288
manslaughter. The prisoner was the chief watchman at Quarry Bay shipyard, and deceased was one of several coolies employed on those works. On the morning of the 26th March Ng King was engaged with other coolies storing timber in one of the godowns. While so engaged the prisoner looked in at the door, and deceased asked him what he came there for, following up his question by swearing at him. The prisoner it appeared swore back at the deceased, went into the godown, and, as witnesses allege, kicked him more than once on the left side of the body. One of the witnesses said the deceased attempted to run away but prisoner followed him, caught him by the queue, struck him on the side of the face and again kicked him on the body. It was said that deceased staggered from the effect of the blows he received, and a short time afterwards died. A post-mortem was subsequently held upon the body with the result that the doctor found the spleen had been ruptured and came to the conclusion that this rupture caused death.
On the evidence the jury found the prisoner guilty, but with a strong recommendation to mercy.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
POLICE COURT.
Thursday, April 19th,
BEFORE MR. F. A. HAZELAND (FIRST POLICE MAGISTRATE).
WHAT IS OPIUM?—AN INTERESTING DEBATE. An unusual caso came before the Court in which his Worship had to decide who was entitled to the possession of certain cases of compound opium which had been seized-14 cases of muriate morphia on 7th April and 4 6th April. Mr. John Hastings appeared for one claimant, and Mr. F. B. Deacon (of Messrs. Deacon, Loker and Deacon) appeared for the Opium Farmer.
C1508 on
His Worship-Is there no chance of the parties coming to some settlement?
Mr. Deacon -My friend is only concerned for a portion of the seizure, soven cases. There
are 18 cases,
His Worship-Is there no chance of coming to a settlement with regard to the seven cises? Mr. Hastings-We have been notified to come His Lordship sentenced him to three months' here and prove our claim. There is no antagon- imprisonment without hard labour, the periodism between us and the Opium Farmer. I have since his arrest and detention in custody to count as part of the sentence.
Thursday, April 19th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Chau Kau and Ho Sau were indicted on a charge of committing robbery with violence in the harbour on March 4tb.
•
Sir H. S. Berkeley, Attorney General, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of the Crown Solicitor's office) prosecuted, the prisoners, who pleaded not guilty, being unrepresented.
one or two points to mention. I think the procedure has not been quite in order, but I will
come to that later.
Mr. Deacon-As regards the 11 cases I apprehend it will be sufficient if I prove there has been a breach of the Ordinanco in respect
of them.
His Worship-If there is no claim I think it follows ipso facto that it shall be forfeited. All that will be necessary to prove is that there has been due notice.
Mr. Hastings-As I am called upon to prove my claim, your Worship will wish me to begin. The goods which have been seized are seven cases of morphine. In the first place I should mention that the section of the Ordinance referring to opium does not apply to these goods. The claimant is Chan Yat-wa, a merchant, who on the 31st January last made a contract with Mossrs. Rumjahn and Co. for the purchase of 14 caseR of morphine to be delivered in two shipments, the first to be here within two months. I should add that we have a license, but the goods never came into our possession.
His Worship-So that if I make an order that the goods be delivered to you, your client is a proper person to receive them?
Mr. Hastings Yes.
The Attorney General said it seemed that the complainant, Lo Kau, was sleeping in her boat when four men, of whom the two prisoners were alleged to have been part, went up to her boat impersonating police, and said they had come to search on suspicion of her having smuggled goods aboard. They carried with them a dark lantern such as police would use. At first complainant thought they were police, but their real character was soon disclosed. Their boat drew up alongside hers, and to make a long story short they robbed her of rings and other jewellery. They porpetrated an act of great cruelty in order to secure one of the rings, biting the complainant's finger until it bled. The question the jury had to decide was whether the prisoners were two of the men concerned, and evidence would be called in corroboration of the claimant then the cases must be delivered to the woman's statement that they were.
The evidence having concluded, the jury retired, and on returning to their box found the first prisoner grilty and the second not guilty.
His Lordship sentenced the first to three
years' imprisonment with hard labour, and discharged the second.
IN SUMMARy JurisdictION.
Mr. Deacon-I am not admitting that.
His Worship-The proper procedure where there is a claimant would be for the Opium Farmer to take proceedings against him by
summons.
Otherwise I don't
890
how tho
matter is before the Court.
Mr. Hastings-If no charge is made against
me.
If the Opium Farmer thinks he has a charge against anybody he can make it. It goes without saying if he proves his claim it should be delivered."
His Worship The Ordinance does not meet the case where there is a claimant. The Opium Farmer should proceed by summons either against Rumjabn and Co. or against the claim. ant. Otherwise you are not before the Court. Mr. Hastings-I am before the Court. I am a claimant. If I don't appear before the Court
BEFORE Mr. A. G. W18h (PUISNE JUDGE), my goods will be confiscated. Having proved
▲ SCHEME FOR TIME.
