A GREAT "CONUNDRUM."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13011, 31 October 1905, Page 5

A GREAT "CONUNDRUM."

THE AUDIT COMMISSION. EVIDENCE OF MB. WILLIS. "ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I SAW THE , VOUCHER," [BY TELEGRAPH. PRESS ASSOCIATION'.] Wellington, Monday. JosF.ru Willis, one of the parties to the. inquiry,, gave evidence to- e day before the. Audit Commission. In reply to Mr. Fisher, ho narrated the circumstances under which he, while a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office, saw and handled a voucher for over £70, made out in favour of Captain. R. J. S. Seddon, for reorganisation ' of. defence stores in Wellington. Witness had no political .feeling in the matter at all. He was not satisfied with the Auditor-General's inquiry, nor with the search that was made for the voucher, for he believed that if proper search were made that voucher would be found. ■ Dr. Findlay: Assuming that the voucher was genuine, and there was no fraud in connection with it, would it have been recorded in the. records? . - Witness: Well, yes; but apparently some gentleman knows how to get round the Department. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, then, if there was a "receipted" voucher there must have been a cheque. Will you tell us of any process by which money can be taken out of the bank by Government cheque or any other cheque without there being a record of the transaction? Mr. Justice Denniston: And in any case its absence would be noticed in the daily balance. Witness: Yes: but we can't say, because the cheques have not been examined whether there was payment made or not. ; Dr. Findlay: And if the cheques are ex- ( amined, what will you say? Witness: Only that I saw a genuine voucher, as I have said. Dr. Findlay: Can you suggest any explanation? Witness: That's a conundrum which 111 leave to you. Mr. Justice Edwards: You are not merely a witness called to say that you saw this voucher. At youi own request you were made a party to the inquiry, and we ask you if you have any theory to account for the fact that a mistake can be made in the matter, not by one, but by so many persons? Dr. Findlay: If Captain Seddon says he did not receive this money, will you say that he is telling an untruth? Witness: All I can say is that I saw the voucher, and the Auditor-General's inquiry did not satisfy me. ' Dr. Findlay: Are you satisfied now that Captain Seddon was telling the truth? Witness: I don't know what to say. What do you want me to say? Mr. Fisher: Your Honors will see that witness is in a peculiar position, because his case is now under the consideration of the Premier as to whether he should remain in the service or not. Mr. Justice Denniston said the Bench was inclined to the opinion that witness need not answer the question, but not on account of the reason which Mr. Fisher had referred to. Mr. Skerrett suggested that witness, as a reasonable man, would probably be satisfied if all the cheques and vouchers were produced, and he was enabled to see whether they corresponded with the names and claims in the Treasury and defence books, and no such voucher as that alleged was found. It would surely be demonstrated that no such payment as was alleged had ever been made out of the public account. Witness said he would be satisfied that no such money came out of the Bank of New Zealand in Christcliurcli. In re-examination by Mr. Fisher, witness said he had seen the whole system of Treasury and defence audit, and he did not tliink it was one that could be easily evaded. He did not suggest a system of evasion, but hehad seen a voucher such as he had doscribed to him. The whole matter was the greatest conundrum that he had ever met with. It was like a person witnessing a murder, and then being unable to find the body of the victim. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, as far as the evidence has gone, it appears to be impossible ftir a genuine voucher to bo squeezed through those books. It is just as if you had a heap containing, say, ,100 sovereigns. There could not be 70 of them taken away without it being immediately discovered. Witness, in answer to other questions, said the weight of evidence was against him in some respects, and in the face of Captain Seddon's declaration that he had not signed the voucher he would accept it as correct. He had no desire to injure Captain Seddon, and, indeed, only knew him by sight, but he still maintained that he saw a voucher such as he described, and which had been signed by someone.