the charges.\n\nAn order was made for the forfeiture of the seized goods to the Post Master General to be kept until the end of war or until such time that he saw fit.\n\nOn the application of Mr. Abbott, Mr. Himsworth made an order that $1,000 from the fine be given as reward to the person or persons who gave information concerning the case.\n\nA SIDE ISSUE\n\nArising from the raid on 172 Nathan Road in connection with this case, To Ching-tin, 30, appeared before Mr. Himsworth charged with unlawful possession of an automatic pistol and 10 rounds of ammunition without a licence.\n\nHe was fined $250.\n\nMr. Sin said defendant was a well-trusted man and had been a bodyguard in Shanghai and Nanking.\n\nMr. Abbott said here again he was not pressing for a sentence of imprisonment nor for the maximum fine.\n\nMr. Abbott said the Government regarded this offence very seriously. There was no question that defendants concerned were members of the organisation to which he had referred. A document was found which stated that operations of the kind mentioned were being carried out in the face of the law.\n\nIt was interesting perhaps to mention the extent to which the station was being used, said Mr. Abbott. That could be gauged from the fact that the traffic of the ordinary commercial wireless routes had gone up by leaps and bounds since the raids of September 25, but it was only a surmise that this improvement was due to the present case.\n\nMr. Abbott said this was an offence against the Defence Regulations of 1939 which had been made for the protection of Hong Kong.\n\nIn cases of this type the defendant was usually taken for trial and was usually followed by a sentence of one or two year's hard labour.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-579-11-1 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 567433,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939",
        "page_number": 97,
        "title": "CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939",
        "content_text": "97\n\nger/\n\n[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use,]\n\n1\n\nFrom CHINA.\n\nDecypher. Mr. Jamieson (Tientsin).\n\n11th June, 1939.\n\nD.\n\nBy wireless 11th June, 1939.\n\nR.\n\n9.0 p.m. 11th June, 1939.\n\nNo. 214.\n\nIMMEDIATE.\n\nYour telegram No. 48 to me and Shanghai telegram No. 527 to you.\n\n50\n\nYour telegram No. 48 to me and Shanghai telegram No. 527 to [? grp. omtd.] report of June 10th stating that the attitude of the British authorities is that no Chinese can be handed over to the Japanese authorities by the foreign Concession authorities unless a prima facie case on a criminal charge has been established.\n\nI would invite Your Lordship's attention to my telegrams Nos. 185, 186, 192 and 213, all of which deal with the legal aspect of this matter and on which no ruling has yet been given. I must state most emphatically that it is my opinion and the opinion of Council's legal adviser that it is established by treaty that neither His Majesty's Consul-General nor Municipal authorities have any right whatsoever to refuse execution of warrants issued by Tientsin district court. In giving this opinion the Council's legal adviser and I take fully into account the fact that local de facto Government is not recognised by His Majesty's Government.\n\nNeither Municipal Council nor His Majesty's Consul-General has ever contended that they exercise functions of a committing magistrate. Any warrant issued by the proper district court disclosing a proper criminal charge has been invariably executed by the concession authorities in the past - not only before the present crisis arose but...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 567462,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939",
        "page_number": 126,
        "title": "CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939",
        "content_text": "This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use.\n\n34\n\n126\n\nFrom CHINA.\n\nDecypher.\n\nMr. Jamieson (Tientsin),\n\n2nd June, 1939.\n\nD.\n\nW/T\n\n2nd June, 1939.\n\nR. 8.00 p.m.\n\n2nd June, 1939,\n\nNo. 198.\n\nIMPORTANT.\n\n(25)\n\n(33)\n\nYour telegram No. 419 to Shanghai which has crossed my telegrams Nos. 193, 196 and 197 to which reference is invited.\n\nWith regard to evidence against the four men, I have nothing to add to what I have said in my previous telegrams, other than to observe (a) that in any case \"men's activities were directed towards terrorist acts\"; and that it is not only Cheng murder with which these men are charged: (b) that Mr. Kent (legal adviser to Council, a barrister of forty years standing and leading British citizen) and I are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to warrant handing over all four men to Tientsin district court, the procurator of which holds preliminary examination and decides whether the case should go to trial and on what charges. In this connexion I should like to make it clear that we have never claimed that we are in any way entitled to consider ourselves as exercising functions of a magistrate's court in regard to committing persons for trial.\n\n2.\n\nThere is no doubt whatever that Japanese authorities will be only satisfied with unconditional handing over of the four men to Tientsin district court on which time limit has been placed. It seems inevitable that the men will have to be handed over if we are to avoid natural consequences of our failure to do so.\n\n3.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-580-1 Sino-Japanese War- handing over of suspected terrorists to Japanese authorities 1-5-1939 - 24-8-1939.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 569609,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-584-14 Commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. Includes 9 photographs depicting- [CN 3-42] Commutation of... 22-12-1939 - 17-9-1940",
        "page_number": 30,
        "title": "CO129-584-14 Commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. Includes 9 photographs depicting- [CN 3-42] Commutation of... 22-12-1939 - 17-9-1940",
        "content_text": "-2-\n\n30\n\nOn the day of the younger brother's death, he was sitting in the kitchen of the house which the two brothers occupied in common, and the condemned man was in his own room next door. He was seen suddenly to reach up to the cockloft and pick up a chopper and heard to announce his intention of killing his brother, who was unarmed. He then struck his brother four heavy blows on the head and was then disarmed by the younger brother's wife, who put him in his own cubicle and fastened the door.\n\nThe village is a considerable distance from Sha Kung, and it was some six hours after the wounds were inflicted before police officers came on the scene.\n\nThe wounds were serious, in fact dangerous, but there can be little doubt that if medical assistance had been available shortly after the wounds were inflicted, they would not have been fatal. The deceased man, in fact, bled to death at 7:10 p.m. that evening.\n\nOf the rightfulness of the verdict, I have no doubt whatsoever; of the mental development of the condemned man, I have considerable doubt, doubts which I formed from seeing and hearing him in court and also from the nature of his statement to the committing magistrate:\n\n\"On the night of 22nd March, after deceased's death, I had a dream in which six spirits of deceased members of my family informed me that if deceased had survived the 22nd, he would not have survived the 23rd. That is all.\"\n\nPage 30\nPage 31",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-584-14 Commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. Includes 9 photographs depicting- [CN 3-42] Commutation of... 22-12-1939 - 17-9-1940.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 569776,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-584-2 Estimates 1941-2 21-2-1941 - 11-6-1941",
        "page_number": 48,
        "title": "CO129-584-2 Estimates 1941-2 21-2-1941 - 11-6-1941",
        "content_text": "- 10 -\n\n49\n\nCollection of Nightsoil\n\nPerhaps the most controversial of the items which are now appearing for the first time in the Budget is the provision for a scheme, known as departmental collection, whereby Government will employ coolies, some 2,000 in number, for the removal of nightsoil, the cost of the project to be met by an increase of one per cent in the rates. My Chinese colleagues and I learn with deep satisfaction that it has been decided by Government that this scheme should stand over until further consideration has been given to the matter and that Government will refrain from expenditure without the consent of the Finance Committee. This decision is, in our opinion, a wise one.\n\nWe venture to suggest that, before committing itself, Government should examine carefully and find out exactly what are the improvements and advantages attached to departmental collection. All of us realise that the present system is far from satisfactory. We would welcome a change for the better: but how is the proposed system a better one? Surely not because some 2,000 coolies, hitherto free-lances, would thereby become Government servants. Judging by the many representations which have been made, the coolies themselves do not appear to share the same enthusiasm.\n\nAverage of Tenant's View\n\nI presume there must be some improvements from the point of view of public health but can it be said to be progress when the same old method and the same old set of coolies are employed? In fact, so far as the average tenant is concerned, he would prefer to deal with the coolie working for himself, who in all likelihood would be a far humbler individual than the same coolie working in the role of a Government servant. At least, now, when a tenant has a complaint to make, he goes to a neutral party; but with departmental collection, he will be faced with the task of laying a complaint before the head of a Government department against one of his subordinate officers, two totally different propositions.\n\nIt appears to me that there is some confusion of thought as regards the issues involved. While improved transport or improved buckets would represent an improvement in the method of collection and will be beneficial, the change in the status of the coolie is unimportant and is not a condition precedent to the setting up of adequate supervision.\n\nAs an alternative and a more satisfactory solution my colleagues and I submit that the Urban Council should license the existing coolies or a number of foremen to provide coolies; that the Council should take a deposit from them and see that they carry out their duties properly; any delinquency to be punishable by fine, the payment of which will be guaranteed by the deposits suggested, with the cancellation of licences in cases of grave or repeated offence. We would most respectfully urge Government to try this alternative solution before embarking on a scheme of departmental collection.\n\nNo Reason to be Apprehensive\n\nFurther, I have been informed that the present coolies, through their guilds, have petitioned Government expressing their readiness to introduce improvements in transport and in receptacles and to meet any requirements which Government may stipulate. It therefore does not appear that Government should have any reason to be apprehensive of a lack of progress.\n\nFinally, even if it could be shown, which many of us doubt, that it would be to the best interest of the Colony that departmental collection should be adopted, it nevertheless still remains for Government to be satisfied that the use of public money is necessary, particularly where further taxation is involved.\n\nThe people who have recourse to the present system have never refused to pay. Take the poorer classes, whom it is intended to benefit. In their case, there will be no relief; as we know, most of them are merely sub-tenants and it will only mean that the principal tenant, who makes a business out of sub-letting, will be spared a legitimate expense and will derive a bigger profit thereby; while on the other hand, tenants of property with a water carriage system will be penalised by higher rates. Can this be said to be an encouragement to the general introduction of water closets, or is it not rather an inducement to cling to the old antiquated and much restricted system?\n\nArgument Fallacious\n\nGovernment has attempted to justify the use of public money by claiming that it is through the use of public money that drains have been laid. There is an obvious fallacy in this argument. Firstly, the drains are there whether water closets use them or not, they serve to carry away storm and sullage water and secondly, drains alone do not make a water closet system; whereas Government, in cases where the owners of property have not thought fit to install water closets, will be assuming the whole cost of a system which takes the place of but is far less satisfactory than a water carriage system.\n\nI now come to a matter which affects the good name of the Colony and with which my fellow Chinese members have asked me specially to deal. Many a resident, alarmed by the serious prevalence of crime and vice, has repeatedly approached us to press Government for more energetic action. We, on our part, have made repeated representations to Government, sometimes as the result of specific requests from members of our community but more often than not on our own initiative. The position is now getting from bad to worse. We know that the Hon. Commissioner of Police is doing all he can: but we feel that something more must be done.\n\nThe suppression of gambling, particularly of Tse Fa lotteries, which are fast becoming an open scandal, the eradication of open soliciting in the streets, the placing of a check on the activities of girl escort bureaux, the prevention of robbery and larceny, especially petty thieving and snatching in the streets form the list which we have been asked to bring to the attention of Government.\n\nMust Sleep Behind Bars\n\nThe stories of the existence of lands where one may sleep with one's front door open and not be robbed; where one may leave a parcel in a tram-car and have it returned the next day, seem to us fantastic and fill us with wonder and envy. It is sad to think that we in Hongkong must sleep behind iron grilles and bolted shutters and yet not be free from depredation. No one is respected, be he magistrate or policeman, be he taipan or ordinary shopkeeper. Nothing is free from filching. It may be only a plank from a staircase, a hook for fastening a window or a short length of wiring, the saleable value of which is infinitesimal though the replacement cost be high. As for motor-cars, fountain pens, and ear-rings, these are stolen, or picked from the pocket, or snatched in broad daylight.\n\nIf all crime were the result of poverty, the search for a cure, difficult though it may be, is not impossible; but if a gambler steals to get stake money and a dope fiend to satiate his desire, the matter becomes far more complex.