EXTRA EDITION

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 39, 15 August 1905, Page 6

EXTRA EDITION

THOSE AFFIDAVITS. MR. FISHER'S JUSTIFICATION FULL TEXT OF THE SWORN STATEMENTS. GROUND FOR THE ALLEGATIONS MADE. STORY OF THE VOUCHER. The affidavits which have played so im- ( portanfr a part in connection with what has become known as "The Fisber Charge," arid which were placed in^ the hands of the Auditor-General yesterday, have been put at our disposal for publication. The matter is one of such public interest and importance, as indicating /the ground upon which Mr. Fisher based his assertions, that their publication has been awaited \vith the keenest attention. The full text of the documents is given, below : — FIRST AFFIDAVIT. I, William John Larcombe, of the City of Christchurch, in New. Zealand, a clerk in the General Post Office at Christchurch, make oath and say as follows: — (1) That I am a clerk employed in the General Post Office at Christchurch. (2) That at some date in the year 1904 there passed through my hands a voucher made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation of Defence stores at Wellington. (3) That such voucher is for an amount exceeding £70. (4) That^ I showed the said voucher to Joseph. Willis, a clerk in the Chief Clerk's rpom at the v Christchurch Pos.t Office. (5) The amount of such voucher was charged against the Defence vote, but I cannot remember which part of such vote. (6) That at the time I showed the said voucher to the said Joseph. Willis we both remarked od the fact' of such voucher being made payable at Christchurch. , (Signed)- • ' -"" W. J. LARCOMBE. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905— C. E. SALTER, A Solicitor of the Supreme Court 1 ' ' SECOND* AFFIDAVIT. ""T I, Joseph Willis, of the City of Christ- ' church, New Zealand, Cterk in the General Post, Office, make oath and say as follows : — (1) That I am a clerk employed in the Chief Clerk's office in the General Post Office, Christchurch. (2), That some time during the year 1904 I saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon for 'the reorganisation of Defence" stores at Wellington. (3) That such voucher; was for an amount exceeding £70. (4) That the said voucher waa ■ shown to me by William •J. Lar- ' combe, a. clerk employed in the Chief Clerk's room in th© Post Office at Christchurch. •- j __ j(6)_l distinctly -remember that the amount of such voucher was charged against Defence vote, but which part of such vote I - cannot remember. i (6) That at the time the voucher was shown to me by the said William James Larcombe we both remarked on the fact of such voucher being made payable j in Chrifltchurch. (Signed);, . '. J. WILLIS. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905— C. E. SALTER, A Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. THIRD AFFIDAVIT. I, i'homas Walter West, o! the City of Christchurch, New Zealand, a clerk in the General Post Office, make oath and 6ay as follows :—: — (1) That I am a clerk employed in ,the office of the Chief Poetmafitor' at Christchurch. (2) That some time during the y«ar 1904, I saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J. 8. Seddon, for reorganisation of Defence Stowa. (3) That Buch voucher was for an amount exceeding £70. ■ (Signed) T. W. WEST. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905, C. E. Baiter, etc. AGAIN BEFORE THE HOUSE. PETITION FROM MR. FISHER'S INFORMANTS. MORE OBSTRUCTION FROM THE PREMIER. The House was on the gui vive this afternoon in expectation that Mr. Fisher would ask leave to lay on the table tho affidavits by the three Christchurch Civil Servants relating to the alleged Seddon voucher. The galleries also were filled to overflowing, denoting the large amount of public interest taken in the affair. Mr. Fisher attempted to present a petition from Messrs. Larcombe, Weat, and Willis, of Christcliurcli. The Premier rose to a point of order — viz., that the petition dealt with a matter which was now before the House. He asked that Mr. Speaker should first examine it to see if it was in order. Mr. Taylor: Why do you fear it being read? The Premier contended that his point was a proper one. It might be .said it was done .to prevent the petitioners getting ' before the House the con.ten.to of