H.—l3

5

In reference to the remaining charges against the Official Assignee—namely : (1) As to moneys standing to Mr. Ell's credit; (2) as to no entry of assets in minute-book in bankruptcy No. 555, and (3) as to the admission of Mr. Austin's proof of debt, we beg to state as follows : — 1. No evidence was produced in support of this statement. If there were any such moneys they would be standing to the credit of the cause, and not available for Mr. Ell. 2. The Official Assignee appears to have considered that there was no value in these assets, as they had been assigned to Mr. Ell's son on 10th June, 1886; and, after the assignment was set aside on 26th July, 1887, the creditors took no steps to assist the Assignee in prosecuting the actions, and he had no funds available for such purpose. 3. We have already referred to this matter in connection with charge No. 4, to which we would add that, even if it were as stated by Mr. Ell, it was a proof of debt in the annulled bankruptcy, and no damage accrued to him. We have the honour to report that, in our opinion, the result of this inquiry may be stated as follows :— As regards the charges made against Mr. Bloxham : — 1. That the Eegistrar and Accountant made a mistake as to the terms of the order of the Supreme Court of the 29th October, 1884, and should not have gone behind the settled account of June, 1873; 2. That the Eegistrar and Accountant were in error in not accepting the receipt indorsed on the deed of mortgage, as evidence that the £250 had been paid by Mr. Ell. 3. That the Eegistrar did issue the incorrect orders alluded to in Charge 10, and that, in consequence, Mr. Ell's appeal in November, 1885, was struck out, thereby causing him a delay of six months. All the other charges have not been proved to our satisfaction or have been withdrawn. As regards the charges made against Mr Latter :— 1. That the proof of debt by Mr. Weston for so large a sum, and made up in the manner in which this claim was, should not have been admitted by him. 2. That it is a matter for regret that Mr. Latter did not take steps to ascertain what value there was, if any, in Mr. Ell's books assigned to Mr. Nathan. The same may be said with regard to the remainder of the charges against Mr. Latter as in the case of Mr Bloxam—viz., that they were either withdrawn or not proved. We would wish to say further that it does not appear that either Mr. Bloxam or Mr. Latter acted otherwise than bond fide in these matters, although in our opinion, they were in error on the few points alluded to. As to the question of damage to Mr. Ell, we find it impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to what damage he sustained, seeing that these matters have been standing over for so many years, and have become so complicated. The evidence as to damage was vague in the extreme ; and no witnesses were called by Mr. Ell in support of his statement, although every facility was afforded to him to do so. Under all the circumstances, and with a view to finality in this matter, we recommend that such steps be taken by the Government during the next session of Parliament as may be necessary to enable Mr. Ell to be appointed trustee in his own estate; and that the sum of £200 be paid to him in full satisfaction of all alleged claims. All this is respectfully presented to Your Excellency. Signed and sealed this eighth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety three. (1.5.) Thomas Thompson, (l.s ) Andrew Turnbull.

2—H. 13.