L—9

68

255. Was the payment made to him in the asylum?—l do not remember. Does not the letter from Mrs. Eeid explain it ? It might have been paid to Mrs. Kelly probably because her husband was in the asylum. 256. Do you remember paying a cheque to him ?—No. 257. A letter from Mrs. Kelly appears in the Kumara Times of the 13th November, 1882, in which she says she is " greatly surprised that Seddon should state he could prove I received £1 10s. 6d. (? £21 10s. 6d.) payable to John Kelly. I beg to deny ever having received any of the mOney. The only money I received from Mr. Wylde was £6 15s. Out of this sum he took 15s. for rates and £5 for Mrs. Eitson's house, and gave me a cheque for £1 on the 3rd March, which Mr. Wylde told me was all that was due to my husband, D. Kelly, after he left for Hokitika on the 9th October, 1890." How do you reconcile the statements made there by Mrs. Kelly with the letter from Mrs. Eeid ?—When was that written ? 258. It was a letter written to the Kumara Times on the 13th November, 1882, and that letter which you have in your hands was written lately ?—Mrs. Kelly says herein that I paid her in a variety of ways. 259. Mrs. Kelly says in her former letter, " I beg to deny receiving any money," &c. What does it mean ?—What I gather from that is that all I paid her was £6 15s. I suppose I paid David Kelly, and when he was in the asylum I suppose there was £6 15s. due, which I paid his wife. 260. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Mrs. Kelly continued to carry on the business of her husband as carter?— Yes. 261. And this £21 10s. would not be the amount referred to here ? —Not the amount paid to her. 262. John Kelly also received money on account of David Kelly, his brother?— Yes ; there was something to do with payments to him, but I remember but little about it. I think John Kelly lived at Kokatahi. 263. The Chairman.] Would this statement be correct: that during the years 1878 and 1880 most of the cash received was not paid into the bank, but disbursed through the cash-book ?—I really could not say. I have no recollection of it. It might be so, but I cannot think it. 264. Messrs. Kember and Scott, the accountants, say that? —If you ask me, I really cannot say. 265. Is it probable that you took most of the receipts of the borough and never put them through the bank ?—I should not think so. 266. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] As far as you know, if that referred to contractors' deposits it \vould be right?— Yes. I was told not to pay contractors' deposits into the bank. Now I come to remember, I think it was on account of this : that they were afraid that if they paid the contractors' deposits in and became short of funds they might not be able to take them out again. 267. The bank would collar the money?— Yes, that would be the idea. 268. And there might be other accounts come in of a pressing nature ? —Quite so. I know they were afraid to pay them into the bank on that account —for fear they would not be able to get them out again. 269. And, if it is found by the cash-book that moneys were so paid, it was to prevent the bank dishonouring cheques ?—Yes.

Thuesday, 27th Octobee, 1898. Eichaed John Seddon sworn and examined. 1. The Chairman.] Your name is Eichard John Seddon?—Yes. 2. You desire to tender some evidence?- —Yes. I desire to state that.l was a member of the Kumara Borough Council and the first Mayor of Kumara. I held a second term of office, and was a member of the Borough Council for some years. In 1882 I was a member of the Borough Council. I desire to say that the allegations made by Mr. Hutchison, the member for Patea, in the House of Eepresentatives, that I had admitted having drawn moneys paid and overpaid on account of Nathaniel Seddon from the Borough Council of Kumara, is absolutely untrue. There is no foundation whatever for the allegation. 3. You allege you did not receive any moneys?—l did not receive any overpaid moneys; nor at the time covered by the special auditors' report did I receive any moneys at all. 4. Do I understand you to say you did not receive any moneys at all ?■ —As far as my[memory goes, certainly not during the period covered by the auditors' report. I have seen the statement that appeared in the newspaper about a document being given to me in the Court, as reported in the West Coast Times. The words appeared in the West Coast Times of the sth April, 1883, page 23, [Exhibit E]. Now, taking that as it appeared in the newspaper —until I read that, if any one had told me of such a document, I would have said that I do not think there was any necessity for such a document; because, if there were any moneys coming to Nathaniel Seddon, Mr. Wylde would have given it to me without an order, and let Mr. Nathaniel Seddon sign the voucher on his return. Ido remember his being away at one time. I have been doing my best to recall the circumstances, and I recollect my uncle went away for a little while ; he may have had some calls to meet, and he may have given me an order, but, if so, it was during the time that I was Mayor. I am positive that at the time covered by the auditors' report, and for a long time previous, I received no moneys whatever on account of Nathaniel Seddon. 5. That was prior to the special auditors' report, you mean ?—lt would not be during the period covered by the special auditors' report. I was Mayor before that. If I received any moneys on account of Nathaniel Seddon, it would be prior to the time covered by the auditors' report.