598
THE HÒNGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The point was reserved for the Fall Court. Mr. Calthrop then opened the osse for the defence. He said he first intended to make some observations on the witnesses for the prosention, and the way in which the case kad The learned been put before the jurors. Attorney-General when he opened the oase began by suggesting that one of the grounds for thinking the prisoner had something to do with this robbery was the fact that he was the man who had got the look and keys originally, and for about six months he bad sooom to this safe. During this period it was suggested that he had probably taken a cast of the key, and with the aid of a third key had opened the safe on the 18th. Counsel suggested the extreme probability of the safe being_left open on the night of the 18th. people left their offices they were always perfectly certain of hari g locked all their drawers and the safe, but sometimes next morning they found that the safe or some, of the drawers were not locked. Counsel
Whea
submitted that if this was a deliberate and care fully thought out robbery, the robber would, 'have re-looked the mfe, thereby causing more
delay in the discovery of what happened.
His suggested that the whole theory of the prosecution fell to the ground One of the witnesses called said it was very unusual for this anybody to be left in charge of office. Now this was a compradore's office, and a place where any evil-disposed person would know he had chance of finding some valuables, He suggested that on that night, some person having seen that everyone had left the office gained access, and finding the safe open, took what he thought most valuable, and left.
事
Prisoner was then called, and said he went to Canton by the 8.8. "Paul Bean on the 17th and returned to Hongkong on the evening of the 18th. He went to Canton to buy fruit, The pocket book produced was his. He bought it thirteen years ago.
Cross-examined, accused said he won $160 playing fantan at Canton. He hid the note, found in his sooks because he was afraid if he want to sleep on board someone would steal them.
Why didn't you put the other $17 in your -socks P.-It was in silver,
That was to play fantan on the voyage, or have a little flutter ?-No, not on the steamer. What was the colour of this pocket book you bought-Pig's liver colour.
His Lordship, in summing up, said this was emphatically a case in which the jury had to balance the facts. The osse for the proscention was based on circumstantial evidence, and prima facie was a very strong one indeed. But if the jury found that the material parts of it were met by the defence, there was no doubt that defendant was an innocent man, and that this charge was one which ought never to have been brought. There was nothing to show that on the evening of the robbery, the prisoner knew there would be no one in the compradore's office. If the jury were to flad that some of the proceeds of the robbery were in the possession of the prisoner, but believed that he got back from Canton after the robbery, they could not find him guilty on the first charge, but could on the charge of receiving
After a retirement of five minutes the jury returned into Court and brought ins unanimous verdict of guilty on the first count. They also recommended that the Court should take notice of the satisfactory manner in which the Sergeant (Detective-Sergeant Appleton) had conducted
the case.
His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to five years' imprisonment with hard labour.
The Attorney-General asked his Lordship to make an order for the restoration of the money and stclen property to the prosecutor.
It was
Mr. Calthrop said this could only be done where the property had been identified. not proved that this property belonged to the prosecutor.
His Lordship made an order for the return of the pocket book and stamps.
THE SESSIONS ADJOURNED,
His Lordship asked the Attorney-General if he intended to proceed with the other case on the calendar that was, the charge of man- slaughter preferred against Chung I in con- nection with the building collapse at Shaukiwan,
|
The Attorney-General saked his Lordship to adjourn the Sessions sine die,
The Sessions were accordingly adjourned.
Thursday, October 22nd.
IN SUMMARY JurisdicTION.
BEFORE MR. H. HL J. GOMPERTE (ACTING PUINH JUDGE).
A PARSAGE TO MEXICO.
The hearing concluded of the onse in which Lo Sau Ting sued the Ying Tak Leung to recover $152, balano of smount paid to defendant for a passage to Salina Crus
Mr. J H. Gardiner (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett) appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. G. E. Morrell (of Messrs Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) represented the defendants.
The managing partner of the defendant Arm was recalled. and further cross-examined by Mr. Gardiner. He said his firm did not do any business in passage brokerage.
Mr. Gardiner placed the firm's ledger before witness and asked-Is there an entry there, “Reosived from various passengers commission for passages, $10"}—Yes, but that is not passage brokering by us.
}
Farther on there is another passenger entry for $245 ?—That is for goods.
Mr. Gardiner asked about another entry, which the witness said was not in the book.
Mr. Morrell-These translations are
not
certified by the Court transistor. They are made by my friend's interpreter, and don't seem to tally.
His Lordship-If the entry is not there, there is no use arguing
Mr. Morrell-It seems
to argue a fertile imagination on the part of the interpreter.
After further evidence was beard his Lord- ship gave judgment for the defendant.
PRESENTS OR PURCHASES ?
8. E. Allana and Co. sued Miss M. Hayden of Wyndham Street to recover $274.56 for goods sold and delivered,
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. E. Morrell for the defendant.
