423
9.-With regard to the allegation that gambling had been carried on in the two lanes named in the last paragraph, your Petitioners (except O MI CHEUNG NO. 4 in paragraph No. 1) who was in the Water Police and therefore had nothing to do with gambling, and WONG KEUNG (No. 6 in paragraph No. 1) who was employed ou P. & O. Ships) were aware that within the period named gambling had been carried on, on and off, in various houses in the said lanes, but seldom in one for more than a few successive days at most, while it was often removed once or more a day. But your Petitioners can truthfully assert that within that three years, notwithstanding an order from Captain Superintendent MAY that they, as detectives, were not to trouble themselves about gambling, they have frequently reported the gambling, to Inspectors, that the houses were often broken, and that your Petitioners generally assisted in raiding them. Your Petitioners have also often reported gambling houses and assisted in arresting gamblers in other parts of Hongkong, as the records of the Detective Office will show. Further, your Petitioners beg to point out that there always has been and, so far as they cau learn, judging from the present indications, there always will be gambling in Hongkong.
10.-Except the examinations, in gaol of your Petitioners YEUNG FAT, TANG CHUNG and O MI CHEUNG, by way of attempting to extort a false confession of guiltiness from them, as set out in schedules A. B. & C., hereto, none of your Petitioners were ever brought to any form of trial. If the Captain Superintendent had any evidence that either of your Petition- ers was guilty of receiving bribes, he could not have shrunk from his duty of charging him with the offence, in a proper manner. But the Captain Superintendent, acting apparently on some vague, malicious information first obtained banishment orders against your Petitioners named in this paragraph, in order to use them as weapons with which to extort from those named in them incriminatory statements against their superior officers, and failing in that purpose the banishment was carried out. After the illegal treatment your Petitioners were subjected to, the Captain Superintendent necessarily banished them in his own defence and to avoid legal proceedings against himself. Your Petitioners submit that was the real ground of their banishment.
11.-Your Petitioners respectfully submit that there was nothing in their conduct nor in any evidence brought against them to show that they had ever taken any part in promoting gambling while, if they had been granted a fair trial with liberty to call evidence, they could have proved that they had for many years taken a very active part in suppressing all kinds of gambling. Your Petitioners further submit that the reason nominally assigned for banishing them was at the time the order was made known to be a fictitious one, but the Captain Superintendent desired for his own purpose to keep your Petitioners out of Hong- kong and as they were neither thieves nor persons dangerous to the peace and good order of that Colony, but men of excellent character, he made such representation to His Excellency the Governor as induced him in Council to issue orders for their banishment.
12.-As stated in paragraph No. 1, your Petitioners named in that paragraph were entitled to police pensions, and of those, through their arbitrary banishment and dismissal, they have been unjustly deprived. All your Petitioners were for a long time residents in Hongkong and bad their families and friends residing there. By their banishment they have been compelled to take their families out of that Colony, they have been severed from all their old associations in the Colony, and they have after having spent the best years of their lives in the Police service of Hongkong, been obliged to leave there in the manner stated.
13-As your Petitioners feel convinced that you, Sir, would never knowingly acquiesce in, or sanction, such arbitrary injustice being done to any one, and especially not to those who, thongh alieus, have faithfully served in the public service of a British Colony, they most respectfully beg that you will order a proper inquiry to be made into their case and allow them to return to Hongkong to give evidence at it. But, if, Sir, you do not consider such an inquiry necessary, your l'etitioners beg that you will order the cancelment of their dismissal and the withdrawal of their banishment orders, and be pleased to grant pensions to those who have earned them, and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
They are, Sir,
Your most humble, obedient servants
}
biển Khang khung,
2112
(Wong Prin Tak)
33 (Leung Shing)
4.
柯美彰
5
6
7
10
黄羗
(O' Mi
bheung)
(Un Hing)
Wong Heung)
* (Hu Hing)
鄭義
APA (Ching Mau)
唐見
Po (Tong Kin)
梁桂忠
PR+1) Leung Hwai Chung 楊發
11 t (Young Fat)
12
梁林
(Leung Lam)
13 42 the] (To Tung)
14
15
廖勝
吳有
(Tong Shing)
18 t (Ng You)
16
17
楊来
(Wong Fuk)
** (Yeung Loi)
18
才
19
20
21
黄德
(Wan Ngo)
Chi
Isoi)
(Wong Tak)
(Kwan Shing)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.