Editing .MTY4.MTc0NTU

<p>12
</p><p>It may have been that the goods were smuggled, but there is no evidence of that. It may be that the accused are guilty of some offence in connection therewith, but there is no evidence that they have been guilty of smuggling the goods. And so as to bring this matter within the language of the section, there is no evidence that the accused knew the goods were smuggled nor can it be even suggested that they were smuggled. Supposing that some other person smuggled these goods, and had sold them to these Chinamen, the case would not come within Sectiob 117, because there has got to be the actual knowledge that they were actually smuggled goods; and that evidence has not been produced here. I take it that the evidence is not strong enough to sustain a suggestion that the goods are liable to seizure. Just because Col. Worsrop thought the goods were liable to seizure is no proof at all. It has to be proved that the goods were actually smuggled, and he had actually seized them with definite knowledge that they were smuggled, I ask you Worship for a dismissal of the case. 
</p><p>THE COURT. I think there is enough evidence to commit for trial. A Jury could find on the evidence there. I commit you both for trial at the next Court of Competent Jurisdiction. 
</p><p>I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate copy of the said proceedings. (Sgd) (Harry Langley.
</p><p>I hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of facts is a true and correct copy of the depositions taken before me at the hearing of the above case. 
</p><p>(Sgd) A. E. Bull. 
</p><p>Police Magistrate in and for the City of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia.
<p>BC Archives GR-0419 
<p>Box 143 File 1910/58 
<p>BRITISH COLUMBIA. ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
<p>Attorney General documents.
</p>