June 10, 1896 |
SUPREME COURT.
June 4th.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
i
·BEFORE. HIS HONOUR Dr. CarbingTON (Chief Justice) and Me. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE.).
LEUNG WUI, APPELLANT, v. INSPECTOR STANTON, RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal against the decision of the Police Magistrate, whereby appellant was sen. tenced to twelve months' imprisonment for bringing into the colony two girls for the pur- poses of prostitution.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Looker, of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) appeared for the appellant, and Hon. H. E. Pollock (Acting Attorney-General) appeared for the respondent, being instructed by Mr. A. B. Johnson (Crown Solicitor).
Mr. Francis said this was a motion for leave to appeal by way of re-hearing from the de- termination of the Police Magistrate. The application was made under sections 104 and 105 of the Police Magistrates Ordinance 10 of 1890 on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence before the Magistrate to support the conviction and there was abundant evidence on which he could have found the prisoner not guilty. The charge was that she unlawfully brought into this colony two girls named Chu Tong and Lai Tsoi U with intent to sell them or to hire them for the purposes of prostitution, so that there were two alterna tives, and the offence charged was different from the offence stated in the finding. Al though there was this difference counsel had not been furnished with a copy of the finding, and so far as the depositions were concerned there was nothing in them in reference to s conviction. It was not even stated that the woman was convicted. The depositions simply set out that the sentence was twelve months' hard labour, and it did not appear on the face of the depositions that there was a conviction.
The Acting Attorney-General said the con- viction appeared on the first page of the deposi- tions.
Mr. Francis-That is concocted and prepared at the Magistracy after the evidence has been taken and after the depositions have been signed and put away by the clerks. That has nothing to do with the proceedings at all.
The Acting Attorney-General-There is the warrant of commitment on which the prisoner was sent to gaol.
Mr. Francis-That has nothing to do with the depositions.
The Chief Justice-I think there ought to have been a note at the end of the depositions stating that there was a conviction. I think "twelve months' hard labour" is hardly formal enough.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
His Lordship-Then there is a double intent in the charge.
The Acting Attorney-General-The charge ought to have been only in one alternative and not in both. The prisoner ought to have been charged either with intent to sell the girls, or with intent to let them out for hire, and not with both.
His Lordship--But we are
not really concerned with those two points now.
Mr. Francis-No, except that as Chief Justice of the colony you are responsible for the admi- nistration of justice. Here is a Police Court possessing a greater jurisdiction than any Sessions Court in England and nobody knows anything about the law or the administration of the law-neither the Magistrate nor his
assistants.
for an amended copy?
The Chief Justice-Why did you not apply
Mr. Francis-You might as well stand in the middle of the street and make such a request. It is the cursus curiæ up there to do as they like. It is a record made out in the office after the whole case has been heard.
The Chief Justice then read the conviction, which was for unlawfully bringing into this colony a certain female named Chu Tong and another named Lui Tsai U for the purposes of prostitution.
481
Mr. Grist-All the stationery bears the de- fendant's name.
His Lordship (to defendant)-I do not see that you have any defence. You are only wasting the time of the Court.
Defendant-I do not think I am. I have no recollection of having done what this witness Bays I did.
His Lordship-But you paid for part of the goods.
Defendant-At the time I paid the money there was a representation made to me that I would not be pressed and that Mr. Ramjahn. would be looked to for a portion of the debt. On that understanding I paid.
His Lordship-I do not see that you can de- fend the case at all. If you are going to take action against Mr. Ramjahn you can call the plaintiff as a witness in the case. It is no good cross-examining him now with a view to shift- ing your own responsibility. Put this man in the box if you sue Mr. Ramjahn and you will see if Mr. Ramjahn has a good defence or not.
Defendant-If those two gentlemen between them arranged that Mr. Ramjahn should be liable I do not see why I should be called upon
to
pay all this.
His Lordship-If you had not acknowledged the debt orally in Court and if you had not paid some of the debt there might be some use in saying what you do. You cannot go back on what you
have done.
Defendant-At the time of payment they made representations to me which they have not acted upon. I suppose I shall have to pay this sum,
NG PUI v. MATTHEWS,
Mr. Francis then proceeded to describe the Ordinance under which the charge was orignially brought and said the conviction was made under an entirely different section of the Ordinance from that on which the charge was based. After further argument Mr. Francis submitted there was no evidence to show that the girls were brought into the colony
assuming that they were brought-forgive judgment for the plaintiff for $80.85.
