never to have been allowed. It was disallowed in the criminal court.
to have been admitted on the inquiry. This evidence was commented adversely upon in the Home King's police scandals. It is clear that when officials sought to inquire, certain testimony was never admitted.
Lai Jukson, an individual, was never called to testify today, having paid money, as in other cases, to ward off prosecution permanently.
We are driven therefore to consider:
(1) the case in which a man named Joune stated that he had been asked by Ward for a bribe, and had paid him a sum;
(2) the extra money Ward has.
As to (2), we have nothing to prove that he did not win it by gambling. As to (1), I am sure that an experienced counsel would have been able to examine Joune thoroughly.
But as to (2), the fact remains there was unshaken evidence that a bribe was offered and taken by Ward. On that ground, I think the decision can be supported. I would confirm it.
I agree with Mr. Stubbs. The admission of defence in connection with the first charge seems to me to show that the man is unfit for his post. He makes money by gambling. The affair of bribing money in a roundabout fashion to a Chinese eating house is disturbing. We are always liable to corrupt dealings with Chinese by the men who are set to make them keep the law.
I should confirm the dismissal without hesitation, criticising, if thought fit, on the lines of Mr. Cox's minute.
C.P.L. 5. Jan.
Hat dis miss. agree Hay confirmed.
Mr. Cox is writing inquiring into the procedure followed.
44 8.1.07
Mr. Liddell's comment on Cox's minute was that there should be inquiry into the procedure followed.
In despate: Two comments on the procedure so-called evidence and ask why Lai Yuk and Leung were not produced.
Smary withere #BC2/1
I submit a draft, which does not follow her closely.
He had not realized this.
not very satisfactory character. A good deal of the confusion in which the accounts are involved is due to...