Panama...
4
Gorernor's Minute,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hongkong, 1st Angust, 1888. The following Minute by His Excellency the Governor on a Petition of the 25th ultimo from the LI KWONG CHI of the Yat Lung shop, No. 3, Jervois Street, respecting the illegal searching of his premises by Sergeant SHEIK ALIM and 2 others is communicated to the Honourable Captain Superintendent of Police for his information:--
16
总数
"Before deciding as to the course to be
pursued in this case, I desire to know what has
been done, before the receipt of this minute, to
"mark disapproval of this gross outrage."
FREDERICK STEWART,
Colonial Secretary.
Minute by Captain Superintendent of Police.
This case first came before my notice on a peti- tion which was a duplicate of the one in C.S.O. 1809 and received by me on the 25th July, which appears to be the same date as that on which the petition was received by the Registrar General.
th
2. I sent the petition to the Inspector on duty for the previous day, and received the following report
Hon. CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SIR,
FL
"The petitioner's shopman was brought to the 'Charge Room yesterday afternoon by Sergeant "SHEIK ALIM who stated the man was hiding "his wife. The latter ran away from bome taking
K
14
money and jewellery value about $1,400. Ï told SHEIK ALIM that I could not entertain
a charge of that sort and referred him to the Registrar General. I did not make an entry of "the matter in Refused Charge Book. The peti- "tioner came to the Charge Room to see what "would be the result of the case.'
I have &c.,
"
J. M. CORCORAN, Inspector.
3. I made further verbal inquiries and arrived at the conclusion that if Sergeant SHEIK ALIM'S story was true, viz., that the Petitioner's shopman, who lived in his house, had eloped with the Ser- geant's wife and that he had reasonable cause to suppose that he had taken her to that house that he might possibly be justified in searching for ber without a warrant.
4. I therefore was of opinion that the offence, if any, was of a civil rather than of criminal nature so far as Sergeant SHEIK ALIM was con- cerned, and I endorsed the petition on the same date, viz., 25th July, 1888, for the direction of the Chinese Clerk.
f
こ
C
5
"Inform Petitioner that Sergeant SHEIK "ALIM acted in his private capacity and not as a Police Sergeant or if he did so, in either case, "he can bring an action against him in the
Summary Court, if he pleases."
25th July, 1888.
W. M. DEANE, Captain Superintendent of Police.
5. I have not yet been informed whether or not the Petitioner has taken action as suggested. Had the petitioner been present and had expressed his desire not to take civil action and asked me to hear the case I should certainly have exer- cised the discretion vested in me by Ordinance of sending it before a Magistrate for trial, as I have no power to examine witnesses on oath or declaration and this is one of those cases in which, to use the mildest expression, exaggerated testi- mony may be expected.
W. M. DEANE, Captain Superintendent of Police.
1st August, 1888.
Governor's Minute.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 4th August, 1888. The following Minute by His Excellency the Governor on a Minute of the 2nd instant from the Honourable the Captain Superintendent of Police respecting the case of Sergeant SHEIK ALIM and others is communicated to him for his inform- ation:-
፡፡
"An illegal outrage, such as that of searching a dwelling-house without warrant, is far more culpable in a member of the Police Force than in an ordinary person, and I deeply regret to ob- serve that that committed by Sergeant SHEIK 'ALAM, in this case, was deemed deserving of no "action on the part of the Captain Superintendent, who merely referred the complainant to his civil 'remedy.
41
The Captain Superintendent must well know "the extreme reluctance of the Chinese to enter into legal conflict with the Government, espe- "cially with the Police, so that the redress to "which the outraged person was confined was practically none at all. But, whether the civil remedy had been sought or not, the act of the "Sergeant should have been treated as a serious "breach of Police duty, and have been dealt with "accordingly.
46
C
*
"What should have been done previously must "be done now, whether the case be heard before "the Captain Superintendent himself, or in his discretion sent before the Magistrate. It appears "to me, however, that if the Sergeant admits the "search without warrant there is no necessity for "evidence under oath, as suggested by the Captain Superintendent. For the degree of violence "used in the search is a matter of comparatively "little importance.
44
16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.