The user wants me to proofread OCR output of a historical document related to Hong Kong. The text appears to be a table or list of personnel records with names, dates, numbers, salaries, allowances, and remarks. The OCR has broken the structure, mixing columns and rows. I need to reconstruct it as a Markdown table.
First, I need to understand the original structure. It looks like a register of officers with columns: maybe (Number), Name, Date of Appointment, Reference Number, Salary, Allowances, Remarks, etc. The OCR has jumbled everything.
Let me parse the text carefully.
The text starts with "(J 129 )" then "Do" "John Duncan." "(8)" "1st January, 1920." "No. 3123 of 1919." "Do" "Richard McNeil Henderson, (9)" "Do." "Do." "725" "Do.." "Arthur George Warnham Tickle." "Do.." "Edward Newhouse," "[ (10) (11) (12)" "Do. 21st February, 1918." "Do. No. 2961 of 1918." "725 $360" "Do.," "Henry Capell Lowick." "Do.," "Harold Stuart Rouse." "(13)" "Do." "Percival Douglas Wilson." "Do.," "Isidore Michael Xavier." "(14)" "Do.," "Alexander Bruce Purves." "(15)" "[ (16)" "Do.," "Hugh Laudley Pegg." "Do.," "Adam Anderson." "(17) (18)" "Do.," "Laurence Dunmore Martyn," "Do.," "Henry Joseph Pearce." "DO." "Robert Philip Shaw." "(19)" "Do.," "Robert Spiers Logan." Then a bunch of dates and numbers: "27th December, 1913. 27th December, 1913. 6th January, 1913. 1st May, 1904. 1st January, 1917. 6th January, 1921. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October, 1919. 27tl: Mareb, 1920. Do." Then "No. 4623 of 1913." "725 $360 Conveyance" "No. 4628 of 1918." "No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919." "No. 3112 of 1919." "No. 2979 of 1918." "640 $244 Conveyance Allowance." "540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." "010" "Do." "No. 1871 of 1912." "No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963." "No. 2962 of 1916." "No. 3123 of 1920." "725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance," "725 $360" "£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance." "Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and" "£100 Chargo Allowance." "Conveyance" "£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance." "and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,365 Rent Allowance." "680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance. 660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." "9 months and 10 days." "1 month and 21 days." "16th June, 1911." "21st September, 1912." "1st November, 1913. 22nd October, 1910." "23rd September," "1st February, 1912," "6th January, 1913." "1st October, 1887." "29th November, 1913. 4th April, 1914. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October," "Allowance," "Allowance," "1910," "10 days." "10 months and 1 day." "3 weeks." "No. 3123 of 1919," "520" "Do." "1 month and 5 days." "Do.," "Charles John Couper." "(20)" "29th May, 1920." "No. 3118 of 1919." "No. 3123 of 1919." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$996 Rent Allowance." "16 days." "1919. 27th March, 1920. Do." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance." "2 months." "29th May, 1920." Then remarks.
This is clearly a table with multiple columns. The OCR has read it line by line, but the original is likely a structured table with columns: maybe "No.", "Name", "Date of Appointment", "Reference", "Salary", "Allowances", "Remarks", etc.
I need to reconstruct the table. Let's identify the rows. There are names: John Duncan, Richard McNeil Henderson, Arthur George Warnham Tickle, Edward Newhouse, Henry Capell Lowick, Harold Stuart Rouse, Percival Douglas Wilson, Isidore Michael Xavier, Alexander Bruce Purves, Hugh Laudley Pegg, Adam Anderson, Laurence Dunmore Martyn, Henry Joseph Pearce, Robert Philip Shaw, Robert Spiers Logan, Charles John Couper. That's 16 names.
Each name likely has associated data: date, reference number, salary, allowances, remarks.
The numbers in parentheses (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20) might be remark numbers or entry numbers.
The "Do." likely means "Ditto" (same as above). So the table might have columns where "Do." repeats the previous entry.
Let's try to align columns. The OCR text seems to have multiple columns interleaved. Perhaps the original table had columns: (1) Number, (2) Name, (3) Date of Appointment, (4) Reference, (5) Salary, (6) Allowances, (7) Remarks.
But the OCR output is a mess. I need to reconstruct logically.
Given the instruction: "if data is clearly in table format, reconstruct the table using Markdown table syntax."
I should create a Markdown table with appropriate columns. However, I need to infer the column headers from the data. The document might be a "List of Officers" or "Staff List". The header might be something like "No.", "Name", "Date of Appointment", "Authority", "Salary", "Allowances", "Remarks".
But the OCR doesn't show clear headers. The first line "(J 129 )" might be a page reference. "Do" might be "Ditto". The first name "John Duncan." with "(8)" maybe remark number. Then "1st January, 1920." date. "No. 3123 of 1919." reference. Then "Do" again. Then "Richard McNeil Henderson, (9)" etc.
Maybe the table is:
| No. | Name | Date of Appointment | Reference | Salary | Allowances | Remarks |
|---|
But the data is scattered.
Let's try to parse sequentially. The text seems to list entries for each person, but the OCR has mixed the columns vertically.
Perhaps the original table had two pages or multiple columns per page. The OCR read left column then right column? But the text seems to be a single list.
Another approach: The text might be a "Register of Officers" with each row having: Name, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Remarks. The "Do." indicates same as previous row for that column.
Let's try to group by person.
Then there are a bunch of dates and numbers that seem to be the "Date of Appointment" and "Reference" for each person, but they are listed in a block later. Possibly the OCR read the table column by column: first all names, then all dates, then all references, then all salaries, etc. But the text we have is interleaved.
Look at the block after "Robert Spiers Logan.":
"27th December, 1913. 27th December, 1913. 6th January, 1913. 1st May, 1904. 1st January, 1917. 6th January, 1921. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October, 1919. 27tl: Mareb, 1920. Do."
That's 11 dates? But we have 16 names. Maybe some are missing.
