558
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
so he made the entry he did. As a matter of of fact he knew something about the matter as Mr. Dixon had handed the $30 to him.
The Chief Justice-This portfolio is a record of all details which might be referred to
afterwards?
Witness--Yes, Supposing there had been an agreed amount of costs should that not be entered in the portfolio ?—Yes.
Mr. Calthrop cross-examined witness as to the portfolios being written up from the diaries, witness stating that the diaries were sometimes written up the same day and sometimes the day after the occurrences.
e did not enter the 50 because the costs might be more.
The Chief Justice remarked that it was as- tonishing that a junior clerk should make entries in a solicitor's diary.
Mr. Potter-When my friend's case has closed I will call Mr, Hastings on that point.
The Chief Justice-It does strike me as funny.
The Puisne Judge-Do you attribute any sinister significance to this?
Mr. Calthrop it is an extraordinary coinci- dence.
1
serious criminal offence. Dealing next with the evidence of Mr. Hastings, he said it was most important not only in the interests of Mr astings himself, not only in the interests of Mr Dixon, but in the interests of the community, that there should have been a third party present at the interview when Mr. Hastings made charges against Mr. Dixon. No specific charges were made against Mr Dixon until the affidavits were filed, and it was not likely that he would have made such an admission as Mr. Hastings alleged. Mr. Dixon knew there were certain circumstances in his life which might make him shrink from publicity and these were known to Mr. Hastings. It might well be that Mr. Hastings would say- If I write and say he has admitted it he will not 'dare to dispute what I say, he will come down, for who would believe Dixon's word against that of Mr. Hastings?
The case for the defence being closed, Mr. Potter asked to be allowed to call Mr. Hastings?
Hastings to question him on several points not elicited in examination,
Mr. Hastings then entered the witness box and explained the duty of the cashier with reference to entering costs. On the occasion in question Mr. Dixon ought to have entered his attendance.
he Chief Justice thought the entry as to costs was sufficient and expressed his surprise
that others than the owner should be allowed to make entries in a diary.
Mr.
astings replied that it was not a personal book, but an office book.
Is it true that at the interview of 26th March Mr. Dixon told you he had at times taken presents from clients-It is not true.
Did you know that Mr. Dixon had taken money presents on four occasions?—I did not know anything about it until I heard him say so in the witness box.
In your opinion is this proper conduct? No.
I don't think it is.
→
When you arrived in this Colony on 8th October last were your relations with Mr. Dixon friendly or otherwise?- I was on most friendly terms with him.
Witness then mentioned instances of his having invited Mr. Dixon to his house. Mr. Dixon dined with them in November last, and was invited to dinner 、n Christmas but declined. He joined them on a picnic to Deep Water Bay on 2nd January.
Mr. Hastings, in reply to the Puisne adge. said it was not possible to have framed his charges against Mr. Dixon into charges of receiving presents from clients.
Mr. Calthrop then rose to address the Court. The Chief Justice said that unless Mr. Potter objected they would prefer to hear him first.
Mr. Potter contended that as this was purely civil procedure he was entitled to have the proceedings carried out as in a civil case, and therefore although willing to defer to their lordships wishes, he preferred that he should follow Mr. Calthrop, as he was in a peculiar position, his clients being charged with perjury and criminal conspiracy.
Mr. Calthrop then addressed the Court. He mentioned that the charges had been reduced to three, one with respect to Wan Hi and two with respect to Wong Hui Tung. Two of those were distinct charges of embezzlement, and he argued that the question to be decided should be decided by their Lordships in the same way as it would be decided in a criminal court before a jury.
Mr. Calthrop then referred to the evidence in detail, and said that on the whole of the evidence brought by Tam with regard to Hung it was clear that Hung was led to believe that if he would make specific charges concerning the allegations against Mr Dixon he would get back his position as interpreter.
}
Mr. Potter said that was not a fair statement. Mr. Calthrop described the reasons given by Hung for leaving the office as ridiculous, and said their Lordships must satisfy themselves whether on the evidence of the witnesses called, any person in the colony ought to be convicted
¡
E
Mr. Dixon fortunately was made of sterner stuff.
He was not going to give in to a charge of this description; he was innocent of the charge; and knowing himself innocent why should he be hounded out of the colony on the accusation, even if the accusation was made by so eminent, so respectable, and SO honest member of the community as Mr. John He was bound in honour to fight him, although it might have been to his interests to have gone away at once. It might well have happened that a weaker man knowing he had certain matters which would not be favourably considered by the general community, knowing there were certain phases of his life not in accordance with correct views, it might well have been that a man in that position would have gone away and said It is no good. I cannot fight this case, my employer has got some evidence, as any employer can get evidence when dealing with Chinese but not only that, he says I made an admission." Mr. Dixon's conduct throughout had been that of a innocent man. The reasons given in the letter for dismissing Mr. Dixon were without founda- tion, and while the defence could naturally call no other witness but Mr. Dixon, the other side had not brought Hung to corroborate the stories of their witnesses. Mr Dixon had submitted his financial details to them very readily, and before their Lordships could find him guilty they must consider each charge, and satisfy themselves on cach of the items. The charges were only sup- ported by the evidence of witnesses who contra- dicted each other in most material particulars. In conclusion, he submitted that the only way in which the other side could substantiate their charges was to prove one at least of the alleged acts of misappropriation. If their Lordships did not believe the evidence put forward in support of the three charges, then they must come to the conclusion to dismiss the case. They nust not rely on the alleged confession which had been absolutely denied, and which was most improbable. In no way had Mr. Dixon been shaken in cross-examination, and he would submit that in a case like that their Lordships must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt by direct evidence that the offences alleged had been committed, before they could come to a decision adverse to his client.
