June 22, 1901.]
|
Sergeant Watt was the complainant. Defen. dant was the person who nearly always came up to the Central Police Station to apply for removal permits. These permits were usually issued by the Captain Superintendent of Police or by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since 5th October, 190), however, applicants had been always referred to Sergeant Watt, and several applications have been re- fused on the report of Sergeant Watt. The evidence would show that on the 5th inst, Sergeant Watt went to the Harbour Office and waited on the east side. He saw the defendant and A man named Kung On coming towards him. Kang On was a room-boy to the European sergeants and cou- stables at the Central Police Station, and would be a witness for the prosecution. The defen- dant and Kung On came up to where Sergeant Watt was standing, and the defendant said something in Chinese which Sergeant Watt partly understood-or at least understood, from his knowledge of Chinese, to mean that the defendant was mentioning something about percussion caps. Sergeant Watt also heard the defendant say, in Chinese-"I'll give him $30 for each box of caps." The defendant further made mention of a name which, it appeared, was Chinese for Messrs Lauts, Wegener & Company. After this conversa tion had taken place. Sergeant Watt told Kung On to tell the defendant to go away and the latter went off. On the following day, the 6th inst., somewhere about half past eight in the evening, Sergeant Watt was coming up the verandah of the Central Station from the canteen, accompanied by Lance-Sergeant Kerr, when Kung On and the defendant came up from the opposite side of the compound. Kung On called out, “Watt," and the ser- geant stopped, Lance Sergeant Kerr going on his way. Kung On and the defendant came up to Sergeant Watt, and all three proceeded towards the back of the building. In conversation Sergeant Watt learnt that the defendant was coming up on the Saturday about permits for seven cases of percussion caps. The defendant then handed a Chinese envelope to Kang On, and the latter passed it to Sergeant Watt. The envolope, which was closed ID when Sergeant Watt re ceived it, would be produced, in Court. defendant immediately afterwards left the The station, and King On went upstairs. Sergeant Watt opened the envelope at ten o'clock on the morning of the 7th in the detective office in the presence of Inspector Hanson. Inside the envelope he found two banknotes-one for $100 on the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, and the other for $50 on the National Bank of China. Sergeant Watt took the en- velopes and notes and reported the matter to Captain Superintendent May. The notes were subsequently handed to Deputy Superin- tendent Badeley. That, concluded Mr. Pollock, was the story that would be told by Sergeant Watt, and his evidence would be corroborated by the evidence of Kung On, the room-boy at the Central Police Station,
Sergeant Walt then gave evidence, and was cross-examined by Mr. Robinson. Complainant said it was he, not Kung On, who arranged the trap for the defendant. It was originally intended that he should meet the defendant at the German Tavern, but that plan was snb- sequently altered to the Harbour Office. Com plainant did not know who arranged that he should meet the defendant atthe German Tavern; he was told by Kung On that that was the place. Kung On escorted the "bird" to the Harbour. Office. Complainant did not know the Chinese for "serated-water machine," nor did he did know the Hong name for Leopold, Spats. & Co. Complainant did not know whether that firm sold hand-machines for the manufacture of aerated waters. He knew nothing about the aerated water business, nor of the profits to be derived from the trade. Complainant knew nothing of an arrangement whereby he and Kung On and the defendant were to go shares in an serated-water business; that was the first
he had heard of it.
Kung On gave corroborative evidence. He said the defendant one day asked him "Can you tell the sergeant not to trouble my arms shop, and I am willing to give him a hundred dollars?" Defendant caled at the Contral Police Station on the 4th
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. inst. and asked witness-"Did yon enquire of the police sergeant about that matter for me? Witness replied that he had, and that the police sergeant had said he would see about it. On the 5th inst, witness, went to the Yan Hang arms shop and saw the defendant, to whom he said-" If you want to see the police sergeant go to the Harbour Office, where the sergeant is waiting for yon." went to the Harbour Office together where Defendant and witness they saw Sergeant Watt. mentioned that he wanted a permit to remove a The defendant
number of boxes of percussion caps from Messrs. Lauts, Wegener & Company's premises to his shop in Queen's Road, and that he would get them quietly to Canton from there. Defendant said he would give the sergeant 830 a case.. At the Central Police station, on the evening of tho 6th inst, the defendant said if he got a permit from the sergeant he could smuggle the caps to Canton,
513
The following jurymen were empanelled : W. A. Cruickshank, M. Steger,' C. W. F. Messrs J. A. Woodgates, W. P. V. Pigrum Hagelberg, C. J. Clegg, and R. Saxon.
