were thoroughly respectable, the girls were entrusted 34
to their care, but not as muitsai, and were allowed to
remain in the Colony.
6.
In two cases in which there was strong
suspicion that the girls concerned were muit sai, but in
which the alleged employers claimed to be the natural
mother and mother-in-law respectively, charges of ill-
treatment were brought under the Offences against the
the Person Ordinance (No.2 of 1865). The first failed
through lack of direct evidence of assault, but in the
second a conviction was obtained and the defendant was
sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a further
fine of $5.
7.
The registered employers of muit sai have
continued to report changes of status, return to
parents, etc. of their muit sai. All reports of dis-
appearance have been very carefully investigated, and
to these, the observations in paragraph 9 of my despatch No.622 of 4th December, 1930, are equally applicable.
Most cases of non-registration or
8.
One
alleged ill-treatment came to the notice of the
Secretary for Chinese Affairs through the Police, all
stations exercising very considerable vigilance.
Several reports were made by the girls concerned, or by
persons on their behalf, direct to the Secretariat.
case of ill-treatment was reported through the Hong Kong Society for the Protection of Children, but the alleged employer could not be traced. Nine reports were made by the Hong Kong Anti-Muit sai Society, of which only two could be proceeded with these being on charges of
-
non-registration. Convictions were obtained in both
cases. The accusations of ill-treatment could not be substantiated.
A