was as follows:--

There was ample evidence to justify the finding that the appellant inflicted the wound which resulted in the death of Lim Giap. The substantial defence was that the appellant was provoked by offensive expressions used by Lim Giap, and that he is entitled to rely on the First exception to section 300 of the Penal Code.

It appears that the appellant had an adopted brother Lim Peng who died 3 or 4 years ago. On or before Lim Pengs death Lim Giap seems to have disposed of all Lim Pengs property, and the appellant hearing about this made enquiries as to what had happened to the property, and in particular what the deceased had done with a sum of $ 200, the proceeds of sale of Lim Pengs daughter. Lim Giap said that he had sent it to Lim Hup Ser, Lim Pengs son in China, and that he had received letters acknowledging this sum. On the 3rd October appellant went to Lim Giaps house and asked to see the letters, but Lim Giap put him off and there was a quarrel. The appellant says that Lim Giap used abusive words to him and that he went out on the five-foot way feeling very angry. A few minutes later the appellant returned with a kn