2 Straits L.J. 1 (1889-1890)

handle is hein.journals/straitsal2 and id is 1 raw text is: THE

,*tgaits

a Ii

Q4 Otunat

AND REPORTER.
PUBLISHED MONTHLY.
FOR THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS ANID SIAM.

JUNE, 1889.

CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Bankruptcy Notices   ...  ...   ...   ;..  1
N otes    ...  ...   ...  ...   ...   ...  1
Mr. Louis De Souza and the Demerara
Judges     ...   ...   ...  ...   ...  3
Magistrates' Appeal: -
Hajie Tapa, Appellant, and Sarah, Respon-
dent  ...              .   .  .   .  5
Khoo Seng Ju, v. The Crown ... .. 11
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal:-
Lim Seng Ee. Plaintiff, r. Wray and Dyer.
Defendants.                 ...  ... 5
BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
Goveriiment Gazette, May 3rd, 1889.
NEo CHOW HIN, UNG CHYE TEONG AND
OTHERS, Penang; 1st Meeting, May 11th ; Public
Examination. May 13th.
MAY 17TH.
MOONA SAIBoo. Singapore. Receiving Order
and Adjudication, 13th May. 1889.
CHuNG   SENG Hoo. Singapore. Receiving
Order, May 15th, 1889.
MAY 25TH.
MOONA MOHAMED MUSTAN, Singapore, Receiv-
ing Order and Adjudication, May 23rd, 1889.
MAY 31sT.
CHUNG SENG Koo, Singapore. Receiving Order
and Adjudication, May 27th, 1889.
NOTES.
--:0:-
On the 3rd of May, one Pol Heng was
charged before a Court of two Magistrates
in Malacca, with criminal breach of trust
of goods to the value of 5132. It transpired

that after the information was laid, and
before the case was heard, the accused
offered to pay the $132 to the Prosecutor,
who was, however, advised that he would
be guilty of a misdemeanour if lie accepted
compensation on condition of not continu-
ing the prosecution. At the hearing, Poh
Heng's Counsel admitted the taking, but
urged that there had been no dishonest
unisappropration, and that the accused
had always been ready and willing to
return the money. Hoh lHeng, however,
did not bring the money into Court and
tender it unconditionally to the prosecutor.
The Magistrates convicted the accused,
and sentenced him to three months' rigo-
rous imprisonment.
The Prosecutor was ready and willing
to abandon the prosecution if he could
recover his money. When, however, a
summons or warrant has once issued, the
law assumes that the prosecutor's inter-
ference is in obedience to public duty, and
took place on behalf of the public. This
is a view of the case which he cannot be
allowed to disclaim. He has therefore,
on right, at any subsequent stage of the
proceedings, to consider that lie is in
reality the person to be satisfied, or that
he has any power to control the machinery
which he has set in motion. When justices
are once seised of the matter, all right to
compromise it, or prevent a conviction, is
at an end. It is not necessary to carry
this doctrine in practice to an oppressive
point; cases often arise in which it is
wise to allow a mere personal charge to be
withdrawn.

VOL. II. No. 13.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?