53

1.-—OA

W, H. MOKTOjN. !

37. Mr. Macdonald has stated in evidence that he went to see you, and then discovered that lie had been under a wrong ,'mpression about the area?—l only remember one interview xvith Mr. Macdonald —the one in which he came with Mr. Turnbull to see me in my office. 38. Do you know whether Mr. Macdonald was under the impression that he had to give 4or 5 perches?—l cannot say anything about that. Ido remember some conversation xvhich took place betxveen Mr. Hislop and myself xvhich led me to believe that Mr. Macdonald had an idea that the land was of greater area than what xve were wanting. 39. And when you discussed the matter xvith Mr. Turnbull you had a plan before you?— Yes, a plan shoxving the xvall originally intended to be built. 40. But that plan showed the area to be taken?— That plan was prepared showing the wall as originally intended to be built;" but Mr. Turnbull suggested that it should be altered to suit Mr. Macdonald; and upon that a report was sent by me to the Council stating that the xvall cost more, and I also communicated xvith Mr. Macdonald to the same effect; and it xvas then that he made an offer of £275 as his total contribution towards the cost of the wall. 41. Do you know anything of an agreement having been drafted prior to the end of March of last year in which the xxhole matter was to be fixed up xvithout any reference to the Croxvn land at all? —No, I only knoxv of one agreement. 42. You did not have anything to do xvith the negotiations? —No. 43. And you are absolutely certain that the first you heard of the Croxvn land in connection with the transaction was when the letter came from the Government asking for the £652? —I am quite certain of that. 44. Mr. Witty.] Do you think the city got full value for its money in connection xvith the Woodxvard Street improvement?— Yes. The wall, as it has turned out, has cost just about as much as it would have cost had we built a retaining-wall independently of Mr. Macdonald. Supposing we had built a wall merely for the retention of the street, the cost xvould have been not very different to the cost actually incurred in connection xvith the xvall constructed. The total cost is £560. As previously stated, my books show the expenditure to be £580, but there xvere certain other works incidental to it xvhich could not have been very xvell separated. The xvall, as intended by us for the retention of the street, was originally estimated to cost £200, but that amount would not have been sufficient. I reckon it would have cost £300 to built a wall sufficient for the purpose of holding up the street, assuming that we had nothing at all to do xvith Mr. Macdonald. 45. If the city had taken the land compulsorily and then had to build the wall, how much xvould it have cost?— The question of the cost of the land would enter into consideration. 46. Could you not give us any idea? —I am afraid my idea of the value of the land xvould not be of very much use to you. 47. Will you shoxv us the original plan of the wall? —[Plan produced.] 48. In your original plan it was semicircular? —No; originally it xvas triangular. 49. Hon. Mr. Hislop.] Did you ever prepare a plan shoxving the xvall straight across? —This was the actual working-drawing, and the old scheme was worked out to this drawing, but it was subsequently improved and xvas altered on this plan to correspond. It was not considered necessary at that time to keep any records. 50. Mr. Witty.] It was practically only your own rough draft plan?— Yes. 51. Did the original take in four or five perches or only '4 perch?— Only '4 perch. It was never contemplated to take any more than was actually required for the xvork to be done. 52. Mr. Remington.] In a letter of the 26th November you say you proposed to make a start on the plan prepared some time ago :is that the plan [plan referred to] ?—I think it must have been this plan [original plan produced]. 53. In any discussion that took place in the Council, in committee, or with the oxvner of the property, you never gave the Council or owner of the property to infer that 4 perches were required off. that property?— No. 54. You are quite sure?— Perfectly sure. I never had the idea myself nor conveyed it to anybody else. 55. Nothing you have said could convey that idea?— No. 56. Mr. Macdonald has stated that after the matter was fixed up by the City Council the plan revealed the fact that they only required really half a perch ?—lt xvas never intended to take any more than what xvas shown on this plan. 57. Mr. Macdonald in his evidence states, " When the Mayor told me that they did not want any but a few feet of land, the xvhole position altered. There was no use in my discussing the question. I was quite xvilling that the City Council should have a present of the small piece of land." It is most extraordinary, if you reveal that on the plan, that Mr. Macdonald should say he did not know of it until the thing was fixed ? —I am perfectly sure that we never intended to take more. 58. And it xvas never understood from you by Mr. Macdonald or his architect that you xvould take more? —Certainly not. 59. Can you tell me.on what date the contract was arranged for? —No. The contract really xvas the date of the original agreement, but negotiations had taken place previous to that. Nothing xvas done until the agreement was signed. Then there was a variation of that agreement at the hands of the Council. 60. At the time of the agreement you are perfectly sure he knew there was only "4 perch required? —He may have had a different idea, but I certainly'never gave any one an idea that more was required. 61. Hon. Mr. Hislop.] You say you remember my telling you that Mr. Macdonald was under a misapprehension as to the amount of land required? —Yes.