h.—l3

46

28th, Mr. Ell applied for the appointment. I informed him I must inquire of Mr. Hargreaves what day would suit him. I wrote to Mr. Hargreaves, saying that "I did not see my way for fixing any date before July 15. Will that date suit you? Are you engaged on Friday 9th if I should appoint that day?" I received a note on the 29th from Mr. Hargreaves that the 9th or 15th would suit him. On the 29th Mr. Ell being told that the 9th or the 15th could be appointed —the first being subject to the Criminal sittings being over —took away his application. On the 29th Mr. Jellicoe was in the office, and stated to me, as the result of a conversation, that he was satisfied that Mr. Martin had the carriage of the order, and asked if—when the appointment was made—l would allow a long interval. I told him that the 9th or the 15th was convenient for Mr. Hargreaves, and that when Mr. Martin applied for the appointment a proper time would be allowed. On the 3rd July Mr. Martin applied for the appointment, and the appointment was then made for the 14th. 48. What happened then?—On the 14th I made a note " At 10.38 a.m., no appearance of anybody but Mr. Ell; appointment lapsed." 49. What took place after that ?—Mr. Martin took an appointment out on the 17th for the 28th at 10.30 a.m. 50. What happened then ?—The certificate had then come from the Court of Appeal. I remember that at the time the question arose as to what was the meaning of it, as we were aware that the motions to set aside the certificates had been dismissed ; but the Court of Appeal certificate stated that the judgment in the one action No. 353 was to be set aside, and the certificate of the Eegistrar and Accountant reviewed. Mr. Martin had not been at the Court of Appeal, and Mr. Ell could not explain, so that we could not understand what the Court of Appeal meant; the report of the judgment had not then been received. I then took down what Mr. Ell wanted. " Mr. Ell desires to be reviewed, in accordance with the certificate of the Court of Appeal, all the items in the certificate of the Eegistrar, both on debit and credit side, marked and ticked in red;" that would be on the account attached to the certificate. I feel sure that they must be the ones. " Mr. Ell also claims the £147 13s. amount of bill drawn in settlement of stock account, ' Exhibit H,' on taking accounts.be debited against him. Mr. Ell stated that there was no question as to the amount of the items. Adjourned until Wednesday, 4th August, at 10.30 a.m., for either parties to bring such evidence on the items in question as they may deem advisable." 50a. Either on this or a subsequent occasion a document called " Exhibit H " was required?— Yes. 50b. Where was it then?—l believe it was in Wellington. 50c. Mr. Ell lent a copy?— Yes; Mr. Martin did not object to it. It made no difference whose the exhibit was.

Thursday, Ist June, 1893. Mr. Bloxam's examination continued. 51. [Mr. Beswick.] Will you tell us shortly what took place on August 4th?—Mr. Martin and Mr. Ell were present. My note is as follows : " With reference to the item of £250, on application of Mr. Ell and by consent of Mr. Martin, to stand over till next sitting. Item £39 12s. 6d.: Mr. Ell claims this amount as having been included in the account settled between himself and Mr. Harper. Item referred to the Judge under Eule 422. All other items claimed to be settled to stand over till ruling of Judge obtained. Item Ell £50, April Bth: Ell claims that the amount should have been inserted in Hanmer and Harper's accounts on the grounds that all stock accounts previous to June, 1873, belong to Leonard Harper. Item referred to Judge under Eule 422." Next four items to stand over till after reference to Judge. There was further reference to items, and it was adjourned till Wednesday, August 11th. On August 10th I received a notice from Mr. Ell that by deed of assignment of June 10th, 1886, he had assigned absolutely to Henry George Ell all the judgment debt and others in these actions. 52. So that Mr. Ell had been proceeding with his action after the assignment to his son ?—Yes, and without any notice to us, till after the adjournment on August 4th. On August 11th, Mr. Martin appeared, and Mr. Ell. My note is " Mr. Ell having been adjudicated a bankrupt on August 6th, adjourned sine die." 53. Did you ever adjourn any appointment on the ground of documents not having been returned from Wellington?— No. 54. I believe at this time you did not know the reason why your certificates had been sent back for review ?—No, we had nothing but the bare certificate of the Court of Appeal. 55. You allowed Mr. Ell to go into the accounts as he wanted ?—Mr. Ell was allowed to go into the accounts as he wanted. Mr. Martin raised no objection. 56. Do you know anything of letters referred to in latter part of paragraph 13 ?—I know nothing of them whatever. 57. With regard to charge No. 14, did you ever tell Mr. Justice Johnston there was no money in Court on the Bth July, 1886, belonging to Mr. Ell ?—Whatever was told was that the money was paid in to the credit of the cause. Of course it was not Mr. Ell's money. The Judge knew exactly what money was paid into Court, and how it was paid in, on the 2nd July ; and there was a charging order taken out and received on the 3rd July. 58. With reference to paragraph No. 15 of this letter, will you explain the circumstances under which there was money in Court at anytime ?—On January Bth, 1886, £100 had been paid into Court by Mr. Ell as security in the Eakaia Island action tried at Wellington. On September 7th, 1886, £64 14s. 4d. of it was paid out to Mr. Martin under order of December 22nd, 1885. It was on account of costs which had been taxed in Wellington, so that there was no money available in any case on the 6th August, 1886; and on the 7th September, 1886, the money could not then be Mr. Ell's because he was then a bankrupt. Mr. Ell, before Mr. Conolly, admitted that he was in error in reference to this charge.