3
2
to the 13th, day of September 1884, were, in accordance with the Police Regulations, each, individually entitled to a pension.
2.-(1.) Your Petitioner YEUNG FAT, 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 TUNG, ex P. C. 247, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 14th. July, 1889, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(4.) Your Petitioner TONG SHING, ex P. C. 250, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 3rd. July, 1885, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(5.) Your Petitioner NG 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 FUK, ex P. C. 266, enlisted in the said Police Force on the Sth. 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. 382, 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 NGo, ex P. C, 145, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 1st. December 1886, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(9.) Your Petitioner CHU TS01, ex. P. C. 269, enlisted in the said Police Force on the 1st. August 1887, and served therein until the 21st. July, 1897, when he held the rank of a second class constable.
(10.) Your Petitioner WONG 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 SHING, ex. P. C. 921, 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 hereinafter mentioned.
3.-Your Petitioner WONG KEUNG (referred to in No. 6 of paragraph No. 1) had for several 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. H. 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 depot of certain men who had carried on gambling on the second floor of house No. 2 Wah Lane.
In the said No. 83, East Street the Captain Superintendent arrested certain men suspected of being gamblers, but who were subsequently discharged, and seized certain account books and papers relating to gambling in No. 2, Wah Laue. 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,
arrested a man named 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 bis 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. MAY, 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 FAT (No. 1 in paragraph No. 2) were on the 12th. July, 1897, suddenly taken into gaol 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 on 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 ander 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 case 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 further complain that in direct opposition to the Prison Regulations, they, while detained in gaol, were not allowed to see their friends, and were only allowed to ace 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 218t. July, 1897, called before Captain Superintendent MAY who told them that there had been gambling houses in Wah Lane and in Cheung Hling Lane for the last three years and that those your Petitioners had 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 were useless for duty and were to be banished for five years; accordiny they were banished on that day.
422