170
would be shot to death. The boatman was then - seized, and a second man who boarded the craft seized his wife and they were both bound. The robbers then pulled up the anchor and sailed the boat to Wantungwah. There a third man went on board whom they recognised as the prisoner. The husband, wife and three children
• were first confined in the cabin. Afterwards the three children were taken out of the cabin The robbers then proceeded to clear the boat of its possessions and left, taking the three children with them. Regarding the charge of kidnap- ping, the Crown only alleged the kidnapping of the two girls, as the prisoner alleged the boy was his son. The little girl of nine gave valuable evidence, as she says tho prisoner was the man who took her ashore at Hongkong. The accused was arrested at Shaukiwan by an inspector of police, and owing to information received he found the children here. When charged at the station the pri- soner made a statement denying that he had robbed. He said his only object in going on board was to carry away his own son, but that statement did not carry much importance having regard to the fact that he carried away the other two children as well.
After prosecutor had given his evidence the accused asked.-----
Are you willing to come before the shrine and swear that I committed armed robbery?
The witness replied-I dare. Prosecutor's wife then gave evidence and was questioned by the accused:
Didn't you and your husband between you steal 33 nets last year?-No, it is false My husband and myself earn our livelihood by fishing, not by stealing.
·
Didn't you say you would give me one of your daughters in lieu of the security I stood for you for certain nets?-No,. You are a thief; you stole my daughter..
Did you not give your daughter up as a pledge, and because you could not redeem her you wanted to keep my son?--It is not so. I know nothing whatever about this. The only thing I do know is that you committed this armed robbery.
The next witness to be called was a girl, nine years of age, and his Lordship asked if she was old enough to be sworn.
The Attorney-General referred him to the Ordinance, which stated that any child over seren could give evidence.
His Lordship-Do you think you will get a jast impression of the facts from this witness?
The Attorney-General-Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings we obtain the truth.
His Lordship - That was in the old days. After the witness had given her evidence his Lordship asked-Are you going to put the suckling of three years in the box?
The Attorney-General-No, my Lord. I'll limit myself to the babe, I think.
A Chinese woman deposed that the prisoner called on her and offered to make her a present of a child, whom he said was his daughter. She had no children and he would make her a present of the girl for $30. Witness said:-I don't know whether this child will ory or not, or whether it will remain." Accused told her she had better keep the child for a night, to see whether it would cry.
The Attorney-General-What time did the police call at your house?
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
The Attorney-General said the prisoner in this case was charged with being in possession of stolen property. The law required that if a man was found in possession of stolen property he should give some reasonable account as to how he became possessed of it. In what was known as recent possession, the burden of proof was placed on the man to show that he became properly possessed of it.
His Lordship-That is not quite the law, I think.
The Attorney-General-I will leave it to your Lordship.
His Lordship-That is French law English.
not
The Attorney-General remarked that he was putting it generally. It would be proved that a robbery took place at Autaukok on January 22nd at two in the morning, a house in which several families lived being plundered by masked robbers. The prisoner was arrested by the police at midnight on February 2nd, and, when charged, stated that another man had told him to carry the stolen goods. Some of the stolen property was found in the house of a woman who would say the prisoner took it there on the same night as the robbery took place. When he was arrested he took the police to a house in Lyemun Village and asked for certain bundles which were handed to him, and which were found to contain property identified as stolen.
The Attorney-General asked his Lordship to tell him in what material respect he had misstated the law.
His Lordship The law does not absolutely state that the burden of proof is on the prisoner. It is for the Crown to prove the robbery, and for the prisoner to show how he came into possession of the stolen property.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and his Lordship sentenced him to imprisonment for two years with hard labour.
THE CHEUNGSHAWAN ARMED ROBBERY.
Lai Yau, Lai Hing, Ho Shui Ching, Leung Ching and Cheung Kwai were placed before the Court on seven charges of armed robbery, and on one charge of receiving. The first and second prisoners pleaded guilty on the first count, and the other three pleaded not guilty on all the
counts.
