December 26, 1904.]
She
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE, REPORT.
Kwok Nui said that she walked forward, fell and a small sum of money, something less than into the hold, and became unconscious. had a knock. She went ashore.
Fang Tant Sing, the boatman who picked up the boy, gave corroborative evidence. He was on his way from near the Harbour Office to his usual anchorage at Yaumati, and, when near the American mail, heard the boy shouting out "Save life." He did not see the sampan from which the boy had been thrown. The American steamer had one yellow funnel and three masts. Chang Sui, & farmer from Cheung sha, near Pui-o, in Lantao Island, said I was picking cockles on the shore and found two children near some rocks. I took them to the village
two · or and kept them for
three days, and then took them to the police station at Cheung Chow (Dumbell Island) in con- The sequence of what they had told me. girl had a wound on her right eye. strange sampan, which was afterwards smashed to pieces by the sea.
I saw a
Another man from Lantao gave similar
evidence.
|
|
two dollars. A knife was found on the person of Nason and a razor on Smith.
By Mr. Ferrers-The arrest was made three or four miles from Chinese territory. The prisoners did not try to get away. They were following a line that would have brought them into Chinese territory.
Re-examined-They could not have got away as I had Indian constables both before and behind them.
The Chief Detective Inspector. Mr. Hanson, said:-At about 9 a m. on the 28th November, I first saw the boy. He had a fresh mark on the right side of the head, and a long incised I took wound on the right leg above the antle. it to have been inflicted by a knife. The boat- man who identified the first prisoner did not make any false identifications. The man who identified the other prisoners picked out one wrong one. Some days later I went with the little girl to Lautao Island and found this exhibit (the piece of the tea stand).
Mr. Hanson here read the statements made by the prisoners when charged at the police station. These have already been reported in the Daily Press.
Dr. Ho Kai objected to William Nason's statement on the ground that the s atement of as evidence one prisoner cannot be taken
Parts of the state- against another prisoner. ment ought to be expunged-
His Lordship -Yon cannot leave it out altogether.
Dr. Ho Kai-I beg to quote "Russell on
Kwong Luk said: I am a fisherman from Sham Shui Kok, Lantao Island, near Capsuimun I saw three foreigners at my place on the 1st December. That, was at four o'clock in the afternoon. I was working. One of them asked | me for some tobacco. I gave them some and offered them rice. They did not accept the I identify food. They did not pay any money. the first two prisoners (Smith and Hogman). Later, I was cooking my rice, and one of them came up to me with a twenty-cent piece. and pointed to my boat. By gestures they indi-Crime." cated that they wanted to go to the mainland in my boat. This I refused and they went away in my boal. I went to Cho Fat, the owner of the boat, and three of us got into a second boat and chased them as far as Motaisan (The Brothers) and then caught them. Then the men got into our boat, and were landed on the mainland. On the fourth of December I went to the gaol and identified two of the prisoners (Smith and Hogman).
So Fat, another fisherman, who had taken part in the chase, gave evidence. They landed the three men near Castle Peak.
must His Lordship-Before you proceed make this fact clear-was the statement of each prisoner made in the presence of the other prisoners?
Mr. Hanson-No, they made their statements separately.
His Lordship-If they had made their state- ments, the one in the presence of the other, an objection, for which there is authority, would ariso, but this point does not arise because they tell me that they were apīri.
Dr. Ho Kai-I said that if these statements could not be excluded they would, in each case. P.-C. Walter Edwards said :-On the after-only be regarded as evidence against the man noon of the 3rd December I found the body of who made them.. a child about fifty yards west of Kellet Island. and brought.it to the Water Police Station. The body was identified on the same evening by the child's father-that man (first witness).
By Mr. Ferrers--The clothes were not in any way torn as far as I could see.
P-C. George Bird said :-On the morning of the 2nd December I found the body of a woman near Kellet Island, and brought it to the Water
Police Station.
By Mr. Ferrers-The body was naked. Wong Yuen Sun. coxswain of No. 5 Police Launch, gave corroborative evidence.
His Lordship-I shall tell the jury that each man's admission is to be regarded against himself only.
Dr. Ho Kai submitted that it would be a pity to allow the jury to hear any part of a statement made, perhaps without any grounds whatever, against another prisoner. He asked each His Lordship to reject anything in of the statements applying to others than the
man who mate them.
Mt. Ferrers raised the same question, saying that a máu might make a statement affecting others only.
His Lordship overruled the objection--if a man did as Mr. Ferrers suggested it would act as evidence against himself.
Police Inspector Withers said :--On the night of the 27th November I was on duty at Central Police Station, and his report was The boy's made by a man and his son-thos clothes were dry, but he had a wet jacket with
Mr. Ferrers objected to Erik Hogmau's s'ate him, and his hair was wet. On the 2nd De. cember I brought them to the Water Policement being admitted as evidence becaus; it Station to identify the body of the woman.
By Mr. Ferrers-The boy complained that he had been bitten on the head and otherwise assaulted. At that time he said nothing about injury to his ankle, or about the knife.
