t
E
J
182
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
And did you tell him he needn't be afraid about remarks as to your solvency ?—I told him not to be afraid because of my not paying people. I would try to put matters right and pay the creditors.
Have you disclosed in your statement of affairs all your property -Yes, I have.
Have you enclosed in it your share in the estate of Leung U-shang deceased, in Can- ton ?—That's not mine.
The widow of deceased advertised in a Chinese paper that you had a share in that property?. It's not true."
His Lordship The money you raised on each of there purchases you paid a former debt with ? - Generally.
Mr. Looker-Robbing Peter to pay Paul Mr. Harding and the Official Receiver then questioned debtor, after which.
Mr. Looker submitted that apart from the question of fraud, which was one for a jury, the debtor had entirely brought himself within subsections P and 2.
His Lordship-I don't quite see what you want me to do.
Mr. Looker-Your Lordship can do two things. You can either now cause him by war- rant to be arrested because you think it is probable he has committed an offence; if it appears to your Lordship there is reason suppose he is guilty of the offence we say he is, your Lordship may order his prosecution.
to
His Lordship-My own opinion is that if you want to get him you'd get him better on a charge of perjury, but that you will have to prove.
Mr. Looker-Our difficulty is that we have no counsel here.
His Lordship-But you will have to stait at the Police Court. By that time Mr. Calthrop will probably be back. 1 am not going to direct a prosecution, but have not the slightest objection to order a warrant for his arrest for a week, but I won't keep him through the vacation. I think a week wll be time enough to enable you to make up your mind.
The Official Receiver-They have prosecuted him already.
His Lordship—And they failed. Mr. Looker-But we did not prosecute him for a bankruptcy offence.
His Lordship-You prosecuted him for obtaining money by false pretences: that's the same thing.
Mr. Looker-We prosecuted him under the Debtors' Act for obtaining credit by fraud.
His Lordsbip ordered that a warrant be issued for the debtor's arrest, and that be be imprisoned for one week. He also closed the public
and examination
adjudicated the debtor bankrupt.
Friday, September 13th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
LI CHI-CHIN'S AFFAIRS. The matter of Li Chi-obia was again meu- tioned. It will be remembered that his Lordship held this defendant to be a partner in the Tak Li Lung firm, and as such 26 judgments were entered against him, and on the application of his solicitor, Mr J. H. Gardiner (of Messrs.
Brutton and Helt), execution stayed pending appeal.
|
The amount these two plaintiffs sought to recover was $1,008.62. Both proved their olaims, and judgment was entered for each with costs, and as in the other cases, execution stayed pending the appeal.
Mr. Gardiner informed his Lordship that security would be given to cover these two
cases.
His Lordship-Let's go into original now.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WIBF (PUISNE JUDGE).
BROTHERS IN COURT.
Li Po-lang sued Li Pak to recover the sum defendant at his request, and interest thereon of $10,597.26, being money paid by plaintiff for
at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum. In this Kai, instructed by Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of cise, and in the succeeding two, Hon. Dr. Ho
Messrs. Brutton and Hett) appeared for the plaintiff, the defendants being a sent and without representatives.
Li Po-lung stated that on January 17th, 1905, his brother borrowed the amount claimed from the Bank of Taiwan, and be became surety. The money had not been repaid.
His Lordship gave judgment and costs for the plaintiff.
In the second sotion Li Po-lung claimed from the Luk Yeung Wo Kee Bank and Li Kee-tong the sum of 821,353,45 due ou à bill of exchange which plaintiff paid on behalf of the defendant. On plaintiff swearing that none of this amount had been repaid, his Lordship gave judgment and costs for him.
In a third action against the Luk Qoung Wo Kee and Li Pak, plaintiff deposed te paying an amount of $23,131.54 at the request of his brother. This amount was still due and owing. His Lordship entered judgment and costs for plaintiff.
THE DES VEUX ROAD MURDER.
ONE MAN EXECUTED.
[September 16, 1907.
THE EXTRADITION CASE.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Mr. F. A. Hasoland on Fept, 12 at the Magis- tracy gave his decision in the case in which the Chinese Government applied for the extradition of Iu Kai Shing on a charge of armed robbery. Mr. Morrell, Crown Solicitor, appeared in support of the application, while Air Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, appeared for the defendant.
His Worship said-The defendant was brought before me under the Chinese Ex- tradition Ordinance, 1889, charged with the commission of the crime of armed robbery com- mitted within the jurisdiction of Chine. The facts of the case were as follows:-On the morning of the 17th April, 1907, at 1.30 s.m., broke into the family house of one Ng Pai, the defendant and thirteen or fourteen others
situate at Ha Yun village, in the Yan Ping district, Kwongtung province, China. The defendant and these thirteen or fourteen men were all armed. Whilst they were in the house the defendant shot and killed Ng Pai. The defendant and these thirteen or fourteen men took away from the house that night 200 pieces of clothing, jewellery to the value of about $1,500, and over $700 in money.
