162
almost as essential to good tone as any one of the vital parts of a violin.
The varnish retains its lovely brilliancy. The purfling and corners are not quite what one i wont to see in a "Strad.” But taken a whole the violin is a thing of beauty and should be to its possessor a joy for ever.
Musing over the sad fate which splendid violins have, met at the merciless hands of vile forgers, it is pleasant to think that in the hands of its present owner it is safe from that baseless dismemberment which certain unscrupulous modern makers are in the habit of practising to pass off part genuine violins for the real makes of their original masters.
As Haweis said of his own Cremona, it can aptly said of this. that to some it must have been the toy of their childhood, the solace of their manhood, and of their old age never less than a happy memory. Let us his hope, too, in the hands of others it will always be a source of pleasure and delight. While the voice of its Late owner is now hushed in the silence of the tomb,
its slender sound,
from a distance beyond distance, will yet reawaken recollections of him those loss Hongkong was so untimely called to deplore.
SUPREME COURT,
22nd August.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT-Sir FIELDING CLARKE (CHIEF JUSTICE) ANd Me. A. G. WISE (ACTING PUIBNE JUDGE.)
LEUNG YAU AND MA FUK v. POLICE CON- STABLE LEONARD.
Mr. J. J. Francis Q.C. (instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys), appeared for the appellants, and Hon. W. M. Goodman, Attorney-General (in- structed by Mr. Master, Aoting Crown Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Mr. Francis said in this matter there were really two appeals; one on a question of fact, and one on a question of law. Would it suit their Lordships to hear the arguments on both points together?
The Chief Justice consented to this course. Mr. Francis said that Leung Yau was a boatman, and Ma Fuk was a coolie, and they belonged to the Man Fak Company, the opium farmers. In 1802 the Chief Justice expressed the strong opinion that persons who were simply em. ployed in carrying the opium were not the per- sons to be prosecuted under the Ordinance, and the person who obtained the permit was liable. Since then the boat people had not been pro- scented.
The Chief Justice said in that case the defen- dants were perfectly innocent agents.
Mr. Francis replied that they were no more innocent than the defendants in this case; they had the opium in their possession and also the permit.
The Attorney-General said that if the opium farmer had been prosecuted he would have said, "I got the permit, and I never told these men to carry the opium after seven o'clock in the evening; they ought to have finished before that
time."
The Chief Justice said each case must stand on its merits.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
package with the opium therein, such as is usually imported by merchants in the colony." In regard to the question as to who was liable, he submitted that the person who obtained the permit, and not the boatmen, should be prosecuted. If he wanted the opium removed after seven o'clock in the evening he could have had such a notification written on the conditions of the permit. If their Lordships did not grant the appeal he asked them to say that the fine of $100 was more than the offence deserved, and he further asked them to reverse the forfeiture of the opium, which was worth $2,500,
The Attorney-General said that if the opium farmer were prosecuted he would say he was not responsible for the action of his boatmen. In this case the opium farmer had not come for- ward to assume responsibility, and there was no evidence to show that he was actually the person who was removing the opium. If nobody but the opium farmer could be pro secuted the whole Ordinance would become a dead letter, as the farmer could easily arrange things with his boatmen. The Ordinance was certainly rather a difficult one, but he submitted that there could be no question about the liability of the appellants.
The Chief Justice said he wished to have the benefit of looking up other cases decided last year. He confessed that at present he was not quite clear as to the meaning of the Ordinance. | Judgment would be reserved.
LI FU V. CHANG CHAN,
This was an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate.
Mr. J. J. Francis, QC. (instructed by Mr. Holmes), appeared for the appellant, and Hon. W. M. Goodman, Attorney-General, (instructed by Mr. Master, Acting Crown Solicitor) for the respondent.
|
| August 29, 1898
The Attorney-General, continuing, said the man brought the girl to Hongkong in a launch, and she was then takon to a h use. She ran away, however, the same day and went to Kowloon City. On the 13th the woman took her back to the man's house, but the girl again said she did not want to remain and later in the day she slipped out of the houses and ran to her sister-in-law's house. The man then went to the woman and got $15 of his money back again. She thereupon took the bull by the horns and informed the police that the sister- n-law had kidnapped the girl. The police made enquiries, found the girl at Wanchai, and after hearing her statement arrested, the appellant and the woman. The appellant said the girl was not intended for a prostitute, but she was to go to Singapore to be a wife of his younger brother. Counsel added that it was perfectly clear that the man bought and the woman sold the girl and the question was whether it was for the purpose of prostation.
The Chief Justice-The facts show con- clusively that if it was not a case for dis- missal it was obviously a case for committal for trial.
The Attorney-General-Of course, I had nothing to do with the prosecution in the first instance. I thought by coming here to-day and examining the witnesses I should sasist the administration of justice.
