The- accused: asked further for another examination preferably by an expert appointed through the British Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Mossop said that this examination was held and even wider} discrepancies were found than in the first investigation. He alleged that! each of the three -statements submitted by the accused to the Bank showing the goods held ini trust in January, February and March of this year were false in material facts and were submitted with the knowledge of the accused and his intention was to deceive the Bank.
His Lordship raised the question whether the articles quoted by Mr. Mossop against the accused applied as.well to the director of a private company as to the director of a public company, under the law. The Grown Advocate argued that though Townsend, Day & Ca. was a private! company, it was the same as public company under the Act. The Ordinance, Section 122, defined the Private company as a company that restricts the right of persons to hold argue which witness" he had to [SAHeS, prohibits public subscription believe, the plaintiff or the defen- of shares, and restricts the number dant."
After some discussion he shares to 60. In a ease like the found that he could believe the de-
Yendant and gave judgment as above. one before the court, he held, there should be no difference between the! director of such a company and the! director of a public company.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.