**
K.C. (Acting Attorney-General), said the In stating the case, Hon. H. E. Pollock defendant was charged upon an indictment taken in two counts. In the first count 1901, then being a public servant holding he was charged with having on 24th April,
Department, unlawfully obtained from one the office of overseer in the Public Works Chung Shun Koo a bribe to wit, the sum of $40-with a view to influence his (the defendant's) conduct. Under the second count the defendant was charged that on 24th April Koo a bribe of $4', with a view to influence his he unlawfully did accept from one Chung chun conduct as such public servant. These two counts arose out of and were founded upon the saine state of facts, and were merely different long defendant had been in the colony. Wit- against the prisoner. Both counts were laid By Mr. Robinson-Witness did not know how ways chosen by the Crown of stating the charg ness had been for nine years room boy at the under section 3 of Ordinance 3 of 1898, - Central Police Station. Watt would or would not accept a bribe was not accepted or obtained from any person a bribe Whether Sergeant which enacted that every public servant who for witness to say. Defendant, anyway, did not with a view to influence his conduct as such say anything about a bribe, nor was anything not public servant would be guilty of a misdemean- said about a partnership for the sergeant in an aerated-water business.
our. The ostensible complainant in the case Witness had never been connected with a yamen, and could not practical complainant was a young English- was Chief Detective Inspector Hanson, but the say whether or not it was the custom in China speaking Chinaman called Chung Shun Koo. for people to give money to public officials. This man owned several houses in Victoria, Witness did not know that Sergeant Watt was including one at 81, Hollywood Road. anxious to catch the defendant. He told the de-lived at 9, Old Bailey, but had letters left for fendant that the sergeant, when money was men- tioned, had said-“ All right," but could not say Road Central. The defendant, Percy Thomas him at the Yee Yik Wing shop, 362, Queen's whether or not the defendant would have paid out Crisp, was an overseer in the Public Works any money had the sergeant said it was not all Department, and had been engaged in England right. Witness did not speak familiarly to to come here to carry out the work of inspecting Sergeant Watt at any time, and never addressed buildings under the Building Ordinance in force him by his surname only.
in this colony. The defendant worked under the Director of Public Works, and had a desk in Mr. supervision of Mr. Tooker, Acting Assistant
Tooker's room at the Public Works office. The bribe alleged in the indictment was in connection 30th January of this year the defendant reported with the house at 31, Hollywood Road. On to Mr. Tooker that the house was in a dangerous state, and that certain repairs were necessary. On 5th February Mr. Tooker wrote to Chung Shun Koo calling upon him to have the repairs effected. That notice was referred by Chung Shun Koo to his architects, February wrote to the Director of Public Messrs. Leigh and Orange, and they in 8th Works, submitting proposals for the carrying 11th February the defendant reported to Mr. out of the repairs at 31, Hollywood Road. On Tooker that Messrs. Leigh and Orange's pro-
of the 6th inst., about 9.15, Sergeant Watt Sergeant arison said that on the evening showed him a small Chinese envelope.
Mr. Robinson had no questions. ed Sergeant Watt coming into the detective Chief Detective Inspector Hanson remember- office at the Central Police Station on the morning of the 7th inst, with a closed envelope in his hand. The envelope, when opened, was value of $159. found to contain two banknotes to the total
No questions by Mr. Robinson.
charge against the defendant by direction of By his Lordship--Witness drew up the the Captain Superintendent of Police.
the Central Police Station, said he took down Chung Chau King, sergeant interpreter at the following statement by the defendant when plainant) money,” he was charged-“I did not give him (composals were insufficient.
to
31
retired
This concluded the evidence, and the jury
consider their verdict. returned after an absence of two minutes, and They the foreman said they were unanimous in finding the defendant guilty.
Sentence was passed of nine months' hard labour.
Wednesday, 19th June.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARRING TON, KT, C.M.G. (Chief Justice).
THE CHARGE
AGAINST AN INSPECTOR
BUILDINGS.
OF
Percy Thomas Crisp, inspector of buildings, Public Works Department, was charged (1) with obtaining a bribe to influence his conduct as a public servant, and (2) with accepting a bribe with a view to influence his conduct as a public servant. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr J. J. Francis, KC. (instructed by Mr. J. F. Reece).
Before the trial commenced, Mr. Francis asked his Lordship to allow Crisp to take a seat
outside the dock.
Mr. Pollock-I have no objection. His Lordship-I don't like to make distino tions in these cases. I have no objection to his taking a seat inside the dock.
Mr. Francis-If your Lordship thinks so. A chair was then handed to Crisp.
Ho
Correspondence relating to the house at 31, Hollywood Road, was read by Mr. Pollook.
said that from the evidence of the accountant Continuing, the Acting Attorney-General at 362, Queen's Road Central (where letters were left for Chung Shun Koo) it would be shown that the defendant called three times at the shop to see Chung Shun Koo, who on every occasion was out. On the third occasion the defendant handed the accountant a small visiting card bearing his name, and as he was leaving the defendant made use of the following expres- sion-"Chung Shun Koo, give me 350.”. The by the accountant, who repeated the defendant's visiting card was handed to Chang Shun Koo remark about 250. Subsequently Chong Shun Koo called on Captain Superintendent May and reported the circumstance. Mr. May took a note of the numbers of certain banknotes, and ́ on 23rd April sent a Chinese detective ser. geant to stay at Chung Shun Koo's house, 9, Old Bailey. On the following day, 24th April, Chung Shun Koo went to the office of the Public Works Departihent and saw the defen- dant. Chung Shun Koo told
the
defendant that he did not know what to to the house at 31, Hollywood Road, and asked his advice. The defendant said he would go with Chang Shun Koo to the house and show him what to do, and after obtaining Mr. Tooker's permission to do so, the defendant and Chung Shun Koo left the office together and proceeded to Hollywood Road. They ascended to the roof of the house, and, said Mr. Pollock, Chung Shun Koo would tell the jury that whilst on the roof the defendant asked him for $100, adding that he would show him how to repair the house cheaply. The defen-
do
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.