he was
the Clerk below him is given 35 per cent because / what will probably
appointed never happen again) he was from England. It is much more likely that the 1st Clerk will be also from England in future than,
I would therefore
Kai Z
raise the pay proper of the 1st Clerk
(as suggested;
Jan.11(4)
X
from $1920 (35 percent) to $2592 as the
+ f
Marriages)
for given $1875
-X-
They
4
288
the other office held by him [viz. Deputy Registration of] from $120 (20 percent) to $144
I let him retain his really
personal allowance of $120
Total Emoluments
making
Registrar of
$2690
#
not alter
this, but
see no reason
to alter it at any rate $201
$3000
p.19%
and Clerk Registration General's Office
They have given
him 35 percent
was appointed from England I have said above his
rise (as he was
Mangle
Ay
Successor will probably not be)
viz. from $1440
to $1944
I let him retain his personal
allowance also
In
2 according to ruling in para. Para an
1590/09-10 part at least of
disposable
an
that personal allowance should be
in the increase of salary,
marged
9
it was
(Enc. 9 tells us that) it inconsistent with fall in Exchange
of length of service.
Gwen in 188 as well as
It would be fair to dock him $120
༡
which is
35
55%
At
$1875 rate
& therefore the correct
increase
M.Shepherd, Deputy
Advocate
which he
with formerly 1st Clerk in Sure. Can. Best)
holds an
office of which the 1875 Emoluments
were
$360
Total $2700
Halle
SHaut $2400
to
carefully
and the proposed increase to $3720 is therefore
(35% would actually come to
his personal allowance
$267
Z
boo
merged in their
or being properly merged increase (according to
according to anders on 100257
W. Ball, Interpreter, Supreme
Court
? Point out that Schedule (in Enc. 8) & Enc. 26 propose in this case an increase to $3600 (the pers. all. to be dropped) whereas in the Estimates $2592 is
is taken, the pers. all. of $400 being retained, and say that the latter is accordingly
sanctioned.
T. I Callen duties of Sanitary dept ? Observe similarly that in Enc. 3 and 26 he is set down at $3600, but