Mr. Morrell raised preliminary objection on the ground that the writ was issued in the frm name, and on his applying for the names of the partners, in socordance with the Code, he received a letter from Mr. Dizon stating that Allana was the sola partner. According to the Code and the White Book & person could be saed, but could not sus in his trade name, Therefore he applied to have the action dis-
missed with cosis.
Mr. Dixon said he anticipated this preliminary objection. The writ was not issued by him, but by his client, and the mistake was a reasonable one to be made by a man who did not know the technical forms that must be complied with. Under section 695 of the Code his Lordship had power to amend the writ. Plaintiff had not been embarassed in any way by this technical mistake, and Mr. Dixon asked his Lordship for leave to amend.
After further argament his Lordship gave leave to amend, but stated that, should the case end in favour of the plaintiff, costs would not be allowed up to the date of amendment.
Mr. Dixon, in opening, said the claim was for goods sold between the 1st and 22nd Some of the goods were ordered by August
defendant personally, while others were ordered by letter. On September 19th the bill was sent to her, and on the 20th she called at plain, tiff's shop and had an interview with plaintiff and his bookkeeper.
She told them that she was hard up, but would pay the bill on October 1st. Plaintiff told her he did not intend to wait so long, and issued a writ.
Plaintiff was then called and gave evidence that the amount claimed was due and owing.
Then Mr. Morrell proceeded with the cross examination :
Is your business a prosperous one ? —That's my business.*
Answer the question plass›!—I won't answer unless his Lordship directs me.
His Lordship directed plaintiff to answer, and he replied-Yes, it is good,
Where were you born P-I cannot answer that.
October 26, 1908,
Were you born in India P—I cannot tell you. Where were you brought up ?---That I dunnot tell you.
You were brought up somewhses; where did you live till you were a boy 1----I cannot tell you.
Mr. Morrell-Can you tall anything ? . Lord, will you direct this witness to anawe questions. He apparently refussu to susŴU anything.
His Lordship ordered the witness to anew Mr. Morrell—Where were you brought up ? In Bombay.
When did you come to Hongkong?—Two three years ago.
Why did you come ?—It was my own wish Question repeated.—I wanted to some.
I'll tell you the reason you came; your brothers kicked you out for being a waster, is not that so?-Ita untrue.
Mr. Dixon did not know why these questions were being asked.
Mr. Morrell esid he intended to shake the credit of the witness entirely. There were a defence to them, but he did not want to disclose number of bills, but there was a very good
it until he had finished with the witnew. He would show that he was not fit to be believed either on oath, or without oath.
Mr. Dizoo-I know my friend's client can throw much more mud than we can, and it sticks to us. from this witness is not connected with the What my friend is trying to elicit
0860.
I don't want to my anything about the character of my friend's õlient, and submit he is not entitled to examine mine regarding bia oharacter. If the characters of both parties were sifted my friend's client wouldn't come off best.
I will. It is that this man did not sell these` Mr. Morrell—If I must disclose my defence goods to my client, but gave them to her.
His Lordship Is your client going to say that on oath ?
Mr. Morrell - Certainly, my Lord. My defence is that they were given her with a view to getting certain favours.
Mr. Dixon-I don't think my friend is entitled to attack the charsoter of my client simply because his client denies the claim,
Hi Lordship-His case is that the whole claim is a bogus one.
he could not get what he wanted he said he sold Mr. Morrell-And when the plaintif found the goods to my client. I will call evidence to show that he gave her the goods.
His Lordship said he would allow thì ques- tions, and the oroes-examination was con luned You understand English perfectly well, don't you ?-Enough to carry on my bɑsiness,
Do you still deny that you were turned out of Bombay by your brothers f—Yes.
When you came here what did you do ?—Ky father sent me here.
Then it was your father who turned you out ? Nobody turned me out.
When you dame here didn't you go as an assistant to 0. 0. Mooes in D'Aguilar Street!
-No.
You did, and overdrow your pay, and a writ was issued against you.—It was afterwards settled.
business on your own?-That I cannot tell you. Where did you get the money to start in Question repeated-I osnnot tell you about my private affrics.
Mr. Morrell-Will your Lordship ask him to answer?
His Lordship Why ?
Mr. Morrell The man is absolutely on his
last leg. He is suing now because he must get money from somewhere.
Witness
was ordered by the Court to answer the question, and said—If you want me to buy your firm I can buy it. You say I haven't enough money,
Mr. Morrell I want to know where you got the money to start your firm ?—It is not your
business.
His Lordship ordered the witness to answer. Witness-From an English firm. “
Mr. Morrell Tou got the money from Moora e Vieira who is now bankrupt P—It is untrue. ' The other day you were convicted at the Police Court for disorderly béhaviour, weren't you ?—Yes.
You spend a great part of your time here disorderly houses, don't you Pa
|
· Mr. Lixon objected to the question, fan
مبر
រ
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.