244
13.
It is very likely that the Cookson, a Chinaman, denied his word in Mr. Mitchell's presence, but there is sufficient proof that he and the convict stated their understanding to be that the money was to pass through Mr. Mitchell's hands.
14.
As regards the 5th question, Mr. Mitchell explains the case about his private Servant, but I can by no means admit the position he lays down that the Loo King, the Servant of the Sheriff, is responsible for Subordinate Civil Officials.
It is, I conceive, still a question whether, in a Civil Court, if Mr. Mitchell be not liable for the money due to the Cookson.
15. The Fiss duly laid on the 21st before the Executive Council, and reference being made on the point of Law to the Attorney General, that officer held that the Sheriff had incurred serious penalty under the Common Law and Statutes 8 & 9 Vict: c. 26, 1 & 2 Vict: c. 11, and 2 & 3 Vict: c. 55.
Explanations were...
Page 244
(dir. 7.)