MEAT WORKS SALE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10384, 1 May 1925, Page 7

MEAT WORKS SALE.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

MORE EVIDENCE AT GISBORNE. (Per Press Association.") GISBORNE, Apirl 30. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the sale of the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company's works at Waipaoa to Vestey Bros, was continued to-day. In the morning the Commission made an inspection of the works. When the sitting was resumed, a question arose as to the non-produc-tion of the private journal. The Commission had previously taken time to consider whether certain loose ledger sheets should be produced. Mr Lysnar and his accountant, Philip Hamilton, were examined, but denied all knowledge of the existence of a private journal. Frank Porter, formerly accountant to the Poverty Bay Meat Company, was shown certain ledger entries, and said that they had been derived from entries in the missing private journal. He had handed all the books in his possession to the receiver. Ho described the dimensions of the missing book, which was supposed to have been placed with other books in Mr Lysnar's strong-room. Mr Myers, for the National Bank, and Mr Taylor, for the Government, insisted that the missing journal was most important, as it contained the closing entries, in regard to the Admiral Codrington up to August, 1923. Hamilton Irvine, receiver to the company said h© had given the journals and ledger to Philip Hamilton, but he did not know whether the journal referred to was amongst those books;. . In reply to the chairman, witness said the missing book contained important quotations as to why transfers of certain balances were made. The information was important. George Witters resumed his evidence on certain parts of the works, stating that when Vesteys took over the buildings were in reasonably good condition. Witness denied the statement of Mr Jolly that the works had been starved prior to Vesteys taking them over. Had Vesteys offered to buy the works at £465,000, and lrad the Minister of Agriculture agreed to it, h© (witness) would not have objected, as it was only a question of price. ..., . . Replying to Mr Jones, witness said he personally had not examined the charges made by Mr Lysnar and did not know if the directors had discussed them. He contended that the Meat Board had not acted fairly in regard \ to the Admiral Codrington, stating that Mr Jones had not included the vessel in th© shipping contract, Mr Jones contending that application was not formally made. Witness submitted that Mr Lysnar had made verbal application to Mr Jones for the inclusion of the vessel in the contract, but the offer had not been given the consideration expected. H© further stated that ( he would at least have expected Mr Jones to have advised the company when the contracts were under consideration.