CO129-387 - Individuals - 1911 — Page 242

(d)

235

That the shroff at times did not account for

(e)

his daily collections for 5 or days.

That the shroff paid into the bank only every

other day, instead of daily.

(f)

That I failed to put in writing a certain or-

-der which I issued verbally.

Yoky in Yor

1720/10

19888.

3.

I have already pointed out that the statements from which I gather the above are based upon misapprehension of

facts: but, as I now understand that they are to be taken as

forming definite and specific charges, it is necessary that I

reply to them as such.

4.

Charge (a) That I restricted my enquiry into

the working of the new scheme for the collec-

-tion of fees dc: to interrogation of my own

subordinates.

This charge appears to be founded upon my statement

(in paragraph 2 of my letter of 11 November 1910) that "I made most searching enquiry, more especially as to the shroff collec- -ting money, and was assured that he collected none". That the context suggests that I so restricted my enquiry I now see, but such a suggestion was not intended when I wrote the letter. My object in mentioning the fact that I drew the attention of Bessrs Messer and Osborne to the subject, in the presence of the clerks concerned, was to emphasize their complicity in the theft. As a matter of fact, as I have already said, (paragraph 4 of my letter of 16 June 1911), the enquiries upon which I relied were those which I made from the firms to whom my circular was sent, al

and in each case I received assurances that no money was being or would be paid to the shroff in their own offices. I did

not make any enquiries from either the Treasury or the Bank, as

it was obviously impossible for ther of them to have the rapotest idea as to the origin of the money paid in,

they

had