Lau Tax-pan sued A. A. da Roza to recover the sum of $50 due for money lent.
Mr. H. K. Holmes appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant, who was absent, being unrepresented..
Mr. Holmes said a obeque for the amount was offered him yesterday, but he was told it he accepted it costs would not be forthcomig. He understood the defendent had engaged a solicitor.
His Lordship-It is simply a scheme for gaining time to let him get over to Macao; however, I suspected it at first.
The plaintiff gave evidence as to advancing the defendant $50, which amount he said was Etill owing.
Hie LordshipAll right, judgment and costs, and I hope you'll get it, because it's the
second time this has occurred.
my claim I am entitled to the possession of my goods. I am a claimant and not a defendant, because there is no charge against me,
His Worship-Supposing I decide you have not made out your claim?
Mr. Hastings-Well, I could not take the goods.
Hie Worship-Well, you are practically the
same.
Mr Deacon-In the first place my friend is claimant and it necessarily follows that the Opium Farmer is respondent. If that be admitted as the true position, it must follow that the claimant must adduce the evidence on which he bases his claim. The Opium Farmer is ready to adduce opposing evidence as respondent to that claim.
Mr. Hastings-If he can show we are not He the owners he is quite entitled to do so. cannot a out any criminal charge against any body because that is not before the Couft*
[April 21, 1906.
Mr. Descon-That brings me nearer to m second point. The proper procedure unde section 37 of the Ordinance is that the Opium Farmer should show that there has been an offence committed.
His Worship-The offence is in the possession of the opinn
Mr. Deacon-I don't know that is an offence, At present my friend has not proved he is in possession.
His Worship-Ho is going to satisfy me he is in possession.
Mr. Hastings-I have not entered into | possesion,
Mr. Deacon-I think it will be convenient if we proceed.
Mr. Hastings-My client mado a contract with Messrs Rumjahn and Co., from whom ko received some days before the 5th of April an invoice of the goods which arrived by the Devanka on 5th April and apparently were landed in the godowns at Kowloon or placed in lighters. Now we come to this important point. The cases were seized by the exoise officers on the 6th and 7th instant, but my client knew nothing about this, and on the 9th paid the full amount of the balance, $7,029, - and obtained the bill of lading. Up to that point he had no right to the goods or to possos- sion of them. Our position is this. We have a right to the delivery of these goods. They have porer been in our possession, although we have paid for them." I understand that Ramjahn and Co. informed the Opium Farmer about these goods having arrived. There was nothing done behind his back. My second, point is that the document will, I think prove we are entitled to the possession of them.
Some discussion followed as to the warrant, but the Magistrate stated there had been no warrant, as the goods had been seized on board ship.
Mr. Hastings, continuing his argument, said that that was not opium within the meaning of the section. In the first place, morphine, although it contained a substraction of opium, was not opium, and he submitted that if that were opium medicines containing opium, such as soothing syrup, would come within its purview and that would be absurd.
Tho claimant, Chan Yat-wa, merchant, 16, Ko Shing Street, gave evidence which bore out the opening statement. Under cross-examina- tion he said ho was aware of the fact that Ho Rumjahu and Co. were not licensed. intended to export the goods. He had not gone to the superintendent of imports and exports to make a declaration.
Mr. Deacon said he did not propose to call any evidence.
Mr. Hastings rocapitulated the points in his contention that the goods were improperly seized, because they were not
opium, and that he had proved the ownership of his client, who was not the importer, to those goods.
His Worship-I am not clear as to the point I have to try.
Mr. Deacon-I apprehend it is this. Under section 39 of the principal Ordiusuce notice was posted calling upon any pors a who olaimed to be the owner of this opium, or compound opium, which was found apparently without an owner, to it. That is what my friend has come for now. That is the only thing that can be before the Court at present. There is nothing in the Ordinance to show what will happen as the result of proceedings such as this. I submit that the intent of the section was to enable the Opiuma Farmer to know against whom he should take proceedings if he desired.
His Worship-The question is whether the section could ever apply to goods like this.
Mr. Deacon-Quite so. That is one of the points on which my friend puts reliance. Proceeding, he argued that the two Ordinances must be considered as one Ordinance for every purpose. Mr. Hastings had suggested that the contract was an executory one, and that his client did not become the owner until he had paid for the cases. the man brought them through an intermediary or not, he was the importer of the g”, both in law and in fact.
He contended that whether
His Worship-If he is the importer rightly in possession under his licence.
Mr. Deacon-He has not the right to goods. He is not before the Court as importer.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.