12
Remarks
by Magistrate.
Case 7240.
EXTRACT.
REPORT OF CHARGES COMING UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF THE HONGKONG POLICE FORCE, ON THE 7TH AUGUST, 1888.
Or Hour
to Bail. and Address. Detained. admitted Name
before whom the Magistrate
Charge
Persons Charged.
Persons Charg-
ing.
Witnesses.
AT THE STATION HOUSE.
Police Officer Signature of
Charge.
Name.
Name
and Address.
Name, Address,
taking the
Charge.
Sent to Court.
W. Baker.
T. Sorcombe- Smith, Esq.
11 A.M., Wong Ching. Sheik Alim, 32,
Police Sergeant, Central Police
Station.
Police Constable | on the 24th July,| 1888. Misconduct as a
and
Occupation.
Li Fung Chi, Shopkeeper,
No. 3, Jervois
Street.
Accountant, No. 3, Jervois ¦ Leung A-king,
Street.
is brought.
Charge
by Magistrate,
proved. and what Offence how disposed of
Remanded to 8th August. Discharged.
))
))
SIR,
20
Chief Inspector to Captain Superintendent.
13
POLICE OEFICE,
14th August, 1888.
I have the honour to report that, in accordance with instructions received from you on the 4th instant, I informed Sergeant SHEIK ALIM that the case would be tried before a Police Magis- trate on Tuesday the 7th instant (the 5th being a Sunday and the 6th a Government Holiday) and I also sent word by a Chinese Constable to the complainant, asking him to be present with his witnesses, on that date at 10 a.m.
SHEIK ALIM was placed on the Charge Sheet charged with "Misconduct as a Police Constable" and I attended the Court to watch the case on hehalf of the Police.
I have &c.,
G. HORSPOOL,
Chief Inspector of Police.
In C.S,O. No. 1809.
Governor's Minute.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 18th August, 1888.
The following Minute by His Excellency the Governor respecting the case of Police Sergeant SHEIK ALIM is communicated to the Honour-
able the Captain Superintendent of Police for his information:----
Referring to the Captain Superintendent's "letter of 14th August, 1888, I regret to observe "that in his further dealing with the case of
Sergeant SHEIK ALIM he has by no means im- proved his previous position.
56
"I am advised that when the Captain Super- "intendent of Police, in the exercise of the dis- "cretion permitted to him by section 22 of Or- "dinance 14 of 1887, sends a charge of misconduct against a Member of the Police Force to be "tried before a Magistrate, the charge ought un- 'doubtedly to be preferred by himself, or by some one acting on his behalf and under his directions. But instead of this, Mr. DEANE "took upon himself in this case to enter it in the ordinary Police Charge Sheet, as the complaint "of a private person, and moreover, without the 'slightest right to do so, required that person to 'appear as complainant.
ti
"
"In so far as I am able to judge from the re- "cord of the proceedings, the only part taken by "the Police was in defence of the accused, by the
**
production of two witnesses on his behalf who
"had participated in his acts, and who should "therefore have been charged conjointly with "him.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.