never to have been allowed. It was disallowed in the criminal court.
to have been admitted on the inquiry. This evidence was commented adversely upon in the Home King's police scandals. It is clear that when officials sought to inquire, certain testimony was never admitted.
Lai Jukson, an individual, was never called to testify today, having paid money, as in other cases, to ward off prosecution permanently.
We are driven therefore to consider:
(1) the case in which a man named Joune stated that he had been asked by Ward for a bribe, and had paid him a sum;
(2) the extra money Ward has.
As to (2), we have nothing to prove that he did not win it by gambling. As to (1), I am sure that an experienced counsel would have been able to examine Joune thoroughly.
But as to (2), the fact remains there was unshaken evidence that a bribe was offered and taken by Ward. On that ground, I think the decision can be supported. I would confirm it.
I agree with Mr. Stubbs. The admission of defence in connection with the first charge seems to me to show that the man is unfit for his post. He makes money by gambling. The affair of bribing money in a roundabout fashion to a Chinese eating house is disturbing. We are always liable to corrupt dealings with Chinese by the men who are set to make them keep the law.
I should confirm the dismissal without hesitation, criticising, if thought fit, on the lines of Mr. Cox's minute.
C.P.L. 5. Jan.
Hat dis miss. agree Hay confirmed.
Mr. Cox is writing inquiring into the procedure followed.
44 8.1.07
Mr. Liddell's comment on Cox's minute was that there should be inquiry into the procedure followed.
In despate: Two comments on the procedure so-called evidence and ask why Lai Yuk and Leung were not produced.
Smary withere #BC2/1
I submit a draft, which does not follow her closely.
He had not realized this.
not very satisfactory character. A good deal of the confusion in which the accounts are involved is due to...
never to have been allowed. It disallowed in the criminal
ww
sortir.
to have
J
tuals sought never been admitted on the inquiry. This evidence Sie [ Coinpfeld & commented adversely upon in the Home King police scandals. It is
that when offaturity mistakes - 15hd
now persed
the same
like to use a stronger term,
again.
the
موحد مستانی
are made
Lai Jukson, an rever called todgy paid
money
we
in other cases, to ward permally. driven therefore to consider
(1) the cave in which man to Joune stated that he had been asked by
bribe, & ward for & had paid him a
(2) the extra money
Ward has.
Asto (2) we have nothing to prove
that he did not win it by fambling. arto (1) Jam sure that an
experienced
t
counsel would have been able to Xxamine
manho Toune out glout.
But as to (2) the fact remains there was unshaken evidence
that
bribe was offered Otaken bywan that ground I think the decision can be I suffarted Iwoned on that ground alone
confresser it.
AT
&
I agree
134
with mi Stable.com The admissime d defence in Connexion with the first chaye scom to me to show that the man is comfit to his post. He mather money by gambling. The affer buds mony in soon roundabout fashion to a Chinese eating house, New We are y Da at always liath to conmpt dealinge with Chinese by the men who are set to make them Keep the law.
I should confirm the dismissal with out hesitation, criticising. of thought fit, on the times q. mi. Cox's minute
qri
J
C.P.L 5. Jan
Hat
dis miss.
agrea
Hay
confirmed :
多
juust be prepared.
careful
the
despatele
mis of
ditioning,
ature wamary
Mr. Cox is winter
inquiring
ints,
dis approring
Tthe
procedure
followed.
44 8.1.07
that
ག
Mr Liddes
Coz's münute von
Thane sharky
Burton
p;
In despre: Two comment on the procedure socalled evidence and ask why Lai Yuk dan Leuse on were not produced
Smary
withere #BC 2/1
I submit a draft, which does not follow her
He had not realized thi closely.
not very да Leung die had given silence"?
~
Satisfactay character.fps 28 segp), a good deal of the confusion in which the accome
accounts
is involved bing due to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.