Mr. Venkayya Sastry for April, May & June 1884. s Rs. 30–0—o Rs. 242—14—6
Some more items are given without dates, but the above items are sufficient to show that out of the Rs. 470 drawn by the complainant out of the Savings Bank in March and April 1884 he can only account for Rs. 242 odd by saying that he paid sums which did not fall due till after he drew the money out. His pleader says that he sometimes paid advances to masters but there is no evidence to support this and it is most improbable that he was making advances of pay to masters when we find that at least two of the masters sued for arrears of pay after he handed over the management. More over Muthuswami Sastri to whom Rs. 50 is shown as paid was not employed in the school till October 1884 and no advance could have been paid to him in March or April 1884.
We have further evidence to show that complainant was in debt and at the same time celebrated his sister's marriage in 1884. An unprejudiced person in possession of these facts would certainly have had ample grounds for saying that the complainant had misapplied if he had not misappropriated trust money entrusted to his charge. It may not be that Deft, knew all the facts now before the court, but he had ample opportunities of getting information from other sources and as long as the court finds that there is evidence of complainant's bad conduct about which Deft, might have come to know it is not necessary for the Deft, to put forward how exactly he derived his information.
17. Another instance of the complainant's misuse of money to which he had no right is in the case of the Pedda. pur school. He claims to have been appointed Manager of the school, but this fact is negatived by the oral evidence and the documents on which complainant himself relies do not support this contention. Ex. H is a letter written to the
