THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND ́
His Lordship then summed up and first of all dealt with the fact that the shopman at 20, Cross Street, could not identify any of the four robbers. He said that one of them wore a blue coat but he did not say that prisoner was not one of them, but only that he could not identify him. The jury had to consider whether the shopman was so terrified when the revolver was pointed at him as to cause him not to take particular notice of the men's features. After speaking of the circumstances of the robbery and the capture by Hoggarth his Lordship said that it was conclusive that the man who entered the house in the lane had a bullet wound in one | of his feet and Hoggarth's evidence went to show that the man whom the constable handed over to the deceased watchman was the man whom Hoggarth shot. The constable had acted very pluckily and he had the making of a courageous and energetic police officer, judging by his conduct that night. One hoped that very careful instructions were issued to the police with regard to the use of revolvers and that the constables were made to understand that they must always act according to their instructions. His Lordship then touched upon other points in the evidence and asked the jury to carefully weigh all the facts when consider- ing their verdict.
-
The jury retired at 5.30 and at 6.50 returned with a unanimous verdict of guilty.
The foreman of the jury-The jury wish to call the attention of his Excellency the Gover- nor to the courageous and intelligent manner in which P.C. 70 and P.C. 223 effected the capture of the prisoner.
His Lordship-I will take care, gentlemen, that that opinion is forwarded to the proper quarter.
Prisoner was then asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him.
Prisoner said-I did not kill him. Thede was no revolver or pistol found on me anr therefore it was impossible for me to shoot him to death.
He then repeated the statement given above and added—I ask your Lordship not to pass sentence of death upon me.
His Lordship then assumed the black cap and said-Tung Foong, you have been found guilty by the jury on very clear evidence of the offence with which you were charged, viz., the murder of District Watchman No. 38 named Lan Fai. It appears to be very clear on the evidence that on the day in question you went out with three other wicked companions to rob that shop, No. 20, Cross Street; and you not only went out to rob that shop but you went armed with a revolver. After you had robbed the shop you were surprised and chased and captured by the police constable. When you were in charge of the District Watchman you used your revolver upon him and cruelly and wickedly took away his life, and while you were escaping you fired another shot at Chinese constable No. 223, which might have cost him his life too. You see then you have evidently been guilty of several grave crimes and for the gravest of these, the murder of the District Watchman, the punishment of the law is death. His Lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual form.
26th June.
ALLEGED PERJURY.
Wong King Tong and Wong Wa were charged with committing perjury on the 26th May last before Mr. T. Sercombe Smith, Acting Puisne Judge.
EJuly 2, 1896
He referred to Archbold, 1886 Edition, part Queen v. Phillips-"Two or more men ca jointly indicted for perjury." This was als down in 2 Strange, page 921, and Russel Crimes, 5th Edition, 3rd volume, page 86. Con sel submitted that there must therefore be judg- ment of acquittal. The second ground was 3 technical one and he referred to an act of George 2nd, a law which governed Hongkong, contending that the indictment was bad on the face of it for omitting the necessary averment that the Court before which the civil suit was tried was of competent authority to administer the oath.
they must be much more so to a Chinaman. In opening the case Mr. Francis, who prose- cuted, commenced by making the following remark to the jury "I am afraid the very old form of information which has just been read to you cannot have conveyed to your minds any very clear idea of the questions you have to investigate to-day." This remark was made after the indictment had been read bodily in English and as the defendants were put on their peril, and if the jury could not follow the exact nature of the charges against the defen- dants it must have been impossible for the defendants under the circumstances to under- | stand what was read to them.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr.ment governed that point. Hastings), prosecuted and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Dennys) defended.
His Lordship said he believed a local enact-
Mr. Robinson said his point would fall to the ground if that was the case. His third point was that the indictment was bad because it did not set out the very words of the alleged perjury.
