1.—9

16

96. Were things kept very strictly in the office under the new Town Clerk or in the Council generally ; was there not a great deal of freedom in going in and out on both sides ?—I think it was generally stated at the time that Councillors had a good deal of freedom in going in and out, and things were conducted in a very loose way. Mr. Wylde was Borough Engineer and Surveyor. The township started in a dense bush, and there were roads and streets to be made, so that he was very often away for hours on this work. Sometimes he collected moneys in the street, sometimes in publichouses, or wherever a person gave it to him. He would say, " You send for a receipt, or come to the office." The jury recommended him to mercy on the ground that the Council had allowed the business to be conducted in a very loose way. 97. Not only the Mayor and the Councillors generally, but others had free access to the office, and would go in and out? —Yes. The Mayor might have a duplicate key, but I do not know that every Councillor would. 98. Do you know who were the members of the Finance Committee of the Council ?—I do not. 99. Hon. J. McKenzie.] From your knowledge of the whole circumstances of this case, was any attempt ever made to prove the correctness of the auditors' report ?—ln either of the Courts ? ' 100. Yes?— No. 101. That is with regard to the overpayment to Mr. Wylde and Nathaniel Seddon?—lt was not. 102. I see the auditors, on page 29, Exhibit E, wind up their report by saying, " We have had considerable difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, and even now are of opinion that we have not discovered all the discrepancies, as in the absence of important documents, we had to take things for granted." If they had been put to the test as to the correctness of their report, could they have proved it ?—I have not the least doubt that the auditors accepted a good deal as proved without having any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support same. 104. Mr. Duncan.] Mr. Harper stated in his evidence that Mr. Perkins made out the indictments some time before he was called upon to assist in the case ? —I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement. 105. That being so, was Harper in a position to alter the indictment in any way at the stage in which he came into the matter? —Certainly. The matter of the preparation of the indictments is only a question of increasing the writing on a piece of parchment. 106. Could it have been amended in any way ?—lf the Grand Jury found a true bill on the indictment it could only have been amended by leave of the Judge. But before it was presented on the Monday morning when the criminal proceedings commenced, it could have been altered by Mr. Harper in any way he wished. 107. That being so, from your legal knowledge, if this over-payment to Nathaniel Seddon had been proved to be true, would it not have formed grounds for an indictment for conspiracy or something in that way?— Not at that sitting of the Supreme Court, because neither Mr. Nathan Seddon nor Mr. Wylde had been charged with any criminal act, but they could have been indicted in my opinion by laying an information on the Saturday preceding in the Magistrate's Court in the usual way. * 108. But in the first instance, from your own knowledge of Mr. Perkins, do you think that this being one of the larger sums, and containing a charge of misappropriation, would not that form the indictment if there had been evidence to sustain it in the first instance ?—Well, in my opinion, Mr. Perkins would have taken it as one of the charges against the accused if, in his opinion, there had been sufficient evidence to support the charge. 109. Then, in your opinion, this matter was overlooked, and only formed part of the proceedings to prejudice the jury against the accused ?—Yes, it was brought out as a fact as if it were connected with the charge of embezzlement, and that would have the effect of prejudicing the jury, and to my mind it did do so. 110. Mr. Massey.] Mr. Guinness in his evidence just now told us there was very bad feeling between O'Hagan, the Mayor, and Wylde (the Town Clerk). Do you recollect Mr. O'Hagan giving evidence in Mr. Wylde's behalf, and stating that outside the present charges accused was a man for whom he had every reason to entertain the highest respect ?—I am aware of that having occurred after the prisoner had been convicted. 111. Was it not the bounden duty of the Mayor to prosecute the Town Clerk, and to take a leading part in the prosecutions, one on the report of the special auditors, and the other a charge of embezzlement ?—No doubt it was his duty to prosecute if he and the majority of the Council had decided to prosecute ; but I think his first duty would have been, considering the lax and irregular way they allowed the Borough Council accounts to be kept, to have given Mr. Wylde every opportunity of explaining any discrepancies that might have occurred. That, in my opinion, was not done. 112. Was not Mr. Wylde asked by Mr. O'Hagan to explain the discrepancies in the accounts ; and do you not think Mr. Wylde had every opportunity of making an explanation if he desired to (j 0 so ?— After reading the case, Ido not think he had. Wylde was away from the office very often, and the Mayor went up in the evening to his private residence, which was some distance away from the office. 113. Were you a resident of Kumara?—No, I resided at Greymouth, fourteen miles away. 114. Then, apart from the newspaper reports, you had no knowledge of what occurred in Borough Council matters ? —No, but I used to attend some meetings of the Kumara Borough Council, and I was practising in the Courts every fortnight there, and in order to perform my professional duties, I remained there sometimes for several days, and I had a very good idea of what was taking place in the Borough. 115. When Mr. Eichard John Seddon was being examined, did you ask him any questions with respect to the alleged overpayment to his uncle ?—I think I did.