200

Treasury in payment for Immigration by that
vessel, and ultimately a receipt for that sum
was obtained from the original Contractors,
Messrs. Macandrew & Co. Mr. James Mac-
andrew states that of this sum only £1524 was
payable to the ship—of which a portion was
drawn by the master of the vessel, and the
residue passed to the credit of the general
account of the owners and that firm.

The owners of the “Gala” (James Watson
and others) having received payment for only
a portion of their claim, have lately sent out a
power of attorney to recover the balance from
James Macandrew & Co. And it is presumed
that the latter parties are liable, but on the
other hand, that they have no claim on the
Provincial Government, seeing that they have
been paid the full amount and have given a
receipt for it.

As a mere matter of account this would dis-
pose satisfactorily of the “Gala” case, and no
blame would attach to the Superintendent.

In the foregoing narrative, however, no al-
lusion has been made to part of the transac-
tion to which the Committee of the Provincial
Council make grave objections.

It appears from the evidence that, on the
arrival of the “Gala,” the Superintendent
first issued a warrant for £1712 in favour of
James Macandrew and W. H. Reynolds, to
whom the Provincial Government had under-
taken, on the application of Messrs. Macan-
drew & Co., to pay all monies due at Otago to
Messrs. Gladstone & Co. for Immigration pur-
poses. This arrangement was entirely for the
security of Messrs. Gladstone & Co. It had
been formerly assented to by all parties, and
was virtually a security for payment of ser-
vices rendered. It could not, therefore, be
revoked by James Macandrew & Co. in the
case of the “Gala.” The Provincial Treasurer
in making payment neglected to follow the
directions of the warrant. He paid to Mr.
James Macandrew (the Superintendent) and
took his receipt only, and failed after repeated
applications to obtain Mr. Reynolds’ ac-
quittance. The Superintendent, in order that
the accounts might be fully supported, issued
a warrant in favour of the firm of James
Macandrew & Co. (of which he is a partner)
and forwarded with it the receipt of that firm
for the sum of £1712.

The Superintendent justifies the substitu-
tion of another warrant on the ground that the
firm of James Macandrew & Co. were the
original contractors,—that they had received
the instructions of their agents (Messrs. Glad-
stone & Co.), of the 19th December, above al-
luded to, and had already acted upon them,
and that it was no longer necessary to have
Mr. Reynolds’ receipt.

But the Committee of the Provincial Coun-
cil take a different view. They are of opinion
that the Government was bound not to deviate
at all from the undertaking it had entered into
to pay James Macandrew and W. H. Reynolds,
and they characterize the substitution of a new
warrant as a mere evasion, which does not meet
the moral and legal necessities of the case.

In connection with this case, which involves
a liability of the Provincial Treasurer, in con-
sequence of his not having followed the in-
structions of the Superintendent’s warrant, it
is necessary to observe that the bond given by
the Provincial Treasurer for the faithful dis-
charge of his duties was called for, but cannot
be found among the Provincial records.

CLUTHA COAL FIELDS, £1000.

A warrant was issued in this case for pay-
ment of £1000 to Messrs. Paterson & Co.
This sum, the Superintendent, by a breach of
trust, withdrew from the Bank, and under a
mere pretence, obtained from Mr. Paterson
an acquittance for the amount.

It appears that a contract was entered into
between the Provincial Government and Mr.
J. G. Lewis, under the sanction of a vote of
the Provincial Council, for laying down a
Railway from the Clutha Coal Field to the
Clutha River.

It was agreed with the contractor that the
Superintendent should apply £1000 out of the
sum voted to the purchase of rails and chairs
in England.

In accordance with this part of the agree-
ment, his Honor ordered a railway plant from
Messrs. James Paterson & Co., of Dunedin;
and on the 7th May 1860, issued his warrant
for payment of £1000 to Paterson & Co. for a
bill of exchange. Instead of the money being
paid to Mr. Paterson, as the warrant directed,
it was withdrawn from the Provincial Account
at the Bank by the Superintendent (through
his clerk Mr. Logan) in the absence of the
Provincial Treasurer, avowedly for the pur-
chase of a bill of exchange for remittance to
the Provincial Agents in Edinburgh for due
payment of the order. At the same time the
Superintendent obtained from Mr. Paterson
a receipt for the £1000 under the pretence
that the amount had been remitted to Eng-
land. Mr. Paterson states in his evidence
that he gave the receipt on the 8th of May,
on the understanding that the money had
been remitted to England, and would be paid
over to their correspondents, Messrs. N. & N.
Lockhart, in Britain, by the Provincial Agents
on the due shipment of the railway plant.
Mr. Paterson now complains, that although
the order has been shipped, and the invoice
and bill of lading transmitted to Otago, the
remittance had not reached England on the
20th November, the date of their last advice.
The Messrs. Lockhart state in their letter of
advice that the Provincial Agents admit that
they have letters from Mr. Macandrew dated
September last; but no mention has yet been
made of the money which Mr. Macandrew
says he has sent on account of the railway
plant. The Messrs. Lockhart characterize the
case as one of the worst they ever knew in
business, and earnestly wish they had never
heard of it.

The Superintendent in explanation states
that he purchased a bill in duplicate from
James Thompson, Esq., of Melbourne, drawn
by the National Bank of Scotland on Glyn
and Co.; that he forwarded the original letter
and bill of exchange from Wellington in July
last, so as to go home by the August mail;
that the second of exchange was posted in the
month of November; that he has not yet
received an acknowledgment from the Provin-
cial Agents, and he fears the original letter
miscarried; that he has written home to
secure the bill from passing into other hands,
and has little fear of the ultimate safety of the
money.

The explanation of the Superintendent is
unsatisfactory: the money was in his hands
on the 7th May, and the bills not purchased
till the month of July following; whereas the
money ought to have been immediately ap-
plied in the purchase of a set of bills of ex-