285
Tse Leung had denied giving money to policemen, and Stanton made a statement to this effect before a law-agent; and Utter Singh petitioned, giving Stanton's statement, and asked that this petition also might be sent to England.
Utter Singh further states that he got an unfavour- able answer to his first petition to England, on 30th. Dec; and on 30th, and 31st, January, 1898, an answer to the subse- quent petition, with which Stanton's statement was forwarded.
Petitioner had asked for copies of da Rocha's and Ganda Singh's statement, but got no reply. Copies of other statements he did not ask for.
He alleges that the charge on which he was dismissed is that he gave a loan to da Rocha, which he denied.
In a
6. The above narrative is taken from Utter Singh's statement, made to, and written down by me. The printed papers, copies of which exist, no doubt, in the office of the Right Homble, the Secretary of State, as forwarded from Hong Kong, (Copies annexed, See Appendix) contain no categor- ical account of the case from the Petitioner's point of view; and in order to elicit the facts clearly, I recorded the state- ment. We have no copies of statements of any of the witnesses, nor of the opinions, arguments, and orders recorded by the Commanding Officer, nor of the judgment or order passed by the Governor on the case. In total ignorance of the contents of these papers, or such of them as may exist, do I, be it kindly observed, write this letter. From the statement made by Utter Singh to me, and from the printed papers which Utter Singh has shown me, one gets the view of the case submitted by Utter Singh; and of the considerations and arguments which his advisers in Hong Kong have relied on.
Sonn
4.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.