CO129-296 - Public Offices & Others - 1899 — Page 259

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

2. Rule 253 of the Colonial Office Rules and Regulations prescribes that any memorial from a dismissed servant must be forwarded to the Secretary of State without delay.

Getting no relief, Attar Singh lodged a petition dated 17th September 1897 at the Governor's office to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

On 29th September, Attar Singh petitioned to know whether the last-mentioned petition had gone to England, and got no reply.

Three days after, i.e., on 1st October 1897, he was taken to the local jail and was confronted with a prisoner, who, without apparently recognising Attar Singh personally, alleged that one Tse Leung had been paid certain monies to be given to certain policemen (as hush-money on account of a gambling house). Tse Leung was then brought from an adjoining room and said that he had received 10 dollars a week from two gambling-house keepers and had given the money to Attar Singh.

In another case (apparently in connection with the same group of offences), in which a Police Inspector named Stanton was implicated, this same man, Tse Leung, denied having given any money as bribes to policemen. Stanton affirmed in an affidavit.

The charges against Attar Singh are thus, apparently, unsupported by reliable evidence.

It is to be noted that this second charge, as to the receipt of hush-money, was made some 11 months after Attar Singh had been dismissed, when he was no longer amenable to the departmental authority of the Captain Superintendent of Police, and could not be tried departmentally or in a summary manner.

It is also right to state that Attar Singh's agent was informed at the Colonial Office that this second charge, of receiving hush-money, was not so seriously pressed. No doubt it was felt that there are grave difficulties in the way of using the enquiry and decision in this matter to the prejudice of Attar Singh.

Attar Singh was not furnished with a statement of the nature of the charge against himself. The enquiries made were apparently of a departmental character, and Attar Singh has complained of want of full opportunity of meeting the charges.

A responsible subordinate officer of the Crown has been dismissed without receiving any copy of or written information of the reasons for his dismissal.

A request made for a copy of evidence was unanswered.

Edit History

2026-05-31 15:18:51 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
2. Rule 253 of the Colonial Office Rules and Regulations prescribes that any memorial from a dismissed servant must be forwarded to the Secretary of State without delay. Getting no relief, Attar Singh lodged a petition dated 17th September 1897 at the Governor's office to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On 29th September, Attar Singh petitioned to know whether the last-mentioned petition had gone to England, and got no reply. Three days after, i.e., on 1st October 1897, he was taken to the local jail and was confronted with a prisoner, who, without apparently recognising Attar Singh personally, alleged that one Tse Leung had been paid certain monies to be given to certain policemen (as hush-money on account of a gambling house). Tse Leung was then brought from an adjoining room and said that he had received 10 dollars a week from two gambling-house keepers and had given the money to Attar Singh. In another case (apparently in connection with the same group of offences), in which a Police Inspector named Stanton was implicated, this same man, Tse Leung, denied having given any money as bribes to policemen. Stanton affirmed in an affidavit. The charges against Attar Singh are thus, apparently, unsupported by reliable evidence. It is to be noted that this second charge, as to the receipt of hush-money, was made some 11 months after Attar Singh had been dismissed, when he was no longer amenable to the departmental authority of the Captain Superintendent of Police, and could not be tried departmentally or in a summary manner. It is also right to state that Attar Singh's agent was informed at the Colonial Office that this second charge, of receiving hush-money, was not so seriously pressed. No doubt it was felt that there are grave difficulties in the way of using the enquiry and decision in this matter to the prejudice of Attar Singh. Attar Singh was not furnished with a statement of the nature of the charge against himself. The enquiries made were apparently of a departmental character, and Attar Singh has complained of want of full opportunity of meeting the charges. A responsible subordinate officer of the Crown has been dismissed without receiving any copy of or written information of the reasons for his dismissal. A request made for a copy of evidence was unanswered.
Baseline (Original)
Sca 2. 253 of the Colonial Office Rules and regulations prescribes that any memorial from a dismissed servant must be forwarded to the Secretary of State without delay Getting no relief, Attar Singh lodged a petition dated 17th: Septr: 1897 at the Governor's office to the Secretary of State for the Colonies Oh 29th: Septr: Attar Singh petátioned to know whether and got no the last-mentioned petition had gone to England, reply Two " i.e. on 1st: October, 1307 he was Three days after , and was confronted with a prisoner,i taken to the local jail who, without apparenly recognising Attar Singh personally had been paid certain monies to be alleged that one Tse Leung given to certain policemen,(as hush-money on account of a gan- bling house) Tse Leung was then brought from an adjoining room, and said that he had 10 dollars a week from two gambling-house keepers, and had given the money to Attar Singh In another case (apparently in connection with the bad Ise Leung same group of offences,) in which a Police Inspector named this same man, Stanton was implicated deņied having given any money 2. S. on page 4 } Stanton affirmed in an affidavit as bribes to policemen + se The charges against Attar Singh are thus, apparently, unse supported by reliable evidence > It is to be noted that this second charge, as to the re- was made some 11 months after Attar Singh ceipt of hush-money when he was no longer amenable to the depart - and had been dismissed mental authority of the Captain Suprintendent of police, or in a summary manner could not be tried departmentally + It is also right to atate that-is-agaand energe, Attar Singh's agent was informed at the Colonial Office that this se- was not so seriously cond charge, of receiving hush-money pressed No doubt it was felt that there are grave difficulties in the way of using the enquiry and decision in this matter to the prejudice of Attar Singh Attar Singh was not furnished with a statement of charge against himself nature The enquiries made were apparently of a departmental : and Attar Singh has complained of want of full opportun- ity of meeting the charges in a respon- le a subordinate officer of the Crown, sible position in a department where false charges are apt to flourish has been dismissed without receiving any copy or or of reasons for his written information of the dedision dismással (e affidavit.) A request made for copy of evidence was unanswered
2026-05-31 15:18:51 · Baseline
View content

