恐
.132
[August 12, 1897. Defendant My Lord, as I have been found guilty on this abominable charge I beg the mercy of the Court. I have a family of five children and a European wife, my Lord, solely dependent on me. My sole estate in Hongkong at the present time, and when this charge was instigated against me, was $1,198 for ten years, - my Lord, and I will give you my power of attorney to go to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank or any other place to see my investments. That is my solo estate, my Lord, except my household goods and family.
His Lordship-Mr. Attorney, I do not think there is any power to award hard labour ? There is no local statute empowering me to. award hard labour?
The Attorney-General-No, my Lord. His Lordship-Defendant, I am very sorry indeed to see an intelligent and energetic officer as you fallen so low as this.
Defendant-I have not fallen, my Lord.
His Lordship-I give full effect to the re- commendation of the jury and direct that you be imprisoned for six months.
Defendant (excitedly)-My Lord, it is impos- ing an infamy on me.
His Lordship-You must be quiet. Defendant Mr. May, on his death bed, will repent of the gross perjury he committed and which I explained to you, my Lord, for upon my word of honour and upon my cath-
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS, AND:
Lordship then referred to the evidence for the defence. If the jury believed Mrs. Burnett had not mistaken the time and place it was quite clear that Cheng On had told what was not the truth, but they must weigh the evidence most carefully and consider which of them gave the more likely evidence. They must not con- sider the evidence on the broad question of Chinese and Europeans. That would be a mis- take. It was quite possible for a Chinaman to tell the truth and for a European to tell a false. hood and vice versa. They had to look at it in the light of the way the evidence was given and in the light of the probabilities of the case. His Lordship concluded as follows-Gentlemen of the jury, this case is important both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the defendant. It is im portant from the point of view of the Govern- ment because if corruption exists in the Police Force it is essential that they should detect it and that they should prove it and punish it. Nothing can be more important from the point of view of the Government than that. If they get a prima facie case against a principal member of the Police Force it is im- portant that they shall bring it forward and prove it if they can; otherwise, gentlemen, the whole administration of the Government fails. If you have corruption in the public service, and especially in the Police Force, then, as I say, you are landed in a series of evils of which no man can see the end. Therefore the case is very important from the Government point of view. I think myself that the moment Captain May made that seizure and had prima facie ground for thinking that the No. 12 mentioned in the list was the defendant, his plain duty was to have this case investigated fully before the Magistrate and, if the Magistrate sent it. forward, in this court also. You will also bear in mind that the case is in the last degree im- portant to the defendant. Of course it is his BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). bounden duty to fight the case to the end. If this charge is proved he not only undergoes punishment, but he is a disgraced and ruined man for life, because he would be adjudged unworthy of any office of trust and honour that might be within his reach. Therefore, as I have said, the case has taken a long time, but it is one of vast importance and Im glad to think that we have had a fair and impartial inquiry. I am glad to think that you have listened attentively to the evidence and to the addresses of counsel, and I am quite certain you are actuated by only oue desire to do right in this matter according to your oaths between the Crown and the defendant, and I do trust that your intelligence will guide you to a right decision.
have noted on those instructions. So also in re- gard to the generl aposition of the police. There was no need to make out that Captain May had mismanaged the police in regard to the gam- bling houses. Captain May really knew very little about this particular case. His evidence, as bearing upon the defendant, was very short, and simple and confined to a few general par ticulars, but in order, so to speak, to break down the case as affecting the whole of the police, the defence went for Captain May and took him over the whole ground and, his Lordship was going to say, with some asperity. In regard to the Chinese witnesses the jury would consider their demeanour and the manner in which they gave their evidence. It appeared to his Lordship that Cheng On and Tung Kam stood their cross-examination very well. Mr. May underwent his cross-examination in a very fair and honest manner. One important point that came out in his cross-examination was that there was no vestige of ill-feeling on his part towards the defendant, that he had no desire to see the defendant punished from any personal motives, and that he was doing his duty in this matter as a public officer only. He spoke in high terms of the defendant and they had it on all hands that the defendant was an officer of great energy, ability, and zeal. Juries naturally gave the benefit of any doubt to a man of a good character and the jury would no doubt bear that in mind.. With regard to Cheng On and Tung Kum they were scarcely cross-examined at all." They were not closely questioned; they were not dragged over the harrow, 50 to speak. The cross-examination was conducted in a some- what general manner and the witnesses certainly did not break down under it. It appeared to his Lordship that Sam Yeen was not a satisfactory witness under cross-examination; he was somewhat