CO129-288 - Public Offices & Others - 1898 — Page 288

I a

not me

framment place in his report. Into the Gambling questionct is

in Snigh

necessay

to enter.

dismissed for being implicated

مریکا

money

lending transactions; and there is at my

rate nothing

Ambia

here.

? Reply that U. I was on that ground; and that ll. S.

dismissed

regrets be

CELE

no reason

for

а

recnsideration of his previous decision

A.F-19/5

we have already decline to

reconsider the previous decision,

Рали из магз ст

and although

dani Wither fiugh, I am afraid there

is nothing here that affords

hulox

leill

their care

Cer deacce

Lod felbome

Two charges

281

you please adire un

It is another one 2

S 1219

are made against letter Singh. Who the first change he was found guilty & dismissed. He was also in the opinion of the officials of the Colony guilty of the offence organ o this fact was submitted

the first

in the second change

to us the in view of his affert chage. The first chape

noa monly

on

that racting

leader contrants Regulation contained in Gost & stification 405/94, (see Enclo 2 in 23203/97) The second chase. bribes from

the

respacing Theregne

that of taking

in Wa Lane!

Gambling

House

sufficent ground for

the case,

1

proposce.

Lord Selborne

ок стопове

79

Will you please deal with this. The criter called twice on me d seems very confident of his client's case, but I have not gone

Papers

C.PL 12 Sept

into the

-865-2000-12-97 646-4----3000-6-98

Asto (1) relating to the minglending, the evidence showed that litter singh paid to the Courwer

the

money which he alleger now was batbya third party by name Grada Singh. It is also clear that letter Singh acted throughout (if he was most the actual lender) as the go between between the debtor the creditor & that the cannterest was paid by the debtor to him. Utter Singh admitted the hurth

that the debtor stated in his geverything evidence. Think that there was

evidence on which it comes be found that letter Singh has flooken the regulation that this was miscondus In which he could be dismissed. The sentence was no don't severe, but we have afferred it o

no new

lead in

facto

are

now adduced which should to reconsider the decision.