A the Secretary of the The agreement of the vember, 1881, is in my hand 14, and I remember its being entered into. This is the agreement in question. left the Council's employ in 1883, and returned in 1892 as Assistant to. the Secretary of thw Council. I have been through the Minutes of the Council, and also the accounts and annual reports from the year 1884 to the present year, and the statement which I now produce has been made up by me from information I hav obtained from such Minutes, accounts and annual reports. I em produce such Minutes, accounts and annual reports if necessary to confirm this statement, which have compiled from them. I produce a letter received from the Manager of the defendant company dated the 3d of August, 1888. "This letter was considered a Council meeting held on the 16th August 1888, and I produce a copy of the Minutes of the Council passed at such meetting referring to such letter. The Council does not claim the fire alarm stations put up under the terms of that letter as being the property of the Council, nor does the Council claim the extra telephone at Sicawei put up in the year 1889 for which yearly subscription was paid. In the year 1898 the Council ordered five new instellations. These are specified in_ the statement I have putin, The Council be-
Exchange, and does not claim them as their property.
The witness then gave the list of things claimed by the Council and Director, which had earlier been given by Mr. Platt. He went on to say:—The Telephone Con pany never sent monthly debit notes to the Council as it was in the habit of doing to private subscribers. The amount due from the Council was sent to the Company every month, without such debit notes. The Telephone Company from time to time has increased its subscriptions for private subscribers, but the amount due from the Council under the Agreement of 1884 has never been changed except with a few additions when in the year 1888, five alarm boxes were erected (which the Council do not claim), and in 1898, when new installations were ordered, as suid before. Butt rthethreepolicestations, Seeretary's office, Joseph's Church, Ohservatory, and Semaphore, the same' amount has always been paid, since 1884 (except as regards one extra telephone at Sicawei as shown by the statement, ats, 24 per year). Befora 1884 the Council did not pay anything for telephones even then when they were installed for both Municipal and time-ball services: neither to the Great Northern Telegraph Company, nor to the Telephone Company, except' for special works made and on presentation the Inlls, as provided by Article 12 of the al Agreement. In my opinion the line between the Defence Creek and the Observatory is still in use now, I mean was when the Company stopped; it passes through Sinza Road; only very few, if any poles were renewed, That line has been used by the Company for supplying subscribers with telephonic exchange. The Company ought to pay for that No royalty has been charged by the Council. The telephones not claimed by the Council are 1.—One extra telephone-apparatus at 2.—Appuratusat Engincer'softice (already removed by the Company).
3.—Appuratus at Engineer's private house; removed by the Company. at French Consuiateeral (2)removed by the Company, 3.—Apparatus. at ch Municipal waterworks at Tungkadoo, The witness added that the Council's telephones were quite independent of the exchange, the best proof of which was that they were working now, when there was no exchange Mr. McNeill directed his eross-examination at first to the point of the alleged independence of the lines—thoxe between the police stations and that at St. Joseph's Church. Mr. Bottn admitted that private subscribers could, by ringing up the cxchange, connect with the police stations. The line was dependent so far as private subscribers were concerned. M. Bottu made a similar admission in the case of St.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.