statutory approval to his rejoining for a third term, of which he was granted leave in Dec. 1896. What is really happening to him now is that he is being allowed to retire "dismissed" as an alternative to being.
2. As to the merits of the case, there is nothing about this 1893 case in his letter to me in May, enclosed in this. It referred to the second part of the letter; as to whether he did report to Inspector Baker. If so, it seems to me that McIver did his duty sufficiently and cannot seriously be blamed.
We stretched a point in Foord's case (25068) and allowed him to have a pension, though he had not completed 15 years of service, but only the years I should be inclined (in accordance with the recommendation of the majority of the full Comm. in Enc. 2 in 25068) to give McIver a pension based on the number of complete years which he has served; I would similarly treat the other two men, Macaulay & Graham, who are in the same boat with him, subject however to this modification.
McIver apparently had less than 11 years' service (when his leave is deducted), so that he is only entitled to pension (not eleven). Similarly, Macaulay has only ten years' pensionable service; and Graham, who has not served ten years, should only get a gratuity, as we never fix pension for less than 10 years' service.
JRC that the Ive Loe, with turn to it HBC-
for the draft 197 (x-79300-3000-3-97
W Cox 373
I am sorry to have kept these papers so long; I had to read them, and I have had otherʻink about pressing. I send it on now in:
12. (1) On the question raised in the first part of W Johnson's minute, I am inclined to agree with him that the decision in the despatch 26113/27 should regard McIver.
I think that McIver must be taken under S. 3 of the Leave Regulating Act 1887 to have entered in Dec 1876, and that his third term of service should be formally recorded. The fact of his having been on leave should not debar him from any benefit this re-entry entitles him.
The time elapsing between the date of his return from leave and the date of his rejoining shall be calculated towards the period of service, to be reckoned as service for pension, if leave is refused on the ground that he cannot then be spared.
I would accept the recommendation of the sub-comm. (under the proviso to S. 6 of the Pension Ordinance 1862) to give McIver a pension based on the number of complete pensionable years which he has served.
As Mr Johnson points out, this would not be 11/15 but 10/15 of what he would have got at the expiration of 15 years' service, and I would treat Macaulay in the same way. As regards Graham, who has not served 10 years, he has not, like the other two, entered upon a pensionable period of service (vide Conditions of Service, 13979/96). This should be granted a gratuity.
(2) As regards the question of difference in wording in the latter part of the letter in 1083/98, I agree with W Johnson that Jean had the most profound confidence in McIver. We have his letter. He finds confirmation in McIver's statement that he knew that gambling was going on and reported it to the responsible inspector.
:
statutory approval to his rejoining
for.
a
third term of whichanh1897 when his Dec.1896, Dec. 1896, Fagai
Leave was
granted
what is really
happening to him now is that he is being
llowed to retire
"dismissed"?
"/
ALM
aum
alternative to being
2. As to the merits of the case
help being struck
4
Jeannot
the apparent honesty At his letter to mo. May enclosed in thi
Ind. thay sass present despr.
nothing about this 1893 case
but hartaken
letter it
referred is; as to the second part of the likes be time that
may ver
he did report to Inspector Baker Disp. Stanton. If so, it seems to me that Me Iver did his duty sufficenth & cannot seriously be blamed.
stretched a point in Foords 25068 we stretched a, case & allowed him to have a pensim Muugh he had not completed 15 years
As on
Service
、
but only the gears
Ishould be
inclined (in accordance with recom-
to give mendation of the majorits of the ful- Comm. in Enc. 2 in 25068, me over a pension based on the number of complete years which he has served; I similarly to treat the other two men Macaulay & Graham, who are in the
McIver ha same boat with hain: subject however to this modification. apparents had less than 11 gears senice (when his leave is deducted), to that he is only entitled to pennin (not cleven). Similarly
ten zears,
"Macaulay
only ten years pensionable service; and
wham who has not served ten gears should Graham
aly get a gratuit,
as we never fir pension,
I for less then 10 years fouring. 22) an
yes, and to all three.
JRC
that the Ive Loe, wit tum to it HBC-
for the
the
apes hidraft 197
(x-79300-3000-3-97
W Cox
373
I am sorry to have kept there papers so long,
to read in then, and
Int there
4
ford
deat
I har had otherʻink abut
pressing. I send it on new in:
12.
(1) On the question raised in the first part
of W Johnson's minute I am inclined to agree with him that the decision in the desp
Thanet be
26113/27
?..?
Q.-7
OFA
regard the Iver.
Bald
(and Bus? as regard Macaulay winter)
I think that McIver
must be taken under s
under the th
I of Pty of the Leave regulating
1887
to have enteres.
in Dec 18765
*ནཾ
and How the
shis to be formally
2-3 wor
his third term of semice.
nest
fact of his having
be; return from.
leave shined not debey him from any
bubech this re-entry entitles bem. 87 ongs,
the time clapsing between the
ite
Gab
an fincation of you
above mentioned syair service
እ
and the date
off thei
soning
o leave (if leave is refared at We in- Ground Henta priation of the for years the cannot then be spared) shall be calculated toward the fremad off for year, früh this amounts technically servid, to be suved by him on be retain from leave
6
ng wined accept the 25068 and give the over
anmendation of the
sub-comm
thee (under the frog's cons
penzi
Incl..
based on the
1862
a
number of complete pensionable
As Mr Johns
year which he has served, white
way.
forts out would not be 11/15- but 10/15 of what- The amed have got at the expiration of 15 years sear
and I would heat Macaulay in the same w as regards Graham who has not deved 10 yurt, k has the, not; like the other two, entered upon what
pensemalle period of woned meet her case (kes of the Conditions of servic a 13979/96)
This shined be granted,
mi
Jewis
tonball the
call the last m
✰
-gratuity
in
leave they
with over with require alteration,
(2)
of bus own
ite undestande. Corong, the
two is adopted Hy
9
The draft to 30/festo
as regards the question of in word deffen in conducts in the latter to the forthin the
1083/98 I agree with in Johnson that the
Jean. in 1083/98 I a
Letters in affarent
think he had the
微
In thay,
admits.
most profound confidence in the Ives
till be found her name
ཀ་
the we have list. He find
in the Iver's statement think he referted the fact of
been received in his narr
Monly
having
his superior officer,
to one of
on the list
a conformation of the Wordane against him and all the other offriers. And he finds further conformation in the Iver's statement that he knew that gambling way soning on and
I cannot a reported it to the responsible inspector.
a free
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.