be feusionalle seems to have been
A
ana eten
of dispute. Sir W. (2)
Des Voeux desf. referred to
aduits
in para 2 to the interpretation
there swin
but
4
The Pos.
was
clect t
A
jadge,
in 1888 fully contemplated that
595 anisert om Aageland's service might be considered to be pensionable I find
no decision to the contrary
I think
in the circumstances
MAR
CALAAL
only approve.
31.7
16
not at
the time inclined to accept
the idea that a
aff d
a
Wie Hazeland was, by the
Judge, should
be allowed to count
such service for pension.
But on the which, and
S.o. quoted
S
and in wtw
J
Zur Hazeland, I think
it will be fairest to allow the while
fariod & be tensionalle. The period
affected is
1983 When
I hov 1878
Fur Hareland
to 21
21 bag was "Zeist
Check Supreme Court. 1888 in fara I
of desk. is clearly a mistake: See the
copy of fur Hazeland's letter,
? Approve.
103
25/7/16
I think it is established in
the corresp. that the fort of Hongkong