THE AUDIT COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5734, 1 November 1905, Page 2

THE AUDIT COMMISSION

CLOSE OP MP„ FISHER’S CASE. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Their Honors Justices Denniston. Eelwards, and Cooper continued their inquiry as a Hoyal Commission into tin working of the Audit Department am! the auditing of the public accounts of the colony yesterday. Joseph Willis, who had given evidence at considerable length on the previous day, stated, in reply to Air Fisher, -M.H.Ii., that no one had approached him to got information with which to cross-examine Captain Sedclon in the Taylor-Seddon slander case —neither Air Fisher nor anyone else. William John Larcombe, a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office, who had twenty-two years’ service and a clean record, was called. Air Wiilis stated that Messrs Larcombe, West, and London had been suspended for eight weeks, and their cases were now under tiro consideration of tho Cabinet. Ho trucccd that the other side would be fair to these witnesses and not prejudice their ease more than was necessary. The witness gave evidence generally corroborative' of that sworn to by Mr Willis. He said ho was certain he had handled a genuine voucher in favour of Captain Sodden. Air Justice Edwards: And nothing will convince you to the contrary?—■ No. Air Skerrett: It is the strongest claim to infallibility I have ever hoard of. Dr Findlay; Nothing will shake your belief that tho voucher was in existence ?—N o. A'ou know 200 or 300 years ago some men believed that witches rode through the air on broomsticks, and they wore mistaken?-—I don’t know anything about that. I only know that I handled the voucher, and to tho best of my belief it was a genuine one. And you have no reason to believe or suspect that anyone perpetrated a supposititious or bogus voucher?—No, none. Have you discussed the possibility of that with West?—Yes, and wo have looked upon tho whole thing as a mystery. You didn’t regard it as a mistake on your own part?—No. I saw a receipted vouchor charged against the Defence Department. So it comes to this, that either yon saw' a voucher or else you arc mistaken? —Yes, it comes to that. In answer to Air Skerrett, the witness said there might have been red ink writing or typo writing on tho voucher—ho could not say, as his inspection was quite casual. Air Skerrett; And on the strength of that you set up a claim for infallibility?—Tho witness was understood to answer in the affirmative. In reply to Air Fisher, ho said he was as certain that he saw the voucher as ho was that he was standing in that Court. Air Fisher; It has been suggested that you have had a careful rehearsal of your evidence; is that true?—No; certainly not. I have never had any prompting by anyone as to what I should say. In answer to Air Justice Edwards, tho witness said that although he looked upon tho voucher as a questionable transaction, ho did not look at the name of the certifying officer, which no doubt appeared upon it. Thomas Walker West, a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office, called by Air X-’islier, stated that ho had had about ten yeans’ service in tho department. Ho swore that he had seen tho “Seddon voucher,” and would swear it as long as he lived. He saw it in 1904, before the Seddon-Taylo-r case cams on.

Dr Findlay: How is it that every one of your men say tho timo was • before the Seddon-Tnylor case?—l am certain it was before. Is there any connection between this payment and that care?—Not,that I know' of- . Yet all your men say it was before that case? —I s.m certain it was a considerable timo prior to tho SeddonTaylor case; it was before Juno, 1001. Were yeti not promised that if you stuck to your statement a tion won!,! bo provided for you? 'No, that is not so.

Havo TOU ever ivrittcn a lottery in which you said you had been promised ii situation it you lost 30111* billet in. connection .with this case P—l have written a letter in which I said that a telegram had been received in which a gentleman had congratulated ns, or expressed sympathy with us, or offered a billet to one of us, or to Mr Willis —l don't know how the telegram was addrossstl. Have you ever written a- letter in which von said you had a promise of a billet if you got out of the Government service through this matter?—l wrote stating that a congratulatory or, sympathetic telegram had been received from a gentleman offering a position to Mr Willis, I think it was. Who was that telegram from?—A gentleman in Wanganui. Name? —Mr Wake. Didn’t you say yon had been offered 0110 or two things in connection with this matter?—No; I said I had received a telegram. And 3*ou didn’t say there was a billot open for you, yourself. New, didn’t yon say “ if we all get t-lio bullet, we’ll get situations”? —No, I didn’t say that; I said a wire had been received. Will you swear that you did not write a letter stating that Taylor and Fisher would look after you if you stuck to your statements, and 3’oll’d get billets? —l’ll swear I didn’t. Mr Justice Denuiston: Who was your letter written to?—A private friend of mine—a young lady. Mr Willis: That is the only letter you have ivrittcn in connection with this matter?—Yes. And yon know that that letter was copied or stolon from the ladies’ gallery in the House of Representatives?— Yes. Witness, in answer to Mr Fisher, said it was impossible for any outside person to have placed that voucher in the tray in the Chief Postmaster’s room. No search which did not produce the actual voucher or show where it had gone could possibly satisfy him. David Thomas Lundon, who stated that hp had been a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office for seven years and a half, ga *e evidence to the effect that he had seen tho “ missing voucher.” In reply to Mr Fisher, he said he did not

suffer from nightmare or hallucinations, and had no grievance against the Government. Ho did not know Captain Seddon, but ho took notice of his signature, because ho was aware that Captain Seddon was the son of the Premier.

This concluded the evidence called by Mr Fisher. Mr Willis asked that if a search of the documents and vouchers were to be made, Messrs Lareomho and West should bo allowed to act in Lis place. Mr Sherrctt warmly protested that 3Xr Willis had asked over and over again for tills search, and, therefore, he should remain and see it carried through. Mr Willis said ho had "been suspended for eight weeks, and it was very hard cn him that he should be compelled to remain here at his own expense. Mr Skcrrett said the search could be made in two days, if any reasonable diligence was exercised. Their Honors pointed out that Mr Willis, at the request of Mr Taylor, •U.H.Ii., had been joined as a party to the inquiry, and was one of those who desired the inquiry to be held, its to the question of has expenses, that was a matter winch the Commission had power to deal with, but their Honors would not commit themselves on the subject at present.

The Commission then adjourned until 10.30 o’clock this morning.