)
e hown
388
entry, so I presume the Captain Supt. of Police has not found
any (in the slips he produces) inculpating this man. But
there is the evidence of Un Kin who identified & picked out
661?
P. S. 666 who, I understand, was doing duty at the Central Dis-
trict in December 1896 (when Un Kin says he first came to
Cheung Hing Street and demanded 65 cents a day). Un Kin says
the Sergeant knew him since he, Un Kin, was a boy and that Un
Kin paid him at rate of 65 cents a day from about 20th. of
11th. moon last year till 18th, June this year. If the Cheung
Hing Street slips had not been destroyed it is possible 661
might have been found entered there.
But this case is weaker than the others be-
cause there is no entry found to corroborate the statement
of Un Kin and in view of Un Kin's statement "No. 661 has
known me since a boy because I used to live opposite to the
No.8 Station in Taipingshan. I lived in Upper Station
Street". I think it very important to find out whether 661
ever was stationed there when it was used for Police pur-
poses or whether he has been there since. Unless some corro-
boration is found it might be as well to let this man re-
tire without touching any pension he may be entitled to.
But possibly further enquiry may show he was once at No.8
Station or some other corroboration may be discovered, for I
do not see why Un Kin should be incorrect in this case as he is
correct in the others. But where it is merely one man's word
against another it seems hardly right to touch pension, however