25

H.—44

Mr. Mahony, Mr. Griffiths, and Mr. Cossar gave me any information, and showed me every thing I asked for. The accounts were really amended accounts, and not falsified accounts. The result of my investigations has been that there is no criminal charge for them to answer. My explanation concerning the accounts is contained in page 9 of my report to the Commissioner of Police. With respect to your allegations concerning the Arrowsmith estate: 1 saw every document and receipt there was to be seen, and I was positively satisfied there were no grounds for your allegation. The property was held by Mr. Hill as trustee in Arrowsmith's estate. Mr. Hill included in his declaration as executor in the Arrowsmith estate the property you occupied, as portion of the Arrowsmith estate. I embraced your allegations under seven distinct headings, and 1 found that-your (Mr. Greenhead's) allegations were insupportable by evidence. 1 had a long statement from Mrs. Hill, and at her house 1 saw Mr. Hill's ledger. I also saw Mr. Thomas Buddie, who gave me a statement in his own handwriting. (See letter attached to report of Chief Detective Mcllveney.) I took a copy of Mr. Hill's ledger, and that is attached to my report. The ledger shows that when Mr. Hill got any money from you he paid it into Arrowsmith's account. Your allegation that the Arrowsmith estate had lost control of your property was absolute humbug. After the 30th June, 1900, Mr. Hill no longer kept an account, and you will find the matter was then taken in hand by Mahony and Griffiths. Arrowsmith died in July, 1900, and Mr. Hill and Mr. Griffiths became his executors. Mr. Griffiths showed .me a letter to Greenhead dated the 17th April, 1901, demanding payment of arrears. It was signed by Hill and Griffiths. Tha"t was during the lifetime of Hill. My report shows that the charge of £17 16s. 6d. made against you was the commencement of the trouble. You informed me that if that charge had not been made you would have made no allegation against Griffiths and Mahony (see pp. 24 and 25 of my report). I say no offence has been committed against the Stamp Act. I have no doubt that the documents are genuine, and that the signatures are yours. W. B. Mcllvbnet. Taken at Auckland, this 17th day of January, 1908. before me, — Herbert W. Brabant, Stipendiary Magistrate. Inquiry adjourned until the 18th January, 1908, at 10 a.m., Mr. Greenhead stating he could not attend at an earlier hour owing to his staying some distance from the city. Herbert W. Brabant, Stipendiary Magistrate. Saturday, 18th January, 1908. Roger Harty Bourke states, — 1 am a clerk in Deeds Office. To Mr, Greenhead: With reference to deed No. 8937, the ten-shilling stamp was cancelled by me on the 7th July, 1905.^ When a document is received for deposit it is received with the deposit fee on it. I received the document No. 8937. It bears a pencil memo, by me that I received it from Mr. Mahony's clerk. It is impossible for me to say the clerk's name at this date, but Mr. Cossar did all the registering at that time for Mr. Mahony. I received it at about 10 o'clock on the 7th July, 1905. It might not reach Mr. Holloway for two or three days after that. The ten-shilling stamp would be on the document when lodged. The Deeds Office opens for business at 10 o'clock. It would not be true if it is said Mr. Wynyard deposited the deed. My pencil note only indicates the name of the solicitor the deed came from. To Mr. Brabant: The document 8937 has never been out of charge of the Department since. The numbering is mine, and the words " Received for deposit at 10 a.m. 7th July, 1905," are in my handwriting. It is absolutely impossible that a deed could have been substituted for the original one. There has been an audit since 1905. It is quite impossible that any other document bearing the same number could have been deposited since that time, because if there had been it would have been discovered by the Auditor.-^ To Mr. Greenhead: I cancelled all stamps in 1905. You could not have seen a document in the Deeds Office deposited during the year with the stamps cancelled by Mr. Holloway, or with his signature just beneath the stamps. We have never had a rubber stamp for cancelling stamps in my time in the Deeds Office. I could swear that my note under the No. 8937 was put there by me before half past 5 on the 7th July, 1905, or before 10 next morning. Mr. Holloway's signature would not be there on the 7th July, 1905. He may have signed it a week after that date. On the 28th May, 1907, Mr. Holloway's signature was on the deed No. 8937 as it is now. R. H. Bourke. Taken at Auckland, this 18th day of January, 1908, before me, — Herbert W. Brabant, Stipendiary Magistrate. Mr. Greenhead says,— Mr. Bourke's statement just given partly corroborates the statement I made in first instance. I stated the date as the 9th July, and the document I saw in the Deeds Office had Mr. Holloway's

4_H. 44.