i
to the 18th. day of September 1884, were, in accordance with the Police Regulations, each, individually entitled to a peusion.
2.-(1) Your Petitioner YEUNG Far, ex P. C. 319, enlisted in the Police Force of Hongkong, on the 3rd. October, 1887, and served therein until the 12th. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a first class constable.
(2.) Your Petitioner LEUNG LAM, ex P. C. 120, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 19th. July, 1889, and served therein until the 21st, July, 1897, when he held the rank of a first class constable,
(3.) Your Petitioner To Tuxo, ex P. C. 247, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 14th. July, 1889, und served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(4.) Your Petitioner TONG SHINO, ex P. C. 250, enlisted in the said Police Force on the Brd. July, 1885, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable,
(5.) Your Petitioner No YAU, ex P. C. 252, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 23rd. July, 1889, and served therein until the 21st. July 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(6.) Your Petitioner WONG FUE, ex P. C. 266, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 8th. December, 1886, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(7.) Your Petitioner YEUNG Lor, ex P. C. 332, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 7th. May, 1888, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(8.) Your Petitioner WAN Noo, ex P. C, 145, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 1st. December 1886, and served thercin until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(9.) Your Petitioner CHỤ Tsox, ex. P. C. 269, enlisted in the said Police Force on the lat. Angust 1887, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(10.) Your Petitioner Wono TAK, ex P. C, 268, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 4th. November 1886, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(11.) Your Petitioner KwAN SUING, ex. P. C. 821, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 15th. July, 1888, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
Your Petitioners named in this paragraph having all joined the Police Force subsequent to the 13th. September, 1884, were consequently, none of them entitled to a pension at the time of their dismissal he reinafter mentioned.
3.---Your Petitioner WONG KONG (referred to in No. 6 of paragraph No. 1) had for severni years prior to the 21st. July, 1897, performed duty on the P. & 0. Company's vessels in harbour, and his salary was paid by that Company. All your other before named Petitioners were members of the Detective Department and had up to the 12th, July, 1897, apparently given satisfaction to the Captain Superintendent of Police and to their other superior officers.
4.—On the 21st. June, 1897, the Honourable F. II. May c. M. G., the Captain Superintendent of Police, acting on information supplied to him, visited the second floor of house No. 3, East Street, which was subsequently shown to be the dwelling house and depôt of certain men who had carried on gambling on the second floor of house No. 2 Wah Lane.
In the said No. 3, East Street the Captain Superintendent arrested certain med suspected of being gamblers, but who were subsequently discharged, and seized certain account books and papers relating to gambling in No. 2, Wab Lane. He also, at the same time, seized about $1,000 and several articles of jewellery. Later, on the said 21st. of June, a Chinese detective, acting under the instructions of the then chief of the Detective Department,
B
arrested a man uamed SHUM IN, who was charged with having kept a gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane, and, on the 7th. July, he was convicted of the offence and sentenced to
nine months imprisonment with hard labour.
It appears that this prisoner was induced by the promises of his gaoler, the Captain Superintendent of Police, to make certain statements to attempt to connect your Petitioners with a certain list, purporting to contain the names or numbers of numerous officials in receipt of bribes from gamblers, which was found amongst the papers in No. 3, East Street.
5.-Apparently because of the fact of there being names on the said list similar to those of your Petitioners, and in consequence of false information supplied by the convict SHUM IN, who hoped, because of the promises then already made to him of being put to light labour and of being granted a remission of a part of his sentence, your Petitioners were suspected of having received bribes to withhold information of the gambling from their superior officers. With regard to the inducements, your Petitioners would beg to point out here that the prisoner Snum In was, contrary to the Gaol Regulations, a few days after his conviction, put on light labour without the doctor's order, by Mr. Mar, the Superintendent of the Gaol; and he was released from prison, on the 30th. of November, before he had completed five months of the nine months to which he had been sentenced, therefore the encouragement he received for making false statements against your Petitioners is apparent.
6-Your Petitioners TANG CHUNG (No. 1 in paragraph No. 1) and YEUNG FIT (No. 1 in paragraph No. 2) were on the 12th. July, 1897, suddenly taken into guol by the Captain Superintendent of Police, who was also the Superintendent of the Gaol, and by his order stripped, searched and locked up, without, at the time, any reason for such treatment being assigned them. They were detained in gaol until the 16th. July, when they were banished for promoting gambling.
Your Petitioner O MI CHEUNG (No. 4 in paragraph No.1) was taken into gaol ou the 15th. July and detained there until the 21st. July, when he also was banished for promoting gambling.
Full particulars of the manner in which your three petitioners named in this paragraph were treated in gaol and of the promises held out to attempt to induce them, and of the threats used towards them to attempt to compel them, to perjure themselves and falsely incriminate their superior officers, at the prompting of the Captain Superintendent of Police and the Crown Solicitor, are contained in these your three Petitioners' statements taken by the British Vice-Consul at Canton, as set out in schedules A. B. and C., hereto,
7.--Your three Petitioners named in paragraph No. 6 beg to point out, moreover, that their detention and imprisonment in Victoria Gaol under banishment orders was utterly illegal. The law relating to banishment expressly states that persons whom the Governor in Council directs to be banished are to be detained by the Police, when detention is necessary, until they are prepared to leave the Colony. Further the law on the matter was definitely laid down for the information of the Captain Superintendent of Police, by Sir JOHN CARRINGTON, the Chief Justice of Hongkong, on the 21st. May last, in an appeal caso in the Supreme Court of that Colony. Therefore the Captain Superintendent had no excuse for acting in the illegal and arbitrary manner he did, in imprisoning your three aforenamed Petitioners without any warrant or authority other than his own will.
These your three Petitioners farther complain that in direct opposition to the Prison Regulations, they, while detained in gaol, were not allowed to see their fricuds, and were only allowed to see their solicitors until after they had been two days imprisoned. 8.-Your Petitioners, exclusive of those named in paragraph No. 6 were on the morning of the 21st. July, 1897, called before Captain Superintendent MAY who told them that there had been gambling houses in Wah Lane and in Cheung Hing Laue for the last three years and that those your Petitioners land not reported them. He further told those your Petitioners that their names were entered in a book as persons in receipt of bribes and that therefore they wore useless for duty and were to be banished for five years; accordinly they were banished on that day.
91
1