Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

R v. Chang Tsze Yun, 1866


R. v. Chang Tsze Yun

Consular Court, Shanghai
Source: The North-China Herald, 13 January 1866




SHANGHAI, Dec. 29th, 1866.

H.M. Consul requests the Judge of the Supreme Court to peruse the minutes of an enquiry held by him in reference to alleged acts of extortion with which Chang, the Canton Linguist of the Consulate is charged, together with his defence.

The evident falsity of parts and the contradictory character of much of the evidence invest the case with considerable difficulty.

Though the investigation took its origin out of the charge in the Friend of China of exactions from the Lottery, the undersigned in determining the two questions whether Chang is a fit and proper person to continue in the Consular service, and should or should not be sent to his own authorities charged with the offences alleged, does not feel himself precluded from taking into consideration any evidence of anterior facts calculated to alienate the special charge, or to afford the means of estimating whether he is a fit and proper person to remain in the public service.



SUPREME COURT, Jan 3rd, 1866.

On a careful perusal of the papers connected with the enquiry into the conduct of Chang, the Chinese Interpreter to Her Majesty's Consulate at this Port, and submitted to me by H.M.'s Consul, I am of opinion that the facts disclosed do not justify the assumption that Chang is guilty of the offence laid to his charge, and that no reason exists either for dismissing him from his post as a person unworthy of confidence.  Perhaps it would be as well to caution men in Chang's position from interfering in matters not wholly within the sphere of their public duties, and of the suspicion to which a departure from this rule exposes them.

(Sd.) EDMUND HORNBY, Chief Judge.



The undersigned, Her Majesty's Consul, has carefully examined the evidence in the case of the charge brought against Chang-tsze-yun of levying a squeeze from lottery shops.

The undersigned is of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the assumption that Chang was guilty of the charge, and that there are therefore no grounds for discharging him as a man unworthy of confidence.

But if persons connected with a public office will interfere with matters outside, a certain amount of suspicion cannot fail to attach itself to them, and the undersigned takes this opportunity to caution Chang-tsze-yun that for the future he had better confine himself to his proper duties, as should such a charge be again brought against him, he will probably have difficulty in clearing himself.


Shanghai, 6th January, 1866.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School