presented to him a voucher with Mr. CARVALHO'S or Mr. LISTER'S well-known signatures shewing an amount paid into the Bank which agreed with the amount to be paid in for Money Orders he knowing of no other source of revenue accepted it without suspicion. He does not suppose he noticed the erasures, if he had he does not suppose he would have attached any importance to them,
He was left in ignorance by his superiors of the existence of Postal Notes and Mr. BARRADAS had no book or books for this branch of Postal business.
It is possible that Mr. FREIRE was ignorant of Postal Notes. All the books he examined bear marks of his examination and there is nothing to shew he ever saw the book kept in the Postmaster General's Office.
The document signed by Mr. LISTER or Mr. CARVALHO shewed an amount paid into the Bank but the figures passed by Mr. FREIRE were not those in the handwriting of any Treasury official. They were in BARRADAS' writing and had Mr. FREIRE taken the trouble to check the figures shown on the document as purporting to be from Shanghai I do not see how he could have failed to discover something was wrong. He never checked the Shanghai figures and says he did not know he should have done so. It can easily be believed that Mr. FREIRE did not notice the erasures as the Money Order Office is very dark.
(b.) That Mr. FREIRE on several occasions accepted and passed as vouchers for payments alleged to have been made by BARRADAS receipts which did not correspond in date or amount with the entries in the Cash Book.
Mr. FREIRE admits this charge as regards date and gives as reasons want of time, pressure of work and entire absence of any ground of suspicion.
He denies having passed vouchers which did not agree in amount with the entries they vouched. There is no doubt but that he did. The documents are all now in the possession of the Court but I think I can quote an instance from memory. On 16th March, 1888, Mr. CARVALHO signed a receipt shewing that $1,913.69 had been paid to the Bank. On this receipt Mr. BARRADAS wrote that the sum was divided as follows:-
Hongkong,Shanghai, $1,737.93175.76 $1,913.69The entry passed in the Cash Book by Mr. FREIRE was $1,737.93, the receipt as far as the Treasury was concerned was for $1,913.69 Mr. FREIRE never troubled to see if the Shanghai figures represented anything and on this and other occasions the Shanghai figures were fictitious.
If BARRADAS had divided the amount in any other manner say:-
Hongkong,Shanghai, $1,251.62662.07 $1,913.69and had entered in his Cash Book $1,251.62 Mr. FREIRE would equally have passed it. This was from ignorance of how the accounts should be examined and failure to check the Shanghai amounts.
(c.) That Mr. FREIRE failed to report either to the Head of the Post Office or to the Auditor General that the Cash Book was not written up after 1st November, 1889, knowing that the said book was not written up.
Mr. FREIRE submits it is not his duty to report such matters except in extreme cases. His sole duty is to check the accounts when made up. That he could see nothing of Mr. BARRADAS November accounts till the Collector's accounts came in and that none come in in December or January,
258
Clause 25 of the Regulations framed on Treasury instructions lays down that the Collector's accounts shall be sent in monthly. It was Mr. FREIRE's duty to record the accounts as they came in and surely if they did not come in with regularity he should have reported it to the Auditor General. If Mr. FREIRE knew his duty he would have known that in any case of books being in arrear which came to his knowledge he should have at once reported it. The Ledger was not written up from 1st January, 1888. Perhaps Mr. FREIRE will not call this an extreme case.
(d.) That Mr. FREIRE neglected to report that no items respecting Postal Notes occurred in the Collector's accounts for 1889.
The reply to this that Mr. FREIRE knew nothing about Postal Notes has already been commented on.
(e.) That Mr. FREIRE in breach of his duty passed the following false entry, viz.: August, 1889, "Loan from Government Branch Offices $9,000" and that he passed the subsequent monthly accounts in which the said false entry was not debited.
