I.—7a

84

purpose of making the entries in the contract journal. [Vide Mr. Blow's evidence, page 36, question 95, et seq.] Mr. Menteath : There is certainly some confusion here. [Evidence read.] Mr. Skerrett : Now, one of these two statements is a lie. That is obvious. Why should he lie about this process ? If he were an honest man, giving an honest account, and keeping notes of what went on for an honest purpose, why should he tell this lie ? There is no reason but the one why he should tell this lie deliberately to Blow. If he were an honest man he would have no reason to tell a lie about this; but if he were keeping these notes he took for the purpose of levying blackmail on his late employers who had dismissed him, then you would expect him to vary his account as to the way in which these notes were procured, and to differ in his account of the manner in which they were made. Not one of these slips has been produced, notwithstanding that he made such careful notes for his own protection. That statement shows that his evidence is wholly unreliable: that he was a mere blackguard making evidence for his own purposes. The exhibit 29 I asked to be produced because it shows that the alteration was made in the contract journal after the voucher was rendered. The contract journal shows it incorrectly; it was rendered correctly. What explanation can there be but this : that after the voucher was rendered for the amount he altered it himself in the Public Works contract journal. The voucher was for one piece of 41b. sheet-lead. An Hon. Member : What is the total ? Mr. Skerrett: £3 10s. 3d. An Hon. Member : What is the weight ? Mr. Skerrett: lcwt. Oqr. 141b. If you turn up the Public Works contract journal you will find it entered as lcwt. 2qr. 141b. [Page 106, contract journal.] Mr. Guinness : Altered from lcwt. Oqr. 141b. to lcwt. 2qr. 141b. Mr. Skerrett: What is the inference to be drawn from that but that this man must have been making entries for his own purposes, because if it was done in the manner described it was impossible for it to be otherwise; for the voucher as you see is rendered correctly, but he alters it when entering it in the contract journal, and he takes a note of it. If he was keeping these notes for an honest purpose he is contradicted by the lying statement made in regard to the interview with Blow, and not only by that circumstance, but other circumstances as well. It is extraordinary, if his story were true, that when making the fraudulent entries he had the contract journal and Bridson the order-book, yet in all cases the entries, with the exception of two in the order-book, are in his handwriting. If it were true, what would happen is this: the weight is read out by Bridson, who gives a false weight to Jenkins, who enters that in the Public Works contract journal, Bridson then hands the order-book back to him to make the fraudulent entry in the orderbook, to make it agree with the journal. It is utterly improbable if Bridson gave these directions that you would not find a large number of these entries in his handwriting. Is it at all probable to suppose that he would, in comparing the order-book with the contract journal, pass it over to Jenkins so as to get him to make it, or if Jenkins was really afraid of a prosecution he should make the entry, as he said he did, without demur. There is one fact that indicates the fraudulent character of this man The Chairman : Are you not making too much of this person ? Mr. Guinness : Building up and then knocking him down too much? Mr. Skerrett: As to the other entries in the book for which Jenkins is not responsible, there are only six that are not in his handwriting. First, there is that item of Bfd. [Item, page 3.] That is a December item. The way in which that is explained is this : There were 7ft. of lead-pipe, standard weight of which is 3-J-lb. per foot, totaling 231b.; Burt's invoice shows it to be 161b., but there is no suggestion of a fraudulent entry there. With regard to the glass, there is an entry at page 96 of the contract journal (4 squares, 4ft. lOin. by lOfin., &c.) that was supplied to the Government, the dimensions of the glass being fully given and the net total; it was rendered at 380 ft., being in excess 100 ft.; but that was purely a clerical error. The Chairman: The 100 was turned the wrong way. Mr. Skerrett: The point I want to make is to show that all the dimensions were fully given, so as to enable the department to check it. It is well known that in goods of this kind such errors are constantly occurring, and are constantly being checked, and in these particulars the vouchers are as constantly altered, so that there could be no imputation of fraud here. The Chairman : That comes out very clear. Mr. Skerrett: Then there are the "holding-down bolts," that is in Bridson's handwriting, lqr. 141b. with washers, charged in bulk at ss. Bridson's account is that he weighed the bolts and washers not knowing that the washers were to be charged separately. Then, at page 98, there is the item " a dozen engineers' bolts " ; the overcharge here is Is. What he says about it is this : that he overestimated the weight; although there is an overestimate in weight the price charged was reasonable and not excessive. The Chairman : He did not scale them. Mr. Skerrett: Then, with regard to the twenty-five sheets of lead, the explanation is this: Sheet-lead was ordered 12ft. by 4ft., &c.; it was to be cut to a certain size. Messrs. Briscoe, MacNeil, and Co. explain that they never cut up sheet-lead for their private customers ; that they would not do it, but that, having this Government contract, they made this exception. By the department order 84ft. were used or rendered useless. The Chairman : Why was not the whole of it sent ? Mr. Skerrett: The department insisted upon its being cut, and they were told the waste could be sent to them if it were wanted. Upon the first intimation that the item was objected to under the special terms of the contract it was instantly corrected. It was attempted to be shown that this was a fraudulent item, but Mr, Gellatly distinctly showed that it was not.