"Anquet "Supreme Court
18.
By Cash -
being
balance
" after paying distraint Nr 254/92
78..
I think it would have
accurate and
been
would have better described
the true state of the case if
4
paragraph
had run -
reference to the distraint we-
#
count which
was
at
arce
"produced proved the correct.
VILLA
20.
a
of this item."
The next paragraph
crisicions of
which is
C
voucher
not deserved, and
shows I submit that Mr Ni.
has taken
View
wrong Auditor of
wolle
of his duties.
av
the Receiver's
to
that he wishes not
audit the accounts.
accounts. It
seems
only to
but to criticise the Receiver's
management
129
management of the Estate.
Mr. Nicolle
says:-
21.
"It copy of the next item for $138.75 is attached, marked " D . " It is signed by the back. " rupt only
a jumble " of receipts and payments which the audit
no check.
and is
over
can exercia
his document is not
Jumble
to
any
are
who is
neg
quainted with mercantile.
documents.
It is
memorandum
in
showing clearly the details of the sum of $138.75 paid by the bankrupt and there are tive vouchers (account sales of consignments) anneyed. No doubt the Official Receiver be. fore receiving this account was quite satisfied', and therefore
the voucher
was
all that was
required