Testimonies

Testimonies

• 945.

  It is 514L, in these particular items. The whole paper goes to a considerably larger sum even than that ? — Will you allow me to see the other items ?

• 946.

  Certainly. — (After looking at the paper.) I have no doubt it is Mrs. Steadman’s account.

• 947.

  180L. of it is money that seems to have been paid in cash to Mr. Crompton Roberts himself ? — Probably, That is the only explanation I can give of it.

• 948.

  There are a certain number of payments too of this nature, ‘”Gave money to poor man,” 5s., 2s. 6d., and so on. Do you know whether Mrs. Steadman had authority to give money down here to poor men ? — I do not like of course to bind Mrs. Steadman. Of course I cannot give evidence for her ; but I know this, that Mrs. Steadman is in such a position in my client’s household that anything he did would be authorised by him.

• 949.

  There is another handwriting here. Can you tell me whose handwriting that is ; “Cash 300L., fetched by Mr. Simmonds” ? — That is Mr. Crompton Robert’s handwriting.

• 950.

  Then there is 150L here, (pointing in the account.) Is that Mr. Crompton Robert’s handwriting ? — No, that is not Mr. Crompton Robert’s handwriting.

• 951.

  The pencil is not ? — No. I think the pencil is the same as the other ; indeed, I have no doubt it is. That is Mr. Crompton Robert’s handwriting, and so is that (pointing).

• 952.

  Then there is a little later, “C. R. paid ‘Black Horse Hotel,’” four or five times, and “Cheque given by Mr. C. R.” Do you know in whose handwriting that is ? — I do not know ; I should think the same as that.

• 953.

  Do you know whether Mr. Crompton Roberts had any drawing account down here. I have looked at his pass-book in order to see whether these were cheques given by Mr. Crompton Roberts, and to see whether any cheque in his pass-book corresponded to these, and I cannot find any for these specific sums ? — Yesterday, when I was asked whether Mr. Crompton Roberts had an account here, I misunderstood the question. I said I had no knowledge that he had, except what I heard in evidence on the trial of the petition. I made a mistake between Mr. Crompton Roberts and Mr. Hughes. I remember Mr. Hughes had an account at the bank here, but not Mr. Crompton Roberts. You understand the distinction I draw ?

• 954.

  Perfectly. Would Mr. Crompton Robert’s cheques be honoured on that account — do you know as a fact whether that was so ? — I should think not.

• 955.

  If cheques were given by Mr. Crompton Roberts, those cheques ought, somewhere or other, to be found in the pass-book. For instance, I see there is one to Simmonds, your clerk, 72L. 3s. 6d. ? — A cheque from Mr. Crompton Roberts ?

• 956.

  Yes ? — I know Simmons came up to receive 300L, for, as I told you yesterday, I gave Mr. Crompton Roberts my clerk’s services as a sort of secretary here, and he acted quite irrespective of me. I explained that yesterday.

• 957.

  Yes, quite so ? — I know he did come up to get a cheque cashed for Mr. Crompton Roberts, and that no doubt was the 300L. he refers to there as having been fetched by Simmonds. Mr. Crompton Roberts’ writing appears in that, saying it was fetched by Simmonds.

• 958.

  Where did Simmons fetch it from ? — From London. I suppose the London Joint Stock Bank. He banks at the London Joint Stock Bank, and has no other bankers. I know that.

• 959.

  There is a cheque for 300L. on May 10th, possibly that is the 300L ? — No doubt he wanted money for current expenses, and he sent up and got the cheque cashed.

• 960.

  There is no other Mr. Simmons except your Mr. Simmons connected with the election ? — I think not, but I do not know. There is a Mr. Simmons mentioned in the particulars.

• 961.

  (Mr. Holl.) We have a few more questions to ask you ? — You asked me yesterday to produce the first letter I received from Sir Julian Goldsmid. I will hand in that letter, and also the reply which I made to that communication (handing in the same to the Commissioners).

• 962.

  Have you any further correspondence ? — I received a second letter from Sir Julian Goldsmid which was on the occasion when Sir John Adye came down here. I telegraphed to him then that Sir John Adye was on his way. He then wrote me tins letter by that night’s post (handing the same to the Commissioners),

• 963.

  Was there any further correspondence ? — No, none whatever. I also hand in two letters, or rather copies of two letters, which I wrote to Lewis and Lewis in reply to the letters I handed in yesterday (handing same to the Commissioners).

• 964.

  Now with regard to the seven houses which were engaged at 4L each. Did you engage them ? — Yes, they were engaged by Mr. Coleman with my knowledge.

• 965.

  With your knowledge and by your direction ? — Yes, he told me the circumstances, and I said they must be engaged.

• 966.

  I see that in this letter, in which you acknowledge the receipt of Lewis and Lewis’ cheque for 350L. on account of expenses, you say nothing about the 200 sovereigns you had received ? — No, I do not.

• 967.

  How was it that in writing to them, acknowledging the receipt of that cheque, you said nothing about the receipt of that money ? — He did not refer to it, and I did not answer it.

• 968.

  Having received 450L. the amount that you sent in amounted only to 593L, when he forwarded you a cheque for 350L. ? — There were other claims which I mentioned to you yesterday which were claims alleged to be due, and sums that had been promised, amounting to something like 200L. or 300L., We had received no account whatever. It was supposed they were sums that were promised to voters to keep them.

• 969.

  How do you know it was 200L. or 300L., ? – Simply because Mr. Coleman told me so. In fact I did the best I could, and got the amount of it the best way I could, simply vivd voce.

• 970.

  Did he say the persons to whom they were promised ? — He did not. I presume some were expectations and some actual promises.

• 971.

  Did he give you a list of those persons ? — No, but he will give you the list. He says he can furnish a list of those.

• 972.

  I understand you to say the reason that you mentioned nothing about this 200L in gold was because of the 50L, you had paid to Coleman to distribute among different voters to secure their votes, and that there were other sums he told you he had promised to other parties but not paid ? — Yes ; that was really the case.

• 973.

  I see here you say, “The particulars of the ‘Bell Hotel’ accounts, 48L. 17s., 3d. were sent in upon the 4th of June. They were called personal expenses to prevent their passing through the agent for election expenses.”. They are called in the return ‘personal expenses ?’ — Yes, they are called personal expenses.

• 974.

  When you say they were called personal expenses to prevent them passing through the agent for election expenses, you knew that those expenses were what I may call illegitimate — illegal expenses ? — I don’t consider them illegitimate; they were not really illegitimate.