\n\nAn Immense Problem\n\nWe realise the immensity of the problem confronting us. Apart from the question of arrest, which is a police matter, no permanent solution can be found without taking into account the provision of adequate prison accommodation, the creation of decent employment, a reduction in the cost of living, and the introduction of general education. The higher the ethical standard of the people as a whole, the less there is of crime; and it is by going to fundamentals that it can be hoped to efface all the sores with which this Colony is beset.\n\nThe leavening of the masses takes time; but there is no need to remind Government of the urgency of the problem. Next to the prevention of invasion from without is the prevention of lawlessness and disorder from within.\n\nWe, therefore, trust that Government will undertake its just responsibilities and will make more serious and more strenuous efforts to stamp out crime. We owe it to the innocent and the law-abiding to remove from them a constant fear of and a growing concern for lawlessness and insecurity. (Applause).\n\nWAR EXPENDITURE\n\nHon. Mr Li Urges Use Of Surplus Balances\n\nPOLICY CRITICISED\n\nThe Hon. Mr Li Tse-fong said: Sir, The Hon. Financial Secretary in his speech on January 16, 1941, reviewing the financial position of the Colony, stressed the point that although the revised estimate anticipates a surplus of $17,213,670 at the end of the present financial year, this surplus is largely a nominal one. The Financial Secretary explained that out of this surplus of over $17,000,000, a sum of $5,790,000 was invested in the 1934-Dollar-loan, \"while by the end of next year a total of over $4,000,000 will have been advanced in anticipation of a future loan.\"",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-584-2 Estimates 1941-2 21-2-1941 - 11-6-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587107,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 85,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "20\n\nto warrant of\n\nfor non-\n\n54. (1) A magistrate to whom application is made either Special to issue a warrant of distress for any sum adjudged to be paid provisions as by a conviction or order, or to issue a warrant for committing commitment a person to prison for non-payment of a sum of money adjudg-payment of ed to be paid by a conviction or, in the case of a sum not money and a civil debt, by an order, or for default of sufficient distress warrant of to satisfy any such sum, may, if he deems it expedient to do distress. so, postpone the issue of such warrant until such time and 42 & 43 Vict. \n\nc. 49, s. 21. on such conditions, if any, as to him may seem just.\n\n(2) The wearing apparel and bedding of a person and his family and, to the value of twenty-five dollars, the tools and implements of his trade shall not be taken under a distress issued by a magistrate.\n\nas to\n\n(3) Where, on application made to a magistrate to issue a warrant for committing a person to prison for non-payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or, in the case of a sum not a civil debt, by an order, or for default of sufficient distress to satisfy any such sum, it appears to the magistrate to whom the application is made that, either by payment of part of the said sum, whether in the shape of instalments or otherwise, or by the net proceeds of the distress, the amount of the sum so adjudged has been reduced to such an extent that the unsatisfied balance, if it had constituted the original amount adjudged to be paid by the conviction or order, would have subjected the defendant to a maximum term of imprisonment less than the term of imprisonment to which he is liable under such conviction or order, the magistrate shall, by his warrant of commitment revoke the term of imprisonment, and First order the defendant to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding Schedule. such less maximum term instead of the term originally mentioned in the conviction or order.\n\nForms\n\nand 59.\n\nRecognizances, etc.\n\npower to\n\nto keep the\n\n55.-(1) The power of a magistrate, on complaint of any Exercise on person, to adjudge a person to enter into a recognizance and complaint of find sureties to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour bind over towards such first-mentioned person shall be exercised by an peace. order upon complaint, and the provisions of this Ordinance 42 & 43 Vict. shall apply accordingly, and the complainant and defendant c. 49, s. 25. and witnesses may be called and examined and cross-examined, and the complainant and defendant shall be subject to costs, as in the case of any other complaint.\n\nSchedule.\n\n(2) The magistrate may order the defendant, in default First of compliance with such last-mentioned order, to be imprison- Forms ed, without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months. Nos. 27 \n\nand 28.\n\nvary\n\nc. 49, s. 26.\n\n56. Where a person has been committed to prison by Power to a magistrate for default in finding sureties, a magistrate may, reduce or on application made to him in manner directed by the rules in security. the Second Schedule by such person or by some one acting on 42 & 43 Vict. his behalf, inquire into the case of the person so committed, and if. on new evidence produced to the magistrate or proof Second of a change of circumstances, the magistrate thinks, having Schedule. regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to Schedule. do so, he may reduce the amount for which it is proposed Forms the sureties or surety should be bound, or dispense with the and 33. sureties or surety, or otherwise deal with the case as he may think just.\n\nFirst\n\nNos. 32\n\n99",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587112,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 90,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "26\n\n105\n\n27\n\nwarrant for\n\n72.-(1) If it is made to appear to a magistrate, by the Summons or oath of any credible witness, that any person is likely to give material evidence on the part of the prosecution and will not voluntarily appear at the time and place appointed for the examination of the witnesses against the accused, the magistrate may enforce the attendance of such person in the manner provided in Part II for enforcing the attendance of a witness under the summary jurisdiction of such magistrate.\n\n(2) If, on the appearance of such person so summoned, he refuses to be examined upon oath concerning the matter of the information or complaint, or refuses to take such oath or having taken such oath refuses to answer such questions concerning the premises as may then be put to him, the magistrate may, by warrant under his hand and seal, commit such person to prison there to remain and be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two months, unless he shall in the meantime consent to be examined and to answer concerning the premises.\n\nFirst Schedule, Form & 75.\n\n73.-(1) If, on the hearing of an information or charge for an indictable offence, from the absence of witnesses or from any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to defer the examination or further examination of the witnesses for any time, it shall be lawful for the magistrate before whom the accused appears or is brought up by his warrant from time to time to remand the accused for such time as by the magistrate, in his discretion, may be deemed reasonable, not exceeding eight clear days, to prison or some place of security; or, if the remand is for a time not exceeding three clear days, it shall be lawful for the magistrate verbally to order the constable or other person in whose custody the accused may then be, or any other constable or person to be named by the magistrate in that behalf, to continue and keep the accused in his custody and to bring him before the same magistrate at the time appointed for continuing the examination: Provided always that the magistrate may order the accused to be brought before himself or another magistrate at any time before the expiration of the time for which the accused is so remanded, and the gaoler or officer in whose custody he then is shall duly obey such order: Provided also that, instead of detaining the accused in custody during the period for which he is so remanded, a magistrate before whom the accused so appears or is brought as aforesaid may discharge him, on his entering into a recognizance, with or without a surety or sureties, at the discretion of the magistrate, conditioned for his appearance at the time and place appointed for the continuance of the examination.\n\n(2) If the accused does not afterwards appear at the time and place mentioned in the recognizance, the magistrate then present may, on certifying the non-appearance of the accused on the recognizance, declare the same forfeited, and proceed to enforce the same in the manner hereinbefore provided for enforcing recognizances in the cases of offences punishable on summary conviction; and may forthwith issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused.\n\nFirst Schedule, Forms and 77.\n\n74. The room or building in which a magistrate hears an information or charge for an indictable offence shall not be deemed an open court for that purpose; and it shall be lawful for the magistrate hearing the case, in his discretion, to order that no person shall have access to or be or remain in such room or building without the consent or permission of the magistrate, if it appears to him that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing.\n\n11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19.\n\n75.--(1) On the hearing of an information or charge for an indictable offence where the accused is present at the hearing, the magistrate shall, before committing the accused to prison for trial or before admitting him to bail to take his trial, in the presence of the accused proceed to take evidence for and on behalf of the prosecutor and his witnesses in the same manner as is hereinbefore provided for the taking of the evidence of the complainant or informant and his witnesses on a complaint or information for an offence punishable on summary conviction.\n\n(2) The accused or his counsel shall be at liberty to put questions to any witnesses produced against him, and further the depositions or evidence of the prosecutor and his witnesses shall, in the presence of the accused, be read over to and signed respectively by the witnesses who have been so examined, and shall also be signed by the magistrate taking the same.\n\nFirst Schedule, Form No. 13.\n\n76. (1) After the examination of all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution has been completed the magistrate hearing the case shall, if desired by the accused, without requiring the attendance of the witnesses, read or cause to be read to the accused, or when necessary cause to be interpreted, the depositions taken against him, and shall inform him that he has the right, if he so desires, to give evidence on his own behalf. If the accused desires to give evidence, his evidence shall be taken upon oath and shall be subject to cross-examination as in the case of the evidence of any other witness. If the accused does not desire to give evidence on his own behalf, the magistrate shall say to him these words or words to the like effect or cause the same to be interpreted to him:-\n\n\"Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial.\"\n\n(2) Whatever the accused then says in answer thereto shall be taken down in writing and read over to him, and shall be signed by the magistrate and kept with the depositions of the witnesses, and shall be transmitted with them as hereinafter mentioned: Provided always that the magistrate, before the accused makes any statement, shall state or cause to be interpreted to him and give him or cause him clearly to understand that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been held out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatever he shall then say may be given in evidence on his trial notwithstanding such promise or threat.\n\n(3) Any statement which purports to have been taken down and signed as provided in sub-section (2) shall be admissible in evidence against the accused in any court if it is produced out of the proper custody without further proof of the matters above mentioned, unless it is proved that such statement was not duly taken down or was not in fact signed by the magistrate or officer aforesaid purporting to sign the same.\n\n106\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587115,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 93,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "30\n\n―\n\n109\n\n31\n\n(4) At any time before the first day of the criminal session of the court at which any accused committed for trial is to be tried the accused or his counsel may require from the magistrates' clerk copies of the depositions together with copies of any such statements or evidence as aforesaid, on payment of fifteen cents for each folio of seventy-two words.\n\nagainst\n\n82.-(1) When a corporation is charged, whether alone or jointly with some other person, with an indictable offence, the magistrate may, if he be of the opinion that the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution is sufficient to put the corporation upon trial, order the documents specified in section 81 (1) which relate to the case to be transmitted to the Crown Solicitor for the use of the Attorney General and such order shall be deemed to be a committal for trial.\n\n(2) If the corporation appears before the magistrate by a representative appointed in writing by the corporation to represent it for the purpose of this section, any question or statement required by any enactment to be put or made to the accused may be put or made to such representative, and any such question may be answered on behalf of the corporation by such representative, but if the corporation does not so appear it shall not be necessary to put or make the questions or statements, and the magistrate may, notwithstanding, make an order under this section.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall have the effect of taking away from a magistrate any power which he may possess of dealing with a charge summarily,\n\nPART IV.\n\nSUMMARY TRIAL OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES.\n\n83. Nothing in this Part shall affect the powers conferred upon magistrates by any Ordinance relating to the protection of women and girls.\n\nrelating to women and girls.\n\n(cf. No. 4 of 1897.)\n\n85. Where an indictable offence is triable summarily :-\n\nProcedure as to indictable offences triable summarily.\n\n(1) the procedure shall, until the magistrate assumes the power to deal with the offence summarily, be the same in all respects as if the offence were to be dealt with throughout as an indictable offence, but when and so soon as the magistrate assumes the power to deal with the offence summarily, the procedure shall be the same from and after that period as if the offence were an offence punishable on summary conviction and not on indictment, and the provisions of this Ordinance relating to offences punishable on summary conviction shall apply accordingly;\n\n(2) the evidence of any witness taken before the magistrate has assumed the said power need not be taken again, but every such witness shall, if the defendant so requires, be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination;\n\nForms\n\n(3) the conviction for any such offence shall be of the same effect as a conviction for the offence on indictment before the court, and the magistrate may make the like order for the restitution of property as might have been made by the court; and\n\nand 82.