1
t
8
459
of gambling houses than any single officer in the Hong Kong Police Force, and he only refrained then, as stated in paragraph 3 of his written defence at his trial and in paragraph 22 of his Petition, in compliance with the instructions of Captain May. But he continued up to his suspension from duty to carry out the arrangements approved of by Captain May, and supplied to the inspectors concerned whatever information he received respecting gambling houses.
Previous to July 1897, inspectors did not report gambling to the Superintendent of Police until they applied to him for permission to take out warrants; consequently, when by Mr May's directions your Petitioner ceased to take out warrants, he ceased from reporting gambling to him.
That there was no want of vigilance on the part of those entrusted with the suppression of gambling houses, however, is shown by the fact that Mr Baker, the officer who had charge of the District in which Wah Lane was situated, took out 104 warrants against gambling houses in a little over two years, no less than thirty-one of which were against houses in Wah Lane and three of them against No 2 in that Lane.
Your Petitioner, therefore, so long as Captain May was in charge of the Police, had less responsibility for the gambling than any other inspector, and yet, except Mr Baker, who latterly had charge of the Wah Lane District, and Mr Quincey, who was only responsible for his own district, in which there was no complaint of gambling, he is the only inspector punished.
If your Petitioner had been granted the proper trial in Hong Kong that he fully expected, he would have proved all this and might have exposed the...