356
Superintendent who was also Superintendent of the gaol, sought from him an explanation of the papers found, amongst which was a list of names, numbers and designations; prisoner alleged to be a list of persons in receipt of bribes from gambling houses.
5.
Owing to your petitioner's number being found on the list he, and Inspectors Stanton, Quincey, and Baker, whose designations were also alleged to be on the list as well as those of a number of other Inspectors and sergeants, who have since received pensions were called to the Captain Superintendent's office, on the 13th of July and informed by him that we were charged with neglect of duty in not discovering gambling at No 2 Wah Lane and that he hoped in a short time to obtain evidence on which to charge us with a much graver offence.
6. On or about the 20th of August 1897 your petitioner was warned to attend at the prison, where he was put under a form of trial by the Captain Superintendent of Police, who was also his prosecutor and who had for five weeks been striving to find evidence against him, by methods hitherto unheard of in the British Empire. The Crown Solicitor was present at this trial assisting in conducting the proceedings against your petitioner who was entirely undefended. Before calling witnesses the Captain Superintendent read over a charge charging your petitioner with having received a bribe on the 17th of April 1897.
7.
The first witness against your petitioner was Sham In, the convict, who stated he did not know your petitioner, but that he had paid to some person certain sums of money for your petitioner.
356
Superintendent who was also Superintendent of the gaol, sought from him an explanation of the papers found, amongst which
these the was a list of names, numbers and designations; prisoner alleged to be a list of persons in receipt of bribes
from gambling houses.
5.
Owing to your petitioner's number being found on the list he, and Inspectors Stanton, Quincey, and Baker, whose designations were also alleged to be on the list as well as
who have those of a number of other Inspectors and sergeants, since received pensions were called to the Captain Superintend- ent's office, on the 13th of July and informed by him that we were charged, with neglect of duty in not discovering gambling at No 2 Wah rane and that he hoped in a short time to obtain evidence on which to charge us with a much graver offence.
frane
6. On or about the 20th of August 1897 your petitioner was warned to attend at the prison, where he was put under a form of trial by the Captain Superintendent of Police, who was also his prosecutor and who had for five weeks been by methods hitherto unheard of in the British Empire, striving to find evidence against him, the Crown Solicitor was present at this trial assisting in conducting the proceedings, against your
petitioner who was entirely undefended. Before calling witnesses the Captain Superintendent, read over a charge charging your petitioner with having received a bribe, on the
17th of April 1897.
7.
The first witness against your petitioner was Sham In,
the convict, who stated he did not know your petitioner, but
that he had paid to some person certain sums of money for
your petitioner.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.