43

H.-13

to £5,619 9s. lid. The claim as submitted by Mr. Martin, as solicitor for Harper and Co., after the evidence, amounted to £2,948 9s. lid., or a difference of £2,671. 135. Did you and Mr. Bloxam go carefully through the accounts, irrespective of these accounts that were furnished by Harper and Co. ?—Yes, every item. 136. And you allowed them and disallowed them according to the evidence ?—Yes. 137. Mr. Liish.] You were speaking of the question of a settled account ? —Yes. 138. Is it not a fact that Mr. Harper, in his evidence before you, admitted that there was a settled account of stock transactions, and, not only that, but repeated it. Do you remember Mr. Harper saying, about June, 1873, Ell promised to pay him £150 to close all stock transactions, and afterwards stating there was a distinct settlement—that was, a settlement of all stock accounts up to that time ?—I remember Mr. Harper stating that he agreed to take £150 to close all stock transactions up to June, 1873. 139. On the Ist December the evidence in connection with these accounts was closed. Now, at that time, this order had been obtained from the Supreme Court ? —Yes. 140. You knew what question had been referred to the Supreme Court?—l did not know it until afterwards. 141. Did you not know what had been asked from the Supreme Court? —Not until after the order was made. I may say that it is possible that the question might have been mooted during the sitting, but I took no note of it. 142. After the order was made, you knew, I suppose, it was in reference to that bill of £147 that the order had been made ? —Yes ; I. presumed that it was so. 143. On the Ist December, according to the Eegistrar's notes, the Eegistrar and Accountant ruled that there was a settlement of accounts between plaintiff and defendant in June, 1873; but that such account was an incorrect one. There, again, you are referring to the settled account in connection with that £147 bill ? —Yes. 144. Eeferring to the matter of £250, you remember the evidence being given in connection with that amount ? —There was no evidence until the deed was produced. - 145. Do you remember it being decided that the £250 should be credited to Ell, in connection with Minchin's land? —Mr. Bloxam insisted upon the amount being placed to Ell's credit up to a. certain point. I never agreed to it. 146. Can you tell me whether, after the production of those deeds, and the discussion on them, any further evidence was given on behalf of Mr. Harper on the £250?—N0. I do not know that there was any other evidence given up to the close of the inquiry. 147. Are you referring to the re-opening of the accounts in February ? —No. 148. On the 13th February, 1885, was there any evidence called in regard to that £250 ? — There was no evidence called. 149. On the 10th February there is an entry in the notes " Defendant to explain the matter of the £250 on the mortgage." On the 13th February Mr. Martin contended that the amount had not been paid ? —My note is that Mr. Martin objected, and explained the mode of the discharge and transfer. 150. Do you remember an acceptance of £150 which was allowed to Harper, with £191 interest ?—I am not quite clear about the acceptance. It runs in my mind that it was a cheque produced in payment of an acceptance. To the best of my remembrance it represented a bill previously discounted for £150, the proceeds of which went to Mr. Ell's credit; and when the bill matured it would be returned by Harper and Co. That would be the history of it, but I am not quite sure.

Wednesday, 31st May, 1893. Andrew Eoby Bloxam, sworn and examined. 1. Mr. Beswick.] You are Eegistrar of the Supreme Court at Christchurch ?—Yes. 2. You have been so for how many years?— About twelve years. 3. In pursuance of the orders of the Court made in actions Nos. 30 and 353, I believe you and Mr. Hargreaves proceeded to take accounts. What took place ?—We did. The accounts were commenced to be taken on July 11th, 1884, and the taking of evidence was concluded on the Ist December, 1884. It was then adjourned sine die. 4. Who first raised the question as to settled accounts ?—Mr. Austin raised the question; evidence had been taken previously. 5. Did Mr. Austin first want to go behind the settled account ?—Yes, Mr. Austin first wanted to go behind the settlement of the stock account. 6. And he subsequently wanted to vacate that position ? —I do not remember exactly the particular attitude without going through the evidence. 7. He applied to the Court, I believe?— Yes; for an order that that particular stock account should not be disturbed. 8. An order was made upon his summons, I believe?— There was. 9. That was the order of the 29th October, 1884 ?—Yes. It was not the order he asked for. " Exhibit 8 " was the order referred to. [The order was read by Mr. Bloxam.] The order made was that if we found there had been a settled account covering all transactions during those dates, it was not to be disturbed. 10. Did you find there had been a settled account covering all transactions between those dates ?—We did not, for the following reasons, as far as I was concerned: Mr Harper, in his evidence on page 4of my notes, stated that stock transactions closed about September, 1873. On page 7, he stated " there was no question in 1879 of any dispute between .them on the accounts." On page 16 he says, "the item £147 13s. Od., in account,'H,'is the one I admitted to be agreed upon as