The Council's conclusions.
explanation given of the defendant glim
The al
Jafree which he cam
WBL his small salay abiliti
Suma g $500
a large remittance have is that money by gambling at Macao
of this defence is the money that Whe it is family clear derivar from brits: if it is not the question is whether gambler anget to the amplayed y trust.
I think that an off which the Comet wanted Kalitual D in praction of the poned the harps sufficient to justify dismissal & accordingly telegraphe, as proposed
BY 21112 ACC 31 Rent 31s Ward ark could propert
As regards charge (a) I don't think that the an instated case of lending money bring C officers under the operation of Regs 76d76141 And the tatuer cst.
as regards change (b) I don't see that in the booted cam supporting the charge. be held the Endeine.
To my mind the wish turpicion fact Ward was in possession of funds which he ス could not have saved from his salary, for the results of successful gambling.
The Chamare 133 notoruinly adapts in the art of concocting false Wardhaheen shown the alohas harried them then ཐུན་ the active offer Chanta Ъ ит fter being repeatedly fine, dass Here wobe a priori ground for dubbrming he was the victim of a conspirang.
enggest anything f But her tomot the kind, to the whole Какайт ho стрый I think best has been shown für Meduces Dr. A Referral & 2/1
This is a most unsatisfaction I can find onlyone instance in which a chinaman Came forward & stated that he had given monly I apper WBL (fee (017) oferuise to ward.
In the other cases entres in pand the books gmonly explained to be entres gmoney given to ward taken as wee evidence against him, o Statements that some me be had frow were admitted. him money
It is obvious that such evidence ought