The hearing was adjourned.
NINTH DAY.
June 26, 1909.]
Dixon? That in order to save salary and commission Mr. lastings has come here and perjured himself. That Mr. Hastings has gone round to get witnesses to help in criminal con- spiracy, and that in order to ruin r. Dizon. What is the motive ? The only motive is that this man who is now about to leave the colony, forever perhaps, at the end of his career endeavoured to rain Mr. Dixon. Your lordships will be compelled to decide between these two men, because the confessions in this case are a · material part of the case, and I will show your Lordships that in coming to a decision you will have to consider these specific charges in relation to the confession. You must come to the conclusion first whether these con. fessions have been made or not, and there. fore necessarily you must come to the conclusion whether or not Mr. Hastings is telling the truth or M». Dixon is telling the truth. My Lords, you must have noticed that Mr. Dixon hesitated, and hesitated for a long time, before he would go so far as to say that Mr. Hastings had perjured himself. He clearly saw that it was a practically impossible position to take up no motive. You cannot expect perjury and criminal conspiracy without motive. He said first that Mr. Hastings had been misled. Then he said Mr. Has- tings has misconstrued the interview. Then he said Mr. Hastings had wilfully mis- corstrued the admissions that he had taken presents into an admission that he had taken money from the office. Finally he charged him with perjury. Mr. Dixon's counsel hesitated to go so far. The most he says on that point is that it is absurd that Mr. Dixon made any confession. He clearly saw that this accusation of the defendant was one which any person who knew Mr. Hastings and his career would practically find it impossible to accept. What is Mr. Dixon's defence ? A total denial of the evidence given by every witness. While I am on this point let me call your lordships' attention to what Mr. Dixon said in reference to the letter of 27th March, written by Mr. Hastings to his brother, a letter which Mr. Pixon characterises as one which is a mixture of truth and falsehood, although he admits that letter could never have been put in evidence by Mr. Hastings. Why, therefore, should he write this mixture of truth and false- hood to his brother, a private letter which he never could have expected to be produced in this court? The letter sets forth very clearly Mr. Dixon s case as well as Mr. Hastings. It is an eminently fair letter and cannot be said to be the letter of a vindictive man. It puts on record what happened at the interview of 26th March. Correspondence took place upon that letter, and I submit that letter must receive consideration from your Lord- ships as putting on record what took place at the interview of 26th March. Coming to certain admissions made by Mr. Dixon, the first admissions that he received presents of money. that on four separato occasions he accepted presents of money amounting to 300. It was never mentioned in his affidavits and Ar. Hastings was never cross- examined upon it. It was obviously brought as a mere afterthought. For why I think it is clear. Mr. Dixon suggests it himself, because he said in cross-examination that Mr. Hastings had misconstrued his admission about presents into aq admission that he had taken money which belonged to the office. Therefore, I say this question about presents has been put forward by the defendant to explain away these damning admissions made, as we allege, by Mr. Dixon. It is not for me to comment on this question of taking presents after a case is over. We all know it is undesirable, and so undesirable is it * considered in England that a special Act was passed in 1906 to make the taking of presents under such conditions a criminal offence.
r. Potter said-It is my duty now to address your Lordships in support of the applicants in this case, and what I said yesterday to your lordships I repeat to-day, that the result of this case is as important to Mr. John Hastings as to the defendant, for the defendant lias taken it upon himself to charge Mr. John Hastings with perjury and criminal conspiracy. He has taken it upon himself to charge a man who has lived in this colony for 22 years, and who has had an honourable career in this colony, and who is now about to leave the colony, with having committed these serious criminal offences. I will show your Lordships that you will be compelled to decide between these two men before you can come to any judgment in this case. It will not be possible for you to say that either Mr. Mr. Potter-The legislature at home have Hastings or Mr Dixon is mistaken, but said that if a man at work for his employer that one other must be swear.ng to
takes presents of money or kind without the that which is false. No mistake is possible and knowledge of his employer that he is liable to there is no middle course open to this court; you be indicted for a criminal offence. have to decide which of the two is telling the truth. What is the motive suggested by r.
or
The Chief Justice--A grateful client is a person very well known.
Mr. Potter-Yes, my Lord. The Chief Justice- A grateful client is known all the world over.
The Chief Justice-It does not apply here. Mr. Potter-It does not apply here.
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.