\n\n(4) the order of dismissal shall be filed by the magistrates' clerk in like manner as the conviction is hereby required to be filed, and together with the order of dismissal or the conviction, as the case may be, there shall be filed by such clerk in each case the written charge, the depositions of the witnesses and the statement, if any, of the accused.\n\nFormi\n\nsummary\n\nindictable\n\n86. Where any person is accused of stealing from the person or of any offence within the meaning of either of sections 44 and 45 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, 1865, it shall be lawful for a magistrate to hear the case and convict the accused summarily and to sentence him to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year, or to commit the accused for trial before the court; and it shall also be lawful for two magistrates to sit together to hear the case, and they may, if they think fit, summarily convict the accused and sentence him to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or they may commit the accused for trial before the court.\n\nany\n\noffences\n\n84. (1) Whenever any person is accused before a magistrate of an indictable offence, except an offence specified in the Third Schedule, the magistrate, instead of committing the accused for trial before the court, may deal with the case and convict the accused summarily, and on conviction may sentence the accused to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any greater punishment specifically provided in any other Ordinance.\n\n(2) The magistrate may nevertheless, if he thinks fit, commit any such accused for trial before the court.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 86.\n\nFirst\n\nNo. 82.\n\nPART V.\n\nSPECIAL POWERS.\n\nMiscellaneous.\n\nhearing\n\n87. In all proceedings before two magistrates sitting together upon any complaint or information, it shall be lawful for one magistrate to receive such complaint or information, and to grant a summons or warrant to compel the attendance of any witnesses, and to do all other necessary acts and matters preliminary to the hearing, even in cases where by the Ordinance or statute in that behalf such complaint or information must be heard and determined by two magistrates sitting together.\n\n110",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587116,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 94,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "32\n\ngether, and after the case has been so heard and determined one magistrate may issue all warrants of distress or commitment thereon: Provided always that in any case where any such complaint or information is heard and determined by two magistrates, or a conviction or order is made by two magistrates, such magistrates must be present and acting together during the whole of the hearing and determination of the case.\n\nwhere two\n\n88. If in any case where two magistrates sit together Procedure they are unable to agree in their decision whether the defendant magistrates or accused is guilty or not guilty, he shall be committed for disagree. trial before the court.\n\n89. Whenever any male offender is convicted by a Flogging. magistrate-\n\n(1) under the provisions of either section 44 or section 45 Ordinance of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, 1865, or\n\nNo. 2 of 1865.\n\n(2) under section 52 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Ordinance, 1865, of committing an act of gross indecency with No. 2 of another male person under the age of thirteen, or\n\n26\n\n1935\n\n1865.\n\nNo. of 52\n\n(3) under section 16 of the Larceny Ordinance, 1935, of Ordinance stealing any ornament or other chattel from the person of any woman or child, or\n\n(4) under the provisions of section 53 of the Asiatic Ordinance Emigration Ordinance, 1915, or\n\nNo. 30 of 1915.\n\n(5) under the provisions of either section 4 or section 7 Ordinance of the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, or\n\nNo. 4 of 1897.\n\n(6) under the provisions of the Stowaways Ordinance, Ordinance\n\nNo. 3 of 1924.\n\n1924,\n\nthe magistrate may, in addition to the punishment awarded (cf. No. 3 for such offence, direct that the offender be flogged.\n\nof 1903).\n\nsentence\n\nwhipped\n\n90. Whenever any offender whose age appears to the Power to magistrate not to exceed sixteen years is convicted of any juvenile offence other than the offences specified in the Third Schedule, to be the magistrate may, in lieu of any other punishment to which for certain the offender is liable, and notwithstanding anything to the con- trary in the Peace Preservation Ordinance, 1886, or in the Flogging Ordinance, 1903 :-\n\noffences.\n\nOrdinances Nos. 10 of 1856 and 3 of 1903.\n\n(a) order such offender to be discharged after due admoni- Third tion; or\n\n(b) order such offender to be delivered to his parent or to his guardian or nearest adult relative or, in the case of the offender being an apprentice or servant, to his master or mistress or, in the case of the offender being a schoolboy or schoolgirl, to the person in charge of the school at which the offender is attending, on such parent, guardian, relative, master, mistress or person in charge of a school executing a bond with or without a surety or sureties that he or she will be responsible for the good behaviour and also, if the magistrate thinks it necessary, for the proper education of the offender for any period not exceeding twelve months; or\n\nSchedule.\n\n111",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587118,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 96,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "34 \n\nif so requested by the complainant, adjourn the proceedings in order to enable him to instruct counsel on his behalf; \n\n(b) before making any order under sub-section (2) the magistrate shall first clearly inform the witness of the specific words which appear to the said magistrate to constitute the false testimony and shall give the witness an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made, and shall, if so requested by the said witness, adjourn the proceedings in order to enable him to instruct counsel on his behalf; and \n\n(c) if the compensation or fine is not forthwith paid, the magistrate may commit the person against whom the order is made to prison in accordance with the provisions of section 62. \n\nnon-payment \n\n95. Whenever a magistrate awards a pecuniary penalty Imprison or amends for any offence under the Summary Offences Ordin- ment for ance, 1932, and the same is not forthwith paid, the magistrate of fine under may commit the offender to prison, with or without hard Ordinance. labour, in accordance with the scale in section 62. \n\nof articles \n\nIn certain \n\n96. Whenever any person is found by the police hawking Forfeiture without a licence, or committing any offence against any Ordin- ance relating to markets, or causing any obstruction by hawk- cases. ing in a public thoroughfare, the police are hereby empowered to convey or cause to be conveyed all the articles being hawked and sold before a magistrate, who shall thereupon have power, on conviction of the offender, to order the forfeiture of the said articles or any of them, in addition to or substitution for any other fine or punishment which he may by law impose. \n\nBail. \n\n97.--(1) No magistrate or justice of the peace shall admit Provisions any person to bail for treason or murder, nor shall such person relating to be admitted to bail except by order of a judge. \n\nbail \n\n(2) Where a person is charged with felony, or with assault with intent to commit a felony, or with an attempt to commit a felony, or with obtaining or attempting to obtain property by false pretences, or with a misdemeanor in receiving stolen property or property obtained by false pretences, or with perjury or subornation of perjury, or with concealing the birth of a child by secret burying or otherwise, or with wilful or indecent exposure of the person, or with riot or assault upon a police officer in the execution of his duty or upon any person acting in his aid, or with an assault in pursuance of a con- spiracy to raise the rate of wages, a magistrate may in his discretion admit the accused to bail, on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as, in the opinion of the magistrate, will be sufficient to ensure the appearance of the accused at the time and place when and where he is to be tried for such offence; and thereupon the magistrate shall take the recognizance of the accused and his surety or sureties con- Fist ditioned for the appearance of the accused at the time and Schedule, place of trial and that he will then surrender and take his trial Nos. 78 and will not depart the court without leave. \n\nForms \n\nand 79. \n\n118 \n\n35 \n\n(3) Where a person is charged with an indictable mis- demeanor other than those mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall be entitled to be admitted to bail in the manner mentioned in the said sub-section. \n\n(4) It shall be lawful for a magistrate, on issuing a warrant for the apprehension of any person charged with a bailable offence, to certify on the warrant his consent to the accused being bailed, and thereupon it shall be lawful for an inspector of police to admit the accused to bail, taking his recognizance and that of his surety or sureties, if any, conditioned for the appearance of the accused at the time and place of hearing and that he will then surrender and take his trial and will not depart the court without leave. \n\n(5) In every case where a person charged with any bail- able indictable offence is committed to prison to take his trial for the same before the court, it shall be lawful, at any time afterwards and before the first day of the criminal session at which he is to be tried or before the day to which such session is adjourned, for the magistrate who has signed the warrant for his commitment, in his discretion, to admit the accused to bail in manner aforesaid; or if the committing magistrate is of opinion that for any of the offences mentioned in sub- section (2) the accused ought to be admitted to bail, such magistrate shall, in such case and in every other case of a misdemeanor committed for trial before the court, certify on First the warrant of commitment his consent to the accused being Schedule bailed, stating also the amount of bail which ought to be No. 80. required and whether with a surety or sureties; and it shall be lawful for a magistrate or for the magistrates' clerk, or for a justice of the peace attending at or visiting the prison where the accused is in custody, on production of such certificate, to admit the accused to bail in manner aforesaid. \n\n(6) In every case where the accused in custody is admitted to bail by a magistrate other than the committing magistrate or by a justice of the peace as aforesaid, such magistrate or justice of the peace shall forthwith transmit the recognizance of bail to the committing magistrate to be transmitted with the depositions. \n\n(7) Where two magistrates sit together either of them may exercise the powers hereinbefore mentioned. \n\nForm \n\nwhere \n\n98. (1) In every case where a magistrate admits to bail Warrant of any person who is then in prison charged with the offence for deliverance which he is so admitted to bail, the magistrate shall send to or accused is in cause to be lodged with the Superintendent of Prisons a war- bail granted. prison when rant of deliverance, under his hand and seal, requiring the 11 & 12 Vict. said Superintendent to discharge the person so admitted to bail, 42, s. 24. if he is detained for no other offence, and, on such warrant of First deliverance Leing delivered to or lodged with the said Super Form intendent, he shall forthwith obey the same. \n\n(2) Where, however, the bail of the person in PAIDUN 18 taken by the magistrates' clerk or a justice of the peace in pursuance of section 97 (5), a written certificate, signed by such magistrates' clerk or justice, that the hail has been duly given shall be a good authority to the said Superintendent to discharge the person so bailed from custody forthwith, unless he is also in custody for some other cause. \n\nSchedule. \n\nNo. 81. \n\n114",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587153,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 131,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "FORM No. 80.\n\n[s. 97.]\n\nCertificate of consent to bail by the committing magistrate indorsed on the commitment.\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT at\n\nI hereby certify that I consent to the within-named C.D. being bailed by recognizance, himself in the sum of\n\nand [two] sureties in the sum of [each].\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.] (Signed.) Magistrate.\n\nFORM No. 81.\n\n[s. 98.]\n\nWarrant of deliverance on bail being given for a prisoner already committed.\n\nHONG KONG,\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT AT\n\nTo the Superintendent of Prisons in the said Colony.\n\nC.D., late of [labourer] has before me, a magistrate of the said Colony, entered into his own recognizance, and found sufficient sureties for his appearance at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court [or as the case may be] to answer Our Sovereign Lord the King for that he [etc., as in the commitment], for which he was taken and committed to a prison: These are, therefore, to command you, in His Majesty's name, that if the said C.D. do remain in your custody, in a prison for the said cause, and for no other, you shall forthwith suffer him to go at large.\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.] (Signed.) Magistrate.\n\nPART IV.\n\nFORMS FOR INDICTABLE OFFENCES TRIABLE SUMMARILY.\n\nHONG KONG.\n\n[ss. 84 and 85.]\n\nFORM No. 82.\n\nSummary conviction of indictable offence.\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT AT\n\nBefore J.P., Esquire, a magistrate of the said Colony.\n\nThe day of 19\n\nC.D. (hereinafter called the defendant) having been charged for that he, on the day of 19, at [state offence]; and the magistrate having determined to try the case summarily; the defendant is this day convicted of the said offence, and it is adjudged that he pay [or that he be imprisoned, insert particulars] for his said offence [proceed as in ordinary forms of summary conviction.]\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.] (Signed.) Magistrate.\n\n158",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587182,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 160,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "123\n\nSUPPLEMENT NO. 1, MAY 20, 1949.