Rodger's submission was the deceased had decided that the country place would be ideal to commit the robbery, as it was, without iMumination, well off the highway, and beyond' reach of any Immediate assistance should his passenger make any disturbance, " Furthermore, the Aeceased could Easily dispose of any stoler. property by leaving it at his home, near the scene, to avoid detec tion by patrolling police, or questions when he relumed to his hong con-ug the possession of the stolen property, Robberies of drunken men by tick-shaw coolles were a frequent oceurrence in Shanghai, and this was well Known to the police. On August 6, 1936, Bfartin reported to the consulate that he had been robbed of $50 by four rickshaw coolies in an alleyway near the Red Rose Cabaret off North /Szechuen Road. In one of the police reports issued in connection with the Feeent incident, it wes stated that "Rickshaw licence number 2080 under the seat of which was found puller's badge and licence number 127 in the name of Sung Vee Yue was standing on the path nearby, and from examination of the vicinity It way evident that a fierce and prolonged struggle had taken place between two persons, and footmarks on the bank marked the spot where the com-attents had fallen into the creek. At the time*of his arrest, Martin was Jcovered with mud, and it was evident hat he-had been fully submerged in the mud and water of the creek."
In another of the police reports, it was slated that "further examination showed that the upper part of the back, and rear upper part of each shoulder, was quite dry, although Martin's face was covered with mud, which tends to corroborate his state-mont that he fell on top of the deceased, Collapse into Creek 'The bank of the creek was about three and a half fect above the creek, and it appeared that Martin and Sung, fighting and struggling on the bank, fell into the creek. The water In' the creek was about nine inches deep, but rose and fell a few inches with' the tide.
The mud was very soft, and a person stepping inia it would sink inthe mud about" twelve inches. When Martin and deceased were struggling, the man who happened 10 fall underneath would probably be drowned, particularly as his exertions in the Aight would have winded him. If Martin had happened to fall underneath, there was no doubt but that he would have been drowned instead, There could be no possible motive for Martin tolling the deceased to take him to this lonely spot, nor for him wishing to murder or injure the deceased. The only possible explana~ tion was that deceased attempted to rob Martin, Marin woke up and the, men falling into the reek, and in Sung's death, In two letters sent by General Wu 'Te-chen to Mr. C, B. Gauss, America: Consul-General, it was stated that th rickshaw coolie' was "beaten to death' by Martin, In the Jast Telter, it was also questioned whether or not Mar-was intoxicated. The Chinese authorities seemed to question whether this was a case where an intoxicated person was taken to a deserted spot by a rickshaw coolie for the purpose of robbery. The evidence of a police volunteer, however, included the statement' that "from his appearance he was apparently. intoxicated."
'This was after the prolonged struggle mentioned In' the S.M.C. police report, and falling into" the cold water of the creek, all of which would have made Martin more sober. There appeared, therefore, 10 be no doubt that Martin was intoxicated at the time that he was taken to the lonely" spot in Chinese territory. There was no evidence that Sung wa: "beaten to death" by Martin, On. th contrary, the evidence proved that deceased was not beaten to death. Dr. 'T, B, Dunn's ridings and report were conclusive, Matter of Life and Death was the opinion of Detective Sub-Inspector Tilton and of the Speaker that Martin would have been killed if Sung had been able to kill him, or if other loafers had come on the scone when the struggle was in progress. If Sung were not able to subdue Martin or at least knock him unconscious, he would have been charged with robbery or allempted robbery, and would have been sent to prison for a long term.
From the legal point of view, this was a case of "justifiable homicide," that is where the slayer not being himself at fault had legal right to kill, Tt was homicide authorized by Taw, because it was committed in self-defence. The law permitted "Livery one who is without fault, and who had adopted every reasonable safe expedient to avert ihe necessity, fo take the life of his assailant rather than to lose his own."
Tu Clark and Marshall on Crimes, it woe stated that it was clear, under the authorities of common law, that man feloniously assaulted other, with intent to kill him or to Tnfliel great bodily harm, the person threatened, being without fault him-Self, might stand his xround and Kill his assailant, if it was ido' so in order to save Inimself from death or erin, and the homicide would be justifiable, as distinguished from excusable, self-defence. "In like manner, a won ian might Kill a man prevent him from. committing a aps upon her, and, if necessary, a person might Kill another to prevent it was therefore the opinion of Mr. Rodger that a nolle proseyut must be entered and the charge against Martin dismissed. An order to that effect was issued by Judge Helmick.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.