McDowell said that he questioned the neighbours of the accused on the night of the fire, but got no information from them as to the actual origin of the fire. He had, however, devoted his attention that night principally to questioning the persons who lived on the premises where the fire broke out. The letter produced by Mr. Wright far as he knew was written quite voluntarily and it came into witness' hands only at 5.30 p.m. the preceding night. Inquiries had been made since then and it had been ascertained that the parties whose names were appended tothe letter actually existed and that, they had occupied premises adjoining No. 43 Hankow Road, but had been burnt out and were now living elsewhere.
After a long consultation with the Magistrate, the Assessor said that owing to the extraordinary nature of the letter and the late period at which it had been brought forward, and that it contained statements entirely contrary to the evidence already taken, the evidence which the prosecution proposed to introduce could not be accepted. In the last paragraph of the letter was a statement that the writers gave this The W.-C. Herald and S. C. & C. Gazette. information in the hope of getting sone reeompenst for their losses in the fire. In the circumstances, the Magistrate considered their evidence worthl Mr. Wright then proceeded with his cross-examination of the proprietor of the Zeng Kee-yuen Hong.
In reply to Mr. Wright, the ess stated that -the policy of surance for Tls. 1,000 with the Yih Company covered his own clothing and that of his two sons, who slept on the premises. The policy for Tis 2,000 with the Hip On Company was for Tls, 1,500 on the farnitnre and 'Tls. 500 on the assistants' baggage. Witness had not a second policy for Tis, 1,000 with the Hip On Company. Thinking that the insurance for Tls. 500 on their baggage and clothing was not sufficient, the assistants had themselves taken out policy for Tlk. 1,000 on their clothing with the Wah Tang Company. They paid the premiums of this policy themselves. This was left in the accountant's chane, had been destroyed in the fire. Witness identified the stock books produced as those for the 30th, 31st, 32nd and 33rd years. Stock for the 32nd and 33rd years'appeared in the same book. The books for the 31st and 33rd years contained the handwriting of three different people and were not both written up by the same man, The rough pass books. which averaged about ten for each year, had been destroyed in the fire and witness had no other books by which to verify the stock. The bookx showed that at the end of the 33rd year the stock was worth Tls. 23,000. There was another: book which showed the increase of stork during the current year.
Mr. phillips stated that the case for the defendants as placed before the Court was a clear, plain, straight. forward story, giving the cause of this fire, and, counsel submitted,—the cause of this fire was a pure accident. Counsel commented on the excellent reputation of the owner of the hong and said that petition had been sent in to the Court by fifty persons engaged in the silk business saying that the owner wax a man of good reputation, The charge on the sheet was based on the suspicions of one man, Inspector MeDowell. There was not one tittle of evidence to support his suspicions or the allegations of the prosecution; the whole of the evidence that had been produced to this Court was directly to the contrary. Conspiracy between the owner and three young men was alleged, but there was absolutely no evidence to support that charge and counsel submitted that such." charge ought! not to be placed, and could not be placed, on the charge sheet unless it was supported by some evidence. The' prosecution alleged that business was and that this man's vent; but that was not so, his business wax perfectly solvent.
The money he had drawn from ich he had his business and on it regularly, n he had capital of his own invested in the business. The other Jury 18 1908 that he was over insured, There was no evidence to support th He had been insured for years Tls. 36,000 and always over Tls. 20,000.
According to Mr. Cooper the value of the stock at the time of the fire was Ti: eluding farnitnre and clothing. Mr. Cooper was employed by the insurance company and the Court had experience of the val tions of Mr. Cooper and knew their value; it was absolutely without any value and was a prejudiced report. If the proprietor of the shop bad gone to Messrs. L. Moore & Ca. a day after the fire and told Mr. Cooper that the value the stock was Tls, 29,000 and that they could show that according to the books and then asked him to value it, Mr. Cooper would have valued it at Tls. 29,000. This Court knew the practice of insurance companies in Shanghai, Their business was carried on inn loose, anbusinesslike manner and it was a scandal to Shanghai. They had tents or brokers who induced Chinese and other people to inane for large sums.
Mr. Douglas' objected to. these remarks and asked Mr. Phillips to ce. five himself to the evidence, Mr. Phillips replied that he could make general observations, He said that the business was discraditable. They had large armies of touts and brokers who induced people to insure for more than they had goods on the premises. The policy was granted at once without any proper inspection of the risk and if there was a fire they were in Court or somewhere else, represented by learned counsel, to resist the claim. The Court. was asked to convict these persons on the evidence of Tuspector MeDowell und counsel invited the Court to examine his evidence. Taspector MeDowell went to the scene of the fire as quickly as his ricsha could take him and he said that when he got to the fire it had been burning for one hour. Counsel submitted that he did this with a deliberate intention to mis-arrived at the fire in his opinion it had been burning for ten or fifteen. minutes—which was, of course, true, Mr. Grayborn arrived on the scene some five or ten minutes before Inspector McDowell. Whose evidence was to be believed?" asked counsel. Inspector McDowell said thatthe walls were strong: Mr. Grayburn said that it was an ordinary Chinese flimsily-built hong and highly iofammable, Counsel contended that the ease should nat have been taken to Court.. Cases were constantly taken to that Court on the suspicions of Inspector McDowell and this was a flagrant case. The prosecution, before laying a case in this Court, should consider the case well to see if there was sufficient evidence on which a charge should be made. There was not one shred of evidence here to connect these persons with the offence charged. Counsel said in his own experience that Inspector McDowell's evidence had become unreliable in these cases. Counsel said this from his experience
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.