October 28, 1907.]
ed friend also points out that there would have been blood stains on the sheet and bed. In all probability prisoner stripped these articles from the bed and took the clothes away before he committed the act. The bed was found in an ordinary condition and the theory that the prosecution puts before you is that before he committed the act con. siderable force was used. In strangulation blood would come from the nose and mouth, and if the act had been committed by the woman she could not have exercised a great force and in all probability there would not have been the amount of blood of which the analyst speaks. If my learned friend relies on the theory of suicide his client does not. He mentions the thousand thoughts which he tells us about. One of his thoughts was B. Booth-in other words implying that some one had intentionally murdered that woman owing to the dispute which had previously taken place with B. Booth, He also tells us that he would not sleep in the room that night, not because his paramour had committed suicide but because I was afraid whoever did that deed might wreak their ven- geance on me". You are asked to consider what the prisoner's motive is? I repeat that the motive in the case for the Crown is one of plunder. Do you believe the story of the prisoner that this unfortunate woman handed all her jewellery to him Do you
believe the story for & single moment that he was at this house and carried the woman's jewellery about in his pocket ? I submit the story is so absolutely unreasonable as to divest it of the slightest credit. In cir- cumstantial evidence there must be an unbroken chain. Is there any broken link in this chain P We have put before you abundant evidence as to the movements of the accused. We have traced him from Manila to the Hongkong Hotel. We have traced the movements of the woman and him throughout that day. All I can say, gentlemen, if the story of the pri soner is to be believed, it he is not a murderer he is a lunatic, for no man with any sanity could possibly have been guilty of such ludicrous conduct as he has. He asks you to believe that when he arrived that night he thought he would be disgraced. He posed as a Simon Pure, that his reputation would be gone, because, forsooth, the woman in the hotel with whom he was in company was not his wife. If the woman had strangled herself there would not have been any marks on the table cloth adjoining. Gentlemen. I could address you for another hour, but I do not think any good would be served by it. My learned friend has appealed to you to give his client every possible fair play. That I am sure you will do. That is the pleasing duty of every British jury. My learned friend has hinted to you in the course of his speech more than once that if your verdict was in favour of his client it would be an unpopular verdict. Gentle men, by innuendo, it would be suggested that you are wreaking vengeance on the prisoner. It is not within your province to avenge. Ven- geance is the prerogative only of a higher power of the Divine power. There is a higher quality than vengeance and that is justice. That quality you are here to bestow. That justice, and justice only on behalf of the Crown I seek at your hands. I invite you to say that the evidence before you, based as it is upon an unbroken chain, leaves no reasonable doubt in your minds that this man did to death this poor unfortunate woman, and I submit that the charge of wilful murder has been fully sustained.
His Lordship, in summing up, said his duty had been considerably lightened by the state- ment made by the prisoner, because there was no question of identification and the story of the Crown and that of the prisoner was on all fours, excepting one or two minor points. One of these points was that raised by the prosecution with regard to the alleged attempt to sink the trank, but as the prisoner had admitted taking the trunk to the "Monteagle" for the purpose of getting rid of it, the jury need take no no'ice of the point. His Lordship reviewed prisoner's statement and showed there was a hiatus in the stories for the Crown and for the defence which the jury had to fill. They had to confine their attention to sometime in
the small hours of Sunday morning after the prisoner and decessed had left the houses up the street and 6 or 7 o'mlock. As to the Ship Street
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
|
is necessary that you should not be able to exercise that talent for sometime. You are sentenced to three years hard labour on each count, concurrently.
Hon. Mr. W. Rees Davies, Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell, from the Crown Solicitor's office, prosecuted, and Mr. G. E. Morrell, from A. Jackson (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) was retained for the defence.
incident, prisoner could produce no evidence of any description as to it; the incident was only supported by his own evidence and then there was the evidence of the boy who saw him at 6 o'clock in the hotel. If the boy spoke the truth
ROBBERY AND RECEIVING, the Ship Street story was a myth." He could not Cheung Kin, Chan Sam and Cheung Tsun-po be in the Hotel at 6 o'clock if he was sleeping were indicted on charges of robbery and receiv- at Ship Street at seven; the carpenter also saiding. Prisoners denied the charges, and the the prisoner was there at 6.3. The jury had following jury was empanelled:-5. Owen to consider these facts in coming to a verdict. (foreman), S. A. Abmet, J. Merzier, E. A. The theory of the prosecution was that prisoner Costa, E. J. Chapman, C. B. Hayward and strangled the woman and went out and got the P. Buckle. box to put the body in. That may be true or not. On the other hand the prisoner states that sither the woman was murdered by an outsider or suicided, As to the outside person the jury could not give the story credence as it was im- possible for anyone to enter the Hongkong Hotel without being seen or heard. and there was no motive for it, as if an outsider committed the murder he left the stuff behind him, and if he went to murder it was done for the pure sake of murder. The jury did not need to worry about that point. That brought them to the suiside theory. They had to consider whether the deceased deliberately lay down, tied the waistbelt round her neck a d twisted it tight with the brush. His Lordship did not attach much importance to the evidence of blood, and thought the jury could make up their mind that death was due to strangulation, which in all probability was due to murder and not suicide. The motive for murder seemed to him stronger than the one for suicide. If there was a reason able doubt, such a doubt as ordinary common- sense men of the world could call a doubt, then the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of it and they would let him go.
