H.—l3

2

6. "Time after time I was promised the certificates by the Eegistrar and by my then solicitor, Mr. H. S. Austin, and not until nearly the end of February, 1885, did I get any information. I was then told I must pay £88 4s. further fees before I could see them." The same remark-[applies to this charge as to charge No. 5, there being only the evidence of Mr. Ell on the one side and of Mr. Bloxam on the other. The Eegistrar, of course, could not issue the certificates until all fees thereon were paid. 7. "On the 11th March, 1885, I called upon the Eegistrar and paid fees, £88 4s. After I had done so I demanded the certificates. He refused to give them to me, and said he would hand them to Mr. H. S. Austin, although he knew I had, on the 4th February, 1885, withdrawn Mr. H. S. Austin's retainer, and had given him, the Eegistrar, written notice of same." It appears the Eegistrar only followed the usual practice in such cases in handing the certificates to Mr. Austin, for, although an order was made substituting Mr. Lynch for Mr. Austin as solicitor on the record, it had been made subject to Mr. Austin's costs being paid. Mr. Bloxam's evidence also shows that he gave Mr. Hoban, Mr. Lynch's agent at Christchurch, notice that he would hand the certificate to Mr. Austin, and no action was taken by Mr. Hoban or Lynch to prevent this. 8. "I then applied to the Eegistrar for office copies of certificates, and obtained them on the 13th March, 1885, when I at once saw that the Eegistrar had ignored order of Court, suppressed evidence contained in his own notes of evidence, and had also adopted the figures in statement rendered to him by defendants on the sth December, 1884, and by that means had wronged me in a sum of over £3,000." The order referred to in this charge is the order of 29th October, 1884, which states that if the Eegistrar and Accountant are satisfied that there was a settled account, or what was so intended, between Mr. Ell on the one part and Mr. Leonard Harper and Mr. Philip Hanmer or either of them of the other part, covering all transactions between 1870 and 1873, such settled account was not to be disturbed. Both the Eegistrar and the Accountant admit there was a settled account up to June, 1873, but state that in their opinion it was incorrect. We have coma to the conclusion from the evidence and documents placed before us that the Eegistrar and Accountant were in error in so going behind that settled account. At the same time there is no actual proof that they acted otherwise than bona fide in the matter. The allegations in this charge as to suppression of evidence and the adoption of the figures in the defendant's statement of account of sth December, 1884, are denied by the Eegistrar and Accountant, who state that in making up the accounts they entirely ignored the accounts rendered by both parties. We therefore consider these latter allegations as not proved. 9. " On the 10th day of June, 1885, the defendant by consent paid into Court to the credit of cause, £2,404 6s. 9d." This is not disputed. 10. "In August and September, 1885, the Eegistrar did sign and issue incorrect order or orders that were used to my detriment by the defendants." In reference to this charge we have had placed before us four orders, Exhibits 25, 26, 28, and 29, all dated 2nd September, 1885, being two different orders in each action. Those taken out by defendants were orders for dismissing motions to vary the orders of sth August, 1885 ; and those taken out by the plaintiff were orders dismissing motions on 2nd September, 1885, to set aside the certificate on the ground of mistake. Mr. Ell alleges the former orders to be the incorrect ones, and the latter the correct ones. In support of Ell's contention, we find from the Eegistrar's minute-book that there was no motion before the Court on the 2nd September, 1885, to vary the order of the sth August, 1885, that having been disposed of on the 26th August, 1885 ; but that there was a motion in each action to vary the certificate on the ground of mistake, both of which were dismissed. We are, therefore, of opinion that the orders taken out by the defendants were incorrect, and that the plaintiff Ell in consequence was delayed in his appeal for six months. 11. "In May, 1866, the Eegistrar sent a telegram to the Court of Appeal in Wellington which is untrue and tended to mislead their Honours presiding." While it is admitted by Mr. Bloxam that the telegram was incorrectly worded it was not shown by the evidence that it was intended to mislead or did mislead the Court of Appeal. As regards the question of the payment of £250 for Minchin's land, it appears that the Eegistrar in the first instance desired to give Mr. Ell credit for this amount, but was overruled by the. Accountant, Mr. Hargreaves, on the ground that there was no evidence of the payment having been made by Mr. Ell. Seeing, however, that the receipt for the £250 was indorsed on the mortgage, and that there was no other evidence before them beyond a mere statement by Mr. Martin, we are of opinion that the receipt should have been taken as prima facia evidence that the money had been paid, and that the amount should have been credited to Mr. Ell. 12. " But on the sth June, 1886, Sir James Prendergast, Chief Justice of New Zealand, ordered the accounts to be taken in accordance with the Supreme Court rules." This is merely a statement of fact. The Chief Justice's order referred to by Mr. Ell as evidence in support is the certificate of the Court of Appeal (Exhibit 31), remitting the certificate of the Eegistrar to the Eegistrar and Accountant for review. 13. " From the 9th July, 1886, until the 4th August, 1886, the Eegistrar on several occasions adjourned the meetings for the reason, he said, that the documents had not returned from Wellington. That is false." The evidence does not show very clearly that the meetings were adjourned because certain documents had not returned from Wellington, or that delay had been caused by their non-arrival. It seems, however, to be somewhat doubtful whether Mr. Harper's solicitor was desirous of hastening matters, seeing that he did not appear on the first appointment taken out by him for the reopening of the accounts; and it was not until 28th July, 1886, that the first meeting was held. We would point out in reference to this charge that Mr. Ell had assigned his interest in the actions against Messrs. Harper to his son on 10th June, 1886, and this was not notified to the Eegistrar until 10th August, 1886, four days after his (Mr. Ell's) bankruptcy. Mr. Ell having,