\n\n28. The Schedule to this Ordinance is hereby substituted for the Third Schedule to the principal Ordinance.\n\n29. The following section is hereby substituted for section 84 of the principal Ordinance :-\n\n\"Indictable offences which may be dealt with summarily.\n\n30. of new section for section 84 of the Ordinance.\n\n84. (1) Whenever any person is accused before a special magistrate of any indictable offence except an offence specified in the Third Schedule, the magistrate, instead of committing the accused for trial before the court, may deal with the case and convict the accused summarily, and on conviction may sentence the accused to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 86.\n\n(2) Whenever any person is accused before a permanent magistrate of any indictable offence except an offence specified in the first part of the Third Schedule, the magistrate, instead of committing the accused for trial before the court, may deal with the case and convict the accused summarily, and on conviction may sentence the accused to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any greater punishment specifically provided for in any other Ordinance.\"\n\nThe following section is hereby substituted for section 86 of the principal Ordinance :-\n\n\"Special powers for summary trial of certain indictable offences. Ordinance No. 2 of 1865.\n\nof new section for section 86 of the Ordinance.\n\n86. Where any person is accused of stealing from the person or of any offence within the meaning of either of sections 44 and 45 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, 1865, it shall be lawful for a special magistrate to hear the case and convict the accused summarily and to sentence him to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year or to commit the accused for trial before the court.\"\n\n31. Sections 87 and 88 of the principal Ordinance are hereby repealed.\n\n32. Section 91 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the substitution of the words \"two thousand\" for the words \"two hundred and fifty\" in the sixth line thereof.\n\nPage 160\n\nPage 161",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 587183,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "page_number": 161,
        "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949",
        "content_text": "202\n\n124\n\nAmendment of section 92 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nAmendment of section 93 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nAmendment of section 94 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nSubstitution of new section for section 96 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nTHE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.\n\n33. Section 92 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the substitution of the words \"two hundred and fifty\" for the word \"one hundred\" in the fourth and fifth lines thereof.\n\n34. Section 93 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the substitution of the words \"five hundred\" for the word \"fifty\" in the last line thereof.\n\n35. Section 94 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended-\n\n(a) by the substitution of the words \"two hundred and fifty\" for the words \"one hundred\" in the fifth line of sub-section (1) thereof; and\n\n(b) by the substitution of the words \"five hundred\" for the words \"one hundred\" in the last line of sub-section (2) thereof.\n\n36. The following section is hereby substituted for section 96 of the principal Ordinance :—\n\n\"Forfeiture of articles in certain cases.\n\n37. 96. Whenever any person is found by any police officer or officer of the Sanitary Department hawking without a licence, or committing an offence against any Ordinance relating to markets, or causing any obstruction by hawking in a public thoroughfare, such officer is hereby empowered to convey or cause to be conveyed before a magistrate all the articles being displayed, hawked and sold, and also the utensils, vessels or other paraphernalia in the apparent use of such offender, and the magistrate may, on conviction of the offender, order the forfeiture of all such goods, utensils, vessels and other paraphernalia in addition to or in substitution for any other fine or punishment which he may by law impose.\"\n\nAmendment of section 97 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nSection 97 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended—\n\n(a) by the repeal of sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof and their replacement by the following sub-section :—\n\n\"(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) where a person is charged with an indictable offence a magistrate may in his discretion admit the accused to bail, on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as, in the opinion of the magistrate, will be sufficient to ensure the appearance of the accused at the time and place when and where he is to be tried for such offence and thereupon the magistrate shall take the recognizance of the accused and his surety or sureties conditioned for the appearance of the accused at the time and place of trial and that he will then surrender and take his trial and will not depart the court without leave.\";\n\n(b) by the repeal of sub-section (7) thereof.\n\n201\n\n38. SUPPLEMENT NO. 1, MAY 20, 1949.\n\n125\n\nSection 99 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the substitution for sub-sections (9) and (10) of the following sub-sections:-\n\n39. (9) No application for a review shall be granted and no exercise by a magistrate shall be made of the power conferred on him by sub-section (5) subsequent to the commencement of proceedings by either party with a view to questioning the decision of the magistrate by way of appeal, mandamus or certiorari, unless such proceedings shall have been abandoned.\n\n(10) For the purpose of determining the time, within which an appeal whether by way of case stated under section 100 or under section 108 may be lodged, the determination of a case by way of review under this section or the refusal to grant a review shall, in the event of such determination or refusal and notwithstanding anything contained in the sections aforesaid, or in section 109 be the date as from which the respective periods for lodging an appeal shall run but nothing in this Ordinance shall authorise an appeal, whether by way of case stated or otherwise, from the refusal of a magistrate to grant a review.'\n\nAmendment of section 99 of the principal Ordinance.\n\nThe following Part VI is substituted for Part VI, including sections 100 to 1181, of the principal Ordinance :-\n\nApplication to state case on point of law. (cf. 20 & 21 Vict. c.43, S.2; 42 & 43 Vict. c.49, S.33.)\n\nFirst Schedule, Forms Nos. 84 & 87.\n\nPART VI. APPEALS.\n\nAppeal by way of case stated on point of law.\n\n100. Within seven clear days after the hearing and determination by a magistrate of any complaint, information, charge or other proceeding which he has power to determine in a summary way, either party thereto or any person aggrieved thereby who desires to question by way of appeal any conviction, order, determination or other proceeding as aforesaid on the ground that it is erroneous in point of law, or that it is in excess of jurisdiction, may apply in writing to the magistrate to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds on which the conviction, order or determination was granted and the grounds on which the proceeding is questioned, for the opinion of a judge of the court. In the case of any determination which a magistrate has power to determine in a summary way and which relates to or is connected with an offence the Attorney General shall, notwithstanding that he may not be deemed to be a party, have a similar right to apply for a case to be stated as that hereinbefore afforded to the parties and upon the exercise of such right by the Attorney General the complainant or informant shall cease to be a party to any further proceedings.\n\nSubstitution of Part VI of the principal Ordinance.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589321,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 245,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "20\n\nto warrant of\n\nfor non-\n\npayment of\n\n54.--(1) A magistrate to whom application is made either to issue a warrant of distress for any sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order, or to issue a warrant for committing a person to prison for non-payment of a sum of money adjudged to be paid by a conviction or, in the case of a sum not a civil debt, by an order, or for default of sufficient distress to satisfy any such sum, may, if he deems it expedient to do so, postpone the issue of such warrant until such time and on such conditions, if any, as to him may seem just.\n\n(2) The wearing apparel and bedding of a person and his family and, to the value of twenty-five dollars, the tools and implements of his trade shall not be taken under a distress issued by a magistrate.\n\nas to\n\nc. 49, s. 21.\n\n(3) Where, on application made to a magistrate to issue a warrant for committing a person to prison for non-payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or, in the case of a sum not a civil debt, by an order, or for default of sufficient distress to satisfy any such sum, it appears to the magistrate to whom the application is made that, either by payment of part of the said sum, whether in the shape of instalments or otherwise, or by the net proceeds of the distress, the amount of the sum so adjudged has been reduced to such an extent that the unsatisfied balance, if it had constituted the original amount adjudged to be paid by the conviction or order, would have subjected the defendant to a maximum term of imprisonment less than the term of imprisonment to which he is liable under such conviction or order, the magistrate shall, by his warrant of commitment, revoke the term of imprisonment, and order the defendant to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding such less maximum term instead of the term originally mentioned in the conviction or order.\n\nFirst Schedule.\n\nForms 24 and 59.\n\nRecognizances, etc.\n\npower to bind over to keep the peace.\n\n55.-(1) The power of a magistrate, on complaint of any person, to adjudge a person to enter into a recognizance and find sureties to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour towards such first-mentioned person shall be exercised by an order upon complaint, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly, and the complainant and defendant and witnesses may be called and examined and cross-examined, and the complainant and defendant shall be subject to costs, as in the case of any other complaint.\n\n(2) The magistrate may order the defendant, in default of compliance with such last-mentioned order, to be imprisoned, without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.\n\nFirst Schedule.\n\nForms 27 and 28.\n\nsecurity.\n\n56. Where a person has been committed to prison by a magistrate for default in finding sureties, a magistrate may, on application made to him in manner directed by the rules in the Second Schedule by such person or by some one acting on his behalf, inquire into the case of the person so committed, and if, on new evidence produced to the magistrate or proof of a change of circumstances, the magistrate thinks, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to do so, he may reduce the amount for which it is proposed the sureties or surety should be bound, or dispense with the sureties or surety, or otherwise deal with the case as he may think just.\n\nFirst Schedule.\n\nForms 32",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589326,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 250,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "259\n\n26\n\nwarrant for\n\n72.—(1) If it is made to appear to a magistrate, by the Summons or oath of any credible witness, that any person likely to give material evidence on the part of the prosecution and will not voluntarily appear at the time and place appointed for the examination of the witnesses against the accused, the magistrate may enforce the attendance of such person in the manner provided in Part II for enforcing the attendance of a witness under the summary jurisdiction of such magistrate.\n\nFirst\n\n(2) If, on the appearance of such person so summoned, he refuses to be examined upon oath concerning the matter of the information or complaint, or refuses to take such oath or having taken such oath refuses to answer such questions concerning the premises as may then be put to him, the magistrate may, by warrant under his hand and seal, commit such person to prison there to remain and be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two months, unless he shall in the meantime consent to be examined and to answer concerning the premises.\n\nForm\n\naccused.\n\n& 75,\n\n73.—(1) If, on the hearing of an information or charge for an indictable offence, from the absence of witnesses or from any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to defer the examination or further examination of the witnesses for any time, it shall be lawful for the magistrate before whom the accused appears or is brought up by his warrant from time to time to remand the accused for such time as by the magistrate, in his discretion, may be deemed reasonable, not exceeding eight clear days, to prison or some place of security; or, if the remand is for a time not exceeding three clear days, it shall be lawful for the magistrate verbally to order the constable or other person in whose custody the accused may then be, or any other constable or person to be named by the magistrate in that behalf, to continue and keep the accused in his custody and to bring him before the same magistrate at the time appointed for continuing the examination: Provided always that the magistrate may order the accused to be brought before himself or another magistrate at any time before the expiration of the time for which the accused is so remanded, and the gaoler or officer in whose custody he then is shall duly obey such order: Provided also that, instead of detaining the accused in custody during the period for which he is so remanded, a magistrate before whom the accused so appears or is brought as aforesaid may discharge him, on his entering into a recognizance, with or without a surety or sureties, at the discretion of the magistrate, conditioned for his appearance at the time and place appointed for the continuance of the examination.\n\n(2) If the accused does not afterwards appear at the time and place mentioned in the recognizance, the magistrate then present may, on certifying the non-appearance of the accused on the recognizance, declare the same forfeited, and proceed to enforce the same in the manner hereinbefore provided for enforcing recognizances in the cases of offences punishable on summary conviction; and may forthwith issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused.\n\nForma\n\nand 77.