Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

R v. Ross, 1870


R. v. Ross

Supreme Court of China and Japan
15 December 1870
Source: The North-China Herald, 21 December 1870




Dec. 15, 1870.

Jury Trial.

Before C. W. GOODWIN, Esq., Deputy Chief Judge.


R. v. ALEXANDER ROSS, Manslaughter.

   Defendant was arraigned on the above charge, for that he, on the 2nd of October last, did feloniously kill and slay one Hu-a-kow, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.

   Defendant pleaded not guilty.

   The following jury was empanelled and sworn: - J. B. Robertson, A. J. Lines, F. J. Green, A. E. Littledale, and C. Walsh.

   Mr. Stripling conducted the prosecution.  The first witness he would call was

   LIN-A-MOW a Roman Catholic, swoern, said - I remember about the second or third week in October last, on the 22nd of the month, I was at Au Chalet that day.  I know the defendant, Mr. Ross, who came out there at 1 ½, and had a cold tiffin about two o'clock.  After tiffin he took his gun and went outside.  When he came back, he went inside his room and lay on the sofa.  I went in with a lantern, and I saw two large birds on the tree just opposite the window, at the corner of the cook-house.  I called Mr. Ross, and did so twice before he got up.  He got up and tried to shoot, but the gun did not go off, and he rested it on the window-sill in order to put a fresh cap on.  The first had snapped.  The gun went off.  It was not at his shoulder at the time, but low down.  I was close behind him.  I heard the first cap snap, but not the second.  It was a bad fitting one.  He was trying to press the cap on by putting down the hammer on it, and that sent it off.  When it exploded, I heard the boy, who was at the cook-house door, inside, call out, and he put his hand to his back.  There was no window to the cook-house, only the door.  I did not see the boy before the gun went off.  This was about three o'clock.  I went down first and called the barman and Mr. Ross to take the boy in and put him in a bed.  Found he was shot all over the back.  I saw some blood.  Mr. Ross attended to him; and sent the barman away at once for an English doctor.  During the time he was away Mr. Ross and myself minded the boy.  The boy complained that hjis inside felt "too hot," and I gave him tea.  A native doctor came and with a long point took out three small shot.  I asked him how many were in and he said he could find no more.  The doctor said one week more and the man would be all right; that if Mr. Ross would pay him plenty dollars he would cure him in that time.  He also said that those shot he had taken out had only cut the skin, and that there was no fear of the man dying.  The doctor went away, but Mr. Ross offered to pay him $20 if he came back next day.

   Mr. Ross and the barman stayed with the boy all night.  The doctor did not come on the following morning.  In the morning, as the doctor did not come, Mr. Ross got a chair and put the boy in it, and told him to go to his brother's house, and stop there, and that next day he would send a doctor to him.  I don't know what the boy's name was.  I had been at Au Chalet five days before the day in question.  The boy was there to work as a gardener and not for cook pidgin. Mr. Ross did not know him at all, and had not seen him nor asked him to do any cooking.  The boy was cooking rice for himself.

   By his Lordship - There were other boys about the place - one other, who acted as house-boy and cook.  Mr. Ross had not previously lived in that house.

   His Lordship observed that his object was to endeavour to elicit how far the defendant was acquainted with the locality, and whether he was sufficiently familiar with it to be aware of the probability of anybody being in the place where the deceased man had been.  As there was no Counsel on behalf of the prisoner, to draw the attention of the Jury to these points, he thought it well to do so.

   Witness continued - One boy was in the barman's room cleaning a lamp.  There are only two boys.  The door of the cook-house was not quite opposite the window, but at an angle.

   A Juror - Could you have seen the doorway from where you were standing, behind Mr. Ross!

   Witness - I could not.  Mr. Rose might perhaps have seen the door.

   By his Lordship - The gun lay rather to one side of the window.

   Defendant asked if it was not correct that though when the gun went off he could see the door of the cookhouse, the place was so dark that he could not have seen any one inside?

   Witness - Yes.

