5---
SER,
A
No. 19, HoYWOOD ROAD,
fosakese, 2nd November, 1897.
With reference to my Petition to the Right Honourable Mr. J. COAMBERLAIN, M.P., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Colonial Afhirs, dated the 13th September last, and further with reference to an inquiry instituted on the first day of October, 1897, at the Victoria Gaol by the Honourable Captain Superintendent of Police, as to a charge alleged against me by one Tse Long of his having paid to No. 586, that is to me, in my official capacity of "Indian Inspector in the Hongkong Police Force the money of a Gambling flouse last year, I have now the honour, most respectfully to forward with this for the due consideration of His Excellency the Governor my Statutory Declaration made before Mr. A. P. Stokes, a notary public of this Colony, denying that I have ever received any money by way of hribe from anybody in this Colony. I have also the honour to further analoso with this a Statutory Declaration made before the said notury public by Mr. William Stanton, Inte Inspector in the Hongkong Police Force, with reference to the deposition verily believed to have been given-by the very same person, Tsc Long, as the one who was deponent against meat an inquiry held on the 24th and 25th days of August last by the Honourable Captain Saperintendent and Mr. Dennys, Crown Solicitor, in connection with certain charges alleged against Mr. Stanton of not discovering and reporting a gambling house at No. 2, Wa Lane, Victoria, in this Colony.
Mr. Stanton in his declaration states on oath that the Chinaman Tse Leung at the aforesaid inquiry in August Just made a diometrically opposed statement to the one he made in the inquiry held against me, and that in that previous inquiry, whilst under cross-examination by Mr. Stanton, he stated that he had never received any nonies from gamblers or gambling houses for the purpose of paying the serue to any of the Indian Policemen in the Hongkong Folice Force. Just to quote the words of Mr. Stanton's declaration:-"He" that is Tee Leung, "further stated to me that he had never paid any monies to such Indian Policemen by way of bribe. I pressed him is 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 Police Force. He further stated that if any person had so informed me (this Deponent) such information would be faise and eatrue.”
As this part of the deposition of Te Leang is a flagrant and entire exatarliction to that gives by him in my cage, Imost respectfully submit that the inference cannot be gainsaid that Ta Terung had been, to say the least nf it, deliberately falsifying himself before the Hotounbir Captein Superintendent in the inquiry held against me, and as I verily believe that the evidences given by the said Tse Taung at both the inquiries have beon recorded by the Honourable Captain Superintendent, the information of the contradiction as pointed out above, His Excelloucy the Governor will be pleased to call for, with a view to give adequate and equitable consideration to any report sent or to be sent by the Honourable Captain Superintendent of the inquiry held against me, and I also pray and entrens that if papers relating to the alleged charge against me are sent to the Right Honourable the Colonial Secretary, the enclosed Statutory Declarations, in justice to one who was an humble servant of the Crown for eighteen years, His Excellency the Governor will be pleased alsu to send to the Right Honourable Geutizma.
I have the honour to be,
To
THE HONOURABLE
J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,
COLONIAL SECRETARY. HONGKONG.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME--
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
UTTER SINGH,
LATE INDIAN SERGEANT-MAJOR
HONGKONG POLICE FOREM.
I, Alfred Parker Stokes, Notary Public, duly authorised admittel and sworn, residing and practising at Victoria, in the Island and British Colony of Hongkong, Do BEREBY CERTIFY that I was present on the first day of November instant in my office, No. 12. Queen's Road Central, and did then and there sec Utter Singh, the person macard in the annexed Statutory Declaration duly sign and declare before me the said Statutory Declaration through the interpretation of Formujee Huttonjes, of Victoria, aforesaid, who was present at the same time, and that the said Hormasjue Ruttonjes did duly declare before me that he had truly, distinctly and audibly interpreted the contents of the said Statutory Declaration to the said Utter Singh, and that he wonki truly and faithfully interpret the deniaration about to be administered anto the said Utter Singh. AND I ALSO CERTIFY that the name or signature "Etter Siugh" subscribed to the said Statutory Declaration is of the proper handwritting of the said Utter Singh, AND THAT the name or signature "A. P. Stokes” subscribed thereto as the notary public before whom the said Statutory Declaration was made is of the proper handwriting of me, the said Notary.
