other branch
• "precedent in any of the Government Service"
That an Officer should be held liable for losses practically beyond his control and not resulting from culpable negligence.
It also dwells on the local circumstances rendering theft in this case comparatively easy at the Mint, and on the inefficiency of Police protection there.
3. Nevertheless, the isolation of Mr Manning's Department from operations of thieves would not be secured by any member of Police, as the premises are entirely under his control, and he has ample means of preventing access to them. There is a guard of Soldiers at the Mint, and whatever extra watchmen Mr Kinder has applied for, were always furnished. Moreover, it may be inferred that Mr. Manning considered his premises sufficiently secure, as he never made any previous representation to the contrary.
7. I very much question in this case whether the loss dis...