After being kept in hospital because of eye trouble, complainant was! Aischarged, but was' admitted to the hospital twice afterwards, the last time being on April 14, when he died from pneumonia soon after admission.
Mr. Priestwood: Could the wound have' been caused by a stick or bludgeon?—No, plainant's house respectively, Muntaz Ah Kean testified as to the death and burial of the complainant, Mr. J. J. /McGeown. Marshal, gave evidence fo the hearing of the case in the: lower court, and Sadhu Singh thea' testified that ko had seen accused. afler the occurrence with a knife in his hand. Ujaga Singh also gave! evidence of kaying been present after! the occurrence, Jamal Din, in his! defence, said that te had not hit complainant with a knife but with a stick. He had gone to complainant's house!
collect the wages owing to him.
'The case was resumed on Wednesday, when accused told the jury that whatever had been done fo complainant had not been done with Intention, Accused was a poor man, and complainant did not pay him' his wages, and so he wont to collect them, whereupon complainant used bad language.
"The witnesses for the p-rseeution Ihave all told lies," he declared, "The complainant Is now dead; nobody can live for ever. ime Iudgo; That is a lamentable fact.
Addressing the jury, Mr. Pricstwood reminded them of the charges upon which the accused was arraigned, and took them through the various points in the charge in detail. There could be no doubt in their minds, he said, that the deceased complainant was wounded, and there could only be one intention with which a person would drive a sharp instrument into a man's face, "Tt Is only by God's merey that complain fant did not die of that wound," d clared Mr. Priestwood, "if it had been one inch to the right you might have been considering a different verdict."
He asked them to consider the fact whether, {f they were owed the paltry sum of $13, as the complainant did to the accused, they would Tie In walting for a man with a knife, unless they were of a wicked and de-proved heart. There had been some question as to whether the wound was caused with a knife or with a stick, and he would refer them to the doctor's evidence, which cited a sharp weapon as the most probable Instrument, Ho submitted that anger didn't destroy intent ina charge of this nature. If this man could not obtain the money owing to him, his proper course was to sue the His Lordship then took the jury through the law relating to the case-It they were unable to find that ad-cused committed the offence with Intent, they might, if they thought convict the accused of unlawful wounding under another section of the same Act, Anger, unless excited by provocation, was'no excuse for crime, Provocation never did away with 'a case, but under certain eircumstances "might mitigate it. "He reminded them that grievous bodily harm might quite easily have been caused by a slick. He did not think that they could come to any conclusion, on the accused's admission alone, other than that It was he who struck the blow. He would like them state In their verdict with what instrument the blow was caused, when ther with a knife or with a' stick, The accused in his statement to the Jury had emphasised the fact that he not intend to strike the blow when he went to the complainant house, but the question that they had fo decide was his intention at. the lime that he actually delivered it. itis Lordship gave the jury the usual warning that if they had any reasonable doubt In their minds, they must five the accused the benefit of the doubt.
The jury, after retiring to consider their verdict, found the accused qullty of the charge, and also found that "the wound had been inflated with some sharp instrument.
Delivering judgment, His Lordship said:—"You have been found guilty of the offence with which you are charged. I have no doubt that in your own mind, at any rate, your harboured a grievance against the man whom you struck. We all have grievances in this world, and we Must not take it into our own hands fo avenge them, especially where that vengeance takes the form of acts of violence. You will be imprisoned with hard labour for 18 calendar months"
What force would be necessary to cause that' wound?—Considerable force would have to be used, Indian Watehman's Motor Later, His Lordship pointed out that it was not suggested in any way the wound led to the death-of the complainant.
Mr. J.D. Davis, of the Public Works Department, S.M.C,, and Detective Sub-Inspector J. Dickson gave evidence of having superintended a plan and photographs of the com-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.