286
for directing the coolie not to post the list until the next morning. Moreover the Shroff whom I have further ques- tioned on the matter says now that on the Thursday after- noon shortly after office hours Mr. Rahman paid him only $113.50 and stated that he would bring the remaining $10 in the morning. This $10 was not paid as promised but after the Shroff had paid the whole amount to the Plaintiff's attor- ney he obtained an authorization from Mr. Rahman to deduct the $10 from the next payment of Mr. Rahman's salary.
Mr. Rahman in my opinion evidently tampered with the list, not with any dishonest motive, but with the object of saving himself the payment of further costs on behalf of his brother, and believing that he would be able to pay in the amount before the Plaintiff's solicitor became aware that the case was not in the list.
For his private ends he both altered the list and delayed its publication- matters which in my opinion cannot be lightly passed over.
I may mention that the list is largely consulted and relied on by Chinese suitors, and that it is highly ne- cessary for the due administration of justice to guard a- gainst any exclusion of a case by the manipulation of clerks in the Registry. A Defendant might no doubt be often ready to pay handsomely for such an exclusion.
Your Excellency will observe that there is sug- gestion in the correspondence that the money was not paid to the Shroff on the Thursday. I think it right to say that after questioning the Shroff I fully believe that the money