I—9

48

208. Who were the borough auditors at the time: were they Toms and Nicholson?—No, I do not think so ; Nicholson had resigned. It was two others. 209. Are you aware whether they went into the matter at all, or just stopped there after the resolution was passed ?—So far as I know, it was never acted upon; it was allowed to drop. 210. Can you, as a member of the Council at that time, give any reason why it was not acted upon? —No, I cannot, after this lapse of time. 211. What was your own opinion of the matter at that time?—My own opinion was that, as the special auditors had made a report, and the person who was supposed to be implicated in the discrepancies had been tried and punished, and no one cared to disturb the matter any more, they said, " We have had enough of this business, and we will let it drop." 212. From my point of view the Council should have gone further if there was any suspicion on Nathaniel Seddon ?—Looking at it from a local point of view, there was no suspicion against him. 213. The local auditors had suspicions ? —Yes. 214. And nothing was done ?—No. 215. Did you think it was fair to allow the imputation against Nathaniel Seddon to remain ?— No, it was not fair. 216. The It was resolved that the Council should take no proceedings at the meeting of the 9th November, and on the next evening a resolution was passed cancelling the appointment of the committee ?—That was the previous committee. It could not have been mentioned so long after. 217. Hon. J. McKenzie.] Did not Mr. Seddon move a resolution asking the Council to clear up the imputation against his uncle ?—Yes ; I have read that. , 218. Did they take any action ?—No, they did not. 219. Hon. W. Bolleston.] Was there not a very strong opinion in the Council that the auditors' report was generally correct ?—There was an opinion among the majority that the auditors' report was correct as regards the amount, but that there was a defence on the main grounds stated by them. 220. Who were the Councillors who held that strong opinion there ? Is this a correct report in the West Coast Times: When Mr. Seddon said at a meeting of the Council that the audit report was untruthful, Mr. Barnett said he could prove otherwise. Mr. Seddon replied, "Yes; as you are Crown Prosecutor in the business, I shall do my best to defeat it " ? Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon : You are quoting from the report of the proceedings in the newspapers, where he says I said this, but I do not know that I am here to be bound by a report in a newspaper. 221. Hon. W. Bolleston.] I only want to say that there was a difference in the opinions, and ask whether Mr. Burger held the same opinion as Mr. Seddon. I first asked whether Mr. Burger in this same debate stated that the report of the audit was unanswerable ? —Mr. Burger was at that time opposed to Mr. Seddon. He was of opinion that the audit was correct, and that proceedings should be taken against the Town Clerk. He was in favour of the Town Clerk being prosecuted at once. 222. Did not Mr. Burger take the ground that the report was generally correct ?—The Mayor and he took that line. 223. Was he the person Mr. Wylde referred to when sentence was passed upon him, and he said that there was a desire on the part of the Council to get rid of the vouchers ? —I cannot say. 224. Was any effort made to get another audit afterwards : are you aware of a further special audit?— With reference to the amounts alleged to have been overpaid,to Mr. Nathaniel Seddon ? 225. My question refers to this: Mr. O'Hagan telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary that a petition has been or is being forwarded to the Government asking for another special audit of the Council's accounts, knowing he would strongly protest against such a proceeding until the incorrectness of the other report was disproved. Was its correctness ever established ?—There is one man alleged to have been paid too much; that is a man named Kelly. It was paid in my presence to John Kelly. 226. Was not Mr. Kelly one of the men who was overpaid ?—• It was paid to his brother. That was one of the amounts said to have been overpaid. I was a storekeeper, and the amount, I think, was about £21. It was paid in my store. 227. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Any voucher for that payment? —No voucher was made out, so far as my memory serves me. He wrote to the newspapers that he had received the money. 228. Hon. W. Bolleston.] Did not the papers which were called upon to verify the letter state that it was not his, but written by some relative of his?—l do not remember that. 229. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] At all events, it was paid in your presence ? —lt was paid in my store to John Kelly. lam not sure of his name. I think there was another payment to a man named Kelly. I think that might lead to the Council stating that he had not been paid. But the next Town Clerk found his receipt in the office for £30. I have seen the receipt myself; it was afterwards found in the office when the man had written to the office stating he had not got his money. 230. Hon. W. Bolleston.] Was there any occasion in which Mr. O'Hagan appeared in any way corresponding in his position with the Mayor?— No. 231. Never on any occasion was there any idea of his being there as mentioned by Mr. Ward? --Certainly not. 232. What object could Mr. O'Hagan have possibly had in removing the papers?—l cannot say he could have any object. 233. Presuming Mr. Wylde had been guilty of defalcation, would it not have been in his interest that vouchers and papers would have been removed?—-It certainly w0u1d.... , ;