7 14
―
Mr. Francis-In that case, your Lordship, I must apologise for the languagə I used,
་་
•
j
|
[July 1, 1901.
The interpreter-Yes, my lord; we were at school together.
Defendant still asserted that he was not Ha In Chee, and that it was not he who signed the promissory note.
His Lordship then directed the interpreter to go into the witness box.
The interpreter, sworn, said he had known the defendant for ten years. His name was Hu In Chee all the time he (the interpreter) had known him. He was quite sure that he had made no mistake.
Mr. Holmes, solicitor, who appeared for the plaintiff, then went into the box. He said he knew the man in the blue coat (the defendant). Defendant had been several times to witness in connection with the promissory note. De- fendant had paid interest to witness on two occasions Witness gave him receipts in the name of Hn In Chee, and he made no objection, nor did he say that that was not his name.
His Lordship awarded judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, and committed the defen- dant to prison for two months' hard labour for perjury.
Monday, 24th June.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
COUNTERFEIT COIN CASE.
Fang Lan was charged on four counts~(1) selling counterfeit coins (2), uttering counterfeit coins, (3) having three or more counterfeit coins in his possession, and (4) uttering counterfeit coins.
Mr. J. J. Franois, K. C. (instructed by Mr. K. W. Mounsey), who appeared for the defend- ant, intimated that his of ent pleaded guilty to the third count-possession-and that the Attorney-General was willing to accept that plea and not to proceed on the remaining counts of the indictment.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
In summing up, the Acting Attorney-General | About twenty minutes afterwards, in the pas said his learned friend had prefaced his addresssage at the Public Works Department, Chung by making a representation to the jury on the Shun Koo was said to have stopped Lo Tzi way in which the case had been opened by the Lum and asked-“Can't I bribe the inspector Crown. The jury would remember he distinctly of buildings?" Was such an occurrence possible? stated at the close of his address that the Would Chung Shun Koo be likely to stop à question they had to determine was under what man whom he did not know and ask such a circumstances the defendant took the money- question? Certainly not "Yon will remem. that was to say, whether he took it with a view ber," said Mr. Pollock to the jury, “when Kwok to influence his conduct as a public servant, or Ting was asked to rise in Court yesterday, whether he took it properly and straightfor- | Lo Tzi TIM was asked 'Do you know wardly, with the intention of proving that { that man? 'No. Kwok Ting was brought | Chang Shun Koo had offered him a bribe.
nearer, and Lo Tzi Lum again asked-- Mr. Pollock then read to the jury the con- Do you know that man? 'No.' I submit, cluding part of his speech in opening the case gentlemen, that was a very clever piece of as reported in the Daily Press, which read-acting on Lo Tzi Lum's part, because, when And the jury. concluded Mr. Pollock, would Lo was asked to look again, he said-I do have to consider carefully whether the defendant remember that man coming up to the Public took the money corruptly as a bribe, or whether | Works Department and telling Mr. Tooker. he accepted it in order to trap Chung Shun through my interpretation, that he was surprised Koo." That, said the Acting Attorney General, that Crisp had been arrested, and that it was was proof that his argument as to the way in unfair." Was Lo Tzi Lum, asked the Attorney- which he had stated the case was correct. General, likely to forget a man whom he had admittedly spoken to on the previous day? Was it likely, if Chung Shun Koo had tried Mr. Pollock, continuing, said that what the through him to bribe the defendant, that Lo Tzi jury had to consider was the evidence that Lum would have kept such important evidence had been adduced before them and the state-secret for so long? Lo Tzi Lum's evidence ment made by the defendant in the charge was simply invented in order to help the room at the Central Police Station. It does defendant out of a scrape. Mr. Pollock admit- not follow," said the Acting Attorney-General, ted what his learned friend had suggested, that BEFORE Sir John CarriNGTON, KT., C.M.G.
that, because other public servants have been there was a discrepancy in the evidence for the
(CHIEF JUSTICE). found to accept bribes, the defendant should prosecution as given previously at the Police have accepted one. You ought to dismiss Court and latterly at the Suprem Court. altogether the fact that other public servants It was a Chinese characteristic to exaggerate, have been found out in taking bribes, and judge but it would not be safe on that of this case simply and solely by the evidence account for the jury to conclude that before you and ly the defendant's statement everything witness said was untrue. at the charge-room." Mr. Francis, went on the As to the evidence of the Chinese Attorney-General, had suggested that the detective sergeant, Mr. Pollock would 'ask prosecution ought never to have been carried whether it did not conflict with the state- on at all, and that had it not been for the police ment made by the defendant at the taking the matter up, the prosecution would charge-room-that he took the money, lut have been dropped at once. If Mr. Francis did not know then how much there was. The really entertained that idea, he was quite hineso sergeant had said he understood mistaken in doing so. Referring to the evi- part of the conversation. and heard the dence of Lo Tzi Lam, the chief interpreter at defendant say- You must give me $40." The the Public Works Office, that an attempt notes, too, before being handed to the defendant, was made by hung Shun Koo, in the were laid on the table, where they could easily Public Works Office & me time in the begin. be seen and counted. Concluding, Mr. Pollock ing of February, to bribe the defendant, Mr. said "I don't propose to take up your time Pollock said that having regard to the fact any longer I am sure you have listuned care- that the defendant and Mr. Tooker were fully to the evidence, and that you will exercise engaged in the same room, it seemed curious every care in arriving at your verdict." that the defendant should keep it bottled up in In the course of his summing-up his Lord his mind and allow two months to elapse before ship said the case had something of the aspect of reporting to Mr. Tooker, On the 15th of
a comedy about it.
