As I said that paper I can find no good ground for treating him differently from the rest. Like the others he was there. Evidence: he was not prosecuted. not sufficient. He was dismissed after enquiry held of his case, which Sir E. Wingfield says, "utter farce and worse than an enquiry, something approaching a farce, something approaching a fraud". Star Chamber enquiry Mich was charged with receiving bribes and dismissed for being incompetent.
The only points which differentiate this case from those of Quincey & Stanton, who were prosecuted, are (a) an alleged confession; (b) the evidence of Uncovenanted Policeman, Han Hong. The alleged confession consists of these words "dollar to me or bloody fool and shall have to go on the beach". The confession is not consistent with innocence. To call it a base of bribery may be fallacious proof, it doubtless was.
Moreover, if he had actually received bribes he would probably not have been without a dollar. As to the evidence of Han Hong; it had been blamed that he under promise was not required to go with Court. The character of the evidence is such that it may be charged from the fact that he made no attempt to deny being bribed for not reporting the existence of the gambling house.
It is likely enough that he kept for himself the money which he pretended to have given to his superior, that his evidence is worth less. On 502/03, but Risley suggests that Holt's conduct supports the theory of his guilt. According to May's notes Sargt Holl states that he does not wish to make a statement and has nothing to say. His explanation (in 34757/03) is that he thought he was brought before a magistrate & wished to present his defence for Risley & others.