10
the door, a distance of 20 feet separated us from the fat boy. The statement of the fat boy that defendant tried to strike him is false. I asked who the master was, and, when he was pointed out to me,
I asked him his illustrious surname. He told me, and I told him that I wanted the fat boy to come downstairs to be questioned by me about defendant's wife. He told us to go up. We went up and found the fat boy on the first floor. I had not searched upstairs. The fat boy refused to answer our questions. He only said that A-PAT patronised him, but that he did not know where she had gone to.
We then came up
to the Police Station.
To the Court--The fat boy has been in Hong- kong for three or four years. If he says that he has been here for only a year, it is an untruth. Defendant was talking in a loud tone in the shop. He did not break or kick about anything. The sergeant did not go upstairs after the fat boy.
GEORGE HORSPOOL, Chief Inspector of Police, said-I produce the character roll containing a note of defendant's character. He entered the Force on the 17th of October, 1872. In February, 1873, he was 15 minutes late for duty, and in April, 1877, he was cautioned for neglect of duty. Since that he has had a clean sheet. The cha- racter of defendant is excellent. He is now one of our best and most trustworthy officers.
CHAN CHUN, P.C. 183, stated—I have been on the force for 18 years and four months. I have known defendant for 15 or 16 years. On the 24th July I went with him and P.C. 170 to the YAT LOONG shop in Jervois Street. I did not see the defendant strike anybody. The defend- ant remained in front of the counter the whole time that he was in the shop. The Chinese constable went upstairs. I did not see the defend- ant go upstairs.
Mr. WOTTON then asked for the case to be dismissed, and in addition for the prosecutor to be fined for giving false evidence. It was hard that the expense and punishment of a trial in the Police Court should fall on an innocent man, and it was only in justice that his accusers should be made to feel for the action. Under the Ordinance, the Magistrate had full power to fine them $50, or to order them to pay $50 compensation to the defendant.
His Worship said that he would not proceed to such a measure, but that he would discharge the defendant, nothing having been proved against him.
Governor's Minute.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 14th August, 1888. The following Minute by His Excellency the Governor respecting the case of Police Sergeant SAEIK ALIM is communicated to the Honour. able the Captain Superintendent of Police for his information:-
"In the case in which Sergeant SHEIK ALIM "was charged with misconduct as a Police Con-
}
>
از مالی یان باسی ملاقات کی
یہ
1
19
11
stable, you intimated that, in the exercise "of your discretion, you would send it before a "Police Magistrate. As in that case a private
24
£6
<
person appeared as complainant, I desire to know whether that was the manner in which you
thought your discretion should be exercised, and "to be informed by what means Mr. La Kwong Cur was induced to appear as Complainant." FREDERICK STEWART, Colonial Secretary.
Captain Superintendent of Police to Colonial Secretary,
No 171.
SIR,
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
14th August, 1888.
In reply to the minute of His Excellency the Governor in C.S.O. 18, dated 14th August, 1888, with reference to the late charge against Sergeant SHEIK ALIM, as preferred in the duplicate petition of Mr. LI KWONG CHI sent to me, and to the Registrar General (C.S.O. 4481 as above) res- pectively, I have the honour to report that Ordi- nance 14 of 1888 clause 22 provides that a Magistrate may try a Police Sergeant for miscon duct as a Constable, and on conviction the penalty may be a fine of $200, or in default of payment, six months imprisonment, and that clause 23 pro- vides that the Captain Superintendent may, in his discretion, bring Police Officers for trial before a Magistrate on charges of breaches of discipline in which case the penalty is limited to a term not exceeding fourteen days' imprisonment.
2. I forwarded on the 1st instant in answer to His Excellency's inquiry, a report showing that my opinion of the case and my advice to the petitioner was that it was a matter that should be tried civilly and not criminally,
3. His Excellency was pleased to overrule this opinion and to command as follows.
"What should have been done previously, must be "done now, whether the case be heard before the Captain Superintendent himself, or in his dis- "cretion sent before the Magistrate. In appears "however that if the Sergeant admits the search "without warrant, there is no necessity for evi- "dence under oath, as suggested by the Captain Superintendent, for the degree of violence used in the search is a matter of comparatively little "moment."
4. In obedience to His Excellency's commands and in accordance with the latitude therein allow- ed I adopted the usual course in such matters, namely of directing the Chief Inspector to place Sergeant SHEIK ALIM on the Charge Sheet and to notify Mr. LI KWONG CHI that the charge would be heard before a Magistrate on the 7th August. I enclose a copy of the Charge Sheet, and of the Chief Inspector's report.
5. The usual course was adopted of framing the charge on the wider scope, viz., misconduct as a Police Constable and of recording, as in similar cases, the party complaining as Com- plainant, the Chief Inspector watching the case.
I have, &c.,
The Honourable
W. M. DEANE, Captain Superintendent of Police.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.