In the Appeal Court, the question of intention of del Vaile's part was brought up. According to Chinese law, when open gambling takes place, it is a crime. According to Mexican law, when a man opens a place for public gambling, it is also rime. Accused himself made a statement that he intended to open gambling house upon his arrival in Shanghai, which shows that he had the intention to commit a crime, whether his Contul gave his per mission or not, or-whether there was a large crand present, or whether employees of the Shanghai Municipal Council' attended, these questions have nothing to do with the {crime under review. With regard S.|to the all ation thatthe Police failed to warn accused, Mr, Bryan says that' the Council arid the Mexican Consul exchanged official correspondence on the subject which was published. in the "Municipal Gazette." The Council "did not have to warn the accused, who! cannot deny that they did not know what they were committing a crime or that steps would be taken against them. Mr. Bryan's statements are, therefore, within reason and correct, Regarding the attack on greyhound racing, the Court are of the opinion that' greyhound racing is improper and illegal' but that is an entirely. different matter from this. Two wrongs do not make one right Such argument to the contrary is unreasonable, The Case of Garcia And now as to the first accused, Garcia. Did he conduct a gambling house?' There is definite evidence and proof to show that he did. ibod the found in the safe and said that this iwas addressed to Garcia), This letter shows that, where the name had been cut out, there was an "a" to show that this bore the name of Garcia, Dr. Fischer admitted that what' Miss which have not proved and his words cannot change her evidence. Garcia says that the letter wa: addressed to Alvarez but, if this were the case, "2" would be the last letter to appear in: the place cut tout, but this was not so: "a" ap= peared, The tax receipts prove that the place was occupied by, Garcia: the Court does not believe that Alvarez or Leal occupied it. Garcia, at the first hearing, said that before October 17 he lived in this place but when he came before nly altered. denied. After he gave up the Garcia. still ce-operated with det Valle in running the place. (Judge Tsong then went on to describe the amount of electricity and provisions used and other receipts which; ho said, proved beyond all doubt, that. Garcia ce-operated with del Valle. He mentioned that del Valle had admitted that the previous. tenant of the house was Garcia and thet dence found in the safes belonged to the previous tenant, If Garcia didn't, retain fu-interest in the place, surely dal Valle would not have kept the ea: respondence because It was unneces sary The stubs. of the cheat) [books likewise were dealt' with ates length).
Dr, Fischer's Cunning, Dealing with the. question of cir continued:—3 cumstantial evidence, Judge. Tseng
In the Court of Frit Instance, circumstantial and direct evidence were taken into consideration: this isnot contrary to the.: Ta Fischer, during the appeal, to say anything about the direct evidence but he severely attacked the circumstantial evidence ning words.
As to the question of punishment, the law provides that punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the code enforced at the time judg~ ment is delivered and not that which sin force at the time the cum was committed. This means. that the Jaw to be followed is the Chi-nose law, No foreign law may be applied in this court which is a Chinese court. Although both accused denied knowing that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese laws, it is a matter of international law that people in. all parts-of the' world should obey th laws of the country in which they, live, except in specified instances. According to international. law, there in no necessity to fellow the Mexican law here, Dr. Fischer demanded the use of Mexican law but his arguments are without foundation. In this, tis evi dent that both foreigners and Chinese have suffered through thi gambling house while the two a cused have thought only of theme selves and their own profits: the did not care how much the public suffered, In view of the intent, the nature and meaning of their crime, there are no mitigating cireum= stances and the sentence cannot be reduced. According to article 280 of the criminal code the maximum punishment is imprisonment for three years and a fine of $9,000.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.