#4
Was there any motive assignable why the prisoner and his partoer should set fire to the premises? There was none unless that they were in league with the people down below, and the Attorney-General's theory was that the boxmaking business carried on by the prisoner in the room above was only a pretext for placing inflammable material there for the purpose of setting fire to the house.
F
The jury retired to consider their verdict at four o'clock. After an absence of 15 minutes they returned into Court, and the foreman stated that by a majority of 4 tó 3 they found the prisoner guilty.
His Lordship painted out that while a majority of 4 to 3 was sufficient under the old law, the new law required a majority of 5 to 2 to convict a person of any offence. The jury must again
retire and reconsider the verdict.
After a further absence of 14 minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty by a majority of 5 to 2.
His Lordship deferred judgment until the other charge of arson in connection with the
same fire should be tried. The Court adjourned.
Friday, 23rd January.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIFF JUSTICE).
CHARGE OF ARSON,
Li Tong, a well-dressed young Chinaman, was charged with haring, on 27th December, set fire to the dwelling-house 318, Queen's Road West, there being at the time several Chinese in the house,.
He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C. instructed by Mr. J. Š. Harston, solicitor.
The Attorney-General, Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley, and Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barris- ter-at-law, appeared for the Crown, instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor.
The following jury was empanelled:-Messrs. F. B. Bain, W. Weinberg, B. Eustace, E. J. Main, A. Shaw, P. Hardman and W. Farmer.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND he was arrested in a wine-shop called the Tai | Lee, some distance up the street. Upon the whistle being blown a Chinese con table rushed up, the alarm of fire was given, and within a very short space of time there were white constables on the scene from No. 7 police station, which was within 100 yards off. The Crown would be able to prove--and he wanted the jury to particularly remember this --that when the Chinese constable who arrested the second man and saw the prisoner, ran to get into the room, he found that the fire had got such a hold of the room that he could not enter it. That showed that the fire bad teen burning for some time in that room before the prisoner left it, and he would ask the jury to draw from that the inference that the fire was no accident Int that the prisoner and his accomplice remained there long enough to see that their work was so far advanced that their object would be accomplished; and he thought he would satisfy the jury that the prisonor and the other man were not really carrying on the trade of boxmaking at all but that that was a blind. He said so because, the room in which this trade was ostensibly carried on having fallen in when the house was gutted, the debris was searched next morning abont 11 o'clock by a white police officer with a gang of coolies, and they found nothing of any shape resembling tools, such as iron hammers, chisels, saws aud so on, which might ressonably be expected to be found there. This was a very suspicious circumstance, from which an inference could be drawn antagonistic to the prisoners, because it showed that either there were no tools at all and that the boxmaking business was a blind or that not wishing to lose their valuable tools in the fire, the prisoner and the other man removed them beforehand. It must be one or the other. Had the tools been there they must have be a found beneath among the debris. The only things found were wine-jars and the usual fi.tings of a wine-shop, an iron safe, and an old chopper. The evidence against the prisoner would be of the character known as circumstantial, and the evidence he would put forward would, he thought, lead the jury to the conclusion that the prisoner set fire to the hou e or was a party to the setting on fire of the house.
Evidency was then led.
The Attorney-General, when the first witness was called, stated to his lordship that he had been called away on other business and wou'd leave the case in the hands of his learned friend Mr. Morgan Phillips.
Mr. Morgan Phillips proceeded with the ex- amination of the witness, but had only addressed to him a few questions when the A torney General returned into Court and, stating to is Lordship that his presence elsewhere had not after all been required, resumed charge of
the case.
The evidence taken was substantially the same as that which had been heard on the two previous days in the care against Chui Chong. Several witnesses having also been examined
The Court adjourned.
THE MURDER OF MR. EVANS.
The Attorney-General stated in opening the case that the prisoner was charged with setting fire to the dwelling-house 318, Queen's Load West, there being at the time persons therein. It would be proved that No. 318, Queen's Road West was burned down on the morning of the 27th December, that there were then persons therein; the fact that it was a dwelling-house could not be disputed. It would be proved also that at the time of the fire the prisoner was in this house and was in occupation of the room in which the fire originated. The evidence connecting the prisoner with the fire would be shortly as follows: A Chinese constable from information that he had received was in the locality ab ut half-past two in the morning, and as
he approached this house his attention wES attracted to a man leaving the dwelling-for the defence, coming in a surreptitious way from underneath the verandah of the house. This man sub- 8:quently turned out to be the prisoner. Im- mediately after the prisoner ran away the constable went nearer to the building and another man ran out. That other man, it would be proved, was the prisoner's employeo, ostensibly, as the prosecution said, as a box maker carrying on a boxmaking business in the room in which the fire originated. Upon the second man emerging from the staircase and as he got to the door he was seized by the constable, whip was in plain clothes and who, they believed, the prisoner did not know was a constable. Prisoner said to the constable in a low tone of voice that the accountant's room on the first floor was on fire. The const Lle entered the horse and found it impossible on accouut of the dense smoke to go into the room on the first floor that had bean occupied by the two men. Not being satisfied with the appearance of things the constable blew his whistle and proceeded to the station with the man whom he had captured. At the stati n the mau was searched and his hands and clothes were foud to be smelling of kerosene. He mentioned this man because he was with the priscuer and the case for the Crown was that the two were jointly concerned in the affair. Prisoner got clear away. Next morning about eight o'clock
Before Mr. Hazeland at the Magistracy on Friday Wong Kwai ond Wong Lin were charged on remand with piracy on the Canton River on or about 12th November last, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. F. J. Badeley. Captain Superia tendent of Police, conducted the prosecution.
