THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND stand that if they absent themselves they will be difficulty by taking to your heels and leaving the fined unless they have a reasonable excuse. I do shroff to discover your falsehood and congratulate not want to say anything unless I know the himself on the fact that the $5.728 had not been circumstances.
handed over to you. So narrow an escape might At a later stage his Lordship said- Mr. Hum-have acted as a warning. But, about a fortnight phreys had better be here to-morrow morning later, on 5th June, 1895, you succeeded, by unless he wants to get two fines instead of one, forging an order from a respectable shop, to in- He may, however, be able to explain his absence. duce one, Young Sing Pak, to hand you over
LARCENY.
three bales of silk of the value of $695; and it Wong Hing was charged with stealing was only owing to the unusual interest displayed $150.75 belonging to Abdool Ilosam. 73, in your proceedings by one of the fokis in the Wellington Street, on 25th September, 1888. silk shop that you were caught. He followed The following gentlemen were sworn in as you and your coolies and noticed you did not the jury-Messrs. Mauricio Evaristo Ernst carry the silk to the shop which you represented August Wilhelm Hamann, Banerjee Bhawan bad ordered it, but you took it to a pawn shop, Mohom, Rustonjee Meherwanjbe Mehta, David not far off, instead. This led to the recovery of Kennedy, Alfred Dietrich, William Hutchison. the silk and the arrest of yourself. No less than The Acting Attorney-General (Hon. A. G. four false chops were found, ready for us, at your Wise) prosecuted, and said the facts were short lodgings. You did not plead guilty before the and simple. On the day in question the prisoner, Magistrate. It was not till much time and trouble who was a servant of Hosam, went into his had been expended in weaving a net of evidence master's shop, and suddenly snatched up $150 around you, from which you saw no escape, that in notes and 75 cents in silver from a desk. He you pleaded guilty yesterday at this Court. ran away, and was not seen again until one day It now becomes my duty to pass sentence upon this month, when his master saw him in Wel-you, and I minch regret that the fact that you lington Street and arrested him. The whole seem bent upon using your ability to cheat and question was one of identification.
defraud the community renders it necessary The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and said he that society must be protected for some had never been in Hosam's employ, and had time to come from your depredations. always been a vegetablo sellor.
the forging and uttering of the bill of ex- change of 23rd January, 1895, the sentence on each count is five years' imprisonment with hard labour, each sentence, however, to run con- currently. For the crime of 21st May, 1895, that contained in the information for endeavour- ing to obtain money by forged documents, the sentence is two years' imprisonment with hard labour, to commence at the expiration of the imprisonment in the first case. 'This sentence is not made concurrent, because the crime was en- irely independent of that of 23rd January. For the crime of the 5th June, 1895, that contained in the information for obtaining silk by the use of forged documents, the sentence is two years' imprisonment with bard labour, to commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which the Court has already sentenced you in the second case. In the result, the total periods of imprisonment to which you are amount, practically, to nine years. I may add sion of a portion of the period to which a prisoner that the prison rules provide for obtaining remis
is sentenced, in cases of industry and good con. You will be duct, while undergoing sentence. able to ascertain what those rules are from the authorities at the prison, but, in any case, I have deemed it my duty to prevent you further prey- ing upon the community for some years to come.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and his Lordship told him that by running away to China in the ordinary way of fraudulent servants he had escaped punishment for nearly seven years. The means of justice had worked slowly but certainly. The sentence would be twelve months' imprisonment with bard labour.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Lau Tong pleaded guilty to three indictments charging him with forging orders and obtaining bales of silk of the value of $635 by false pretences.
Ilis Lordship said he could well understand the prisoner pleading guilty, as the charges were proved up to the hilt against bim. Sen- tence was reserved.
19th July.
A SEVERE LESSON FOR A FORGER.
Lan Tong, who pleaded guilty on Thursday to three offences of forgery and obtaining goods by false pretences, was brought up to receive sen- tence.
|
For
sentenced
THE ABSENT JURYMAN FINED.
His Lordship called before him Mr. W. G. Humphreys, who absented himself from the Court on Thursday when summoned as a juror.
His Lordship-Mr. Humphreys, you were not here yesterday when your name was called on the jury list.
