1.—9

10

137. Coming back to page 63; on the top of that page are these words :" If one were to consider the public antecedents of the Premier as leading to this debasement of parliamentary and public life, we may trace in the course of an indifferent repute in an obscure part of the colony the explanation of much that otherwise would seem surprising." What was the repute of the right honourable gentleman referred to ? Was it indifferent or otherwise ? Do you consider that a reflection in your opinion upon myself ? —Yes, it certainly is. 138. How long have you known me ?—I think I became personally acquainted with you in 1870 or 1871, when we first met as members of the Provincial Council of Westland. I had heard of you for one or two years before that, but had not been personally introduced to you. We have always had an intimate acquaintance since that time. 139. Was the repute I bore on the Coast indifferent or, what ? —I have not the least hesitation in saying that the repute you bore on the Coast, and so far as I know throughout the colony, was the best, and it could not be fairly called indifferent.

Wednesday, 12th Octobee, 1898. Mr. Geoege Hutchison attended and made a statement. I attend the Committee because it might appear discourteous not to respond to the request addressed to me by the Chairman; but Ido not attend to give evidence or take any part in the proceedings of this Committee. I claim that lam not answerable to any Court or any Committee for what I have said in my place in Parliament. The Committee is already aware that I have stated I would appear before any fair tribunal to investigate the allegations now before the Committee ; or, if Mr. Seddon will forego his advantage on this Committee, I will repeat outside the privilege of Parliament the material allegations I made in the course of the Financial Debate. More than that, I will not do. The Committee must, therefore, excuse my further attendance now, or at any future time. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] May I ask whether Mr. Hutchison will object to produce the document —the original in Chinese which he produced in the House ? Mr. Hutchison.] That would be recognising the Committee, and I must decline to produce anything. (Mr. Hutchison then withdrew.) Mr. A. E. Guinness, Barrister and Solicitor, further examined. 1. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] You have stated that you appeared in the Magistrate's Court at Kumara and Supreme Court at Hokitika as counsel for the defence in the prosecution of the Town Clerk at Kumara ?—I did. 2. How many charges were there before the Magistrate's Court ? —Presuming that this Exhibit C, page 16, is correct, there were about twelve different items, amounting in all to between £29 and £30, which the Town Clerk was charged with having embezzled. 3. Were those counts brought before the Supreme Court ?—Yes ; he was committed for trial for embezzling each of these items, and the Crown Prosecutor selected nine of them, and prepared three indictments. The rule is that you cannot include in one indictment more than three acts of embezzlement. Apparently, the Crown Prosecutor selected three items for each indictment. The first indictment which was proceeded with contained three counts. The Crown had to abandon the counts for embezzlement and fall back upon the alternative count for larceny as a bailee of a cheque of £5. On this latter count the jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; but on the counts for embezzlement they brought in a verdict of not guilty. I may say that it was under the direction of the Chief Justice that the verdict of not guilty was given by the jury. 4. Of the three indictments there was a conviction upon one, but upon the others he was found not guilty, and discharged ? —That is so with regard to the first indictment. Then the second indictment was proceeded with, which also contained three counts, and upon that indictment the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty upon all the counts. The third indictment also contained three counts, and the Crown entered a nolle prosequi after the verdict of acquittal on the second indictment. 5. Now turn to Exhibit C, in the examination of Mr. O'Hagan, the then Mayor of Kumara; was reference made by him to the overpayment to Mr. Nathaniel Seddon?—Yes. I find it came out during the cross-examination by myself. 6. Go a little beyond that: "I spoke to Mr. Wylde about the auditors' report on the 6th November. I did not show it to him. I did not advise him to resign his appointment. I told him it contained some damaging statements. I did not tell Mr. Wylde to resign temporarily. Mr. Wylde said it would be better to resign until the matter was cleared up. I told him he could please himself. I told him that he was charged with having overdrawn his own salary to the amount of £119, and having paid Mr. Seddon £219 over what he was entitled to; also with having stuck to deposit moneys. I took the report to Greymouth to show it to Mr. Perkins. I did not tell the Council that Mr. Wylde had resigned on my recommendation. I was directed by the Council to take steps with regard to the report" ? —Yes. 7. Was Mr. Perkins, the Crown Prosecutor, present in the Magistrate's Court conducting the case on behalf of the Borough?—He was Crown Prosecutor for the Westland Provincial District, and also Borough Solicitor, and he acted in that dual capacity in the Eesident Magistrate's Court at Kumara. .8. .Then this reference was made in the Magistrate's Court ?—lt was. 9. Now turn to the evidence of Mr. O'Hagan before the Supreme Court ?—lt starts at page 18 (Exhibit D). This is a report of the proceedings taken from the West Coast Times, of the 4th April, 1883.