Zen
not.
6.---The inquiry as to the charge alleged against him by the Chinaman Tso Leung, of having paid Petitioner in his then official capacity of Indian Inspector the money of a Gambling House in 1596, was instituted on the first day of October 1897, that is, three days after he bad made inquiries of the Ilonourable the Colonial Secretary as to whether his Petition of the 13th September had been sent to its destination or Your Petitioner was then under dismissal, and it was passing strange that an officer who had been dismissed from the force some ten mouths before should again be called upon at a moment's notice to answer the above charge. One should think that an officer once dismissed was out of the palo of the official anthority of the head of the particular service he belonged to. But not so for the Petitioner. The Captain Superintendent sent Petitioner word through an Indian Sergount on the above dato that he wanted to see hin at four in the afternoon of that day. Petitioner did present himself before the Captain Superintendent at the appointed time, little thinking that a serious charge would be brought against him, when to his surprise the evidence of The Loung and that of another Chinaman were there and then taken by the Captain Superintendent, and Petitioner was at once asked to say what he had to say to that evidence. The statement made by the other Chinaman went in no wise against Petitioner. In fact he openly stated he had nothing whatsoever to do with Petitioner and that he did not even recognize him. Tse Leung was the man who made the principal statement against hu. But Petitioner Craversed the statement altogether, having not ever received a single cent in the mammer alleged. He had no other mens immediately to controvert Tse Loung's statement and to expose its falsity in all its nakedness at the spur of the moment. But subsequent inquiries placed Petitioner in a position particularized below to completely controvert that statement, and to show that Tse Leung, if anything, had deliberately perjured himself before the Captain Superintendent.
7-At an inquiry held on the 34th and 25th days of August, 1897, by the Honourable Superin- tendent and Mr. Dennya, Crown Solicitor, fu connection with certain charges alleged against Mr. Stanton, late Inspector in the Hongkong Police Force, of not discovering and reporting a gambling honse at No. 2 Wa Lane, Victorin, in this Colony. Tse Loung whilst under cross-examination by Mr. Stanton stated that he had never received any monies from gamblers or gambling houses for the purpose of paying the same to any of the Indian Policemen in the Hongkong Police Force. Just to quote the words of Mr. Stanton's declaration -
"He," that is Tse Leung, "further stated to me that he had never paid any monies to such policemen by way of bribe. I pressed him in cross-examination, and in answer to my questions he stated that he had never paid any monies by way of bribes to any members of the Hongkong Police Force. Je further stated that if any person had so informed me (this Deponent) such information would be false and untrue."
8.---The above is an extract from Mr. Stanton's Statutory Declaration, original whereof, as well as the original of Petitioner's Statutory Declaration, was forwarded by Petitioner on the 2nd of November, 1897, to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary. Petitioner, however, appends to this a copy (B & C) of the above declarations as well as a copy (A) of a communication Petitioner had the honor to address to the Honourable the Colonia Secretary with reference to the valid inferences to be drawn from the declarations.
9.---Petitioner hus reasons to believe that the evidences given by the said Tse Loung at both the inquiries have been recorded by the Honourable the Captain Superintendent, and the confirmation of the Angrant contradiction of Tse Lenug's statements as given in Mr. Stanton's inquiry and those unde at Petitioner's inquiry will be found therein).
10.- einer was further deprived of the opportunities of substantiating his plea of not guilty in the first inquiry, as well as in the latter, by being not provided with a copy of the different statements of Da Rocha in the first instance, and of Tse Lerng's statement in the latter instance.
Your Petitioner, therefore, ventures to approach you, Right Honourable Sie, again with a respectful prayer that taking his long, faithful, and unblemished service of eighteen years without even so uch as a month's leave of absence in the interval into favourable consideration, as also taking the several points most respectfully urged in this as in his previous petition--copy whereof is also herewith attached, marked D-in their true and valid signifieaner, you will be graciously pleased to grant that redress and that justice to him which the merits of his case entitle him to. Your Petitioner hore carnestly entreats for the granting of the pension which he has faithfully earned by the almost imprecedentedly long duration of his services in the Police Force of this Colony,
--
12.-The severity with which Petitioner has been condemned, by the entire extinctia of his pension. has been further enhanced by the unmerited stigma attaching to an officer's dismissal, and that stigma is enhanced a hundred fold when the fact is taken into account that various members of Petitioner's family have loyally served the British Government in various capacities in India and in this colony, and that none of them have ever done anything to bring disgrace on themselves or on the service they has been employed in, and your Petitioner, therefore, very keenly feels the undeserved disgrace that has been inflicted on him by his dismissal without giving hina fair opportunities of removing the stain cast on his character, Your Petitiouer entreatingly prays for a redress in connection with this point likewise. The services of the members of Petitioner's family are mentioned separately in the appendix, marked E.
13-And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c., &c.
Hongkong, 30th April, 1898.
}
A
301
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.