59

1.—9

Gentlemen, — Borough Council Offices, Kumara, 10th December, 1878. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from his Worship the Mayor, covering copies of resolutions passed by the Council as its last meeting. In reply thereto, I have the honour to accept the appointments of Town Clerk, Surveyor, Treasurer, Assistant Valuer, Returning Officer, Ra;e collector, and Registrar of Dogs, at a salary of £350 per annum, terminable by three months' notice on either side, the appointment to date from the termination of my present engagement, in three months from this date. It is, for the reasons I have before mentioned, with considerable reluctance that I accept the appointment of Returning Officer, but I feel it my duty to bow to the wish of the Council, feeling assured that in case of necessity I may rely upon their support in carrying out the very responsible duties of a very imperfect Ordinance. Thanking you for the courtesy with which I have been treated, and the expression of confidence implied in my reappointment, I have, &c, His Worship the Mayor and the Borough Council. Jambs Wylde. It was the appointment of Eeturning Officer that led to the whole difficulty. 23. You said that the appointment of Eeturning Officer, which you reluctantly accepted, was the cause of the difficulties which subsequently arose ?—Yes. There was a member of the Borough Council —a man named Simmons. It became my duty as Eeturning Officer to object to him holding a seat in the Council. I had to proceed against him by direction of the Council. I anticipated something like this when I wrote that letter. I proceeded against him in the Eesident Magistrate's Court to oust him from his seat as not being qualified, and this led to very ill-feeling on his part. I think, if I remember rightly, further proceedings were taken against him for sitting illegally in the Borough Council. He was a man of very violent feelings, and from that moment he did all in his power to injure me. From that time arose all this difficulty. The man had ultimately to leave the Council, and I believe he had to leave the colony. 24. Had you any experience as a book-keeper and accountant prior to accepting that position ? —I never kept an account in my life, except what I had to do for the Borough Council. I had to inquire what I had to do and how to keep the books, and I found, after I had kept the books for some time, that the auditors objected to the way I had kept the entries, and I had to rewrite everything over again. I had never had anything to do with book-keeping. I have been an engineer for fifty-five years, and led an active life. 25. What was the rewriting you referred to : what does that relate to?— The local auditors said I had not written the things under the correct headings. I might have put down " wages " instead of putting down the man's name, and vice versd. They objected to those entries. 26. The* Chairman.] Entries in what ?—ln the books. 27. What books—the cash-book?— The only books I think I kept were the cash-book and ledger. Ido not think there was a bill-book. I tried to alter these entries to meet their wishes, and made a great mess of the books; and I thought the best thing to do was to write them out altogether again. I thought it was the best thing to do at the time to please the auditors. 28. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] A special audit took place in 1882 ?—Yes, an audit of the local auditors' audit. This man (Simmons) was not satisfied with the local audit, and obtained another audit, as I understand. 29. Were the local auditors aware that it was in compliance with their instructions that you had taken out some of the pages in the book ? —I think so. 30. The result of this special audit was a report ?—Yes. 31. When did you receive that report first ?—I never saw it until it became public in some measure. It was brought before the Council, and I was never given an opportunity of seeing it or explaining matters in any way. 32. You never saw the report until the Mayor called upon you to give up the keys of the office, and you had placed them on the table ?—No, I never knew the report had come in until the morning of that day when the Mayor told me the report had come, and that it was very antagonistic to me. 33. Not having seen it you could not have been aware of its contents, or how it affected your books or accounts ? —I had not the least idea. I had no possibility of knowing. 34. Or how it affected the vouchers you had ?—I knew nothing about it. They consulted another member of the Council, and the Mayor (Mr. O'Hagan) was always with them (the auditors), but I was not consulted. 35. Then, it was impossible for you to knew as to any vouchers, or what vouchers were missing?—l had no knowledge whatever. All I knew was that Mr. O'Hagan told me that the report was against me. 36. If it has been suggested or stated that, knowing the nature of the report, vouchers were removed by you, or the books were altered so as to meet the case, would that be a correct inference to be drawn ?—lt was simply an impossibility. I never had an opportunity of going to the office again. From that very night I laid the keys on the table I never had access to the office again. There was no possibility of it. I was never allowed to explain of say anything. 37. An attempt was made to give you a chance to explain?—l understood so from outside hearing. I had no further communication with the members. I believe in the newspapers it had been proposed that I should be allowed to give an explanation, but the majority of the Council refused me that right. 38. You saw the report, no doubt, when it did appear in the papers ?—I did. 39. Was the report of the special auditors, Messrs. Spence and Palliser, correct ?—lt was, to my mind and memory, utterly incorrect. I had no means of checking it then, and I felt at the time it was a grossly improper report, and I could only think that the erroneous information was obtained from Mr. Simmons and Mr. O'Hagan. 40. Your ledger, cash-book, and vouchers, you think, would never have supported that report ? —Certainly not; they could not do it. 41. Did you ever pay Nathaniel Seddon more in the way of wages than he was entitled to?— No; it was not my business to pay him. He was paid by the Public Works Committee and the