47

H.—l3

59. In any case, Mr. Bloxam, Ell could not have made use of this money as security for his appeal in bankruptcy?—He could not touch it. I could not pay it out to him, because it belonged to the Official Assignee. 60. With regard to paragraph 16 ?—I did not see any occasion to make mention of the action referred to in that paragraph, I did not see in what way it would benefit Mr. Ell. Ido not know that Mr. Austin was paid any costs on it. 61. If so, the costs would have been procured from Acland and Barns? —I presume so, as the action was discontinued. 62. Is it true that you ever forwarded any incorrect or misleading records to the Public Petitions Committee ?—No; not that lam aware of. Ido not know what records are referred to. 63. Is it true that you unfairly used your position as taxing-master to reduce the bill of costs referred to in paragraph 18 ?—lt is not true. The bill of costs referred to was reviewed by Mr. Ell before Judge Johnston; and his application was dismissed with £2 2s. costs on the 19th March, 1886. He set down another motion-paper for review on the Bth June, 1886. On the 11th June, 1886, there was no appearance, and it was struck out. [All papers in connection with taxation in libel action, office No. 144, put in and marked as " Exhibit 84."] 64. What do you know about the matter referred to in No. 19?— I know nothing at all about it. I have not seen it. The taxation proceeded. 65. Is the letter referred to in paragraph 20 true or correct ?—lt is perfectly correct. 66. Was there ever any money in the Court in the actions Ell v. Harper, or Ell v. Hanmer and Harper, belonging to Ell ?—There was no money in the Court that Ell could touch ; it stood to the credit of the cause. 67. And at this time had been paid out again to the Harpers ?—Yes ; on July 12th, 1886. 68. I presume Mr. Ell could not get any money under his judgment so long as the order setting the judgments off one against the other remained in force ?—So I take it. In any case money paid into the credit of the cause could only be paid out by an order of the Court. 69.. As to paragraph 21; are the facts contained in that letter true ? — [Copy of letter put in and marked as " Exhibit 85."] —Yes; they are absolutely true. 70. You still say the statements contained in those two paragraphs in the statement of claim in action No. 1397 are false ; that is, paragraphs 33 and 35 ?—As to paragraph 33, Yes. Letter of the 10th November is perfectly correct. 71. Just explain what took place in Court, when the order was made dismissing the action as against you? —On the 19th October, 1887, summonses were heard in which all the other defendants except myself applied for a stay of proceedings. The action had been set down for trial by Mr. Ell himself on the 4th of October, for trial at the sittings in October. All those summonses were allowed ; so that there simply remained a statement of claim against myself set down for trial, and with no relief prayed for against myself, except that certain accounts in other actions were to be taken at Wellington. Mr. Martin then made some remarks with reference to the case against the Eegistrar; and the Judge said something to the effect that there was no case against the Eegistrar, and would not hear the evidence. A discussion then ensued, and I remember distinctly going down to Mr. Martin from my seat and telling him to let the case come on for trial. A discussion further went on, and there was some discussion as to costs. I told Mr. Martin that I would not consent to its going without costs. The matter then ended, and the order was taken out. 72. Did Mr. Justice Ward award costs ?—Mr. Justice Ward awarded costs. It would have been absurd for costs of summons not to have been awarded, because when the case came on for trial it must have been dismissed with costs of the action. Practically it made no difference to me, because, even if I had to pay them, there was no getting them from Mr. Ell. Mr. Ell afterwards complained to the Justice Department, and they wrote down with reference to it. They also wrote to Mr. Justice Ward with reference to it; and Mr. Justice Ward so informed me, and gave me the draft of the letter he had sent, in which he stated that " the case against the Eegistrar was either struck out or dismissed with costs. No relief was prayed against him, and it would have been absurd to allow the case to go to trial;" and, further, " with the view of testing certain charges of misconduct against him as Eegistrar, respecting which an inquiry might have been directed by yourself had there been any foundation for them." [Letter referred to dated 6th June, 1888.] 73. I believe, in giving evidence before Mr. Conolly, you asked that Mr. Justice Ward should be examined on this point ?—I did. 74. An opportunity was afforded Mr. Ell to call Mr. Justice Ward ? —Yes, and Mr. Ell absolutely declined to call him. 75. Is Mr. Ell's statement correct, that the cases against the other defendants were dismissed by Mr. Justice Ward, not because they were frivolous and vexatious, but because they were brought under the wrong rules ?—I remember nothing whatever about their being brought under the wrong rules. [Papers in action No. 1397 put in, and marked as " Exhibit 86."] 76. Mr. Eyes, who was Deputy Eegistrar at the time of all Ell's litigation, died in August, 1887 ?—Yes. 77. Has the Justice Department made any complaint as regards your conduct in Mr. Ell's affairs?—No, they have not made any complaint at any time. 78. Certain matters have from time to time been referred to you ?—Yes, there has been a great deal of correspondence. In January, 1890, I was asked by the department to make remarks in reference to a report by Mr. Graham. In the letter I asked the department for particulars of the charges made to Mr. Graham, as it was an ex parte report, and for documents which had been before him. Correspondence ensued, which was ended, eventually, by a letter from the department, dated the 20th April, 1891, in which the Under-Secretary states : " I have the honour to