Mr. Vielor Priestwood, Crown Advoeaie, and Mr. John MoNeill represented the "prosecution, "Reasonable Doubt"
"You will ave remarked the use of the words reasonable doubt. "Reasonable doubt' means real doubt, such a5 a reasonable man would feel himself obliged to en terrain, after carefully weighing any point before him in any matter of rear consequence, Not just a silly doubt, but a real doubt; if you have reasonable doubt, the accused gets the benefit of it, T must stress this point as T won't have time to refer fo it again, but you must always ear that question of the onus of root in mind, "Baward William Peters and Wile Mam Alfred Judd are charged in this case for that they on December 1; Shanghai, together murdered male Chinese known og Mau It will be your duty to return verdict in this case In respect of teach of the two accused, "You will bbe asked later in the day to give your verdict, firstly, in respect of Peters, and secondly, in respect of Judd, and you must consider the case of each man in accordance with the evidence Which "has been" given against him." The bulk of the evidence is directed against both of them, but there is certain evidence which is Recks respectively. The evidence for the prosecution closed on Satur~ day morning, when Peters entered the witness-box to give evidence on his own behalf, He wag followed by Judd, and the whole of Monday after noon was devoted to the addresses of counsel to His Lordship and the Jury. The case was adjourned, as Judge Mossop said that he had a fairly lengthy summing-up to deliver and he did not wish a tired jury to have to retire at a late hour to consider ite decision.
The nal net of the trial began at 943 o'clock next morning. At 9.10 win, the court-room was deserted. At 92am, two minutes after the doors were "opened to the public, every bench was occupied by a large crowd which overflowed into each Inch of space available and oven to the corridor outside Jury and counsel having taken their seats, His Lordship entered the court-room, and, after making a few brief notes in his book, sal The Summing-Up "Gentlemen of the jury, you have sat patiently through this case. T see from my notes that you have sat for over 36 hours continuously, and during the time you have listened to the evidence of a number of wit nesses.
T think it is only fair to you that 1 should go through the evidence of at least some of the witnesses again, to remind you of what they said, well, of course, as the evidence of the defence. Before doing that there are two preliminary points T wish to refer 0, "The first ig the respective functions of the judge and jury in cases of this kind. I'am here' to direct you on the law and it is your duty. to take my advice upon matters of Taw and to be guided by iL. AS regards the facts of the case, the jury are the sole arbiters. You alone decide questions of fact. If, therefore, 1 should express during my summing up to you opinions on questions of fact, you are quite entitled, if you so. wish, to disregard these' opinions whatever way I may express: them.
"The second question concerns the question of tie onus of proof. Mr. 'MeDonald' referred to this matter yesterday, but it is my duty to men-Yon it also. In any criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the Prosecution to satisfy the jury beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. That burden never evidence against one and not evident ce against the other, and you will keep in mind that any statement that have been made by Peters is evidence against Judd, and any walnut Peters, uring the course of the tnat you have had read to you a definition of murder. Itis a long dedtltion which Lord Coke gave to us many years ago:—Murder is unlawtal killing by any person of "sound memory. and discretion of another person, under the King's Peace, with malice aforethought, either express or Implied.
"For the purpose of this trial think we may take a shorter defini tlon—there is no question but that the accused are reasonable men, that is they are not lunatics, and there question here of the person. who alleged to have been killed. being anything else than under the King's Pence—so we miy' take the shorter definition that "murder is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought, and manslaughter is unlawful homi= cide without malice aforethought:
"In either case, the death of the victim must ensue within one year and one day of the act assigned as Its' cause Mallee Examined The question then was, what was malice? As the Crown Advocate had said in his address, st did not imply what It ordinarily did to the layman. To the lawyer, it had a definite meaning which might be expressed as 9 wrongful act done intentionally with out Just cause or excuse. For instance, If "A" shot at "B." intending to Kill him, but missed him, and killed "C," his best friend, he never theless was gullly of the murder of "C." because the law deemed him to have such a state of mind as covered by the definition of "malice Intention, however, was not capable of positive proof, and could, therefore, only be implied by a man's overt acts. The general rule, there fore, was that every man was taken to. intend" the natural' and proer consequences of his own acts. "No one had the right to shorten by an hour the life of a human be-nig without lawful authority—as, for instance, where there was 2 sentence of death to be carried out—and so he would briefly place before the jury what they would have to decide. in this ease they were satisfeld that the victim's death was caused or aceelerated by any act on the part of the accused, that would bring' the matter within the scope of the de-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.