* Wegiont
215
1.0.0.
evidence on this point not being of course
obtainable. Admitting however your contention that the
money was Sailors' Home money your responsibility under the
Pinancial Instructions is summed up in paragraph 28 of Mr.
Clementi'a minute of 24th August, 1911, "As the Harbour
Master was Hon. Secretary of the Sailors' Home, and as the
accounts of the Sailors' Home were kept by the First Clerk
in the Mercantile Marine Office, and as the shroff of the
Sailors' mome was also shroff in the Harbour Department,
it might not have been too much to expect that Captain
Taylor would take the same precautions with regard to the
safe in the Sailors' ono which are taken with regard to
Goverment safea.... The very fact of the defalcations
being possible proves that the check kept upon the Sailors'
Home money was inadequate". See paragraph 6 of the
Auditor's letter of 28th October, 1910, reporting a short-
are of $1,703.06 in the cash at the Mercantile Marine
Office. This was Sailors' Home money (see paragraph 2
of your minute of 3rd November, 1910) and the cash book on
the 21st October was found written up to the 5th October
only (paragraph 6 of Mr. Pholip's letter of 28th October,
1910). It would appear that you were responsible, under
Financial Instruction 337, fer seeing that the entries were
properly made and that the cash book was regularly
balanced.
3.
Paragraph 2(11). This cater¬orical denial
is new. The receipts must have been signed by someone and
you apparently surrest that the shroff signed them when he
collected the money.
(a).
The ovidence onthe other side is:-
Faragraph 2 of Mr. Dallin's letter of 27th
October, 1910, Mr.Dallin now states that the receipts
found among the shroff's papers were signed receipts.