1.—9

present you could have called them to rebut that evidence, could you not ?—lf I could possibly have been allowed by law to do so, but I could not do so at that stage of the case, because my case was closed, and we had to stand or fall by our case. We had to deal with the case as prepared on the indictment, and whatever had occurred outside that had nothing to do with the case. 47. But if you had thought it necessary you could have called evidence for the Crown in rebuttal ? —Yes, if it opened up any other charge, if it was thought necessary to do so in order to contradict anything connected with that charge. 48. If you had questioned the accuracy of my evidence would you have proceeded further with the examination, and if the auditors' report had been considered sufficiently strong would you not have referred to their statement ?—I feel sure if the Crown had attached any importance to the matter it would not have let the matter rest there, whether it formed part of the case or otherwise. 49. Were the two auditors present assisting the Crown ? —Yes, they were there assisting the Crown. 50. Hon. W. Bolleston.] You mean as affecting that particular indictment ?—As affecting that particular indictment. 51. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] You said you had.worked up this case with Mr. Perkins, the Crown Prosecutor, at Greymouth, after your arrival on the Coast ?—Yes. 52. In going through the case and taking evidence, did you see anything that would in the slightest degree reflect upon Nathaniel Seddon or myself ?—I have no recollection whatever. lam sure if I had done so I should remember, especially as my memory has been refreshed by the accounts I have seen, but I have no recollection whatever. 53. Mr. Massey.] Do you wish to convey that the auditors' report was not put in as evidence ? —The auditors' report was not put in. The auditors themselves had been called. 54. Then it was not questioned?— No. The auditors' report was never in evidence. The report could not be put in evidence under any circumstances, but Mr. Spence's evidence was given. 55. The Chairman.] He would be examined in connection with the preparation of his own report? —Yes ; he would be a living witness instead of a report. Mr. Duthie: The answer to Mr. Seddon's question just now is rather misleading. He asked you if you came across anything in framing the indictment with Mr. Perkins Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon : I said in working up and preparing the brief. 56. Mr. Duthie (to witness).! Well, put it in preparing the brief. In doing so you would confine yourself to matters in the indictment ?—Yes. 57. It would have been foreign to you to take up any charge in connection with Nathaniel Seddon?—Yes, it would be. Of that I can speak positively, without troubling my mind as to the past. It is more than a recollection as to that. 58. It would be your duty to ignore it, but that would have nothing to do with the case. The suggestion of Mr. Seddon is that in framing your brief you would take notice of such a case as this inferentially. He conveyed the idea you attached no importance to that which was not part of the business? —It was not my business to deal with anything but what was proper to the indictment. I was not going beyond anything which was charged in the indictment and the evidence in support of it. 59. The Chairman.] That is to say, it would not strengthen the case by referring to anything outside the indictment itself ?—Yes. 60. Mr. Morrison.] I would like to ask the witness a question. In consulting with Mr. Perkins in preparing the brief for the items that were stated in the indictment, if you had come across evidence of the existence of a document, or of evidence that the Town Clerk had, in conspiracy with Nathaniel Seddon or Eichard John Seddon, been_ overpaid £219 out of the borough funds, but if that was not in the indictment, you would feel it your duty as Crown Solicitor not to bring out the points in the Supreme Court ? —I think so. 61. It would have been your duty if it was not in the indictment?—l think it would have been my duty. 62. But if you were satisfied no such conspiracy existed ?—That is my belief so far as I can tell at this distance of time. 63. Hon. J. McKenzie.] You had the auditors' report before you ?—Yes. 64. And if there was any truth in this statement there was no reason why that case should not be gone on with as well as the other ? —Yes ; either then or subsequently. 65. Mr. Duthie.] Would not the Judge have stopped you if you prejudiced the case by going into outside matters ?—Most certainly ; it would have been a substantive charge. 66. You had nothing to do with the charges in the Magistrate's Court ?—This charge was not made in the Magistrate's Court. The Judge would have stopped me. It would have been dealing with a substantive charge. I said either then at that session or subsequently. OS? 67. Hon. W. Bolleston.] Were there not a number of other charges in the auditors' report which were not dealt with ?—I am not aware that they were. I have not looked at the auditors' report since then. 68. You are aware there was a large sum of money involved, but ycu could only deal with the smaller charges?— Because they were the only ones that we could sheet home. 69. And you only dealt with them?— Yes. We had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining this conviction, and we had to confine the case to those small charges. 70. Would you be in a position to express any opinion as to these fresh charges, whether you thought there was anything in them or not? —Oh, no. I would not be required to do that. 71. Hon. J. G. Ward.] If there was a statement in the report that the Town Clerk had paid away £219 improperly to. any one else, would not that have appeared in your notes as Crown Prosecutor? —It would; but in my recollection that indictment was prepared before I got to the West Coast, and we only dealt with those small matters.

6