The Ward Farmers' Association.

Hastings Standard, Issue 376, 19 July 1897, Page 3

The Ward Farmers' Association.

SIR HANXAII GIVING EVIDENCE (By Telegraph.) (Per Press Axxoriatioii.) Dcnkdin, July 17. Mr Hannah said £ISOO was placed to the credit of the goods account to swell the profit on merchandise sold. He accepted Mr Fisher's statements concerning the 1895 balance-sheets. They were accepted by liim in good faith. Had he known what he did know now he would not have passed the balance-sheet, and would have had to increase the liability side of the balance by £51,000. Regarding the special grain account with the bank which was omitted from the balancesheet he could not remember why, but he thought it was because Mr Fisher told him it was a separate account and that there were special arrangements. The promissory note given to Carswell for £IO,OOO was omitted because therewas a dispute as to the quality and quantity of the gopds. In the 1895 balance-sheet jn reality £71,000 was omitted from The liability side of the balance-sheet. Now in the balancesheet £11,600 debits due to the association was partly made up. Being pressed witness refused to say whether or not the practices adopted in drawing up the 1895 balance-sheet were justifiable, but admitted that the state of the company's affairs had been thereby concealed. He accepted the secretary's statements as to the amount of advances and securities. He accepted the stock sheets and the manager's statement as to stocks in hand and afloat. He admitted that although the stock was valued at £17,000 there was £IO,OOO more stock which was Carswell's, and which was omitted from the balance-sheet. Witness again, after great pressure, admitted there was no excuse for the mode of drawing up the 1895 balancesheet. The hearing was then adjourned. This day. The early part of the morning was taken up in argument as to the order of proceedings. His Honor ruled that Mr Ilaunah be taken next, then Mr Ward after a reasonable examination, then the other witnesses if Mr Ward desired to have them recalled. Then j the Court could see how far per- i sonal explanation was necessary. He could not prejudice the case. Probably it would be reasonable to allow Mr Ward to be re-examined, but at present he could not say. At the same time Mr Solomon's objection was fair. Mr Hannah's evidence was then resumed.