(7.) That no complaint has been made against your Petitioner in regard to making a profit by his own district, within the limits of which, by the way, it would have been more lucrative and simple for him to have acted corruptly, if he had been disposed to corruption.
19-Your Petitioner affirms his conviction that Captain May became, unfortunately, so possessed of a preconceived notion of your Petitioner's guilt that it was impossible for your Petitiouer to have a fair trial by him. It will be remembered that your Petitioner was suspended on the 13th July, 1897, without there having been any previous communication with him. Captain May had not enquired if anything could be suggested in exculpation, get by his demeanour he had so clearly made up his mind, that even at that date your Petitioner despaired of being able to root out what had evidently become a fixed idea. Possibly if in June, 1897, the suspicious entries had been pointed out to your Petitioner, he might then have been able, to gain attention for certain observations for which afterwards there appeared to be no room in Captain May's mind. Your Petitioner, however, appeals to you, Sir, for an impartial hearing, knowing that his case was not fairly tried, and believing that it cannot have been fairly represented.
20. Your Petitioner thinks that Captain May must have had some misgivings concerning the reliability of the supposed incriminatory "list," inasmuch as two Inspectors therein included were not dealt with, until the Press called for explanation. Your Petitioner has delayed his Petition to see what course would be adopted in their cases, but apparently no decision has been come to in this Colony. Neither of these Inspectors had any duty in the Central District, in which Wah Lame is situated, for over eighteen months previous to the finding of the list, and then only for a few weeks; but whether even then they had any connection with the particular section in which that laue is, your Petitioner is not aware.
21.--Captain May has only been in the Police Force about four years (always as Captain Superintendent) of which time he has been ou leave about eighteen months; he has, therefore, no great experience. Your Petitioner, on the other hand, has over fifteen years' experience in detective work amongst Chinese. Regarding then this matter, as far as possible, as oue in which he has no personal interest, and as though he were reporting on the case in the course of duty as a detective, your Petitioner offers the following observations, which a little while ago would certainly have met with consideration even from Captain May. This gambling house is alleged to have been, and, no doubt, as usual, was, worked by a syndicate who supplied the capital. At the time its existence was revealed it i was closed, owing to heavy losses. The total valuables found at the depôt being only $1,000 (say £100) cash and jewellery deposited worth about $800 (£80). Its premises were poor and petty, and it was chiefly frequented Sham In was cashier and accountant, and his by coolies and prostitutes. clansman, Sham Cha, was, according to the witness Tse Leung, one of the principal masters. Sham In represented that the gambling had been carried on in
259
various houses in Wah Lane, for five six years, on and off, about six months in each year, and admitted that at different times different people had been in the syndicate, though Sham Cha appears to have been a master throughout the whole period. This points as much to the fact of there having been successive gambling houses, and syndicates, as to the alleged fact of the continuity of the gambling, and the point is, perhaps, worthy of attention. Then after the house was closed some one went to take the advice of Mr. Francis, Q.C., communication between client and barrister being allowed in Hongkong. Mr. Francis put Mr. May in possession of the facts. Mr. May wis thereby enabled to make a descent upon the depôt, 3, East Street. Sham In was found there, arrested, and charged at the Magistracy with being the keeper of the gambling house at 2nd floor 2, Wah Lane. On his trial certain employees of the gambling house, including Tse Leung, came forward and proved the charge against their late fellow and head employee Sham In. As a detective, your Petitioner would submit that all this, and in particular this betrayal, argues a split in the camp of the gamblers; some quarrel con- cerning the management and accounts; and a conviction on the part of some of the syndicate that they had been swindled. And herein lies the clue, your Petitioner submits, to the whole matter as it concerns him. It is a reasonable theory that the cashier, in collusion with his clansman Sham Cha, periodically wrecked for their peculiar benefit the successive Syndicates who supplied the capital for the gambling, and that a large proportion of the proceeds supposed to be spent in bribing the police were divided between a section of the syndicate and a section of the employees. Those who know the faithlessness of low class Chinese, and their capacity for intrigue, will be best able to appreciate the reasonableness of what your Petitioner advances. Undoubtedly, also, there had been bribe giving, and to Police and District Watchmen amongst others. Your Petitioner will only call attention to the fact that this low class gambling house was supposed, according to the accounts kept by Sham In, to have been paying out bribe money towards the close of its existence at the rate of $150 per diem, or at the rate of over $50,000 per annum! Small wonder if some of the syndicate were not able to adopt these accounts. Captain May's own police witnesses admit that they themselves accepted bribes, which fact helps to account for the noa-discovery of these premises on the 2nd floor of 2, With Lano, But whether the inclusion of your Petitioner in the list of those bribel (assuming Kwan to indicate him) was specifically due to the cashier attempting to swell the list of persons bribed, with a view to defraud the syndicate, or to extortion on the part of some of the bribed police feigning to act as agents for your Petitioner, your Petitioner cannot, and is not called on, to determine, only he declares his own innocence,
22.-On the one hand, then, there is a theory compatible with your Petitioner's guilt indeed, but based solely on suspicion, and unsupported by one atom of real evidence, and on the other a reasonable theory compatible with his innocence, supported by the fact of the split in the camp of the gamblers, aud by known characteristics of Chinese, as witness the case set out in Schedule No. 6 hereto.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.