The-Hong-Kong-Weekly-Press-1905-01-23 — Page 8

44

Mr. N. Ferrers-Were the depositions read cand translated to the prisoner before he made

his statement?

Witness-No, but they were interpreted to him as the witnesses gave evidence. The de- positions were read over to each of the witnesses, but not to the prisoner.

There being по further objections the Attorney General read Dango Sang's evidence, which has already been recorded in the Daily

Press.

Lazaro Bebit, the Filipino interpreter, sword, said that no inducement had been held out to the acoused to make the statements; they were perfectly voluntary.

N.E. Nolan said: Yesterday evening at 6.15. I went to the gaol hospital with the last witness, and with him interpreted a statement from the prisoner. He was twice warned that anything he said would be taken against him as evidence. Only the two of us, and the prison warder who opened the gates, were present. The warder did not say anything.

Mr. N. Ferrers-I object to this statement, my Lord. This evidence could not be produced at the Police Court, and therefore cannot be

used now. It is sudden, though I admit that the statement was distribu'ed as quickly as pos-

sible.

His Lordship-De you want an adjournment? The Attorney-General-I cannot oppose an adjournment.

Mr. N. Ferrers There is another subsequent case which would lead one to suppose that the man was insane.

as

The statement was read out; it was follows:- Apowan went into Dango Sang's bed, and I saw him leare. The day after he said You will not go back to Suwok (home)." I was very much afraid. I could not sleep. Apowan said to me it would be better for me to die first. "If you are not dead you will tell the Americans.” I did not sleep for five nights, nor did Apowan. The night after the fifth night Apowan went asleep and I struck him with a knife, and afte: wards escaped from the ship.

Lazaro Bebit, cross-examined, said he believed the prisoner to be same.

Dr. Hunter, in charge of post-mortems, gave evidence. Cross-examined-I know nothing personally about the prisoner.

Dr. Thompson, in charge of the gaol, said :- For some little time I have had the prisoner under observation. I think there is no evidence of insanity. I am of opinion he is sane.

Cross-examined-He has not been suffering from any ailment whatever. He has always spoken rationally, no rambling. I have studied the so-called running amok. Generally speak ing it has been found that there has been some cause for it in the beginning.

His Lordship-Running amok means knock- ing down everyone before you. The evidence is that he went into hiding.

Mr. Ferrers-I am dealing with the murder of the ricksha coo'ie.

His Lordship-He might have escaped. You

can call (how Fuk.

Dr Thompson-I do not think that a man who rans amok is necessarily insane.

Mr. N. Ferrers--Yes, he is, if the man com- mits another murder 24 hours after the first.

His Lordship-I do not think the one very simple fact of two murders with a interval of 24 hours can tell anything.

THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND

|

Chow Fuk,hinese lukong 380, said:-I heard a man shout out for help, a Chinese ricksha coolie. I went to his assistance; he had been stabbed. I proceeded to arrest the prisoner. He resisted and tried to stab me in the chest. He cut my double jacket. I fought with him and

I rolled on the ground together. we blew my whistle and European Constable 49 came to my assistance.

Cross-examined--I did not see the defendant stike anyone except the ricksha coolie and my- self. I do not know why be struck the ricksha

coolie.

Mr. N. Ferrers-What inference did you draw at the Magistracy?

His Lordship-There is no evidence why he killed that man. The jury can draw any con- clusion they like. That night he stabbed four people, two of whom died: you can say that to the jury.

Mr. Ñ. Ferrers-All right, my Lord.

Mr. N. Ferrers in addressing the Jury said | his duty was to defend a man who did not seem to care to take the trouble to defend himself. He had to satisfy them that the man was innocent or that the circumstances were such that the crime did not amount to one of murder, such circumstances which reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter. If they were not satisfied that the man was in his senses he would be confined as the Crown might think proper; and they must be satisfied that he understood the proceedings which are being carried on. He quoted authority.

His Lordship. There is an interpreter and I have no doubt that he is efficient.

Mr. N. Ferrers-There are two, and I do not think you can be satisfied with the efficiency of both of them together.

Continuing Mr. Ferrers said it did not quite rest there. There was no real evidence except the confessions of the prisoner himself, and his mind was weak. The Crown did not bring forward the man Sondong, who was also

wounded,

woman

The Attorney-General-He was at death's door at the time of the trial; he is better now.

Mr. Ferrers continuing said that the jury should disregard the confessions; it was clearly a case of running amok. The reason of the murder was said to be jealousy on the part of the woman, and yet the Crown failed to put the

into Court and submit h.r to cross-examination. Since she Was not there they were entitled to draw con- clusions in favour of the defence. By the con- fession it was stated that after he had seen Apowan with Dango Sang, Apowan made threats, You will not go to Suwok." The prisoner was in fear of his life for five days; Apowan tried to put an end to his life.

44

Mr. Ferrers expatiated on the terrors of those five days, and asked if the provocation was not serious, such, in fact, to reduce the crime from that of murder to manslaughter.