Sca

2.

253

of the Colonial Office Rules and regulations prescribes that any memorial from a dismissed servant must be forwarded to the Secretary of State without delay

Getting no relief, Attar Singh lodged a petition dated 17th: Septr: 1897 at the Governor's office to the Secretary of State for the Colonies

Oh 29th: Septr: Attar Singh petátioned to know whether

and got no the last-mentioned petition had gone to England, reply

Two

"

i.e. on 1st: October, 1307 he was

Three days after

, and was confronted with a prisoner,i taken to the local jail who, without apparenly recognising Attar Singh personally

had been paid certain monies to be alleged that one Tse Leung given to certain policemen,(as hush-money on account of a gan- bling house) Tse Leung was then brought from an adjoining room, and said that he had 10 dollars a week from two gambling-house keepers,

and had given the money to Attar Singh

In another case

(apparently in connection with the

bad Ise Leung same group of offences,) in which a Police Inspector named

this same man, Stanton was implicated

deņied having given any money 2. S. on page 4 }

Stanton affirmed in an affidavit as bribes to policemen

+

se

The charges against Attar Singh are thus, apparently, unse supported by reliable evidence

>

It is to be noted that this second charge, as to the re- was made some 11 months after Attar Singh ceipt of hush-money

when he was no longer amenable to the depart -

and had been dismissed mental authority of the Captain Suprintendent of police,

or in a summary manner could not be tried departmentally

+

It is also right to atate that-is-agaand energe, Attar Singh's agent was informed at the Colonial Office that this se-

was not so seriously cond charge, of receiving hush-money pressed No doubt it was felt that there are grave difficulties in the way of using the enquiry and decision in this matter to the prejudice of Attar Singh

Attar Singh was not furnished with a statement of

charge against himself

nature

The enquiries made were apparently of a departmental

: and Attar Singh has complained of want of full opportun- ity of meeting the charges

in a respon-

le a subordinate officer of the Crown, sible position in a department where false charges are apt to flourish has been dismissed without receiving any copy or or of reasons for his written information of the dedision

dismással (e affidavit.)

A request made for copy of evidence was unanswered

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.