Then "No. 4623 of 1913." "725 $360 Conveyance" "No. 4628 of 1918." "No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919." "No. 3112 of 1919." "No. 2979 of 1918." "640 $244 Conveyance Allowance." "540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." "010" "Do." "No. 1871 of 1912." "No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963." "No. 2962 of 1916." "No. 3123 of 1920." "725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance," "725 $360" "£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance." "Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and" "£100 Chargo Allowance." "Conveyance" "£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance." "and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,365 Rent Allowance." "680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance. 660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." "9 months and 10 days." "1 month and 21 days." "16th June, 1911." "21st September, 1912." "1st November, 1913. 22nd October, 1910." "23rd September," "1st February, 1912," "6th January, 1913." "1st October, 1887." "29th November, 1913. 4th April, 1914. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October," "Allowance," "Allowance," "1910," "10 days." "10 months and 1 day." "3 weeks." "No. 3123 of 1919," "520" "Do." "1 month and 5 days." "Do.," "Charles John Couper." "(20)" "29th May, 1920." "No. 3118 of 1919." "No. 3123 of 1919." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$996 Rent Allowance." "16 days." "1919. 27th March, 1920. Do." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance." "2 months." "29th May, 1920."
This is extremely messy. It seems the OCR has read the table in a scrambled order. Perhaps the original document is a landscape table with many columns, and the OCR read it line by line across the page, but the table has multiple rows and columns.
Given the difficulty, I might need to make a best-effort reconstruction. However, the instruction says: "Preserve original content — do not add or remove substantive words. Do not rephrase, rewrite, or change the author's style, tone, or word choice. Only correct what is clearly wrong."
But also: "Reconstruct Sentences and Paragraphs" and "Restore column reading order — if text was originally in multiple columns but OCR read it in the wrong order, reorder it to make logical sense (left-to-right, top-to-bottom)."
And "Tables — if data is clearly in table format, reconstruct the table using Markdown table syntax."
Thus, I must produce a Markdown table. But I need to decide on columns. Perhaps the document is a "List of Officers of the Public Works Department" or similar. The remarks at the end refer to "Praya East Reclamation Scheme", "Shing Mun Valley Water Works Scheme", "Town Planning Committees", etc. This is Hong Kong public works.
The numbers (8), (9), etc. correspond to remarks at the bottom. The remarks are numbered (1) to (20). So the numbers in parentheses next to names are remark references.
Thus, each row likely has: Name, Remark Number, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, maybe other columns.
The "Do." means ditto, so the column value repeats from previous row.
Let's try to parse the first few lines as a table with columns: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances.
Line: "(J 129 )" - maybe page number.
"Do" - maybe "Ditto" for something.
"John Duncan." - Name
"(8)" - Remark number
"1st January, 1920." - Date
"No. 3123 of 1919." - Reference
"Do" - Ditto (maybe for Salary? or next column)
"Richard McNeil Henderson, (9)" - Next name with remark
"Do." - Ditto for Date?
"Do." - Ditto for Reference?
"725" - Salary?
"Do.." - Ditto for Allowances?
"Arthur George Warnham Tickle." - Name
"Do.." - Ditto for Remark? Date? Reference?
"Edward Newhouse," - Name
"[ (10) (11) (12)" - Remark numbers?
"Do. 21st February, 1918." - Date? "Do." might be ditto for something else.
"Do. No. 2961 of 1918." - Reference
"725 $360" - Salary and allowance?
"Do.," - Ditto
"Henry Capell Lowick." - Name
"Do.," - Ditto
"Harold Stuart Rouse." - Name
"(13)" - Remark
"Do." - Ditto
"Percival Douglas Wilson." - Name
"Do.," - Ditto
"Isidore Michael Xavier." - Name
"(14)" - Remark
"Do.," - Ditto
"Alexander Bruce Purves." - Name
"(15)" - Remark
"[ (16)" - Remark?
"Do.," - Ditto
"Hugh Laudley Pegg." - Name
"Do.," - Ditto
"Adam Anderson." - Name
"(17) (18)" - Remarks
"Do.," - Ditto
"Laurence Dunmore Martyn," - Name
"Do.," - Ditto
"Henry Joseph Pearce." - Name
"DO." - Ditto
"Robert Philip Shaw." - Name
"(19)" - Remark
"Do.," - Ditto
"Robert Spiers Logan." - Name
Then a block of dates: "27th December, 1913. 27th December, 1913. 6th January, 1913. 1st May, 1904. 1st January, 1917. 6th January, 1921. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October, 1919. 27tl: Mareb, 1920. Do." - These could be Dates of Appointment for the above names in order? But there are 11 dates for 16 names? Maybe some names share dates via "Do.".
Then "No. 4623 of 1913." - Reference for first?
"725 $360 Conveyance" - Salary and allowance for first?
"No. 4628 of 1918." - Reference for second?
"No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919." - Reference for third?
"No. 3112 of 1919." - Fourth?
"No. 2979 of 1918." - Fifth?
"640 $244 Conveyance Allowance." - Salary/allowance for sixth?
"540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." - Seventh?
"010" - Eighth? Maybe 610?
"Do." - Ditto
"No. 1871 of 1912." - Reference for ninth?
"No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963." - Tenth?
"No. 2962 of 1916." - Eleventh?
"No. 3123 of 1920." - Twelfth?
"725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance," - Thirteenth?
"725 $360" - Fourteenth?
"£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance." - Fifteenth?
"Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and" - Sixteenth?
"£100 Chargo Allowance." - ?
"Conveyance" - ?
"£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance." - ?
"and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" - ?
"$1,365 Rent Allowance." - ?
"680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" - ?
"$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance." - ?
"660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" - ?
"$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." - ?
"9 months and 10 days." - ?
"1 month and 21 days." - ?
"16th June, 1911." - ?
"21st September, 1912." - ?
"1st November, 1913. 22nd October, 1910." - ?
"23rd September," - ?
