Shanghai, April 17.
Before Sir Eoatusp Honxay, Chief Judge.
R. v, Pau Davis.
Obtaining goods by false pretences.
His Lordship took his seat at 10 o'clock.
The following were sworn on the Jury—Messrs. Win. Glover, J. Johnston, C. Maevicar, Win. Miller, and F. G. Walsh.
The Clerk of Court then read the indictment, charging the prisoner with obtaining from Tong-chen-tung, the proprietor of a store in Hongkew, on the 13th March, a box of cigars by the pretence that he had a shop in the French Concession.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Insp. StairLixc then gave a summary of the evidence to be brought before the Court on the part of the prosecution, observing, in conclusion, that he had not been informed until the previous day that the proprietor of the shop in question had gone away to days ago. 4 Prisoner held that when a witness had given evidence against him in the Police Court, he ought also to have been brought here.
His Lorpsure said the absence of the proprietor was, if anything, in his favour.
Prisoner.—Yes; it is so far in my favour but I wanted to prove that he committed perjury. He may have been sent to Ningpo to be put out of the way, His Lonpsutr.—There is not the slightest reason to suppose anything of the kind, Insp. StrrPuixc said he was not aware until 1] o'clock last night that this witness had gone away from Shanghai. The shroff whom he had sent to his house to remind him of the trial, had then been told that the witness had gone to Ningpo, but had forgotten to tell him.
Prisoner.—As Crown'prosecutor you ought to have held him over to bail to appear against me.
His Lordship—You can have the evidence of the owner of the shop read over to you if you wish it.
Tuy-cuE-TuNG, an assistant in the shop of the prosecutor, and the principal witness in the case, was then cautioned to speak the truth. He gave an account of prisoner's visit to the store about five weeks ago, recapitulating the statement, he made in' the Police Court- already. fully "reported in. our. co-Tumns—as to the account prisoner gave of himself, of his having a store in French Town, and of his being second man at Russell's, and so forth. After stating the effect of the negotiations between them, witness concluded stating that the store to which he had been taken by the prisoner he had supposed was his, and it was on the representations thus made to him that he had supplied the goods.
Warwzss, in cross-examination by prisoner, stated there were two proprietors of the Bhing-shing store, one. of whom was a pilot and did not appear in the busine:
Prisoner said this was a different tale to that told by witness at the Police Court. He had there stated that the proprietor who had given evidence there, and we had now gone away to Ningpo, was the sole proprietor.
Insp. SrrivLixc denied this assertion, and His Lonpsmir also found that such a statement did not appear in the depositions taken by the Magistrate.
Prisoner then pressed witness, putting his questions in a variety of forms, an to what in-luced him to supply him with the goods, and, catching at an answer of the witness's '(who was giving his ination in " pidgin" Eng-Fendeavoured to make it appear that the cods on the representation of his "pri latter now stated in effect that he supplied the icing No, 2 man at Russell's, Inspector Sratruixc denied that the answer of the witness took this effect, but that his reply was substantially the same as was to the Police Magistrate, viz, that, believing risener had a share in a store on the Frenel side, he supplied him with the Prisoner still held that witness prevaricated, and that if such were the case the indictment must at once fall to the ground. He then proceeded to read at length two or three cases where the prosecution had failed to establish their case, having based them on one representation while it appeared in evidence that the goods had been supplied on another and a different one.
His Lonpsute said that, although there ight be other representations, if the one ted in the indictment were duly proved, it was sufficient to establish the case. At the same time, if other representations were ployed, but the one in the indictment not proved, the case could not be established, was upon this point he should address the Wirsess continued that he told prisoner if he was proprietor of a store he could give him credit; and the agreement they. ultimately arrived at was that, when the biscuits were ready, prisoner would pay him. He had not delivered the biscuits. "Prisoner, when at the Hongkew store, told him that he had a store in the French' concession and he wanted to tend the goods to Hankow, and when witness went with him to the shop in the French his going there that this was his shop. Concession he supposed from the fact of Witness "remembered seeing prisoner Hongkew about a week after he went to the shop. He had been watching for him. His hat was drawn over his face, but witness, who had supplied him with it, recognised him under it, Witness asked him why he wore the hat in that manner, and he replied, because it was cold.
Prisoxer explained to the Court that witness, on the occasion just named, and a number
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.