the unsupported evidence
Chan Fain.
2 dloßß).
Change to was weerty 663 the proved. It
list
Conolly states that the Ch. Justice had told the jury (presumably in another case?) that his endem + the Cor. does _? Wards') hot Reliable not challenge this.
Allg Conolly calend Las cook T (alowas not presents. During & Chares endemus the con handelli Chan & supports Conolly's proved.
I consider that the change is not
In his clasps. The Gov. (85) maken pouch the fact that Conolly did we report the offer of preach, tthand committed. breach of fund Order to 28. This orcher tagnin June за bribe being offered con Gost servant, the latter shall hälle the bribe & the person offering it to the nearest Police Station Acharge the person thand tommy the Inspector in charge". I don't are that this Order is applicable to the fails, or that any loveh 2 (I the wind) Comand + a Trebe winches can int offered to a person o do ir abstain from doing his duty; and it Camust cover the case of Che a coote if Bang La thing Xuy present.
Afor 198 The Inspector could not have complied literally with the Order, and a man against whom other ground of Complaint. wanting whardly be reproached for not reporting that Accept Sortido had asked if Xmas present that bean b The for. in each not proved; Cata solid that the he theme woted for the mais suspension; and has j'custifies his recommendatio qoismaisal solely Ver case.
Ediencial Gy ay it by importing prejudice int る I the winder lent the dispensin be comprimed.
Sie Hopwood 21/3 showed not In both the charges which have been held to be parsed by a majority of the Council diet liidence gactual payment by the chinamen who gave the bribe to the inspector was given
The question then becomes the witmeme д the credibility of The Council saw their demeanon hear their evidence they were & decided that to be believed.
It is I think