His Lordship-I am afraid you will. I shall the purposes of prostitution. Every bit of evidence went to show that they were brought here for the purpose of being sent on to Siam as seamstresses. They had it in evidence that the girls came to the colony of their own accord and with the consent of their parents. In con- clusion Mr. Francis said the Magistrate evi- dently considered that, apart from the evidence, it was a case which came under the section of the Ordinance, and that he was disgusted be- cause he could not get the evidence to fit.
The Acting Attorney-General, in replying to the arguments of Mr. Francis, said with regard to the question raised as to the finding of the Magistrate being at variance with the charge as originally made, he would ask their lordships to refer to Ordinance 10 of 1890, which gave power to the Magistrate to convict on the evidence for an offence which was not identical to that mentioned in the charge.
His Lordship-You need not refer to that point any more, because I do not think it arises on this motion.
After further argument their Lordships granted a re-hearing subject to the respondents giving notice to the Registrar on or before the 11th June that they would proceed with the rehearing; otherwise the decision of the
Mr. Francis again complained that the find-Magistrate would be quashed. ing was different from the offence charged.
The Chief Justice-I do not think that need arise in your argument.
Mr. Francis-I submit it is essential. I know nothing about any conviction except for the offence for which she was charged. I am not aware from the papers before me that she was
5th June.
9
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
ant Matthews, of the Royal Artillery, for The plaintiff, a flower seller, sued Lieuten-
$17.50 for plants supplied. Mr. Grist appeared for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff said that on the 20th of last at West Point, with one hundred pots of month he supplied defendant, who was living flowering plants and the price agreed upon was $17.50. On the 22nd he called upon defendant The money had not yet been paid. to pay and he was told to call again on the 28th.
In answer to defendant plaintiff said there was no condition that the plants were sent on approval for a week, and that if defendant did not like them they were to be returned. If
any died during the week witness was to replace them. He did replace thirty-five at the request of the defendant. The price agreed upon was not $15. The plants were still at West Point.
was
Defendant, in his evidence, said the price agreed upon was $15 a hundred and the plants were to be kept on approval for one week. Plaintiff promised to take them back if witness did not like them or if anything went wrong with them. The plants were delivered on the 20th May, and on the 22nd witness ordered out of the house by the doctor as it was unhealthy. He told plaintiff to take away the plants and said if he did not they would be there at his risk. Plaintiff refused to take the plants away, although witness offered to pay coolie hire and any damage that had been done. In answer to his Lordship witness said that if he had stayed in the house he would have
found guilty of any offence. The warrant of BEFORE MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING kept forty of the plants. He had not seen
commitment only goes to the gaol and is not seen by the prisoner or by her advisers.
The Chief Justice-Why have you not been furnished-
Mr. Francis-It is one of those mysterious things only to be explained at the Police Magistrate's office. We applied for a copy of the depositions and a copy of the conviction was not sent with them. If there has been an alteration in the conviction I should like to see it.
His Lordship-You have the charge. Mr. Francis-Yes; that on the 27th April.. His Lordship-In regard to that, how is it that there are two girls in the charge? Can you put two girls in a charge like that?
The Acting Attorney-General-I must admit that that seems to me to be irregular. There ought to have been two separate charges made, and two separate and distinct punishments inflicted.
PVISNE JUDGE.)
XAVIER V. MOBIRNEY.
Lisbello J. Xavier sued R. McBirney, soli. citor, for $105.85 for goods supplied. Mr. Grist appeared for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff said he supplied the defendant, on his own request, with stationery and printing in March last. Defendant then paid $50 on account, and lately he had paid $25 as part of the balance of $105.85, so that there was now. $80.85 due.
In answer to defendant, who had on a previous occasion admitted the debt in Court, plaintiff said the order for the goods was given in writ. ing at the East Point Dairy. Mr. Ramjahn introduced him to defendant and said defendant was going to start a solicitor's business and therefore wanted some stationery.
His Lordship--You admitted the debt in Court the other day.
them since the 22nd.
!
A lady supported the defendant's evidence respecting the arrangement with the plaintiff and the price to be paid.
His Lordship said the proper course was for the defendant to have gone to the house at the end of the week to see if the plants suited him or not. Judgment must be for the plaintiff for $15.
HO WYSON v. G. J PHILLIPPO. Plaintiff, a solicitor, claimed $545.85 from the defendant, a barrister, who is absent from the colony.
Plaintiff signed a promissory note for $500 as security for the defendant, who was lent the money by Chan Yan Luk. Defendant failed to pay the money and plaintiff paid and obtained another promissory..ote from the defendant.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff, and leave to issue execution on some law books was granted.
*
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.