CO129-508-5 Supreme Court of Hong Kong- slackness of registry accounting methods 28-10-1927 - 23-4-1928 — Page 63

4

63

<

On Mr. Nisbet's return from leave in November, 1925 he was informed that the Company was being employed and he

continued its employment.

Enquiry as to the financial stability of the Company appears to have been limited to Mr. Hill asking Mr. L.E.S. Hodge. He says that Mr. Hodge told him that Wong Fung Sek, the compradore of the Company, had put up a bond of $10,000 to a firm of solicitors. Mr. Hill gathered that Wong Fung Sek owned property at Kowloon City. This appears to have satisfied him that Wong Fung Sek was a man of substance.

Mr. Melbourne, having some qualms as to employing a Company with which Mr. Hodge, was concerned, asked Hill about the Company and was told by him that Wong Fung Sek was a wealthy man and a large landowner.

Mr. Hill also told him that Wong Fung Sek attended to all the financial matters of the Company and that Mr. Hodge merely conducted the auction sales.

This information was passed on to Mr. Nisbet on

his return from leave.

All seem to have been quite convinced that the Company obtained better prices than other auctioneers (which is generally reputed to be the case) and Mr. Melbourne gives as additional reasons for the Company's employment that Messrs. Lammert were believed to have

become involved in financial difficulties and that Messrs. Hughes and Hough had not been so satisfactory as formerly in their conduct of sales since they ceased to have a European representative in their firm.

The responsibility for the employment up till the 12th November, 1925, rests with Mr. Melbourne, who neither sought nor received instructions on the question from any other person.