In replying, the Crown Advocate answered the objection as to proce-was the same cas had been taken last year in the ease of the editor of "The Statesman" ag_a result of an attack on Mr. Justice Avery over a decision the libel action brought by the "Morning Post" against Dr. Marie Stopes. He quoted. excerpts from this ease to support his argument.
So far as the sentence imposed im the Provisional Court was concerned, this Court was bound to take Judicial notice of Chinese law when its attention was called to it. He quoted from the Chinese laws against gambling, illustrating sentences for various offences under the law, of two years imprisonment and a fine of Yuan 3,000, or three years imprisonment and a fine of Yuan 8,000 for cited actions. Chinese law and British law both provided for sentences of imprisonment and fines in such charges, he so He said that the article complained of was devoid of anything like fair criticism; it was nothing more than a scurrilous personal attack fon the judges of the Provisional Court in general-and Judge Wa in particular. It accused Judge Wa of. savagery.
The Apology Invalidated He referred with regret to the defendant's affidavit, If it had omitted the third paragraph and contained the fourth, he would have been glad, But as it was the apology: was nullified by paragraph 3, which repeated that the sentence was vindictive and unwarrantable, and would not have been passed any court other than Chinese. The question for his Lordship to decide was whether the defendant had purged his contempt or not. In hhis opinion he had not.
His Lordship and counsel for the defence then had a long fon the wording of paragraphs 3 and 4 in the affidavit, the former suggesting that the defendant, while apologizing for his offence in' graph 4, committed it again in} paragraph 3. Mr. Wing admitted that the wording might have been Detter, but said that his client had only been served on Wednesday night and the affidavit had been prepared in a hurry. On the pri ciple he held firm, and considerable discussion etwoen him and' the Bench ensued. Sr. Lockhart several Limes asked to be allowed to address the Court, but was refused. Finally hho instructed his counsel to withdraw the last sentence of paragraph 3—"I am and always shall be of the opinion that the sentences would not have been passed in any country other than China, and that the sentences were vinductive and unwarrantable"—which was done, The Judge's Severe Comment The Judge—t don't want to hear any more argument, It was a very unfortunate method of expressing an apology. see no objection to the withdraw open Court, moved for a rule wisi and 1 issued cone, calling on the defendant to attend here to show why he should not.be attached. Mr. Wing has dealt in a very able way, and also a very ingenious way, with the argument he had to present: He divided his argument into two parts, ore being that it was a criticism of a particular sentence, and the other that it was an attack on the Judge. Taay it was an ingenious argument Ddecurfse later, when pressed for an explanation as to how he coild explain the apparent contrast between a very humble apology for attack on Judge Wu, in which the defendant admits that his expressions were improper, intemerate, and ungentlemanly, whilst in face of. that he still inserted par. 3 saying that he was always of the opinion that the sentence was vindictive and unwarrantable and could only have been passed by 4 Chinese Court, though he still maintained his views, he entirely withdrew the words that had puzzled me in par. 3. So we have this position, that, as far fs concerned, he has also withdrawn entirely any criticism upon the sentence. To turn to the article itself, I think it is difficult to see how in' any way it can be justified. It is entirely intemperate attack on Judge Wi a judge of the Provisional Court, and now I understand Chief Judge, though that fact does not affect me. It is not a criticism nor an attempt at criticism, but simply scurrilous abuse of the judge.
is Lordship then quoted extensively from the article, and continued:—These are highly intemperate words and I do not think that the defendant is in such a position as to be able to judge the Chinese as a race. He finishes with an attack on the whole Chinese race.
It is an attack on the Chinese race, but there is also another race that is called "yellow" and which goes amongst the great Powers of the world, It is an absolutely scurrilous, proper and intemperate article and it is worse still that it should have been produced in China,- because'in this country wer still have'
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.