Bihara Singh, the second accused, said that there' was no enmity be: tive en himself and the complainant, At the time the assault was com mitted, he was in his hut drinking with tivo Chinese friends, Chow Ching said he was a fre-man employed at the mills. He knew the last witness and at about 6 o'clock on the night in question was in Bihara Singh's hut and had' a. drink of Chinese was an Indian feati Toft at 6.20 p.m, He had never drank with accused Chen Yoan-shiang, a watchman at the mills, said he accompanied the last witness to Bihara'e hut on November 9 at about 6 pin. and had a drink as it was an Indian festival.
A Whisky "Fest"
Ajab Singh, the third accused, sail! that on the day in" question, between 5.30 pin. and 9.30 pam.
was in another Indian's hous?! drinking "Harvey's whisky." He TOS Sh bee fe te pope Im eress-examination, witness said that the three of them drank a, Bottle of whisky between them, The Crown Advocate:—Why did you leave the house at half past nine?—Because we had finished the whisky, Bishin - Singh, S. P, C.- 266, corroborated the evidence given by the last witness as far as the "'ghi" transaction was concerned but left the house at about 6.30 p.m, Dabura Singh agreed that the two last itmesses purchased "ghi" from him on November 9.
His only disagreement with, their evidence was in regard to the brand of whisky consumed. Witness declared that they finished a bottle of "Johnnie Walker" that night.
was his favourite brand, he Further evidence was given to the movements of the fourth accused, Chanan Singh, on the night in quesffon and the case was adjourned.
Thursday's Hearing Mr, Reader Harris, in argument, insisted that the jury must find his, clients guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—otherwise they must return a verdict of not guilty. He suggest ed that his clients had no motive to assault complainant, the evidence of the prosecution being that they were angry because he would not re-Uinquish his position for one of them,. Counsel, referring to the evidence of a Chinese witness, who had not appeared until 12 days after the assault, pointed out that the light near the scene of the assault was very poor, and therefore, discredited his evidence of indentification of two of the accused, His evidence in the Lower Court also differed from that he gave in the present hearing. Once he had said that he had been approached by an Indian to give evidence, in the other he had said that he had volunteered to appear, Mr, Reader Harris, continuing, suggested from the evidence that one Gopal Singh, had, in about the 50 minutes, before the police arrived, and whilst complainant. was in 'a semi-conscious condition, impress-upon him "that accused" had assaulted him (complainant), Further according to police evidence, they "had found nothing—in: criminating in accused's quarters, Counsel also pointed out that accused could not have known who assaulted him because it would appear as though he had been taken by surprise from behind—most men are right-handed, and as the blows were received on the right arm and right side of the head, they must have been delivered from behind.
The Question of Motive Mr. Mossop insisted that it was not necessary for the prosecution to establish a motive, but it was evident according to the Indian way of thinking that a motive did exist. Long before complainant arrived in Shanghai Chanan Singh had asked for the position, - Complainant, because he came from the same village fas the No, 1 watchman, secured a position easily, and he would not re-Tinquish it.
Narian Singh, complainant, had told the same story in both Courts, the defence being unable to shake his evidence. His story of the attack sounded logical, for would not man who was attacked with sticks raise his right arm to protect himself, and would he not be able to identify the man who struck this blow, and the man who struck him fon the head, which blow caused him to fall?
Counsel did not think it probable, admitting the possibility that any tone could influence him whilst in a semi-conscious state, to say falsely who had attacked him, He had ven the names of his assailants to arrival. He pointing out that is the easiest defence—usually very logical—and the most His Honour, in summing up, sai the jury must consider the time, place, the nature of the wounds, and the weapons. There was no doubt about the first, but referring. to the second, Judge King said that no weapons had been found.
Judge King pointed-out that each accused had an alibi, but told the jury that in this case someone was lying, either the accused were lying or they were not. In his experience with Sikh cases, usually gomcone lied, and the jury must weigh the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.