Wis Lordship—Would you say that this sentence would not be passed in any country other than China? Does your client have such Foowledge of the laws of every country?
is Lordship reminded counsel of, the ease Rex v. Harper which ws Yyeard in that court. There, he said, the charge was keeping common gaming house and the accused was fined $8,000, ordered to be deported, fand had {6 pay the cost of the prosecution and of his deportation, Mr, Wing countered that every case shoul! be taken on its merits, and hin Lordship continued, pointing 0 thatthe judge in that instance ha said that he. did not. send. the face used to prison. simply because The took Into consideration that he ight have believed he could van A gaining house in Chinese tervitury ithe. hed obtained the consent of the Chapet police, Mr, Wing suggested that the Judge might have: been influenced Ju that case by the suggestion of Dritery, but His Lordship said that was not s0, "Does your client assume that in any other country Int China the sentence would not have been given?"
Me, Wing:—That is his opinion.
Mis Tordship:—Can you sub—stantiato that opinion?
Mr. Wing said' that his client ve-Served, of course, to any civilized country, and his' Lordship replied that civilization was a matter of opinion, anyway.
The Personal Attack After some further argument about. conditions prevailing before the closing of the gaming house concerned in the "Garein case" Mr, Wing, still holding that his client had been within his rights to com ment. upon the sentence, passed on to his second point, the attack on Judge Wo.
"This was an entirely different matter, he said, and read paragraph 4 of his clients affidavit, in which hho deprecated the language of the article, stated that he had no personal animus against Judge Wu, fand made a sincere apology. He referred again to law to show, as he contended, that attachment for this kind of offence had obsolete. If the attack made on a judge in a Brit he maintained, no motion of attach: ment would have been made, "He said that Judge Wu should have Drought. an action for defamation Inid 2 criminal information.
Summavizing his argument, said that the criticism of the sent-fence was the right of any member of the public, and secondly that the procedure against his client was wrong. His client. apologized for his language and had made apology in sufficiently wide terms.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.