340
was
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND London to the Hongkong account at the telegraphic transfer rate.
*
And you were refused permission to transfer that sum ?—Yes.
His Lordship-By whom? Witness - The Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.
When did you learn that proceedings had been instituted against Mr. Butler Wright?- After September 3rd.
Have you from time to time asked Mr. Wright to buy drafts on London for you for about £30 or £40 ? Yes.
And you have him ?-Yes.
subsequently reimbursed
You have private expenses to meet in Eng land, have you not? Yes.
mistake once, but he
unlikely to do it twice unless he was doing it for a deliberate purpose. Mr. Butler Wright's private pass book was sent to him between the time of the first of those payments into it and the second, therefore he was quite well aware of the money drawn from the railway account which had gone into his private account. One of the defences might be that Mr. Wright. having large private means and having to do with large amounts of money, intended to make payments that day, and not having funds to provide for the amount, borrowed money from the railway. If he did that, the first thing would be to pay the amounts back again, and $10,000 out of the second of the amounts, $13,000, was used for a loan on silk which was paid back to him, but the accused And if you did not ray him on the day you did not pay it back to the railway asked him to buy the drafts, be would have to account. On June 29th, after the suggested pay the money himself?Yes, but I always audit, the accused did, as far as they could paid the money into the International Bank on understand, make an attempt to pay back the the same day. I don't want to get something money. The jurors would hear from the for nothing. representative of the firm which formerly Was not a cheque for $17,000 for the pur- acted as agents for the Hongkong and chase of land put in the International Bank ? Shanghai Bank in Canton that the accused No. transferred back to the construction account certain sums of money, one in cash and two in cheques, but the financing was such that even if that was a belated attempt to pay back it did not succeed. Why," asked the Crown Advocate, "should anyone pay back to the construction account in Hongkong, which was fed from home? Why should the money not have been paid back to the railway in Canton "
His Excellency Wei Han, manager of the Chinese section of the Canton-Kowloon rail- way, deposed to the railway being constructed by loan. Witness told the Court of the terms of the loan agreement, and of the various railway accounts. He had heard the name of Mr. Wilks, a Hongkong engineer, but he did not know whether that gentleman had had anything to do with the railway con- struction, neither was he aware that a British naval officer was attached to the railway. Witness said he wished a prosecution if any money was found missing from the railway accounts.
He
La
|
i
May it not have gone into the International Bank?
1
The Crown Advocate-I object. Where is the cheque, what is the amount, and what was it drawn for ?
His Lordship (to Mr. Douglas) You had better not ask any more questions about that cheque unless you can produce it.
In re-examination witness said he had heard of no objection by the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank to the transferring of lump sums from the construction account to Canton.
[October 16, 1909.
The only pay- the accused to make payments. ments accused could make without authority were petty payments with regard to head office. The head office was under the direction of H. E. Wei Han, who did not concern deuils of the construction of the line. Prior himself in
any way with the actual
to the arrival of the accused in Canton witness kept the accounts. There was then started a local construction account, but witness could not remember whether he drew cheques on his signature, or whether he and Wei Han signed jointly. That construction account was ultimately closed. It came within the province of witness to keep himself informed from time to time as to the amount of money expended on construction account so that he could compare the cost with his estimates. The suggestion for an audit this year emanated originally from witness. He first suggested it confidentially to the agents of the Corporation, and it was The official eventually decided to hold one. audit was first mentioned to accused on August 8th, but on June 26th witness wrote to defendant asking for bank balances. These he did not get, and he did not get a completed summary such he required until a few days before the defendant left the office. These returns dealt with a bygone period, but they were of use to him. Witness should look upon the repayment of any sum to the construction account as requiring an explan- Witness had no ation, and as extraordinary. objection to the defendant being away while the accounts were being audited, because the auditor said it would make no difference to the audit.
23
You previously said in your evidence that it would be improper for Mr. Butler Wright to transfer money in the Hongkong currency ac-
When Mr. Power handed witness defendant's count into the construction account in the Hong-private pass book he was surprised at some of the items he saw. in it. There Was one kong aud Shanghai Bank ----Certainly.
for
and $5,00
one for $13,000. After seeing these items witness visited the Inter- national Bank and made inquiries. As a result he interviewed the British Consul-General, wired the British and China Corporation, and eventually applied for a warrant. Witness had a conversation with H. E. Wei Han after he had applied for a warrant as engineer in chief of the railway. He knew Mr. E. Č. Wilks, but did not authorise a payment of $5,000 to him for work done on
behalf of the railway. Neither did ho authorise a payment of $10,000 to a man called Tai Lee, or $5,000 to a Witness did not require or auth- naval officer.
Mr. H. S. Chow, secretary to the last witness, was called.