   HENRY MURRAY, sworn, said - I was employed aw barkeeper at Au Chalet, on trhe 21st of October last.  I am not quite certain if it was the 21st or 22nd and  whether it was either Thursday or Friday, when Mr. Ross came out there for the good of his health.  A few words were exchanged between us, and then he had tiffin and went out with his gun.  He came in shortly after, and went to his room; and the girl, who was cleaning a lamp, went there and called him, saying (I heard her say so) that there were some birds on the tree.  I next heard the gun snap but took no notice of it.  I immediately afterwards heard it go off, and the boy shout, and I ran out to the kitchen door and found him standing.  As I got to him he fell down; and the girl and Mr. Ross came to us.  I said "you've shot him."  I observed blood come through his jacket.  I wanted to take him into the cook-house, but Mr. Ross said "No, I'll take him upstairs and pout him into my bed, and you go away for a doctor, as fast as you can."  We carried him upstairs and put him into bed, and Mr. Ross brought sheets and blankets and shirts, and washed his back with water, before I left. I saw that there were a good number of holes scattered about his back, between two and three inches apart.  There might be about thirty or forty marks.  I did not see any shot at the time.

   I went in to the Settlement for a doctor; and I went to my employer, Mrs. Mills, and told her about the affair and she said a Chinese doctor would do.  I had been told by Mr. Ross to get a European doctor.  A Chinese doctor came and took out three shots, and Mr. Ross said he would give him anything he asked if he would stay with the man and cure him.  He said if he got $20 he would cure the man in a week, and as he would not stay Mr. Ross gave him a promissory note, and asked him to come early in the morning.  Mr. Ross stayed with the man all night.  The doctor did not come next morning; and as on Saturday many people would be out at the place, I told Mr. Ross the boy had better not remain there.  He therefore sent him in a chair to his friends, at the same time giving him money and promising to pay any expenses he might be put to.  The day after the occurrence, the mawfoo came out and was very impudent and wanted to take away some things belonging to the man, which I refused to allow him to do till Mrs. Mills came.    

   I am w ell acquainted with the locality and the premises. You can see part of the cook-house but not the door from the window.  It stands at an angle to the window.  The cook-house is dark.  The fireplace in it is not opposite the door, which is in the middle of the wall.  I have never seen Mr. Ross there before, nor to my knowledge has he been there.  I know that he had no altercation with the deceased, and that he did not even know the man was in the house.  If Mr. Ross wanted food cooked he would have given the order to me.

   By his Lordship - The cook-house is about ten yards from the window.

   By a Juror -The room rises about nine steps above the level of the cook-house - the latter being on the ground, while the house is raised.

   LE-ZE-CHIN, cautioned, stated - I am a Chinese doctor.  Remember being called to see a man who was shot, on the 28th day of the 9th moon - 22nd October.  I was called in the first and arrived there about the third watch - in the middle of the night.  I saw a man's back, and blood flowing out of it.  I felt for shot, and found some, but the deeper ones I could not get at.  I took out sixteen, which were at a more shallow depth.  They were about two or three -tenths of an inch in.  I probed about an inch at furthest, and dared not go beyond that.  Mostly I went straight into the back, but some punctures I made sideways.  Those of about an inch were straight.  I applied medicine to stop the bleeding.  I did not guarantee to cure but asked for $10 for medicine, and next morning went to get the money, but could not get it.  I was offered $10 if I would guarantee to cure the man, but I did not take it, as I could not make that promise.  I did not get a cash.

   By defendant - I did not come next morning, because when I went for my first day's pay to a house in the French Settlement, they would not pay me $10 unless I promised to cure the man.

   HOO-SEAOU-LIN, cautioned, stated. - I am a mawfoo at the Imperial Hotel, in the French Settlement.  I went out to Au Chalet, and saw my nephew, Hu-a-kow, on the 23rd Oct. I saw him also in the Imperial Hotel.  He told me he was ordered to do cooking, and that because he refused he was shot.  He was engaged as a gardener.  He said he was shot at Au Chalet by a foreigner.  It was not his business to cook, there was a boy there for that purpose.

   The evidence ort Dr. R. A. Jamieson was next called.  On taking his place in the witness box, Dr. Jameson said he wished, before being sworn, to ask the Court whether it admitted the principle of paying the fee of a professional witness.  He wished to establish the principle, and he believed it was necessary to bring it forward before being sworn.

   His Lordship said he was aware that the practice was pursued at home.  It had never been admitted here, however, and the Chief Judge had always refused to acknowledge it when, on former occasions, it had been raised; being of opinion that the nature of the community here was not such as to render it necessary or desirable.  The wirness would require to answer any questions which came within his knowledge in connection with the case.

   Dr. Jamieson had no intention to refuse to be sworn or to withhold the evidence he might have it in his power to give, but merely thought the opportunity a favorable one to test the principle.

   His Lordship said he would make a note of the matter and reconsider it if Dr. Jamieson liked; as an application regarding the principle of fees to be granted for the professional testimony as against simple matters of fact.