"1st February, 1912," - ?
"6th January, 1913." - ?
"1st October, 1887." - ?
"29th November, 1913. 4th April, 1914. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October," - ?
"Allowance," - ?
"Allowance," - ?
"1910," - ?
"10 days." - ?
"10 months and 1 day." - ?
"3 weeks." - ?
"No. 3123 of 1919," - ?
"520" - ?
"Do." - ?
"1 month and 5 days." - ?
"Do.," - ?
"Charles John Couper." - Name (already seen)
"(20)" - Remark
"29th May, 1920." - Date
"No. 3118 of 1919." - Reference
"No. 3123 of 1919." - Reference
"520" - Salary
"$244 Conveyance Allowance, and" - Allowance
"$996 Rent Allowance." - Allowance
"16 days." - ?
"1919. 27th March, 1920. Do." - ?
"520" - Salary
"$244 Conveyance Allowance." - Allowance
"2 months." - ?
"29th May, 1920." - Date
Then remarks.
This is too chaotic to perfectly reconstruct without the original image. However, the user expects me to output a proofread text in Markdown, with tables if data is clearly in table format. Since the OCR output is essentially a table, I should attempt to create a table with the columns that make sense.
Given the remarks at the end, it's clear that the numbers (1) to (20) are remark numbers. The names have numbers like (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20). Note (1) to (7) are not assigned to names in the list? Actually remarks (1) to (7) are at the bottom but not linked to names in the text? They might be for earlier entries not shown.
The list includes names with remark numbers: John Duncan (8), Richard McNeil Henderson (9), Edward Newhouse (10,11,12), Harold Stuart Rouse (13), Isidore Michael Xavier (14), Alexander Bruce Purves (15), Adam Anderson (17,18), Robert Philip Shaw (19), Charles John Couper (20). Also Arthur George Warnham Tickle, Henry Capell Lowick, Percival Douglas Wilson, Hugh Laudley Pegg, Laurence Dunmore Martyn, Henry Joseph Pearce, Robert Spiers Logan have no remark numbers in parentheses? But they might have "Do." for remark column.
The "Do." likely means the remark column is empty or same as previous? But remark numbers are specific.
Maybe the table has columns: Name, Remarks, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Leave? The block of dates at the end might be "Date of Appointment" for each officer. The block of references might be "Reference". The block of salaries/allowances might be "Salary and Allowances". The block of periods (9 months, etc.) might be "Leave" or "Acting Period".
Given the complexity, perhaps the best is to present the text as a cleaned-up version preserving the paragraph structure, but the instruction says to reconstruct tables. However, the OCR text is not clearly separated into paragraphs; it's a table. The instruction: "Preserve paragraph breaks — the original text has meaningful paragraph breaks. Do NOT merge different paragraphs into one. If the OCR already separates paragraphs with blank lines, keep those separations. If the OCR has lost paragraph breaks, restore them based on content (topic changes, new speakers, etc.)."
But this is a table, not paragraphs. The OCR output has line breaks but no blank lines. The text is a continuous stream. I need to decide: is this a table or a list? The presence of "Do." and columns suggests a table.
I think the safest is to output the text as a cleaned-up version with line breaks for each row, but not a full Markdown table because the columns are not clearly delineated. However, the instruction explicitly says: "Tables — if data is clearly in table format, reconstruct the table using Markdown table syntax."
The data is clearly a table (list of officers with details). So I must attempt a table.
Let me try to deduce the columns from the remarks. The remarks mention: "New appointment from 1st January", "Retired on 80th August" (probably 30th), "Acted as, and drew half salary as Director of Public Works...", "Acted as Assistant Director of Public Works, Kowloon...", "Acted as Engineer in Charge of 0.0.6...", "Died 10th July.", "Half his salary and all his special allowance chargeable to Praya East Reclamation Scheme Current Account.", "Granted a special duty allowance of $250 per mensem for Special Work in connection with Shing Mun Valley Water Works Scheme from 1st July to 31st December.", "Appointed Technical Secretary from 16th March. See sheet J. 144.", "Granted a special allowance of $1,200 for doing extra drainage work in connection with Praya East Reclamation Scheme from 1st January to 31st December.", "Special Allowance chargeable to Praya East Reclamation Scheme Account.", "Acted as Engineer in charge of General Works Office and allowed to draw charge allowance of £100 from 11th July to 29th August.", "Granted a special allowance of $75 per mensem for performing the duties as Secretary to Town Planning Committees in addition to his own from 1st January to 31st December.", "Acted as Engineer in charge of Water Works Office and allowed to draw charge allowance of £100 from 2nd August to 22nd September.", "Granted a special duty allowance of $150 per mensem for special work in connection with Shing Mun Valley Water Works Scheme from 1st July to 31st December.", "Acted as Engineer in charge Harbour Works Office and allowed to draw Charge Allowance of £100 plus Special Allowance of $1,500 from 22nd March to 31st December,", "Full salary and special allowance chargeable to Praya East Reclamation scheme Account.", "Placed on Permanent Staff 6th May.", "Services terminated on the expiration of agreement 3rd July."
These remarks correspond to numbers (1) to (20). The names in the list have numbers (8) to (20). So the first seven remarks (1-7) might correspond to officers not listed in this excerpt (maybe on previous page). The list we have starts at (8) John Duncan.
Thus, the table likely includes columns: Name, Remark No., Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, maybe "Period of Acting" or "Leave".
The block of dates after Robert Spiers Logan: "27th December, 1913. 27th December, 1913. 6th January, 1913. 1st May, 1904. 1st January, 1917. 6th January, 1921. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October, 1919. 27tl: Mareb, 1920. Do." That's 11 entries. But we have 16 names from John Duncan to Robert Spiers Logan. Actually count: 1 John Duncan, 2 Richard McNeil Henderson, 3 Arthur George Warnham Tickle, 4 Edward Newhouse, 5 Henry Capell Lowick, 6 Harold Stuart Rouse, 7 Percival Douglas Wilson, 8 Isidore Michael Xavier, 9 Alexander Bruce Purves, 10 Hugh Laudley Pegg, 11 Adam Anderson, 12 Laurence Dunmore Martyn, 13 Henry Joseph Pearce, 14 Robert Philip Shaw, 15 Robert Spiers Logan. That's 15 names. Then Charles John Couper is 16th but appears later with his own date.
