Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

R. v. Ganacopulos, 1899



R. v. Ganacopulos

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Hannen CJ, 16 May 1899
Source: North China Herald, 22 May 1899




Shanghai, 16th May

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.


   Andrew Ganacopulos. 40, lately employed as quartermaster on the P. & O. s.s. Ballarat, was indicted for feloniously stabbing Alfred Thomas Cornell and Percy George Potter, able seamen of H.M.S. Bonaventure, outside the Globe Hotel, Yangkingpang Creek, on the 19th of April, with intent then and thereby to do them some grievous bodily harm.

   Mr. H. P. Wilkinson (Crown Advocate) prosecuted, and Mr. Duncan McNeill defended; the prisoner pleading not guilty. 

   The following were sworn on the Jury: Messrs. W. B. Buyers, W. C. Murray, T. H. Heard, J. D. Bentley and George Sutherland.

   Messrs. A. W. Burkill, F. Anderson and E. J,. Abraham, who had been summoned on the Jury, failed to answer their names and were fined $50 each.

   The Crown Advocate, in opening the case, said that the charge against the accused was that without any lawful excuse he stabbed two men on the 19th ultimo, knowing as he must have done the necessary consequences of that act - namely, that he would wound them. He should call evidence which would show that as a matter of fact two bluejackets of the Bonaventure were stabbed, and it would be for the Jury, subject to His Lordship's direction, to say whether there was or was not any excuse at all for that stabbing.

[Not transcribed.]

   The whole point was as to whether there was any fear of the prisoner losing his life. He mentioned that because he did not think under all the circumstances that there was much chance of him so losing his life. If the Jury considered there was, they would acquit him altogether. If on the other hand, they thought he was reasonably provoked they would find him guilty of unlawful wounding, but, if they thought there was really no provocation at all, they would say that he was guilty upon the indictment.

   The Jury returned to consider their verdict and on returning into Court found that the prisoner was guilty of the charge preferred in the indictment.

   Prisoner, in response to the statutory question of the Clerk of Arraigns, had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed according to law.

   His Lordship said that, the Jury having found the prisoner guilty, the justice of the case required a sentence of one year's imprisonment with hard labour.

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