207
Petitioner was not entitled to pension after
10 years service (as stated in para, 12) since he joined sub-
sequently to the 13th. September 1884 (vide clause 4 of Pen-
sion Regulations for Hong-Kong Police dated 10th. February
1891).
It is not true as stated in paragraph 9 that
no reason was assigned for my refusal to approve of the Peti-
tioner's re-engagement. On the contrary I informed him in my
office in the presence of the Chief Inspector and of Mr. Baboq
who acted as Interpreter, that the reason for my action was
that I had found his name on the list of recipients of bribes
from the gaming house in Wa Lane and that as he was a Sergeart
I could not re-enlist him.
With regard to paragraph 14 it is true that
the Petitioner was asked to come to the Central Police Station
on the 10th.March. As the witness Mak Cheung hadnot arrived
I told the Chief Inspector to let the Petitioner wait in his
office.Mak Cheung did not put in an appearance that day, and
the Petitioner went away after waiting 2 hours. Next day Mak
Cheung came to my office and explained that he could not get
away from his duties at the Custom House at Capsulmoon (which
is as you know some 7 or 8 miles outside the Colony), I sent
down to the Hotel for the Petitioner but he was not there. I
told Mak Cheung to return next day which hedid, and the identi-
fication of the Petitioner then took place in my presence.Mak
Cheung
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.