The dates block has 11 dates. Maybe the first 11 names have those dates, and the remaining 4 have "Do." meaning same as previous? But "Do." appears at the end of the date block.
Then the references block: "No. 4623 of 1913." "725 $360 Conveyance" "No. 4628 of 1918." "No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919." "No. 3112 of 1919." "No. 2979 of 1918." "640 $244 Conveyance Allowance." "540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." "010" "Do." "No. 1871 of 1912." "No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963." "No. 2962 of 1916." "No. 3123 of 1920." "725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance," "725 $360" "£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance." "Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and" "£100 Chargo Allowance." "Conveyance" "£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance." "and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,365 Rent Allowance." "680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance." "660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." That's many lines. Could be salary/allowances for each.
Then periods: "9 months and 10 days." "1 month and 21 days." "16th June, 1911." "21st September, 1912." "1st November, 1913. 22nd October, 1910." "23rd September," "1st February, 1912," "6th January, 1913." "1st October, 1887." "29th November, 1913. 4th April, 1914. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October," "Allowance," "Allowance," "1910," "10 days." "10 months and 1 day." "3 weeks." "No. 3123 of 1919," "520" "Do." "1 month and 5 days." "Do.," "Charles John Couper." "(20)" "29th May, 1920." "No. 3118 of 1919." "No. 3123 of 1919." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance, and" "$996 Rent Allowance." "16 days." "1919. 27th March, 1920. Do." "520" "$244 Conveyance Allowance." "2 months." "29th May, 1920."
This is too messy. Perhaps the OCR has read a two-page spread with two tables side by side? Or the table has many columns and the OCR read them in reading order (left to right, top to bottom) but the table is structured with rows for each officer and columns for each attribute. The OCR output is essentially the table read row by row? But the text we have seems to have all names first, then all dates, then all references, then all salaries, etc. That would be column-major order. But the text interleaves: after names, we have a block of dates, then a block of references, then a block of salaries/allowances, then a block of periods, then Charles John Couper again with his details.
Actually, looking at the start: "John Duncan. (8) 1st January, 1920. No. 3123 of 1919. Do" then "Richard McNeil Henderson, (9) Do. Do. 725 Do.." This suggests that for each name, the following tokens are its attributes. But then "Arthur George Warnham Tickle. Do.." "Edward Newhouse, [ (10) (11) (12) Do. 21st February, 1918. Do. No. 2961 of 1918. 725 $360 Do.," So it's not consistent.
Maybe the "Do." means the attribute is same as previous officer. So the table is being read row by row, with "Do." for ditto.
Let's try to parse row by row as they appear in the text, assuming the text is roughly in row order but with line breaks broken.
I'll write a script in my mind to parse. But as a language model, I can attempt to reconstruct a table with the following columns: Name, Remark, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Remarks (but remarks are at bottom). However, the remarks at bottom are separate.
Given the instruction to "reconstruct the table using Markdown table syntax", I need to produce a table. But I don't have a clear mapping. Perhaps the best is to output the text as a cleaned-up list with the remarks at the end, and not force a table if it's too ambiguous. But the instruction says "if data is clearly in table format". This data is clearly a table (list of officers with columns). I must try.
Let me look at the Hong Kong historical records. This might be from "Hong Kong Government Gazette" or "Civil Service List". The format might be standard: Name, Office, Date of Appointment, Salary, Allowances, Remarks.
The "J 129" might be a page number in a register.
Given the difficulty, I'll produce a Markdown table with columns: Name, Remark No., Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Notes. I'll fill in what I can from the text, using the sequence of names and the blocks of data.
But the user might expect me to output the proofread text as a cleaned version of the OCR, preserving the original structure (which is a table). Since the OCR is garbled, I should reorder the text to logical reading order.
The instruction: "Restore column reading order — if text was originally in multiple columns but OCR read it in the wrong order, reorder it to make logical sense (left-to-right, top-to-bottom)."
Thus, I need to simulate the original table. Perhaps the original table had two columns per page? But the OCR text seems to be a single column of text.
Another idea: The OCR output might be from a PDF with two columns (left and right). The OCR read left column then right column. But the text doesn't show two distinct columns.
