33
*
Conf.
#Governor.
No.
May Conf.
1907
10 July
HONG KONG
No.
28
752
(Subject.)
DESPATCH.
28762
12 AUG 07/
Janitary Laws Administration Comm?
Insp. J. Reidie's evidence,
Last previous Paper.
Gov
23273
Conf.
or
Amourd
Conf.
· WB & L(78)~J387-05-11-0
Next subsequent Paper.
Jos. copy comes with him as Fo
Recommends that SofS should consider question of his dismissal
Mr Tiddes Myr Luces
(Minutes.)
See also 29336, which deals with the similar case of Inspector Brett. The decision on both cases must be the same,
In both cases Mr May asks the S of S to dispense with the services of an officer by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown because there is no chance of getting him dismissed on trial before the Executive Council. The ground for dismissal is that both officers are shewn to have had far more money in the bank than they could possibly have saved out of their salaries, and have not been able to give any satisfactory explanation. Mr Reidie's main line of defence is that he was Treasurer of several clubs and messes and their accounts passed through his account, Mr Brett's is that he had a very economical wife and his lodgers paid for all the household expenses. Both officers are open to the gravest suspicion, as the most natural explanation of their accounts is that they received illicit commissions and bribes but I submit that suspicion,
33
*
Gag.
#Governor.
No.
May Conf.
1907
10
July
HONG KONG
No.
28
752
(Subject.)
DESPATCH.
28762
12 AUG 07/
Janitary Laws Administration Comm?
Insp. J. Reidie's evidence,
Last previous Paper.
Gov
23273
вто
or
Amourd
Conf
· WB & L (78) ~J387-05-11-0
Next subsequent Paper.
Jos. copy
comes with
him as
Fo
Recommends that
and his financial affairs,
Sofs should consider question of his dismissal
Mr Tiddes Myr Luces
(Minutes.)
See also 29336, which deals with the similar
case of Inspector Brett. The decision on both cases
must be the same,
In both cases Mr May asks the S of S to dispense with
the services of an officer by the exercise of the
prerogative of the Crown because there is no chance of
getting him dismissed on trial before the Executive
Council. The ground for dismissal is that both officers
are shewn to have had far more money in the bank than
they could possibly have saved out of their salaries,
and have not been able to give any satisfactory explanas
ion- Mr Reidie's main line of defence is that he was
Treasurer of several clubs and messes and their acce= mmry
ante passed through his account, Mr Brett's is that he
had a very economical wife and his lodgers paid for
all the household expenses. Both officers are open to
the gravest suspicion, as the most natural explanation
of their accounts is that they received illicit com-
mi: sions and bribes but I submit that suspicion,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.