73
latter and sworn testimony really amounted to "new evidence" on this point, it would be unfair in me to criticise further this awry excuse, offered in good nature, and upon an erroneous belief,—produced by direct mis-statement—of an utterly inexcusable crime.
I shall, therefore—rejecting this superadded matter —confine myself to the "observation" and "statement" which together form, in fact, one substantial "finding."
And I proceed to do so under the next following head.
THE CASE OF THE QUEEN v. WILLIAM TARRANT, FOR SEDITIOUS LIBEL; TRIED AT THE NOVEMBER SESSIONS OF THE HONG KONG SUPREME COURT, 1858.
Mah Chow Wong had been charged before the Police Court, in July, 1857, on two informations, for piracy, and confederating with pirates.
The sitting magistrate was, in the first instance, Mr. May, J.P., and afterwards Mr. Davies, the chief magistrate; an order to that effect having been obtained by Mr. Caldwell, J.P., through his influence with Dr. Bridges.
If the chief magistrate was selected, because—a new arrival in the colony—he was likely to know but little of the pirate's history, there was, in the two cases before him, more than enough to make him very con-
