454
7
3
In further rebuttal your Petitioner produced the declaration of Yeung Fat, taken before the British Vice Consul in Macao, denying that he ever received any money from Cheng On for any person whatever.
5.- The Statement of Wong Kwok, like that of Cheng On, was made in October, 1897, after your Petitioner and Mr Quincey had for the purposes of their petitions obtained the declarations of certain ex-Detectives before the British Consul in Canton.
Wong Kwok goes back to 1888 and accuses your Petitioner and Mr Quincey of having received large bribes from gamblers, up to October 1894, when he was banished from Hong Kong, and he even alleged that, on certain dates that he gave, he himself paid them.
Your Petitioner in his rebuttal shows that most of the allegations are absolutely untrue and that all are incredible.
Thus Wong Kwok declares that in consequence of the large number of gambling houses your Petitioner raided in 1888, he and one Cheung Hoi, at the request of gambling house keepers, met your Petitioner sometime before the 27th September, of that year, and that your Petitioner consented to accept bribes, and that at various subsequent dates he (Wong Kwok) and Cheung Hoi, at certain places in Victoria, handed him large sums from the gambling masters.
In rebuttal your Petitioner pointed out that at the dates stated and for at least fifteen months previously he was stationed at Aberdeen, six miles from Victoria, and had raided no gambling houses during the period mentioned. He also declared that he collected money from gamblers for your Petitioner up to the time he was banished, on the 31st October 1894, when as a matter of fact your Petitioner was in England on leave from the 21st March 1894 to the 9th March 1895.
He further declared that commencing in April 1891, he, at the request of a Sergeant Wong Yau collected money