The piracy referred to, as has already been stated, was that which involved the shooting and subsequent death of Mr. Evans, for many years constable to H.B.M. Cóusal at Canton. The facts of the case are related in the statement made to the police here three days after the event by Pang Chun, master of the pirated junk I Hop. He said tht about 7 p.m. on 12th November, whilst on the way from Canton to Hongkong with firewood, and when off Foo Mun, in Chinese waters, three rowing-boats containing twelve mea each attacked the junk, which the pirates boarded; they were armed with muskets and revolvers, Several shots were fired, and the crew of the Hop, including the master, went down into the hold; an European passenger (Mr. Evans) was woanded in both 1gs. The jank was then ransacked, and the robbers made off with the following property:-$100 in ten- and
*
[January 26, 1903,
twenty-cent pieces, and a quantity of Chinese jewelry, consisting of gold finger-rings, ear-rings, and bangles, of the value of about $260; total value, about $360. Pang Chua concluded his statement, by saying that the robbers could not beidentified. The authorities here set to work on the case, and on New Year's Night, in Kowloon, arres ed three men, the two defendan's and another who turned King's evidence and whose evidence given at the first hearing of the charge against the two prisoners has already been published,
A seaman on the pirated junk said that when the look-out man hailed the three bosta in which w re the pirates the reply was given that they were fishing boats. They were rowed straight for the junk, and when they neared it the pirates fired shots at the junk, whose crew, realising what the 1sendo fishermen actually were, hid below. Before they boarded the junk the pirates threw a stink-pot on the deck, and when it had exploded they climbed on board. Witness heard the Englishman's voice, and then shots, after which there was silence. In a few moments the pirates sought out the hiding fokie, and searched them. They asked wit ness where his master was, and he replied, "In Canton." Then the pirates abused one another, and when they had desisted they put the crew of the junk in the forehold, themselves seeking the afterhold. Soon they re-entered the fore- hold and searched their prisoners once again, afterwards taking their departure. Witness then described how the pirates were armed, and said that as they were putting away they fold the crew of the junk to pull up the anchor, which together with the sail, they themselves (the pirates) had dropped when they boarded the junk; they also told the junk's crew to sail towards the west: Witness saw the Englishman lying wounded in both legs; he was afterwards trans- ferred to the steamer Kong Nam. The defen- dants witness recognised as two of the robbers; they carried torches when they descended into the hold with the others to search the crew, and he got a good view of their faces. Before the robbery he had never seen them. On the 16th ult, he picked them out from amongst a number of other Chinamen at the Central Police £tation. Second defendant (to witness)-Are you the master or a foki ?—I am a foki.
|
How much did your master lose ?—I don't know.
Has your master's boat a number?—I never saw any number.
Are you sure you identify me ?—Yes, I can identify you accurately.
Have you ever identified any other man incorrectly?-No.
The hearing was then adjourned until next day.
REVIEWS.
Through Hidden Shensi. By FRANCIS H.
NICHOLS, London, George Newnes, Ld. In this book Mr. Nichols has given to the world one of the most entertaining and read- able itineraries that bare ever been written) by a traveller in China. That it has any further value than as such we very much question, although its pretensions apparently extend beyond this limit. Mr. Nichols how ver enjoys the distinction of being ore of the few white writing-men who have penetrated into remote Shensi, the Province of China situated in the extreme corner of the barricaded North-West. The reason of h's visit to China was that the Christian Herald of New York ad raised a frnd for the sufferers from the famine in Shengi and had cab'ed thă money to the only missionary in the province, Mr. Dancan of Hsian. As agent of the fund, the author was sent to China to investigate famine conditions and report upon them. As he s.ys, be thought that m mat nothing more than a few days' journey from Peking, bat discovered that the 750 miles that lie between the Capital and the seat of the f mine constituted as great an interval_of silence the distance between the Far East and the Far West, or from the China coast to New York. But Mr. Nichols decided to attempt the journey_despite the dangers that beset the venture. He travelled to Shensi by way of Paoting, Taiyuen and Pinyang. From Peking to Sian bis journey
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.