( 36 )
Mr. Thurburn explained to the witness the methods by which, it was presumed by the Treasurer and the Auditor, Alves had perpetrated the frauds.
Mr. Thurburn.--Can you suggest any other check than a balance? A.--I don't think so.
Q.--The balances ought to bring out anything wrong at the end, say of six months?
A.--Yes.
The Chairman.--Supposing the system of your signing the receipts had continued, would you have signed them without seeing that the amounts were correct in Alves' book?
A.--I should satisfy myself of the total of the amount received for the day. If the shroff told me that his book corresponded with the total of Alves' Day Book that is sufficient for me.
Q.--Would you have been satisfied with that?
A.--Yes.
Q.--That would not have prevented fraud because you would have signed the receipt on Alves handing it to you?
A.--I would not sign without seeing the shroff's chop.
Q.--Suppose the shroff's chop was forged?
A.--Alves never brought the receipt to me. The shroff always brought it.
Mr. Thurburn.--Therefore you think the previous system was the proper one?
The Chairman.--Mr. Alves could still have forged the chop? A.--He would not dare to because the receipt would go to the shroff first.
Mr. Thurburn.--The proper way would be that there should be a rule that the shroff brings the receipt.
Mr. Bird.--The more hands it passes through the better. (To witness) I suppose when Mr. Mitchell Innes took up his position he confirmed Mr. Lister's order?
A.--Yes, it was confirmed by him in writing after it had been brought to his notice.
Q.--Did you never point out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes that you did not think it such a good system as the old one?
A.--No.
Q.--I suppose the balancing of the Crown Rent Book was no more difficult than the taxes book?
A.--No, I don't think the taxes book was balanced. It ought to have been, but I think it would take four or five times longer.
Q.--It was never balanced?
A.--I don't think so.
The Chairman.--It would be a very easy thing. You have the ledger account and that would show how much had been received for Crown Rent at the end of the year. How long would it take to add that up?
A.--It is supposed to be added up every month.
( 37 )
Q.--So the ledger account might have been added up every time? A.--This book (indicating) which is called a Treasury cash book is not really a cash book. We should call it a day book because from this book they journalise entries.
Mr. Thurburn.--I notice you have no account for each day. You simply bring down the totals.
A.--No, I had a separate book which I call a "telling cash book." This book was abolished by Mr. Nicolle and Mr. Mitchell-Innes from the 1st of January. It was a book that was found so useful that Sir Cecil Smith wrote from Singapore for a copy, and they followed it there. They tried to abolish it before, but I said that I wanted to keep it.
Q.--How do they check it now then?
A.--I don't know what system they are working now with the Bank.
Mr. Bird.--And you could tell the balance every day?
A.--At any moment.
Q.--Don't they keep such a book now?
A.--No. Mr. Nicolle said last year that he did not see the use of it. In that book I entered the number of the cheque and to whom it was payable. It was balanced every week with the Bank pass book.
Mr. Bird.--Your idea is that they have done away with that and have now got no detailed account with the Bank?
A.--Except the Bank book. Sir Cecil Smith admired my system so much that he sent for copies of the book. From that book I could tell at any moment what the position at the Bank was. From Sir James Russell's time to Mr. Lister's time I was the only officer to sign for the Treasury. Then they found that was too much for me to do and they introduced the system of every officer signing for his own particular work.
Q.--You did not point out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes who was new to the work that it was not a good system?
A.--No.
The Commission then adjourned until Friday, March 3rd, at 3 o'clock.
695
¡
( 36 )
Mr. Thurburn explained to the witness the methods by which, it was presumed by the Treasurer and the Auditor, Alves had perpetrated the frauds.
Mr. Thunburn.--Can you suggest any other check than a balance? A-1 don't think so.
Q-The balances ought to bring out anything wrong at the end say of six
months?
A.--Yes.
The Chairman.-Supposing the system of your signing the receipts had continued, would you have signed them without secing that the amounts were correct in Alves' book?
A.-I should satisfy myself of the total of the amount received for the day. If the shroff told me that his book corresponded with the total of Alves' Day Book that is sufficient for me.
Q.-Would you have been satisfied with that?
A. Yes.
Q.-That would not have prevented fraud because you would have signed the receipt
on Alves handing it to you?
A-1 would not sign without seeing the shroff's chop.
Q.-Suppose the shroff's chop was forged?
A.--Alves never brought the receipt to me. The shroff always brought it.
Mr. Thurburn.-Therefore you think the previous system was the proper one?
The Chairman.Mr. Alves could still have forged the chop? A.--He would not dare to because the receipt would go to the shroff first. Mr. Thurburn. The proper way would be that there should be a rule that the shroff brings the receipt.
Mr. Bird. The more hands it passes through the better. (To witness) I suppose when Mr. Mitchell Innes took up his position he confirmed Mr. Lister's order?
A.-Yes, it was confirmed by him in writing after it had been brought to his notice. (Q).---Did you never point out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes that you did not think it such a gool system as the old one?
A.-No.
Q.--I suppose the balancing of the Crown Rent Book was no more difficult than the taxes book?
A.--No, I don't think the taxes book was balanced. It ought to have been, but I think it would take four or five times longer.
Q.-It was never balanced?
A.-I don't think so.
The Chairman.-It would be a very easy thing. You have the ledger account and that would show how much had been received for Crown Rent at the end of the year. How long would it take to add that up?
A.-It is supposed to be added up every month.
( 37 )
Q.--So the ledger account might have been added up every time? A.—This book (indicating) which is called a Treasury cash book is not really a cash book. We should call it a day book because from this book they journalise entries. Mr. Thurburn.-1 notice you have no account for each day. You simply bring down the totals.
A.-No, I had a separate book which I call a "telling cash book." This book was abolished by Mr. Nicolle and Mr. Mitchell-Innes from the 1st of January. It was a book that was found so useful that Sir Cecil Smith: wrote from Singapore for a copy, and they followed it there. They tried to abolish it before, but I said that I wanted to keep it.
Q.--How do they check it now then?
A.--1 don't know what system they are working now, with the Bank.
Mr. Bird. And you
could tell the balance every day?
A.-At any moinent,
pass book?
I had this particular book
And the Bank often made the mistake of debiting the Govern-
Mr. Thurburn.--You checked that with the
A.-Every week. ment with a private cheque.
Q-Don't they keep such a book now?
A.-No. Mr. Nicolle said last year that he did not see the use of it. In that book
I entered the number of the cheque and to whom it was payable. It was balanced every
book. week with the Bank pass
Mr. Bird.--Your idea is that they have done away with that and have now got no detailed account with the Bank?
A-Except the Bank book. Sir Cecil Smith admired my system so much that he sent for copies of the book. From that book I could tell at any moment what the position at the Bank was. From Sir James Russell's time to Mr. Lister's time I was the only officer to sign for the Treasury. Then they found that was too much for me to do and they introduced the system of every officer signing for his own particular work,
Q-You did not point out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes who was new to the work that it was not a good system?
A.-No.
The Commission then adjourned until Friday, March 3rd, at 3 o'clock.
695
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.