and no funds. " " I never rendered any accounts. No one had a right to call for accounts;” and further on he says “I treated my schools as part of my property.” Such is the wide difference between the reality and, the representations made by the complainant to the public regarding that great educational body the Theistic Society and its schools, its resolutions and its; accounts.
That the Defendant knew that the complainant was imposing on the public in this way there can be no reasonable doubt. The Defendant has been intimately associated with complainant for years and Defendant was for a long time the editor of a local newspaper to whom as a matter of course all local news of importance would find its way. Knowing then as he must have known the difference between what complainant professed to the public and what he did there is small wonder that he formed the opinion that he was not a man of good character so far as straightforwardness and truthfulness are concerned.
16. As regards the way in which complainant dealt with the funds of his schools we have his own admission viz. “I treated my schools as part of my property.” That they were not part of his property and that he had no business to treat them as such is abundantly evident from the evidence and his own admissions in cross-examination. The Dowleswaram School it is proved was handed over to him as manager by a Committee with a surplus of over Rs. 500 in about August 1883, There is evidence to show that the Committee still continued to exist and take an interest in the school after the transfer. Complainant denies this, but even supposing the committee became extinct this did not make the school the complainant's private property, The school funds were clearly trust property which he was bound to account for and manage with the utmost care and prudence. Ex. LXXII the Educational Administration report for 1883-84 shows that the
