Magistrate) delivered his decision at the Hongkong Magistracy on March 22 in the case in which Ishibawa Shoichi, manager of the Tong Song Company, was charged with exporting or attempting to export antimony ore.
Mr. G. N. Orme prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. J. H. Gardiner defended.
His Worship said:—The defendant is charged before me in respect of the following charges viz. (a) Unlawfully did export or attempt to export prohibited goods, to wit, antimony, on the 29th February, 1916, contrary to Ordinance 1 of 1862 as amended by Ordinance 19, of 1914, G.G, September 17, 1915, G.P. 28. (b) Unlawfully did export or attempt to export anti-many without having previously obtained an export permit authorizing him to export the said anti-many, or an export licence, on the 29th February, 1916, contrary to Sections 3 and 4 of Ordinance 32 of 1915, G.G. 3rd January, 1916, para. 7 of G. N. No. 2
I find as a fact that the ore, the subject matter of these charges, is antimony ore. T will now refer to that portion of Mr. Lloyd's evidence in which he describes the practice to be followed with respect to the exportation of antimony. His evidence is as follows:—"With respect to antimony ore, the first thing that has to be done is that the applicant comes up and sees the Superintendent or whoever is in charge and inquires whether he will be permitted to ship antimony to a certain destination and certain consignee. If we are satisfied that it is a regular plication and we know nothing against the consignee, the applicant will be informed that he must instruct his proposed consignee to apply to the nearest British Consul for a certificate that that consignment will be used in Japan. It is the duty of the consignee to forward this certificate to the applicant in the Colony. The applicant then delivers the certificate to the Superintendent of Im ports and Exports.""
Mr. Lloyd then deposed to the fact that in the case of iron ore no such procedure is necessary. The effect of the procedure detailed above is that with respect to anti-many ore it is most difficult to get a permit and it also i del ore there is us difficulty and permit is granted at once, The inference is irresistible that the defendants knew of this cedure, and the reason why antimony ore was described as iron ore in the application for the permit was because the defendant would be able, if it were not detected, to get the antimony ore shipped away at once. But for the vigilance of the Imports and Ex-many, as when he negotiated with the Wa Cheong he negotiated for antimony, and in the contract note there appears the character for antimony. The defendant also stated that he did not know there was any difference with respect to the exportation of antimony and the exportation of iron, The defendant further stated that he instructed his clerk Matsui to apply for a permit for ore only. Matsui in the witness-box, told this extraordinary story: that the defendant told him to insert the word '"'ore" only, but that he had noticed that in the Government Analyst's report obtained by the defendant there was a statement in the said report that there was a considerable amount of iron pyrites in the ore, and he therefore inserted in the application for the permit the words "Tron ore."
The inference is irresistible that Matsui was requested by the defendant to apply for a permit for iron ore. The defendant knew quite well that if the application had contained the word "'ore'' only, would have been refused. The explanation now given is untrue and is a mere after-thought.
Revenue Officer Mackenzie on the 20th February last at 10 a.m. visited junk 2,622, lying near the Ceylon Maru. The junk contained the 300 bags of ore the subject matter of these charges. The permit was produced to him by a foki of the Tong Song. When the witness first saw the permit there was the word "iron" before the word "ore." He left the permit with the man and went away, returning in three-quarters of an hour. On his return the word "iron" had been erased from the permit.
Rennosuki Kamanaru, the shipping clerk of the Tong Song, stated that he erased the word 'i: i the permit. He gave this traordinary reason for doing that the shipping order contained the word "ore" only. He therefore erased the word "iron," which was jon the permit. to make correspond with the shipping order. It is hardly necessary for me to comment on the conduct of this witness, who was prepared to alter ao official document for the reason stated. The reason given is ridiculeus and absurd.
The action of the defendant in this matter was a gamble. If he was not detected and got the anti-many ore away the gamble would be a success. If he was detected the gamble would be a failure.
I convict the defendant on the second charge and impose a fine of 35,000, and in default six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Having convicted the defendant the second charge, it is not open to me to convict him on the first riginal from
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.