November 21, 1908.]
-having been concerned in the robbery and assault upon Miss Bateman and her amah.
He also was found guilty.
His Lordship, in passing sentence upon the two prisoners, said they had been convicted of a cowardly robbery with violosos upon Miss Bate- man and her amah. They gained admittance to the house by knocking and presenting at the door a bogus latter to bẻ given to Miss Bateman as if it had been an ordinary chit. The gang of several robbers ill-trested and nearly throttled her and her amah, and sto e between $300 and $400 worth of jewelry The jury bad found that both prisoners were members of that gang Although it was not proved that either of them personally laid bands of Miss Bateman or her amah, it was clear that their associates did so; and even if the prisoners did not, they were at least actually on the premises at the time aiding and abetting. With regard to Chan Cheung, it appeared-indeed, he him. self had admitted-that he had been pre- viously convicted by the magistrate and sentenced to one month's imprisonment for living on the proceeds of prostitution. The sentence upon him would be seven years' im. prisonment with hard labourand 24 strokes of the birch during the first week of his incarceration. Liu Ngau had tried to minimise his share in the transaction by saying that he had nothing to do with the robbery, although he admitted he lived with the robbers knew about the robbery. and was asked by them to pawn some of the stolen gooda. If Liu Ngan's own account was correct it was clearly his duty to report the matter to the police, so that the robbers might all have been arreated instead of escaping. The jury, however, did not believe prisoner's account, and had found that he was present on the premises, took part in the affair, and was of the gang, and that he aided and abetted them, even though he did not go upstairs. Sentence-fi e years hard labour with a flogging of 24 strokes of the birch during the first week. His Lordship added that he had no power sitting there to deport the prisoners at the termination of their sentences, but be strongly recommended the Governor in Executive Council, who had that power, that at the end of their imprisonment
both prisoners be deported as persons dangerous to the place of Hougkong, and be asked the senior police officer present (Mr. P. P. J. Wodehouse) to make a note of bis recom- mendation.
CRIMINAL ASSAULT.
|
Lam I, a boy of 16 years (by Chinese reckon- ing), was charged) with having committed a criminal assault upon a Portuguese girl six years of age.
He pleaded guilty. Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law, conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Crown.
His Lordship taking into consideration the youth of the prisouer passed sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, remark- ing that the offence was punishable with im- prisonment for life, and how terrible a punish- mant that would be for a boy of the prisoner's age. His Lordship also ordered that he get a whipping of twelve strokes of the birch within the first week; he had no power, he said, to give the prisoner more, in consideration of his age.
The Court adjourned till to-day at 10 a.m.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE
(PUISNE JUDGE).
A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM. Tse Tsung. & building contractor, sned Yau Sin Chi for $457.66 for work doue, Mr. C. E. H. Beavis, of Meters, Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for the p'aintiff; and Mr. J. Scott Harslog, of Messrs. Ewens and Haraton, solicitors, for the the defendant.
From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had contracted to take the roof off a house belonging to defendant nd pat ou another storey, for $1,000, His claim was for extras that had to be one in the course of carrying out the contract. Defendant contend- ed that the extras were included in the contract price. The plaintiff, after inspecting the build- ing, said the walls of the house were able to bear another storey, but the Government surveyor held they were not; hence the extra work.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
His Lordship, in the course of the hearing of the case, remarked that Chinese contractors did not seem to care whether they built a three-feet wall on the top of a two-feet wall so long as they got their money. He gave judgment for the plaintiff for $44.63, and costs
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 19th November.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIE WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE GRIFFITHS PERJURY CASE.
John Griffiths was brought up on a charge of having on the 12th and 16th October committed perjury in giving evidence at the Police Court in a case in which Leung Pat, a sampan-man, was charged with being found in possessi n of a quantity of rope and sacks that were alleged to have been stolen from the Naval Yard Ex- tension Works. When asked to plead,
Prisoner said-I am guilty, but I was under the influence of drink and did not know what I was doing.
His Lordship-The charge against you, Griffiths, is this-that you made, these state- ments on the 12th and 16th of October. What I understand you to mean by saying that you were under the influence of drick-having read the depositions-is that originally when you gave the man into custody you were under the influence of drink ?
Prisoner-Yes.
His Lordship-You are not alleging that when you appeared before the Magistrate on the 12th and 16th October you were under the in- flagnce of drink?
Prisoner-I was muddled, your Lordship; the drink bad so inuch a hold of me that I did not know what I was doing.
|
His Irdship-The indictment is that you well knew at the time that what you swore was not true. I presume you had sufficiel intelligence to know that what you said was not true ?
[
Prisoner-I was muddled, your Lordship.
His Lordship –[ do not know whether I can take that as a plea of guilty. What do you say, Mr. Attorney ?
The Attorney General (Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley) We have the evidence, my Lord, of the inspector and others, and will call it if necessary. I do not think the man wants it however.
