statutory approval to his rejoining for a third term, of which he was granted leave in Dec. 1896. What is really happening to him now is that he is being allowed to retire "dismissed" as an alternative to being.
2. As to the merits of the case, there is nothing about this 1893 case in his letter to me in May, enclosed in this. It referred to the second part of the letter; as to whether he did report to Inspector Baker. If so, it seems to me that McIver did his duty sufficiently and cannot seriously be blamed.
We stretched a point in Foord's case (25068) and allowed him to have a pension, though he had not completed 15 years of service, but only the years I should be inclined (in accordance with the recommendation of the majority of the full Comm. in Enc. 2 in 25068) to give McIver a pension based on the number of complete years which he has served; I would similarly treat the other two men, Macaulay & Graham, who are in the same boat with him, subject however to this modification.
McIver apparently had less than 11 years' service (when his leave is deducted), so that he is only entitled to pension (not eleven). Similarly, Macaulay has only ten years' pensionable service; and Graham, who has not served ten years, should only get a gratuity, as we never fix pension for less than 10 years' service.
JRC that the Ive Loe, with turn to it HBC-
for the draft 197 (x-79300-3000-3-97
W Cox 373
I am sorry to have kept these papers so long; I had to read them, and I have had otherʻink about pressing. I send it on now in:
12. (1) On the question raised in the first part of W Johnson's minute, I am inclined to agree with him that the decision in the despatch 26113/27 should regard McIver.
I think that McIver must be taken under S. 3 of the Leave Regulating Act 1887 to have entered in Dec 1876, and that his third term of service should be formally recorded. The fact of his having been on leave should not debar him from any benefit this re-entry entitles him.
The time elapsing between the date of his return from leave and the date of his rejoining shall be calculated towards the period of service, to be reckoned as service for pension, if leave is refused on the ground that he cannot then be spared.
I would accept the recommendation of the sub-comm. (under the proviso to S. 6 of the Pension Ordinance 1862) to give McIver a pension based on the number of complete pensionable years which he has served.
As Mr Johnson points out, this would not be 11/15 but 10/15 of what he would have got at the expiration of 15 years' service, and I would treat Macaulay in the same way. As regards Graham, who has not served 10 years, he has not, like the other two, entered upon a pensionable period of service (vide Conditions of Service, 13979/96). This should be granted a gratuity.
(2) As regards the question of difference in wording in the latter part of the letter in 1083/98, I agree with W Johnson that Jean had the most profound confidence in McIver. We have his letter. He finds confirmation in McIver's statement that he knew that gambling was going on and reported it to the responsible inspector.