IS TESTONY whereot I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal of office this first day of November, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven,
A. P. STOKES,
NOTARY PUBLIC, HONGKONG,
In the matter of the Humble Petition of Titter Singh, of No. 12, Hollywood Road, Victoria, Hongkong, Sergcnut-Major
in the Police Force of that Colony, presented to the Right Honourable Mr. J. Chamberlain, M.P., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of Stute for Colonial Affaire, Downing Street, Loudon, SW, on the Thirteenth day of September, 1897, and
In the matter of the Statutory Declarations.
I, Ulter Singh, of 19, Hollywood Road, formerly of No. 12, Hollywood Road, Victoria, in the Colony of Hongkong, late Sergeant-Major in the Police Force of that Colony, do solemnly and sincerely declare and any ne follows:---
On the 1st day of October, 1897, The Honourable Francis Henry May, C.M.G., Captain Superintendent of Police, directed me to attend before him at Victoria Gaol on the same day at 4 P.M., and I attended accordingly,
2.-The Captain Superintendent of Police, who is at the present time also Superintendent of Victoria Guol, first confronted me with a Chinaman, a Pensioner dressed in prison clothes, and who I do not know, and saw for the first time on the day in question. This man was asked by the Captain Superintendent of Police through an Interpreter to read a paper which was written in the Chinese language. He read out in Chinese, which was interproted by the Interproter to the Captain Superintendent of Police, the figures 572 and 586.
*$1.55.”
3-The Capraio Superintendent of Police farther asked him “What else was written on the paper?” And he replied
4-On being asked what the figures 572 and 586 meant, he replied "These are the numbers of certain Indian policemen,” and that the last item, viz., $1.55 meant the sun paid to one Te Leung for payment to these policemen, Nos, 572 and 586.
5.-The Captain Superintendent of Police asked, "To whom did you give these suma?" and the Chinaman replied "The Lenag used to come and ask me for money.”
4-The Captain Superintendent of Police then asked the Chinelaan for what purpose was this rucuey given? And he replied, “They (meaning Policemen Nos. 572 and 586) nay have asked Tse Leung for it, but I do not know as to this."
7. He was then asked, “Is there anyone here present who you would recogaiso as No. 586?" and the Chinaman replied "No."
8.--After this tho Captain Superintendent of Police asked me if I wished to ask this Chinamas any question, I replied “No, I do not wish to sak this man suy question."
9. This Chimaruan was then told to go away and another Chinaman, who was called Tse Leung by the Interpreter, was called forward.
10.-The Chinatun Tee Leung whilst the deposition of the before-mentioned Chinaman was being taken was alove in an adjoining room the door of which room was not closed and no one was watching or looking after him,
11.--He may or may not buvo overbeard the statement made by the first witness,
12.--This run was called forward and answered to the name of Tse Tenng.
19.-The Captain Superintendent of Police shewed him the same papers as was shown to the first witness, and asked him to read the culties or what was there written.
14-Te read out the numbers “572 and 586" and "81.55."
15.-The Captain Superintendent of Police asked him to explain what these figures meant. He replied, "It is the money of a gambling house."
16--He was then uskud, “What did you pay to No. 588*" He replied "$10 a week.”
17. He was then asked. Bow is $10 a week arrived at?" He replied, "70 cents a day for one gambling house,” the paper or account of which was then before bim, aud 70 cents a day for another gambling house whose paper or accoNEL WAS not before then,
18. He was then asked, "Who was No. 586 ?" He replied, "He was the Indian Insportor."
19.—He was then asked, “What sort of uniform did Policeman No. 586 wear?" He replied, “A uniform similar to Indiau Police constables with the addition by a ved saab round the shoulder."
20.-The next question was, "When used you to pay this sum?”
to he prompted by the Captain Superintendent of Police), "last year."
He replied after some hesitation and having
21.---He was then asked by the Captain Superintendent of Police “Why did you pay money to the Indian Inspector?” He replied, "Because otherwise he would have beaten me.” "Did he ever beat or strike you?" He replied, "No." "What was your work or employment?" He replied, “I was a watchmun to gambling hobere,”
22.--After this the Captain Superintendent of Police asked me what I had to say to this. The Captain Saperin- tendent of Police then informed me that the statement of the two above-mentioned Chinamen would be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong.
28.-I was then told I could go, and left the gaol.
24-I say that I never saw or bad any comunication or dealing with either of the two above-mentioned Chinamen and it is absolutely untrue that I received the sum of $10 a week or any other sum or sums of money from both or either of them.
219
"