The defence set up was that of an alibi and also that the requisition for the sur. render of the defendant has been made with a view to try and punish him for an offence of a political character. Section 10 of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance, 1889, is as follows:-" If, at the hearing before a Magi- strate, such evidence is produced as would, subject the committal of the fugitive criminal for frisl to the provisions of this Ordinance, justify at the Supreme Court if the crime of which he is accused had been committed in the Colony, the Magistrate shall commit him to Victoria Gaol to await the further order of the Governor, but otherwise shall order him to be discharged."
The provision as to when a magistrate is to discharge or commit an accused is contained in Section 76 of the Magistrates' Ordinance, 1890. The Section is as follows:- When all On September 11th one of the three men the evidence offered on the part of the prosecu- sentenced to death for the murder of a foreman|tion against the accused has been heard, if the in Messrs. Watson's Aerated Water Factory was banged at Victoria Gaol. As usual nothing was learned of the occurrence until after it bad taken place, the announcement of the death inquiry for yesterday afternoon being the first intimation that the sentence had been carried
out.
In the afternoon Mr. F. A. Hazelaud con- ducted an inquiry touching the de th of Tam Pia alias Tam Tak, and Messrs. J. A. Tarrant, D. L. Gubbay and J. W. Sloyer composed the jury.
Mr. E. J. Pierpont, obief warder, said that deceased was received into Victoria Gaol under sentence of death on August 20th. The sentence was carried out at two minutes past five yester- day morning in presence of the Assistant Superintendent of the Gaol (Mr. R. J. Craig), Dr. Moore, witness, and the usual escort. Witness produced the warrant for the execution. Dr. Moore, medical officer in charge of Victoria Gaol, who was present at the execution, He made
stated that death was instantaneous.
found that death was caused by dislocation of a post mortem examination of the body and
the neck.
The jury found that desth was due to disloca
Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, who appeared for some of the plaintiffs, informed his Lordshiption of the neck in the due course of law. that security hd been submitted to the Registrar and he was considering it.
Mr. R. A. Harding, also representing a number of plaintiffs, asied that the security be put up in cash, not in guarantees. He under. stood the defendant had effected a sale of certain property this week, and had the proceeds.
His Lordabip-That is a question to go and argue with the Registrar.
Mr. Almada-Will your Lordship fix a time for the Registrar to get the seo. rity ?
It is apparent that as only one man has been executed, the death sentence passed upon the other two has been commuted.
ADSETTS.
We understand that during the last few days witnesses who are to give evidence in connection with the extradition proceedings for the return of Adretts to this Colony have been in attendance at the office of the Crown Solicitor. Their number is said to be between 20 and 30. Adsetts, as has been reported, is to be taken to Manila by the U.8.8. Gaire ton, so in all Mr. B. Harding—Yes, my Lord, and I appear probability the de bene esse evidence of these
His Lordship I can't fix a time for the Registrar to make up bis mind. You'd better go and see him, and bring the matter up in Chambers. There are two more cases to-day I |
for the plaintiffs."
witnesses will be forwarded to that city.
|
|
Magistrate is of opinion that it is not sufficient to put the accused upon bis trial for
ад
indictable offence, the Magistrate shall forthwit‹ order the accused, if in custody, tɔ be discharged as to the information then under inquiry; but if, in the opinion of the Magi- strate, such evidence is sufficient to put the accused upon his trial for an indictable offence, or if the evidence given raises a strong or probable presumption of the guilt of the accused, then the Magistrate shall, by his warrant, commit him to prison to be there safely kept until he shall be thene delivered by due course of law or admit him to bail as hore- inbefore mentioned."
毒。
The above Section is identical with Section 25 of the Statute 24 and 25, Victoria o. 42, an Act of Parliament commonly known as Jervis's Act. On page 898 of Oke's Magisterial Synopsis the author publishes in a footnote the practice to be followed as to when Justices are to discharge or commit an accused nader Section 25 of Jervis's Act. The footnote is as 50). Mr. Justice Bayley observed: I think that follows:-"In Cox v Coleridge (I. B. and C.
a Magistrate is clearly bound, in the exercise of a sound discretion not to commit anyone unless a prima facie case is made out against him by a witness entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. Justices ought not, therefore, to balanos the evidence and decide socording an it preponderater, for this would, in fact, be taking upon themselves the functions of a petty jury, and be trying the case, but they should consider whether or not evidenos makes out a strong or probable, or even a conflicting case of guilt; in any one of which ones they should commit the socused to trial. If, however, from the slender nature of the evidence, the unworthiness of the witnesses, or the conetnaive proof of innocenos produced on the part of the secused, they feel that the case is not sustained, and that if they sent it for trial he must be acquitted, they should discharge the scensed "
In the present case, west on his Worship, the evidence in my opinion raises a strong
}
:
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.