•
The prisoners pleaded not guilty.. The jurors were Messrs.-E. C. Barrados, F. M. Gonsalves, M. Meyer,. A. E. Alemao, M. Bernheim, A. O. Gutierez, and A. A. Cordeiro. Mr. Francis explained the facts of the case and said that in the month of May last the first commenced proceedings in the | defendant
Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the purpose of recovering $364, which he said was due to him for principal and interest, and the defendants in the suit were two men named Wong Chi Tong | and Wong. Wa Po. The first defendant said he had lent this money to Wong Wa Po; that Wong Chi Tong, as representing his shop, the Hop Foong, had guaranteed the repayment of the money lent to Wong Wa Po; that Wong Wa Po had given two documents acknowledg ing his indebtedness, and that Wong Chi Tong had affixed to these two documents the chop of his shop, the Hop Foong, as a guarantee In the of the repayment of the money. proceedings in the Summary Court the first defendant had to prove that he lent the money to Wong Wa Po and that it had not been re- paid, and that Wong Chi Tong had guaranteed the repayment. With reference to Wong Wa Po there was no difficulty, as he admitted that he had borrowed the money, that he had not repaid it, and that the two Chinese documents which were put in as evidence against him were really written and signed by him, and so the Court gave judgment against him for the amount of Therefore the only the claim without costs. question to be decided in the suit was whether Wong Chi Tong had given any guarantee. The first defendant swore that Wong Chi Tong had come to the place where the transaction was car. ried out, had taken the chop out of his pocket, and had affixed the chop to the paper. This was a false statement, as Wong Chi Tong had not chopped the agreement. The first defendant also falsely swore that Wong Chi Tong went away after chopping the agreement and that he (the first defendant) lent the money to Wong Wa Po. The second defendant was called as a witness by the first defendant and he, speak-read over to the defendant, ing of the time and the place in which the agreement was made, said in his evidence that the first defendant had told Wong Wa Po that he must find a shop to secure him for the money lent; that then Wong Wa Po asked if the Hop Foong would not he could find another shop; that the first defendant said "Yes, it that Wong Wa Po then went away; would; ' that he returned in an hour bringing back Wong Chi Tong; that Wong Chi Tong looked at the agreements, produced a chop from his pocket, chopped the agreement, and that then the money was paid over.
His Lordship-Why didn't you raise these points before?
Mr. Robinson-I thought of demurring to the indictment, but after consulting Archbold and a well known work on the conduct of matters in Courts of Law by Mr. Harris, Q.C. I found that these authorities advised counsel to bring on such a matter as this in arrest of judgment.
Mr. Francis said his friend was quite. wrong in his arguments. The prisoners were not indicted jointly, but separately. Counsel re- ferred the Court to the practice in the colony with reference to charges of the same character- In regard to the second against prisoners. point none of the cases cited by the counsel for the defence affected the question, as this was a case brought under the specific provisions of the Evidence Ordinance, 2 of 1889. The fact that the indictment set forth that the perjury was committed before Mr. T. Sercombe Smith, Acting Puisne Judge, necessarily implied that the Court had authority to administer the de- claration. The third objection had no founda:· tion whatever,
T
Witnesses were called for the prosecution and the case was adjourned.
29th June.
|
His Lordship-These are important points, especially the first one, which I do not think I will decide to-night. Defendants will be re- manded until Friday morning at ten o'clock.
30th June. :
THE CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.—AN
ACQUITTAL. ✔ Lau Ching was charged with attempting to bribe John Rennie, a Sanitary Board Inspector.
Hon. H. E. Pollock (Attorney-General), in- structed by Mr. A. B. Johnson (Crown Solicitor), prosecuted and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. MoBirney) defended.
After the information had been scrappily
Mr. Robinson said, before the prisoner pleaded, he had to ask the Court to allow him to demur to the indictment and to plead over. His Lordship had power to grant this application in cases of misdemeanour and counsel had mentioned the matter to his learned friend. It would be convenient in this case to bring forward his objections at this stage, because if the demurrer was upheld the trouble of the trial would be spared.
His Lordship-That is what regard to the matter yesterday.
thought with
Mr. Robinson said there was a risk in demur- ring unless counsel was allowed to plead over.
His Lordship acceded to counsel's request. Mr. Robinson handed in a written demurrer in the usual form and said his propositions were that the offence charged in the informa Mr. Robinson addressed the jury and said the tion was not a statutory offence against. the prosecution a private one-was a vindictive pro- law of Hongkong; that therefore it must be secution and the charge against the prisoners held to be either a common law offence or else ought never to have been brought. The chop be held to be no offence at all. Counsel referred on the agreement was a genuine one and what to Archbold and said that the text books in the prisoners said in Court was quite in ac-general confined the offence of bribery to the cordance with the truth.
Mr. Francis replied and His Lordship summed
There were two long indictments; and in ac- cordance with a recent innovation they were read bit by bit by the Registrar and so trans- lated to the defendants by the Court inter- preter. We mention this fact in our report as it is very questionable whether the defendants pre-
bribery of judicial officers, but this definition cisely understood what was interpreted to them. It would be better and fairer if, in future, the
of the offence seemed too narrow and confined. Counsel then quoted Rex v. Beale and Rex old practice of the Court were reverted to. Until lately it was the custom" for the Registrar to The jury unanimously found both prisoners Vaughan in support of his argumenty, and referred to various instances of bribing high One case read over the whole of an indictment and hand guilty.
Mr. Robinson moved for an arrest of judg-officers of state or at elections. it bodily to the interpreter for oral translation. Surely, this custom is preferable to reading the ment on three grounds. The first and most im referred to a prosecution many years ago1by the Duke of Grafton, who received a letter indictment in snatches, which are rather un-portant ground was that the indictment was bad intelligible even to the average European and in law as the prisoners had been jointly indicted: 'containing an offer of £5,000 for the reversion
ap.
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.