The Chief Justice-If it is shown, by the evi- dence to be a case for committal I think the proper course would be to send it back to the Magistrate with instrnotions to commit. I do not see why we should perform the functions of a jury.
Evidence in support of the Attorney-General's statement was called.
In answer to Mr. Francis the Chief Justice said that if there was no case at all against the prisoners they would not be sent to the Magis trate. Of course the Court had power, if the Mr. Francis said this was an application for a
case was absolutely clear, to convict, so that it re-bearing under the Magistrates Ordinance; and under section 110 their Lordships further must not be thought that an order for a com had the power to reverse or affirm the Magis-mittal by the Magistrate would necessarily be
the result. trate's decision or to amend the decision. Two people were convicted in the case, but there was only one appellant, who was convicted for pur- chasing Chang Chat for the purpose of prostite tion. The contention was that the conviction was not justified by the evidence. The only evidence against the prisoner was that of the girl herself and it was of such a character that it did not amount to evidence upon which the appellant ought to have been convicted.
The Attorney-General replied, and their Lord- ships granted a re-hearing before the Full Court on Monday.
26th August.
LI FU, APPELLANT, Y. CHUNG CHAN, BESPONDENT.
This was an appeal in which Li Fu was granted a re-hearing. The Magistrate sent him to gaol for twelve months for buying a girl named Chung Chan for the purpose of protitu. tion. A woman named Ng Ping was also sent to gaol for the same period for selling the girl, but she did not appeal. Both prisoners, how- ever, were present in Court.
The Attorney-General (Hon. W. M. Good- man), instructed by Mr. Master, Acting Crown Solicitor, appeared for the respondent, and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., instructed by Mr. Holmes, for the appellant.
The Attorney General said he presumed their Lordships would, as the case was a re-hearing, hear the evidence de novo. He should therefore state the facts and call witnesses. The girl Chung Chan lived with a woman named Ng Ping at Chinese Kowloon and she was seventeen years of age. On the 11th July the woman took her to the house of the appellant at Hunghom. While they were having a meal of rios the woman agreed to sell the girl to Li Fu for $150, and she was to go to Singapore.
P.C. 174 said the man when arrested explained that the girl was intended to be a wife for his younger brother at Singapore. During his cross-examination by Mr. Francis he fenced one or two questions and the Chief Justice mid te the interpreter, "Tell him to speak the truth ant not what is convenient; what he thinks is convenient may turn out to be inconvenient.” Witness said the statement made by the man was taken down in writing at the station
The Chief Justice--Why did you not tell the Magistrate the man made that statement P
Witness-The Magistrate did not ask me.
The Chief Justice Do you not understand that it is part of a policeman's duty to disalose favour of a prisoner anything within his knowledge that may be in
Witness—Yes; I forgot to tell him.
The Chief Justice-The Magistrate would not know unless you told him.
Witness-I did not say it, because he did not ask me.
+
The Attorney-General-The statements of the prisoners were taken down at the time and were handed to the Magistrate by Police Ser- geant Witchell, but the Magistrate did not wish
to see them.
The girl then gave evidence and said it was intended that she should be a prostitute. She did not want to go to Singapore at all. Ng Ping had treated her badly. She had been told by people in the neighbourhood that she was to be a prostitute in Singapore, and she had also heard Li Fu tell Ng Ping about her to the same effect.
At the conclusion of the girl's evidence the Chief Justice said there was no case against the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the prl- søner discharged.
Mr. Francis submitted that it really did not matter in this case whether the defendants were employed by the farmer or whether they were strangers. The question was whether they were the persons who obtained the permit. Speaking of the facts. Mr. Francis said they were very simple. On 15th July P.C. Leonard was in a police pinnace at seven o'clock in the evening when he saw a second class cargo boat at the eastern end of the harbour. He went on board and found four chests of opium, which were to all external appearances precisely the same as the ordinary chests of mercantile opium imported into the colony. When the chests were opened, however, it was found that the opium was not packed in the least degree in the same way as when opium comes into the colony. The balls The Asting Paisne Judge said he made an were not entire and one packet was packed in order for both prisoners, each of whom was sent side the other. Therefore the first question was to gaol for twelve months to be present in Court. whether the four chests of opium were chests It was explained that the prisoners were pre-ing the building of the proposed railroad between within the meaning of the Act. As amended sent in charge of a warder and the case pro- slightly by Ordinance 22 of 1891 a chest meant “al ceeded.
Mr. Francis here interrupted the Attorney- General and said he noticed that the appellant, who with the woman was a prisoner, was not present in Court. It was important that both prisoners should be present, as the case was be- ing heard de novo.
The Attorney-General said he would take steps to direct the discharge of the other pri- soner.
It is reported, says the China Gasette, that wealthy native named Pan is in active negotia- tion with the Viceroy Chang Chib-tang respect- Shanghai, Hangohow, and Sopohow the cost of which is set down at four million dollars.
F
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.