oblication/
X
4
stated that most of the Supreme Court Deposits which were credited to separate accounts were untouched, and in para. 8 it is stated that in fact only one of these -accounts was confiscated - the Companies
Liquidation Account. There may have been
some reason for this exception.
Mr. Murray Jack who was Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Singapore, and was interned by the Japanese, says his private account in the Singapore branch of the Chartered Bank of India was untouched and so were the Supreme Court deposits to the best of his knowledge. I think, to
establish a case of the probable confiscation of these funds had they been placed in special account, some evidence leading to a strong presumption is necessary.
I think that unless the Government
· can show that the funds would in any event have been confiscated, they cannot escape responsibility. It was their duty to protect these funds from loss by enemy seizure, instead of which they exposed them to enemy seizure. It is no answer to say that normal Government accounting procedure was followed. There was no legal objection to treat these funds as Government funds, nor did the
beneficiaries ask that they should be so treated. The only way in which responsibility can be avoided is to show that a strong degree of probability existed that they would have been seized in any event and that what was legitimate confiscation of seeming public funds, would have been actual robbery of private property.
LiL Abahan
1st June, 1948.
appears from Sirs. Abrahami
:
muvate
that
unless
the Gout
can meet