297
of details:- remembers that he told the Commission that he paid Kelly $10.
worthless: His evidence is, I submit, it is too vague, confused, and contradictory to prove anything.
There is no corroborative evidence and I submit that this charge also must be ignored. Atkinson also considered the charge as not proved.
Dr.
Charge (c) is that Kelly received hams and beer from the Tiu Heung tea-house.
Chan Tat Hing is called and alleges that on one of the five occasions referred to, Kelly came to him and told him to buy a ham. He bought it, and a man called for it in the afternoon and took it away.
On the other four occasions, Chan Tat King was not present, but his accountant has told him that Mr. Kelly demanded a coolie ham or beer, which was obtained for him. A coolie came and fetched away the articles.
Kelly's answer to the whole of charge (c) is that the hams and beer were left with his boy, and he didn't know where they came from. This is not a probable story; the excuse is so bad that it is very likely true.
A guilty man would have said "I asked Chan Tat Hing to buy these things on my behalf because it would save me trouble" and have been expecting him to send his bill in ever since. Kelly pleads that he couldn't return them as he didn't know where they came from: but he ought to have reported the matter to his superior officer. He did not do so, and is so far to blame.
So far as I can see, this is the extent of his proved criminality, and, of itself, it is certainly not enough to justify dismissal.
As to these four occasions, I submit that the evidence is worthless. Chan Tat Hing is repeating what his accountant told him and not speaking of his own knowledge. The accountant is not produced (possibly he is dead, as it appears from page 25 that some accountant is dead), and in his absence, it is difficult to attach any importance to the charges under this head, except as regards the first instance.
Tat Hing alleges that Kelly came to him and told him to buy a ham. Kelly denies it. Chan Tat Hing says that he was accompanied by an interpreter. Why is not the interpreter produced? In his absence, the case resolves itself into a matter of cross-swearing. I do not regard the charge as proved.
Charge (d) is that he obtained his eggs at 10 cents a dozen, the market price being 15 or 16 cents.
His explanation is that when he asked for eggs, the shop keeper's assistant offered him eggs for nothing, clearly with a view to inducing the Inspector to look favourably on him in future. He refused and asked the lowest price: was asked 10 cents a dozen and agreed to pay this.
The assistant says that Kelly asked for eggs and offered 10 cents a dozen for them, and that he let him have them because he was an Inspector.
Either story is likely enough, but if the shop assistant had offered the Inspector a veiled bribe, what is more likely than that he should...