450
But it would, in my opinion, be inequitable to subject those officers to the pecuniary responsibility imposed upon them by the letter of the Financial Instruction No.5. Both had duties to per- form in addition to those of Collector which prevented that constant daily supervision which the Local Auditor in his report declares to be necessary. Moreover it is admitted that no instructions were given to either officer on his appointment for the information and guidance with resusct to his duties as Collector, though, it does not appear that either officer had had any previous experience, and they, left to themselves, followed a practice which they found in vogue.
The defalcations, so far as successful, are 1 think to be attributed, not to neglect of duty properly so-celled on the part of Mr. Boss or Mr. Orme, but to the opportunities to defraud afforded to the shroff (1) by the appointment as Collector of an officer to whon other duties were also assigned which caused his absence from time to time and so prevented him from exercising that 'daily super- vision' which the Local Auditor says is absolutely necessary. (2) By the omission of the Treasurer to give the Collector any instructions for the information or guidance in the work, Mr. Koss and Mr. Ceme sach following a system which they found in force and would reason- ably have the right to regard as being in force with the approval of the Treasury. It was not until after the event that instructions for his guidance were prepared by the Treasurer and sent to Mr.Deme.
In my opinion, for the reasons stated, the loss occasion-
ed by the defalcations of the absconding shroff lp, should be written
off.