H.—l3.

11

152. What date were they returned? —On 28th June, 1886. 153. Were they in the Eegistrar's possession on both the 14th and 28th July and 4th August, 1886 ?—Yes. 154. During the time of these delays, on the ground that these papers were not returned from Wellington, were any steps being taken against you ?—Yes. 155. The Chairman.] How do you know the papers were returned ?—By a copy of a letter sent to Christchurch on 25th June, 1886, from the Deputy-Eegistrar at Wellington to Mr. Bloxam, Eegistrar of the Supreme Court at Christchurch, noted as received by Mr. Bloxam on 28th June, 1886, as receiving all papers in Ell v. Harper and another in case No. 30, and Ell v. Harper in case No. 353, together with the certificates of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. 413. 156. Mr. Lush.] Were any steps being taken in the Court, and by whom ? —By Mr. T. S. Weston, to get me adjudicated a bankrupt. 157. What was the date of Mr. Weston's application to have you adjudicated a bankrupt?—l was adjudicated a bankrupt on 6th August, 1886, two days after the last adjournment of accounts. [Bankruptcy order of adjudication, dated 6th August, 1886, put in and marked as "Exhibit 33."] 158. Did Mr. Weston apply to have you adjudicated a bankrupt on a debt of £215 2s. 6d. ?— Yes, that is so. [Petition put in and marked as " Exhibit 34."] 159. Were you adjudicated bankrupt on that claim of the 6th August, 1886 ?—Yes. 160. On the 11th August, 1886, did another meeting take place to take these accounts? —Yes, five days after the adjudication. 161. What was done that day ?—lt was stated by the Eegistrar that I having been adjudicated a bankrupt, the matter must stand over sine die. 162. During the time these were being taken again, were Mr. Weston's proceedings going on? —Yes; Mr. Weston's proceedings on the 13th July against me. The first meeting before the Eegistrar took place on the 14th, the next before the Eegistrar on the 28th; again, on the 4th August, and on the 6th J was crushed by the adjudication. ' 163. Do you say that the action of the Eegistrar, in taking these accounts, injured you in the matter? —Certainly so. 164. You say that if the Eegistrar had continued taking accounts all this trouble would have been prevented ?—lf the Eegistrar had finished the accounts, which would not have taken him above a few hours, all this trouble since 1886 would have been prevented. 165. You mean if the Eegistrar had taken accounts, and given you his certificate, this adjudication could not have taken place ?—Yes. 166. Why?— Because there was a judgment standing to my credit, "by consent," in action No. 30; Hanmer and Harper's amount, even at that time, with interest and costs, amounted to between £3,000 and £4,000. Had the certificate 353 been reviewed and put right in accordance with the evidence, a further sum of over £1,500, and costs and interest, would have been the result of the retaking of that account. 167. You say, owing to the action of the Eegistrar, and the retaking of this account was one of the main causes of all the trouble and expense you have been put to since the year 1886 ?—Yes, that is so. 168. Does that bankruptcy still stand against you ? —Yes. I am an undischarged bankrupt against that bankruptcy. 169. You say, on the hearing of that petition in bankruptcy, the Eegistrar said there was no money of yours in Court on the Bth July, 1886 ?—I still say that the statement of the Eegistrar's was untrue. 170. On what day was the money paid to the credit of case No. 30 ?—On the 2nd July, 1886. In action Ell v. Hanmer and Harper, £2,223 4s. lid. was paid in by the sheriff, by virtue of a writ of sale. 171. Prior to that, on the 18th March, 1886, was there an order made that the one judgment should be a set-off as against the judgment in the other?— Yes, on the 18th March, 1886, judgment in action No. 353 was to be a set-off against judgment in action in No. 30. 172. Was the judgment in action No. 353 granted on the 2nd September, 1885 ?—Yes. 173. When was your judgment entered by consent ?—On the Ist May, 1885. 174. At the sitting of the Court of Appeal in May, 1886, was that judgment in action No. 353 set aside by that Court?— Yes. 175. Was there any judgment in July, 1886, in action No. 353?— Certainly not. 176. Was there a sum of £2,223 4s. lid. to your credit lying in the Court on the Bth July, 1886?— Yes. 177. Were you, on the 6th August, 1886, appearing in the Court in opposition to a petition of Mr. Weston to have you adjudicated a bankrupt ? —Yes. 178. What grounds did you take in opposition ? —I appeared myself personally, and endeavoured to point out to His Honour Mr. Justice Johnston that, the judgment in action No. 353 having been set on one side by the Court of Appeal in June, 1886, and the money being paid in on the 2nd July, 1886, in action No. 30, that the money in Court under the writ of sale was mine on the Bth July, 1886. 179. Did you urge anything in regard to the writ of sale being returned nulla bona I —l said that the writ should not have been returned nulla bona on the Bth July, 1886. 180. What did the Judge do?— The Judge asked the Eegistrar "If there was any money in the Court on the Bth July, 1886, belonging to G. W. Ell?" or words to that effect. The Eegistrar said "No." 181. More than once? —Yes, I believe two or three times he said it. 182. Did the Judge overrule your objection ?—The Judge overruled all that I had said, and