As I said that paper I can find no good ground for treating him differently from the rest. Like the others he was there. Evidence: he was not prosecuted. not sufficient. He was dismissed after enquiry held of his case, which Sir E. Wingfield says, "utter farce and worse than an enquiry, something approaching a farce, something approaching a fraud". Star Chamber enquiry Mich was charged with receiving bribes and dismissed for being incompetent.
The only points which differentiate this case from those of Quincey & Stanton, who were prosecuted, are (a) an alleged confession; (b) the evidence of Uncovenanted Policeman, Han Hong. The alleged confession consists of these words "dollar to me or bloody fool and shall have to go on the beach". The confession is not consistent with innocence. To call it a base of bribery may be fallacious proof, it doubtless was.
Moreover, if he had actually received bribes he would probably not have been without a dollar. As to the evidence of Han Hong; it had been blamed that he under promise was not required to go with Court. The character of the evidence is such that it may be charged from the fact that he made no attempt to deny being bribed for not reporting the existence of the gambling house.
It is likely enough that he kept for himself the money which he pretended to have given to his superior, that his evidence is worth less. On 502/03, but Risley suggests that Holt's conduct supports the theory of his guilt. According to May's notes Sargt Holl states that he does not wish to make a statement and has nothing to say. His explanation (in 34757/03) is that he thought he was brought before a magistrate & wished to present his defence for Risley & others.
:
As I said
7
U
that paper I can
find no good ground for treating
hum differently from the rest
Like the others he was
there
Evidence: he was
not prosented
not sufficent
? Ge
dismissed after
enguing held of hit may
which
Sir E. Wingfield says,
utter farce and worse
འ
an enquiry
au
aan a
fance,
something approaching a frand"
Star Chumbor auquing
4
Mich
bribes
wire charged withe receiving
and dismissed for bring in competant.
the only pants which differentiate
this came from those of quincey & Stanton,
persimed, are (α) an alleged
who
whe
Int Holl. (h) the evidence of
confession Glut
a
Unmore Policeman, Han Hong.
The alleged immfission maists of
Am
97201
་་
ģ have not got
502
I have been a
natank
+
these words
dollar to mez
bloody frol and shall have to go on
the beach "
confession is
The
words
une
withh
umorence
To call
arm
tti
O
abase of Buns.
perfectly emaistant
Hem
may
ham meant
that his neglect of duty in not discerning
gambling house I folly
Chay
رية
fally proof
it doubtless was.
702
Moreover, if he had actually received
bribes he wo probably not hart.
bren witheant
dollar.
As to the evidence of
It had her blamed
that he
Han Hong;
under promine
omed not be required o
go with Court.
may
The
character
6. gmarged from the fort that
be made no attempt
to deny thent no attempt to deny be naived bribes for not reporting the exertence of the gambling
hause.
It is likely enough that he kept- for himself the money which he pretended to the jambling- hause Keepers I submit. was given to hir Holl. that his evidence is worth less.
on 502/on, but Risley suggest, that Holt's conduct subparts
itie
ها
theory of his guilt. According to
kur
may's notes
Sargt Holl states
that he does not wish to make
aur say"!
statement and has nothing o
6h
His explanation (in 34757/03) is that he thought he was brought Afre
α
magistrate & wished I resent his defence for Risley & hr
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.