   Dr. JAMIESON was then sworn, and stated - I remember attending to a man at Hongkew Hospital on Monday the 24th of October.  He was a fresh patient, and my attention was drawn to him on account of the difficulty with which he was breathing.  It was not till I had turned him over to continue the examination I had been making, having already looked at his chest, that I found bruises on him.  The entire skin of his back, from between the shoulders down to the buttocks, was covered with bruises, pretty evenly distributed in small circular patches.  When I first saw the man I thought he was suffering from bronchitis, which might have arisen from a variety of causes.  I should say it was impossible, from the appearance of the back, that the shot could have penetrated. There was no suppuration and all the wounds were scabbed over.

   As soon as I saw the condition of his back I called the attendant, and was told how it had been thus injured.  When I heard this, I made a careful examination, but could find no shot, nor could I, on pressing round the wounds, find any trace of suppuration, which there must have been if shot had been present.  Some of the shot may have penetrated at first sufficiently deep to have been held by the skin and to require to be removed subsequently, but the great majority of them could only have bruised it.  I should notice that the symptoms of gun-shot wounds in the chest are more or less equivocal.  We expect to see certain symptoms, however, though there may be some others absent; but in this man's case there was no other symptom than difficulty of breathing, which was sufficiently accounted for.

   The disease under which the man was labouring, bronchitis, affects the small air vessels of the chest, and it generally runs a rapid course.  The shot might have frightened and depressed the man very much, and so hastened the disease he had, but could not possibly have caused the death of an ordinarily healthy man.

   By his Lordship - It would be extremely unlikely, and I know of no case, where bronchitis has been induced by gun-shot wounds in the chest.  The disease progressed rapidly, and on Wednesday, two days after I first saw him, there were symptoms just such as we should expect from bronchitis. The man died that night; I was not present at the time.  He was treated throughout for bronchitis.

   By Mr. STRIPLING - I did not observe any mark on the man's side, but did so the next time I looked at him.

   By his Lordship - There can be no mistake as to the man's dying of bronchitis, but what caused his disease I had nothing before me to determine.  In portions of the back a probe may be inserted to the depth of an inch.  I did not probe his back.  There were no shot in the skin, and I judged by the absence of suppuration that there were none in the back at all.  There was no post-mortem examination held.  I am in the habit of attending the hospital regularly.  The Chinese are so averse to it that there never have been post-mortems, except, occasionally, when permission has been obtained to dissect extremities.

   HO-NIN, a native Christian, sworn, states - I am an attendant at the Hongkew hospital.  A man was brought there on Sunday the 23rd of October.  He was brought in the morning, but I did not know who he was nor his name.  I was stopped by a policeman in the afternoon, and asked if I had seen the man who had been shot by a foreigner and brought to the hospital.  I then went and saw him.  His back was covered with red and blue marks, but no wounds.  Everything was healed up, and I could not have judged how the marks were caused.  The man coughed a great deal; and there was a mark on the left side, where he said, on my asking him, the pain he felt was.  It was a blue mark, about two or three inches long, and an inch and a half broad.  I did not observe that there was any appearance of this having been caused by shot.  As I did not think the case very dangerous, I did not send for Dr. Jameson, who came at his usual time for visiting, and after an examination wrote a prescription.  I was not present when the man died, which he did about eight or nine on Wednesday night.  I did not know any of his friends.  No one came to see him except a lady from the Imperial hotel.  I believe the doctor treated him for bronchitis.  W gave the mixture which Dr. Jamieson prescribed.  I do not understand the disease called bronchitis; I only know that the man had a very bad cough.

   Mrs. ISABELLA MILLS, sworn, said - I keep the Imperial hotel, and also kept Au Chalet.  I had a boy out there as a garden coolie.  I had engaged him on the recommendation of an outside coolie about three or four days before.  I remember on a Friday I got a letter from Mr. Ross, that this boy had been shot, and asking that a doctor should be sent out.  The boy was brought in the morning in a chair.  I took him in, and told his brother to bring a bed and put him in it.  I examined his back, and saw wounds on which the blood had hardened.  He stayed at the house one night.  The Chinese doctor did not come to my house; I sent for Dr. Macgowan.  The mawfoo always instigated the boy to make a noise when he heard me coming.  I asked him why he made a noise, and he said the mawfoo had told him to do so, in order that he might squeeze dollars.  I put the man in my chair and went away with him to the hospital, the mawfoo and another boy interfering all the way and wanting money.  I think the man was sickly when I engaged him.  His orders were to stay in the garden, and he had nothing to do with the house.  He had a dry cough when he was brought in the chair.  He said he felt pain in his throat, and in his side where there was a black mark, which he said he got when he fell down on the doorstep after the shot being fired.  He was quite sensible, and said to me that it was an accident, as the foreigner did not intend to shoot him.  I saw him the day he died, and turned him over, and his back was all healed up.

