'A. native awed Dah Yang-ching was charged on a Mixed Court suum-ons with having in his possession a panama hat, valued at $16, and being tunable to give a satisfactory account as to how the same came inti his pusses-sion.
The facts of the case, as related by Detective-sergeant Roche, were that on November 9 a panama bat, the property of Mr. Mafkhain, was stolen from the hall of Mr. Markham's house, recognized as the hat which had been stolen from her house, She made inquiries at the shop and ascertained that the hat had been sent there to be cleaned, but that the proprietors of the establishment had no record to show who had left it there. The matter was reported to the Police and inquiries were made by Detective-sergeant Roche, who learnt that the hat had been left at the shop to be cleaned on November 11—two days after the theft from Mr. Markhams house. He gave instructions to the manager to inform him when the supposed owner of the hat called to claim it, and on December 2 received word that the accused had called for the hat. The accused was questioned, bat stated that he had purchased the hat in June, 1907, from Messrs. Liebe, Wulff and Ca., for $16. At that time the complainant was Hospital and was only lately sufficiently well to attend the Court to give evidence.
209
Evidence for the prosecution was given by Mr. and Mrs. Markham, in which it was stated that the hat was from certain peculiarities, although the ribbon had been changed. The hat was tried on by Mr. Markham and by the accused and fitted both equally well; but ry.|Mr. Markham pointed out the Tact that when he wore the hat the brim took an usual tilt which was peculiar to the bhat which had been stolen from him.
The accused claimed that he had purchased the hat from Messrs. Liebe, Wolff and Ca. on certain date in June, 1907, and after wearing it throughout the summer had sent it to be cleaned in November.
For the prosecution it was stated that the hat, when stolen, was in a clean condition and did not require cleaning; neither did it require a new ribbon, It had been cleaned once before.
Mrs, Markham stated that the ananager of the shop from which the hat was recovered said that the hat was a clean condition when brought to the shop and did not really require a new ribbon or to be cleaned again.
Detective-sergeant Roche pointed out that the hat was left at the cleaning shop just two days after Mr. Markham's hat was stolen; that although the accused claimed to have bought it from Messrs. Liebe, Wall! & Ca. on a certain date in' June, Messrs. Licbe, Wolff & Co.'s yoks showed no record of the sale of amined the hat and did not think that it corresponded to any stock they had lind for sale. Furthermore, it was an unusual thing for any man, and a Chi-the accused was employ and bore a good character far as he knew, the hat was bought for the accused, by a Chinese friend, in June last and was the accused's property.
The hat was ordered to be handed over to the complainant, but the accused was given opportunity to establish his claim to it by producing the receipt which he obtained when making the purchase in June last. The Court also recommended that inquiries should be made at the Dyeing and Cleaning Agency as to whether they could state definitely if the hat had been previously cleaned or not.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.