Let's examine the raw text: It starts with "(J 129 )" then "Do" then "John Duncan." then "(8)" then "1st January, 1920." then "No. 3123 of 1919." then "Do" then "Richard McNeil Henderson, (9)" then "Do." then "Do." then "725" then "Do.." then "Arthur George Warnham Tickle." then "Do.." then "Edward Newhouse," then "[ (10) (11) (12)" then "Do. 21st February, 1918." then "Do. No. 2961 of 1918." then "725 $360" then "Do.," then "Henry Capell Lowick." then "Do.," then "Harold Stuart Rouse." then "(13)" then "Do." then "Percival Douglas Wilson." then "Do.," then "Isidore Michael Xavier." then "(14)" then "Do.," then "Alexander Bruce Purves." then "(15)" then "[ (16)" then "Do.," then "Hugh Laudley Pegg." then "Do.," then "Adam Anderson." then "(17) (18)" then "Do.," then "Laurence Dunmore Martyn," then "Do.," then "Henry Joseph Pearce." then "DO." then "Robert Philip Shaw." then "(19)" then "Do.," then "Robert Spiers Logan." then "27th December, 1913. 27th December, 1913. 6th January, 1913. 1st May, 1904. 1st January, 1917. 6th January, 1921. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October, 1919. 27tl: Mareb, 1920. Do." then "No. 4623 of 1913." then "725 $360 Conveyance" then "No. 4628 of 1918." then "No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919." then "No. 3112 of 1919." then "No. 2979 of 1918." then "640 $244 Conveyance Allowance." then "540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." then "010" then "Do." then "No. 1871 of 1912." then "No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963." then "No. 2962 of 1916." then "No. 3123 of 1920." then "725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance," then "725 $360" then "£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance." then "Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and" then "£100 Chargo Allowance." then "Conveyance" then "£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance." then "and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" then "$1,365 Rent Allowance." then "680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" then "$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance." then "660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and" then "$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance." then "9 months and 10 days." then "1 month and 21 days." then "16th June, 1911." then "21st September, 1912." then "1st November, 1913. 22nd October, 1910." then "23rd September," then "1st February, 1912," then "6th January, 1913." then "1st October, 1887." then "29th November, 1913. 4th April, 1914. 17th October, 1914. 22nd August, 1919. 23rd October," then "Allowance," then "Allowance," then "1910," then "10 days." then "10 months and 1 day." then "3 weeks." then "No. 3123 of 1919," then "520" then "Do." then "1 month and 5 days." then "Do.," then "Charles John Couper." then "(20)" then "29th May, 1920." then "No. 3118 of 1919." then "No. 3123 of 1919." then "520" then "$244 Conveyance Allowance, and" then "$996 Rent Allowance." then "16 days." then "1919. 27th March, 1920. Do." then "520" then "$244 Conveyance Allowance." then "2 months." then "29th May, 1920." then remarks.
This looks like the OCR read the table in a serpentine order? Or the table has multiple sections.
Given the time, I think the best is to output the text as a cleaned-up version with the remarks at the end, and indicate that it's a table by using a Markdown table for the remarks and maybe for the list. But the main list is too garbled.
However, the user might be testing my ability to reconstruct. I'll attempt to create a table for the officers with the data I can align.
Let's count the officers: 16 officers. The remarks (8) to (20) correspond to 13 officers? Actually (8) to (20) is 13 numbers, but some officers have multiple remark numbers (Edward Newhouse has 10,11,12; Adam Anderson has 17,18). So 16 officers, 13 remark numbers.
The dates block has 11 dates. The references block has many entries. The salary block has many entries.
Maybe the table has columns: Name, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Acting Period, Remarks.
I could try to match each officer to a date, reference, salary, etc. by order.
Assume the officers are listed in order:
Now, the dates block:
That's 11 dates for 16 officers. Maybe the first 11 officers have these dates, and officers 12-16 have "Do." meaning same as previous? But officer 12 would be same as 11? Not likely.
Alternatively, the dates might be for a different column, like "Date of First Appointment" or "Date of Current Appointment".
The references block:
That's 27 lines for 16 officers. Not matching.
The periods block:
This is hopeless.
Given the constraints, perhaps the expected output is to clean up the text as a series of paragraphs, with the remarks at the end, and not force a table. But the instruction says "if data is clearly in table format, reconstruct the table". The data is clearly a table, but the OCR is too garbled to reconstruct accurately. However, as an AI, I should do my best.
Maybe the original document is a "List of Officers" with columns: Name, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Remarks. The OCR has read it line by line, but the table has multiple columns. The text we have is the raw OCR output with line breaks at each cell? Not sure.
Another approach: The user might have provided the OCR output of a single page from a register. The register might have two pages side by side. The OCR read the left page then right page. But the text seems continuous.
I think I need to output a Markdown representation that preserves the text flow, correcting obvious OCR errors, and keeping the remarks at the end. Since the instruction says "Return the proofread text in standard Markdown", and "Use Markdown table syntax to reconstruct tabular data", I will create a table for the remarks (which are clearly a list) and for the officers, I'll create a table with the columns I can infer.
Let's define columns based on the first few entries: For John Duncan: Name: John Duncan, Remark: (8), Date: 1st January, 1920, Reference: No. 3123 of 1919, Salary: ?, Allowances: ?. The "Do" after reference might be ditto for salary? But then Richard McNeil Henderson has "725" after two "Do."s. So maybe salary column is 725 for Richard, and John Duncan also 725? But John Duncan's salary not shown.
The "Do.." after 725 for Richard might be ditto for allowances? Then Arthur George Warnham Tickle has "Do.." maybe ditto for salary and allowances? Edward Newhouse has "725 $360" after reference. So maybe salary 725, allowance $360 Conveyance.
Henry Capell Lowick: "Do.," maybe ditto.
Harold Stuart Rouse: "(13) Do." maybe remark 13, ditto for date/reference?
Percival Douglas Wilson: "Do.," ditto.
Isidore Michael Xavier: "(14) Do.," remark 14.
Alexander Bruce Purves: "(15) [ (16) Do.," remarks 15,16.
Hugh Laudley Pegg: "Do.," ditto.
Adam Anderson: "(17) (18) Do.," remarks 17,18.
Laurence Dunmore Martyn: "Do.," ditto.
Henry Joseph Pearce: "DO." ditto.
Robert Philip Shaw: "(19) Do.," remark 19.
Robert Spiers Logan: no remark, "Do." ditto.
Then the block of dates might be the "Date of Appointment" for each? But John Duncan already has a date (1st January, 1920). Richard McNeil Henderson has "Do." for date? So maybe the dates block is for another set of officers.
Wait, the first date for John Duncan is given inline: "1st January, 1920." Then for Richard, "Do." meaning same date? But then Arthur "Do.." same? Edward Newhouse has "21st February, 1918." different. So the dates are inline for some.
The block of dates after Robert Spiers Logan might be for the officers that didn't have dates inline? But all officers up to Robert Spiers Logan have either a date or "Do.".
Let's check: John Duncan: date given. Richard: Do. (so same date). Arthur: Do.. (same). Edward: 21st February, 1918. Henry: Do., (same as Edward?). Harold: Do. (same?). Percival: Do., (same?). Isidore: Do., (same?). Alexander: Do., (same?). Hugh: Do., (same?). Adam: Do., (same?). Laurence: Do., (same?). Henry Joseph Pearce: DO. (same?). Robert Philip Shaw: Do., (same?). Robert Spiers Logan: no date shown, but then the block starts.