Each person had tried to April the defendant told Mr. Tooker that trap the other-a big game of East against Chung Shun Koo had tried to bribe him with West. Each was planning his own cross- cigars, and that he intended to take the purposes, and they could see who had got the next bribe offered him. That was rather best of the duel. It reminded his Lordship a good plan on the part of the defendant, of an old and famous ballad by Bret Hart called because, if he accepted & bribe from A Heathen Chinee," in which two Westerners Chung Shun Koo and was afterwards found combined to cheat a Chinamau whe in the end out, he would be able to say-I told Mr. proved to be more than able for both. The de- Tooker this man had offered me cigars, and fendant thought he had beaten the prosecutor, that I was going to take the next bribe be offer and went downstairs chuckling at the reflection ed me." Only two witnesses had been called for the that he had a strong case against him. He defence, one Kwok Ting, a blacksmith, and the little thought, however, that the prosecutor other Lo Tzi Lum, the interpreter. It had boen had laid a trap much more cleverly for him, obvious from the evidence of Kwok Ting and had the chief of the detective staff waiting that he and Chung Shun Koo were not friends. to catch him with the money in his poss ssion. Kwok Ting had said that Chung Shun Koo The jury, without leaving the box, by a asked him if he knew the inspector of buildings, majority of six to one found the defendant not and that, on Kwok Ting replying that he did, guilty on both counts of the indictment. Chung Shun Koo said "If you know the inspector, will you be good enough to go and see him and put in a few good words for me, and ask him not to call on me to pull down the wall? If you succeed, I'll give him $30 and you $5." Kwong Ting, it was shown in cross- examination, did go up to the Public Works Office, but after Crisp had been arrested. Ho saw Mr. Tooker, to whom, through Lɔ Tzi Lum, he said it was unfair to arrest Mr. Crisp. Mr. Tooker had stated in evidence that he had no recollection of such a remark having been interpreted to him. Had it been interpreted, Mr. Tooker had further said, he was not likely to have readily forgotten it. As to Lo Tri Lum, the jury would remember that he had been recalled by his Lordship, whom he told that he had had no private conversation with Kwok Ting regarding the case. Lo Tzi Lum's evidence was to the effect that Chung Shan Koo had actually tried to bribe the defendant directly and that he had been dismissed from the defendant's presence with angry words.
Crisp was accordingly discharged.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
TWO MONTHS for PERJURY. An Indian named Bholo Singh sued Hu Iu Chee, clerk in the Kowloon Office of the Hong kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company, Limited, for $421, being the balance of principal and interest of a promissory note made by defendant, and dated 3rd July, 1896.
|
Defendant_denied to his Lordship that his name was Hu In Chee, the name which appeared on the promissory note. The plaintiff stopped into the box and swore, however, that defendant was Hu In Chee, and that he signed the document and the other touched the pen.
His Lordship (to the Court interpreter)—| Do you know the defendant ?
|
Mr. Francis said the defendant did not make it a business to sell counterfeit money, and that it was only after considerable time and difficulty the prosecution could get together what little money had actually been sold. His Lordship, sa'd Mr. Francis, would have noticed that the money was not being sold as false money, but as refuse or nseless money which was apparently to be sent to Canton to be melted down. The defendant, before he handed it over to the purchaser, wanted to chop it up. Under all the circumstances of the case, Mr. Francis desired his Lordship to avail himself of the powers given him under section 35 of the Ordinance and fine the defendant, further binding him over in his OWN recognisances to keep the peace.
His Lordship-Is your client able to pay a considerable fine ?
Mr. Francis-No, my Lord, he is a poor man. It would be a totally different thing if the master of the shop were before you.
His Lordship-The shop people ought to pay his fine.
Mr. Francis-I am afraid there is no legal means of compelling them to pay it. It was with great difficulty that the necessary expenses for the defence wers obtained.
The Acting Attorney-General had no objec tion to the course proposed by Mr. Fraucis, and the defendant was fined $500, to be paid forth- with, in default of which he would be imprisoned for nine months with hard labour.
He was further bound over in his own recognisances of $500 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months.
ATTEMPTED LARCENY-CASE WITHDRAWN,
Lam Shek Young was charged with attempted larceny at Tai Hom village on 14th May. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. E. H. Sharp, barriste-at-law (instructed by Mr. K. W. Mounsey).
The following jury was empanelled-Messrs. W. A. Sims, W. Hardwick, J. 8. Ezekiel, 8. F. da loza, A. M. R. Pereira, M. Meyer, and J. Benjamin.
The Acting Attorney-General said the com- plainant in the case was a Chinaman-a farmer living at the village of Tai Hom, near Kowloon City. On the evening of the 14th May, about nine o'clock, the complainant was in his house when he heard a noise on the roof. He pickəl
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.