1.—9

26

vouchers, whether forged or otherwise, were essential to the prosecution of Wylde in that particular charge. Do you recognise that ?—Yes. 191. What object could O'Hagan ha,ve to abstract them?—l cannot say he would have any object in particular. O'Hagan, who is dead, was a careless sort of person. It was suggested that he may have been in the office, taken charge of these documents, and taken the papers out and lost them. He was not a strictly sober man by a long way. One does not like to say such things about a man when he is dead, but he was particularly careless in that way. I heard Wylde accuse him of taking away the documents out of the office. When he could not find all he wanted he accused O'Hagan of taking them, and refused to go on. 192. Of course, Wylde was proved to be guilty, so that when he hurled charges against O'Hagan I do not think they would go for very much. Do you mean to suggest that he was habitually careless, and that, being addicted to liquor, he would abstract these documents in that way and forget all about it ?—Well, he was very subject to liquor. 193. Were many of his vouchers missing?—l cannot tell you how many were missing. 194. Could you assist the Committee to ascertain the number missing?—No, I could not. 195. Then, according to your statement, those vouchers were complete in the office in September, 1882. Have you any knowledge of what early period they were missing?—No, I have not; but probably when Mr. Perkins, the Crown Prosecutor, did not proceed with any of these charges, because when they were investigated the proofs were found to be incomplete. That would have been earlier. 196. It could have been only a few days. Mr. Perkins' opinion was dated 13th November, 1882. On page 3 [Exhibit G], you will find this: " With regard to the amount of salaries overdrawn, and the amount paid to Nathaniel Seddon, until I see the receipts for the amounts and the vouchers upon which the payments were made, and have further evidence to whom the items were paid, I am not prepared to give a decided opinion as to who is responsible in these matters, and, if responsible, in what manner." Well, Mr. Barnett, you became Mayor immediately after, and this is a much heavier charge than the one you proceeded upon. Was not a search then made for these vouchers ?—Yes, I think there was. 197. Do you know whether they were missing on the 13th November, when the solicitor wrote ? —Well, that is so. Here you have the first evidence of their being missing. 198. I should like to know whether inquiry was made if they were missing at that time ?— They probably were, because the solicitor was very often in the office at that time. 199. You cannot assist the Committee with regard to any action that was taken when the documents were known to be missing than the information contained in your letter of April—you have no further knowledge ?—No. 200. In November a search was made. Do you suggest any one who could give information ? There is at present only Campbell to be called. Can you suggest any one else who had access to the missing documents? —The man who had access to the office was Skelton, who was appointed temporary clerk. 201. Can you suggest any one who could assist?— Both the men are dead, and the man who took charge while Wylde was suspended. 202. I have only one more question as to whether you can make it a little clearer. Was each man involved, or inferentially under suspicion ; was there any suspicion against Nathaniel Seddon ? —That is where we differ. There never was any suspicion against him. 203. Can you give any reason why the matter was not followed up?—lt is a large amount, £219, and you are suggesting, as a business man, that Eichard John Seddon, his uncle, and Wylde, robbed the borough of the amount, and divided it between them. You are throwing a doubt upon my intelligence, because I did not suspect Nathaniel Seddon. 204. Was that suspicion ever expressed in any official document ?—I take it this way : that the official documents showed the mode by which Mr. Wylde had made those embezzlements. 205. There is Schedule C, page 31 [Exhibit E] setting forth these various payments as having been made in excess to Mr. Nathaniel Seddon. Surely, as a man of intelligence, you can say whether there was any aspersion against him ?—No ; there was no aspersion against him. I took in my mind to mean that it was easy for Nathaniel Seddon to have embezzled this money, but when we examined for the vouchers they were never found. We could not get at anything by the books. 206. Then, you did make a search for them ?—Yes. I cannot give you the date. The date you have here is April; but I am not able from my recollection to give you any earlier date. The amount upon which the prosecution took place would be determined entirely by the prosecutor. He would pick out the items. He must have looked into this, and finding it not strong enough for his purpose, took the other items. 207. You have raised the question of intelligence: do you not think it was a matter of duty to take action so as to clear the character of this working-man ?—Yes; as I showed you in my evidence this morning Mr. Seddon moved in committee to that effect. 208. That committee was asked to act in defiance of the decision of the Council, which required notice to rescind. Do you not recognise that a resolution of that kind is binding on a Council until rescinded ? —But I was asked to make inquiries into the alleged over-payment to Mr. E. J. Seddon's uncle. 209. Mr. Seddon's action was to get the Council to take the course of acting against a previous decision. After a decision had been come to by resolution these proceedings were taken and the whole night was wasted?— You see that was a separate action. 210. No, it was on the 16th. 211. Mr. Graham.] Mr. Barnett, I do not mean to ask you many questions upon this particular subject, and in asking one or two questions I shall not offer to suggest to you what the