   Mr. STRIPLING said this concluded the case for the prosecution.

   His Lordship observed that the defendant was not required to make any statement, but might say anything to the Jury which he thought would weigh with them in his favour.

   The Defendant had nothing to say except to repeat his plea of not guilty.

   His LORDSHIP then proceeded to charge the Jury.  They had heard the general evidence given, and also the medical testimony by a professional man.  The charge against the defendant was one of manslaughter - the culpable killing of a fellow-creature.  There were, however, various degrees of culpability, and it was by no means the same as murder, which always implied malicious intent.  Manslaughter might be committed by various means and under various circumstances which were more or less culpable.  If death were even unintentionally caused by the pursuit or doing of anything which was illegal or wrong in itself, it became manslaughter.  But, if in the exercise of a perfectly harmless and lawful engagement, a man happened to kill another, it was homicide by misadventure.

   There were two questions they had to decide, upon the evidence before them, in the present case.  The first as whether this shot, which it appeared proceeded from the gun of Mr. Ross, occasioned, or was a contributing cause of the man's death.  If the Jury arrived at the conclusion that it had nothing essential to do with his death, that would of course amount to an acquittal for the defendant.  He would notice the leading points in the evidence having reference to this.  The first witness said she saw two or three shots taken out of the man's back.  The Chinese doctor again said he took out about sixteen, but his evidence did not go much further, as he did not return to pay any more attention to the case.  It was clear, however, that the man's back was more or less spotted and that shot entered it.  The man was subsequently taken away and removed to the hospital, and had more enlightened attendance and inspection; and they had heard Dr. Jamieson's evidence that the man had bronchitis, that the immediate cause of death was this disease and that there could be no doubt of what he had died from. As to the man's having been struck by shot, all that Dr. Jamieson could say was that the back was completely  healed up, and that he could not believe any shot remained, because if there had suppuration must have ensued; whereas, in this case, there was no appearance of that. They had to decide upon that evidence, whether these shot wounds had to do with the man's death, and if they did not find that they had they must find in favour of the defendant.

   But supposing they did not come to that conclusion and felt themselves bound to take another view of the case, the next thing to be considered was how far the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence.  If he, as his Lordship had already said, when occupied with a harmless pursuit, a man accidentally kills another it is only homicide by misadventure, unless he has shown careless handling of the weapon which was in his hand.  If a man were using a hatchet, and if the head of it accidentally flew off and caused the death of any one near, it was accidental homicide.  There were many causes of guns going off accidentally, and the question to be decided in such cases was whether insufficient care had been taken to observe whether they were held in a position to threaten life or as to whether they were loaded or not.  In the present case the defendant was using a gun at the window of a room which looked out upon the court-yard in which a cook-house stood, and it did not appear that at the time he could see any one there.  Still, if it had been a frequented place, a place where people usually walked freely, a public street for instance - if a man put out his gun at a window looking towards a public street, and it went off and killed somebody, it would be considered manslaughter.  But if such a thing happened in an unfrequented place, it might be held to have a less degree of culpability attached to it. Here it did not appear that there was any one to be seen in front; while the window was also raised many feet above the cook-house, and it was improbable that any one should be beside it.  This they had to consider last, however. 

   If they came first to the conclusion that the gun-shot wounds were not in any way contributory to the death, they had not to enter upon the second point he had put before them.  His Lordship did not think there was anything further that he should notice for their guidance; but he ought to say that the law did not require the very highest caution - that depended very much on the circumstances of the case.  And if they were convinced that there was no extraordinary want of caution, they should return a verdict in accordance with that finding.

   The Jury, after consulting together, retired, and in about three minutes returned.

   Mr. J. BARR ROBERTSON, the foreman, then said - Our verdict is that the man's death was not caused by gunshot wounds.

   His Lordship to defendant - The Jury find that you are not guilty of the charge.

   Defendant then left the dock.

Supreme Court for China

Shanghai, 15 December 1870

Source: Supreme Court of China (Shanghai), Judges' Notebooks, The National Archives (U.K.), FO1092: 339, pp 25-31

Regina v. Alexr Ross

Manslaughter of Hu A-kow

Jury: A. J. [Line]; F. J. Green; A. [Littlestal]; J. B. Robertson; C. Walsh.

