CO129-510-14 Report of committee of enquiry into discrepancies and losses in government departments in Hong Kong... 21-4-1928 - 24-10-1928 — Page 123

Enclosure No.2.

123

Hon.C.S.

I agree with Mr. Hazlerigg, and substantially

for his reasons, that our chances of success would be

very small.

2.

I would add that the Bank's expert would be

able to attack our expert's evidence at his leisure,

and in dealing with such technical subject matter it

is never well to be too confident in one's own case.

Our case on the technical facts is, as Mr. Dovey shows,

none too strong, and a contretemps or two might be

fatal. For example, the Bank might be able to

produce a genuine cheque in which Mr. Black's

signature appeared to the left, as in the three suspected

signatures.

3.

In saying what I have said in paragraph 2 I

do not wish to detract in any way from the value of

Mr. Dovey's very able report, and it will be seen that

the instance which I have given of a possible

for

contretemps is one from which Mr. Dovey could not be

held responsible.

4. I have assumed that we would have to give our

evidence first. I have considered whether that could be

avoided but I do not see how it could. We would have

to sue, and I think that we would have to begin.

5.

also

It must be borne in mind that, as I think,

~

the burden on the issue of forgery would in any case

lie on us. It is true that a banker is liable for

paying away his customer's money unless he can show a

mandate to do so, but prima facie evidence of the

genuiness of the signatures is easy.

6.

To a wealthy client who believed that the

signatures were forged one might say, "Your chances of