Sikh Constable Behm Singh, 96,' was indicted that he did on the 6th August feloniously steal and take away one gold finger ring the property of Nien Ching, Buddhist priest.
Mr. H. 8. Wixxisow, Crown Advocate, prosecuted. Mr. W. V. Davsacoxp defended. apt. McKuen and Inspector Howard, watched the case on behalf of the Municipal Police.
pleaded not guilty. The following gentle:
The prisoner, through the Interpreter, men were then sworn on the Jury to try him:—Messrs. R. D, Starkey, C. Comins, J, Rawlinson, A. J. H. Carlill and E.
Perrott.
The following gentlemen were summoned to attend as jurors did not answer their names and his Lordship ordered a fine of $50 each to be imy—R. W. Little, O, Middleton, S. Morris, and C. Moller.
Mr, Wiixinson in opening the prosecution Brietly stated the facts of the case which have recently pppeered in the Daily News, mentioning in addition, however, that on the night in question it was the duty of the prisoner to stop all ji ricshas going from the Settlement along his beat on the Yangtszepoo Road, and ascertain who was in them and where they were going; so that the prisoner, in stopping the priest's jinricaha in the first instance was only acting in the: discharge of his duty. The learned Counsel then proceeded to state the law of larceny generally, and came te the question of the intent which the prisoner had when he took the ring away from the priest, and what was his intent when, having got the ring" fute his possession, he ran off with it. Now if one man so frightens another that the latter is induced to give him up some property, that amounts to larceny. There was another case of larceny in which there might be a taking away although the owner himself might have voluntarily handed over the property to the person accused of larceny, in which the owner had no intention of parting with control over the article, In the present case it was not suggested that the priest had any intention of parting with the ring, and the case for the Crown was that the prisoner had the intent to deprive the priest of the ring, and to turn it to his own use, and the fact afterwards returned it to the owner did not alter that intent, If he merely intended to get money to give up the ring, that would till be larceny.
The Priest, Nrgn-CHING was then cautioned and repeated his evidence as given in the lower court. He supplemented his former statement.as to his swallowing the ring when the prisoner struck him with his baton, by adding that the Sikh to satisfy himself that the ring had really gone down, instituted a search in the priest's mouth with his finger.
'The clerk in the Taeping Temple gave evidence as to the: vomiting up of the ring by his master, the Inst witness 'Cutxo CaaNo-rstano, the jinricsha coolie who was: pulling the priest's jinricsha on the night' of the alleged robbery, was next examined; and the native constable who came upon the'scene during the altercastable ited. his evidence, adhering tion between the priest and the Sikh con-closely to his original deposition.
Cro-examined by Mr. Dausaoxp—prisoner had been playing some joke upon Wher first he came up he thought that the
the priest. He bad been hiding behind a tree; but when the. Sikh got angry and wanted to take the priest to the Station, he thought it must to be something more serious. Witness could not form any opinion as to whether it was likely or not constable in uniform like the prisoner would rob a man on the road. He had never heard of such a thing before.
Inspector Howaxp gave evidence to the fact of the prisoner not reporting the occurrence when he came off duty.
Mr. Winkinsow said that concluded his case.
Mr. Devumonp said he would call no witnesses except one, Capt. McEuen, as to character.
Mr. Winxrsson then preceded to address the Jury laying stress upon the fact that there was no attempt to contradict the evidence for the prosecution. Ifthe prisoner intended to deliver up the ring he should have done so when he was told by the Chinese constable. The learned counsel then proceeded to argue that the theory of the whole matter being a lark on the part of the accused, was not a tenable one, and he thought that the Jury would find from the evidence that his intention was to steal the ing, money or the watch from the priest. ring or convert it to his own use by extort-
it. Dromsmonp then called Captain McEvgn, was then sworn and said—I am Captain' Superintendent of the Shanghai Municipal Police. It is my busi ness to engage police for the force and engaged the prisoner. He brought two certificates as to character. One is from the China Gun Lascars at Hongkong, in which he was for two years, and the other from the medical officer. His character is very good in the certificate, He has been in the police here for sixteen months, during which time his character has been The certificates as to character were handed to his Lordship, who passed them on to the Jury.