No counsels for the prosecution or defence.

Prisoner pleads Not Guilty.

Nina-Man, sworn, speaks Chinese

I am a Portuguese. I recollect the 22nd Octr last. I was at Chalet. Mr. Ross came about ½ past one, took cold tiffin about 2 o'clock. He then took his gun & went outside; when he came back he went inside his room & lay on the sofa. I took a lamp into his room & saw two large birds on a tree, at the corner of the cook-house. I saw them through the window. I called Mr. Ross - I said there are two large birds in the tree. He tried to shoot but the gun could not go off. He rested the gun on the window sill. The cap had snapped. He took off the cap & tried another. The gun went off. The gun was resting still on the window sill. I saw him press the hammer down on the cap & the gun went off. I heard a boy sing out. The boy was at the cook-house door. I could not see him from the room. There was no window in the cook-house - only a door.

I did not see the boy before the gun went off. This might be at three o'clock. I went down to see the boy. I called the barman & Mr. Ross, they came. We found the boy who had been shot in the back. I saw blood. Mr. Ross sent the barman for a doctor. While the barman was away - the boy said his inside felt hot & his back [hard] & asked for tea which was given him. The Chinese doctor came at 10 o'clock at night. He took out three small shot. I asked him how many there were & he said he could find no more - the doctor said if Mr. Ross would give him 20 dollars he would cure him in a week. He said the remainder of the shot had only cut the skin. He said there was no danger the man wd die & he would come the next morning. Mr. Ross promised to pay him $20 tomorrow. The barman staid with the boy all night. Next morning the doctor did not come. The next morning Mr. Ross took the boy in a chair, gave him two dollars & told him to go to his [brothers] house, saying he would bring a doctor to him. I never saw the boy again.

I don't know the boy's name. The boy had only been at the Chalet five days. He was a gardener, not cook. I don't think Mr. Ross had [even] seen him before. The boy was not told to cook any rice, he was cooking rice for himself. I did not know the boy was in the kitchen. There were other boys about the place. There is a cook & boy. I have not seen Ross in the house before. A boy cleaning the lamp was in the barman's room. The door of the cook-house was not quite opposite. At the place where I was standing I could not see the door. Ross could see the door. The gun was turned sideways on trhe window sill.

Xd by deft.

The cook-house was so dark that you could not see the man.

[Harry/Henry] Murray, sworn.

I was barkeep at the Chalet. I am not there now. I believe it was the 21st or 22nd of October. It was either Thursday or Friday I think. Mr. Ross came [out], & he went out with his gun - he came in to tiffin & went & lay down. I heard the last witness call him saying there some birds on the tree. I heard the gun snap - I heard it then go off & heard the boy singing out. I went to the cookhouse door & found him standing there, as I got to him he fell right down. The [????] & Mr. Ross came down & I said you've shot the man. I saw the blood flowing from his back. I wanted to put him down in the kitchen but Ross said No I will take him up to my bed & you go for a doctor. I carried him upstairs. Ross fetched blankets & sheets, & washed his back in the water. I saw it. I saw a good number of holes - they were two & three inches from each other. There were perhaps 30 or 40 marks on his back. I did not see any of the shot at that time. Mr. Ross sent me for Dr. [Gale?] or any European doctor. Mrs. Mills said a Chinese doctor wd do. I fetched one who came & took 3 shots out of his back & said there was no more. Ross offered to pay him - he said for $20 he would cure him in a week. Ross gave him a promissory note for the money. He was to come next morning - but wd not stay all night. Mr. Ross himself looked after the boy. Ross went & got a chair, & it was thought best to remove the boy as people wd be coming on Sunday. There was one boy for cooking - the boy in question was gardener. You cannot see the door of the cookhouse without looking out of the window. If the door of thje cookhouse is shut it is dark as there are no windows. The door of the cookhouse is about the middle of it, & the store is in the left hand corner. I had been about 5 weeks out there. I never saw Mr. Ross there before. If any thing was wanted to be cooked, I was the person to receive the order. The cookhouse is about [10] yards from the window. The room rises about 9 steps, & the cook house is on a level with the ground.