The Attorney-General said that the Crown did not desire to unreasonably press the case against the prisoner, but he submitted that it was not a case of manslaughter. It was as deliberately committed as could be, for reasons of jealousy-not an unusual motive in crimes. The prisoner had been determined to commit the murder for five days. At the expiration of this time Apowan fell asleep, and that was the first opportunity he had of committing the crime.

Other remarks by the Attorney-General were repeated in effect if not in actual words by the Chief Justice in his summing up.

His Lordship said:-Gentlemen of the Jury, the evidence shows deliberate and intentional killing of Apowan by the prisoner, because of the amorous relations of Apowan to Dango Sang, with whom the prisoner was enamoured. A man deliberately killing any man of whose favour with a woman he is jealous is guilty of murder and nothing else unless he can establish that he was irresponsible of the action on account of insanity. If the killing has been deliberate it cannot be manslaughter except in one case,

where a husband finds a man in the actual act of adultery with his wife and kills one of them; and even then, if the provocation is not so great that the killing is not done at once, it cannot be regarded as manslaughter. The prisoner was not the husband of Dango Sang, so Apowan had as much right as the prisoner to her affections.

She was a

grass widow " and could do as she pleased in that respect. And the killing was not done immediately, not at the time when Apowan was in bed with the woman; it was not done for five days. It was done as an act of revenge with intention, purpose and deliberation, and after & long time planning. In fact, the evidence shows that there was a quarrel between Apowan and the prisoner. Because of this each of these men were trying to get their knife into the other, and the prisoner got his knife in first after a long time; that is not a case of manslaughter. No man can ask a jury to find him guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter after watching for his chance for five days. It is either murder or homicide, for which the prisoner is responsible If everyone was to be found not guilty of murder because he was provoked where is the protection of the public to come in

There would be no law or order. There is nothing to lead you to believe that he did not

Was

[January 23, 1905.

know that what he was doing was wrong, but on the other hand he made an attempt to escape. If the man was not aware that he had done wrong he would not have attempted to leave the ship at all. Because he stabbed another man that does not show he did not ‍know that he

doing wrong when killing

the first man. The evidence is that having satisfied his reveng he was about to make his escape and might have had to remove for that purpose the other Filipino. He tried to hide. He was afraid of being caught because he was afraid of trouble, so he did know the difference between right and wrong. The act to the ricksha coolie shows him to be a dangerous person. The confession he gives is this: "When I came on shore I wanted to get on board again. The Chinese said by and bye." The hi ese said by and bye when he wanted the Chinese to take him in a ricksha, and they would not. I do not think the evidence goes to show that he ran amok, but rather that he is a very dangerous character with an uncommonly free use of his knife. You have heard what Dr. Thompson said. He had him under observation and had conversations with him so as to form an opinion as to whether, at the time he committed the offence, he was in his senses. The Doctor was of opinion that the man was not insane, but madly jealous, and that is not a madness which reduces the crime to one of manslaughter except in the case of a husband who finds his wife in the act of adultery, and then it must have been done immediately. If he sees his wife in an act of adultery, and then because of that adulty chases him round town for s week and then shoots him, that is murder. It is very sad and serious, but whether it is sad or whether it is serious you must find the prisoner innocent or find the prisoner. guilty of the act of murder according to the evidence. Gentlemen, consider your verdict.

The Jury were unanimous in returning a verdict of guilty.

His Lordship - Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty of deliberate and intentional killing of a man called Apowan, your associate on board the Tremont. You have told us the reason which prompted you to act as you did was jealousy. That affords no excuse according to the law of this country. Accord- ingly you must be punished in the way which all who take life of another without lawful excuse are punished. That penalty is the forfeiture of your life. The sentence upon you therefore is that you will be taken herce to the place whence you came, and thence on a day to be fixed by the Governor to a place of execution, and there you will be hanged by the neck till you are dead, and your body hereafter buried in such place as selected by the Governor, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

The prisoner showed an inclination to cry, and was about to speak when an Indian con- stable took him by the arm and led him away.

Friday, 20th January.

IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE)

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. Wong Cheuk Yau and Wong Tin were charged with conspiring to get a Chinaman into Australia, who was not entitled to land in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Calthrop, on behalf of the Attorney- General, instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted for, the Crown. Mr. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. G. K. Ball Brutton, defended the first prisoner.

The charge abbreviated was as follows:--- (1) That Wong Cheuk Yau, and Wong Tin, on the 13th November last, and on divers other days thereafter between that day and the 21st December last, at Victoris (Hongkong) unlawfully, fraudulently, and deceitfully did amongst themselves conspire, confederate aud agree together, and with divers other persons unknown to the Attorney- General, by divers false pretences and unlaw- ful and subtle ways, means, stratagems and devices, to deceive the agents of the China Navigation Company, Limited, and divers other liege subjects of Our Lord the King, and to

เ