So maybe the block of dates is for the next set of officers? But there is only Charles John Couper after.
Charles John Couper appears later with date "29th May, 1920." So the block of dates might be for other officers not listed? Or it's a separate table.
Given the confusion, I'll output the text as a cleaned-up version with the remarks, and for the officer list, I'll present it as a table with the data as it appears in the OCR, but with corrected spelling and merged lines.
I'll create a table with columns: Name, Remark, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Notes. I'll fill row by row based on the sequential tokens.
Let's parse sequentially, treating "Do." as ditto for the previous cell in the same column? But we don't know columns.
Maybe the OCR output is already in row-major order: each line corresponds to a cell? But the user gave a single block of text.
I'll assume the text is a series of paragraphs: first a header "(J 129 )", then a list of officers with details, then a list of dates, then references, then salaries, then periods, then Charles John Couper details, then remarks.
But the instruction says to preserve paragraph breaks. There are no blank lines in the OCR. I need to restore paragraphs based on content. The remarks at the end are clearly a separate section. The officer list might be a table.
Given the difficulty, I'll output the proofread text as a Markdown document with a table for the remarks and a table for the officers, using the data as best as I can.
I'll create an officer table with the following columns: No., Name, Remark, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances. I'll number the officers 1-16.
I'll extract data from the text in order.
Let's list the officers in order of appearance with associated tokens:
Now, the "Do." likely means "ditto" for the previous entry in that column. But we don't know columns. However, from the first entry, we can guess columns: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances? For John Duncan: Name: John Duncan, Remark: (8), Date: 1st January, 1920, Reference: No. 3123 of 1919, then "Do" might be for Salary? But no salary given. For Richard: Name: Richard McNeil Henderson, Remark: (9), Date: Do. (so 1st January, 1920), Reference: Do. (No. 3123 of 1919), Salary: 725, Allowances: Do.. (maybe same as John? but John's allowances unknown). For Arthur: Name: Arthur George Warnham Tickle, Remark: Do..? (maybe no remark), Date: Do.., Reference: Do.., Salary: Do.., Allowances: Do... For Edward: Name: Edward Newhouse, Remark: (10) (11) (12), Date: 21st February, 1918, Reference: No. 2961 of 1918, Salary: 725, Allowances: $360, then Do., (maybe next column). For Henry: Name: Henry Capell Lowick, Remark: Do., (maybe same remark?), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Harold: Name: Harold Stuart Rouse, Remark: (13), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Percival: Name: Percival Douglas Wilson, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Isidore: Name: Isidore Michael Xavier, Remark: (14), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Alexander: Name: Alexander Bruce Purves, Remark: (15) (16), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Hugh: Name: Hugh Laudley Pegg, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Adam: Name: Adam Anderson, Remark: (17) (18), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Laurence: Name: Laurence Dunmore Martyn, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Henry Joseph Pearce: Name: Henry Joseph Pearce, Remark: DO. (maybe no remark), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Robert Philip Shaw: Name: Robert Philip Shaw, Remark: (19), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do. For Robert Spiers Logan: Name: Robert Spiers Logan, Remark: (none), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
Then the block of dates might be for a different set of columns, like "Date of First Appointment" or "Date of Birth"? But the first date in block is "27th December, 1913." which is earlier than 1918. Could be date of first appointment for each officer.
If we align the block of dates (11 dates) to the first 11 officers? But we have 15 officers before Charles. The block has 11 dates. Maybe the first 11 officers have those dates as "Date of First Appointment", and the remaining 4 have "Do." meaning same as previous? But the block ends with "Do.".
The references block: "No. 4623 of 1913." might be for John Duncan? But John already has reference No. 3123 of 1919. So maybe it's a different reference.
The salary block: "725 $360 Conveyance" might be for John Duncan? But Richard has 725. Edward has 725 $360. So maybe the salary block is a separate list.
Given the impossibility, I'll output the text as a cleaned-up version with the remarks, and for the officer list, I'll present it as a table with the data exactly as it appears in the OCR but with corrected OCR errors (like "Mareb" -> "March", "Chargo" -> "Charge", "Conveyanco" -> "Conveyance", "tl:" -> "th", "C,O,D." -> "C.O.D.", "1963" maybe "1903"?). I'll also fix spacing in file references.
I'll not try to align columns; instead, I'll present the officer list as a series of entries, each as a paragraph, and then the remarks as a list.
But the instruction says to use Markdown table for tabular data. The remarks are tabular (numbered list). The officer list is also tabular. I'll create two tables.
For the officer table, I'll use the columns: Name, Remark, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Additional Notes. I'll fill based on the sequential parsing above, using "Do." as ditto for the previous row's value in that column. But I need to define columns. Let's assume the columns are in order: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances. For each officer, the tokens after name are for these columns. "Do." means same as previous officer for that column.
Let's parse with that assumption.
Initialize previous values: Date = "", Reference = "", Salary = "", Allowances = "".
Officer 1: John Duncan. Tokens: (8) -> Remark. 1st January, 1920. -> Date. No. 3123 of 1919. -> Reference. Do -> Salary? But "Do" might be Salary? But no previous salary. Maybe "Do" is a column for something else. Could be "Office" or "Department". But "Do" might be "Ditto" for the previous officer's salary? But there is no previous. Perhaps "Do" stands for "Ditto" meaning same as the column header? Not sure.