[Jun-tye] charged to speak truth

I am a doctor. I remember being called to a man on the occasion [mentd] - the 28 day of 9 moon (22nd Octr). I was called at the 1st watch & arrived aboutr the 3rd watch (i.e. middle of the night). I saw a man's back - I saw blood flowing out, & felt some shots. In places where the shot was not deep I felt them. I took out sixteen from the shallow wounds - the depth was 2 or 3 quarter of an inch. I probed gthe deeper ones & put in a probe about an inch and could go no further. There was several [????] of wounds. In many cases I put in the probe straight & in others obliquely. They were all at different depths. I saw blood flowing & put medicine to prevent it. I asked $10 for my pay & $10 for medicine. I went the next morning to get the money but could not get it. I was told to go to the Hotel in the Settlement. I did not guarantee to see him. I never got any money at all. I have not seen the man since.

X exd by Ross

I did not come back, because I could not get my first day's pay.

[A sia hin] charged to speak truth

I am a [??????] at the Imperial Hotel, in the French Settlement. I went & saw my nephjew Wa kun on the 23rd Octr in the Imperial Hotel. Wa kun told me he was ordered to cook & had refused & therefore he was shot. He was a gardener. He had 56 holes in huis back. I counted them. He said he was shot in the Hotel (Au Charlet ?) - he said a foreigner shot him. Wa kun had been [over] working.

R. A. Jamieson, sworn [Margin note: W. R. Lewis fee for professional testinonty of a skilled witness.]

I am practising as a physician in Shanghai. I remember seeing a man in Hong you Hospital on Mondat Octr 24th.He was a fresh patient. He was a coolie. I saw he was breathing with difficulty - I turned him over on his back & found it bruised. The whole of the back from the shoulders to the buttocks was covered with bruises in the small circular patches. He was suffering from bronchitis when I first saw him - I had no means of judging of the cause of the bronchitis. There was no suppuration - the wounds had already [scalped] over. I enquired what had happened to his back & heard the story. I could find no evidence of any shot having penetrated. Had any shot lodged there would have been suppuration. Some of the shot may have been penetrated sufficviently to have been held by the skin. There were several symptoms of wounds by gunbshot in the chest. There no symptoms whatever except difficulty of btreathing which was sufficiently accounted for by the bronchitis. [???] would have expected spitting of blood &c. Some symptoms might be absent but there wouls not be a total absence of all. Bronchitis generally has a very rapid course. The wounds on the back might have depressed the system, but I do not think they could have caused death.I know of no case recorded in which a gunshot wound of the chest produced capillary bronchities. His disease saw a rapid course & on Wednesday two days after I had seen him there were symptoms of the closing up of the lungs, & he died either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. He was treated for bronchitis - I truied to get his sgtrength up - I was not present when he died. We noticed one mark on the right side. I consider he died of bronchitis. There can be no doubt that he died of bronchitis. What may have caused that originally I cannot say. I made no post-mortem examination. I attend the hospital regularly. We have nevber made a complete post mortem examn. The Chinese being so opposed to it.

Hong ngok, sworn, Christian.

I am in attendance at the Hong you hospital. I remember on Sunday a man being brought. I did not see him myself. I don't know his name. I saw the man about 4 o'clock. His bacxk was marked with red & blue spots. They looked as if some [????] had been there. The skin was all healed up. I felt all over. I could not tell what was the cause. He had a cough & had difficvulty in breathing. He had a mark on the left side. He said he had a pain there. There was a mark of a [?????] two or three inches long. He said it was most painful. It was under the arm on the left side. I did not send for Dr. Jamieson till the afternoon. He came & wrote a ptrescription. I did not see the man die. He died I think about 8 on Wednesday night. No one came to see him except the lady from the Europeran hotel. He took a mixture. Whenever I saw him he was coughing & had difficulty in breathing.

Mabel Mills, sworn.

I keep the Imperial Hotel & the An chalet. I remember one of my servanyts being brought to my house in the French Concession. I had a garden coolie, he was brought by a boy of mine who said he was his brother. It was three or four days before they went - after the accident. I engaged him as garden coolie. He was brought in a chair to my house. I had him put on a bed. I saw his back covered with wounds, the blood had drfied up upon them. He stayed at my house one night. A [deletion] sent for Dr. Macgowan. Dr. Macgowan came & looked at him. I took him in a chair. I took him to the hospital - I took him with great care. We got the boy into the hospital. When I first engaged him he looked thin & delicate. He had a dry cough before the day he was brought in a chair to my house. I saw a mark on his side. He said it arose from his falling down when it was shot. Hew could talk a little English. He told me that it was an accident.

Case for prosecution.

Defendant makes no defence.

Verdict - The death was not caused by the gunshot wound; i.e. Not guilty.

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