Last Friday at the Mixed Court judgement was given by the British Assessor, Mr. Grant Jones and Magistrate Yui, in the case 10 which Dong Sz-hai and six other Chinese are charged with being concerned together in the larceny of a quantity of opium from a house in Tientsin Road.
As will be remembered, the charge against the fourth accused, Sung Fok-sung, was withdrawn in order that ho might be called upon to give evidence.
Mr. R. C. Faithfull, who has been acting in the case for the prosecution, did not appear in court and consequently proceedings yesterday opened by Mr. Master, who is representing the plaintiff, summing up the case for the prosecution. Mr. Master drew particular attention to the satis factory manner in which certain of the accused had been identified as actually entering the house and participating in the search. There were also the statements made to the Police by the others concerned. He specially emphasized that the court was entitled to consider who the accused were and how they had been previously engaged. With regard to the first accused, he believed it to be incredible for a boy who had been so long employed by the police to be unaware of the illegality of the whole affair. All who were concerned in. an action of this sort were liable as principals and, on their own admissions, all in some way or another were concerned.
Mr. Master added that if the court decided to convict he ssu mitted that the accused should be dealt with in the severest manner, as if they knew that the undertaking was illegal and had gon= under the cover of legality, then the offence was of a most aggravated fami.
In delivering judgement the Assesser said in part:—The prisoners are chdyged with the larceny of a quantity of opium from 459 Tientsin Road. Participation in greater or less degree whether innocent or guilty is admitted by all the accused except He stands or falls by his denial. This man, Zing Pau-tsao, was identified by' one witness only, namely, the accountant, but he was picked out at the police station from among a group of 18. There is direct identification by one witness. Is there any corroboration of that evidence? It has been shown that on the day in question, December 28, he left his work before the proper time. That is not a groat thing in itself but it hes not been explained. If he has a good alibi why has it not been set up? Again, it has been shown, upon his own admission, that the accused purchased a new skin lined gown on December 29. Again that is not a great thing in itself but it has not been explained; and the fact that these two matters have not been explained
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.