114
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4тn FEBRUARY, 1880.
It appeared to me that 4th defendant, being a well to do woman and having no children of lur own, had purchased the girl with a view to adopting her as a daughter in the belief that she did . with the father's sanction.
11th June, 1879.
(Signed,)
C. V. CreaGII, Acting Police Mugistrule.
ران
When Acting Captain Superintendent of Police last year, I wished to prosecute a man for detain ing 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. P’HILLIPro) cousidered that the purchaser was in loco parentis and could not be punished,
11th June, 1879.
(Signed,) C. V. Creagh,
Acting Police Mugistrate.
MINUTE BY THE Acting Attorney General on C.S.O. 1606 or 1879.
[ handed these papers to the Crown Solicitor with instructions to see what evidence is forthcoming and I beg to enclose his report.
With 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 Suprème Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now as a criminal.
The other two women I could see less reason for discharging, and I think perhaps should have had thein charged, but I felt that that would be a grave slight on the Magistrate.
As 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.
The 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 politie.
3
5th July, 1879.
(Signed,) J. RUSSELL,
Acting Attorney-General,
REPORT BY CROWN SOLICIron ox C.S.O. 1606 or 1879.
Regina v. Soo A-su and another.
In this case I find that the boy LEE A-Pru and also LAM A-ring 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.
Unfortunately 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 bearing that the Police had been applied to in the matter.
May's
The 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 that he never told the druggist that he had any home, and expressed no desire to leave him." The 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 grent affection and are far better off than they were previous to their being so bought.
Regina v. Mak Loi-hi.
With the aid of Inspector LINDSAY, I have carefully investigated this case. SEUNG A-LUK, 2nd and 4th defendants, discharged at the Police Court have already given their sworn Cheung A-Kai, and 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. defendunt, seems to have taken a minor part in the affair, and would be required as a witness.
LUM A-chan, 3rd Two Magistrates sitting together have power to determine cuses of this nature,
(Signed,)
EDMUND SHARP, Crown Solicitor.
f
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.