uncertain and shifty. His Lordship then proceeded with a general state- ment of the case and in regard to the letter sent to Mr. May asked if the jury thought that Cheng On could have known of that letter if the defendant had not told him about it. The jury had also to remember that, according to Cheng On's statement, Mr. May went to the house in Kwai Wa Lane, whereas he did not go, and it was most probable that the defendant would know whether Mr. May went or not. Speak ing of the interview of the 11th March deposed to by Cheng On, his Lordship pointed out that the statement was a long one and the jury would have to consider whether defendant would not beat about the bush and not ask Cheng On straight off to pay him bribes. Speaking of the other names in the list his Lordship had ruled that they could not go into the general question They were not trying the other members of the Police Force but only the defendant. When they found a number of names appearing in a list it was impossible according to the rules of evidence and reason for them to take up the list to see whether or not the bribes had been paid to the persons or not. Those were side issues, which would involve inter- minable inquiries and the appearance of all those persons before the Court. It was entirely a collateral issue whether Inspector Mann had taken bribes or not. Inspector Mann may have taken bribes or he may not. They did not know and they did not care; they were simply inquiring whether the defendant took bribes. Suppose the Governor's name appeared there for $5 and the General's for $3. The jury would have said, We will not call the Governor and we will not call the General," and they would also say to themselves," It is impossible that these two gentlemen-these two high officers-would receive bribes." The names of Inspector Mann and Acting Inspector Hall appeared in the books and the defence asked the jury to say that the list could not be accepted as genuine because those two men wera not stationed in the gambling sections. But both men had been in the Central District and it also appeared that they were still in the colony. Therefore the conclusion was that it was not impossible or not highly improbable or absurd that their names should be in the list. They might have been receiving bribes or they might not, but the jury were not charged with that issue. The presence His Lordship - We cannot go into that now. of their names in the list did not ren-Do you wish to say anything with regard to der the list the least absurd or unreliable. His sentence?
16
Mr. Robinson asked his Lordship to remind the jury that if they were unable to agree after a reasonable time the verdict of five of their number could be given.
His Lordship told the jury this and that a reasonable time was about one hour.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 6,55.
Mr. Robinson asked if the defendant could be allowed a seat.
His Lordship-Certainly. I should like to before I should have directed the Indian guard say, Mr. Robinson, that I had thought of it
to be withdrawn in deference to his being an Inspector of Police. However, it is too Inte
now.
The defendant was then accommodated with a seat outside the dock.
The jury returned into court at 7.15 and de- fendant re-entered the dock.
The Clerk of the Court-Have you agreed upon your verdict? Do you find Job Witchell guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman-Guilty.
The Clerk of the Court—Are you unanimous? The Foreman-Yes. The jury would like to recommend the defendaut to the mercy of the Court in consideration of his previous good con- duct.
Defendant-May it please you, my Lord, will you kindly allow me to read this letter from Tenby in acknowledgement of the receipt of the silk ?
His Lordship-If you do not stop your improper behaviour I shall only increase the punishment. You ought to know better. Remove the defendant.
The defendant was then removed from the court and taken to Victoria Gaol in a chair.
9th August.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
JOHNSON, STOKES, AND MASTER V. GROSSMANN and Co.
the amount due for work done and money ex- Plaintiffs sought to recover $338.50, being pended as solicitors for the defendants.
Mr. H. L. Dennys appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Reece for the defendants.
The case was partly heard on the 15th July. After hearing further evidence his Lordship reserved his decision.
RELEASE OF CHENG on and TUNG KUM.
On the 4th August, Cheng On and Tung Kum, who were held in custody under banish- ment warrants and who gave evidence against Inspector Witchell, were released from Victoria Gaol, the warrants against them having been withdrawn.
THE CHARGES AGAINST ME. OSMUND AND INSPECTOR HORE.
DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. ntive Council respecting the charges of accept-
On the 9th August, the decision of the Exec-.
ing bribes preferred against Mr. C. Osmund, first clerk in the Registrar-General's Office, and Sanitary Inspector Here, was made known. The Council found that both men had failed to exculpate themselves. Mr. Osmund has been called upon to resign on a reduced -pension, and Sanitary Inspector Hore has been dis- missed from the public service. The decision
in each case has of course to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Apparently the Council has found a great difference in the gravity of the two cases, and it would appear only fair to both the officers concerned and to the public that the grounds of the distinction should be made known,
There has been something like a riot at the Cash Mint at Soochow, in consequence of a dis- pate between the manager and the workmen. Over 300 of the labourers attacked the building with stones and made things very lively for an hour or so until the arrival of the mandarins, who with their forces scattered the rioters.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.