Pur R. Habut
the
I only
Up to the 18 Sept: 1869 appears to have been in the vault at the Government offices, but after that date the Government opened an account with the Chartered Mercantile Bank, and at once paid in a sum of $161,450. Balances on which sum the Bank allowed the Government 2%, or rather 2% on the balance of its current account.
Voy-a-Cheung's money it is admitted was talked of making use of the balance thus paid into the Bank, but the argument of the Hon'ble Kay is that Voy-a-Cheung's money was to be deposited at interest.
2. that there was no order of any Court or any regulation requiring the investment of his money which the Treasurer was bound to make.
440
to produce whenever claimed
a. that it was Voy-a-Cheung's fault that he did not claim the money before.
On the other hand it is admitted that the Government have benefited by the interest on this money, though whether to the full extent it is not probable to say.
It is not thought that the payment of interests in their case, besides in Angur's similar case, is not in accordance with present practice for Government funds held in trust.
for vide and not office holding funds in trust to pocket the interest.
and I think it would be acting fairly if Government were to pay interest on funds similarly held on their behalf.
2% interest that the Government receives...
...
Page 440 appears three times at top, and is not present here, likely at bottom.
As the original text is cut off and some parts are not in English, the proofreading is done based on the available text.
Revised to meet the requirements:Pur R. Habut
the
I only
Up to the 18 Sept: 1869 appears to have been in the vault at the Government offices, but after that date the Government opened an account with the Chartered Mercantile Bank, and at once paid in a sum of $161,450. Balances on which sum the Bank allowed the Government 2%, or rather 2% on the balance of its current account.
Voy-a-Cheung's money it is admitted was talked of making use of the balance thus paid into the Bank, but the argument of the Hon'ble Kay is that Voy-a-Cheung's money was to be deposited at interest.
2. that there was no order of any Court or any regulation requiring the investment of his money which the Treasurer was bound to make.
440
to produce whenever claimed
a. that it was Voy-a-Cheung's fault that he did not claim the money before.
On the other hand it is admitted that the Government have benefited by the interest on this money, though whether to the full extent it is not probable to say.
It is not thought that the payment of interests in their case, besides in Angur's similar case, is not in accordance with present practice for Government funds held in trust.
for vide and not office holding funds in trust to pocket the interest.
and I think it would be acting fairly if Government were to pay interest on funds similarly held on their behalf.
2% interest that the Government receives...
Page 440
Page 440
Page 440
However, to follow the exact format required by the instructions, here is the revised output:Pur R. Habut
the
I only
Up to the 18 Sept: 1869 appears to have been in the vault at the Government offices, but after that date the Government opened an account with the Chartered Mercantile Bank, and at once paid in a sum of $161,450. Balances on which sum the Bank allowed the Government 2%, or rather 2% on the balance of its current account.
Voy-a-Cheung's money it is admitted was talked of making use of the balance thus paid into the Bank, but the argument of the Hon'ble Kay is that Voy-a-Cheung's money was to be deposited at interest.
2. that there was no order of any Court or any regulation requiring the investment of his money which the Treasurer was bound to make.
440
to produce whenever claimed
a. that it was Voy-a-Cheung's fault that he did not claim the money before.
On the other hand it is admitted that the Government have benefited by the interest on this money, though whether to the full extent it is not probable to say.
It is not thought that the payment of interests in their case, besides in Angur's similar case, is not in accordance with present practice for Government funds held in trust.
for vide and not office holding funds in trust to pocket the interest.
and I think it would be acting fairly if Government were to pay interest on funds similarly held on their behalf.
2% interest that the Government receives...
Page 440
Page 440
Page 440