12
and the Chief Justice thereupon recommenced the course of conduct he had previously pursued. I then discovered that the estimates, for preparing which the Chief Justice had charged me with disrespect, had been prepared by him without my knowledge, and the salary, which had in former estimates, been allotted to the accountant, had been divided between the two Deputy-Registrars, and the duties of the accountant allotted to the clerk of the Chief Justice, who was also Deputy-Registrar. By this arrangement, made by the Chief Justice unknown to me, the third recommendation of the Commissioners, which had been so far acted on, would have been virtually set aside, and I should have been saddled with the responsibility of the accounts, and been provided with an officer incapable of keeping books in lieu of a skilled accountant, an officer, too, who, being clerk to the Chief Justice, held himself free from my control. I thereupon, on September 27, addressed to the Chief Justice a letter on the subject, requesting him to lay it before the Governor.
On September 28, by way of carrying out the alternative threat which he had made, the Chief Justice took a step of which I complained to the Governor in my letter of September 29. The conduct of the Chief Justice was so extraordinary that I cannot make the matter clear without referring to the letter in extenso. (See appendix No. 5.)
....
In the early part of September a motion had been made in Court for an injunction to restrain me from selling some property which I had received from my predecessor in office as part of a bankrupt estate, and of which a portion had been sold by him—the injunction was granted, and the question of costs reserved—Mr. Justice Snowden telling me that the Chief Justice was of opinion that I was personally liable. While this question was in reserve, I was served with an order of the Court,
13
requiring me to pay over to the Oriental Bank Corporation a sum of some $16,000, which was standing to my credit as Registrar in the books of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. I at once obeyed the order, and thereupon I was served with a writ at the suit of W. H. Olmsted, the party contesting the right of the Oriental Bank Corporation to the money. This writ was issued at the instigation of the Chief Justice, and could not have had the sanction of the plaintiff, who was a merchant then resident at New York. I at once reported the matter to the Court, and asked for instructions, but obtained no order. This action is still pending.
Shortly afterwards I was made defendant in another action, in which the official assignee of Bombay was the plaintiff. This was also at the instigation of the Chief Justice, and the writ was issued without the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was endorsed to recover some $35,000 moneys received. Not only was there no controversy between the official assignee of Bombay and myself, but I was in complete accord with the solicitors of that official in respect to our course of action with regard to the assets of the bankruptcy he represented, and yet the Chief Justice not only refused to sanction my proposed paying over to him of the assets which I had in my hands (some $600), but actually ordered that I should be made a defendant in an action which he had brought against the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank for moneys alleged to be due to the bankrupts. The bankrupts (Nursey Kessowjee & Co.) were at the time in Bombay, undergoing imprisonment for fraud, all the creditors were also there, and with the exception of the small sum in my hands and the claim against the bank (which latter had a branch business in Bombay), all the assets also; and yet, although the Chief Justice had sanctioned the bankrupts' departure from the colony to Bombay (where they were tried and
269
12
and the Chief Justice thereupon recommenced the course of conduct he had previously pursued. I then discovered that the estimates, for preparing which the Chief Justice had charged me with disrespect, had been prepared by him without my knowledge, and the salary, which had in former estimates, been allotted to the accountant, had been divided between the two Deputy-Registrars, and the duties of the accountant allotted to the clerk of the Chief Justice, who was also Deputy-Registrar. By this arrange- ment, made by the Chief Justice unknown to me, the third recommendation of the Commissioners, which had been so far acted on, would have been virtually set aside, and I should have been saddled with the responsibility of the accounts, and been provided with an officer incapable of keeping books in lieu of a skilled accountant, an officer, too, who, being clerk to the Chief Justice, held himself free from my control. I thereupon, on September 27, addressed to the Chief Justice a letter on the subject, requesting him to lay it before the Governor.
On September 28, by way of carrying out the alternative threat which he had made, the Chief Justice took a step of which I complained to the Governor in my letter of September 29. The conduct of the Chief Justice was so extraordinary that I cannot make the matter clear with- out referring to the letter in extenso. (See appendix No. 5.)
....
In the early part of September a motion had been made in Court for an injunction to restrain me from selling some property which I had received from my pre- decessor in office as part of a bankrupt estate, and of which a portion had been sold by him--the injunction was granted, and the question of costs reserved-Mr. Justice Snowden telling me that the Chief Justice was of opinion that I was personally liable. While this question was in reserve, I was served with an order of the Court,
13
requiring me to pay over to the Oriental Bank Corporation a sum of some $16,000, which was standing to my credit as Registrar in the books of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, 1 at once obeyed the order, and thereupon I was served with a writ at the suit of W. H. Olmsted, the party contesting the right of the Oriental Bank Corpora- tion to the money. This writ was issued at the instiga- tion of the Chief Justice, and could not have had the sanction of the plaintiff, who was a merchant then resi- dent at New York. I at once reported the matter to the Court, and asked for instructions, but obtained no order. This action is still pending.
Shortly afterwards I was made defendant in another action, in which the official assignee of Bombay was the plaintiff. This was also at the instigation of the Chief Justice, and the writ was issued without the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was endorsed to recover some $35,000 moneys received. Not only was there no controversy between the official assignee of Bombay and myself, but I was in complete accord with the solicitors of that official in respect to our course of action with regard to the assets of the bankruptcy he represented, and yet the Chief Justice not only refused to sanction my proposed paying over to him of the assets which I had in my hands (some $600), but actually ordered that I should be made a defendant in an action which he had brought against the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank for moneys alleged to be due to the bankrupts. The bankrupts (Nursey Kessowjee & Co.) were at the time in Bombay, undergoing imprisonment for fraud, all the creditors were also there, and with the exception of the small sum in my hands and the claim against the bank (which latter had a branch business in Bombay), all the assets also; and yet, although the Chief Justice had sanctioned the bankrupts' departure from the colony to Bombay (where they were tried and
269
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.