His Lordsbip-I will accept your plea and deal with the matter if you do not mean to say that at the time you gave the evidence you were 80 drunk that you did not know what you were doing. I understand you had been drunk at the time you gave the man into custody.
Prisoner-I was drunk all day and all night. I was muddled and I did not know what I was talking about.
His Lordship-I am afraid, Mr. Attorney, I cannot take that as a plea of guilty, if he says he did not know what he was talking about, because the crime of perjury is that he well know that what he said was false.
The Attorney-General-Well, he is an Fng- lishman, my Lord, and understands. If be wants to be tried by a jury we are ready with evidence, but I do not think he wants i'.
His Lordship -If you want to be tried by a jury here, then we will try you, but I have read these depositions and I quite understand you to say that when you gave this man into custody, and say you saw the rope on the sampan, you were in a muddled sort of state and had been drinking. The question is, what state you were in when you gave evidence before the Magis trate on the 12th and 16th otober. You then swore that you found the rope on the man's sampan. Now, according to the depositions, it is e car you did not find it in the sampan but it was in the shed, and upon that this man was convicted. Then he was re-tried and let off as it was found you had made a mistake. If you say now that, when you gave that evi·lence before the Magistrate, you were drunk, then we must try you; but if you mean that you were sober when you gave the evidence then we can accept your plsa. ~~ What do you may ?
Prisoner Guilty, my Lord
His Lordship-I think that is the most sensible course to follow. It is quite clear that the
383
Magistrate would not have taken your evidence on those two days if you had been drunk.
Sentence was deferred till later in the sitting to allow some particulars about Griffiths' career to be found out.
The Attorney-General then stated that he had been 18 years in the Navy and seven years a boatswain in the P. & O. Co.
His Lordship, in passing sentence of three months' imprisonment with hard labour, said he took into consideration the prisoner's previous services, and the fact that he would lose his pension of £13
per annum.
BOBBERY IN THE HARBOUR.
Leung Shing-ki aud Ho Ngau were charged with baring assaulted and robbed of several articles of jewelry a sampan-woman in Hung- hom Bay on the 2th inst.
They pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled:-Messrs. A. A. H. Milroy, W. F. Gardner, C. H. Blasou, N. H. Rutherford, A. H. A. Koeckner, J. Hua- ter, and F. M. X. Figueirdo.
The Attorney-General (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor) conducted the prosecution. In opening the case he said that on the evening of the day in question prisoners and another man hired a sampau at Hunghom. There was only a woman in the sampan. She rowed them out into the bay. Taking advantage of her unprotected state they attacked her, stripped her of all her jewelry, and threw her into the water. She screamed, and ibis attracted the attention of two Indian artillerymen, who captured the two men as they they were only "larking." came ashore. The prisoners' defence was that
After hearing evidence, the jury found tho prisoners guilty as libelled.
His Lordship sentenced them each to three receive 24 strokes with the birch within the first yea s' imprisonment with hard labour and to
week; he also recommended that at the end of their imprisonment they be deported.
The Court rose.
CRICKET,
K.K.C.C. #. THE GARRISON.
It was (of course) about noon when the match between the Club and the Garrison commenced on the Cricket Ground. The Garrison went in to bat first, Chichester having won the toss; Smith and Heath ficed the bowling of Lowe and Sercombe Smith. The first three overs produced four runs, but in Sercombe Smith's second over Heath let out and made 10. Smith imitated his example off Lowe's bowling, but Heath was then dismissed at the other end, the score being 26. Three runs later Boyd, who followed in, was caught off Lowe. On Radcliffe's arrival a small stand was made, and the score was brought to 45 before Smith left, caught off his namesake's bowling for an useful 29.
hichester stopped till 61, and Radcliffe and Davies played on up to the tiffin interval, when the score was 77 for four wickets. On resumption Davies was quickly out, making 84 for 5, and then followed the Garrison's biggest stand, causing frequent changes of bowlers, and adding 46 runs, of which Hodgson made 20 in only five hits. The next three men did nothing, the seventh, eighth, and ninth wickets falling at 134, 142, and 147; but with Bradford in as last man Radcliffe forced the pace considerably. Bradford being missed by Hancock, the score mounted fast, and it was not until 178 had been recorded that Radcliffe was run out in attempting to steal a run. H's 7 was a distinctly good innings for his side, but he was very lucky, being let off threɔ times behind the wicket alone.
When the Club went in with less than a
However, it was
couple of hours to make 179 in, it did not look at all probable that they would succeed unléss an extra good pace could be kept up, and the start was not at all promising. Bradford's bowl- ing being difficult to hit. Chichester who took the first wicket, getting Fercombe Smith ent, Ib.w., at 2'. Maitland was out at 31, and Hancook at 48, so that the odds were on the Garrison then. Turner add Dixon next, got together, and somewhat altered the complexion of affairs, putting on 88 runs between them, of which Dixon's share Arthur osme in to hit, and succeeded in making
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.