H.—l3

6

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Eoyal Commission of Inquiry held at Christchurch, commencing on the 17th May, 1893, before Thomas Thompson, Esq., Member of the House of Eepresentatives, and Andrew Turnbull, Esq., Eesident Magistrate, Napier, duly appointed Commissioners by His Excellency the Governor, to inquire into and report upon certain complaints and charges preferred by George Waldock Ell against Edward Circuit Latter, late Official Assignee of the District of Canterbury, and Andrew Eoby Bloxam, Eegistrar of the Supreme Court, Christchurch. Wednesday, 17th May. In opening the proceedings, the Chairman read the Commission, after which Mr. A. G. Ashby, shorthand-writer and secretary, was duly sworn in. Mr. Lusk, solicitor, represented Mr. G. W. Ell, Mr. Beswick, soliciter; represented Mr. E. C. Latter; and Mr. A. E. Bloxam appeared in person. George Waldock Ell was duly sworn and examined. 1. Mr. Lush.] Did you ever have business transactions with Messrs. Hanmer and Harper, and Mr. Harper, solicitors, of Christchurch ? Yes ; for many years I had business relations with that firm and Mr. Harper. • 2: Were any steps taken in the year 1877 to get a settlement of accounts between the firm of Messrs. Hanmer and Harper and yourself ?—From June, 1877, to February or March, 1878, I did on many occasions ask Messrs. Hanmer and Harper to render me their accounts, as at that time I had sold my last property through them as my agents ; that sale is dated on the 4th June, 1877. 3. Did you ever employ an agent to assist you in the matter?— Yes; I employed a Mr. McHaffie, an accountant, from 1878, and he, from that date up to August 1880 or 1881, was trying to get accounts from the firm mentioned, but did not succeed until 1881 in getting an account of any description rendered. 4. Did you ever enter into an arbitration-bond ?—Yes; in April, 1883, I entered into an arbitration-bond with Messrs. Hanmer and Harper. Action No. 30 was to be commenced against the firm. It was then arranged by Mr. John Holmes for Mr. Ell, and Mr, J. C. Martin, counsel for Messrs. Hanmer and Harper, that the writ should be held over and that our differences should be settled by arbitration. 5. Did you commence actions ?—Yes ;in 1884 there were two actions commenced—Ell v. Harper and another, No. 30, and Ell v. Harper, No. 353. 6. Did you obtain an order in the Supreme Court in reference to these accounts?— Yes; an order of the Supreme Court was made referring the accounts in the action to the Eegistrar, Supreme Court, at Christchurch, and an accountant. At 12.30 p.m. proceedings adjourned until following morning, so that the Eegistrar of the Supreme Court and Mr. Lusk might arrange the documents required to be put in as exhibits.

Thursday, 18th May. George Waldock Ell further examined. Order referring accounts to Eegistrar. Accounts marked "Exhibits 1 and 2." In the action Ell v. Harper, No. 353, order of the 12th January, 1884, " Exhibit 1," and order of the 7th March in the same action, marked " Exhibit 2," order to bring in accounts by the 14th March. Another order in the same action (order of the 27th June, 1884), that accounts be taken by the Eegistrar and accountant, marked "Exhibit 3." Another action, No. 30, Ell v. Harper and Hanmer (order of the 14th January, 1884), marked " Exhibit 4." Also an order of the 7th March, 1884, marked " Exhibit 5," and order of the 27th June, 1884, marked "Exhibit 6." 7. Mr. Lush.] In pursuance of these orders, did you commence to take accounts between yourself and Mr. Harper and Messrs. Hanmer and Harper ?—Yes. 8. Was there any agreement made in connection with the taking of evidence in the matter of accounts ?—I only know that actions Nos. 30 and 353 were taken as one, and evidence commenced on the 11th July, which was the first sitting before the Eegistrar and accountant. 9. Did you go on taking evidence ?—-Yes ; from the 11th July, 1884, until the Ist December, 1884. 10. During the taking of accounts was there any reference made to the Supreme Court ?—Yes. [Mr. Lusk here read the summons of the 17th October, 1884, in action No. 30, marked " Exhibit 7." Also order of that summons, dated the 29th October, 1884, marked " Exhibit B."] 11. When that order was made by the Supreme Court you continued to take accounts? — Yes. 12. What date were they finally completed ? —On the Ist December, 1884. [Mr. Lusk here read the Eegistrar's notes, page 70, to the end, dated the Ist December, 1884, marked " Exhibit 9."] 13. Did you send in an account in accordance with the minute of the Eegistrar's? —Yes; on the sth December, 1884.