1.—9

22

83. Mr. Duthie.] When you wrote that letter did you know what the imputations were ?—■ Yes, I went into the Press office, and Mr. Triggs read them over to me. I imagined what they referred to as soon as I saw them mentioned in the paper. They were not published in the Press, but there was sufficient in connection with the matter to enable me to understand it, and I went to the office and saw Mr. Triggs. 84. Do you remember the date you became Mayor?—I cannot say as to the exact date, but it was about the 14th or 16th of November, I think. 85. Bight Hon. B J. Seddon.] About the first Wednesday in November? —I think so. 86. Mr. Duthie.] You seem inaccurate in respect to these proceedings. You mention certain things you did as Mayor, but I think at the time you were not Mayor? —Of course, when we could not get the books of the Council for the exact dates we would find a difficulty in going so far back. 87. You were a councillor for about two years before that?—Yes. 88. Were you all the time a member of the- Finance Committee ? —I cannot tell you now, but I was a member of one of the committees, though I am not sure whether I was on the Finance Committees. You are referring to the evidence when the talk was about the audit. It was after the information was laid that we had that talk about the matter. 89. There was a Finance Committee, and I understand Mr. Campbell was chairman. You are aware that in a Borough Council there is always a standing committee on finance. What I understood was you were a member of that committee ? —Yes ; I think I was. I do not know for certain, but I am pretty well certain that I was. 90. Now, you say that when you came into the Council bills were given?—Just before I joined, or about the time I joined. I do not think that any bills were given afterwards. 91. What would be the date ?—I think in l«80. 92. There were bills in 1880 ?—Yes, to the currency date they bore ; but I think they were for various currency of three and six months. I think I knew some people who were dealing with them. 93. As a member of the Finance Committee, or as a councillor, had you knowledge of the contents of that authority from Nathaniel Seddon to Eichard John Seddon to lift all moneys due to him?—Yes, I saw that. 94. Can you tell us the contents of it ?—I cannot give you any particulars beyond the fact that there was an authority from Nathaniel Seddon to Eichard John Seddon to draw the money. I think his salary was divided into two parts, one being for work done for the Council, and the other for looking after the building. 95. He was paid £3 a week?—Yes, he got that in wages as a day labour man, but he was also caretaker of the building. He would only get a small payment for that. He lived in the building, and acted as caretaker as long as I remember. 96. What amount was paid?—I do not know. 97. It would not amount to these alleged overpayments ?—Certainly not. 98. It is stated here in the evidence that the document produced was an order from Nathaniel Seddon to pay all moneys coming to him to Mr. Eichard John Seddon ?—Yes. 99. The moneys would not be paid to Nathaniel Seddon after that order was made ? —It was an order to draw the salary while he was absent and until he came back. I understand he was not feeling very well, and went away. 100. Do you know whether this document is extant? —I do not know where it is now. 101. Do you think it disappeared also?—I cannot say. It is some years since I was on the West Coast. 102. Have you any knowledge of the date of that order?—No, I have not. I think it dated back a couple of years before the audit took place. 103. But, apparently, it was not cancelled at the time it was produced in Court?—I do not think Seddon was out of employment when the case was heard in Court. He died three years afterwards. 104. This engagement as a day labourer at £3 a week had ceased ?—Yes. 105. According to this exhibit of the 25th November, his engagement as a day labourer ceased at that date, did it not?—I cannot say. It does not say his salary ended there. 106. Was he not continued in the employment of the Council? "Nathaniel Seddon, daylabourer ; we find, on most careful examination, that this man was paid in full up to the 25th December, 1879, after which date confusion begins, so we had to adopt a similar method with regard to his wages. This man received, wages at the rate of £3 per week up to the 5th November, 1881, when his weekly engagement terminated by order of the Council." [Exhibit E.] Do you know whether this order to lift the money lapsed at that date ?—Do you mean was the order acted upon by Mr. Eichard John Seddon up to that date? 107. I presume Mr. Eichard John Seddon lifted all this money?—No, he did not. Mr. Eichard John Seddon, I think, lifted moneys monthly while Nathaniel Seddon was away. 108. Then, it was not a standing order which was acted upon for all payments ?—No, not at all. 109. But, as reported in the proceedings, it would seem to bear that meaning ?—It was not carried out in that way. I think two vouchers were signed by Eichard John Seddon ; but I cannot remember the dates. 110. You saw in the examination of Mr. Seddon that there seems to have been a suggestion that this special audit was unjustifiable. Do you not think it was a proper thing to have that audit of the borough accounts ?—Yes, I think so. 111. And the result justified that action ?—Yes. 112. Have you read the charges since made by the member for Patea that we are inquiring into ?— I have not read them completely.