53

1.--7 A

227. Does the first page give the overcharges which were not discovered before payment ?— Yes. The total overcharges amount to £5 17s. Id., less £2 6s. 9d. 228. The Chairman.] For what?— These are the under-charges —that is, the errors against themselves. 229. Are these all the items that have not been detected ?—That have been detected. 230. Mr. Menteath.] I do not see any Silver Lake sash-cord here? — Yes, there are four hanks. 231. There is a hank at 7-J-lb. : that is not included in your list?—No, it was supplied to the Artillery; we have nothing to do with that. 232. Then, this does not represent all the vouchers that have been put in ?—We have nothing to do with the Artillery supplies. 233. Is there any other service you have nothing to do with ?—We have nothing to do with any other except the Public Works District Office. 234. Will you tell us what other department would receive vouchers ? —There is the Lunacy Department, the Survey and Lands Departments—any other departments might buy goods under that schedule; but the vouchers would not necessarily come to our office—if they ordered them themselves they would not come to our office. 235. Then this statement is only partial?— These are only the errors which have passed through the Eesident Engineer's Office. 236. You cannot say what day you corrected the error in respect of the glass?—l could not say the date. 237. You did not receive any information before you corrected that item?-—No. 238. You were not informed that it was correct ?—I was not. 239. It was signed on the 28th June ? —lt was. 240. How long before the 28th June did you check it ? —I could not say ; sometimes it would be checked, perhaps, the day it came in ; it might be in the first week, or it might be a fortnight. I should say it would be within the first fortnight that it would be checked. 241. 'Were you told of a list of errors in these vouchers before the 28th June ? —I think it was before the 28th June. 242. Can you tell me what the date was ?—I should not like to say what date it was, for these matters were talked about. 243. Was it not before the middle of June ?—I could not say what date it was. I was asked questions about certain matters, and I wondered how people got the information they were asking me questions upon. Ido not know what the date was. 244. Mr. Reid.] You are certain you made these corrections on your own motion, and not from other information ?—Yes. 245. Then, about the glass which you corrected from 380 ft. to 156 ft., who measured the glass ? —I could not tell you. 246. Your certificate is only to see that the figures have been worked out correctly. Is there anything on the voucher to show that it had been measured ?—I do not see that there is anything on the voucher to show it. 247. There is nothing to show that it was measured? —There is nothing to show it. These vouchers pass in to me, and I concluded that measurement had been made in the ordinary way. 248. Suppose a receipt had no weights on it ?—I would look at the voucher. I might test the weight if I thought there was anything suspicious about it, or if the price was exorbitant. 249. Would you not test the size?—l should calculate the measurement to see that the amount of the money-claim was correct. 250. If there was no weight specified, what would you do ?—Generally, I look at the- weight: if there was no weight mentioned in the delivery-note, and if it struck me it was not weight, I would work it out; if it was near or about the weight I would let it pass. The tables of weight only give it to you approximately. This is the only way where the weight is not stated. 251. Mr. Montgomery.] Then, if it be not specified, there is no test in regard to weight ? What I want to get at is whether there is a real test as to weight, size, and measurement, and so on ? — It appears to me there is no other check except signing the delivery-note and working out the amount afterwards. 252. Mr. G. Hutchison.] Your certificate in respect to these vouchers is merely as to computation ?—That is all. 253. You would have with this voucher a receipt ?—Yes ; and the order for the goods. 254. Suppose the delivery-note or the receipt or order merely described this as a case of, glass, what check would that afford of the quantity supplied ? —ln a case of glass it would be cut into sheets, and there would be 100 ft. in a case; all the sheets in question would be cut to order. 255. But, supposing the delivery-note merely described four sheets or thirty-two sheets of glass without any measurement, what data would you have for arriving at a correct measurement ?—■ According to the delivery-note you would have none, but you could find out. 256. How did you certify to this 156 ft. of glass ?—-I saw it stated at 380. I calculated whether there could be that quantity. I then worked it out and found it was only 156 ft. The order for this glass would state—4 square 4ft. 10 x lOf, and 32 4ft. 10 x lOf, 28oz. glass. 257. lam assuming it did not say all that ?—The order would say it. We wanted a complete ' line, and we have not got it yet. Tuesday, 10th September, 1895.—(A. B. Guinness, Chairman.) Gertrude Knight sworn and examined. 1. Mr. Reid.] I understand that you are in charge of your father's workroom?— Yes ; and in charge of the shop when he is not there.