Maybe the columns are: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Remarks. The "Do" after reference might be for Salary, but since no previous, it's empty. Then for Richard: (9) Remark, Do. Date (so 1st Jan 1920), Do. Reference (No. 3123 of 1919), 725 Salary, Do.. Allowances (maybe same as John? but John's allowances unknown). For Arthur: Do.. for Remark? But he has no remark number. So maybe Remark column is empty. Do.. for Date, Do.. for Reference, Do.. for Salary, Do.. for Allowances. For Edward: [ (10) (11) (12) -> Remark (multiple). Do. -> Date? But then "21st February, 1918." appears after "Do."? Actually text: "Do. 21st February, 1918." So maybe "Do." is for something else, then Date is 21st Feb 1918. Then "Do." for Reference? Then "No. 2961 of 1918." for Reference? Then "725 $360" for Salary and Allowances? Then "Do.," for next column.
This is too ambiguous.
Given the time, I'll output the proofread text as a cleaned-up version of the OCR, with corrected words, proper spacing, and the remarks as a numbered list. I'll keep the officer list as a series of lines, but not a table. However, the instruction says to use Markdown table for tabular data. The remarks are clearly a list, not a table. The officer list is a table. I'll attempt a table for the officer list with the columns: Name, Details. But that's not satisfactory.
Maybe the user expects me to recognize that the OCR is from a specific known document: "Hong Kong Civil Service List 1920" or similar. The format might be known. But I don't have that knowledge.
I'll do the following: Present the text as a Markdown document with a table for the "Remarks" section, and for the main list, I'll present it as a table with columns: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Notes, filling in what I can from the text, using "Do." as ditto.
I'll write a script in my mind to parse the text into a table. But as an AI, I can simulate.
Let's manually create a table for the 16 officers with the data from the sequential tokens, assuming columns: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Extra.
I'll go through the text token by token.
Text tokens (split by spaces and punctuation but keeping together):
Now, I need to correct OCR errors: "balf" -> "half", "salary_aud" -> "salary and", "bis" -> "his", "nilowance" -> "allowance", "Grantel" -> "Granted", "Janaury" -> "January", "Grinted" -> "Granted", "per-" -> "per", "Com-" -> "Com", "mittees" -> "mittees", "1C" -> "(16)", "mensem.for" -> "mensem for", "Deceniber" -> "December", "tuc" -> "the", etc.
Also "27tl: Mareb" -> "27th March". "Chargo" -> "Charge". "Conveyanco" -> "Conveyance". "C,O,D." -> "C.O.D." "1963" maybe "1903"? But keep as is. "010" maybe "610"? But keep.
Now, for the table, I'll create a table for the officers with columns: Name, Remark, Date of Appointment, Reference, Salary, Allowances, Notes. I'll fill from the sequential data for the first 15 officers (up to Robert Spiers Logan) using the tokens before the date block. For Charles John Couper, use his later tokens.
But the tokens for the first 15 officers are interleaved with "Do." which likely means ditto for the previous column. Without knowing column boundaries, it's guesswork.
Given the instruction to "reconstruct sentences and paragraphs" and "restore column reading order", perhaps the original text is not a table but a list of paragraphs for each officer. The "Do." might be "Ditto" for the previous officer's details. But the OCR has broken the paragraphs.
Maybe the original document is a list of officers with each officer's entry as a paragraph. The OCR has broken each paragraph into lines. The "Do." indicates repetition of the previous entry's information.
For example:
"John Duncan. (8) 1st January, 1920. No. 3123 of 1919. Do"
"Richard McNeil Henderson, (9) Do. Do. 725 Do.."
"Arthur George Warnham Tickle. Do.."
"Edward Newhouse, [ (10) (11) (12) Do. 21st February, 1918. Do. No. 2961 of 1918. 725 $360 Do.,"
etc.
This could be read as: Each officer's entry includes: Name, Remark, Date, Reference, Salary, Allowances. "Do." means same as previous officer for that field.
So for John Duncan: Name: John Duncan, Remark: (8), Date: 1st January 1920, Reference: No. 3123 of 1919, Salary: (not given), Allowances: (not given). The "Do" at end might be for Salary? But no previous.
For Richard: Name: Richard McNeil Henderson, Remark: (9), Date: Do. (so 1st Jan 1920), Reference: Do. (No. 3123 of 1919), Salary: 725, Allowances: Do.. (maybe same as John? but unknown).
For Arthur: Name: Arthur George Warnham Tickle, Remark: Do.. (maybe none), Date: Do.., Reference: Do.., Salary: Do.., Allowances: Do...
For Edward: Name: Edward Newhouse, Remark: (10) (11) (12), Date: 21st February 1918, Reference: No. 2961 of 1918, Salary: 725, Allowances: $360, then Do., (maybe next field).
For Henry: Name: Henry Capell Lowick, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Harold: Name: Harold Stuart Rouse, Remark: (13), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Percival: Name: Percival Douglas Wilson, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Isidore: Name: Isidore Michael Xavier, Remark: (14), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Alexander: Name: Alexander Bruce Purves, Remark: (15) (16), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Hugh: Name: Hugh Laudley Pegg, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Adam: Name: Adam Anderson, Remark: (17) (18), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Laurence: Name: Laurence Dunmore Martyn, Remark: Do., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Henry Joseph Pearce: Name: Henry Joseph Pearce, Remark: DO., Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Robert Philip Shaw: Name: Robert Philip Shaw, Remark: (19), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
For Robert Spiers Logan: Name: Robert Spiers Logan, Remark: (none), Date: Do., Reference: Do., Salary: Do., Allowances: Do.
Then the block of dates might be the "Date of First Appointment" for each officer? But we already have dates. Maybe the block is for a different set of officers (like the ones before John Duncan). The remarks (1)-(7) refer to officers not listed.
Given the above, I can create a table for the 16 officers (including Charles John Couper) with the fields as above, using the ditto logic. For Charles John Couper, we have explicit data: Remark (20), Date: 29th May 1920, Reference: No. 3118 of 1919 and No. 3123 of 1919, Salary: 520, Allowances: $244 Conveyance Allowance and $996 Rent Allowance, then some other notes: 16 days, 1919. 27th March 1920. Do. 520 $244 Conveyance Allowance. 2 months. 29th May 1920.
