CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920 — Page 627

by Caft Taylow of

47661/1420

on £100

£100. We agreed on

both claim

from him, but only

this debt

due

aim of £2-4-6, which

the C.A. had paid him by a misunderstanding o

i

i

the rate of Admnt Won Bomer,

due to him from

BORANEKIN ON CAPTAIN TAYLOUR'S GRIEVANCES.

623

Capt.Taylour's chief complaints are as

follows:←

(1) The Chan Pui affair. In October 1910

A the shroff Vơng-diau-lha absconded with some 3,800

dollars of public money.

The Governor considered

that Capt.Taylour's supervision had not been

adequate and called upon him to pay 750 dollars,

with the afferval of the This decision of the Governo

Secretary of State at the time.

www upheld by the

Recently a

C.A.

banchal Page Cuft's Coth does not mention

any complaints about

his paint.

Marthart

Ad

the H. K. Prize Count, so that I have aft

attend the General Papus

m

that ponst.

7415

attend

Caft Zaytour has to many subjects of

complaint that it is

Such

impossible of

Jay are the three referred B. He has

been refused

There is

qu

caturvilis with in Sess.

leason why Col. Awery shot wit

see him if he is prepared to taste fent

the

Com o

:the defit cannot recommend

bishing this tale; but

in listening

Crven

any

of his case facts.

unless be produces some need

43c71f2

matter who

to atten

זי

27408)

Chinese Clerk, Chan Pui, absconded with some

30,000 dollars of Goverment money, and was

convicted.

Thereupon Capt.Taylour proceeded to

appeal against the decision taken in 1910 on the

ground that it was now clear that the fault was

that of Chan Pui. Hr.Bushe advised that the

conviction could not be regarded as a fait nouveau

undermining the action previously taken, and

Capt.Taylour was consequently informed in a letter

from this office dated the 18th of August (38526)

that the Secretary of State did not consider that

the recent conviction of Chan Pui was a fait nouveau

which would undersine the action previously taken

in his case, that sotion having been based on a lack

of supervision on his part. The letter added that

Lord Hilner did not consider that he need regard the

circumstances as having cast any slur on his

character, the notion taken having been due barely to

the fact that the Governor at that time did not

consider