had an intention to be present yesterday, but just at the last moment my compradore came into the office with one or two important matters, and the thing was diven out of my memory,
fore I had a chance of remembering I received a suminous at half-past ten requesting me to appear before your Lordship at once, and that it was important for me to come and apologise to your Lordship. |
His Lordship said-Lau Tong you have pleaded guilty to the commission of no less than three distinct and serious crimes. In a mer cantile community crimes involving the forgery of mercantile documents and the use of such false documents for the purpose of defraud- ing bankers and others are offences of a peculiarly dangerous character; for they sap the very foundations of commerce by destroying all reasonable confidence, between man and man. Ou 23rd January, 1895, you forged and you uttered, knowing it to be forged, a bill of exchange for £418 118. 4d., purporting to be Mr. Humphreys-No, your Lordship. I have drawn in the ordinary course of business on a to apologise to yourself and to the Court, and to firm in Australia against silk consigned to that explain that my absence was purely an accident. firm. The consignment of silk consisted of rub-I had been working both late and early, and I bish and firewood, resembling bales of silk externally, owing to the neat packing and the usual careful covering of matting to prevent damage. But this, of course, was not known at the time. Armed with the usual shipping do- cuments and a policy of insurance and aided by an astute and obliging confederate, who came forward with false representations as your guarantor, you succeeded in selling that' worthless bill and defrauding the buyer of a sum considerably over $4,000. Your scheme was elaborate, carefully thought out, and, un- fortunately for yourself, successful. I say fortunately" because success seems to have em- boldened you to farther efforts. On 21st May, 1895, you tried almost precisely the same plan, and endeavoured to obtain from the shroff of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China the sum of $5,728 for a draft against merchandise consigned to Singapore! You had with you forged or altered bills of, lading and a policy of insurance, and, when asked for a guarantee, you said the Sy wo shop would guarantee you. No doubt your confederate would have come forward and represented him. self as coming from that shop, had you been told to bring him to the Bank. Instead of that, another shroff from the Bank said he would go with you to that shop. You were in a difficult position and on nearing the shop you solved the
un-
His Lordship-That was the second summons. The first summons you received ordered you to attend here at ten o'clock yesterday,
Mr. Humphreys-I have to apologise for that, His Lordship-It is not a question of apology. Personally it does not affect me, but it does affect very much the fair administration of justice. If any one jury man absents himself, as you did yesterday, some other gentleman. whose time is valuable to him, although not, per. haps, to you, has to take your place, and do your work-or rather part of your work as a citizən taking a share in the administration of justice in this colony. I will not say anything more at present as you are here to-day. I think you had better put what you have said in the form of an affidavit, and say how it came about that you did not attend yesterday. The second summons was simply to remind you that you must come.
Mr. Humphreys-Will you allow me to men- tion that the statement made by the Acting
|
July 24 189. Attorney General yesterday was entirely a mis- take. For the past twenty-five years I have never missed a summons in this Court. That I can state upon oath.
circumstances I had better mention that the The Acting Attorney-General-Under these
bailiff is of quite the contrary opinion. discussion upon this matter, which is merely a His Lordship-I do not wish to eater into a verbal statement. We must have something upon oath. You (Mr. Humphreys) had better make an affilavit, file it with the Registrar, sider what I shall do, consistent with my duty explaining the circumstances. I will then con- whether I can accept the explanation; but I will make no promise at present. You had better remain here to-day.
In the ordinary course of things Mr. Humphreys
His Lordship, a short time afterwards. said- would be fined $20. I do not wish to inflict that fine until I ascertain whether the affidavit be files would justify me in not inflicting it. At the same time I think it should be inflicted at the present time, and therefore the best way would be to say that Mr. Humphreys is fined 820 subject to his afflavit justifying me in re- mitting that fine. I shall be very glad if I can find that I am justified in remitting the fine.
THE YAUMATI ARSON CASE.
Chan and Li Sam were charged, with feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously setting British Kowloon, on 30th June. fire to a dwelling house at 20, Ho Mua Tin,
Prisoners pleaded not guilty.
The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury:-Messrs. C, M. Castro, F. A. Osorio, W. C. P. Stoppa, C. O. Kleinschmidt, P. A. de Graca, E. C. Shepherd, and J. M. H. Meier. Wise) prosecuted, and Mr. Phillippo (instructed The Acting Attorney-General (Hon. A. G.
by Mr. H. J. Holmes) defended.
The Acting Attorney-General said he offered no evidence against the woman Li Sam, and she of the case be said that the motive for com- was discharged. In relating the circumstances. mitting the crime was jealousy on the part of Chan U, who had a grudge against his neigh- bour in consequence of a woman transferring her affections to the inau whose shed was burnt. a woman, and her daughter sleeping in a shed. On the night of the 30th June there were a mag,
At midnight they were aroused by an outbreak of fire, and on examining the premises a tin full of kerosine oil was found alight underneath the cockloft, and another was found on the roof near to the cookloft. In assisting to put ont the flames a man was severely burnt. The pri soner, who lived next door, would not assist the helpers, and it would be proved that a large portion of his furniture had been removed on the previous evening. Evidence would also ba. called of a quarrel between the prisoner and the
woman.
Evidence in support of this statement having been given, Mr. Phillippo submitted that there was no direct evidence that the prisoner had set fire to the house. The theory for the defence was that the man set fire to his own shed and then charged the prisoner with committing the crime out of revenge.
The jury retired and on returning into Court the foreman announced a verdict of guilty by four to three.
His Lordship-That will not do gentlemen. The jury law has been altered. A verdict of four to three used to be sufficient, but last year an amending act was passed, and no verdict under five can be received. I must have a verdict of at least five to two. If you can be unanimous, well; if you cauuol, five either one way or the other can give a verdict. I cannot take your verdict, and what you say amounts to a disagree. ment. You had better go out again, and see if five of you cannot make up your minds one way or the other.
The jury again retired, and returned after being away about five minutes with a unanimous verdict of guilty.
His Lordship said he took into consideration the fact that there was no likelihood of the people in the shed being burnt to death, because the cockloft was only six feet from the ground, and they could easily have escaped. He was willing to take a comparatively lenient view of the matter, and to consider it as malicious spite rather than a desire to injury anybody in the house. The sentence would be two years' im- 'prisonment with hard labour.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.