2
6. The inquiry as to the charge alleged against him by the Chinaman Tse Leung, of having paid Petitioner in his then official capacity of Indian Inspector the money of a Gambling Rouse in 1896, was instituted on the first day of October 1897, that is, three days after he had made inquiries of the Honourable the Colonial Secretary as to whether his Petition of the 13th September had been sent to its destination or not. Your Petitioner was then ander dismissal, and it was passing strange that an officer who had been dismissed from the force some ten months before should again be called upon at a moment's notice to unswer the above charge. One should think that an officer once dismissed was out of the pale of the official authority of the head of the particular service he belonged to. But not so for the Petitioner. The Captain Superintendent sent Petitioner word through an Indian Sergeant on the above date that he wanted to sec him at four in the afternoon of that day. Petitioner did present himself before the Captain Superintendent at the appointed time, little thinking that a serious charge would be brought against him, when to his surprise the ovidence of Tse Loung and that of another Chinaman were there and then taken by the Captain Superintendent, and Petitioner was at once asked to say what he had to say to that evidence. The statement mado by the other Chinaman went in no wise against Petitioner. In fact he openly stated he had nothing whatsoever to do wilk Petitioner and that ho did not even recognize him. Tso Leung was the man who made the principal statement against him. Bus Petitioner traversed the statement altogether, having not ever received a single cent in the manner alleged. He had no other means immediately to controvert Tse Leung's statement and to expose its falsity in all its nakedness at the spur of the moment. Bat subsequent inquiries placed Petitioner in a position particularized below to completely controvert that statement, and to show that Tse Leung, if anything, had deliberately perjured himself before the Captain Superintendent.
7.—At an inquiry held on the 24th and 25th days of August, 1897. by the Honourable Superin- tendent and Mr. Dennys, Crown Solicitor, in connection with certain charges alleged against Mr. Stanton, late. Inspector in the Hongkong Police Force, of not discovering and reporting a gumbling house at No. 2 Wa Lane, Victoria, in this Colony, Tse Leung whilst under cross-examination by Mr. Stanton stated that be had never received any movies from gamblers or gambling houses for the purpose of paying the same to any of the Indian Policemen in the Hongkong Police Force. Just to quote the words of Mr. Stamon's declaration :--
"He," that is Tse Leung, "further stated to me that he had never paid any monies
to such policemen by way of bribe. I prossed him in cross-examination, and in answer to my questions he stated that he had never paid any monies by way of bribes to any members of the Hongkong Polica Force. Ho further stated that if any person had so informed ma (this Deponent) such information would be false and untrue.”
8. The above is an extract from Mr. Stanton's Statutory Declaration, original whereof, as well as the original of Petitioner's Statutory Declaration, was forwarded by Petitioner on the 2nd of November, 1897, to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary. Petitioner, however, appends to this a copy (B & C) of the above declarations as well as a copy (A) of a communication Petitioner had the honor to address to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary with reference to the valid inferences to be drawn from the declarations.
9--Petitioner has reasous to believe that the evidences given by the said Tse Leung at both the inquiries have been recorded by the Honoumble the Captain Superintendent, and the coufirmation of the flagrant contradiction of The Leung's statements as given in Mr. Stanton's inquiry and those made at Petitioner's inquiry will be found therein.
10.---Petitioner was further deprived of the opportunities of substantiating his plea of not guilty in the first inquiry, as well as in the latter, by being not provided with a copy of the different statements of Da Rocha in the first instance, and of Tse Leung's statement in the latter instance.
11-Your Petitioner, therefore, vontures to approach you, Right Honourable Sir, again with a respectful prayer that taking his long, faithful, and unblemished service of eighteen years without even 30 nuch as a month's leave of absence in the interval into favourable consideration, as also taking the several points most respectedly agged in this as in his previous petition--copy whereof is also herewith attached, marked D-in their true and valid significance, you will be graciously pleased to grant that redress and that justice to him which the merits of his case entitle him to. Your Petitioner here earnestly entreats for the granting of the pension which he has faithfully earned by the almost unprecedenteilly long duration of his services in the Police Force of this Colmy.
12-The severity with which Potitioner has been condemned, by the entire extinction of his pension, has been further enhanced by the unmerited stigma attaching to an officer's dismissal, and that stigma is enhanced a hundred fold when the fact is taken into account that various members of Petitioner's family have loyally served the British Government in various capacities in India and in this colony, and that none of them have ever done anything to bring disgrace on themselves or on the service they have been employed in, and your Petitioner, therefore, very keenly feels the undeserved disgrace that has been inflicted on him by his dismissal without giving him fair opportunities of removing the stain cast on his character. Your The services of the Petitioner entreatingly prays for a redress in connection with this point likewise. merabers of Petitiouer's family are mentioned separately in the appendix, marked E.
13.And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c., &c.
Hongkong, 30th April, 1898.
Utter Singh late Indian Sergeant Major Hong Kong
Police Force
218