Enelo. No. 4
Copy.
(2)
40
COMENTS ON LR. HILL'S REPORT.
It is quite true that there was a great increase
in the Bailiffs' work in June 1925 and that it is still
abnormal.
it is quite untrue that I ever said that monies expended by the Auctioneering and brokering Co. Ltd., on the S. 5. "Ling Nam" were not a first charge on the proceeds of sale. What happened was that some time in August, I think between the 23rd and 25th,
L. E. S. Houge, and subsequently wong Fung ek, did ask mo to give a letter stating that the money advanced
to the "Ling em" was a first charge. I refused to do tnis until the question of outstanding proceeds of sale
was settled. Further efforts were made from time to
time to get me to sign the letter but I refused.
Large sums of money had been withheld long
prior to August last as fr. Hill knows.
I have as yet received no vouched accounts
of the money advanced to the s.s. "Ling Nam", although
I have repeatedly asked for them. I think that the
amount is about $20,000.00.
I did not accuse Mr. Hill in hospital
with doing away with Court files, I did tell him
that many could not be found and asked him if he could
tell me where they were.
(Sd). Hugh A. Nisbet,
Registrar, Supreme Court.
21.10.26.
Page 40Page 41