AnnualReport-1930 — Page 61

Administrative Reports 行政報告書 All AI Reviewed

A (2) 15 —

Enclosure N.

HONG KONG AUDIT DEPARTMENT,

QUERY NO. 322/15 E, 1930.

TREASURY.

I should be much obliged if I may be furnished with explanation of the following difference between the final figures of the Public Works Loan (1927) Account and the Advances Summary for 1930.

The Loan Statement shows $582,608.17 as advanced from Surplus Balances for expenditure on the Aerodrome, while the summary of Advances shows $623,066.83. This latter figure is quoted in your financial report but, if the Loan Statement is correct, includes $40,458.66 advanced for the Shing Mun Valley Scheme.

Further, in the advances summary $73,058.50 is shown against the Shing Mun Valley Scheme: what do these advances represent, please?

(Sgd.) P. L. COLLISSON,

Auditor.

3.7.31.

This was fully explained to Mr. Dallin, Asst. Auditor, on Thursday by Mr. Martin of this office and Mr. Badan Singh of the P.W.D. and it was anticipated that he would similarly, if necessary, give you the same explanation as he appeared satisfied. I give it again.

(a) Aerodrome. An incorrect posting which should have been debited to the Shing Mun Valley Scheme—adjusted in March.

(b) Shing Mun Valley Scheme. This amount was the balance of this advance account which had been running since December, 1928, and has been adjusted as follows:

Jan. 1931 $1,321.86 Aerodrome

Mar. 1931 $71,026.12 $710.52 " Shing Mun Valley Scheme, Harbour Pipes.

Edit History

2026-05-09 04:16:32 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

A (2) 15 — Enclosure N. HONG KONG AUDIT DEPARTMENT, QUERY NO. 322/15 E, 1930. TREASURY. I should be much obliged if I may be furnished with explanation of the following difference between the final figures of the Public Works Loan (1927) Account and the Advances Summary for 1930. The Loan Statement shows $582,608.17 as advanced from Surplus Balances for expenditure on the Aerodrome, while the summary of Advances shows $623,066.83. This latter figure is quoted in your financial report but, if the Loan Statement is correct, includes $40,458.66 advanced for the Shing Mun Valley Scheme. Further, in the advances summary $73,058.50 is shown against the Shing Mun Valley Scheme: what do these advances represent, please? (Sgd.) P. L. COLLISSON, Auditor. 3.7.31. This was fully explained to Mr. Dallin, Asst. Auditor, on Thursday by Mr. Martin of this office and Mr. Badan Singh of the P.W.D. and it was anticipated that he would similarly, if necessary, give you the same explanation as he appeared satisfied. I give it again. (a) Aerodrome. An incorrect posting which should have been debited to the Shing Mun Valley Scheme—adjusted in March. (b) Shing Mun Valley Scheme. This amount was the balance of this advance account which had been running since December, 1928, and has been adjusted as follows: Jan. 1931 $1,321.86 Aerodrome Mar. 1931 $71,026.12 $710.52 " Shing Mun Valley Scheme, Harbour Pipes.

Baseline (Original)

A (2) 15 — Enclosure N. HONG KONG AUDIT DEPARTMENT, QUERY NO. 322/15 E, 1930. TREASURY. I should be much obliged if I may be furnished with explanation of the following difference between the final figures of the Public Works Loan (1927) Account and the Advances Summary for 1930. The Loan Statement shows $582.608.17 as advanced from Surplus Balances for expenditure on the Aerodrome, while the summary of Advances shows $623,066.83. This latter figure is quoted in your financial report but, if the Loan Statement is correct, includes $40,458.66 advanced for the Shing Mun Valley Scheme. Further. in the advances summary $73.058.50 is shown against the Shing Mun Valley Scheme: what do these advances represent, please ? (Sgd.) P. L. COLLISSON, Auditor. 3.7.31. This was fully explained to Mr. Dallin, Asst. Auditor, on Thursday by Mr. Martin of this office and Mr. Badan Singh of the P.W.D. and it was anticipated that he would similarly, if necessary, give you the same explanation as he appeared satisfied. I give it again. (a) Aerodrome. An incorrect posting which should have been debited to the Shing Mun Valley Scheme-adjusted in March. (b) Shing Mun Valley Scheme. This amount was the balance of this advance account which had been running since December, 1928, and has been adjusted as follows: Jan. 1931 $1.321.86 Aerodrome Mar. 1931 $71.026.12 $710.52 " Shing Mun Valley Scheme, Harbour Pipes.

2026-05-09 04:16:32 · Baseline

View content

A (2) 15 —

Enclosure N.

HONG KONG AUDIT DEPARTMENT,

QUERY NO. 322/15 E, 1930.

TREASURY.

I should be much obliged if I may be furnished with explanation of the following difference between the final figures of the Public Works Loan (1927) Account and the Advances Summary for 1930.

The Loan Statement shows $582.608.17 as advanced from Surplus Balances for expenditure on the Aerodrome, while the summary of Advances shows $623,066.83. This latter figure is quoted in your financial report but, if the Loan Statement is correct, includes $40,458.66 advanced for the Shing Mun Valley Scheme.

Further. in the advances summary $73.058.50 is shown against the Shing Mun Valley Scheme: what do these advances represent, please ?

(Sgd.) P. L. COLLISSON,

Auditor.

3.7.31.

(a) Aerodrome. An incorrect posting which should have been debited to the Shing Mun Valley Scheme-adjusted in March.

(b) Shing Mun Valley Scheme. This

amount was the

balance of this advance account which had been running since December, 1928, and has been adjusted as follows:

Jan. 1931 $1.321.86

Aerodrome

Mar. 1931

$71.026.12

$710.52

Shing Mun Valley Scheme, Harbour Pipes.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.