(C
2
In short your Petitioner claims that by the special contract entered into with him the Government agreed to waive its discretionary powers in respect of withholding pension, as to which he may add that not a word of notice was given him that the Government possessed any such powers, and that he recruited solely on the terms and faith of the above written agreement.
3.-Under the said agreement your Petitioner served over twenty-four years in the Police Force of Hongkong, namely from the 12th March, 1873, to the 2nd September, 1897, or thereabouts, and during the last twelve years of the said period held the rank of Inspector, namely, from 1885 to 1897, and during the last seven years of the said period, was Inspector in charge of the Detective Department (1889-1897). During the whole of the two periods of four years and of twenty-four years of service your Petitioner has only once been reported, namely in March, 1873, for refusing, together with nineteen other men newly recruited from the London Metropolitan Police Force, to obey a departmental order requiring Police constables to submit to frequent periodical medical examination for contagious disease, which order was, upon the protest of the men, rescinded. On the other hand your Petitioner has been several times specially commended by the Judges, and in 1895 by H.E. the Governor for services rendered in connection with the coolie strike. 1893 your Petitioner was awarded a first class good conduct medal, and in March, 1897, was specially recommended by the Captain Superintendent of Police, Mr. May, C.M.G., to H.E. the Governor for promotion to the rank and pay of a Chief Inspector with the title of Chief Detective Inspector, which recommendation was endorsed and forwarded by H.E. the Governor to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Up to that date, therefore, March, 1897, there can be no doubt as to the favourable character of the opinion entertained by the Government of Hongkong concerning your Petitioner's conduct.
In
4. The pay of your Petitioner for several years last past has been at the rate of $1,368 per annum, exclusive of sundry allowances earned for proficiency in the Chinese language, &c., &c., so that at the time of his dismissal, herein- after mentioned, your Petitioner held an office of the 3rd or highest class according to the classification of officials mentioned in Rule 66 of Colonial Office Rules and Regulations (1897).
5. On the 21st June, 1897, owing to information received from Mr. Francis, Q.C. (a barrister practising in Hongkong), who had received the information through a private client, the Captain Superintendent went to a house, No. 3, East Street, and arrested the persons found on the 2nd floor, also seizing certain money and jewellery and Chinese account books and papers, which latter were supposed to have reference to gambling carried on at No. 2, Wah Hong (which, translated, means Wah Lane). No. 3, East Street was not itself used as a gaming house, but was used, as was afterwards proved, by certain gamblers as a residence and depôt.
yes
3
6-Amongst the persons found in 3, East Street was one Sham In, and he was charged before the Police Magistrate with being the manager of the gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane, aforesaid. On the trial of this charge one The Leung (who described himself as a watchman employed by the gamblers at No. 2, Wah Lane) gave evidence that Sham In was the manager of the place. He also stated that there were forty-four employees in and about the said gaming house, of whom between ten and twenty were watchmen employed for the express purpose of giving timely warning of the approach of any Police. Sham In, on the advice of his counsel, pleaded guilty during the course of the proceedings and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.
7.--Your Petitioner's number, whilst Constable and Sergeant, was No. 43, and by that number he is still known amongst the Chinese. Owing to that number being found, together with certain figures placed opposite to it, in one of the papers seized, as stated in paragraph 5, purporting apparently to be a list of bribees and bribes, and owing as it appears to statements made by the convict Sham In in reference to such entries, suspicion arose in the mind of the Captain Superintendent that your petitioner had been in receipt of bribes from the managers of the gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane, consequently your petitioner was suddenly suspended from his duty, on the 13th July, 1897, and on the 24th and 25th August, 1897, charged and tried by the Captain Superintendent upon a charge, not of receiving bribes, but of neglect of duty in not discovering and re- porting the existence of a gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane, and was by him recommended to H.E. the Governor for dismissal.
8.-Your Petitioner has already pointed out (paragraph 4) that his office was one within the 3rd class of Rule 66 of the Colonial Office Rules and Regulations, and in the first place complains that on the enquiry held into his conduct he did not receive the benefits conferred by Rules 83, 84, 85 or 86 of the Colonial Rules and Regulations. Your Petitioner now claims that unless it clearly appeared that the mode of suspension was otherwise provided for by local law he was entitled when the question of suspension arose to the benefit of those Rules. Those Rules provide that on the matter proceeding it shall be brought for decision before the Executive Council, that the accused officer shall be at liberty to appear and defend himself orally, that he shall have the right to examine the witnesses against him before the Council, and shall be furnished with a copy of all documentary evidence to be used against him.
(Copies of Rules 66, 83, 84, 85 and 86, and also for the purposes of comparison of Rule 96 (d) are attached, Schedule No. 2).
9.-The local law relating to the dismissal of Police Officers is comprised in the Police Force Consolidation Ordinance, No. 14 of 1887. The sections in point being Nos. 2, 22, and 24. (Copies of said sections 2, 22 and 24 and also, for the purposes of comparison a copy of Section 23, are attached, Schedule No. 3).
Section 2 defines "subordinate officer" so as to include "Inspector."
247