Supreme Court. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 87, 14 April 1888, Page 2

Supreme Court. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

TXSTBBDAT. (Before Hib Honour Mr. Juitico Eiohmond.) THE AI/LJtO«D OHILD-MURDKB OABB. The oase in whioh Fong Chong and Clara Fong Chong (his wife, European) were charged with the murder of their infant ohild was proceeding when we went to press yesterday afternoon. Dr. Collins, re-called, said that though the age of the ohild was not less than four or five days it might bo at mnoh as 15 days. To the jury— ln witness' opinion the infant was a European Child as distinguished from a half -caste Chine) c. - Emma Maher, matron of the Terraoe Gaol, produoed some pillowcases sewn by the female prisoner while in oustody. To Air. Jclliooe— She had giren the work to the aroused by instruction of the Governor of the Gaol. • Luoia Canlton, dressmaker, who had compared the tewing of the garments in whioh the infant found on the beaoh was wrapped with the tewing done by the female prisoner in gaol, pointed out features of similarity. Som» of the. work done in gaol was better than th* other, but it was all bad work and now Mid then the worker fell back into the same old style. This oonolndod the oase for. the Crown. Mr. Jelliooo submitted to His Hoaor that there was no evidenoe to go to the jury, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the ohild found dead was that of the prisoner*. His Honour said he had considered the matter, and, without expressing any 1 , direct opinion, he thought the oase was one to go to the jury. If, however, Mr. JeUiooe wishod it, he would reserve the point. Mr. JeUiooe asked whether there was any evidenoe of intention to kill. Hit) Honour said it was satisfactorily proved that th* female prisoner had a ohild about the Bth January, and that the prisoners, without any reason for doing to, denied the fast* ' Besides, there wm sufficient evidenoe of correspondence in age with the ohild •fpnnd at Evans Bay. Mr. JeUiooe asked his Honour to distinguish to .the jury between killing with intent and doing it accidentally. Hia-Honour said that if the jnry found that death hod been caused by suffocation respiting from ontsido pressure, it would be for the defence to provo accident. At Mr. JeUiooo's request, his Honour agreed to reserve the question as to whether there was any evidenoe to go to the jury of either intent to murder or ooncealmont of birth. Mr. GuUy Bummed up the ease for the Crown. i . Mr. JeUiooe, addressing .the ■jury on behalf of Fong Chong, pointed out'tbat it. had not been proved that tho dead; qbUd'KM. that of the prisoners. The evidenoe of' neighbours showed that the prisoners' child muit have been borq about the 7th January, whereas he gathered from the doctor's Guidance that the ohild found on the beaoh died about the 10th. Assuming, for the moment', that the marks on the neok were mode by tho prisoner*, he suggested, at ,a .reasonable theory, that they might haver bean caused at birth, in the absence' of a skilled attendant. Mr. , JeUiooe atkod the jury - not to tend two i^ftw-creatures to their execution on tho mere iuforence of Dr. Collins tbat the child hod not died a natural death. He commented warmly upon the "unworthy trap" which had Mtn laid by the proseoution to catoh the female prisoner, whioh he designated as nothing less than an outrage Chinamon bad little respect for dead bodies, and in their own country they were not accustomed to use public cemeteries for burial purposes, to that there was nothing surprising in the supposition tbat the pruoner should dispose of the body of his child by either bury. . ing it himself or putting it into the sea, in order to tare undertaker's expenses, with* * out any desire to conceal the birtp from , the world. In that case, at he 'would have little regard for the body, the marks on the neck might have been caused by him in shoving it into the bag. In conolusion, he atked the jury to accept nothing but sworn testimony, and to rejeot all inference and conjecture. At they hoped to stand before- the judgment seat of the Almighty, he asked them not to be prejudiced by the nationality of the male prisoner, and not to let the innocent suffer. Mr. Skerrott, in hit defence of the female prisoner, laid strew upon the absence of motive on tho part of the aconsed for the murder of their ohild, and the extreme probability that, if they had determined to do so, they would have carried out the design immediately upon its birth. He argued at length that supposing the child found to have been theirs, it would have been physically impouible for the woman while suffering from the effects of labour to have participated in the act of carrying it over tho ' hiU to Xilbirnie. Mr. Skerrett censured tho prosecution, not only for tho "trap" kid or his olient, but alto for having subjected her to medical examination. His Honour, in directing the jury, said that they must first find whether the ohild in question was the one of whioh the female prisoner had been delivered; secondly, whether it was intentionally killed by tho prisoners, and then whether it wot killed by either of them apart from the other. He did not understand it to be seriously contested that the female prisoner had given birth to a child. The jury mast be satisfied that the body found by Taylor on the 15th January was the one of which the was delivered. If they found that such was the case, they must decide whethtr its life had been taken wilfully. The way in which the body was found must bo remembered, and in deciding whether the woman wat a party to its death her denial that she bad given birth to a child must be considered, and also the question whether she, being so reoently married, could have bad any desire to suppress the fact of the birth. At to the count for ooncealment of birth, the jury must be satisfied that the prisoners, or either of them, had seoretly disposed of the body for tht definite purpose of concealing the birth. It.was evident that it was well-known to the female prisoner's neighbours 'that she wat about to bear a. child, and to tome of them that it had actually been born. The jury retired at 7.27, and returned precisely at 8 27 with a verdict of Guilty of concealment of birth and teoret disposal of Mr. JeUicoo asked hit Honour to respite sentence until the questions reserved had been decided by the Court of Appeal, and also, as tho offence of which the priionora Had been oonvictcd was only a misdemeanor, to admit them, or one of them, to tail in the. meantime. His Honour thonght the prope? course, would be to pass sentopoe, and afterwards, stay its execntion if necessary. Mr. JeUiooe. said that a matter had been oommunionted to him which would justify him in moving to quash the oonviotion, viz., thajfettaeriQeaoe W not been interpreted