H.—l3

30

301. You were asked some questions about Mr. Nathan's so-called agreement. Mr. Beswick asked whether it was not a fact, that, on the strength of that agreement you got advances from Nathan. I wish to ask you, did you get a single advance from Nathan after the signing of that so-called agreement?— Certainly not. 302. Is it not a fact that, on account of non-agreement as to the terms of that agreement, Mr. Ell had no more dealings with Mr. Nathan? —Yes. 303. I believe you wanted a fixed time put in that agreement ? —Yes. 304. What time was that ? —lt happened in September, and the understanding between me and Nathan was that this arrangement would only extend to November, 1883. 305. Mr. Nathan would not agree to that, would he ?—No. 306. After that you had no further dealings with him at all?— After that I had no further transactions at all. [Eesident Magistrate's Court paper in case Austin v. Ell, dated March 1886, put in and marked as " Exhibit 70."] 307. The Chairman.] You say the unfinished agreement was made for further advances ? Did you take any steps to have the agreement cancelled in any way ? —No, I did not. I never went to Nathan's office afterwards. I looked upon the matter as of no value whatever. 308. Yesterday some questions were asked Mr. Ell, relative to the withdrawal of some summonses on the 4th August, in accordance with the supposed arrangement between Mr. Hamersley and Mr. Martin. From whom did you get your information in regard to that ? —From Mr. Hamersley, my counsel at that time. 309. Did Mr. Hamersley withdraw the motions?—He withdrew them himself. 310. The Commissioners asked you a question just now as to when that agreement was to become operative; from what date ?—From September 1884; the moneys I had borrowed. I had borrowed money from 1883 at the rate I have already stated —namely, if I wanted £1 I gave an 1.0. U. for double that amount. The agreement of Nathan's was to apply to the 1.0.U.s already given for the double amounts to Nathan, because that matter was settled. I paid, or agreed tp do so, 100 per cent, on all small sums I had received during 1883 and part of 1884, and this was afresh matter proposed by Mr. Nathan. [Extract from newspapers put in and marked as " Exhibit 71."] James McHaffie sworn and examined : 1. Mr. Lush.] You know of these actions between Ell and Harper and Co. ?-—Yes, I know of them. 2. Do you remember accounts being taken in these actions ?—I do; I was present at all meetings up to the Ist December, 1884. 3. I believe you were acting as accountant for Mr. Ell, ajid assisted him in preparing accounts ? —I did so. 4. In your capacity as accountant did you have an opportunity of seeing the method of bookkeeping followed by Mr. Harper ?—I did. 5. Can you say whether it was complete, or whether it was very bad, or what it was ? —The accounts that came under my notice from Mr. Harper's office were the most disgraceful accounts that a merchant could give to a client. 6. Can you state whether there was any sum of money paid by Mr. Ell to Mr. Harper, and not accounted for in any way in Mr. Harper's books? What amount? —There were two notable amounts. 7. What was the extent of them ? —Before the arbitration held under the surveillance of Mr. Martin and Mr. Holmes there were some ten or eleven sums, amounting in all to £1,200, which did not appear in Harper's first account that he rendered to me personally. 8. Did you prove that those had been paid to Mr. Harper?— Yes, I proved it; and they were subsequently added to the second account rendered to me. The second notable instance was on the taking of the accounts, when I further proved items amounting to over £1,000, which were admitted by the Eegistrar and Accountant, and appeared in the certificate to the accounts. 9. Were those amounts in Mr. Harper's books ?—They did not give credit for them in their accounts. 10. Can you tell me between what years those moneys were received by Harper and Co. from Mr. Ell? —The first £1,200 that I mentioned was received between November, 1870, and the month of March, 1873; and the other part of them during the same period, £300 and a moiety of that between then and 1875. In their accounts they gave credit for over £2,000 in their accounts to Ell, which made the gross amount that they received from Ell during the five from 1870 to 1875 within a few pounds of £5,000. 11. You remember in the taking of those accounts, that the item of £250 in Minchin's land came up ?—I do remember it. 12. Was payment of that amount proved by you on the taking of the accounts ?—lt was proved during the taking of the accounts. 13. Was an entry made in the Eegistrar's notes allowing that amount to Mr. Ell ?—That is so. 14. Was there any evidence whatever called after that on Mr. Harper's behalf to show that it was not paid?— There was not. 15. You say from the year 1870, when this sale of Minchin's land was made, up to the year 1875, when the discharge was put on the mortgage, Harper and Co. had received a very large sum of money which they had not accounted for?— Yes. 16. Do you remember another item of £150, an acceptance, allowed to Harper on the taking of the accounts ?—Yes, I remember. 17. Was that acceptance produced?—No, it was not. 18. Was there any evidence brought before the Eegistrar and Accountant of its existence ?— No, none to satisfy me.