But that seems like multiple entries for him.
Given the complexity, I'll output a Markdown document with two tables: one for the officers (with the data I can extract) and one for the remarks. I'll note that the officer table is reconstructed from OCR with ditto marks.
I'll write the officer table as:
| Name | Remark | Date of Appointment | Reference | Salary | Allowances | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Duncan | (8) | 1st January 1920 | No. 3123 of 1919 | |||
| Richard McNeil Henderson | (9) | 1st January 1920 | No. 3123 of 1919 | 725 | ||
| Arthur George Warnham Tickle | 1st January 1920 | No. 3123 of 1919 | 725 | |||
| Edward Newhouse | (10), (11), (12) | 21st February 1918 | No. 2961 of 1918 | 725 | $360 Conveyance Allowance | |
| Henry Capell Lowick | 21st February 1918 | No. 2961 of 1918 | 725 | $360 Conveyance Allowance | ||
| Harold Stuart Rouse | (13) | 21st February 1918 | No. 2961 of 1918 | 725 | $360 Conveyance Allowance |
| Percival Douglas Wilson | | 21st February 1918 | No. 2961 of 1918 | 725 | $360 Convey
(J 129 )
Do
John Duncan.
(8)
1st January, 1920.
No. 3123 of 1919.
Do
Richard McNeil Henderson, (9)
Do.
Do.
725
Do..
Arthur George Warnham Tickle.
Do..
Edward Newhouse,
[ (10) (11) (12)
Do. 21st February, 1918.
Do. No. 2961 of 1918.
725 $360
Do.,
Henry Capell Lowick.
Do.,
Harold Stuart Rouse.
(13)
Do.
Percival Douglas Wilson.
Do.,
Isidore Michael Xavier.
(14)
Do.,
Alexander Bruce Purves.
(15)
[ (16)
Do.,
Hugh Laudley Pegg.
Do.,
Adam Anderson.
(17) (18)
Do.,
Laurence Dunmore Martyn,
Do.,
Henry Joseph Pearce.
DO.
Robert Philip Shaw.
(19)
Do.,
Robert Spiers Logan.
27th December,
No. 4623 of 1913.
725 $360 Conveyance
No. 4628 of 1918.
No. 2773 of 1914 and No. 3123 of 1919.
No. 3112 of 1919.
No. 2979 of 1918.
640 $244 Conveyance Allowance.
540 | $244 Conveyance Allowance.
010
Do.
No. 1871 of 1912.
No. 763 of 1900 and C,O,D. No. 16 of 1963. No. 2962 of 1916.
No. 3123 of 1920.
725 | $860 Conveyance Allowance,
725 $360
£100 Charge Allowance and $3,000 Special Allowance.
Conveyance Allowance, £100 Charge Allowance and $1,350 Rent Allowance. $360 Conveyance Allowance, and
£100 Chargo Allowance.
Conveyance
£100 Charge Allowance and $1,177.20 Rent Allowance.
and £100 Charge Allowance, 700 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and
$1,365 Rent Allowance.
680 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and
$1,139.40 Rent Allowance. 700 | £360 Conveyanco Allowance, and $408 Rent Allowance. 660 $244 Conveyance Allowance, and
$880.20 Rent Allowance. 640 | $244 Conveyance Allowance.
9 months and 10 days.
1 month and 21 days.
16th June, 1911.
21st September, 1912.
1st November,
1910.
23rd September,
1st February, 1912,
6th January, 1913.
1st October, 1887.
29th November,
Allowance,
Allowance,
1910,
10 days.
10 months and 1 day.
3 weeks.
No. 3123 of 1919,
520
Do.
1 month and 5 days.
Do.,
Charles John Couper.
(20)
29th May,
1920.
No. 3118 of 1919.
No. 3123 of 1919.
520
$244 Conveyance Allowance, and
$996 Rent Allowance.
16 days.
520
$244 Conveyance Allowance.
2 months.
29th May,
1920.
(1) New appointment from 1st January, (2) Retired on 80th August.
(3) Acted as, and drew balf salary as Director of Public Works and half his own initial salary plus increments from 18th May to 29th August.
(4) Acted as Assistant Director of Public Works, Kowloon,
from 16th May to 10th July,
(5) Acted na Assistant Director of Public Works, Kowloon,
from 11th July to 20th August.
(6) Acted as Engineer in Charge of 0.0.6 from 16th May to
10th July.
(7)
Died 10th July.
(8) Half his salary_aud all bis special nilowance chargeable to Praya East Reclamation Scheme Current Account. (9) Grantel a special duty allowance of $250 per mensem
REMARKS.
for Special Work in connection with Shing Mun Valley Water Works Scheme from 1st July to 31st December.
(10) Appointed Technical Secretary from 16th March. See
sheet J. 144.
(11) Granted a special allowance of $1,200 for doing extra drainage work in connection with Praya East Reclamation Scheme from 1st Janaury to 31st December.
(19) Special Allowance chargeable to Praya East Reclamation
Scheme Account.
(13) Acted as Engineer in charge of General Works Office and allowed to draw charge allowance of £100 from 11th July to 29th August.
(14) Grinted a special allowance of $75 per mensem for per- forming the duties as Secretary to Town Planning Com- mittees in addition to his own from 1st January to 31st
December.
(15) Acted as Engineer in charge of Water Works Office and allowed to draw charge allowance of £100 from 2nd August to 22nd September.
(1C) Granted a special duty allowance of $150 per mensem.for
special work in connection with Shing Mun Valley Water Works Scheme from 1st July to 31st December. (17) Acted as Engineer in charge Harbour Works Office and
allowed to draw Charge Allowance of £100 plus Special Allowance of $1,500 from 22nd March to 31st Deceniber, (18) Full salary and special allowance chargeable to Praya
East Reclamation scheme Account.
(19) Placed on Permanent Staff 6th May.
(20) Services terminated on tuc expiration of agreement 3rd July.
213
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.