\n\ntaken not an open\n\n74. The room or building in which a magistrate hears an information or charge for an indictable offence shall not be deemed an open court for that purpose; and it shall be lawful for the magistrate hearing the case, in his discretion, to order that no person shall have access to or be or remain in such court.\n\n1 & 12 Vict.\n\nc. 42, s. 19.\n\n27\n\nroom or building without the consent or permission of the magistrate, if it appears to him that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing.\n\nevidence at\n\n75.—(1) On the hearing of an information or charge for an indictable offence where the accused is present at the hearing, the magistrate shall, before committing the accused to prison for trial or before admitting him to bail to take his trial, in the presence of the accused proceed to take evidence for and on behalf of the prosecutor and his witnesses in the same manner as is hereinbefore provided for the taking of the evidence of the complainant or informant and his witnesses on a complaint or information for an offence punishable on summary conviction.\n\n(2) The accused or his counsel shall be at liberty to put questions to any witnesses produced against him, and further the depositions or evidence of the prosecutor and his witnesses shall, in the presence of the accused, be read over to and signed respectively by the witnesses who have been so examined, and shall also be signed by the magistrate taking the same.\n\nSchedule.\n\n76. (1) After the examination of all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution has been completed the magistrate hearing the case shall, if desired by the accused, without requiring the attendance of the witnesses, read or cause to be read to the accused, or when necessary cause to be interpreted, the depositions taken against him, and shall inform him that he has the right, if he so desires, to give evidence on his own behalf. If the accused desires to give evidence, his evidence shall be taken upon oath and shall be subject to cross-examination as in the case of the evidence of any other witness. If the accused does not desire to give evidence on his own behalf, the magistrate shall say to him these words or words to the like effect or cause the same to be interpreted to him:-\n\n\"Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial.\"\n\nForm\n\n(2) Whatever the accused then says in answer thereto shall be taken down in writing and read over to him, and shall be signed by the magistrate and kept with the depositions of the witnesses, and shall be transmitted with them as hereinafter mentioned: Provided always that the magistrate, before the accused makes any statement, shall state or cause to be interpreted to him and give him or cause him clearly to understand that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been holden out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatever he shall then say may be given in evidence on his trial notwithstanding such promise or threat.\n\n(3) Any statement which purports to have been taken down and signed as provided in sub-section (2) shall be admissible in evidence against the accused in any court if it is produced out of the proper custody without further proof of the matters above mentioned, unless it is proved that such statement was not duly taken down or was not in fact signed by the magistrate or officer aforesaid purporting to sign the same.\n\nPage 260\n\nPage 250\n\nPage 251",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589329,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 253,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "30\n\n(4) At any time before the first day of the criminal session of the court at which any accused committed for trial is to be tried the accused or his counsel may require from the magistrates' clerk copies of the depositions together with copies of any such statements or evidence as aforesaid, on payment of fifteen cents for each folio of seventy-two words.\n\n263\n\nagainst\n\n82. (1) When a corporation is charged, whether alone or jointly with some other person, with an indictable offence, the magistrate may, if he be of the opinion that the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution is sufficient to put the accused corporation upon trial, order the documents specified in section 81 (1) which relate to the case to be transmitted to the Crown Solicitor for the use of the Attorney General and such order shall be deemed to be a committal for trial.\n\n(2) If the corporation appears before the magistrate by a representative appointed in writing by the corporation to represent it for the purpose of this section, any question or statement required by any enactment to be put or made to the accused may be put or made to such representative, and any such question may be answered on behalf of the corporation by such representative, but if the corporation does not so appear it shall not be necessary to put or make the questions or statements, and the magistrate may, notwithstanding, make an order under this section.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall have the effect of taking away from a magistrate any power which he may possess of dealing with a charge summarily.\n\n31\n\n85. Where an indictable offence is triable summarily:-\n\n(1) the procedure shall, until the magistrate assumes the power to deal with the offence summarily, be the same in all respects as if the offence were to be dealt with throughout as an indictable offence, but when and so soon as the magistrate assumes the power to deal with the offence summarily, the procedure shall be the same from and after that period as if the offence were an offence punishable on summary conviction and not on indictment, and the provisions of this Ordinance relating to offences punishable on summary conviction shall apply accordingly;\n\n(2) the evidence of any witness taken before the magistrate has assumed the said power need not be taken again, but every such witness shall, if the defendant so requires, be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination;\n\n(3) the conviction for any such offence shall be of the same effect as a conviction for the offence on indictment before the court, and the magistrate may make the like order for the restitution of property as might have been made by the court;\n\nand\n\n(4) the order of dismissal shall be filed by the magistrates' clerk in like manner as the conviction is hereby required to be filed, and together with the order of dismissal or the conviction, as the case may be, there shall be filed by such clerk in each case the written charge, the depositions of the witnesses and the statement, if any, of the accused.\n\nPART IV.\n\nSUMMARY TRIAL OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES.\n\n83. Nothing in this Part shall affect the powers conferred upon magistrates by any Ordinance relating to the protection of women and girls.\n\n86. Where any person is accused of stealing from the person or of any offence within the meaning of either of sections 44 and 45 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, 1865, it shall be lawful for a magistrate to hear the case and convict the accused summarily and to sentence him to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year, or to commit the accused for trial before the court; and it shall also be lawful for two magistrates to sit together to hear the case, and they may, if they think fit, summarily convict the accused and sentence him to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or they may commit the accused for trial before the court.\n\n84.-(1) Whenever any person is accused before a magistrate of any indictable offence, except an offence specified in the Third Schedule, the magistrate, instead of committing the accused for trial before the court, may deal with the case and convict the accused summarily, and on conviction may sentence the accused to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any greater punishment specifically provided in any other Ordinance.\n\n(2) The magistrate may nevertheless, if he thinks fit, commit any such accused for trial before the court.\n\n(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 86.\n\nPART V.\n\nSPECIAL POWERS.\n\nMiscellaneous.\n\n87. In all proceedings before two magistrates sitting together upon any complaint or information, it shall be lawful for one magistrate to receive such complaint or information, and to grant a summons or warrant to compel the attendance of any witnesses, and to do all other necessary acts and matters preliminary to the hearing, even in cases where by the Ordinance or statute in that behalf such complaint or information must be heard and determined by two magistrates sitting together.\n\n264",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589330,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 254,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "262\n\n32\n\ngether, and after the case has been so heard and determined one magistrate may issue all warrants of distress or commitment thereon : Provided always that in any case where any such complaint or information is heard and determined by two magistrates, or a conviction or order is made by two magistrates, such magistrates must be present and acting together during the whole of the hearing and determination of the case.\n\nwhere two\n\n88. If in any case where two magistrates sit together Procedure they are unable to agree in their decision whether the defendant magistrates or accused is guilty or not guilty, he shall be committed for disagree. trial before the court.\n\n89. Whenever any male offender is convicted by a Flogging. magistrate\n\n(1) under the provisions of either section 44 or section 45 Ordinance of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, 1865, or\n\nNo. 2 of 1865.\n\n(2) under section 52 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Ordinance, 1865, of committing an act of gross indecency with No. 2 of another male person under the age of thirteen, or\n\n1865.\n\nNo. 5 of\n\n(3) under section 29 of the Larceny Ordinance, 1865, of Ordinance stealing any ornament or other chattel from the person of any 1865. woman or child, or\n\n(4) under the provisions of section 53 of the Asiatic Ordinance Emigration Ordinance, 1915, or\n\nNo. 30 of 1915.\n\n(5) under the provisions of either section 4 or section 7 Ordinance of the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, or\n\nNo. 4 of 1897.\n\n(6) under the provisions of the Stowaways Ordinance, Ordinance\n\nNo. 3 of 1924.\n\n1924,\n\nthe magistrate may, in addition to the punishment awarded (cf. No. 3 for such offence, direct that the offender be flogged.\n\nof 1903).\n\nsentence\n\n90. Whenever any offender whose age appears to the Power to magistrate not to exceed sixteen years is convicted of any juvenile offence other than the offences specified in the Third Schedule, to be\n\nwhipped the magistrate may, in lieu of any other punishment to which for certain the offender is liable, and notwithstanding anything to the con- trary in the Peace Preservation Ordinance, 1886, or in the Nos. 10 of Flogging Ordinance, 1903-\n\noffences.\n\nOrdinances 1866 and 3 of 1903,\n\n(a) order such offender to be discharged after due admoni- Third tion; or\n\n(b) order such offender to be delivered to his parent or to his guardian or nearest adult relative or, in the case of the offender being an apprentice or servant, to his master or mistress or, in the case of the offender being a schoolboy or schoolgirl, to the person in charge of the school at which the offender is attending. on such parent, guardian, relative, master, mistress or person in charge of a school executing a bond with or without a surety or sureties that he or she will be responsible for the good behaviour and also, if the magistrate thinks it necessary, for the proper education of the offender for any period not exceeding twelve months; or\n\nSchedule.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589332,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 256,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "2.67\n\n31\n\nif so requested by the complainant, adjourn the proceedings in order to enable him to instruct counsel on his behalf;\n\n(b) before making any order under sub-section (2) the magistrate shall first clearly inform the witness of the specific words which appear to the said magistrate to constitute the false testimony and shall give the witness an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made, and shall, if so requested by the said witness, adjourn the proceedings in order to enable him to instruct counsel on his behalf; and\n\n(c) if the compensation or fine is not forthwith paid, the magistrate may commit the person against whom the order is made to prison in accordance with the provisions of section 62.\n\nnon-payment\n\n95. Whenever a magistrate awards a pecuniary penalty or amends for any offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance, 1932, and the same is not forthwith paid, the magistrate may commit the offender to prison, with or without hard labour, in accordance with the scale in section 62.\n\nof articles in certain\n\n96. Whenever any person is found by the police hawking without a licence, or committing any offence against any Ordinance relating to markets, or causing any obstruction by hawking in a public thoroughfare, the police are hereby empowered to convey or cause to be conveyed all the articles being hawked and sold before a magistrate, who shall thereupon have power, on conviction of the offender, to order the forfeiture of the said articles or any of them, in addition to or substitution for any other fine or punishment which he may by law impose.\n\nBail.\n\n97.-(1) No magistrate or justice of the peace shall admit any person to bail for treason or murder, nor shall such person be admitted to bail except by order of a judge.\n\nProvisions relating to bail\n\n(2) Where a person is charged with felony, or with assault with intent to commit a felony, or with an attempt to commit a felony, or with obtaining or attempting to obtain property by false pretences, or with a misdemeanor in receiving stolen property or property obtained by false pretences, or with perjury or subornation of perjury, or with concealing the birth of a child by secret burying or otherwise, or with wilful or indecent exposure of the person, or with riot or assault upon a police officer in the execution of his duty or upon any person acting in his aid, or with an assault in pursuance of a conspiracy to raise the rate of wages, a magistrate may in his discretion admit the accused to bail, on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as, in the opinion of the magistrate, will be sufficient to ensure the appearance of the accused at the time and place when and where he is to be tried for such offence; and thereupon the magistrate shall take the recognizance of the accused and his surety or sureties conditioned for the appearance of the accused at the time and place of trial, and that he will then surrender and take his trial and will not depart the court without leave.