Re-examined-He complained of having been thrown overboard.
Dr. William Hunter, M.O. in charge of post-mortem examinations, said:-On the 3rd December I made an examination of the body of Chan Yee. From the examination I should say she had been dead about a week, and cause of death, drowning. I also examined the body of a child. I should say the cause of death and length of time in this case was the same as in the former. Wounds immediately before death would not have been visible.
I
was
оп
at
William Nason's statements read out at the Police Court were read."
was translated from the Swedish language and taken down in English, and not taken down in Swedish. He said that in the courts at Hong- kong there was great carelessness regarding interpretations.
His Lordship overruled this objection for the time being; Mr. Ferrers would have time be- fore this morning to prove, if such were the case, that the Swedish interpreter was not a competent one.
Dr. Ho Kai-With regard to the statements made before the magistrate I repeat the ob- jection I made before.
His Lordship noted this and the statements
were read.
P.-S. Boole gave evidence as to the position of the steamers mentioned on the night of the 27th November.
The Attorney-General-That closes the case for the Crown, My Lord.
By Mr. Ferrers-I could not see any marks of violence on the body of the woman.
PS. Kerr said:-On the morning of the
the shore
In adjourning the case His Lordship said he 3rd December
saw the was very sorry, but he would have to give Sha Kong in Deep Bay, and three prisoners going along the shore towards instructions to the usher to find the jurors beds Mong Ching. With several Indian police for the night. After precedents being quoted, constables I arrested the prisoners. They however, His Lordship allowed the jurors to go home on the express understanding that they turned back, but could not get away. of them (Hogman) was found a looking-glass would not discuss the case with anyone outside.
On one
f
|
Friday, 23rd December.
467
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
BEFORE SIR HENRY S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE)
R. v. SMITH, HOGMAN, AND NASON.
The case against Charles Smith, age 20, unemployed seaman, fixed abode U.S.A.; Erik Hogman, age 22, unemployed seaman, fixed abode Finland; and William Nason, age 17, un- employed seaman, fixed abode U.B.A., was qon- The prisoners were charged with tinued: haring, on the 27th November last, in Victoria Harbour, wilfully and maliciously with afore. thought, killed Chan Yee.
As before, the Hon. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C. (Attorney-General), instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (rown Solicit..r), prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and the prisoners were defended as follows:-The Hon. Dr. Ho. Kai, for Charles Smith; Mr. Norman Ferrers, for Erik Hogman; Mr. H. S. Calthrop. for William Nason, Mr. O. D. Thomson instructed in each instance.
The jury was as follows:-Messrs. C. H. W. Kew (foreman), S. J. Michael, T. Banks, C. G. S. Mackie, J. Johnstone, R. H. King and G.
M. Smith.
The Attorney General closed the prosecution. on behalf of the Crown.
Mr. Ferrers-My Lord, I should like to cross- examine, as to his competence in the English language, the Swedish interpreter.
This was done.
No witnesses were called for the defence.
་
The Hon. Dr. Ho Kai in addressing the jury said that the prisoners stood indicted on the serious crime of murder, the punishme.t of which was death. They had to deal with the case without prejudice, and in the spirit of English law, but where there was doubt, the prisoners were to have the whole benefit of it. If the Crown failed in any instance in fully establishing any particular point they were quite justified in giving the benefit of the whole doubt to the prisoners. (Dr. Ho Kai here quoted authorities.) He did not suggest that the prisoners were not guilty of a serious crime, but if it had not been proved that they were guilty of wilful murder, according to the definition, they were at liberty to return a verdict of manslaughter. They must consider if these men actually intended killing certain per- sons, as had been represented by the prosecution. he Crown had iven It had not been shown entirely that that was the prisoners intention. them a large number of witnesses. It was not necessary for him to go through the evidence of them all, as most of the witnesses could simply testify to circumstances which atually occurred before or after the alleged act of murder. There had been over a dozen witnesses, but the most material ones only numbered about three: -the boatman, his son and daughter. Dr Ho Kai here alluded to the evidence, and went on to discredit some of the evidenc› witnesses not the
the grounds of being certain about what they had said, and stated that the evidence went to show more lack of motive for the meu committing murder than othorwise. He submitted, after havins dealt with the more important evidence in a detailed
on
manner,
that the Crown had not shown
committed murder. They might have gone beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoners had- so far as to show some illegal act and that death was caused accidentally as a result of this. If the prisoners had had any intention at all it go to was only that of seizing the boat to Singapore in. His learned friend had tried to a parallel between the present
He submitted
draw
case
to 22
that there was no comparison between the two and that of Charles Peate Here they had three young men--dare-devil men who must have been afflicted by some madness-ranging in age from 17
to Singapore who thought they could go in a sampan; they could not be compared with the notorious Peace. Aforethought had not been shown, and if death had resulted it could only be taken as an accident, for which a verdict of manslaughter would be more correct than He was sure they would exercise murder. charity and mercy in giving the prisoners. the benefit of every doubt. According to British law a man was innocent till he was proved guilty.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.