October 29, 1906.]
30th, 1906, after which he was transferred to No. 10 district.
&
was no
Į
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. authority of his employer, Ward, is evidence. When the witness has told us what Ward said there, it will be quite competent for the latter
authority and said more than he was told, or to satisfy the jury that the agent exceeded his that he said something he was not told. What the interpreter, who is Ward's agent, told the witness must not be precluded from the jury.
Mr. Slade-As my friend is suggesting what position to take up, it is only fair to state that the accused says he was not at that house that night. This evidence says that Ward came to his house with another man but the other man is not produced.
His Lordship-I think I will put this question (To interpreter)-Ask the witness to explain how the conversation, which he says took place, was carried on.
Cross-examined-Chan Tsun was in the dis- trict office on or about Jana 23th, when witness entered. Ward was there and said he had brought Chau Tsun for Case of chloride of lime for his latrine. Witness then instructed the clerk to go to the store and requisition, but he replied that there lime in stock. Then, through the clerk, witness told Chan Tsun that there was no lime and that he had better return in a day or two when he would get his issue of chloride of lime. Later, lime was issued and signed for. On that occasion nothing was said in witness' presence about the commission or witnesses. Witness did not speak Chinese, and Chan Tsun did not speak to him when he entered the office. So far as witness knew, Ward knew little Chinese. It was his duty to supervise the work of the accused, but he did not see how the latrines were kept, as it was district inspectors work. He had visited latrines casually.
Re-examined he lessees ought to keep the latrines clean all the time. The Inspector had to visit latrines on his morning patrol. It was necessary for him to visit them ouce in 24 hours, but he was not instructed to pay surprise visits. He ought, though, to efficiently perform his work. Witness arrived
Mr. Slade-If my friend is going to call the district office at nine in the morning. Wong, all right. If not. I cannot admit the The Attorney-General--Aud when you arriv-statement. This evidence is not admissible ed you found Chan Tsun and Mr. Ward to- until it is proved to be a gether there?
at
Mr. Slade-I object. This is a witness for the Crown, and I have cross-examined him. The Attorney-General has the right only to re-examine him, whereas the whole of his questions are cross-exami ation.
His Lordship-At present I don't see any objection.
Mr. Slade-My friend is cross-examining this witness, not re-examining him as he cught to do.
In answer to the question witness said he found defendant and Chan Tsun at the office.
His Lordship-Were there any other people in the office?
Witness-Yes, District Inspector Kelly was there, the Chinese telephone clerk and an interpreter from No. 10 district,
I
Chan Pui, declared, said he lived at 2 Water Street, which was his family house. He owned a number of latrines in the city which were liable to the supervision of the sanitary author. ities. He employed a person to collect monies paid for the use of the latrines. His son was in charge of them, and kept accounts of the profits! made. He also saw that the law regarding tarring, cleansing and whitewashing was carried out.
The books were kept at witness' family house. He remembered being served with a subpoena on June 22nd to attend the Sanitary Commission, His son was not at home at the time. When it was served witness was asked to produce his books. He handed them over, weat with the European sergeant to the central police station, and from there to the Colouial Secretary's office. Nobody, excepting witness, his son and the manager, was interested in these latrines. On June 23rd, at 7 pm., accused called at. witness' private house.
Another man, named Wong, accompanied him. That was the day after his books had been taken to the Commis. sion. Inspector Ward had been in his family house on a previous occasion. Whenever he passed he called in; he always passed and always called in. Accused never sat in witness' house before. On the occasion mentioned they had a talk. Chan Tsun was not present. Mr Ward spoke to him through an interpreter.
Mr. Slade-I object to the courersation unless my friend undertakes to call the interpreter. Then this man's statement could be received as confirming what the interpreter said. Ward going to that house, as is alleged, with an inter- preter, shows prima facie that Ward caunot speak Chinese. What Ward said to the inter- preter, if it could be repeated, would of course be evidence against him, but for this man to say what the interpreter said to him is not evidence against Ward. Unless this is proved to be
1 oorrect translation the evidence is not admissible.
The Attorney-General-Ward, by taking the interpreter with him, constituted that man as his agent, and what the agent said by the
Witness-A consed spoke to the interpreter in English, which I did not understand.
and the man interpreted to me.
His Lordship-I think it would be impossible, would enable the accused to defeat altogether to reject evidence of that nature, because it the ends of justice. Slatements which he himself made are admissible.
Mr. Slade The rules of evidence ar and are rigidly applied in criminal cases.
rigid, His Lordship--I realise that
of what Ward said.
correct translation
His Lordship-At present I am inclined to think it is admissible, but I will look the point up during the tiffin hour.
The court then adjourned.