The jury did not ask any questions but retired at 12-58. They returned in six minutes. The Registrar-Gentlemen of the jury, are you agreed upon your verdict?
-
The Foreman Mr. E. A. Ram)-We are. Are you unanimous ? - Yes.
Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty? Guilty.
His Lordship (to prisoner)-Have you any. thing further to add to what you have already said?
Adsetts No, Sir.
His Lordship-William Hall Adsetts. The jury have unanimously found you guilty of murder upon the clearest evidence that ever came before me since I have been a judge. Considerable time has passed since August 4 and you bave had plenty of time for considera. tion. I have no doubt that some time or other your thoughts were extremely unpleasant ones, and I do not wish to add to that unpleasantness by any words of mine. I shall simply confine myself to passing sentence upon you.
After placing the black cap upon his head, His Lordship continued:-The sentence of the Court is that you be taken hence to the place from whence you came and thence to the place of execution and there you shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead and your body shall be buried in such place as the Governor may direct, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
Adsetts, who listened to the sentence with drooping head, did not utter a sound, and was escorted from the dock, a large crowd outside waiting to see his departure.
Thursday, October 24th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
FORGERY.
|
The Attorney-General stated that the prisoners at the bar were before the Court on an information charging them on the first count with robbery with violence, and on the second with being in possession of stolen property. Regarding the second count, he pointed out that if the jury were not satisfied they were guilty of the robbery, then it was open to them to find the prisoners gailty of being in receipt of stolen property unless they could give a reasonable account of how they became possessed of it. The robbery took place at Takmun in the New Territory on the night of the 16th Septem- ber.
The
The
A woman named Cheung Sap-yat was living in a house there with her daughter- in-law. On the night in question the two women heard a noise, and saw five men enter the house through a skylight. prosecutrix identified one man only-the second defendant. She would say that two were armed with knives, and the second defendant threatened to stab her to death if she made a noise. She saw all the robbers break open some boxes and take away some clothing. mother-in-law spoke definitely to all three pri. soners whom she identified as being with other two men who entered the house. A search was made at the houses of the three prisoners, and some of the property stolen that night was found in possession of the first and third defendant, but none was found in the house of the second. The case Was one purely of identity, and it would be for the jury to be satisfied as to whether the prisoners were there that night. Not being satisfied as to the evidence of identity, could the prisoners then give a reasonable account of how they became possessed of the stolen property?
Evidence was called, and the case adjourned.
Friday, October 25th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
FOBBELY AND RECEIVING.
The hearing of the charges of robbery and of being in possession of stolen property pre- ferred against Cheung Kin, Chân Sam and Chenng Tsan-po was concluded. The attorney. General, Hon. Mr. W. Rees Davies, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell from the Crown Solicitor's Office, prosecuted, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. A. Jackson (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the prisoners.
For the defence Mr. Calthrop first called the prisoners.
Cheung Kin said he had heard the nama Takmun but he had never been there. He was
on July 16th, and did not leave the house. He knew a woman named Han Young. She practised medicine.
His Lordship-Did she practise on him ? Mr. Calthrop-I don't know that she prao- Mantised on him, but she did something.
forging a cheque on the Hongkong and Shang- Cheng Hing was indicted on the charges of
hai Bank for $1167 purporting to be drawn by Eger, and with offering and uttering the same. one. F. J. Kanga in favour of one, Thong Defendant pleaded guilty on both counts.
His Lordship-Is anything known by the police about this man? I have read the deposi tions, and see he was in a position of trust to
some extent.
The ttorney-General—Yes.
papers and find you are a servant in a position His Lordship (to accused)-[ have read the of some trust, and I think I saw by the de- positions that you read and write English. It
Proceeding, prisoner said he was arrested at midnight on September 16th. He had not seen either of the female witnesses called by the Crown before he raw them at the Taipo Police Station.
Cross-examined - Prisoner did not know whether there was a wharf in Takmun as he had in July. never been there. He was ill for about 20 days
What was the matter with you ?----I don't know, but I was confined to my bed,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.