CONFIDENTIAL.
7. FREIRE, Esq.
Enclosure.
GRAND
253
1390
No. 907.
SIR,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 30th April, 1890.
The Honourable A. LISTER, Postmaster General, having formulated certain charges against you for neglect of duty as a Third Clerk, Audit Office, which charges will in due course be communicated to you, I am directed by the Officer Administering the Government to inform you that His Excellency considers that in the interests of the public service you should at once, pending proceedings being taken against you, be interdicted from the exercise of your functions and powers and His Excellency, in virtue of Article 88 of the Colonial Regulations, interdicts you accordingly. Until the question of your suspension can be duly considered by the Executive Council you will be permitted to draw half pay from the 1st May, 1890, inclusive, until further notice.
W. M. DEANE,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
No. 1041.
SIR,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 22nd May, 1890.
In continuation of my letter No. 907 of 30th April, I have, by direction of the Officer Administering the Government, to forward you the charges, which will form the grounds on which the question of your suspension will be considered, should your replies be not deemed satisfactory.
2. I am further directed by His Excellency to call upon you to submit in writing any grounds upon which you rely to exculpate yourself from these charges for His Excellency's consideration on or before Saturday, the 7th day of June next.
3. (a.) That during the year 1888, 1889 and 1890 you performed your duties in a careless and negligent manner in that you never ascertained whether the sums received by the Superintendent of the Money Order Office for Postal Notes were paid into the Treasury; in that you passed as correct monthly statements which were incorrect; and in that you accepted and passed as receipts for sums received by the Superintendent of the Money Order Office for Money Orders documents which had been altered to cover frauds which had been committed by the said Superintendent.
(b.) That you on several occasions accepted and passed as vouchers for payments alleged to have been made by the said Superintendent of the Money Order Office receipts which did not correspond in date or amount with the entries in the Cash Book.
(c.) That you failed to report either to the Head of the Post Office or to the Auditor General that the Cash Book kept by the said Superintendent of the Money Order Office was not written up after the 1st November, 1889, knowing that the said book was not written up.
(d) That you neglected to report that no items respecting Postal Notes occurred in the Collector's account for 1889.