The same jurors heard the case. The Attorney-General told the jurors that the five men before them were at the bar on a series of counts charging them with robbery with violence, while the last dount on the indictment charged them with being in receipt of stolen property. The reason the Crown made the indictment so long was that although all the larcenies formed part of one transaction it had been found desirable to allege! the various thefts from the various parties concerned. He thought the jurors would be of opinion that this was really a bad case, and he thought the evidence would be considered reliable. The five prisoners, together with others, among whom was a man named Chan Hung, went to the house on the night in question Chan Hung had turned what was known as King's evidence, and he would appear in the witness box and give evidence which would be corroborated. Gener- ally speaking, when an informer came forward and gave evidence, the jury were advised to see that there was ample corroboration of his story before they convicted. In this case he did not think jurors would have any doubt that his story was materially corroborated. The evidence for the prosecution was that the accused broke into a building divided into three houses and situated at Cheungshawan on January 25th at two o'clock in the morning. Different parts of the house were occupied by the prosecutor, his son and his nephew. The prisoners carried arms, knives, choppers, revolvers and torches, created great terror amongst the inhabitants, and practically looted the whole place. Prosecutor would say that he went downstairs when he heard the noise, was met by the robbers, and one of the men knocked him on the head with a revolver and told him to keep quiet. He did so, and fortunately for him they left him below while they went upstairs. Prosecutor proceeded to amshiupo and re- ported the occurrence to the police. On the information of the informer, who was arrested, the police went to the village of Kowloontsai, where Chan Lam was arraigned on a charge of receiv-all the prisoners were arrested coming out of ing stolen property at Lyemun Village on the same house. In this particular house the February 2nd, pleaded not guilty, and his case police found nearly all the stolen property, also was heard by the same jurors.
a large number of instruments used in the
Witness-I am not sure, as I had no sleep the night before, owing to the continuous crying of the child.
For the defence prisoner called his master, Lai Fo Po, who said accused was not on board his boat on January 12th. He gave him leave
on the 10th.
Accused-Were you not breaming on the 10th P-You are lying; I was not breaming.
The son of the last witness was called to the stand, and examined by accused :-
When I asked for leave didn't you ask me where I was going, and didn't I say I was going nowhere?-No.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the three counts and his Lordship sentenced the accused to five years' imprisonment with hard labour and 24 strokes of the birch.
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.
|
|
(March 1, 1909.
burglar's trade. Apart from the informer, there would be evidence of identity of all the men.
Witnesses were called and hearing adjourned.
Wednesday, February 24th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE CHEUNGSHAWAN ARMED ROBBERY, The case in which Lai Yau, Lai Hing, Ho Shiu Ching, Leung Ching and Cheung Kwai were indicted on seven counts of armed robbery and one count of receiving stolen property at Cheungshawan was concluded. The jury em- panelled comprised Messrs. E. W. White (fore- man), S. H: Dutton, J. J. von West, C. R. Edwards. L. E. Lammert, J. McCubbin and S. H. Hendry.
On Tuesday the first and second accused pleaded guilty, and on the conclusion of the evidence the jury found the third, fourth and fifth defendants guilty on all counts.
His Lordship sentenced each of the accused to five years' imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered the second, third, fourth and fifth to receive 24 lashes. The first, on account of his age, was to receive only twelve lashes.
THE ARMED ROBBERY AT YAUMATI.
Li Yau, Wah, Lai Kau and Lam Lai were arraigned on a charge of armed robbery at Yaumati on January 21st.
Prisoners pleaded not guilty, and the follow- ing jurors were called:Messrs. H. Graig (foreman), S. Bolton, P. D. Sutherland, E. J, Chapman, W. V. Ferry, O. R. Chunynt and L. F. Campbell.
were
The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. W, Rees Davies, K.C..) told the jurors that this was another case of armed robbery. The prisoners were charged with breaking into a shop and stealing monies to the extent of $4,300. This was the affair in which the unfortunate police sergeant recently lost his life, but the man who shot him was also killed during the arrest. This, however, had nothing to do with the cir- cumstances of the present case. So far as the prisoners were concerned the facts were altoge- ther distinot in anything affecting that: The robbery took place on January 21st at 43, Kennedy Street, Yaumati, and the case for the prosecution was that the prisoners, in company with ther men, entered the house between ten and eleven p.m. on the date mentioned. The prisoners were alleged to have entered the shop, while the others stood out- side. All the prisoners, when they entered, said to have been armed with revolvers which they pointed at the in- mates. Then they tied them together, threa- tened them, and proceeded to loot the shop. The key of the safe was obtained and the prisoners took out the banknotes and coins and then decamped. The master of the shop, who was tied up, cut his queue, ran out into the street and raised the hue and cry. One of the prisoners was immediately arrested by an excise officer. While he was running to escape, he threw some money away but when arrested a chisel was found on him. Three of the inmates of the shop all definitely identified the first man, and, when charged by the police, he practically admitted his guilt. As regards the second prisoner, he was identified by a man who was originally charged with the accused, but as no evidence against this man was obtainable when he went before the magistrate, he was discharg ed. There was also some evidence of identifica- tion on the part of one of the inmates, but not of a very satisfactory nature. Regarding the third and fourth, there Was no evidence to identify them with the robbery apart from the statement of the man who was originally charged.
His Lordship-Is that King's evidence? The Attorney-General-No, my Lord. In conclusion the Attorney-General remarked that the case appeared to be absolutely conclusive against the first man, If would be for the jury to say whether they were satisfied with the evidence against the other prisoners.
His Lordship discharged the third and fourth prisoners, and the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against the first and second accused. The first man was sentenced to seven years1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.