H.—l3

10

114. What became then of the appeal ?—We went to the appeal, and the matter was explained by Mr. Jellicoe on my behalf. Their Honours at the Appeal could not let the appeal proceed. They dismissed the appeal. 115. When you discovered the mistake in these orders what did you do?—I got out the correct orders of 2nd September by application to the Eegistrar on the 19th October, 1885. [Order sealed on the 19th October, 1885, put in and marked " Exhibit 28."] 116. Is that the order you took out on the 19th October, 1885 ? —Yes. [Order in action No. 30 sealed on the 19th October, 1885, put in, marked as " Exhibit 29."] 117. Were you put to expense and loss of time in preparing and going to the Court of Appeal on these erroneous orders ?—Yes; I went up to Wellington to attend the Court of Appeal and employed counsel. 118. When you had taken out these correct orders what did you do with them?—l then prepared fresh appeal papers according to the correct orders. That appeal was set down for May, 1886. 119. Was an appeal also set down at the same time to set aside judgment and certificates of the Eegistrar and Mr. Hargreaves, and refer the accounts back to the Eegistrar?—Yes. 120. The Chairman.] Did the wrong dating of the judgment referred to in " Exhibit 27" in any way prejudice Mr. Ell's claim? — Mr. Lush : As a matter of fact it did not. 121. Mr. Lush.] Is the motion produced on the motion paper of the Court of Appeal referred to ?—Yes. [Court of Appeal motion put in and marked " Exhibit 30."] 122. Did the Court of Appeal set aside judgment and refer the accounts back to the Eegistrar and Accountant ? —Yes. [Certificate of Court of Appeal put in and marked " Exhibit 31," dated the sth June, 1886.] 123. In this letter of yours containing charges, you say in May, 1886, the Eegistrar sent a telegram to the Court of Appeal in Wellington, which is untrue, and tending to mislead their Honours presiding?— Yes, that is so. 124. Do you still say that is so ?—Yes. [Telegram of Eegistrar to the Chief Justice to Court of Appeal, dated the 19th May, 1886, put in and marked as " Exhibit 32," folio in letter-book 276.] 125. What do you say is false in that telegram?—lt states that further evidence was brought forward for Harper to prove that the £250 of Minchin's was not paid. There was no evidence whatever that the money was not paid. 126. You say there is no entry in the Eegistrar's notes of such evidence ? —None whatever. 127. This was sent at the time the Court of Appeal was sitting, and while the question of the £250 was before the Court of Appeal ?—Yes. 128. When the certificate of the Court of Appeal was returned, was there any application made to go into accounts again? —Yes. 129. Who made it?—l caused an application to be made on my account, I think so. 130. Did you see the Eegistrar about an application to continue the accounts ?—Yes, on one occasion I did. 131. Can you remember the date the first appointment was made for ?—For the 14th July, 1886. 132. Did you attend on that day according to appointment ?—I did. 133. Did any one else attend with you?—l took Mr. McHaffie with me. 134. Did you see Mr. Martin there that day ?—I saw him at the table in the Court. 135. Were the accounts gone into that day ? —No. 136. Why? —I waited until half-past 10 that day in Court. I followed Mr. Eegistrar into his chambers, waited there for some time, until the Eegistrar declared the meeting lapsed on account of non-appearance of the defendants. I asked the Eegistrar to make a note of the non-appearance of the defendants, so that I might in some way be paid for my time and also for the time of those that I had with me. 137. Did he say he would make a note of it ?—He refused to do so. 138. When was the next appointment made for ? —For the 28th July, 1886. 139. Did you attend on that day ?—I did. 140. Who was with you ?—Mr. McHaffie. 141. Who else was present that day?— Mr. Hargreaves, Mr. Martin, and the Eegistrar of the Supreme Court. 142. What was done ?—We found we could not get on until I lent Mr. Bloxam the document which enabled us to take objection to some of the items. 143. Did Mr. Bloxam that day have any papers before himself?— None that I saw. 144. Did you take objection to some of the items ?—Yes. 145. What occurred then?—We went on as far as we could; we found the papers had not been returned from Wellington. 146. How did you discover that the papers were not returned?— Because we wore asking for papers we ourselves had not got, especially the Eegistrar's notes. 147. What did the Eegistrar say?— The Eegistrar said they had not been returned from Wellington, and the case was adjourned then until the 4th August, 1886. 148. Did you attend again on that day ?—Yes, for the purpose of going on with the accounts. 149. Had the Eegistrar any papers before him that day ?—No. 150. Did you call for any papers?—l did; notably the Eegistrar's notes and exhibits that had been used in taking the accounts. The Eegistrar said the papers had not been returned from Wellington, and he would place the onus on me to get them returned. Then the case stood adjourned until 11th August, 1886. 151. Do you know as a matter of fact of your own knowledge whether the papers had been returned from Wellington prior to this ?—I know now that they were returned.