December 23, 1905.)
Jacob Jebsen, J. Ó. Hughes, Kelly Sayce, E. A. Schroeder and Jas. Little.
The Attorney-General said, prisoners were charged with the offence, unusual of late, of forcibly detaining some six Chinaman with a view to obtaining ransom for their liberation. The indictment was laid under B statute peculiar to the colony, and the facts would be detailed by the six men, who alleged they were forcibly detained for the purpose already stated. They belonged to the Heung Shan distriot, somewhere in the direction of Macao, and owing to the fact that the capture was made outside of their jurisdiction he had not b en able to institute a prosecution for taking the meu as well as detaining them. The case was this. Some six men in charge of farms of various sorts and sizes in China, all close together, were captured by a bind of armed robbers and ta on away from their farms. They were taken, according to the evidence of the six men, by boat down to Wong Moon, and there they were placed in huts on the billside, where they remained some time until they were taken elsewher. Then they were put in a fishing boat and taken to Macao, wheuce they were conveyed by steamer to Hongkong by the second prisoner. Undoubtedly the circumstances were p culiar. It would appear ridiculous that one little man could force six men to go against their will to Hongkong on a steamer, but yet such was the story. Th captured men were taken from the interior of China, where they had never seen a European before, and were terrified by their captors who threatened to kill them if they attempted to escape. However there was the fact that the seco d prisoner, who was a some- what little man and who was probably a ma of great force of mind if not of body, took those six inen to Hongkong and hand-d them over to a brothel keeper at Yaumati. The men would tell the jury that they were ordered by te little man, and being go terrified they did as they were told. They were some days at Yau- mati when the detective department under Inspector Hanson instituted inquiris and had the men released.
His Lordship-What evidence bave you of de'ention at Yaumati ?
I
The Attorney General said the men would state that they were kept there. Persons could be imprisoned in a room if sufficient moral force were employed without resorting to physical force at all. The object w 's to detain the men until they were ransomed by their employers or friends. The offence was very rare here, but at one time it was extremely common and special legislation had to be passed in 186› to deal with it. It seemed a range that six men should be brought to Hongkong by one man, but they kusw that truth was stranger than fiction. When he read the depo-itions he thought it was a strange story, but they were bound to pros sonte.
The first complainant related how he was surprised one night by ten armed men eutering the farm premises and asking who was the hed man. He replied that he was and was dragged away by the men to the river and placed in a bat. They made him paddle the boat. They stopped at different places on the river aud other five men were captured. The boat proceeded down the river and at a certain place were lodged in huts on the hillside, Subseque tly they were put on board a junk, forced into the hold and taken to Macao, from which they sai'ed in a steamer to Hongkong, being afterwards conveyed to Yaumati.
the men
were
To his Lordship-The six men
not afraid of the little man himself but were afraid
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
would pay ransom for him. He believed the threats of the second man because a farmer next bim had been captured by robbers, but escaping went back to his farm, where he was recaptured and killed.
The third complainant said they were fairly well treated at Yaumati. He recognised the first defendant as the owner of the brothel.
The a-cond defendant was the man who fright. ened him with threats.
After other witnesses had been heard, the Chief Justio said there was no case against the first man, who, by consent of the jury, was discharged.
The Attorney-General addressed the jury at some length, after which,
His Lordship summed up. He said the story was one such as a novelist might have told, and no doubt the jury were at first not inclined to bi credulous, but he thought is the cis had gone on, and as they 8 A those simple folk and heard their story he thought they would agree with him that the case was really a serious one and had to be seriously cou- sidered. The jury would have to bear in mind that they had nothing to do with the capture of the men outside the colony but simply with their detention in Yaumati. The question was whether they believed that those six men had bren tyrannised over by that lit le man in th- box.
of the others and of the consequences of running away. Their captors threatened them they would be sent to prison if they o-cped. When put in the junks the men called them fools if they tried to escape.
Why did they call you fools ?-Beasuse they
did not know us.
Were you in terror of your life?—What do you think? (laughter).
The jury found prisoner guilty, and sentence of seven year's hard labour was pissed by his Lordship.
The second complainant bore out the state- ment of previous witness. He said they remained in the house at Yuma'i because the second man said if he ran away he would be brought back and slaughtered. The second man advised him to say if anyone entered the house that he had come down there, to better himself. If he stayed there quietly his master
IN SUMMARY JURIS ICTION.
BEFORE MR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
E ON FIRM P U KAM.
