No reason why to was allowed to retain the allowance, which is not an one purely a police udinary personal allowance; and if I gather to be the case, that allowance have been A the book not pensionable for had he stayed in In the police, I think it is out question to matte of the transfer.
it See M. Browne 418 the parsin the colony, which, as a policeman, to received have nothing. minute on 169 with what in 1882.3. s hid or didust a imperdince he retired, policemen have been allowed cive to respect "d. not see the hashage. recessarily; it for simable in consuance recensent by, to what Mine
12. As regards leave: Whatever be the Character of M. Greys have prior to 1882. 18 years he cannot count more than Service unless some the leave takten in 1882.8 is included: Counting one month s as favice 4 [ See "M: Johnsons Thinate on 18242 refossile to make up unless the leave is it 4 is still is 11 the 19 years treated not as police leave but good ordinary government have; Ai but i think retivi, under a dy kuson on set of repulation at tells against yes: hat-I think should be inchided as leave in × It was grante police the regulations iss In 1881. Ju 659 I have not looked This course is tallen he should any my older ry linder the ordinance.
refund the free passage to and from 1862, but the ad clearly does not in -plate lasers at al to count on the leave as service in addition to the passage privilege. but this was not so While he was in ading Reason While he the force. 3 have altogether. the I see no throughly satisfactory way of deling with this case but should be inclined either to adhere to the pension abready given or to give m: Gr Gray 'the option between a without optic refund of pension of #460 p.a. at the passage, and #50g. 13 pa. with refund
But in avy? case the matter should not be referred back to the colony abready 2 hes Mr. Meade it is so caused so much C.P.D. 22. Dec. small bery cares fondence I would say nothing to hin about 18509-13, •becaus
No reason
why to
was allowed to retain
the allowance, which is
not an
as
I
one
purely a police. udinary personal allowance; and if.
gather to be the case, that allowance x
have been
A
the
book not pensionable for had he stayed in In the police, I think it is out question to matte of the transfer.
it
See M. Browne
418
the parsin the colony, which, as a policeman, to received
have nothing.
minute on 169 with what in 1882.3.
s
hid or didust
a
imperdince he retired, policemen have been allowed
cive to respect
" d. not see the hashage. recessarily;
it for simable in consuance recensent by, to what Mine
12. As regards leave: Whatever be the Character of M. Greys have prior
of
to 1882.
18 years
he cannot count more than
Service unless some
the
leave takten in 1882.8 is included:
month of this
Counting one month
s as favice
4 [ See "M: Johnsons Thinate on 18242
refossile to make up unless the leave is
it 4 is still is 11
the 19
years treated not as police leave but good ordinary government have;
Ai
but i
think
retivi, under a dy kuson on set of repulation at tells against
yes: hat-Ithink should be inchided
as
leave in
× It was grante police the regulations iss In 1881. Ju 659 I have not looked
This course is tallen he should any my older ry
linder the ordinance.
refund the free passage to and from 1862, but the ad
clearly does not in -plate lasers at al
to count on the leave as service in addition
to the passage privilege. but this was not so While he was in ading Reason While he
the force.
3 have altogether.
the
I see no throughly satisfactory way of
deling
with this case but should be inclined
either to adhere to the pension abready given or to give m: Gr
Gray
'the option between a
without
optic
refund of
pension of #460 p.a. at the passage, and #50g. 13 pa. with refund
But in
avy?
case
the matter should not be
referred back to the colony abready
2 hes
Mr. Meade
it is so
caused so much
C.P.D.
22.
Dec.
small
bery cares fondence
I would say nothing to hin about 18509-13,
•becaus
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.