104
not run about, but he was in a very excited state and seemed to have seized an axe and practically ran amuck. Drink was no excuse for crime, and if this man whom he had so bad y injured with the axe had not providentially recovered, having a good constitution, prisoner would have probably been hanged. On the first count the sentence would be three years imprisonment with hard labour and on the third conat one year's imprisonment with hard labour to follow upon the other-three years altogether.
ARMED ROBBERY.
I Muk was charged with having on 3th September, while armed with a chopp r, stolen certain articles of property from a bat belong- ing to Li Tai-kee at Samsuipo.
Prisoner admitted that he was concerned in the robbery but was compelled to take part in it by Kwok Tai Yau, who threatened to beat him if he did not go.
His Lordship said that statement must be accepted us & plea of uot guilty.
The Attorney-General stated that prisioner was oue of four men who had gone aboard this boat at Eamsuipo and robbed the owner.
Evidence having bз.n given,
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred, whil、
Kwok Tai Yau and Chan Cheung-fu were empanelled on a charge of having been con- cerned in the same robbery.
They pleaded not guilty. After hearing erid nce,
The jury found the first prisoter, Kw k Tai Ya, guilty as lib.lled and the second prisoner Chin Cheng-fu not guilty.
Sentence bu Kw k Tai Yau aud Lo Muk was deferr.d until to-day (Wednesday).
CRUELTY TO A GIRL.
Tai Hai Ping, a married woman, and Mak Chak Po, her husband, were charged on five counts with ill-treating a servant girl named Cham Shui Kam on 14th August and other
dates.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
wrists behind her back and hanging her up by them to a beam. If the evidence showed that the woman treated the girl in the way that was stated and that the man be ides standing by took part in the crnel practic s upon the girl, it would be the duty of the jury to find both prisoners guilty on all the eunts.
Dr. Ernest A. R. Lang, assistant, Govern, ment Cie Hospital, was the first witness called. He stated that he had had the girl ander his care from 1st till 29th October. On her head, limbs and body there were about 240 contused, incised and lacerated wounds. Three-quarters of the hair of the head was missing; it looked as if it had been pulled out. The right arm was semi-paralysed.
The Court adjourned.
IN ORIGINAL JURI DIC ION.
BEFORE HIS H. NOUR SIR W. ME GH GOOD- MAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
AN EXTRADITION CASE.
In the matter of Liu Tsz, alias Lni Sze alias Toa Tze, and the Chinese Extradition Ordinance, 1889,
[November 22, 1902.
Wednesday, 19th November.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR W. MEIGH Go dman (CHIF JUSTICE).
ARMED ROBBERY.
Lo Muk and Kwok Tai Yan who had Leen couvicted on the previous day of armed robbery at Sau suipo were trong.t up for sentence. Each of the prisoners was sentenced to fire years' imprisonment with hard labour with 20 strokes of the birch during the first week of incarceration,
CRUELTY TO A SLAVE GIRL
The case was resumed in which Tai Hing Ping and her husband Mak Chuk Po were charged with cruelly ill-treating a slave-girl.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ferrers, the child stated that if her mistress was sent to prison she would not go back to live with the male prisoner. While she was hanging by the wrist all night without her feet touch' Dg tle ground she felt great pain, but did not cry out. The man and woman were sleeping all night in the next cubicle. The woman was under the influence of Chinese wine when she ill-treated ber. Eo far as she (witness) knew, the male prisoner was not aware of the woman's ill-treatment of her. Ja tied her up in this bai barons manner because it was said she had been in the street begging for money..
After other evidence,
Mr H. F. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Mr. G. K Hall Brutton, of Messrs. Mounsey and Bratton, solicitors), appeared in support of an application for a w.it of habeas corpus. The man Liu Tez, he said, had been charged before the Acting Assistant Magistrate with an offence against the laws of China, and an order for his extradition had been granted, Under sectiou
The jury returned a v rdict of guilty against 11 of the Chinese Ext:adition O.dinanc›, 26 of
the woman on four counts (she had pleaded 1889, it was provided that a person to be extra-guilty on the fifth) and of guilty against the
man ou the first count. dited should not be surrendered until 15 day's after committal, up till which time he bad the right to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
The order of the Magistrate was made on the 4th of this month and there-
a
Hang Fing aud Mik Cheuk Po, The conduct His Lordship in passing judgment said-Tai of which the jury bave found you guilty is cruel and inhuman. You purchased the little girl, fore the 15 days were now about expired. The Sam Chui Kam, some seven years ago in China party who was moving in the matter was
(where such transactions seem to be permitted) brother of the man who was now in prison, sold her, she was about six years of ago. You to become your servant girl. When her parents and was not in Hongkong when these proceed-brought her here, and she remained in your household for some five years without anything unusual occurring so far as we know. But for treated with the greatest cruelty. To think the last year or two she seems to have been
that ou that little body, the doctor discovered, as
The woman pleaded guilty to the fifth conut and the male prisoner not guilty to all counts.
