12-
posted to this book immediately on receipt.
71
There were, and still are, a large number of items
in this book in respect of which there appears no entry under the headings "Result" and "Net proceeds", and,
according to Mr. Hill's evidence, the number must have
been greater before he made an effort to get the book posted up to date during the last two months.
Examination of the book should have showMr.
Melbourne either that the First Bailiff was neglecting
to post the requisite entries or that the proceeds were
not being paid in. Such examination should have put him
on his enquiry, and enquiry would have obviated the
losses which have been incurred.
There was also available for examination by Mr
Melboume the Record of Sales Book. This book, he says,
would not be produced to him without demand.
An inspection of this book reveals that as early as
November and December, 1925, the rendition of accounts of
sales had in some cases been delayed for as long as two
months after sale; while in the case of sales conducted
in January, February and March, 1926, delays amounting to
three and four months are not infrequent. Mr. Melbourne
states that he did not notice these delays.
When the money was ultimately paid into Court it
would be necessary for a Direction to be signed by Mr
Melbourne, He says that when signing the Directions he
always saw the relevant files. Here again must have
frequently ari sen an opportunity for noticing the great
length of time between issue of the distress warrant
and the payment of the proceeds of sale.
The Committee feels that while Mr. Melbourne
cannot be obsolved from blame for his failure to notice
that undue delays were occurring and that many payments
were outstanding there are circumstances which may be urged
in