hall the
279
Inspector Mann.
Their cases were, as you are aware, enquired
into in due course.
Sham In has explained the entry Ho Kai $1.30
as referring to one of the Hon. Ho Kai's numerous relatives.
He explains Tai Tau as meaning No.10, the per-
son in charge of the district and there is no reason to
doubt that his explanation is correct.
Paragraph 24. The case quoted is not in
point and does not help the Petitioner's argument.
The Inspectors of Nuisances proved by their
conduct in reporting against the pig dealer's application to
keep pigs in the one instance and by summoning him for keep-
ing pigs without a licence in the other, that the bribes ob-
tained by the Interpreter did not reach their hands.
The Petitioner never reported the gambling
house at Wa Lane. He explains the fact by stating (vide para-
graph 22) that he had no knowledge of its existence.
I submit that there are sufficient grounds
for disbelieving him on the point.
His number is found on a list of recipients
of bribes along with the numbers of three other European Po-
lice Officers whom I will specially mention.
The first is No.12 Witchell. After an exhaus-
tive trial Witchell was found guilty by the unanimous ver-
dict of the Jury.
Shan
AIT
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.