112
You have not had any difficulty or trouble with him-any quarrel or breach F-Not in the least, my Lord.
Mr. Robinson asked permission to put another question. In reply witness said that Sam Yeen escaped custody in the house in East Street. He went out for a key and did not return. Witness waited half an hour and then broke open a box in the room and found the books.
Mr. Robinson-And you called upon Inspec- tor Stanton to find him?
Witness-Yes.
And he was found the same night? Yes. We turned out all the detective staff to find him.
You gave your orders to Inspector Stanton and the man was found ?—No.
You said yes.
Is it untrue that you told Mr. Stanton P-I sent the police in different direc- tions. As matter of fact I told Inspector
Stanton to remain in the station.
To give orders and intructions. 43 is sup- posed to refer to Inspector Stanton ?--Yes.
Cheng Od was then called. He spoke to having interviews with the defendant and to paying him $12.60 every Monday. Witness received altogether $2.20 a day from Tung Kum, but he paid only $1.80, the difference of 40 cents go- ing in his own pocket.
On
At the conclusion of this witness's exam- ination in chief Hon. F. H. May was recalled at the request of Mr. Robinson. Mr. May said-Inspector Mann was leave from 20th June, 1895, to 12th June, 1896, when he resumed duty. He then took charge of the Eastern district, Wanchai, and he has remained in charge at Wanchai until the pre- sent. Acting Inspector Hall took charge of Shankiwan on the 11th December, 1895, and he has been in charge there until the present time.
..
In reply to the Attorney-General Mr. May said From the 13th March, 1895, till the time he went on leave Inspector Mann was stationed in the Central District and was in charge of No. 2. gambling section. Wa Lane is in No. 2 sec- tion From the 16th April, 1894, to 20th June, 1894, he was also in charge of No. 2 section. Acting Inspector Hall, from the 12th March, 1895, to the 11th December, 1895, was at the Central Station and in charge of No. 3 gam- bling section.
His Lordship-It is understood we are not trying these men.
The Attorney-General-My friend asked for the particulars.
Mr. Robinson-Not for the particulars the Attorney-General has given.
His Lordship--I am very much against bring ing in these outside cases with which we are not dealing.
Cheng On was then called for cross-examina- tion. He denied making the following state- ment at the Magistracy,-" Tung Kum took
me to Sam Yeen and Tang Kum told him in my presence about the conversation with the defendant." He believed the Magistrate made a mistake. The depositions were read over to him and he signed them. What he said to-day was that Tung Kum took him nearly as far as No. 3, East Street, and that he (witness) had the conversation alone with Sam Yeen.
Mr. Robinsou--Perhaps you have been told. since or have heard that Sam Yeen said—
Mr. Francis asked his friend to ask questions and not to make statements.
Mr. Robinson-I was not making a statement. (To Mr. Francis). I might say "You are a clever man?" and that might be a question. (Laughter.)
His Lordship (who joined in the laughter) Now, Mr. Robinson.
· The cross-examination was then proceeded with. Witness said it was not a fact that defend-
ant and his wife met himcat the corner of Lyndhurst Terrace and spoke to him about some silk. It was not true that he took some samples of silk to the defendant's house on the 11th March, the date of the
gambling houses. Witness received from 1 ung Kum and paid that amount to defendant or his wife every Monday. He got the money in subsidiary coins and changed $10 of it into bank notes, but he did not lose in changing the money as he went to a shopkeeper,
Nation, he said he had with defendant
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
who was a friend. When witness was arrested he was not shown a warrant and he did not know anything about a banishment warrant. He knew now he was in custody under a banishment warrant. The Captain Superintendent of Police | told him something about à banishment warrant, but it was not shown.
Re-examined by Mr. Francis-After witness was arrested he saw Mr. Hastings, solicitor.
By his Lordship-Witness know nothing about the books and papers found at 3, East Street.
The Court then adjourned.
31st July.
Tung Kum, master of a mercer's shop at 181. Hollywood Road, was called and examined by Mr. Francis. Witness said that every five days he received $5.50 from Cheung Hing Street and $17 from Wa Lane. The $5.50 was paid to him by "Fat Child Chi," who told witness to hand the money to Cheng On. Sam Yeen paid the $17. The money was paid in subsi. diary coins. Of the $17, 83.50 went to Cheng On himself, $8 was for Yung Fat, who was formerly a detective, and 85.50 was for No. 12. Witness was paid the $5.50 by "Fat Child Chi" and was told to hand the money to Cheng On for Inspector No. 12. The payments com- menced on the 14th March, 1897, from Wa Lane and on the 18th March, 1897, from Cheung Hing Street. Witness received alto. gether $81.75 from Sam Yeen every day; that amount included the $17. The money was dis- tributed according to a list given to him by Sam Yeen. Witness was formerly in the Police Force. He retired on a pension about six years ago. He was now in custody under a banish- ment warrant.
Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson- After he left the police he went to the country and re- turned in April, 1894. He could find no ao cupation and so he went back to the country, but returned to Hongkong in December, 1895, He started his present business in December, 1896. During the interval between December, 1895, and December, 1896, he was engaged in assisting Sam Yeen in distributing "expenses," that is, he was engaged in gambling operations. He was not convicted in March, 1895, for lar. ceny and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment, He was convicted for committing perjury, and was fined $100. He had only been convicted
once.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Francis said the conviction was for assault. Mr. Robinson had not correctly read the conviction.
Mr. Robinson said he was quite right. He then asked the witness about the matter and he admitted that he and another man were charged with stealing two shirts and were sent to gaol for six weeks. In addition witness was charged with assault.
learned friend, a Queen's Counsel of this Mr. Robinson then complained that his colony, had accused him of misrepresenting
matters to the Court.
Mr. Francis replied that in the hasty glance he obtained of the conviction paper he certainly
did make a mistake.
His Lordship thought that with this explana- tion Mr. Robinson's honour was satisfied.
Mr. Robinson bowed to his Lordship's decision and the case proceeded.
In answer to further questions witness said fine of $100 on the application of Mr. Dennys, that the sentence was afterwards altered to a
Magistracy he said he did not know for whom who represented him. He admitted that at the he received $8. He was confused when he made that statement. He now admitted that he received it for Yung Fat. Cheng On gave him the name.
Cheng On since you were at the Magistracy?
Mr. Robinson-I suppose you have seen Witness-I saw him yesterday or the day before.
Where ? In the witness room P→→→Yes. You were both together for the greater part of the day in the witness room P-We were
both together, but we did not speak to each other.
I suppose there was some guard over you. His Lordship-Do I understand that Cheng On told you the name of this man, or do you
|
[August 4, 1897,
recollect it P-Cheng On told me and I now recollect it.
In answer to further questions witness said he did not tell the Magistrate that he received some money from "Fat Child Chi.” · He did not mention that name at all to the Magistrate.
Re-examined by Mr. Francis. He was not questioned at the Magistracy about the Cheung Hing Street gambling house.
His Lordship-Why didn't you mention it ? Witness Because I had no direct dealings with the uffairs and therefore I did not men- tion anything about that house. The money was simply handed to me and I was asked to pass it over.
When was the last payment you made to Cheng On P-17th June last.
Sam Yeon, who was convicted of being the keeper of a gambling house at 2, Wa Lane, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, was then called. He said he had been connected with the house for five years, No. 3, East Street, was the outer office of 2, Wa Lane, and the money, jewellery, and accounts were kept there. There was only one gambling house in Wa Lane-only one house in which gaming was actually carried on. Gaming was some- times carried on in No. 5. In reality there were two houses in which gaming was carried on, but both belonged to the same establishment. The playing was sometimes shifted to No. 2. Ng Kwai Fong, next to the Tam Fa Lau eating house, Gambling had been carried on in Nos. 2 and 5, Wa Lane, every day from the 2nd February this year to the 18th June. The hours were 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. Last year gambling was carried on for six months in broken periods. Witness then spoke to paying money to Tung Knin and to the con- versation he had with Cheng On respecting No. 12's application for money. Witness told Cheng On that if No. 12 received $1 a day the recipient must not chase and beat witness's fokis. Witness consented to pay 81 a day and 10 cents for Cheng On. Witness paid altogether about $150 a day for distribution during the fourth and fifth moons. The police who received the money were supposed not to take any notice of the gambling houses. Witness was then shown a list and he pointed out the entry "No. 12, 81.10, Cheng On's hand." That meant that to money was paid to Cheng On. There was also an entry "$23.55, paid to Tung Kum" and another "$31.05 paid to Tung Kum." Another entry was "No. 12, $1, Cheng On's hand entered in Kum's band," meaning that the money was paid to.Tung Kum. The list was a memoran. dum showing the names of persons to whom money was paid and the amount of each payment.
Mr. Francis-I will now ask your Lordship for direction in reference to the entries in the books, such as 43, 89, and 91, and Government Honse and other people. Does your Lordship think that I should ask questions about those
tain number of questions about them, but I think entries or should the matter be dropped entirely? His Lordship--Mr. Robinson did ask a cer-
we should keep ourselves free of them.
Mr. Francis-I think it is only fair to the parties concerned that some questions should he asked about them, but I am entirely in your Lordship's hands. The matter is not a neces- sary portion of our case, but I cannot say what my friend in his address to the jury will say.
His Lordship-What I shall say to the jury with reference to this list is that we are not trying the question of the guilt or innocence of received sums of money, but the defence is en- all the parties mentioned in this list as having.
there are absurd entries in it and also impossible titled to look at this list and if they can show things they could say that the list is therefore not bona-file and the jury would be entitled to dis- believe it.
Mr. Francis-Then, my Lord, that lays the duty absolutely incumbent upon me to show that these entries are not absurd:-
His Lordsbip-On the face of it these entries may be true or untrue, but we are not trying that question.
is
Mr. Francis-If it
open to my friend to say that the list is entirely false because be thinks fit to say so, the prosecution is entitled to say that they are not absurdities.
His Lordship As far as my opinion goes he has not succeeded in showing that the entries are unreasonable and ought not to be
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.