Mr. C. H. Haines, Registrar, refused to frame a charge against Mr. "Jerry" Morgan when the preliminary hearing of evidence brought by the Crown against Morgan was concluded in H. M. Police Court yesterday. The Registrar, in his decision, stated that in his opinion the prosecution had not produced sufcient evidence to justify him framing a charge against the accused. Mr. Morgan was alleged by the Crown to have received a quantity of stolen wood oil knowing it to be stolen.
Mr. Haines said that he was satisfied that the prosecution had proved the existence of a conspiracy to steal a quantity of wood oil, but he as not satisfied that they had succeeded in proving that Mr. Morgan was one of the conspirators. In support of their case against Mr. Mur-gan, the prosecution had brought evidence to show, firstly, that on December 17 last year, Mr. Morgan had signed a document, Exhibit Seven, as witness, although no shop guarantees were on it, He was not told the full contents of this document, and was promised a chance to sell goods on commission in re-for signing the document.
remarked Mr. Haines, "might ly have been the act of an innocent dupe".
Cheques Provided Secondly, the prosecution had brought evidence to show, that on December 24, Mr. Morgan was asked to lend two cheques to the parties in the conspiracy. He was reluctant io do so, but was told that otherwise the goods would be retained. He accordingly agreed to furnish postdated cheques, provided that he could advertise for three days in the Chinese and foreign press, and check the ownership of the goods with a Japanese shipping firm.
Mr. Morgan, Mr. Haines stated, knew that there was only seven resumed dollars and three cents standing to his account in the Chartered Bank, although the cheques which he supplied were for $14,000 and $2,000, but the prosecution had not proved that he had no reasonable expectation of meeting these amounts. If Mr, Morgan had not been satisfied as to the ownership of the property, he might ave stopped the cheques.
This again might be the act of an innocent mai On the same day, he furnished a guarantee to a woman, Yao Koo-sze, and signed it in a false name. This was the only act on the part of Mr. Morgan which could not be the act of an innocent mi Thirdly, the prosecution hac brought evidence that the woman Yao had received this guarantee better before December 18, presumably on December 15, the date of the letter. Another witnesses, Chow had stated that the letter was handed over on December 24. There was a doubt here as to which date was correct.
1f Yao were correct, it might be that Mr. Morgen was a party to the conspiracy, but in view of the discrepancy between the two witnesses. the Registrar said that he did not think that any jury would convict on the evidence as submitted by the prosecution, He therefore could not frame a charge against Mr. Morgan.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.