H.-3

200

or three times. He was, I think, the nephew of Thomas Macfarlane. He is in business as a valuer. The property-tax valuation at the same time we could not identify, and that application was not entertained. A further telegram came from Mr. De Castro, who was then acting as agent in Auckland. I referred it to the Board, and the Board decided to adhere to its former decision. So that went off also. Then, after further correspondence, about the 12th August, 1885, I telegraphed : " Board will lend £250 on Victoria Glen, £1,860 on Mount Albert, £900 on Remuera and Green Lane: total, £3,010." However, that went off. Then, after further trouble, I telegraphed that the Board would advance £1,000 on the security of twenty-two allotments, and that sum was lent. 4634. Was no more money lent to that gentleman ?—No. 4635. Wheii was that lent ?—lt was remitted on the 15th August, 1885. 4636. At what rate of interest? —Seven per cent. 4637. Was that money lent out of the Public Trust funds proper, or out of any particular estates ? —Out of different estates. Randerson paid his interest for some time until he got into difficulties, and he applied to be allowed to sell, paying the proceeds into our office. We allowed him to sell, and one or two allotments were sold. Then he defaulted. 4638. When did he make default? —He first gave notice in September, 1888. He offered to transfer the security to the Public Trustee, as he was unable to keep up the payments. Then we had much correspondence with Brookfield and Son, and finally we sold. 4639. What did the security realise ?—There w ras a second mortgage. Somebody else lent. 4640. What money did you get back out of the £1,000 you lent ? —We got nothing but the proceeds of one or two sections which were sold. 4641. Could you tell what amount you received in money ? —The proceeds of the two sections sold? I cannot say just now. I will find out. 4642. Well, now, Mr. Hamerton, I want you to let us know who was the buyer of the Wealth of Nations shares in Storer's estate, and to give us a full statement in reference to Randerson's mortgage?—l shall have to refer to the Accountant. 4643. Are the accounts copied in a special book ?—Yes. 4644. Will you please send up that book for the 13th July, 1885. The Rev. C. I). de Castro further examined. 4645. The Chairman.} Have you obtained the information wdiich you went downstairs to find ? —Yes. I find I w jas away inspecting the southern agencies from the 31st January to the 27th February, 1836. When I was down at the Supreme Court I was away for ten days, from the 3rd to the 13th January, 1887. It was the case of Edward James. 4646. Who was Edward J,ames ?—A settler. 4647. He was a settler, I should think, after he was dead; perhaps not before. What was the case about?—lt was to prove administration by the Public Trustee. 4648. Has the Public Trust Office anything to do with that land?— No. It went to the heir-at-law. 4649. How long is it since you were in Auckland acting for the Public Trust Office ?—I was there in 1885. 4650. For how long ? —From about the 14th or 15th of May until the end of September, when an agent was appointed. 4651. That is when you made yourself aware of the loan made to Randerson ?—Yes. 4652. Who was Randerson ? —A commission agent. He took me round his property. Hois now in Wellington, secretary to the Mutual Creditors' Association. He was a sharebroker and commission agent in Auckland. 4653. Does the Public Trust Office still hold the land in his estate ?—Yes; it was bought in for the office. 4654. Can you say how much of the £1,000 advanced by the Trust Office has been received in repayment of the money lent to Randerson ?—I cannot tell you. That can be had on reference to the books.

Wednesday, 6th May, 1891. Mr. James Edward FitzGerald examined. 4655. The Chairman.] Mr. FitzGerald, you are the Auditor-General ?—Yes. Are you beginning to examine me ? Because, if you are, I would ask you to allow me to say a few words first. 4656. Would you kindly explain generally what the relationship of the Audit Department is to the Public Trust Office ?—Yes ; but before doing that, I should wish to explain the letter which I did myself the honour to write to the Commission. I first asked the Commission to be kind enough to allow me to see the evidence taken with respect to the Audit Office, and, very much to my surprise, the Commissioners declined to let me see it. I thought that a great want of courtesy to a gentleman holding my high office, and I thought that it conveyed an imputation upon me that I was not capable of giving truthful evidence had I at the same time been in the room when the evidence of one of my subordinate officers was being taken. I did not think I was in a position to give such evidence as the Commissioners would like to receive, if they wanted all the truth, unless I had an opportunity of refreshing my memory with regard to the details with which I may be supposed not to be absolutely conversant, as I have got so very numerous and various occupations thrown on inc. I therefore took the opportunity of asking the Premier to allow me to see the evidence ; and I am now happy to say I shall be able to assist the Commissioners in ascertaining the truth of any statements that hayS been made—l do not mean the moral truth; I mean the technical truth of any statements made to the Commissioners with regard to the duties and