E
280
Sham Yin's statements and the correctness of
his entries in the list having been proved in Witchell's case, are they to be absolutely rejected in another?
The second is Sergeant Holt, a Detective Ser- geant attached to the staff of which the Petitioner was the Head.
When he was charged with receiving the money set against his name in Shaw In's list, he made no attempt to even deny the fact, and on leaving the room in which the Crown Solicitor and I had enquired into his case remarked
y fool" which
to the Chief Inspector that "he had been a b whatever he may say now must be accepted as an acknowledg- ment at the time of his guilty conduet.
The third is Sergeant McIver, who in a letter spontaneously addressed to me recently in which he sought to explain the fact of his number being on Sham In's list and the reason for his not reporting the house, wrote as fol-
lows:
-
"In the year 1896 for some reason or other the warrants were not issued so often against those houses (1.e. the gambling houses in Wa Lane & Kwai Wa Lane) although gambling was carried on there from time to time, and I have no doubt that every officer in the Detective Staff and the Police Force in general was aware of the fact although no great effort had been made to put a stop to it during that
period".
So