Engineer Cleared

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 494, 25 October 1928, Page 13

Engineer Cleared

Hearing of Murray Charges

“ Gross Misrepresentation ”

TIIE considered opinion of the Murray charges investigation committee is that some at least of the allegations made by Cr. AY. H. Murray are unfair and entirely unjustifiable.

When the bearing of evidence was concluded yesterday, any suggestion against the integrity of Mr. J. Tyler, assistant-city engineer, was completely wiped out, and called unfair and unjustifiable, and the committee saw lit to characterise another “charge” before the inquiry as a gross misrepresentation. “My own candid opinion is that the council has received more than it has paid for,” said Mr. J. Tyler, assistant city engineer, giving evidence relating to scoria and metal supplied to the city by contractors. One of the principal inquiries of the afternoon was directed to the allegation that Mr. J. Mathieson. overseer of works in the council’s employ, was owner of a private quarry which was supplying stone to the council. It transpired that Mr. Mathieson was registered as the joint owner of a property used for quarry purposes, but was not interested financially. He merelv acted in an advisory capacity, and the reason for his being included as an owner was to protect the children of the other owner in the capacity as a trustee. The co-owner attended and explained the position, and said Mr. Mathieson had never been called upon to provide any money, even to pay wages. Stone was sold to private firms in the city on the understanding that it was for private use. During the co-owner’s illness Mr. Mathieson paid wages, and it was admitted that he had been at the quarry in council hours, but as he at other times worked for the council over the usual hours he had used some discretion, and never interfered with council business. Private books were submitted for the information of the committee, and evidence to show* that Mr. Mathieson, in the same position, was also a coowner in several properties—beach sections, houses, etc. —with the same person, and had no financial interest in them. LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE Several witnesses, including council employees. J. Scott, L. A. Church and C. C. Duncan, then gave evidence asserting that though they had done work for outsiders, this was not in council time, but in the evenings and on Saturday afternoons. “Do you consider it fair to do outside work like this when there were hundreds of unemployed, w the Mayor asked Church. “Well all I can say is that they didn’t go far looking for work,” was the reply. The chairman said no direct evidence had been given that the men did the. work in council time. It was just what someone had heard. Cr. J. Davis: That’s our trouble. We have wasted a terrible lot of time inquiring into hearsay.” Church said the whole of this aspect of the inquiry arose because one of the other workmen, who had not been taken into the extra work, had sworn to get one across Scott, who was a ganger. NO CHEQUE BOOK John Mathieson was then examined regarding stone purchases, and said he had never bought stone from anyone. “The witness says you paid him with your own cheque,” remarked Mr. J. Stanton, city solicitor. “Well, I’ve never had a cheque book,” said Mr. Mathieson. On the evidence the committee came to the conclusion, after lengthy inquiry, that there must be a mistake in identity. The Mayor, Mr. G. Baildon, expressed the opinion that it was a pity the witness had ever been mixed up with stone works. Concerning his hours, witness said that at the time he was interested in the quarry he was starting work at 6.40 a.m., having ten minutes for carved ivory marble mantelpiece, and everywhere there are books. It seemed an ideal‘*place in which to write —and just as I was going to say so, Miss West shattered my illusions by remarking, in her direct way, that she did all her work at a desk in her bedroom!

luncli. and finishing after 5 p.m. It was only lately that he had not been working back at nights as well. He also was of opinion that tbe council had, in most cases, received more than its measurement. The chairman recalled that two years ago he had discussed loads with the city engineer, and had told him to cut out anyone delivering short loads, lc had been found that a short load was very, very unusual. A letter from the pit foreman of Morgan and Doherty stated: “Your Mr. Mathieson was always very strict about loads and Quality, and I am certain that your council always got the best of the deal.”. Discussing the steel cable left at the bottom end of Muddy Creek after the Nihotupu dam was completed. the chairman said: “It is evident that what we were told at the opening of the inquiry about this cable was gross misrepresentation. This cable was properly stowed.” Mr. Tyler: And covered with a thick black grease to preserve it. MR. TYLER REPLIES The final question before the committee concerned accusations against Air. Tyler*, assistant city engineer, mostly made by one Hale, whose dismissal from the council’s service was approved by the committee. Air. Tyler produced private vendors’ receipts for 25 kerbs, stone sets and bitumen used on his property, the suggestion by the ex-employee being thai these had been improperly secured from the council. The stone sets had been secured from the tramway department, and paid for at full current rates. Air. Tyler also showed that casual hands sometimes employed by the council had worked for him in their own time, and produced their time-sheets and pay-books. He had even paid the council for 20 yards of earth from Balmoral Road, carted by private contractors, and otherwise to be tipped away as waste at the expense of the council. “This is the first time that my integrity or honesty of purpose hs*s been attacked, and even on this occasion the evidence, shows most clearly that the witness has been labouring under some delusion, or has deliberately made misleading statements.” concluded Mr. Tyler. It was then pointed out that all the documents had been produced to cer*. tain councillors before Cr. Murray started his allegations. Councillors spoke with disgust of the complainants “continuing to broadcast poison even after the position had been made plain to them.” The committee was unanimously t>C opinion that there was a complete answer and that Mr. Tyler was entirely clear. “It is extremely difficult to see whv Air. Alurray’s solicitor led the evidence as he did.” remarked the chairman. <3r. W .Casey: It wasn't long before he threw in the towel. Mr. Tyler said he paid 10s a hundred for stone sets, and the tramway department had since sold thousands and thousands at 6s. He also said he built his frontage retaining wall at his own expense when he was entitled to get half cost from the council. He had purposely distributed his orders among nearly every contactor in Auckland so that there could be nothing against him. ‘'The only conclusion to draw is that what has been suggested is what certain people would have done if they got an opportunity,** remarked Mr. Stanton, city solicitor. The chairman was empowered to draft recommendations for the council and to submit them to the committee.