249
40
" "
6
16.-As showing the Captain Superintendent's conviction at the time, one may specially refer to the statement of Police Constable Yeung Fat No. 319: "On 11th August, 1897" (after the witness had been banished some three weeks), He told me Mr. May and Police Constable Au Hing visited me in Macao. Mr. Francis had sent him to look for me to go to Hongkong to explain to themr "about Inspector Stanton, Inspector Baker and others, and then I will be "allowed to reside in Hongkong and be re-instated in the Police. He said 'If ́ you go, Inspector Stanton will be dismissed, and if you do not go he will be dismissed, but if you go and give evidence against him he will not be able to say anything, his mouth will be closed."" This conversation took place on August 11th, and your Petitioner's trial by the Captain Superintendent on August 24th, and 25th. Your Petitioner submits that such investigation was a mere form, and that your In saying this your Petitioner was practically not up for trial but for sentence. Petitioner is not attacking the bona fides of the Captain Superintendent. If your Petitioner feels bitter against Captain May, and he does not conceal that he does, it is with resentment of the fact that Captain May should have thrown over on the instant a man like your Petitioner whose character has stood the test of a quarter of a century. You will bear in mind, Sir, that your Petitioner was suspended on the 13th July, without having been asked for a word of ex- planation. After the step of suspension had been taken, it is clear that Captain May stood committed to I.E. the Governor, and in the eyes of the public to justify it.
17.----As to the actual trial, your Petitioner will say little except that whilst the Captain Superintendent had the Crown Solicitor at his elbow constantly prompting him, and had the evidence of his witnesses already written out, your Petioner had no facilities for making notes, and that the questions put to the witnesses were generally of so leading a character that, according to your Peti- tioner's experience, no lawyer would have ventured to put the same in any court of law. Although much of the evidence was recorded in the narrative form, it is only fair that it should be known that it was elicited from the witnesses by questions very often absolutely leading.
18.-Your Petitioner now comes to consider the case against him. Your Petitioner has for the purposes of this Petition applied for a copy of the evidence taken at his trial, but it has been refused, and as your Petitioner had no facilities for making notes at the time he has now to rely exclusively on his memory. The following witnesses were called against your Petitioner: Sham In, Tse Leung, Au Hing P.C. 143, and Hau Hang P.C. 137; a list containing names or numbers of persons alleged to have been bribed was also referred to.
19.-SHAM IN was convicted 7th July, 1897, as manager of the gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane and sentenced to nine month's imprisonment with hard labour, to which he was put, but relieved therefrom on giving a statement about the books and papers found in No. 3, East Street. This witness does not give any direct evidence against your Petitioner. He merely says that he paid a certain clansman of his, named Sham Cha, five dollars a day to be paid to some one else for your Petitioner. It may be as Sham In says that he paid that
moncy, but your Petitioner submits that it is probable that there is something behind. Sham Cha, so the witness said, had no interest in gambling houses and had not had any for six years-in other words he would have the Captain Superintendent to believe that for six years Sham Cha had ceased to be a shareholder or partner in any gambling house. admission that Sham Cha formerly was a partner or master.
That, of course, is a tacit band the witness Tse Leung states that Sham Cha was one of the principal On the other masters, and that Sham In knows he was, and that if Sham In says he was not,
he lies. Therefore, one of the two witnesses does very deliberately lie. Under whatever pretext Sham In gave Sham Cha the five dollars daily, not one cent ever reached your Petitioner. But assuming that on the above point Sham In is the man who has told the lie, and not Tse Leung, one may find his motive for lying about his clansman's interest, in the fact, assumed by the Captain Superintendent, that the place was financed by a syndicate, coupled with the fact, which any one who knows the lower class Chinese will readily understand, that each of the so-called "Masters"
or partners would seek personal loss without regard to the rights of the others.
to ward off control of the accounts of the syndicate, as well as the recipient of the Sham In was in cash, and if he wished to promote the private interests of his clansman, he would have to adopt just some such trick as paying him the money for a colourable purpose, such as bribing police officers. Sham la admitted that most of the capital of the syndicate was lost within the last few months before the seizure; that is the existence of the house was not disclosed (for it never was discovered) till it was practically bankrupt and had been some days closed, and one may assume from the fact of the disclosure of the matter to Mr. Francis, Q.C., that there were quarrels amongst the parties as to the management and the losses. Yet we find that whilst the house was losing most rapidly the douceurs entered in the books by Sham In as paid to the Police and others mounted up to the sum of $150 a day! This place was, according to the statement of Sham In himself, almost exclusively patronized by coolies; is it possible that such a place could stand such a drain with any prospect of profit? Assuming, as is practically proved, that bribes to a certain extent were paid, is it not highly probable that the employees of the syndicate, Sham In included, had devised this exaggerated payment of $150 a day as a means of enriching themselves; and also that Sham In was protecting the interests of Sham Cha!
20.-TSE LEUNG-This man's father was a professional gambler, and after several convictious was banished as a general bad character, mainly through your Petitioner's instrumentality. Tse Leung, though personally unknown to your Petitioner, is a man who had been reported as an habitual street gambler and loafer in Hongkong, and by his own admission was a watchman for the gamblers of No. 2, Wah Lane, and was of such general bad character that in 1896, on a report from detectives, your Petitioner recommended that he should be banished. This is the man who is now produced as the principal witness against your Petitioner, and, having no other means of incriminating him, he invented a story of an interview with him in the detective office, at which he says your Petitioner