V
think the
C
272
their re-instatement in the Force than I would recommend the re-instatement of the Petitioner whom I regard as by far the most blame-worthy in the entire Force.
Paragraph 16. I admit that I did send P. C. Au Hing to Macao & Canton to endeavour to induce Yeung Fat to return to Hong-Kong & give evidence against the Petitioner, but not under promise of re-instatement. It was my duty to get evidence if possible to enable a criminal prosecution of the Petitioner, and I left no stone unturned in my endea- vour to obtain such evidence. P. C. Au Hing had no authority to use the name of Mr. Francis.
Paragraph 17. The Petitioner did not ask
leave to take notes. He was seated close to a table and if he had desired to take notes, no objection would have been
offered.
I deny that the questions put to the witness-
es were generally leading questions..
Paragraph 19. The contention set up herein
is in effect that the list of recipients of bribes kept by Sham In was a bogus list made up to defraud the partners in gambling syndicate.
The Petitioner is unable,however, to adduce anything other than a very intricate and far-fetched argu-
Iment in support of this contention.
He cross-examined Sham In at some length on
the