CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12] — Page 122

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

119

carried no mails between Colombo and Bombay. Two mails were mis-directed by the Hong Kong Post Office to Bombay but the Postmaster General at Colombo intercepted them there and sent them on to Tuticorine.

The special attention of the Post Office Accountant was however not called to the charge, and in making out the transit charges accounts for the years 1895 and 1896 he credited the P & O with having carried mails from Colombo to Bombay, taking as his basis the statistics of mails sent to Tuticorine.

The accounts were accepted by the P & O agent (who could not have made the slightest investigation) and the sums of $1,009.25 for 1895 and $1,013.60 for 1896 were accordingly paid over.

Subsequently on receipt of the Inter-Administration accounts from India, my accountant discovered his mistake by finding out that this office was charged conveyance from Colombo to Tuticorine.

On the statistical month (November) in each of the years 1895 and 1896 no mails were conveyed by P & O non-contract steamers either wholly or partially to India.

My contention is that as the basis of payment, viz: - the statistics taken during the month of November in the two years, was nil, no payment was due under the agreement set forth in the Postmaster General's letter paragraph 5 c.d.e. and that the payments made were on a mistake of fact (viz: - that mails were going as formerly to Bombay).

The

Edit History

2026-05-31 09:01:56 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

C 119 carried no mails between Colombo and Bombay. Two mails were mis-directed by the Hong Kong Post Office to Bombay but the Postmaster General at Colombo intercepted them there and sent them on to Tuticorine. The special attention of the Post Office Accountant was however not called to the charge, and in making out the transit charges accounts for the years 1895 and 1896 he credited the P & O with having carried mails from Colombo to Bombay, taking as his basis the statistics of mails sent to Tuticorine. The accounts were accepted by the P & O agent (who could not have made the slightest investigation) and the sums of $1,009.25 for 1895 and $1,013.60 for 1896 were accordingly paid over. Subsequently on receipt of the Inter-Administration accounts from India, my accountant discovered his mistake by finding out that this office was charged conveyance from Colombo to Tuticorine. On the statistical month (November) in each of the years 1895 and 1896 no mails were conveyed by P & O non-contract steamers either wholly or partially to India. My contention is that as the basis of payment, viz: - the statistics taken during the month of November in the two years, was nil, no payment was due under the agreement set forth in the Postmaster General's letter paragraph 5 c.d.e. and that the payments made were on a mistake of fact (viz: - that mails were going as formerly to Bombay). The

Baseline (Original)

> C 119 carried no mails between Colombo and Bombay. Two mails were mis-directed by the HongKong Post Office to Bombay but the Postmaster General at Colombo in- tercepted them there and sent them on to Tuticorine. The special attention of the Post Office Accountant was however not called to the charge, and in making out the transit charges accounts for the years 1896 and 1896 he credited the P and 0 with having carried mails from Colombo to Bombay, taking as his basis the statistics of mails sent to Tuticorine. The accounts were accepted by the P and 0 agent (who could not have made the slightest inves- tigation) and the sums of $1,009,25 for 1895 and $1,013.60 for 1896 were accordingly paid over. Subsequently on receipt of the Inter-Adminis- tration accounts from India,my accountant discovered his mistake by finding out that this office was charged conveyance from Colombo to Tuticorine. On the statistical month ( November ) in each of the years 1895 and 1896 no mails were conveyed by P and 0 non-contract steamers either wholly or par- tially to India. My contention is that as the basis of pay- ment,Viz:- the statistics taken during the month of November in the two years,was nil, no payment was due under the agreement set forth in the Postmaster General's letter paragraph 5 c.d. e. and that the payments made were on a mistake of fact (Viz: - that mails were going as formerly to Bombay). • The

2026-05-31 09:01:56 · Baseline

View content

119

carried no mails between Colombo and Bombay. Two

mails were mis-directed by the HongKong Post Office to Bombay but the Postmaster General at Colombo in-

tercepted them there and sent them on to Tuticorine.

The special attention of the Post Office

Accountant was however not called to the charge, and in making out the transit charges accounts for the years 1896 and 1896 he credited the P and 0 with

having carried mails from Colombo to Bombay, taking as

his basis the statistics of mails sent to Tuticorine.

The accounts were accepted by the P and 0

agent (who could not have made the slightest inves-

tigation) and the sums of $1,009,25 for 1895 and

$1,013.60 for 1896 were accordingly paid over.

Subsequently on receipt of the Inter-Adminis-

tration accounts from India,my accountant discovered

his mistake by finding out that this office was charged

conveyance from Colombo to Tuticorine.

On the statistical month ( November ) in

each of the years 1895 and 1896 no mails were conveyed

by P and 0 non-contract steamers either wholly or par-

tially to India.

My contention is that as the basis of pay-

ment,Viz:- the statistics taken during the month of

November in the two years,was nil, no payment was

due under the agreement set forth in the Postmaster

General's letter paragraph 5 c.d. e. and that the

payments made were on a mistake of fact (Viz: - that

mails were going as formerly to Bombay).

•

The

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.