4
I think he could
Ordinance 7 of 1862 [90f1162] have claimed the privilege granted by Sec. 3 of Ordinance 8 of 1869 which admitted every Inspector, Sergeant, or Constable of the Police Force to claim at the termination of each service of 5 years a bonus or a free passage.
And all: Orley, although engaged under Ordinance 6 of 1862, appeared to have successfully claimed this privilege, since he received a third bonus at the end of his fifteenth year of service.
It matters not whether Mr Orley's case be decided by Ordinance 7 of 1862 or by 8 of 1869. In neither case has he any legal claim to any bonus or passage money on his retirement.
He is not entitled to passage money, because he was engaged in Hongkong and both Ordinance 6 of 1862 and Sec. 3 of Ordinance 8 of 1869 grant passage money only to those who have been engaged out of Hongkong.
These Sections say "a free passage from Hongkong to the port nearest to the place at which he may have been engaged for service in the Force":
He is not entitled to any bonus because if his case is to be decided by Ordinance 7 of 1862 he can claim one at the end of his second service of 5 years; if he asserts that he is governed by Section 3 of Ordinance 8 of 1869 he can claim a bonus at the termination of each service of 5 years; and he has not completed his 4th term. Moreover, he has not complied with the express proviso, viz: giving three months previous notice to the Captain Superintendent of Police of his intention to leave. For these reasons I am of opinion Mr Orley has no legal claim to any bonus or a free passage.
By
Sd Edw. Ackroyd,
Acting Attorney General.
15th October, 1886.