2011
from the 2nd. to the 3rd. of June, 1902. It is easily conceivable that the witness Ng Sze Ko may have made a mistake of two days in fixing the date of an occurrence which took place so long ago.
For the rest Captain Pulford asserts that the deduction alleged to have been made at the paying off of the Firesen could not have been made as he makes a practice of attending when his crew is paid off.
I submit that the mere presence of the Captain, unless he happened to thoroughly understand the Chinese language, is no guarantee that the deduction was not made. Mr. Guterres it must be remembered has a thorough knowledge of Chinese colloquial, and it is easy to understand that unless the crew or some of them made an appeal to the Captain in a language he could understand the transaction could be effected under his nose without his becoming aware of what was transpiring.
# Paragraph 11.
The Petitioner's answer to charge (b) cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Mr. Guterres states that on the afternoon of the 10th. of November Le to Cheuk Mu to "come back on Monday and "bring with him the Boarding Master (i.e. the Boarding House Master) "who shipped him". Now Cheuk Mu went to the Shipping Office with Ng Ying-sing (page 12 of transcript of evidence) who is the Boarding House Master who shipped him (page 21), and Cheuk Mu stated (page 14) that when he presented his wages account to Mr. Guterres on his second visit to the Shipping Office Mr. Guterres told him "you must get Sai Yaw to come here before that can be paid". On page 14 in answer to a question by the Treasurer Mr. Guterres admitted that he told Cheuk Mu to come back with Sai Yau, it will be remembered that Sai Yau is the person to whom Cheuk Mu handed his wages account on his first visit to the Shipping Office (page 13). Sai Yau stated that the deduction of $20 would be made. It is to be noted that Inspector Hanson gave evidence (page 29) to the effect that Sai Yau had suddenly left the Colony when he