H.—33

10

the payee to his office to complete the voucher by getting the authority made out. lam quite clear that Mr. Heighway accompanied me, but I am not quite clear whether we found Edmiston at his office when we went over. On the 27th May, 1886, King and Whewell got from Edmiston his cheque for £18 on account of Heighway, but the latter does not appear to have come for the money until the 31st of the same month, as shown by the butt of cheque produced. Mr. Heighway then got the cheque of King and Whewell for £17 11s., being the £18 less 9s. deducted. I believe that deduction was for the completion of some detail of Heighway's work by some other officer. The cheque was cashed on the same day, as shown by our bank-book (National Bank). I gave that cheque myself to Mr. Heighway, and he took it away with him. I never accompanied Mr. Heighway to the Bank; his statement is wholly mistaken. I did not in a single instance participate in any discount charged by Edmiston. In Heighway's case his charge was 10s. Heighway had to sign besides the voucher a declaration as to the work done. Every sub-enumerator without exception had to sign that. He never signed anything in blank. Mr. Heighway's statement that he only got £12 is absolutely untrue. I never paid him a penny in cash. It is quite untrue that I ever asked him to buy promissory notes, or that I questioned him about his investments. I arranged with E. Fitzpatrick that he and his two brothers should take the Howick Biding. I left the distribution to himself. The three names went in the ordinary course to Wellington, and they were supplied with the necessary forms for the three districts. The work was completed, and each of them sent in the necessary papers. To the best of my recollection E. Fitzpatrick made the usual declaration himself, before myself, and his brothers before a local Justice of the Peace. E. Fitzpatrick came in and completed his own voucher, and then took away the other two for his brothers to get them completed before I signed them. The work was perfectly done. There was no excessive claim in either case. I believe E. Fitzpatrick got an advance from the National Bank. I believe I did not go with him to get it. I did not get a penny of the £78 either directly or indirectly. I never saw either of the brothers until they attended here as witnesses. I went with Burnside to Abbott. Ido not know what discount Abbott received. I did not get a penny. After he got his cheque Burnside repaid £5 which King and Whewell had advanced to him. Nothing was charged for that advance. A brace of pheasants was the only thing I got from Mr. Burnside. W. J. Angove's voucher shows a sum of £42. I put his name to the claim myself to avoid sending the voucher to Warkworth. I have a recollection of his sending me £2 for Mrs. King; it had no connection with the census —it was in consequence of some bacon they had sent her turning out badly. My wife is a relative of Angove's. There was never any arrangement for £2 to be refunded. It might have been sent six or eight weeks after he got his cheque. I think Walter Graham was mistaken in saying that Gallagher charged him £2 10s. discount. I feel sure that he would not have charged more than 15s. to £1. Graham told me yesterday that if his wife had been alive he could have ascertained the exact amount. I never made any arrangement or suggestion directly or indirectly that any of the sub-enume-rators were to refund any money, or to give me any kind of consideration for the appointment, nor was any money received by me from any of them which could be looked upon in the nature of a refund. I never in a single instance got a schedule of industries signed in blank to be filled in by. me afterwards. lam one of the agents for the Government Life Insurance Department. In 1892 I had thirty persons employed under me as sub-collectors. Out of that number I succeeded in getting eight to insure, before I had engaged them for the employment. It is not true that I made insurance a condition of the employment. In most cases the premiums were paid at the district manager's office. Ido not remember receiving any premiums :if I did I should have to account for them. The statement that I pocketed any premiums is absolutely untrue. I have never used any pressure to induce any one to insure, except the ordinary arguments and persuasions used by agents. I asked Pascoe to insure, and he willingly did so, and he paid the premium at the office.

Monday, 23bd Januaky, 1893. Samuel Pasooe sworn and examined. When Mr. King gave me the appointment referred to in my previous evidence he asked me to insure my life in the Government office, and I did so. He was agent for that office. I insured for £200, and paid a premium, £2 19s. 10d. I paid that sum at the time ;it was not deducted from my subsequent payment. Mr. King did not maVe it in any way a condition of my appointment. He did not lead me to understand by word or manner that the appointment would depend on my insuring. I have not complained to any one about it. I did not mention the matter to Mr. Buckland. I may have said I thought it strange that I should be asked to insure. I did think it strange at the time. I did want to insure my life, but I was doubtful if I could keep the premiums up. I did not at the time think it was improper, but I thought Mr. King might have waited until the work was done. Mr. Campbell.] I was not insured in any other office. I paid the premium into the Government office, not to Mr. King. John King's examination resumed. In the matter of B. S. O'Donnell, deceased, he died about four years ago. He was living with Burnside in the country in 1886. After I certified his voucher I had nothing to do with the matter. I neither received nor claimed anything out of the £45. Mr. Edmiston is now down South. In 1886 I had eighty-five to eighty-seven sub-collectors. I have not yet sent in any claim for my work in 1892. I have asked for this inquiry. [Telegram, 21st November, 1892, also letter to Premier, 13th October, 1892.]