I.—7a,

35

60 Mr. Montgomery.] Can you not tell the amount.?— One item read originally " Best scrim 448 yards, at 3|d.-£6 10s. Bd." Then, there is a note that the first lot was returned owing to bad nualitv The second lot sent contained two bolts, of 50 yards each (100 yards), at 3|d.— £1 9s. id. I thmk'l can explain the matter. Jenkins says, in his evidence he charged the scrim at per square yard, which was, of course, a mistake. The correct charge would have been £1 12s. Bd., instead ol £6 10s. Bd. ; but the stuff was returned altogether and a new line got. 61. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] Who invoiced it ?—Jenkins. ~'.,.,.',. v 62 It is usually about 6ft. wide ?-Yes. There is another small item corrected-thirteen sashhold rings, charged at ss. 6d. per dozen, instead of 3s. 6d., and the charge is reduced from 6s. 3d. to 3s lOd ° there are two items further on that Jenkins gave evidence on. 63. Mr. Reid.] Have you done with that voucher ?—No, it is not done with. Jenkins gave further evidence later on. _ , . 64 What are the other items you have a note of re Jenkins s evidence ?—The sheet zinc 65' Mr Skerrett.] Twelve sheets, No. 11 sheet zinc, charged at 2cwt. lqr. 211b., and reduced by the Engineer to lcwt. 3qr. 141b. The difference in price is ?—£2 18s. 6d. originally, and £2 ss. in the voucher as certified. , _, .. ~ 1 , „ 66 Mr Reid I The next item is ?-It is on the Sib. sheet lead, charged originally as lcwt. 2qr 14lb„ reduced to lcwt. and 121b., and the money from £1 4s. fid. to 16s. 7d [Voucher with correspondence attached put in.] The correspondence was on account of the fact that the weight of the sash-cord was so largely reduced, and the accountant thought the difference was too great, and sent it back to know if it had been weighed, and the Engineer said it was weighed m his presence. The contractors were not asked about it, and their attention was not specially drawn to the sash _ line delivered to the workshops ?—I believe Jenkins said this was before he was in the firm; it was a precedent of how he had to invoice the sash-hne 68 The next item is sheet lead for the Porirua Asylum ?-Yes, Public Works voucher 660; Mr Jenkins stated this was entered in the journal as lcwt. 2qr. 141b and ought to have weighed lcwt. and 141b.' It was only charged as lcwt. and 141b., which was the correct weight, and it was oaid • voucher is in Jenkins's handwriting. 69 Mr Reid.] Bolts for Porirua Asylum-Public Works voucher 656. What are these charged at ?—Twenty holding-down bolts, 9 x fin. diameter, lqr. 141b. 70. Is that paid?— Yes. . , , . , 71 Sent to the Porirua Asylum ?-Yes; they were weighed, or similar bolts have since been weighed, and the Engineer will give evidence that they weigh 271b. The overcharge would be 2s. 72 Jumpers and cleaners for the Survey Department ?-Land and Survey Department, voucher 17477- this is not in the handwriting of Briscoe, MacNeil, and Co. s clerk ; three jumpers 1 by 9, and three 1 by 12 and eight cleaners, charged as 3001b. This weight does not agree with either Eobertson's invoice or Brilcoe's book. It clearly shows an effort made by the department to check the weight This was delivered at an out-of-the-way locality, and I expect they sent to the locai storekeeper to have it weighed, but I do not know that of my own knowledge 73 It is 481b less It is greater than Eobertson's invoice, but less than Briscoe s original voucher. The next item is Public Works voucher 2207. One piece of. sheet lead of 51b. Departmental Buildings, charged as 7cwt. and 81b., but reduced by the reduced weight paid for. The next are three or four small charges. (Voucher 16193.) One bar of mThed steeLfin! charged as weighing 271b. and paid for at that weight. Next, bar cast-steel, charu-ed as weighing 171b. and paid for at that weight. 74 Sal cord ?-One hank " Silver Lake " sash-cord, 7Jlb., and paid for at that weight. 75' Who did they go to, direct or to the Inspector ?—All the articles on this voucher were for the Defence Department. I asked the Defence Inspector, and he said the goods were all delivered onto he works? but he could not say anything as to the weights. There was another itemengineers' bolts one dozen JUn. bolts by lpi., charged at 71b., and paid for at that weight. g 76 Mr Montgomery.] I would like to see the 171b. and the 271b. Were they separate charges, and was that correct ?-We have no knowledge. Jenkins says it is not correct; but we have no distance 0 f time you could not state that?—No; and besides, they were S6llt 7°B tougaS Iron for the State Farm ?-That was supplied direct to the State Farm on their own requisition and without applying to the Public Works Department (voucher 10436) The first eferrTto tLy-two sheets corrugated iron, Bft., 26 gauge, charged scwt.2qr. 71b and paid for at that weight. Next entry, thirty-two sheets same, 9ft charged 6cwt and 31b and paid for at that weight. Then twenty sheets 7ft., charged 3cwt. and 211b., and paid for at that weight also on 4in. jaw tail-vice, 2qr. 241b., and paid for at that weight. I have made inquiries as TclhZ weiant and find it was not weighed, the State Farm authorities having no appliance for for Workshops (voucher 318), 20ft. composition pipe fin.., 30ft. 4-in • charged as weighing lqr. 91b., and paid for at that weight. i 79 Mr. Montgomery] As to this iron for the State Farm, have you any evidence ?-I have none These were supplied without the intervention of the Public Works Department. n 80 sheets of "Pyramid" iron, 6ft., 26 gauge, 3cwt. 3qr. 141b • there can be no doubt that that iron weighed more than that _ 81 How do you arrive at that?-The rule of the department is 21b to he foot run for 26 gauge iron; and you will find at that rate that the weight should be 4cwt. lqr 41b., so there is an undercharge of a half hundredweight: on the same voucher there are thirteen sheets of. same, ?ft 26 Se, charged as lcwt. 3qr. 141b.; this weight by the same rule of computation is onequarter too heavy, so that on the whole there is an undercharge of a quarter of a hundredweight.