Testimonies

Testimonies

• 555.

  Was that from Sir Julian Goldsmid ? – Yes.

• 556.

  Did he make any allusion to the 200L. you had already received from Foord ? – No, none whatever. I wrote him a note for a cheque of 210L., and I think it was sent to me, but I did not see him at the time, and he had no opportunity of asking me about it.

• 557.

  When was the cheque given to you ? – Upon the Friday morning, I think.

• 558.

  That was the Friday after the Monday he came down ? – Yes, I think so.

• 559.

  What did you ask him for a cheque for ? – On account of the expenses of the election.

• 560.

  That was after you had received the 200L. ? – Yes, I think it must have been.

• 561.

  Did you in that note say anything about receiving the 200L. from Foord ? – No, not a word.

• 562.

  Was it not rather singular that in writing to him, asking for a cheque for 210L. for the expenses of the election, that you should make no allusion to him of receiving the 200L. from Mr. Foord ? – I cannot explain how it was.

• 563.

  Will you look and see ? – Yes, I will, certainly. I was under the impression that I had the cheque from Sir Julian Goldsmid to reimburse myself the lOOL. Which I had paid to the returning officer, and the 200/L must have come afterwards. If there is any mistake it must be in my saying that I had the 200L. first. I wrote to Sir Julian Goldsmid for a cheque to reimburse myself what I had paid to the returning officer.

• 564.

  I suppose you will have some entry or memorandum as to when you received the 210L. ? – Yes, I did not make use of it I know at once – it remained in my drawer for some days.

• 565.

  You would have some memorandum or entry showing when you received the 210L. ? – Yes, in all probability.

• 566.

  Will you be so good as to refer and see the exact date when you received the 210L. ? – Yes.

• 567.

  And perhaps you will be good enough to ascertain when it was that Mr. Edwards came and received the 1,300L. and you received the 200L. ? – Yes, I will furnish you with those dates.

• 568.

  Have you any copy of your note ? – I am not certain of that.

• 569.

  When did you pay the returning officer the 100L ? – I think it was upon the morning of the nomination. I recollect writing a cheque then.

• 570.

  What date would that be ? – Saturday the 15th.

• 571.

  I thought you said you got this cheque from Sir Julian Goldsmid, and 200L. from Mr. Foord, upon the Wednesday or the Thursday ? – I must have had it later than that. I was under the impression that the cheque for 200L. was to reimburse me the 100L. I had paid to the returning officer.

• 572.

  (Mr. Jeune.) You see it could not have been so if you got it upon Wednesday or Thursday ? – No, I will refer to the dates and no doubt I shall be able to clear it up.

• 573.

  (Mr. Holl.) There are two accounts before me, and one is the account of claims in respect of Sir Julian Goldsmid’s election at Sandwich, and my attention is called to this ; how was it that when. Messrs. Lewis & Lewis wrote to you stating that you had received 210L. on account, and say that the balance was 383L., that you did not write back and say that you had received 200L. more ? – I cannot explain it. I thought they knew it.

• 574.

  They say in their letter specifically that you have received 210L. on account, leaving a balance of so and so ? – Yes, it is so.

• 575.

  The account of claims handed in at the time of the election petition was 593L. 17s. 8d. – they had got that before them, because they write and say that you have received 210L. on account, leaving a balance of 383L. Deducting the 210L. from the 593L. 17s. 8d it leaves that exact amount, so that would draw your attention to the fact that they supposed that out of this 593L. 17s. 8d. you had only received the 210L. ? – I had given no account whatever to Messrs. Lewis & Lewis in regard to the receipt of money.

• 576.

  Then they go on to say, “We regret to say that we cannot pass the account in its entirety, but beg to enclose a cheque for 350L on account, receipt of which be good enough to acknowledge.” So you see all they knew of any claim was for 593L. 17s, 8d, ; how was it you did not allude to the fact of your having received this 200L. from Mr. Foord ? – I cannot explain it I am sure.

• 577.

  Was it because Foord’s 200L. you knew had been spent for illegitimate and improper purposes ? – No, I do not think that was it

• 578.

  I do not see any account of the 40L. and 50L. that you gave to Coleman in this statement of claims ? – No, it is in that which was handed in to the judges.

• 579.

  Therefore that 90L. would be, in point of fact, money that does not appear here ? – Precisely so. There is another account that has been furnished since which has been handed in to the agent for election expenses.

• 580.

  I want to see why it was you did not make any mention of this 200L.; was it not because it had been spent in a manner which you knew was illegitimate ? – I think very probably that may have actuated me, Messrs. Lewis & Lewis’ letter did not call for a reply, and I might have been so engaged that I did not reply to it

• 581.

  90L. of this 200L. apparently you gave to Coleman, what became of the 110L. ? – It has not been spent out the moneys I received. I have now got a considerable balance.

• 582.

  Do you mean out of the 200L. apart from what is claimed here is in hand unexpended ? – Yes, that money was intended to be expended in the payment of the 89L 12s. 6d. That 350L. which was sent by Messrs. Lewis & Lewis was to go in payment of expenses, but when the account was made up to lay before the election agent he objected to these public-houses, and that money remains in my hands.

• 583.

  Supposing the whole amount of 593L. 17s. 8d. had been allowed, the 560L. which Messrs. Lewis & Lewis sent to you would only leave a balance of 337L 17s. 8d. ; you had 200L. From Foord, of which 90L you gave to Coleman, leaving 110L. in your hands so that you would have after receiving the cheques from Messrs. Lewis & Lewis, 110L. out of which to pay the 33L. 17s. 8d. supposing everything in the claims account was paid ? – Yes.

• 584.

  Do I understand you to say that no part of that 110L was expended at all in any improper manner beyond that which you have told us ? – No.