Terrell J:

This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge who convicted the accused on the following charges:-

1. That he, between the 2nd day of July, 1932 and the 20th day of January, 1933, at Singapore, being entrusted with certain property namely $3,825 in cash, alternatively 225 K.P.M. deck passage tickets at $17 total value $3,825, being the property of the Hock Hoe Hup Kee Kongsi did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of such property and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code.

2. That he, on or about the 12th day of February, 1932, at Singapore, being entrusted with certain property namely $250 - cash, being the interest for one year on a capital deposit of $5,000'- made by the Hock Hoe Hup Kee Kongsi with the NV Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij, did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code.

3. That he, on or about the 1st day of February, 1933 at Singapore, being entrusted with certain property namely $250 - cash, being the interest for one year on a capital deposit of $5,000 - made by the Hock Hoe Hup Kee Kongsi with the NV Koninklijke Paketvaart Matschappij, did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of such property and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code.

The accused was the representative of eight firms who had formed a partnership under the name of the Hock Hoe Hup Kee Kongsi (hereinafter called the Kongsi) for the purpose of obtaining from the K.P.M. and retailing passenger tickets from Singapore to Amoy. The accused's firm, one of the eight partners, was Chop Tong Hiap Hin of which the accused was the managing partner. The books of the Kongsi were kept by one Li Se Hong under the supervision of the accused. Li Se Hong also kept the books of Chop Tong Hiap Hin.

The arrangements between the K.P.M. and the Kongsi are set out in written agreements, Exhibits B and BB dated the 30th June 1932 and the 23rd December 1932 respectively. The first agreement was for six months and the second for a year. Each agreement provided:-

"The Company shall effect business and supply passenger tickets to the Kongsi of brokers exclusively through their representative Lee Siong Kiat."

Tickets were sold to the Kongsi at $17/- each less a commission of 4 on saloon tickets and of 7 on deck tickets. As from June 1932 however the K.P.M. also issued one free ticket for every 15 tickets paid for. This extra commission was not mentioned in either of the agreements which were signed by all the partners, and they all gave evidence that they knew nothing about the free tickets at the earliest January 1933. The possible exception is Ong Seng Hui who by a resolution of the Kongsi had to affix his signature to all documents as representative of the Kongsi in addition to the accused, and he did in fact countersign the receipts, Exhibits Nl-15 given to the K.P.M. which showed the number of tickets purchased, the amount of the commission and the number of free tickets issued. But as he cannot read English, knowledge of the issue of the free tickets cannot be imputed to him merely from his signature on the receipts. He is also said to have written Exhibit 15 which appears to indicate that he knew all about the free tickets. The document refers to 10 voyages during which 149 free tickets were issued. It was produced by the accused and put to Ong Seng Huis' in cross-examination, and seems to indicate that of the 149 tickets Ong Seng Hui took 48 and the accused 101. On the other hand the books of Ong Seng Hui's Chop, Ban Seng Chan, which were produced by Khaw Ni Su, a partner, show that the extra tickets which were obtained otherwise than through the accused were paid for in cash. Exhibit 15 is therefore by no means conclusive. If it is a genuine document and refers to the division of the free tickets between the acc