I do not recommend a criminal prosecution, for the slips would not be admitted in evidence and of course the accounts and slips are very difficult to explain to a Jury; while naturally, in cases of this kind the "links" or "intermediaries" are persons of very unsatisfactory character and if, unsupported by the "entries" a jury might be quite likely to say we won't convict on their evidence and send the accused to prison. To my mind the evidence quite justifies dismissal.
As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant Fazul Shah, there is the entry 566 $1' and as that represents Wa Lane payments from 4 to 18 June one might expect that (as in any cases the amount paid by each house has been found to correspond) the Cheung Hing Street establishment was paying the same person the same amount. Then comes the evidence of Un Kin who picks out Sergeant 566, identified him and says he paid him $1 a day to the 18th June from April this year. As Un Kin did not know the amount put down in the Wa Lane entry, it is very singular it should precisely correspond unless Un Kin's evidence is true.
I am of opinion the evidence justifies the man's dismissal.
As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant 661 Utter Singh, attention has not been called to any entry