CO537-36 — Page 163

1

}

2244

11271

Ave

Yr Shelton Hooper:-

fr Humphreys?—

Mishairman,-

A.

1127 Ro

13350

Lo Man Rai 40

344

I will say that I have told the truth, an' the

Commission did not blamo ne.

71271

But only did not blame you, but they praised you.

The contractors have an idem that we are to get them

into trouble, as well as the Inspectura. That is not

the idea at all, but it is simply to get into trouble

those who have been employed by the Government, and

failed to do their duty. It is a bad thing if they have

given a bribe occasionally, but if they tell the truth,

they will be protected by the Commission.

If you can use your friendship with any of those

contrastors to get them to understand that I want

contractors to coms before the Commission, and tell us

the truth -

If I am given a letter from the Commission, I think I

can persuade them.

11272

I cant give it at once, as I have no finished with you

yet. I may want you two or three, or fome timma yet.

Now, we come to the question of the Fuk On fire, and as

a matter of fact, $400 mas paid, and you say you only

received $150 of 11. The Tuk On people say they paid you

$400, and you asked $500. Who actually paid you that

mount ?

A.

Lam Yuk But,

11273

Q.

Is he the same as Lai Yuk Sun ?

A.

I dont know who that man is.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

། ། །

C.O. 537

36

11273

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE

277

ir Fung wa Chun:-

so is Lam Tuk Sui ↑

He was then the foreman of the scavenging contractor.

11274

27 Q

•

There is he now ?

11275

I dont know where he is now.

You know that Lan Yuk Bui was one of the foremen ↑

11276

A

I did not know him. The first tips I knew him, was when

he came to me, and said he had spoken to Lankg In about

paying me tes money, and that was when Z

his