-
16-
75
There is no evidence that these transactions
operated to the prejudice of the Government: in fact, the moneys advanced appear to have gone towards the
liquidation of part of the Company's liability to the
Government.
It is not within the province of the Committee to
speculate on the possible effect of these transactions
in connection with any undisclosed agreement which may
have existed between the First Bailiff and the Company.
It seems hardly likely that the First Bailiff, if he
had no financial interest in the Company other than that
arising from his loans, should have made advances to help to camouflage the Company's default.
He would seem to have had no good reason for attempting
to conceal their default and on the default and as the
default grew the prospect of ultimate recovery of his
own loans diminished.
7