H.K.'S CENTRAL MARKET AND THE TARRANT AFFAIR
155
which went into his own pocket. The accusations had, of course, been withdrawn because they were impossible to substantiate but doubts still existed on the expenditure of the money which had undoubtedly been collected—Caine's version was that it had been used to run a voluntary hospital for the women but the Hong Kong Register alleged that a sum of about $500 per month was still being collected. To make matters absolutely plain, the Register reported that Afoon had told them that the Compradore's 'squeeze' was known to the Chinese as "Caine's rent" or "tax."20
The finger was pointing at Caine though it is fair to say that Tarrant, whatever his motives, merely recounted the alleged facts. It was the two newspapers which implicated Caine in the dealings of the two compradores, but it was only Tarrant who found himself arraigned, with Afoon, for conspiring to damage the reputation of Caine. He was committed to trial before the Supreme Court by a bench of Justices. As it happened, the three justices were all Government servants (Campbell, Hillier and C. G. Holdforth) and two of them held to be Caine's protégés. It is probably true that the public was taken aback at this and Tarrant had their sympathy. When his case eventually came before the Supreme Court in October, Tarrant being suspended from duty during this period, the Attorney General moved that the trial be postponed because of the absence of a material witness. Lo Een-teen, Caine's Compradore, had disappeared from the Colony. Tarrant was willing for the trial to proceed but the Chief Justice Hulme ruled that it should be postponed and when it came up again, the Attorney General (now Parker, acting) moved before Campbell, now Acting Chief Justice, that there was no case to answer and did not offer any evidence.21 But, although Tarrant was now a free man, he found himself without a job—during his suspension the Government had combined his post with another. He proceeded to petition the Secretary of State, Earl Grey but he was hampered by lack of evidence.22
It is at this point that we return to the account of transactions in the Central Market. On 23 November 1847, Hwei's interest in the Central Market ceased when it was sold by the Sheriff to Le Kip-tye, an interpreter in the Government's employ, in execution of a writ of fi. fa.23 in the suit McSwyney v. Hwei Afoon.24 His interest was said to amount to 5/13 of the whole and this must have been his interest under the deed of 28 June of the same year.