SUPREME COURT.
24th July,
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. FIELDING CLARKE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE DEFALCATIONS AT THE POST OFFICE. Zelinda Barradas, clerk in the Post Office, was charged with stealing certain moneys, the property of her Majesty.
The Acting Attorney-General (Hon. E. J. Ackroyd), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. A. B. Johnson) prosecuted; Mr. J. J. Francis, QC, instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Wilkinson, defended.
The Jurors were:-Messrs. W. Danby, H. Crawford, G. Kaynal, Thos. Arnold, G. de Champesux, F. Dadwell, and D. McCulloch.
The cross-examination of Arthur Kennedy Travers was resumed. He said-The various amounts which I advanced to the prisoner are shown in the Bank Pass book. I have not the counterfoils of the cheques given since October, 1889. Those before that I cannot find. Since October, 1889, up to the end of December I advanced to him, in all, $5,630.85. I cannot give any idea of the average payments over the counter per month in the Money Order Office. I am not aware of any regulations laying down how the prisoner was to dispose of money received. He was authorised to pay all orders presented out of moneys received from abroad. The drafts from Shanghai and other coast ports sent in respect of local orders the prisoner could get money for. I endorsed them and gave him the draft. He could not get money on the drafts from Australia. I paid all those into the Postmaster-General's account. The drafts from Shanghai for Imperial purposes I also paid into that account. I can swear I have never given him the drafts from Australia or any draft for Imperial purposes from Shanghai to be cashed.
My department gets no accounts either from London or the Government showing the position of accounts between us and the London Post Office. We advise the Crown Agents that certain amounts are payable, but I cannot tell whether these amounts are forwarded to them by the Treasury. There is no book in the Post Office to which I could refer to show the position of accounts between the Crown Agents and the Post Office here. In the collector's account handed to me the amount is a joint amount for money orders and postal notes. I cannot say how much of this amount is for postal notes and how much for money orders. We have no ledger account with Shanghai, nor any means of verifying drafts from Shanghai at any particular time. The money I advanced to the prisoner was intended to meet local money orders. There is a local order book. I never looked to see if the advances were entered there. I cannot explain the meaning of the entries "Credited London" which occur in the Imperial cash book. Until after the prisoner left the Colony I know nothing about the books in the money order department. I knew there were books which were audited every month and I left it to the Auditor. I did not know how the prisoner disposed of the moneys under his control. I know how he ought to have disposed of them. I cannot point to any regulations as to how he was to dispose of these moneys.
Re-examined-The prisoner never handed over to me any cash for postal votes.
William Henry Wallace-I was cashier in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in August, September, and October last.
I kept a book of all sums received during those months. The book produced is a rough cash book belonging to the bank kept by me. On the 14th August there was no sum of $1,123.47 received by the Bank on the Postmaster-General's account; All sums received from any Government Department are lumped together under the head of Government. There is an entry under this head of $1,694. The entry is not in my handwriting but in that of the acting cashier of the time. I can tell by the voucher made from which department of the Government the money is received. On the 10th September I did not receive from the Post Office $1,088.25. On the 8th October I did not receive such a sum as $648.89 from the Postmaster.
J. Carvalho I am first clerk in the Treasury Department The document handed to me is written by a clerk in the Treasury and signed by me. There is the mark of an erasure on it. That mark was not on it when I signed it. In the receipt handed to me there is some writing in red ink. The handwriting is not mine, nor that of my clerk. In the next receipt handed to me something has been erased after the words "on account of." On referring to the Bank receipt I find the words should have been "postal notes." There was no erasure when I signed the document. As cashier I know what sums are paid into the Treasury from the Postmaster-General. I keep the cash book, which contains all the money received from the Government departments.
Chan Kit Fan-I am a clerk in the Treasury. My duty is to fill up Treasury receipts The receipt handed to me was filled in by me with the exception of the writing in red ink. It was filled in by me from the Bank receipt. The Bank receipt was given for postal notes. The next receipt handed to me is in my handwriting except that in red ink. After the words "on account of" the words "postal notes" were filled. They have since been erased, but the marks of the words partly appear now.
Francisco Freire-I was audit examiner in the Audit Office in 1888 and 1889. It was my duty to examine the accounts of the Post Office and money order office. The prisoner was in charge of the money order office. I used to examine the accounts once a month, when the collector's account came in. There was no fixed date in the month for sending in the collector's accounts. When I went to the money order department I used to see the Imperial and local cash books and the branch accounts book. No other books were given into me. The documents I examined were the money orders and the application forms for money orders. I did not use the collector's accounts in my examination. I used them when I examined the Treasury journal. The money order office is regarded as a distinct department from the Post Office. I see the Imperial cash book. I see entries "credited London." They mean the amounts paid into the Treasury to the credit of London. I see the receipt handed to me. I do not remember having seen it before. On 28th May, 1889, I find in the Imperial cash book an entry to credit of London, $1,294. It is passed by me. I saw the receipt handed to me before I passed that amount. I took it as the voucher for the entry 28th May. The entry was for Imperial money orders. I did not take that receipt to include money for postal notes. The writing in red ink is that of the prisoner. The figures are placed there in order to specify the amounts from Hongkong and Shanghai. Shanghai draws money on London and remits the money to us and we keep the account. In the Collector's account for August the amount on the receipt appears. It should have appeared in the collector's account for June. The receipt handed to me is a receipt for the 12th September. It refers to an amount in the Imperial cash book of $581.29, another on the 16th August of $264.50, and another on the 20th August of $704.66. That is all for money orders. On the 26th September there is a receipt for $1,310.96. It refers to money orders. None of it refers to postal notes.
At this stage the case was adjourned till to-day at 10 am.