130
0lerk, Lopez, to pay the amount. Lopez wrote an order on the receipt requesting the Compradore to pay and returned the receipt to Britto, who went at once to the Compradore*s office and received the cash $27.72. He did not hand this to the shroff that day. On 4th January the shroff found that the amount was missing and asked Britto who handed him the sum required. On 4th January Britto got two fellow clerks to sign
Promissory Note for $70. The Crown Solicitor thought it hight be reasonably inferred that Britto used the money on the afternoon of the 3rd, and was able to refund it on the
th from the loan represented by the Promissory Note. There was therefore, in Mr Bowley's opinion, a prima facie case of
embezzlement.
Mr Britto ad itted that he was in debt and under threat of exposure in Court. A warrant for Britto's arrest was issued on 23rd January,
but the Police reported that he had absconded from Hongkong. He was dismissed with effect from the 1st January 1906: and Sir M.Nathan censured Mr Botelho for not reporting
base (a) to the Harbour Master and for allowing shroff Teang to
ake up the deficiency of $64.12 out of his own pocket. Tsang also as reprimanded for his action.
It had also been Britto's duty to collect a fee of $15 from ach officer applying for examination before issuing the authority o the examiners, and it was his duty to pay the $15 to the office hroff Lo. But on the 29th November, 1905 Britto entered $15 as ald by one F.W.Shea, and he did not pay the $15 to the shroff ntil the 4th December. The shroff Lo was cautioned for not re- orting the incident to the Harbour Master.
Sir Matthew Nathan minute on 17th January 1906 "A very dis- reditable state of affairs in the Harbour office is revealed by hese incidents" (Conf C.S.0. 7084/06).
On 20th October 1909 Mr Botelho died: and on the 26th idem Wong Hau-nam, shroff in the Harbour Office, wrote to Commander
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.