CO129-508-5 Supreme Court of Hong Kong- slackness of registry accounting methods 28-10-1927 - 23-4-1928 — Page 69

10-

regard it as any part of his duty to see that the proceeds were paid in and with this view of his duties the Committee

agrees.

The elimination of these persons leaves three others to whom one might look. They are the First Bailiff, the Deputy Registrar and the Registrar.

The First Bailiff says that he never received instructions to see that the proceeds of sales were paid in and that unless a complaint was made there would be no check on whether the money came in.

It was clearly the duty of the First Bailiff to see that the Distraint Book and Record of Sales Book were duly posted, and the Committee is of the opinion that he should have directed the attention of the Deputy Regi strar to those cases in which, after the expiration of eight days from the date of sale, these books did not show receipt of the proceeds.

69

Mr. Hill states that until quite recently he never realized that a large number of items were outstanding. He lent to the Company sums of $3,000, $1,500 and $1,000 in April, June and August respectively, and this lends some colour of truth to his statement. Nevertheless he should, from the books kept by himself, have realized the position. the more so as he admits that he received several complaints and that he had to see both Mr. Hodge and Wong Fung Sek with regard to them as early as April, 1926.

In considering Mr. Hill's responsibility in this matter it must be bome in mind that his duties have required him to be out of the office for fully fifty per cent of his time and that he has for years been consistently working overtime.

For many years the supervision of the whole of the accounts of the Supreme Court has been delegated by the

Registrar