98
the 27th.July that I explained to the detectives who were
banished (and who have signed this Petition) the reasons for
which it had been decided to banish them, and that they made
no demur at the time nor denied the charge against them. I
should mention that P.S.Tang Chung & 0 Mi Cheung and P.C.
Yeung Fat were not included among those referred in para-
graph 32 of my Report, as they were dealt with separately.
It is curious that they should not at that
time have set up the specious defence raised in paragraph 9 of
the Petition.
It will be observed that they have abandoned
the line of defence which was in vogue at the beginning of
the investigations that have been held (vide for example
Quincey's defence C.S.0.2101 of 97,P.S.Khaim Singh's defence
C.8.0.2353 of 97 & Cheung Ho's Petition C.8.0.2156 of '97)
namely,
that unscrupulous persons extorted money from the gam
bling house in their names.
How then do they explain the fact that their
names appear on the list of recipients of bribes? It is note-
worthy that they do not attempt to explain it although it is
the foundation on which rested the charge against them, and
against every other officer implicated.
If nobody made use of their names to obtain
money from the gambling house how come their names on the
list not in any abbreviated form (with the exception of Tang
Chung's whose surname only appears on the list) but in full,
and
e