\n\nFirst condition\n\nNos. 78 and 79.\n\n35\n\n(3) Where a person is charged with an indictable misdemeanor other than those mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall be entitled to be admitted to bail in the manner mentioned in the said sub-section.\n\n(4) It shall be lawful for a magistrate, on issuing a warrant for the apprehension of any person charged with a bailable offence, to certify on the warrant his consent to the accused being bailed, and thereupon it shall be lawful for an inspector of police to admit the accused to bail, taking his recognizance and that of his surety or sureties, if any, conditioned for the appearance of the accused at the time and place of hearing and that he will then surrender and take his trial and will not depart the court without leave.\n\n(5) In every case where a person charged with any bailable indictable offence is committed to prison to take his trial for the same before the court, it shall be lawful, at any time afterwards and before the first day of the criminal session at which he is to be tried or before the day to which such session is adjourned, for the magistrate who has signed the warrant for his commitment, in his discretion, to admit the accused to bail in manner aforesaid; or if the committing magistrate is of opinion that for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (2) the accused ought to be admitted to bail, such magistrate shall, in such case and in every other case of a misdemeanor committed for trial before the court, certify on the warrant of commitment his consent to the accused being bailed, stating also the amount of bail which ought to be required and whether with a surety or sureties; and it shall be lawful for a magistrate or for the magistrates' clerk, or for a justice of the peace attending at or visiting the prison where the accused is in custody, on production of such certificate, to admit the accused to bail in manner aforesaid.\n\n(6) In every case where the accused in custody is admitted to bail by a magistrate other than the committing magistrate or by a justice of the peace as aforesaid, such magistrate or justice of the peace shall forthwith transmit the recognizance of bail to the committing magistrate to be transmitted with the depositions.\n\n(7) Where two magistrates sit together either of them may exercise the powers hereinbefore mentioned.\n\nSchedule.\n\nwhere\n\nprison when\n\n98. (1) In every case where a magistrate admits to bail any person who is then in prison charged with the offence for which he is so admitted to bail, the magistrate shall send to or cause to be lodged with the Superintendent of Prisons a warrant of deliverance, under his hand and seal, requiring the said Superintendent to discharge the person so admitted to bail if he is detained for no other offence, and, on such warrant of deliverance being delivered to or lodged with the said Superintendent, he shall forthwith obey the same.\n\n11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 24.\n\nFirst Form intended\n\nis\n\n(2) Where, however, the bail of the person is taken by the magistrates' clerk or a justice of the peace in pursuance of section 97 (5), a written certificate, signed by such magistrates' clerk or justice, that the bail has been duly given shall be a good authority to the said Superintendent to discharge the person so bailed from custody forthwith, unless he is also in custody for some other cause.\n\nSchedule.\n\nNo. 81.\n\n268",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589367,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 291,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "FORM No. 80.\n\n[s. 97.]\n\nCertificate of consent to bail by the committing magistrate\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nindorsed on the commitment.\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT AT\n\nI hereby certify that I consent to the within-named C.D. being bailed by recognizance, himself in the sum of\n\nand [two] sureties in the sum of [each].\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.]\n\n(Signed.)\n\nMagistrate.\n\nFORM No. 81.\n\n[s. 98.]\n\nWarrant of deliverance on bail being given for a prisoner\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nalready committed.\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT AT\n\nTo the Superintendent of Prisons in the said Colony.\n\nC.D., late of [labourer] has before me, a magistrate of the said Colony, entered into his own recognizance, and found sufficient sureties for his appearance at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court [or as the case may be] to answer Our Sovereign Lord the King for that he [etc., as in the commitment], for which he was taken and committed to a prison: These are, therefore, to command you, in His Majesty's name, that if the said C.D. do remain in your custody in a prison for the said cause, and for no other, you shall forthwith suffer him to go at large.\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.]\n\n(Signed.)\n\nMagistrate.\n\nPART IV.\n\nFORMS FOR INDICTABLE OFFENCES TRIABLE SUMMARILY.\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nFORM No. 82.\n\n[ss. 84 and 85.]\n\nSummary conviction of indictable offence.\n\nIN THE POLICE COURT AT\n\nBefore J.P., Esquire, a magistrate of the said Colony.\n\nThe day of 19\n\nC.D. (hereinafter called the defendant) having been charged for that he, on the day of 19 at [state offence]; and the magistrate having determined to try the case summarily; the defendant is this day convicted of the said offence, and it is adjudged that he pay [or that he be imprisoned, insert particulars] for his said offence [proceed as in ordinary forms of summary conviction.]\n\nDated this day of 19\n\n[L.S.]\n\n(Signed.)\n\nMagistrate.\n\nPage 313",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589390,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 314,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "20\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\n343\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\n21\n\n[s. 9 contd.] Sailing from the Colony, either at the commencement or during the progress of a voyage, or is absent at any time without leave and without sufficient reason from his ship or from his duty, he shall, if the offence does not amount to desertion or is not treated as such by the master, be guilty of the offence of absence without leave, and be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay, and in addition, for every twenty-four hours of absence, either a sum not exceeding six days' pay or any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute; and also he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten weeks;\n\n57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 225.\n\n(c) if he quits his ship without leave after the ship's arrival and before the ship is placed in security, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding one month's pay;\n\n(d) if he is guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four weeks, and also to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay;\n\n(e) if he is guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands or continued wilful neglect of duty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks, and also, at the discretion of the court, to forfeit, for every twenty-four hours' continuance of disobedience or neglect, either a sum not exceeding six days' pay or any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute;\n\n(f) if he assaults the master or any mate or certificated engineer of the ship, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks;\n\n(g) if he combines with any of the crew to disobey lawful commands, or to neglect duty, or to impede the navigation of the ship or the progress of the voyage, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks; and\n\n(h) if he wilfully damages the ship, or embezzles or wilfully damages any of the stores or cargo, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum equal to the loss thereby sustained, and also, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks:\n\nProvided that, in the case of a foreign ship, the magistrate may only deal with cases arising out of the offences mentioned in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g): Provided also that, if [s. 9 contd.] there is a consular officer resident in the Colony of the nation to which such ship belongs, the magistrate shall not deal with any case, unless he is requested to do so by such officer in writing, and unless such officer undertakes that any such seaman shall not become a charge on the Colony in consequence of being so dealt with.\n\n(6) All expenses incidental to the apprehension and confinement of any seaman or apprentice under this section shall be payable by the master of the ship to which such seaman or apprentice belongs and be recoverable from him, at the suit of the Commissioner of Police, as a debt due to the Government; and the subsistence money for every such seaman or apprentice confined in prison shall be paid in advance to the Superintendent of Prisons, and, in default of such payment, the Superintendent of Prisons may release such seaman or apprentice: Provided that every seaman or apprentice imprisoned under this section may, by direction of the committing magistrate, be sent on board his ship or may be placed at the disposal of the consular officer at whose request he dealt with the case, on the written application of such officer, either on or before the expiration of his term of imprisonment.\n\nPART III.\n\nPASSENGER SHIPS.\n\nSurveys.\n\n10.—(1) In this Part, \"passenger ship\" means every ship exceeding sixty tons register carrying passengers from, to, or between places in the waters of the Colony except steam or motor-vessels which ply solely as ferries between two or more points within the Colony.\n\n(2) Every passenger ship which carries more than twelve passengers shall be surveyed once at least in each year in the manner provided in this section, except—\n\n(a) British ships which have from the United Kingdom or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey reports;\n\n57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 271 and (1) (*).\n\n* For the Merchant Shipping Passenger Steamers (Hong Kong) Order, 1928, see G.N. 301 of 25.5.1928.\n\nAs amended by No. 23 of 1932 [10.12.32], No. 28 of 1933 [22.12.33], No. 28 of 1935 [1.7.35] and Law Rev. Ord., 1937. See also No. 25 of 1934 [Merchant Shipping (No. 2) Amendment], s. 3 (not yet in force on 1.1.1938).\n\n344",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 589441,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "page_number": 366,
        "title": "CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941",
        "content_text": "425\n\n426\n\n20\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\n[s.9 contd.] Sailing from the Colony, either at the commencement or during the progress of a voyage, or is absent at any time without leave and without sufficient reason from his ship or from his duty, he shall, if the offence does not amount to desertion or is not treated as such by the master, be guilty of the offence of absence without leave, and be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay, and in addition, for every twenty-four hours of absence, either a sum not exceeding six days' pay or any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute; and also he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten weeks;\n\n57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 225.\n\n(c) if he quits his ship without leave after the ship's arrival and before the ship is placed in security, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding one month's pay;\n\n(d) if he is guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four weeks, and also to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay;\n\n(e) if he is guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands or continued wilful neglect of duty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks, and also, at the discretion of the court, to forfeit, for every twenty-four hours' continuance of disobedience or neglect, either a sum not exceeding six days' pay or any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute;\n\n(f) if he assaults the master or any mate or certificated engineer of the ship, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks;\n\n(g) if he combines with any of the crew to disobey lawful commands, or to neglect duty, or to impede the navigation of the ship or the progress of the voyage, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks; and\n\n(h) if he wilfully damages the ship, or embezzles or wilfully damages any of the stores or cargo, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum equal to the loss thereby sustained, and also, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve weeks:\n\nProvided that, in the case of a foreign ship, the magistrate may only deal with cases arising out of the offences mentioned\n\nMERCHANT SHIPPING.\n\nNo. 10 of 1899.\n\n21\n\nin paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g): Provided also that, if [s. 9 contd.] there is a consular officer resident in the Colony of the nation to which such ship belongs, the magistrate shall not deal with any case, unless he is requested to do so by such officer in writing, and unless such officer undertakes that any such seaman shall not become a charge on the Colony in consequence of being so dealt with.\n\n(6) All expenses incidental to the apprehension and confinement of any seaman or apprentice under this section shall be payable by the master of the ship to which such seaman or apprentice belongs and be recoverable from him, at the suit of the Commissioner of Police, as a debt due to the Government; and the subsistence money for every such seaman or apprentice confined in prison shall be paid in advance to the Superintendent of Prisons, and, in default of such payment, the Superintendent of Prisons may release such seaman or apprentice: Provided that every seaman or apprentice imprisoned under this section may, by direction of the committing magistrate, be sent on board his ship or may be placed at the disposal of the consular officer at whose request he dealt with the case, on the written application of such officer, either on or before the expiration of his term of imprisonment.\n\nPART III.\n\nPASSENGER SHIPS.\n\nSurveys.\n\n10. (1) In this Part, \"passenger ship\" means every ship exceeding sixty tons register carrying passengers from, to, or between places in the waters of the Colony except steam or motor-vessels which ply solely as ferries between two or more points within the Colony.\n\n(2) Every passenger ship which carries more than twelve passengers shall be surveyed once at least in each year in the manner provided in this section, except-\n\n(a) British ships which have from the United Kingdom or from any British possession passenger certificates or survey reports;\n\n57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 271 and (1) (a).\n\n*For the Merchant Shipping Passenger Steamers (Hong Kong) Order, 1928, see G.N. 301 of 25.5.1928.\n\nAs amended by No. 23 of 1932 [10.12.32], No. 28 of 1933 [22.12.33], No. 28 of 1935 [1.7.36] and Law Rev. Ord., 1937. See also No. 25 of 1934 [Merchant Shipping (No. 2) Amendment], s. 3 (not yet in force on 1.1.1938).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593048,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948",