Mr. FREIRE in reply to this says he carefully looked into the question. That Mr. BARRADAS explained to him that Australia was largely in debt to Hongkong and that to meet claims over the counter he had to use moneys that he ought to have remitted elsewhere. Mr. FREIRE says he asked Mr. ROCHA if this was all right and he said it was. He submits it is not a false entry and that it would necessarily vanish without any special entry in the accounts on receipt of moneys from colonies indebted to Hongkong.
I do not understand this reply. The entry was a false one and I do not see how it would vanish on receipt of remittances. The entry was necessitated owing to Mr. BARRADAS having in the previous May charged a sum of over $15,000 to Local Orders instead of Imperial Orders. I daresay Mr. FREIRE enquired into the matter as he says he did but he appears to have taken Mr. BARRADAS' word for the entry without examining the accounts to see how we stood in relation to other colonies. Had BARRADAS not in May wrongly charged the local order account with the sum of $15,000 he would in August have had a sufficient balance to meet the claims over the counter without making the false entry of $9,000. To look into this does not appear to have struck Mr. FREIRE.
(f.) That on various occasions Mr. FREIRE passed Loans from Imperial funds which were entered in the Cash Book although instructed that such loans were not to be made.
Mr. FREIRE says he could never have had any instructions as neither the Auditor General nor Mr. SILVA ever saw the books, knew of these loans or heard of the entries. Anyhow he has no recollections of any such instructions. I cannot say anything on this subject except that I do not find that written instructions were ever given.
(g.) That Mr. FREIRE failed to obey the instructions of Mr. SILVA to see that the amounts paid to the Treasury corresponded with the amounts of which the Crown Agents were advised.
Mr. FREIRE emphatically denies this charge.
(h.) That Mr. FREIRE in breach of his duty passed as correct a balance sheet in April, 1889, whilst as a matter of fact he failed to check some of the items in the said balance sheet and the whole balance sheet was misleading and deceptive.
Mr. FREIRE in answer to this says that he and Mr. ROCHA examined the account in question, that they checked and compared amounts, totals, &c., &c., but did not look so closely into dates as it now seems probable they ought to have done.
presented to him a voucher with Mr. CARVALHO'S or Mr. LISTER'S we'-known signatures shewing an amount paid into the Bank which agreed with the amount to be paid in for Money Orders he knowing of no other source of revenue accept- ed it without suspicion. He does not suppose he noticed the erasures, if he had he does not suppose he would have attached any importance to them,
He was left in ignorance by his superiors of the existence of Postal Notes and Mr. BARRADAS had no book or books for this branch of Postal business.
It is possible that Mr. FREIRE was ignorant of Postal Notes. All the books he examined bear marks of his examination and there is nothing to shew he ever saw the book kept in the Postmaster General's Office.
The document signed by Mr. LISTER or Mr. CARVALHO shewed an amount paid into the Bank but the figures passed by Mr. FREIRE were not those in the handwriting of any Treasury official. They were in BARRADAS' writing and had Mr. FREIRE token the trouble to check the figures shown on the document as purporting to be from Shanghai I do not see how he could have failed to discover something was wrong. He never checked the Shanghai figures and says he did not know he should have done so. It can easily be believed that Mr. FREIRE did not notice the erasures as the Money Order Office is very dark.
(b.) That Mr. FREIRE on several occasions accepted and passed as vouchers for payments alleged to have been made by BARRADAS receipts which did not correspond in date or amount with the entries in the Cash Book.
Mr. FREIRE admits this charge as regards date and gives as reasons want of time, pressure of work and entire absence of any ground of suspicion.
He denies having passed vouchers which did not agree in amount with the entries they vouched. There is no doubt but that he did. The documents are all now in the possession of the Court but I think I can quote an instance from memory. On 16th March, 1888, Mr. CARVALHO signed a receipt shewing that $1,913.69 had been paid to the Bank. On this receipt Mr. BARRADAS wrote that the sum was divided as follows:-
Hongkong, Shanghai,
-$1.737.93
175.76
$1,913.69
The entry passed in the Cash Book by Mr. FREIRE was $1,737.93, the receipt as far as the Treasury was concerned was for $1,913.69 Mr. FREIRE never troubled to see if the Shanghai figures represented anything and on this and other occasions the Shanghai figures were fictitious.
