THE AUDIT COMMISSION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5731, 28 October 1905, Page 3

THE AUDIT COMMISSION.

THE FIFTH DAY,

A TEDIOUS INQUIRY. Thoir Honors Mr JusticeDenniston, Mr Justice Edwards, and Mr Justice Clxi s cr, tlio Royal Commission appointSi V, inquire into the colony’s system of public audit, continued their sittings yesterday. Messrs Fisher, M.H.U., and Willis who are parties to the inquiry, appeared in jiereou, Dr Findlay appeared for Captain Scddon, and Mr t. 1Bkerrett for the Government departments interested. Tho first witness called' was Richard B. Morn's, chief clerk in the OHioo at Christ-church, where ho had been for two years. In reply to Mr Skorretb, witness said tho dorks in that office who had to do with vouchers during tho yeeirs 1803-19 CH wore Messrs West, London, AVillis, and Roger. Witness had never seen a voucher in favour of Captain Sodden. In cross-examination by Mr Fisher, the witness said no other clerks had access to tho vouchers in tho Post Office in tho course of their duties, unless they went into tho Chief Postmaster's room, which they might do. Ho remembered a telegram being received by Mr Mcßoth, tho Chief Postmaster, from tho Premier, Mr Scddon, asking whether there bad been any payment made in Christchurch to Captain Soddon. Mr Mcßoth proceeded at once to write a reply to tho effect that he i had never soon Captain Scddon; but witness suggested that that reply should bo qualified, as ho did not soo how Mr Me Beth or anyone coaid remember everyone who came into tho office. Mr Mcßoth had not a very retentive memory. In witness’s opinion, Messn* Larcombc, Willis, and Lundon were reliable officers, and, so far as ho know, their memories were good. Bernard Murray Litchfield, manager of the Bank of Nov/ Zealand at Christchurch, in answer to Mr Skorrott, stated that ho did not know of any payment having been made by Treasury cheque to Captain Scddon. Captain Seddon had no account with witness’s bank in Christchurch, nor had ho deposited any moneys to his credit in the bank. Tho bank had no record of any choquo having been drawn on tho bank by him. Cross-examined by Mr Fisher, the witness said ho had made inquiries from Iho tellers in his bank, and most of them did not know Captain Seddon at all. Treasury cheques were nob endorsed, and thcro was no occasion for nny endorsement. John F. Mcßoth, Postmaster at Christchurch, in reply to Mr Skerrett, gave a description of tho manner in ( which vouchers wero dealt with in his office. A Treasury vouchor record-book was kept by ono of the clerks. There was no imprest account with regard to Defence matters. In cross-examination by Mr Fisher, tho witness said that Messrs Larcombe, Will is, "West, and Lundon were all good, reliable men—as good as the department had on the staff. Ho never had occasion to reproach them in any way, and would bo sorry to lose them. To Mr Willis: Tho other men had nothing to do with tho vouchers. He did not think any of them could a voucher. Probably more vouchers in •favour of Anderson Limited passed through the Christchurch. Post Office Ulan for any other firm in that city. ■The officers knew Anderson Limited’s rouchers thoroughly well, and would no

doubt often see Mr Sneddon coming to nnd going from witness’s room. On occasions vouchers had ,heen allowed to go out of the office, but witness retained the cheques. The record in the Post Office contained tho number of the voucher and tho amount for which it was drawn. Cross-examined by Or Findlay: Captain Seddon had never come to him with a claim for payment. The “Sneddon voucher” was in the handwriting of Mr Roger. Kenneth McKay Roger, a clerk in the 'Christchurch Post Office, said he had no reason for doubting the truth of tho statement that tho voucher record-book was accurately kept. He had never

Been a voucher in favour of “R.J.” or Seddon, and if there were such a document he would expect to be able to find trace of it in the record book. In answer to Mr Fisher, witness said such a voucher might have passed through the Postmaster’s room without witness seeing it. It was quite possible for a voucher to pass through in this, way.

To Mr Willis: Witness had never .known Mr Mcßeth to pass a voucher through. David T. C, Innes, clerk in the Audit Department, recalled, stated to Mr Fisher that he had not examined the Jt Sneddon voucher.” He was familiar with Captain Seddon’e signature. On the document produced, there appeared three signatures— two were “R. J. S. Seddon” and one, the last, “R. J. Seddou.” The last was the receipt. To Dr Findlay: He had examined in all 208 vouchers, and it took about nine hours. That was tho first search. There was a search of some sixty or vouchers mad© at Willis's re-

quest between certain dates specified by him, which occupied some three hours. The time occupied per voucher jvas about three minutes. Th© “missing vouchor” was not discovered. There was also a third search made of sixtyfour vouchrs, which took about the «amo time.

Dr Findlay stated that the number of vouchers that had passed through the Christchurch office for sums between £SO and £IOO during 1903-1904 was 6759, and 337 had been already examined, leaving 8422 to be examined. It was therefore evident that if all these documents were to bo inquired into the examination would occupy some forty-five days. Hr Findlay said it had been suggested that Captain Seddon had made a special visit to Christchurch in order that this money should bo paid to him, and asked the witness if there was any reason why this stop should he taken—if there was any difficulty in the money being paid in Wellington, without Captain Seddon making a special visit to Christchurch to receive the money. Witness said there was no such difficulty. Mr Skerrett produced a voucher printed on blue paper, which the witness said was made in favour of “Richard Sneddon,” and was for moneys in regard to a lunatic asylum. Robert Henry Williams described the only erasures that appeared in the books of the Defence Department, and stated that none of these erasures could have any possible reference to the present inquiry. Lieutenant-Colonel Chaytor, of the Commanding Staff, said ho bad never certified for any payments to Captain Seddon foi* the reorganisation of defence stores in Wellington or elsewhere. Bertrand F. Mabin stated that ho was the officer in charge of the Imperial pay branch, and was responsible to the Imperial Government alone for the discharge of his duty. They had particulars of every claim for payments from

the Imperial funds in their office. The payments made to Captain Scddon since January Ist, 1303, were, “February 27th, 1305., field allowance, £4 ss; Juno 24th, 1905, £22 Os Id, for arrears of regimental pay.” The reorganisation of tho defence stores at Wellington could in no sense bo a charge upon the Imperial funds. In answer to Mr Fisher, tho witness said they had an Imperial audit, which was of a very precise character. The certifying officers were himself and Mr Hey wood, and it was certain that one or other of them would remember any such payment from the Imperial funds, if Lb had taken place. Tho Commission then adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Monday, hut their Honors will sit in Chambers this morning for tho purpose of deciding what books and vouchers it is necessary to have produced in Court in connection with tho .inquiry.