Kai (who has her dismissed) kept the money for herself held that there is detail that the corroborators' attention to the working of the shop floor ceased after the payment.
This seems by itself to be sufficient.
As to Charge 6, I have doubts. Why was it changed to 4? Is it sufficient?
There is no receipt of money from except that of Man Kai. The latter (I gather) has been drained from the service.
The evidence is not prima facie proof that she is tainted within whom Cashier Kwork called to give evidence to the Inspector?
Mr. Hattian lays some stress on the fact that Connolly admits to having been offered bribe & not reporting the incident. This might justify dismissal, but it should have made her the subject of a separate charge & enquiry. The man dismissed has not had a charge formally made.
I am not sure if Charge 4 is sufficient. Telegraphic approval is required. Confirmation is required before it can be assented.
Connolly remembered the alternative from Lo:
Lo denies it. The hand once borrowed $10 had since repaid Lentoy.
Lo was first clerk in the Sanitary Connolly staff. Senior Inspector. There is no relation of superior & inferior to make the borrowing (if it happened) a breach of regulations.
Here, though generally the practice of borrowing from an Englishman by a Chinese is viewed with disfavour.
The first two charges were dropped: we are left with Charge 3.
It was held by a majority of 5 to 4 that Charge 3 was not proved. I am clearly of the opinion that this charge is not proved.
I do not see the general evidence that the arson in Charge 5 was connected with Conolly.
The conduct of the case, Suspecter Lamble, would have been material, and we have no explanation why it was not forthcoming.
Charge 4 was held by 5 to 4 to be proved. I can see no evidence connecting Conolly with the charge.
I think that the Governor acted unfairly in questioning Conolly on the subject (see papers and notes) without warning her of the replies part of the recommendation for dismissal (partly).
Kai (whoke has her dismissed) Kept the money
for herself hela there is
detail that
the corroboraters the Suspecta's attention's
to the working of the shop floor ceased after the payment.
This Seuns
by mal
As & Change 6 I have doubts. Why
to 4. sufficient.
to
W.
b. puber
to the visit t
a
من كبا
197
Lo
receipt of money from except that of Man Kai. The latter (I gather) has been
drainerend from the service:
валов
are
not
bude prima facie ho
not the
a
taminted withen whom Cashme
Kwork called to give evidence
the Inspector?
Eir m. hattian lays some
stress
dr.
Othe
font the at Camolly aduits bring offered brite & not reporting the incident. This might justify dismissal, hat its soled have her made the subject of a separate onglet nor the wheide has neww charge & enquiry. The man
dismissi
h
a
change
bom formally made.
L
amm
Seuns
sufficiul
housever
Charge 4
? Telegraphe approval.
Requeries
comprimation before it can be aussplit.
Conolly rohambered the alternat
from Lo
:
Lo demies
Le Cor
The hand once borrowed $10
had since repand Lentoy.
Lo was first click in the Sanitary Conolly strig Semier inspector. There
no relation of superis & inferire inmake the borrowing (if it habhamad)
pregulations
breach
Deft;
Herefre
ھنے
५
technical
though genre the practice of bourning of an Englishman from
Englishman from a Chiaman
with disfavome.
is one heat fork we look on
On
G
les were
Z
RGJ
The first two changes were
2113.
dropped: we
are
45t
Ew why.
was held a majority o
5th win tha
to Chry to do, it
Change 3 by cail to be not prosed, If it is themefore unccessary to comment on it. But, in its bearing
theendence it fee
me quite possible that, if money passed from
never got begond the latter. Ian clearly popinion that this change
not proved.
is
I who point
the general and that the ardenn
Charge 57
was
Conduct of the case,
duspecter Lamble wohave been material, and
J
We
have no
Charge 4 frind
Explanation why it was
in
not forthcoming.
held by 5 to 4 to be proved. I can endence connecting Conolly with the
dropped, and this bening
think that the Governor acted unfairly
30
questioning Conolly on the subject (see ppist
Ca
22
Frounds
wh. Le
notes) to waving the replis part of the
recommends draininal (parte
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.