4

[by telegraph) that the Lec. ofstal adheren

4

dess" in 183 that theung

to decision in desp should be given a pension

But there is another question. Consider, viz. whether in view recmsideration (on 108

Cases

J

1083/97.57.

Mi

ACTR

to

McIver & others, we ought not to reconsider some of the other cases

The doubtful cases in 183/97-5. those marked with a red Jencil crow in Enc. to that dest, being have not been dismissed, but who have been allowed to resign, & who are sts="entitled" to pension because they

men whe

not

of the Police) not

have (in the case served the requisite for (in the case,

namber

r of years, sother Dept. ") have 200

not reached the retir

cacalars retiringen af de

raw salonz

"

I think we may

Case

At L

€ 8. $5.

"

that in the

of men

these men (who have not been

no prima facie Dismissed) there is no,

Evidence

of their corruption,

therefor they deserve as

an

McIver pc.

We can

I that generous

Serrie

3.

Lo Man Kam

2yr.5m.

+ 4. Cham Kai Ming 211⁄2 zr.

75. Chan Shan

6. Cheung Shin Po

29 Salary

$450 181,152

82,0

12 yrs.

$432

2는 30.

I think we need not give anything

to 2, 3 +6 in view of

short service.

Mein verz

a

But I think 4 & 5 ought ought to be given pensions bearing

bearing such proportion to the pensions they would have earned if they had of the treatment served till they rea

served till they reached the age of

thu

analogy

to Doorste

that

55

as their actual pensumable service bears to the length of their service world frewe

attain to

if they

cartinmed

till they were 55?

And I think also that Ip Tsunghi

have a gratuit

an

might

treatment

was

x

x Zu th

Mare

Such

(artride the Police Ince") disregard those whose salary

I whose service

did not exceed $240 t'whose

was short, because such are not in

any

Care entitled to pension or retiring allre (see subres. I of clause I of Hongkong Pensim Minité).

for consi

those that remain

are:

dervice

XI. If Isung Ki 2. Wan Shan

Salary 18300 0 $240

21⁄2zrs. for

these

do.

tell

82182-3000-6-07

in Jame

Graham where case

decided on 10083?

hu.7.16/2

Sapee with Wi-Johnson

could telegraph of their effect, < write a depatch calling attention to the perprematory,

manna in chich there

вид

Clas

Share This Page