        "page_number": 66,
        "title": "CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948",
        "content_text": "## Power for authorised guards to discharge firearms\n\n### Limitation\n\n5. Subject as hereinafter provided and to any contrary direction under sub-section (2) of section 4 hereof, it shall be lawful for an authorised guard in carrying out his duties under this Ordinance to discharge firearms \n**(a)** at any person whom he reasonably believes to be about to enter or leave a protected place and who fails to halt when challenged; \n**(b)** at any person whom he reasonably believes to be in the act of breaking into a protected place; \n**(c)** at any person whom he has reason to believe is or has been stealing or is or has been committing any offence punishable under the **Malicious Damage Ordinance, 1865**, in such protected place and who fails to halt when challenged; \n**(d)** at any person forming part of a group of three or more persons engaged in throwing stones or other articles at such authorised guard which he has reason to believe may cause him grievous bodily harm.\n\n6. Nothing in section 5 contained shall authorise an authorised guard \n* **(a)** to discharge firearms at any person if such person can be apprehended or prevented from escaping by any other lawful means consistent with the duties of such authorised guard under this Ordinance; \n* **(b)** to discharge firearms with intent to cause greater harm to any person than is reasonably necessary for the discharge by such authorised guard of his duties under this Ordinance.\n\n### Onus of proof\n\n7. Where any authorised guard has in the course of duty discharged firearms he shall until the contrary is proved be deemed to have been acting within the scope of the authority conferred upon him by this Ordinance.\n\n### Penalty\n\n8. Any person who \n* **(a)** fails to halt when challenged by an authorised guard; \n* **(b)** resists or obstructs, or aids or incites any person to resist or obstruct, an authorised guard in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by this Ordinance or in exercise of the powers hereby conferred; \n* **(c)** loiters in the immediate vicinity of a protected place and is unable when charged before a Magistrate to satisfy such Magistrate that he was there for a lawful purpose; \n* **(d)** being a person who is unauthorised to enter a protected place fails to leave the immediate vicinity thereof when requested to do so by an authorised guard or a member of the Hong Kong Police Force;\n\nshall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.\n\n## Objects and Reasons\n\nThe object of the Bill is to afford greater protection to vulnerable points and premises where equipment and commodities essential to the life of the community may be stored by constituting authorised guards of such premises and empowering such guards to take more energetic action than they lawfully may at present.\n\n2. Power exists under **Regulation 32** of the **Defence Regulations 1940** as modified by the **Emergency Powers (Extension) Proclamation** for the Governor in the interests of defence or the protection of the public or for the maintenance of essential supplies and services to declare premises to be protected places, that is to say, places where special precautions are taken to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons.\n\n3. Unfortunately the war has increased not only the facilities for obtaining arms but the number of persons who are prepared to resort to lawlessness which on occasions has taken the form of murder of those who seek to protect their property or to maintain law and order.\n\n4. In these circumstances it has become necessary to employ members of the Forces and other special guards to guard docks and godowns as well as vital installations. These guards are handicapped in that in the eyes of the law their powers to suppress disorder and apprehend lawbreakers are only those given to the ordinary private citizen. In the exercise of such powers they are further handicapped by the very nature of their duties. If a guard were to leave his post in order to apprehend an offender he would often be compelled to leave the premises he is guarding temporarily unprotected, thus failing in his primary duty. In fact on a number of occasions in Kowloon, stones have been deliberately thrown at sentries in order to provoke them to desert their post and thus facilitate the looting of the valuable property they were guarding. Such tactics might equally well be employed to overpower a guard.\n\n5. Although improvement has been effected in the strength and efficiency of the Police Force, theft and armed robbery occur with alarming frequency and essential equipment is often involved.\n\n6. It has accordingly been decided to declare certain premises protected places by order of the Governor under **Regulation 32** aforesaid and to arm the guards of such premises with special duties and powers including power to discharge firearms in the course of duty. Such power is specified in Clause 5 of the Bill.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593053,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948",
        "page_number": 71,
        "title": "CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948",
        "content_text": "## Power for authorised guards to discharge firearms\n\n### Limitation\n\n5. Subject as hereinafter provided and to any contrary direction under sub-section (2) of section 4 hereof, it shall be lawful for an authorised guard in carrying out his duties under this Ordinance to discharge firearms \n**(a)** at any person whom he reasonably believes to be about to enter or leave a protected place and who fails to halt when challenged; \n**(b)** at any person whom he reasonably believes to be in the act of breaking into a protected place; \n**(c)** at any person whom he has reason to believe is or has been stealing or is or has been committing any offence punishable under the Malicious Damage Ordinance, 1865, in such protected place and who fails to halt when challenged; \n**(d)** at any person forming part of a group of three or more persons engaged in throwing stones or other articles at such authorised guard which he has reason to believe may cause him grievous bodily harm.\n\n6. Nothing in section 5 contained shall authorise an authorised guard to discharge firearms:\n- **(a)** to discharge firearms at any person if such person can be apprehended or prevented from escaping by any other lawful means consistent with the duties of such authorised guard under this Ordinance;\n- **(b)** to discharge firearms with intent to cause greater harm to any person than is reasonably necessary for the discharge by such authorised guard of his duties under this Ordinance.\n\n### Onus of proof\n\n7. Where any authorised guard has in the course of duty discharged firearms he shall until the contrary is proved be deemed to have been acting within the scope of the authority conferred upon him by this Ordinance.\n\n### Penalty\n\n8. Any person who \n**(a)** fails to halt when challenged by an authorised guard; \n**(b)** resists or obstructs, or aids or incites any person to resist or obstruct, an authorised guard in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by this Ordinance or in exercise of the powers hereby conferred; \n**(c)** loiters in the immediate vicinity of a protected place and is unable when charged before a Magistrate to satisfy such Magistrate that he was there for a lawful purpose; \n**(d)** being a person who is unauthorised to enter a protected place fails to leave the immediate vicinity thereof when requested to do so by an authorised guard or a member of the Hong Kong Police Force; \nshall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.\n\n## Objects and Reasons\n\n1. The object of the Bill is to afford greater protection to vulnerable points and premises where equipment and commodities essential to the life of the community may be stored by constituting authorised guards of such premises and empowering such guards to take more energetic action than they lawfully may at present.\n\n2. Power exists under Regulation 32 of the Defence Regulations 1940 as modified by the Emergency Powers (Extension) Proclamation for the Governor in the interests of defence or the protection of the public or for the maintenance of essential supplies and services to declare premises to be protected places, that is to say, places where special precautions are taken to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons.\n\n3. Unfortunately the war has increased not only the facilities for obtaining arms but the number of persons who are prepared to resort to lawlessness which on occasions has taken the form of murder of those who seek to protect their property or to maintain law and order.\n\n4. In these circumstances it has become necessary to employ members of the Forces and other special guards to guard docks and godowns as well as vital installations. These guards are handicapped in that in the eyes of the law their powers to suppress disorder and apprehend lawbreakers are only those given to the ordinary private citizen. In the exercise of such powers they are further handicapped by the very nature of their duties. If a guard were to leave his post in order to apprehend an offender he would often be compelled to leave the premises he is guarding temporarily unprotected, thus failing in his primary duty. In fact on a number of occasions in Kowloon, stones have been deliberately thrown at sentries in order to provoke them to desert their post and thus facilitate the looting of the valuable property they were guarding. Such tactics might equally well be employed to overpower a guard.\n\n5. Although improvement has been effected in the strength and efficiency of the Police Force, theft and armed robbery occur with alarming frequency and essential equipment is often involved.\n\n6. It has accordingly been decided to declare certain premises protected places by order of the Governor under Regulation 32 aforesaid and to arm the guards of such premises with special duties and powers including power to discharge firearms in the course of duty. Such power is specified in Clause 5 of the Bill.\n\n73",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593934,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948",
        "page_number": 24,
        "title": "CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948",
        "content_text": "## Corrupt transactions with agents an offence.\n\n5 Ed. 7.34\n\n### Penalty for offences.\n\n(2) Every person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person corruptly give, promise, or offer any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of any public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which such public body as aforesaid is concerned, shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n4. If-\n\n(i) any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Ordinance done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;\n\nor\n\n(ii) any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Ordinance done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;\n\nor\n\n(iii) any person knowingly gives to any agent, or if any agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal;\n\nhe shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n5. \n\n(1) Any person who commits an offence against section 3 of this Ordinance shall—\n\n| Penalty | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to fine not exceeding five thousand dollars; |\n| (b) | be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars; |\n| (c) | in addition be liable to be ordered to pay to such body, and in such manner as the magistrate or the court directs, the amount or value of any gift, loan, fee, or reward received by him or any part thereof; |\n| (d) | be liable to be adjudged incapable of being elected or appointed to any public office for seven years from the date of his conviction, and to forfeit any such office held by him at the time of his conviction; |\n| (e) | in the event of a second conviction for a like offence he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalties, be liable to be adjudged to be forever incapable of holding any public office, and to be incapable for seven years of being registered as an elector of members of any public body, and any enactment from time to time in force in the Colony for preventing the voting and registration of persons declared by reason of corrupt practices to be incapable of voting shall apply to a person adjudged in pursuance of this section to be incapable of voting; and |\n| (f) | if such person is an officer or servant in the employ of any public body upon such conviction he shall, at the discretion of the magistrate or the court, be liable to forfeit his right and claim to any compensation or pension to which he would otherwise have been entitled. |\n\n(2) Any person committing an offence against section 4 of this Ordinance shall be liable-\n\n| Penalty | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; |\n| (b) | on conviction on indictment to imprisonment not exceeding five years and to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars; |\n| (c) | if such person is a public servant he shall at the discretion of the magistrate or the court be liable to be adjudged incapable of being elected or appointed to any public office for seven years from the date of his conviction, and to forfeit any such office held by him at the time of his conviction; and |\n| (d) | in addition to be ordered to pay to his principal and in such manner as the magistrate or the court may direct, any gift or consideration or any part thereof. |\n\n6. \n\n### Increase of maximum penalty in certain cases.\n\nA person convicted on indictment of an offence under section 3 or section 4 shall, where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract with His Majesty or any Government Department or any public body or a sub-contract to execute any work comprised in such contract, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years: Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the infliction in addition to imprisonment of such punishment other than imprisonment as may be inflicted under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5.\n\n7. ### Savings.\n\nA person shall not be exempt from punishment under this Ordinance by reason of the invalidity of the appointment or election of a person to a public office.\n\n8. ### Restriction on prosecution.\n\nA prosecution for an offence under this Ordinance shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General.\n\n6 Ed. 7 c.34, 5.2.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593939,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948",
