Kai (who has her dismissed) kept the money for herself held that there is detail that the corroborators' attention to the working of the shop floor ceased after the payment.
This seems by itself to be sufficient.
As to Charge 6, I have doubts. Why was it changed to 4? Is it sufficient?
There is no receipt of money from except that of Man Kai. The latter (I gather) has been drained from the service.
The evidence is not prima facie proof that she is tainted within whom Cashier Kwork called to give evidence to the Inspector?
Mr. Hattian lays some stress on the fact that Connolly admits to having been offered bribe & not reporting the incident. This might justify dismissal, but it should have made her the subject of a separate charge & enquiry. The man dismissed has not had a charge formally made.
I am not sure if Charge 4 is sufficient. Telegraphic approval is required. Confirmation is required before it can be assented.
Connolly remembered the alternative from Lo:
Lo denies it. The hand once borrowed $10 had since repaid Lentoy.
Lo was first clerk in the Sanitary Connolly staff. Senior Inspector. There is no relation of superior & inferior to make the borrowing (if it happened) a breach of regulations.
Here, though generally the practice of borrowing from an Englishman by a Chinese is viewed with disfavour.
The first two charges were dropped: we are left with Charge 3.
It was held by a majority of 5 to 4 that Charge 3 was not proved. I am clearly of the opinion that this charge is not proved.
I do not see the general evidence that the arson in Charge 5 was connected with Conolly.
The conduct of the case, Suspecter Lamble, would have been material, and we have no explanation why it was not forthcoming.
Charge 4 was held by 5 to 4 to be proved. I can see no evidence connecting Conolly with the charge.
I think that the Governor acted unfairly in questioning Conolly on the subject (see papers and notes) without warning her of the replies part of the recommendation for dismissal (partly).