H.—2o,

2

11. It was proved that during the period during which he was charged with transferring property with intent to defraud—namely, between Ist November, 1887, and 31st May, 1888 —the said William Christie received from the said company and out of the securities the sum of £15,500, and paid away either direct to the company or in nursing and carrying on the securities a sum of £15,700, thereby showing that more than the full amount received from the company was accounted for as having been paid to them or applied for their benefit. 12. The particular payment or delivery adjudged to be in fraud of the company in respect of which the order was made, was, according to the evidence, a bill received by the said William Christie in respect of certain grain alleged to have been held by him, as were the other securities, practically to the order of the company, but which was the produce of a farm jaf which he was mortgagee in possession. 13. The said William Christie alleged, upon the said examination, that he believed that, independently of any authority from the said company to deal with the securities, he had the right so to do, owing to the large amount of money which he had himself expended in nursing and carrying them on. 14. He further alleged that the account of Messrs. Mackerras and Hazlett, towards payment of which the said bill was delivered, was an account for bags required by him for the purpose of harvesting the grain covered by the securities claimed by the company. 15. Under these circumstances, and having regard more especially to the fact that £200 more than the total amount received from or on account of the company during the last five months of its business connection with the bankrupt was paid by him either to or on account of the company, and that during the whole period of his business connection with the company he paid away on their account from £6,000 to £7,000 more than he received from them, we are satisfied that in making the said payment in respect of which the said order was made the said bankrupt had no intent to defraud. That the said William Christie had no notice specifying the exact nature of the charges to be made against him, and his counsel therefore were acting under great difficulties, and were taken by surprise at the evidence given, and it has since the order was made been "ascertained that the wheat in respect of which the said promissory note was given did not form part of such securities, and if proper notice of the charge had been given, and counsel had not been taken by surprise, this could have been proved. We therefore humbly pray that your Excellency may be pleased to cause a pardon to be given to the said William Christie in respect of the foregoing. Henry Aitken, J.P., Shipping Agent, Oamaru, and 177 others.

No. 2. The Hon. Mr. Hislop to District Judge Waed. Sic, — Oamaru, 11th April, 1889. I have had forwarded to me for transmission to the Hon. the Minister of Justice a petition of which I enclose a copy. I telegraphed to the Premier stating that such petition was about to be sent, and suggesting that I should send you a copy, with a request that you would be good enough to give it your consideration, and to send your comments to the Minister of Justice by the first available mail. The Premier, who is acting in the absence of the Minister of Justice, approved this course, and I have therefore to request you to act accordingly. I have to ask that you will particularly report the evidence upon which you came to the conclusion that the intent which the bankrupt had in making the payment was to defraud the company, also your views as to what class of cases are meant to be covered by the subsection under which the conviction was made. Please also state the reasons which operated with you in refusing facilities for -an appeal. I think it right also to state that it has been reported to me that you were, twelve months ago, if not now, indebted to the prosecuting company in a large sum of money, and that the company favoured you by often allowing the interest to be far in arrear. Perhaps you would state to the Minister of Justice whether there is any truth in this assertion, and, if any, to what extent it is true. I regret to have to introduce such a matter, but I think you will agree that it is better that such a statement should bo met at the earliest possible opportunity. I have also particularly to draw your attention to the last paragraph of the petition, so that you may state whether, if the wheat in respect of which the bill was given was in part or in whole not included in the company's securities, your decision would have been different; also whether, if other evidence than Christie's had been produced to show that the bags bought from Mackerras and Hazlett had been used for the company's grain, ie would have affected the matter. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Minister of Justice, whom please address by first mail. I have, &c, C. D. E. Ward, Esq., District Judge, Christchurch. T. W. Hislop.

No. 3. Mr. H. Newton to the Hon. Mr. Hislop. Sic,— Oamaru, 13th April, 1889. With reference to the petition praying for a remission of the sentence lately passed by Judge Ward against Mr. William Christie, I think it my duty to write to you. You are aware that I acted as Mr. Christie's counsel throughout the examination, and had therefore full opportunity of becoming acquainted with the facts and the law relating to the case.