If BARRADAS had divided the amount in any other manner say :---
Hongkong, Shanghai,
$1,251.62 662.07
$1,913.69
and had entered in his Cash Book $1,251.62 Mr. FREIRE would equally have passed it. This was from ignorance of how the accounts should be examined and failure to check the Shanghai amounts.
(c.) That Mr. FREIRE failed to report either to the Head of the Post Office or to the Auditor General that the Cash Book was not written up after 1st November, 1889, knowing that the said book was not written up.
cases.
Mr. FREIRE submits it is not his duty to report such matters except in extreme His sole duty is to check the accounts when made up. That he could see nothing of Mr. BARRADAS November accounts till the Collector's accounts came in and that none come in in December or January,
258
Clause 25 of the Regulations framed on Treasury instructions lays down that the Collector's accounts shall be sent in monthly. It was Mr. FREIRE's duty to record the accounts as they came in and surely if they did not come in with re- gularity he should have reported it to the Auditor General. If Mr. FREINE knew his duty he would have known that in any case of books being in arrear which came to his knowledge he should have at once reported it. The Ledger was not written 1} from 1st January, 1888. Perhaps Mr. FREIRE will not call this an
extreme case.
(d.) That Mr. FREIRE neglected to report that no items respecting Postal Notes occurred in the Collector's accounts for 1889.
The reply to this that Mr. FREIRE knew nothing about Postal Notes has already been commented on.
(e.) That Mr. FREIRE in breach of his duty passed the following false entry, viz.: August, 1889, "Loan from Government Branch Offices $9,000" and that he passed the subsequent monthly accounts in which the said false entry was not debited.
Mr. FREIRE in reply to this says he carefully looked into the question. That Mr. BARRADAS explained to him that Australia was largely in debt to Hongkong and that to meet claims over the counter he had to use moneys that be ought to have remitted elsewhere. Mr. FREIRE says he asked Mr. Rocua if this was all right and he said it was. He submits it is not a false entry and that it would necessarily vanish without any special entry in the accounts on receipt of moneys from colonies indebted to Hongkong.
I do not understand this reply. The entry was a false one and I do not see how it would vanish on receipt of remittances. The entry was necessitated owing to Mr. BARRADAs having in the previous May charged a sum of over $15,000 to Local Orders instead of Imperial Orders. I daresay Mr. FREIRE enquired into the matter as he says he did but he appears to have taken Mr. BAKRADAS' word for the entry without examining the accounts to see how we stood in relation to other colonies. Had BARRADAS not in May wrongly charged the local order account with the sum of $15,000 he would in Angust have had a sufficient balance to meet the claims over the counter without making the false entry of $9,000. To look into this does not appear to have struck Mr. FREIRE.
(/) That on various occasions Mr. FREIRE passsed Loans from Imperial funds which were entered in the Cash Book although instructed that such loans were not to be made.
Mr. FREIRE says he could never have had any instructions as neither the Auditor General nor Mr. SILVA ever saw the books, knew of these loans or heard of the entries. Anyhow he has no recollections of any such instructions. I can- not say anything on this subject except that I do not find that written instructions were ever given.
(g.) That Mr. FREIRE failed to obey the instructions of Mr. SILVA to see that the amounts paid to the Treasury corresponded with the amounts of which the Crown Agents were advised.
Mr. FREIRE emphatically denies this charge.
(h.) That Mr. FREIRE in breach of his duty passed as correct a balance sheet in April, 1889, whilst as a matter of fact he failed to check some of the items in the said balance sheet and the whole balance sheet was misleading and deceptive.
Mr. FREIRE in answer to this says that he and Mr. Rocna examined the account in question, that they checked and compared amounts, totals, &c., &c., but did not look so closely into dates as it now seems probable they ought to have done.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.