978
169
hairman:
e have been told there was no deponit ledger.
Mr. Taylor: There was not.
A.
The deposits were murported only by the c:unterfoils of receipts
given to the depositore? /nd possibly wo light add, by the lists
of depeitors and deponits which supported paying in voualeve,
those lista being taken from the axuateribils of the receipts.
At e cartain time the ahro Eupt a book of all the monies he
received and paid into the Trean sing,
Including deponite?
He had a record of many
I am speaking about deposite only.
he rocaived from the 5.1.0's and paid in, but retier this is a
full account i have not been able to ascertain,
That manifestly could be no more than a record of the amounts
which .1.0's say fit to pay to him.
Yes.
The subsidiary record of what ench 2.1.0. sutually received you
have not yại come smOBEŤ
lot in all
Another book was kept of money received by
an 1.0. I unferetend he did this, put down the first two
or three daya the mount and sgainst the mount the day, the
deposit receipt rambera; but £x in certain cases be only had the
A.I.0'a name with the amount of money. There the difficulty
comes in of milocating the amounts to the dierent deposit
receipta.
Gould it be fair to say the muault of your inquiries since 1st
February is that na proper or fall system of a counts had been
in foros ia lhe Department i
I would much rather any no perfect systre of accounts.
We will work backards. To what extent was it imperfect?
v hovu now a record book which shows the deposit number, tho
name of the person and the amount received, refursied to hima
or estreated; or perhaps I had better call it forfeited. There
was no book so chow that befor and we had to find out one or the
other by a process of elimination.
Would it be unfair to say that that is far from perfect?
It is far from perfect but under the condition: under which they