I.—2a

30

the Act, to send it to the London Post Office, who would take the responsibility of seeing that it reached the proper person ?—Just so. 723. Did Mrs. Eose ask your advice in regard to this matter of Miss Prince's'?— Yes, she did. 724. Do you mean before or subsequently to the receipt of that letter to the PostmasterGeneial?—Both, I think; but, if subsequently, there was good reason for her doing so, because Mr. Eose was absent from Wellington ; so that I think I was the only person she would care to consult. 725. At an early date in the history .of this matter, did she consult you?— She did. 726. Without any concealment in regard to these matters ?—Yes; with respect to the £500. I was aware in what proportions it was left. 727. You were aware that £100 was to be given to Miss Prince and £400 to. Miss Warburton? —Yes. 728. She asked your advice ?—Yes. 729. Did she appear to be acting on behalf of Miss Prince ? —Undoubtedly. She expressed to me that a great responsibility was cast upon her. I thought, in the interest of both parties, that it was necessary, in order to protect the whole sum, that she should consult a solicitor. I suggested that to her that she might see what was the proper course for her to take. 730. That, then, would be before her interview with me ?—Yes ; it was before she saw you. 731. There did not appear any deep design on her part to interfere with the money?—No; just the contrary. 732. Mr. Hutchison.] When the Warburtons came before you, you were to some extent familiar with the facts of this case ?—Yes. The morning Mrs. Eose came to me she said she had also received a letter, according to which it was intended to report her conduct or the conduct of her husband to the Postmaster-General: her husband's conduct being called in question appeared to affect her more than any allegations against herself. 733. You had not seen Mr. Eose ? —He was absent from Wellington. I had no communication with him : none at all. 734. You say the letter was obtained from Kirkcaldie and Stains's, and delivered to Mr. Eose in his private capacity ?—I may state that since I wrote that letter I have further considered the matter. I am of opinion that Mr. Eose could not have divested himself of his official responsibility: that is really what appears to me upon the further consideration of the facts. 735. As detailed to you, subsequent inquiry made you alter that opinion?—-I do not give any significance to the statement " in his private capacity." 736. But you are now of opinion, as Secretary of the Post Office, that the letter was handed to Mr. Eose in his official capacity ? —Yes. 737. Mr. Hoggard says he handed the letter to his superior officer: what is your opinion as to the person who received the letter ?—He is the official who is held responsible by the Post Office. 738. What should he have done with the letter ?—I could not say what he would have done in his official capacity : that is a matter of large discretion ; but, in general terms, what he should have done was to see that the letter reached the person to whom it was addressed. 739. You do not suggest that he saw that ? —I think that is what weighed with him. 740. You think that was consistent with his duty as Inspector ?—Yes ; the letter having been placed in his charge, he was clearly bound to see that every reasonable care was taken that it should reach the addressee. 741. With reference to the general cases you have mentioned, do you suggest that persons despatching a letter from England through the Post Office can reclaim the letter once it has been mailed?—No; only in certain cases. One of these cases is where application is made to the Post Office, and it has reason to believe that the letter has not reached the addressee. 742. Have you had any similar cases here? —I think we have had. 743. Suppose a letter addressed to a person in Dunedin, and you found that the addressee had left for England, would you have returned that letter? —No. 744. I am assuming that the addressee left no ordinary direction?— Assuming that person had actually left New Zealand, it would be returned through the Dead-letter Office. 745. That is not the English practice? —Yes; but I do not know what the Post Office authorities in London do in every case. 746. In the ordinary course, this (Miss Prince's letter) would not be considered a dead-letter? —No; this was not a dead-letter. 747. Suppose a letter posted to Mr. A., care of Mr. 8., Wellington, and the sender telegraphed to you to deliver it not to the care of Mr. 8., but to the care of Mr. C, in Wellington, what would you do ? —That would entirely depend on the reasons given. 748. Suppose the Postmaster telegraphed to you to that effect ? —The Postmaster would say what was his reason for so doing. If we were satisfied that it was a clear mis-address we might probably deliver it. 749. Is it not the case that a letter addressed to care of Kirkcaldie and Stains was diverted to the care of Inspector Eose ? —Yes ;■ that was the effect of it. 750. And no inquiry made ? —Yes ; all necessary inquiry was made. 751. Mr. Hoggard does not appear to have made inquiry ? —On receipt of Mr. Salmon's telegram, Mr. Hoggard went to Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains's. He found it there. He obtained possession of it, and gave it to Inspector Eose, being satisfied in his own mind that this was the letter referred to in the telegram; so that there could be no doubt in his mind about it. 752. But he made no inquiry ?—How do you mean ? 753. No application to any other person ?—He made the inquiry suggested by Mr. Salmon's telegram. 754. He made no inquiries? —He accepted Mr. Salmon's telegram as bond fide, Mr. Salmon himself being a Post Office officer. The writer was not one of the general public: he was a Post Office official,