287
(E)
The only definite charge which Utter Singh has been able to ascertain was made against him, was to the effect that about three years previous to his dismissal, he had lent some 50 dollars to one da Rocha, a Telephone clerk of Police. He alleges that da Rocha, the principal witness against him, varied his statement materially (petition of 24th. April, 1897, par, 3. page 15, Appendix, and petition of Utter Singh's friends of 31st, May, 1897, par. 5, page 17, of Appendix), which he thinks the Captain Superintendent would admit.
(F) I beg to call attention to his denial of this alleged transaction, and his account of what occurred as given in his petition to the Governor of 12th. March, 1897, Pars.7 & 10; and petition of 13th. Sept. 1897, page 9 of Appendix, and of the pleas therein set forth, pars. 7 to 14.
(G) It is to be observed that William Stanton, late Inspector of Police, had made an affidavit (page 6 of Appen- dix) to the effect that at the enquiry in which his (Stanton's) conduct was investigated, Tse Leung (who is alleged to have stated before the Captain Superintendent of Police, that he paid Utter Singh money on account of gambling houses hush- money apparently) stated that he had never received any money from gambling houses; and never paid any money by way of bribes to the members of the Hong Kong Police force; and that he believed the Captain Superintendent had taken down the said statement of Tse Leung (see page 6 of Appendix, document "C", and page 4, Document "A"). It is submitted that the consideration of all these statements, and their bearing, is necessary to the just decision of this case.
(H) It is a remarkable and note-worthy fact, as noted in Utter Singh's petition of May, 1898, presented to the Honble.
137630
Vannin
6.
7
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.