Mr. Drumtoxp prefaced his address for the defence by dwelling upon the seriousness of the charge to a man like the prisoner, following the occupation of a policeman, and also upon the fact thathe was debarred telling his own story from the witness box or calling any witnesses in his defence. He was on duty alone and there was no one near whom he could call. He: then proceeded to deal with the question of pete lities, upon which, coupled with the good character of the prisoner, he altogether relied. He ridiculed the whole story of the and pointed out the improbabidressed in the remarkable man-
such a gross highway robbery in a of a Sikh constable attempting to commit where lie had been on duty for eight or nine months, and he urged that if the prisoner ever had the ring in his possession at all, which he asked the jury to doubt, that he had no intention of stealing it. Ale said that the Sikh policemen were very unpopular with the Chinese, and the latter would be only too glad to come forward and support the prosecution of cone of them. The fact that the priest had been stopped before on the Yangtse-Poo Rood by a Sikh constable may have also weighed upon the priest's mind; and after dwelling some time upon the extreme imropability of a man swallowing such a and sized object as the ring produced, then by the aid of his surgical knowledge and a basin of soap and water, bringing it up again, he asked the jury to discredit that part of the priest's story, and if they did they would also have to take the rest of the history for the prosecution with great caution, and give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.
His Loxsmrr, in his charge to the Jury, said—As a considerable time has been given to the hearing of this case, you will be glad to hear that I have very little to eay upon the subject, because the questions in cage are questions of fact, and therefore entirely for you to consider. There are really no points of law involved. which I need explain to you, as both Counsel have correctly stated it to you. To come, then, to the facts of the case. Mr. Drummond, in dealing with them, invited you in the got into the possession of the accused, first place to find that the ring never really jow you have had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the several witnesses while giving their evidence in chief, and again during the very minute cross-examination to which most of them were subjected, and it is for you to say ther you believe thas their whole story is a whether you believe their version, or when
wild invention. In that latter shape Mr. Drummond haa invited you to look upon their story; he has said that the whole story is extremely improbable, and he in-staneed several points which, he urged, threw doubt on the case of the prosecution. The first of these was that it was impossible that (as the prosecutor said) the prisoner could have had any difficulty at all in taking the ring off the prosecutor's finger on the night in question. Now you saw yourselves the ring removed from his finger in the box, and I niust say that it did not appear to me to come off with the perfect ease that Mr. Drummond represented to you it did. Moreover, you must bear in mind that th prosecutor tells you he was naturally unwilling to let the accused take it, and resisted as much as he could. Mr. Drummond urged next that there were certain discrepancies between the evidence of the prosecutor and that of his jinricsha coolie. ring Booause it was hurting him when the e prosecutor said that he took off the
prisoner was trying to take it; and the jinricsha coolie said that the prosecutor took it off because he did not want to have position in the shafta with-his back turned the ricsha upset. "From the coolie's to the parties, he may very well'have come to the conclusion that the accused was try. ing to upset the jinricsha, and to avoid that the prosecutor gave him up the ring. But the prosecutor himself said he gave it up because of the pain, and that he preferred to part with it, having then no doubt that the accused would give it back to him. Mr. Drummond's next point was that the Sikhs are disliked -by the: Chinese, and that therefore it was likely that the Chinese would come forward to support'a charge brought against one of them. But there is nothing in the'evidence to support such a suggestion, and one of the Chinese witnesses was a native constan ble in the same employments the accused, and who would be therefore extremely unlikely to come forward for the reason suggested by Mr. Drummond. And even in the case of the prosecutor himself, Thad tried to think of any conceivable reason why he should be likely to bring such a charge if it was not true, and I could not find one until Mr. Drummond that he was angry because he had been stopped before by a Sikh constable, On this point the jinricsha coolie said that his master had been only ones stopped before in the previous three months, while the prosecutor's evidence was merely that he often saw Sikhs on duty when he was. returning at night in his jinricsha and sometimes they stopped and sometimes they did not. Mr. Drummond asked you to assume that because of this the prosecutor was irritated, and that the whole story the witnesses for the prosecution was 'a lie! 'The next point urged was that it was extremely unlikely that a man in uniform, like the accused, would commit a robbery when he could be easily identified, and a. complaint made. That is a point' which deserves consideration, but it must not be carried too far, for you must here bear in mind that a complaint was actually made at the station, and again in the Court' below, and it has been met by-the argument." complaints have not all the "efi Ghat it that the complaint is wholly false, so that
is sought to ascribe.to them. Then the_ Jast point urged was that, ing to-Mr. Drummond, any doctor would tolly was impossible that a ring of that size could
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.