Mr. ENNIS re-called.

. . .

242. *** Has any portion of that £10,000 been applied, and for what purposes? — The £2,000 which was to be laid out in Glasthule has been already expended.

243. How has it been expended? — For the purposes for which it was borrowed alone, namely, the internal sewerage of Glasthule district.

244. Were there estimates prepared for that work? — Yes; by the town surveyor.

245. When was the first payment made out of that £2,000? — In the commencement of 1876. I will give you the exact date. The Provisional Order was passed in 1875.

246. But you did not get the money until the 20th of May, 1876? — No; but we got the powers to borrow the money for certain works. The first sum paid by us for that work was on May 4th, 1876, a fortnight before the loan was completed. Those plans that were submitted in 1874 of course embraced all the works that were to be paid for out of the £2,000. That first payment was £22 10 s ., and then on the 9th June we paid our contractor the sum of £430 for portion of the plans dealt with in the Provisional Order.

247. Who was your contractor for those works? — A gentleman named Thomas Sexton.

248. Mr. EXHAM. — Is he a Commissioner, or a relative of the Commissioner of the same name? — He is his brother, but he is not himself a Commissioner.

249. When was the contract advertised for? — In 1875.

250. What is Mr. Thomas Sexton? — He is a general contractor for houses and sewers.

251. Were there many tenders for the contract of this particular sewerage? — I cannot say.

252. Was the entire of those Glasthule works taken by Mr. Sexton under one contract? — He got only one contract in the Glasthule district. All the rest of the contract work near there was divided between a Mr. John Pluck and a Mr. George Dixon. The £22 10s. was for a little bit of sewerage. £430 was the amount of all his contract work in that district.

253. Were not all the works put up for competition in one contract? — No; the drainage district was divided into sets of contracts, and Mr. Sexton got that contract only. All the rest of the £2,000 has been paid away between the two other contractors — Mr. Pluck and Mr. Dixon.

254. Is Mr. Dixon a relative of any of the Commissioners? — He is son-in-law to a member of this board, I believe.

255. Have the contracts been executed in that district? — No; one is going on at the present moment. In fact all the contracts have been completed except one, and that is going on towards completion.

256. Will the £2,000 complete all the sewerage contemplated in Glasthule? — No.

257. Was the estimate too low? — The money is expended, and the work cannot be completed. The works intended to be done are more than the money would cover.

258. Mr. LAWLESS. — Have you got the tenders that were put in for those works in Glasthule upon which the £2,000 was to be expended? — I was not prepared for this, but of course if you wish I can produce them.

259. Was Mr. Pluck a Town Commissioner? — Mr. Pluck had no connexion with the Commissioners in any way.

260. Mr. EXHAM. — Did the Commissioners bind themselves to take the lowest tender? — In advertising we put in the usual statement — “The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.”

261. Who certifies as to the completion of the works? — The town surveyor.

262. Does he see that they are in accordance with the specification? — Certainly.

263. Are the payments made on his certificate? — Yes. Since we commenced to carry out these works we have appointed a clerk of works at £2 a week. He is only appointed temporarily during the progress of the sewerage works.

264. What is his name? — Peter Milligan.

265. When was he appointed? — On June 16th, 1876.

. . .

***  Sequential number of question and answer in the minutes of evidence.