His Honour gave judgement in the above case as follows On the 1th day of Jann 1907, this Court tried 8. R. Price, fendant herein, on an into charging him with an assault with a dangerous weapon, The trial resulted in the conviction of the defendant who was sentenced to xix months imprisonment. The judgement was apfeale from and the case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, The appeal was based on the contention, first, that the defendant had been once in jeopardy, and second, that the judgement was not supported by the evidence. In ruling on the first point, the Court of Appeals held that "The Court did mot err in overruling the defendant's plea in bar," in which he alleged facts in support of a plea of former acquittal of the same offence by the United States Consular Court at Shanghai.
., the second point, the Appellate Court made the following common "The Court found, and there is evidence to justify the finding, that the defendant at the time and place stated in the information, while engaged in an angry altercation with the complaining witness, without justification, and within shooting distance, drew a revolver and pointed it toward him threatening manner, putting him in such fear that he got under a table for safety. The {"ourt also found, and indeed the fact is undisputed, that the pistol was unloaded, but this was not known to the complaining witness."
The Appellate Court also held that, "while the evidence does not show that the defendant committed the crime of an assault with a dangerous weapon, it is yet sufficient to prove him guilty of the minor offence of assault."
The judgement of: this court was there reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Parsuant to this decree, defendant was again placed on trial in thi on the same information on whi was tried at the former hearing. "His counsel again. interposed the pien of former jeopardy which was overruled for the same reasons given by the Court in overruling the same plea at the former! trial, namely, that:
"To plead jeopardy" it is necessary for the defendant to show that he has been placed on trial on a valid indictment or intermat ion before. a court of competent jarisd on. From the allegation of the plea it is evident that the accused was not placed or. trial on 'a valid intermat since it appears that the information contained three distinct charges; in no one of which was defendant charged with nssanlt. The Consul-General has not jurisdiction of the offence charged in the information on which the accused li now on trial.
It he had any jurisdiction at all it was to hold " preliminary examina tion th a view to holding the accused for trial by her court.
Tt appears from the allegations of the complaint that the Consul-General exercised only this jurisdiction.
The proceedings before him, therefore, cannot he pleaded in bar to this action.
(17 American and English Cyclopedia, 586, and authorities stated.)
The case then proceeded to trial. The record shows that a nuniber of the Chi ese witnesses who testified at the fo er trial had recently disappeared and could not be located by' the District Attorney, and that the only Chinese witness offered by the _proseention testified that he perjured himself at the: former This left bnt three witnesses who testified as to the facts upon which the prosecution is based—Jovansen, Anon Stewart and the defendant.
Jovansen, the proscenting witness, is now in Singapore, and the record shows that the District Attorney ached him to appear and testify at the trial of this ease and offered to pay expenses to Shanghai and return, bat that he refused to come "unless the Government would agree to pay certain debts he had contracted in Singapore and at the conelasion of the trial to The Dis-expenses to Java, trict Attorney did not feel warranted in complying with these conditions, hence introduced the testimony of this witness as given at the former trial, Anna Stewart not being present, her affidavit introduced under a stipulation at the former trial was in like manner used at thie tri An attempt was made by defendant's counsel to impeach the witness Jovansen.
The character fof the testimony introduced for this purpose was not sich as to entitle it to great weight, and this is especially true of the testimony of defendant's counsel, G.
D. Musso. He testified that Jovansen came to his office between ten and twenty days after the conclusion of the former trial and while Price was in goal, and stated that had Price done the right. thing and given him two thousand dollars, there would have been no trouble— that he would have testified that he threatened Price with a knife and not with a bottle. This testimony of G. D. Musso is so contrary to all haman probabilities, so devoid of any ear-mark of trath, that when considered in connexion with the conduct of the perjured hinese witness Chang Kwei-sun, whose testimony it was apparently introduced to reinforce, and in the light of all the facts and cireamstances surrounding this case, it in not entitled to credence and is rejected by the Court as being unworthy of belief. The Court has never witnessed such an unblushing and deliberate exhibition of perjury as that furnished by witness Chang Kwei-sun in the trial of this case. Perjury under American jarisprudence is one of the most serious offences known to the law, because it strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice. Mary States punish this crime when committed at the trial of capital enses with death and such cases subornation of perjury is punished in like manner. In all ceases perjury is severely banished. In this instance the witness of China, American officials could do no more than call the matter to the attention of the Chinese authorities. This was promptly done, In the light of all the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that said witness te fied to the trath at the first trial and that his testimony at the present trial was false, That the accused ix guilty of committing an askanlt upon the prosecuting witness there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of the Coart, This conclusion is based rosinly upon the testi-many of the accused himself and that of his companion Anna Stewart. The facts ax disclosed by the testimony of these two witnesses are as follows: On the 24th day of July, 1907, the occured and Anna Stewart went to the St. George' Hotel, in Shanghai for refreshments. The servants, who were Chinese boys, recognized Anna Stewart as a person they had formerly known, and refused to serve the refreshments because she was not a fit person to be served in a respectable hotel. As soon as the accused comprehended the situation he proceeded to the pantry where he found Mr. Jovansen, the manager of the hotel, in an excited and disturbed frame of mind. After having afew words with him Price remarked to him that he was crazy and that if it were not for creating a scandal he would punch the top of his head off. Jovansen then promised to serve Price and his companion. Price then returned to the table where Anna Stewart was sitting and when he discovered that they were not going to be served, he told her that it would be well to move on. This anggestion did not commend itself to his companion, who having understood from the Chinese boys that they were. refused service on account of her from
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.