H.—l3

18

the 10th June, 1886, had been set on one side by His Honour Mr. Justice Johnston. He gave his judgment upon that in July, 1887, and by that judgment whatever I had conveyed to my son fell at that time under the control of the Official Assignee ; and, besides the accounts I had already given him, there were further assets amounting, roughly speaking, to something like £5,000, and they had never even been, entered into the Official Assignee's minute-book No. 555, and they are not even till to-day. Had the Official Assignee done nothing more than collected the judgment standing to my credit in action No. 30, amounting even at that time to considerably over £3,000, there was far more than enough to have satisfied justly any claims there were before the Court. 338. Proof of debt marked "Exhibit 41 " —does balance due to Austin on the account attached to the proof of debt appear as £361 os. 9d. ?—That is so. 339. On the declaration he claims to have a lien on costs in these two actions ?—That is the case. 340. Leaving a balance unsecured due of £68 os. Bd.?—Yes; that is so. 341. Did you get a copy furnished you from the Official Assignee's office of the bankruptcy in No. 262 ? —I did. I applied to the Justice Department for a copy of this book, and in No. 555 also. 342. Was a copy of that book supplied to you?—lt was forwarded by Mr. Latter to the Under-Secretary for Justice, and handed to me by Mr. Haselden; that is in the fore part of 1888. The book produced is the book supplied to me by this office. [Book put in and marked as " Exhibit 53."] 343. In that book supplied to you in 1888, what appears in that book as amount of debt put in by Mr. Austin?—" No. 263, proof of debt in the estate of G. W. Ell: H. S. Austin, Christchurch, £361 os. 9d." I received this book in the early part of 1888. [Book put in and marked as " Exhibit 54."] 344. Before you got that copy of book from the Justice Department had you seen that original book of Mr. Latter's ?—I had. 345.. Had you seen the record of Mr. Austin's proof in the book?—I had, and copied it. 346. What amount did it show then?—£36l os. 9d. 347. When did you again see that original book ?—lt would be about a year ago. 348. What did you notice then about it ?—I noticed then, and called the attention of a gentleman with me to look through the proofs of debt and to examine the minute-books. I did so, and for the first time saw this £361 struck out and £68 os. Bd. inserted. I saw the alteration had been made. [Mr. Lusk here read paragraph 33 in the statement of claim, also clause 35 in reply to that contained in clauses 6 and 8 in statement of defence of Mr. Bloxam denying that any order was made. As regards paragraph Bin statement of defence Mr. Bloxam denied the allegation set forth in statement of claim. Statement of claim in action No. 1397 put in and marked as " Exhibit 55." Statement of defence in action No. 1397 put in and marked as " Exhibit 56."] 349. In regard to these two paragraphs 6 and 8, that the reference there made to 33 and 35 in the statement of claim are misleading ?—Yes. 350. Did they disobey the order of the Court ?—Yes. 351. Was there an order of the Court made on the 29th October, 1884 ? —Yes. 352. Do you say the disobeying of that order was due to the instigation of Leonard Harper?— Yes ; in this way, that the paragraphs adopted by in certificate 353 was almost in globo the accounts furnished to the Eegistrar on the sth day of December, 1884, by the defendants, Leonard Harper and others. 353. Did those figures go behind the settled account of June, 1873 ?—Yes, that is so. That one wrong done has been to a great extent the cause of all this delay and expense since December, 1884. [Copy of letter contained in the Eegistrar's minute-book —to the Justice Department —put in and marked as "Exhibit 57," dated 24th June, 1887, folio 682 in letter-book.] 354. You say in reference to the letter of the Eegistrar's in which he says the money paid in did not belong to you—will you explain what you mean by this clause in the letter ?—The reason I made that assertion is that, on the 3rd June, 1885, the first bankruptcy was annulled, and a week after that, on the 10th June, 1885, there was £2,404 6s. 9d. paid into Court by consent of Hanmer and Harper in action No. 30. 355. What you mean is, judgment in that action stands till to-day to the credit of cause Ell v. Harper with accumulated interest and costs in action No. 30 ?—Yes, that is so. [Letter from Eegistrar to the Minister of Justice, dated the 10th November, 1887, asking for costs in the action which Mr. Ell brought against himself and other in action No. 1397, put in and marked as " Exhibit 58."—Letter read.] 356. Is this letter false and misleading?— Yes, it is. 357. What is the true position of that in regard to withdrawal of case?— All the defendants in this said action No. 1397, in October, 1887, pleaded that I was an uncertificated bankrupt, and therefore refused to meet the charges. The Eegistrar had his choice given him in the case, as the action could not go on —as his name was joined as Eegistrar with the others—to stand to his trial on its honest merits, or to be withdrawn without costs. I was present at that time. The Eegistrar chose to have it withdrawn without costs. 358. Who appeared for you in the Court at that time ?—Mr. W. L. Eees. 359. Was it by his consent that the case was withdrawn ? —Yes. 360. Do you say no costs were allowed to the Eegistrar?—No costs were allowed. 361. Was an order taken out for costs ?—Yes, an order was taken out by the Eegistrar for costs. 362. Has a Commission previously sat on this case? —Yes. 363. Who was the Commissioner?— Mr. E. T. Conolly. 364. In what year was that ?—ln 1888.