Secondly, the prosecution had Drought evidence to show that on December 24, Mr. Morgan was asked to lend two' cheques to the parties {in the conspiracy. "Ho. was reluctant to do #0, but was told that otherwise the' goods would be remained. He accordingly agreed to furnish ostdated cheques, provided. that he could advertise for three days in the Chinese and foreign press, and cheek the ownership of the goods with @ Japanese shipping firm, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Haines stated, knew that there was only seven dollars and three cents standing to hig account in the Chartered Bank, although the cheques which he sup: plied were for $14,000 and $2,000, but the prosecution' hed not proved that he had no reasonable expectation of meeting these amounts, "If Mr. Moran had not been satisfied as to the ownership of the property, he might have stopped the cheques.
This again might be the act of an innocent man. On the same day, he furnished a guarantee to a woman, Yeo Koo-sze, and signed it ina false name. This was the only act on the part of Mr. Morgan which could not be the act of an innocent man, Thirdly, the prosecution had. Drought evidence that the woman Yao had received this guarantee better before December 18, presuimbly on December 16, the date of the letter. Another witnesses, Chow, had stated that the letter was hand: ed over on December 24. There was doubt here as to which date was It Yao were correct, it might be that Mr. Morgun was a parly 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 fon 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.