        "page_number": 29,
        "title": "CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948",
        "content_text": "# \n## Ordinance\n\nNo. 31 of 1911, s.39, 5.5. (IO). \n**Corruption in office an offence.** \n52 & 53 Vict, c. 69, s. 1. \n**Corrupt transactions with agents an offence.**\n\nTHE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.\n\n\"person\" includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate; \n\"principal\" includes an employer; \n\"public body\" includes any executive, legislative, municipal or urban council, any Government department or undertaking, any local or public authority or undertaking, any board, commission committee or other body whether paid or unpaid appointed by the Governor or Government of Hong Kong or which has power to act under or for the purposes of any enactment in force in the Colony; \n\"public office\" means any office or employment permanent or temporary and whether paid or unpaid of a person as a member, officer, or servant of such public body; \n\"public servant\" means in addition to the meaning assigned to it by the Interpretation Ordinance, 1911, any employee or member of a public body as defined in this Ordinance, whether temporary or permanent and whether paid or unpaid.\n\n3. (1) Every person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person, corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive for himself, or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatever as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the said public body is concerned, shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n(2) Every person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person corruptly give, promise, or offer any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of any public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which such public body as aforesaid is concerned, shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n4. If—\n(i) any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Ordinance done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; \nor \n(ii) any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the passing of this Ordinance done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; \nor \n(iii) any person knowingly gives to any agent, or if any agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal; \nhe shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n## \n5. (1) Any person who commits an offence against section 3 of this Ordinance shall—\n| Penalty | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to fine not exceeding five thousand dollars; |\n| (b) | be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars; |\n| (c) | in addition be liable to be ordered to pay to such body, and in such manner as the magistrate or the court directs, the amount or value of any gift, loan, fee, or reward received by him or any part thereof; |\n| (d) | be liable to be adjudged incapable of being elected or appointed to any public office for seven years from the date of his conviction, and to forfeit any such office held by him at the time of his conviction; |\n| (e) | in the event of a second conviction for a like offence he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalties, be liable to be adjudged to be forever incapable of holding any public office, and to be incapable for seven years of being registered as an elector of members of any public body, and any enactment from time to time in force in the Colony for preventing the voting and registration of persons declared by reason of corrupt practices to be incapable of voting shall apply to a person adjudged in pursuance of this section to be incapable of voting; and |\n| (f) | if such person is an officer or servant in the employ of any public body upon such conviction he shall, at the discretion of the magistrate or the court, be liable to forfeit his right and claim to any compensation or pension to which he would otherwise have been entitled. |\n\n(2) Any person committing an offence against section 4 of this Ordinance shall be liable—\n| Penalty | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; |\n| (b) | on conviction on indictment to imprisonment not exceeding five years and to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars; |\n\n## \n32",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-616-3 Prevention of Corruption Ordinance- 1948 7-8-1948 - 21-10-1948.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593969,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "page_number": 14,
        "title": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "content_text": "## Penalty on endeavour to break up public meeting\n\n8 Edw. 7, c.66, s.I. [cf. 1 Edw.8 c.6, s.6.]\n\nassociation or in organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n(2) In any criminal proceeding under this section proof of things done or of words spoken, written or published by any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents of an association shall be admissible as evidence of the purposes for which, or the manner in which, members or adherents of the association (whether those persons or others) were organised, or trained, or equipped.\n\n(3) If a magistrate is satisfied by an information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this section has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, upon an application made by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within 14 days of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid: Provided that a woman shall be searched by a woman.\n\n## \n\n5. (1) Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n(2) If any constable reasonably suspects any person of committing an offence under this section, he may, if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting, require that person to declare to him immediately his name and address and if that person refuses or fails so to declare his name and address or gives a false name and address he shall be guilty of an offence and if the constable suspects him of giving a false name and address, the constable may arrest him without a warrant.\n\n**Security for keeping the peace on conviction.** `Criminal Procedure Code, Straits Settlements, s.73.`\n\n6. (1) Whenever any person accused of—\n(a) rioting, assault or other breach of the peace or abetting the same;\n(b) assembling armed men or taking other unlawful measures with the intention of committing any such offence as is specified in paragraph (a);\n(c) committing criminal intimidation by threatening injury to person or property;\nis convicted of such offence, and the Court or magistrate before which such person is convicted is of opinion that it is necessary to require such person to execute a bond for keeping the peace, such Court or magistrate may, at the time of passing sentence or in lieu of any sentence, order him to execute a bond for a sum proportionate to his means with or without sureties for keeping the peace during such period, in each instance, as it thinks fit to fix, not exceeding two years.\n\n(2) If the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the bond so executed shall be null and void.\n\n7. **Security for good behaviour from suspected persons, etc.**\n\nWhenever it appears to a magistrate receiving information that—\n(a) any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence from the Colony and there is reason to believe such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing an offence; or\n(b) there is within the Colony a person who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself; or\n(c) there is within the Colony any person who within or without the Colony either orally or in writing disseminates or attempts to disseminate or in any way abets the dissemination of any seditious matter, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 4 of the `Sedition Ordinance, 1938`; or\n(d) any person has committed, or is about to commit or attempt to commit, any act calculated to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order;\nsuch magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour for a period not exceeding two years.\n\n[cf. `Criminal Procedure Code, Straits Settlements, s.76.`]\n`Ordinance No. 13 of 1938.`\n\n8. (1) When a person is required to show cause under sections 6 and 7, the magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth—\n| Column 1 | Column 2 |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | the substance of the information received; |\n| (b) | the amount of the bond to be executed; |\n| (c) | the term for which it is in force; |\n| (d) | the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. |\n\n`Criminal Procedure Code, Straits Settlements, s.78.`\n\nIf the person is in Court, the order shall be read over to him and, if necessary, the substance explained. If he is not in Court, the magistrate shall bring him before it by summons or by warrant as he deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Every summons or warrant issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the order and such copy shall be delivered by the officer executing the process.\n\n(2) When a person appears or is brought before a Court in pursuance of an order as aforesaid, the magistrate shall inquire into the truth of the information as far as is practicable in the manner prescribed in summary cases, except that no charge need be framed.\n\n`Criminal Procedure Code, Straits Settlements, s.83.`\n\n(3) If it is proved that it is necessary to keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person named in the order should execute a bond with or without sureties, the magistrate shall make an order accordingly.\n\n`Criminal Procedure Code, Straits Settlements, s.84.`",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593976,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "page_number": 21,
        "title": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "content_text": "## THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.\n\n### Prohibition of organisations.\n\n4. (1) If the members or adherents of any association of quasi-military persons, whether registered or incorporated or not, are-\n(a) organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police or the armed forces of the Crown;\n(b) organised and trained or organised and equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose;\nthen any person who takes part in the control or management of the association or in organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n[cf. 1 Edw.8 & 1 Geo. 6, c.6, s.2.]\n\n(2) In any criminal proceeding under this section proof of things done or of words spoken, written or published by any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents of an association shall be admissible as evidence of the purposes for which, or the manner in which, members or adherents of the association (whether those persons or others) were organised, or trained, or equipped.\n\n(3) If a magistrate is satisfied by an information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this section has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, upon an application made by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within 14 days of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid: Provided that a woman shall be searched by a woman.\n\n### Penalty on endeavour to break up public meeting.\n\n5. (1) Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence.\n\n[cf. 8 Edw. 7, c.66, s.1.]\n\n(2) If any constable reasonably suspects any person of committing an offence under this section, he may, if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting, require that person to declare to him immediately his name and address and if that person refuses or fails so to declare his name and address or gives a false name and address he shall be guilty of an offence and if the constable suspects him of giving a false name and address, the constable may arrest him without a warrant.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 593977,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "page_number": 22,
        "title": "CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949",
        "content_text": "## SUPPLEMENT NO. 1, OCTOBER 29, 1948\n\n6. (1) Whenever any person accused of—\n(a) rioting, assault or other breach of the peace or abetting the same;\n(b) assembling armed men or taking other unlawful measures with the intention of committing any such offence as is specified in paragraph (a);\n(c) committing criminal intimidation by threatening injury to person or property;\nis convicted of such offence, and the Court or magistrate before which such person is convicted is of opinion that it is necessary to require such person to execute a bond for keeping the peace, such Court or magistrate may, at the time of passing sentence or in lieu of any sentence, order him to execute a bond for a sum proportionate to his means with or without sureties for keeping the peace during such period, in each instance, as it thinks fit to fix, not exceeding two years.\n\n(2) If the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the bond so executed shall be null and void.\n\n7. Whenever it appears to a magistrate receiving information that—\n(a) any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence from the Colony and there is reason to believe such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing an offence; or\n(b) there is within the Colony a person who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself; or\n(c) there is within the Colony any person who within or without the Colony either orally or in writing disseminates or attempts to disseminate or in any way abets the dissemination of any seditious matter, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 4 of the Sedition Ordinance, 1938; or\n(d) any person has committed, or is about to commit or attempt to commit, any act calculated to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order;\nsuch magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour for a period not exceeding two years.\n\n8. (1) When a person is required to show cause under sections 6 and 7, the magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth—\n| Clause | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | the substance of the information received; |\n| (b) | the amount of the bond to be executed; |\n| (c) | the term for which it is in force; |\n| (d) | the number, character and class of sureties, if any, |\n\nIf the person is in Court, the order shall be read over to him and, if necessary, the substance explained. If he is not in Court, the magistrate shall bring him before it by summons or by warrant as he deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Every summons or warrant issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the order and such copy shall be delivered by the officer executing the process.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-616-4 Public Order Ordinance- 1948 13-11-1948 - 7-2-1949.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    }
]