i
no
AR
132
3)
...
...
by the check on the figures effected by the Assistant Harbour
Master daily.
The form in whion the Shroff's Collection
book ras actually kept indicates, from the fact that the daily
entries therein were not entered consecutively or contempora-
neously with the presentation by the Shroff to hr. Lenfestey of
receipts for the latter's signature but were written up perhaps
not more than once daily that, for at any rate a considerable
time prior to the perpetration of the fraud, r. Lenfestey had
undoubtedly followed a practice of omission which had become
a regular routine; and it is incredible that, had not this prac-
tice been habitual, the Chroff, audacious enough though his
scheme was,
would ever have ventured upon his successful robbery.
The forgery and deceit practised by the Shroff ucon Fr. Jones,
the Assistant Harbour Master, ven daring in the extreme and it
is rather remarkable that they could have been pospetrated over
so long a period as was the case without discovery by that of-
ficer; had r. Jones been a younger and a more mentally active
and more intelligent person, it is probable that such gross de-
ception could not have been practised without detection.
Committee of the Executive Council has already expressed its
opinion as to the responsibility and degree of blame attachingg
to Mr. Jones and to what was said in its previous report upon
him your Committee with regard to him has no wish to add any
further views.
The
7/-
The object of the present enquiry is to ascertain if
possible if any direct blame is attributable to the Harbour
laster in connection with the matter andto find out if there is
any ground for supposing that he is in any way responsible for
r. Lanfestay'e omission of what was undoubtedly one of the lat-
ter's proper duties. At the outset it seems important to
see whether written instructions issued to Mr. Lenfestey at any
time expressly enjoined upon him the function of which he dis-
olains knowledge; the answer to this is undoubtedly in the nega-
tive.