441
of kerosene in the place, and that drops of barning liquid were seen dropping from the first floor to the ground floor. After explaining that in such cases the prosecution had to rely largely on circumstantial evidence, the Attorney- General sa d he would prove that the premises were iusured for $27,0 10 and that, at the time of the fire, the goods in the godown only represented a value of about $1,00. Thus there was the probability of defendants, in the event of their setting fire to the premises, gaining $26,000. Again he would prove that on or about 21th September the s oond prisoner invested $15,000 in the godown, which he drew out in three instalments within a fortnight's time At 2 o'clock on the morning following the fire the second defendant was in the shop fully dressed. He never called for the polios and these circum- stances would require explanation.
Evilence for the prosecution was adducel at considerable length.
Mr Slade, in opening the defenc», said there was no doubt that this house was set on fire, but the question the jury hal to decide was whether it was-t on firm by either of the two m-n. If the jury eliminated the evidence as to the nature of the fire the burning oil and the fire in s parate places-to what did the evidence agafust the men amount. It amount, d to nothing more than that a constable saw the first pris ner as he was coming out of the go- down and apprebeuded him after a miraculously quick run. With regard to the second prisoner, the master of the shop, it was said by the detectire that he was found in the morning fully dressed. But counsel would call evidence to show that that was untrue and that prisoner was in bed when the police called. He got up at their request and went round with them to the Police Station. They would see the importanc of that when they rem imberel that the case against the second prisoner depen led absolutely upon the evidence of the policeman. The only other evidence against the second prisoner was that of a policeraan, who had been in the Colony for 21 months, and who said he identified him as the man he had den under the light of a street limp wa'king in front of the premises where the fire took place. It was absurd to
This act on brought to recover $212-8 balance of money du for work done and material supplied, consisting of the erection of certain matsheds, etc., was adjourned from Friday in order that his Lordship might have an opportunity of reading a judgment given in a previous case. Mr. F. P. Helt appeared for the defendant. for the plaintiff firm and Mr. C. T. Dixon At the former hearing Mr. Hett argued that the sum of $22.80 which had been paid into court without speci-Chin man's features, and he remin led the fication of the item for which the money was paid was au admission of the cause of action and they were entitled to judgment for the full
amount.
for $232.88 being the full amount less $10 His Lordship gave judgment for plaintiff which should have be a credited by the plaintiff firm as having been received by one of their employees.
Tuesday, 19th December.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALLEGED AREON.
Kwok Fat and Li Kat Hin were arraigned on a charge of arson, with wilfully setting fire to premises at 462 Des Voeux Roal with intent to defraud two insurance companies, the Meiji and the National Prussian The Attorney-General conducted the prosecution; and prisoners, who pleaded not guilty, were defended by Mr. W N. Slade (instructed by Mr. O. D. Thomson).
1
The following jury were empanelled – Messrs. William J. Crawford (foreman), Harry Hodg· H. W. B. Kennett, F. Campbell. G. A MacGregor, J. I. Andrew, and F. O Reynolds
The Attorney-General, in opening the cas3, said the prisoners were charged with setting fire to a godown in Des Voeux Roid West, in which the second prisoner was a partner and the first an employes. When the fire broke out on the night of 22nd November the examina. tion made then would satisfy the jury that the fire had been deliberately set, and they would be satisfied that it had been set, with the purpose of defrauding the insurance companies. The evidence would satisfy them that the godown had been fired in five different places, and there would be little difficulty in coming to the con- clusion that it was a case of arson. In addition to what he bad mentioned, the jury would be told that there were distinct and strong smells
think that oud oɔuld remember the details of a
jury of the ghastly mi-takes that hal been male in the administration of justica, by placing reliance on the evidence of identification.
Li Chow Su, a sleeping partner in the Wong Fook Tai, spoke to being in the shop on the night in question and lo skel through the books with Li Kat Hn. Shortly after 10 o'clock he went to baud told the latter to go to bed. He did so and was roused out of bed by the polica knocking them up.
Cro-s-examined-He told Li Kat Hin to go
to bed.
-
Why did you tell him to go to bed that night? – I told him on other nights to go to bed. Why? Well he is my cousin, and I took an interest in him (laughter).
-
And did you leave anyone in charge (when you returned to Canton) to send your cousin to bed ?. -No, Le was left to his own discretion.
And he could stay up late if he liked ?--Yes (langhter).
The cook at the house also gave evidence as to his master's movements that night.
Mr. Slade and the Attorney-Gener having ad Iressed the jury at length, his Lordship summed up.
The jury after a short absence returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
His Lordship passed sentence of seven years' hard labour upon the first prisoner and five years' hard labour upon the second.
Wellnesday, 20th December.
IN CRIGINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
AN INDIAN'S MURDER. Three Indians named Mowaz Khan, Rakhan Deon and Kanj Mallah, were indicted for the murder of Mas'af Khan on Novemb·r 22nd. The Attorney-General prosecuted and Hon. Dr. H Kai appeared for the first and second defendants, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop for third defendant.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.