Mr. H.N Feriers, barrister-at-law (instructedings rore before the Magistrate. The reasons by Mr. J. $. Harston, solicitor) appeared for the prisoners. The f male prisoner, ho said, had pleaded guilty to the fifth count which charged her with making an assault upon this girl, ill-treating her and occasio, ing her actual bodily harm. In these circumstances, he was not aware whether the Crown would proceed on the remaining four couu's ?
The Attorney-General said that he did not consider that he would le doing his duty if he abstained from bringing forward evidence on the other four counts-
The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. A. M. R. Pereira, H. A. L. Oldenberg, B. M. C. da Cunha. E. J. Liband, D. Gow, G. Badolo,
and C. Klinck.
The Attorney-General in opening the case said the prisoners were indicted on five coun's charging then with seriously injuring a little girl who was in their employ. The female prisoner had les ed guilty to the crime of causing actual bodily harm to this child, and he would ask the jury, if the evidence as given in the box supported the evidence which ap: pзard upon the brief from which he was instructed, to find her guilty of something more than dansing grevious bodi'y harm--of having inflicted injuries which caused bodily harm with intent to disfigure, maim and other wise do grevious bodily harm to the child. The first prisoner was the wife of the second. The plaintiff was a little slave girl. We had no slavery in Hongkong in one sense, but there was slavery in China. This child appeared to have been bought by the first prisoner when about ɛeren years of age and brought to Hongkong. On 1st October from informa- tion received regarding cruelty to the girl the first prisoner was arrested, since when the child had been under the care of the Government Civil Hospital When the girl was taken from the first prisoner she was in a dreadful state physically, though she was now in a good state thanks to the good care she had received there. The evidence would show that during the seven years she was with the pri- soners she had been cut, burned, and beaten by the first prisoner. The cruelty of the prisoners towards the child culminated in tying her
|
|
for the application being made were, first, as would appear from the affidavit, that the wrong party had been got hold o, and, secondly, they generally submitted that it was clear upon the face of the depositions taken by the Magistrate
that sufficient enquiry had not been made into the facts of the case to justify a committal. There was a very considerable interval of nearly three years between the time of the robbery and the time of the arrest, the crime having been committed on 15th September, 1899. The man had been in China for 32 years. His Lordship said he did not see why a man who had been in China for all that time should object to being sent to be triel by the laws of
his own country.
Mr. Pollock remarked that there was a very good reason in this case, a the man was a reformer. There was considerable doubt there fore whether be would meat with justice at the hands of the Chinese authorities. With regard to his identification the man was a hunchback, a fact which did aw y with all identification. All that was to be done was for the Chinese mandaria to say to the witnesses, "There is a reward offered for the ariest of the robbers of our shop; now there is a man down in Hong; kong whom we want arrested: go down and identify him; you will easily know him, for be is a bunchback." This was an easy way for the Chinese Government to get a reformer back in their clutches. He submitted there was a case for further enquiry bing held.
Hi Lordship said that the man had been committed upon the evidence of the managing partner of the shop that was robbed and his foki, who identified him as one of the robbers. He was bound to say that such evidence was the kind upon which they often went in securing convictions in that Court. Therefore he did not see how this man had anything to complain of, nor dd he see any reason for a writ of habeas corpus being grated. Mr. Brut on in the affidavit stated that the evidence given in the case was not such as would commit a man to the Supreme Court. His Lordship did not agree with that statement at all, and in the circumstances he must decline to grant the writ.
Theourt adjourned,
he said, nearer two hundred than one hundred, should have kept her hang ug many hours scars and wounds, and to think that you by bar wrists, which were tied behind her, and all the weight of her body torturing her the while, is simply terrible. You, Mak the rest of the ill-treatment seems to have been Chak fo, tied her up like that, and, though
much of the binta ity inflicted upon Ler. You, the woman's, yon must have been cognisant of Tai Hang Ping, were found guilty of all the e unts charged, except the fifth, to which you pleaded guilty. I sentence you to ten years imprisonment with had labour on each of the first fur counts, and to two years' hard labour on the fifth count. But as I direct those sen- tences to be concurrent, your actual punishment will be ten years' imprisonment w.th hard
Inbour. I se.tence you, Mak Chuk Po, to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour on which you were found guilty, as being away at the first count, which is the only count upon · work all day you may not hare known in detail all the c. uelties your wife inflicted on this child.
ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.
Lo Kwai Ting was charged with embezzling $4,112.50 belonging to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.
He plead d not guilty, and was defended by Mr. H. N. Feirers, barrister-at-law.
The following jury was empanelled :-Messrs. R. W. Houghton, G. H. Edwards, H. M. Basto, A. A. de Jesus, S. Makovitch, W Evans, and H. P. Jertram.
The Attorney-General said the prisoner was a shroff in the employment of the Hongkong and hanghai Bauk, and on the 2nd October was employed receiving money in the cashier's department from customers who desired to lodge money. On that morning, a man employed by Sassoon's compr.de re handed over to the pri soner $4,412 50 on account of Mr. Michael. The prisoner received the money and chopped the counterfoil of the paying-in book, and the
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.