C
119
carried no mails between Colombo and Bombay. Two mails were mis-directed by the Hong Kong Post Office to Bombay but the Postmaster General at Colombo intercepted them there and sent them on to Tuticorine.
The special attention of the Post Office Accountant was however not called to the charge, and in making out the transit charges accounts for the years 1895 and 1896 he credited the P & O with having carried mails from Colombo to Bombay, taking as his basis the statistics of mails sent to Tuticorine.
The accounts were accepted by the P & O agent (who could not have made the slightest investigation) and the sums of $1,009.25 for 1895 and $1,013.60 for 1896 were accordingly paid over.
Subsequently on receipt of the Inter-Administration accounts from India, my accountant discovered his mistake by finding out that this office was charged conveyance from Colombo to Tuticorine.
On the statistical month (November) in each of the years 1895 and 1896 no mails were conveyed by P & O non-contract steamers either wholly or partially to India.
My contention is that as the basis of payment, viz: - the statistics taken during the month of November in the two years, was nil, no payment was due under the agreement set forth in the Postmaster General's letter paragraph 5 c.d.e. and that the payments made were on a mistake of fact (viz: - that mails were going as formerly to Bombay).
The