432
no amount of neglect in the supervision of subordinates can
throw pecuniary liability on officers for laches of their
subordinates. If he intends that where there has been no
such neglect there can be no such liability the opinion
scarcely seems to bear on the present case.
11.
I am for the foregoing reasons forced to the
conclusion that Mr. Ross and Mr.
•
Orme are pecuniarily lia-
ble for so much of the amount embezzled by Ip Wai Lam as
could have been prevented by supervision of his work that
is for the full amount of $3,403.38 less the $629.87
obtained by the issue of temporary receipts. This part of
the fraud which was assisted by the ignorance of the people
would have been very difficult to discover until some time
after it had been perpetrated. It is moreover to a great
extent covered by the forfeited guarantee of Ip Wai Lam.
Accepting the Attorney General's opinion as to the equal
liability of the two officers I consider therefore that
each of them might properly be called upon to pay into the
Treasury the sum of $($3,403.38 $629.87) = $1,386.75.
12.
The payment of this considerable sum or any
large proportion of it would bear very heavily on the two
officers. If they are only called upen to pay a small pro-
portion of it this would be more of the nature of a fine or
punishment than a making good of the loss incurred. I am
unwilling