ཝཱ
After tiffin his Lordship said he had con. sidered the question, which might often arisa. He had to consider the question, as if the whole issue of "guilty or "not guilty" depended on it, that tas to say whether the words spoken constitated an offence and there was no other offence. The objection taken was that they did not know what the mu said. If the rule
was. as alleged that evidence was not admissible without the interpreter, it would enable the accused to destroy all the evidence of the offence with which he was charged. It seemed to his Lordship that the rul- of evidence could not be so applied as to enable a person accused, to destroy all evidence against himself. He must decide that it was admissible to put this statement in, but considered the nonproduction of the interpreter was a question for comment.
Mr. Slade-Our point is that he never existed and they can't produce an imaginary man.
The Attorney-General-He's something like Mrs. Harris.
Continuing. Chan Pui said he did not know the man Wour, neither had he seen him before, or since that evening. The interpreter asked if the office money had been entered in the books. Witness replied that there were entries. They then taught him what to tell his son in order to make him go back to the country and not returu. If he went away from the colon, the accused through the interpreter, siid he would look after witness' interest. Accused then repeated the sentence in Chinese.
Did you order your son to leave the country? —No. I did not want him to go.
He was your manager?-
-Yes. Did you send him away as promised -No; I did not.
|
|
Witness spoke to seeing Lau Long Hing on the 25th June last. On the way to his house he met accused. who spoke to him in Chinese, saying "I see your son has not yet gone away." Witness replied "The upper department has not yet called him. We will see about it when they do." Witness had no intention of sending his sou away. He returned to his family house and accused proceeded in the direction of the branch office.
The
287
on the 25th June, when he responded to the call.
Lo Long Hing said he was in charge of the latrine at No. 3 Sam To Lane,
Was it inspected every day P-Yes, at times; --sometimes always (laughter).
Cross-examined-Wher Inspector Ward came round he usually came alone but sometimes he
spector complained of the condition, witness was accompanied by another. When the In- attended to the matter himself. Sometimes he made the complaints directly, and at other times through the interpreter.
Cross-examined-He had six latrines on lease and had two of his own. There were two men to 1003 after each, and they received the money. A latrine with two entrances would have four men. men would band the money over to his son at the family house once or twice a day. Every now and thou as defendant pissed his family house he would tell witness to instruct his son to have certain places whitewashed. Accused hadi never sant for him except once, and that was
Alfred Carter, recalled, produced a document showing Inspector Ward's salary in dollars for 1904-5.
Chan Tsua, sworn, stated that he was Chan Pai's son, and lived with his father at No. 2 Water Street. He was the general manager of his father's latrines and looked after them. The money collected from them was handed over to him, and with it he defrayed his ex- penses, putting the balance aside. Witness kept an account of the monies paid out, and entered all payments made in connection with the latrines in an account book. Witness knew the accused; having first made his acquaintance between July and August, 1904, at the latrine in Gough Street He was then in charge of
No. 5 district. Money transactious had taken place between accused and witness. First he gave accused a "cumsha," then accused bor- rowed money from him which had not been repaid. The latrines were then under the inspector's supervision, so witness gave him a Christmas present of $30 in December, 1904. This payment was entered in the book in which be kept the latrine accounts. This "cumsha was made at the third floor of 27 Pohingfong, On April 19th, 1905, witness lent accused another $10 in the same house, and again in August 10th there was a loan of $10; on the 25th, $15. Witness made entries in the book for these amounts in his own hand.
*
Mr. Slade objected to the book going in. His Lordship-The book is cot admissible as evidence.
The Attorney-General-A book seized under certain circumstances is admissible in evidence as it supports the witness to the extent that he made au entry. I submit that any witness may say he made certain payments to certain persons on giren dates, and ask to be allowed to refresh bis memory by referring to a book.
His Lordship-Supposing he simply said he made notes on a bit of paper? He couldn't produce those notes.
The Attorney-General-Bat be could look at them to refresh his memory.
His Lordship-I think you've got as far as
you can.
The Attorney-General-Ou count 6 it will perhaps be necessary to put the books in.
carry you to that, but no further. I have some His Lordship-The facts you have got will difficulty in seeing that the entries themselves are very material, as your charge is obstructing a person who was called as a witness.
Witness, continuing, said he gave acoused $20 1905. for a Christmas present on December 24th, He saw Mr. Ward personally and handed him the money at No. 2 Chater Street. Accused, who was lying on the bed, on receiving the money, called his boy to interpret. Witness was out when his father's books were seized. He received a subpoeus from the Commission to attend before it (subposas, dated June 30th, put in). Shortly before that he met the accused at a latrine. On June 28:h he went to the branch office of the Sanitary Department at Pokfulam Road in consequence of a message received.
This was at 9 a.m. When witness arrived at the offix the accused was there, also
two Chinese interpreters. The inspector spoke to him through an interpreter.
Mr. S'ade-Another objection, My Lord. Thes are interpreters in the employ of the Sanitary Board, and my friend has co intention of calling them,
Objection noted.
"The
Witness continuing- Accused said: books are now seized relating to latrines. They were kept by you. You are the only one who made all the entries of the presents and money given to me. You, being the only one, if you leave, there will be an end to everything." Witness said it would be time enough for him to go when the Government found out about
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.