Mr. Martin, after. consultation with the Magistrate, stated that the Court was unable and unwilj lin to order the Police to bring their informers into Court. The Court took the attitude that they could not instruct the Police in the making out of their case which they must do themselves. If they did not make it out properly and to the satisfaction of the Court, and if they omitted material evidence, the case would go against the prosecution and' the Court wag not going to instruct the prosecution how to ig make out their case.
Sub-Insp. Hermitage: We have shown by direct evidence the guilt of accused.
Dr. Fischer: You have not. We do not know that you have.
Sub.-Insp. Hermitage: I know. We have the money to prove the case.
Sergeant Sullivan corroborated Sub-Inspector Hermitage's evidence.
As Dr. Fischer did not call. his clients to the box, Sub-Inspector-Hermitage stated that the Police would not sum up as they had proved their case.
Dr. Fischer asked for a, dismissal of the case owing to lack of evidence. The only evidence was' against one of the girls who had the scales in her hands, This girl was under 12 years of age and: she, as well as the others, were considered to be ignorant of the law. Counsel submitted that they were tools in. the hands of other people. The old- man and the woman were just out from the country and knew nothing about the opium. They had no bad record, hence counsel would ask that they be discharged. The police had refused to call direct evidence, and they must suffer for The Assessor then asked what the Police meant by adding to the charge sheet among the articles seized "'a receipt from Mr. G. D. Musso for retaining fee."
Sub-Inspector Hermitage state ed that the receipt had not been brought to Court.
Dr. Fischer: I understand that it was for the year 1916.
The Court discharged one boy, and fined the three girls and the other boy $100 each. Owing to their age, they would not have to go to prison, The woman was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and the old man, in view of his age, was given 'a~ week's imprisonment and..a. fine of $500.
The announcement of the sentence was the sign of a dramatic and pathetic incident. The acoused, lined up, knelt down and cried out for the Court's mercy, and had to be removed at the Assessor's order.
Mr, Lemiére urged that the old man's sentence be reduced. He stated that accused was an old man and could not go to prison on account of his health. That he was innocent was proved by the fact that he still lad a queue and was dressed in his countryman's dress.
The Assessor stated that the sentence was a light one, and this was only imposed on account of the old man's age. The decision of the Court could not be altered, It was a bad case; and the young boys and girls were being trained up for the sale of the drug. If the prison doctor would, give a certificate showing that the old man could not serve his sentence, it might' be suspended. Imprisonment was necessary in these cases to show that the Court regarded the sale of opium as a. criminal offence. 3
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.