See also M. May's private not annexed. Iam sorry to say Jagree
with him I think that Osmund aught to be dismissed –
his ow
the ground of b
in the came
solely. admissions
of the second chargs.
That charge
އނ
verz
Similar
to the charge against Joseph at
Straits 697/96).
case
Penang (see 47/2/95/pcretary of In Joseph's State did not confirm the suspension, because Le considered the charge "not proved"; but if the charge had been proved there is no suggestion
desp
47295-6 in the minutes or
dominal that the Junishment of
world
༨
have been too severe.
In the present
case Osmund
admits (after first lying about it)
He tries
that he received the illegal gratification let from the Emigrants, and I think
in that ground he ought to be
S.W.3.6/10
dismissed.
to disting between "obtain "receive"
"
my
wow of the
of the care in
that
theme has been quite enough proved
ains Orned to justify
dimmfiol, and
the
hi
that
Coug
only question is whether
suzie and pressuredty
404
Good
Coudrien
ung peopens
C
ей
taber wito consideration
uitigation of the perisherents
the awarded.
on the hole,
Jam wiched & think
that
they way,
and that there is
nothing to prevents the Trapstate
from treating
a case of this hind
it wests, and
Gering funded,
if he thinks proper, the judgements
Itheox
Da
the spot.
In the Penang
Cloc
I Josephe
refered to Ghut forenson, then
in
is creation glaugth of rewice, (~
appear fome the Bluebook & ber been ouf about 10
sears]
aud
if the charge had been counterine
provch there would apparents
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.