Mr. H W. Looker, after apologising to His Lordship for not appearing in official raiment,. proceeded to examine the witness. He said the accounts produced were the originals, and on Cross-examined by Mr. Douglas, witness said them were details showing how the money the construction account was drawn on by the drawn from the construction account was ex- joint signatures of himself and the accused. pended. The accounts for the third quarter of could not remember whether a September were supplied by the defendant construction account was opened at the but did not show any payment of $5,000 to International Bank, Canton, to be drawn upon E. C. Wilks on account of the railway, Neither by himself and Mr. Grove. Apart from land was any payment of $10,000 to Tai Lee shown payments, the cash payments of the railway were on the accounts in his possession. The details fairly large, and cash payments were made entirely by the chief accountant. Witness had just as much confidence in Mr. Butler Wright as he had in Mr. Grove. Strictly speaking, the keeping of money in other banks than the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank was not in accordance with the agreement. A sum of money had also been paid into a local Chinese bank, but if that bank was to fail witness would be responsible for that money.
for the first quarter of this year did not show any payment on account of the railway to E. C. Wilks, Tai Lee, or any naval officer. The details were made out entirely in Hongkong currency, which was the more valuable in the money market. Witness was not supplied with any vouchers.
Cross-examined by Mr. Douglas, witness said the statements were given in considerable detail, and the compilation of them would take con- The cross-examination of His Excellency siderable time. He had not been supplied with Wei Han was continued after the tiffin adjourn the June account for this year. When witness ment. Witness said there was some corres-doubted any item on a statement he asked for pondence between him and the British and inspection of the voucher in the chief account China Corporation with regard to putting ant's office, and was shown it.. 10,000 taels in a Chinese bank, and the Corpora- Mr. E. C. Wilks, consulting engineer, said tion informed him that such a proceeding that as Wilks and Jack he had had many deal- would be contrary to the agreement. Sometime ings with the railway, He had met defendant ago accused put before witness people who on many occasions, and had had private dealings would lend the Chinese Government with him. The railway business witness did money at lower interest and less guarantee. with Mr. Wright was in connection with the Do you remember a memorandum Mr. Butler firm. On September 14th witness received a Wright wrote to you with reference to the cheque for $5,000 from defendant. All railway transfer of funds from London to the Hong-accounts in connection with the firm had been kong and Shanghai Bank ?—Yes.
His Lordship-Are you going to produce this memorandum ?
Mr. Douglas-I have a copy of it. The Crown Advocate-I object unless it has something to do with the evidence.
His Lordship (to Mr. Douglas)-I don't see how you can put a copy in. It might not be
correct copy.
a
Mr. Douglas-I will have to refer to these negotiations.
settled.
You also, I suppose, deal in shares ?-Some- times, to my sorrow.
And this was a share transaction ?—It was.
orise any payment back to the construction account.
Mr. E. C. Wilks, recalled, in reply to Mr, Douglas, said that he received a letter from Mr. Butler Wright, dated 20th August in which the accused stated that he wanted to get away for a holiday next month, as the heat was telling on him more than he cared to admit.
At this stage the Court rose.
SECOND DAY.
Mr. Frank Grove, engineer in charge of the Chinese section of the Canton-Kowloon Rail- way, was cross-examined by Mr. Douglas. He said he derived the definition of duties of the chief accountant from the loan agreement, and from general practice. The procedure adopted had been recognised and approved by the managing director. Witness knew something about accounts, as he had had experience as district engineer and engineer-in- charge in West Africa, Bengal and Tasmania. The official audit was notified on August 6th, and previously witness wrote for bank balances, but he did not wish the Court to understand that he was refused the information. It was mentioned to witness about an account being opened in the International Bank at Canton in the name of Mr. Butler Wright. No official letters passed between witness and the accused or the managing director with regard to such account. He remembered a
conversation in which he stated that when the
Hongkong and Shanghai Bank opened an
Mr. Frank Grove, engineer in charge of the Canton-Kowloon Railway, Imperial Chinese sec- tion, said he began actual work on the line on August 12th, 1907. He was responsible for the
account in Canton the funds should be correctness of the amounts paid out of the rail-
transferred to that bank from the International way funds for constructional purposes Ac- Bank. The accounts in the International Bank cused, as chief accountant, had the control of had been closed since September 1st. Witness the accountant's department, but had to
had a conversation with the manager of the Inter- receive authority from witness before mak-
national Bank on the telephone, but nothing using payments in connection with construction
Was said about the Hongkong Currency work. For ordinary payments accused wouldAccount. Witness' intention in writing for require a voucher initialled by witness. H.E. bank balances in June was for the purposes of Wei Han had also the authority to authorise
His Lordship-You can refer to the negotia- tions, but you cannot go into details.
Mr. Douglas (to witness)-Will you give your recollection of what transpired?
Witness stated that when the exchange was favourable he wanted to transfer £500,000 from