CO129-277 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [8-10] — Page 388

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

I do not recommend a criminal prosecution, for the slips would not be admitted in evidence and of course the accounts and slips are very difficult to explain to a Jury; while naturally, in cases of this kind the "links" or "intermediaries" are persons of very unsatisfactory character and if, unsupported by the "entries" a jury might be quite likely to say we won't convict on their evidence and send the accused to prison. To my mind the evidence quite justifies dismissal.

As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant Fazul Shah, there is the entry 566 $1' and as that represents Wa Lane payments from 4 to 18 June one might expect that (as in any cases the amount paid by each house has been found to correspond) the Cheung Hing Street establishment was paying the same person the same amount. Then comes the evidence of Un Kin who picks out Sergeant 566, identified him and says he paid him $1 a day to the 18th June from April this year. As Un Kin did not know the amount put down in the Wa Lane entry, it is very singular it should precisely correspond unless Un Kin's evidence is true.

I am of opinion the evidence justifies the man's dismissal.

As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant 661 Utter Singh, attention has not been called to any entry

Edit History

2026-05-30 03:17:12 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
I do not recommend a criminal prosecution, for the slips would not be admitted in evidence and of course the accounts and slips are very difficult to explain to a Jury; while naturally, in cases of this kind the "links" or "intermediaries" are persons of very unsatisfactory character and if, unsupported by the "entries" a jury might be quite likely to say we won't convict on their evidence and send the accused to prison. To my mind the evidence quite justifies dismissal. As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant Fazul Shah, there is the entry 566 $1' and as that represents Wa Lane payments from 4 to 18 June one might expect that (as in any cases the amount paid by each house has been found to correspond) the Cheung Hing Street establishment was paying the same person the same amount. Then comes the evidence of Un Kin who picks out Sergeant 566, identified him and says he paid him $1 a day to the 18th June from April this year. As Un Kin did not know the amount put down in the Wa Lane entry, it is very singular it should precisely correspond unless Un Kin's evidence is true. I am of opinion the evidence justifies the man's dismissal. As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant 661 Utter Singh, attention has not been called to any entry
Baseline (Original)
a 387 ん ри Stu I do not recommend a criminal prosecution, for the slips would not be admitted in evidence and of course the accounts and slips are very difficult to explain to a Jury; while naturally, in cases of this kind the "links" or"intermediaries" are persons of very unsatisfactory cha- racter and if, unsupported by the "entries" a jury might be quite likely to say we won't convict on their evidence and send the accused to prison. To my mind the evidence quite justifies dismissal. As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant 賬 566 Fazul Shah, there is the entry 566 $1' and as that re- presents Wa Lane payments from 4 to 18 Juneone might expect that (as in any cases the amount paid by each house has been found to correspond) the Cheung Hing Stret establish- ment was paying the same person the same amount. Then comes the evidence of Un Kin who picks out Sergeant 566,identified him and says he paid him $1 a day to the 18th, June from April this year. As Un Kin did not know the amount put down in the Via Lane entry, it is very singular it should precise ly correspond unless Un Kin's evidence is true. I am of opinion the evidence justifies the man's dismissal. As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant 661 Utter Singh, attention has not been called to any entry
2026-05-30 03:17:12 · Baseline
View content

a

387

ん

ри

Stu

I do not recommend a criminal prosecution,

for the slips would not be admitted in evidence and of

course the accounts and slips are very difficult to explain

to a Jury; while naturally, in cases of this kind the "links"

or"intermediaries" are persons of very unsatisfactory cha-

racter and if, unsupported by the "entries" a jury might be

quite likely to say we won't convict on their evidence and

send the accused to prison. To my mind the evidence quite

justifies dismissal.

As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant

賬

566 Fazul Shah, there is the entry 566 $1' and as that re-

presents Wa Lane payments from 4 to 18 Juneone might expect

that (as in any cases the amount paid by each house has

been found to correspond) the Cheung Hing Stret establish-

ment was paying the same person the same amount. Then comes

the evidence of Un Kin who picks out Sergeant 566,identified

him and says he paid him $1 a day to the 18th, June from

April this year. As Un Kin did not know the amount put down

in the Via Lane entry, it is very singular it should precise

ly correspond unless Un Kin's evidence is true.

I am of opinion the evidence justifies the

man's dismissal.

As regards the case of Indian Police Sergeant

661 Utter Singh, attention has not been called to any

entry

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.