4
The doubt and difficulty arise in this way—
- No alleged original has been produced and it is stated that such original has been lost or destroyed.
- There is no person living except Mr. Chinn who ever saw the original so far as your Commissioner has been able to ascertain.
- Mr. Chinn’s evidence as to how and when he got the original is unsatisfactory, as also his evidence as to how and when it was disposed of, lost, or destroyed.
- Mr. Garnsworthy, the person who must have signed such document, if it existed, is dead.
- The document being lost or destroyed, I have been unable to compare the handwriting in the document with that in documents written or signed by Mr. Garnsworthy.
- Some of the statements in the said testimonial are not in accord with the facts. See below.
(1Y) As to the second branch of the charge on this document it appears to me that the document is misleading in the following respects:—
- From the testimonial being dated the 14th August, 1898, and from the testimonial referring to "the construction of the new Entrance to the Gippsland Lakes," it would be inferred that the writer was speaking of the work done at the Entrance, and of the work done there up to that date, or done at or about that date. Now, the work done there by Messrs. Garnsworthy and Smith was done in or about the year 1884, 1885, and the total amount of this contract was £13,079; whereas in August, 1898, the amount expended on the Gippsland Lakes Entranee was over £100,000. (See exhibits "O" and "1," and Mr. Catani's evidence at pages 12 and 13), and, further, notwithstanding Mr. Chinn’s statement to the contrary, Mr. W. P. Smith’s evidence and the books of the firm of Garnsworthy and Smith, to which he referred, satisfy me that Mr. Chinn was not engaged on the construction of the new Entrance to the Gippsland Lakes, but was employed by that firm for the purpose of surveying land in that neighbourhood, so that the whole reference in the aforesaid testimonial to the Gippsland Lakes is, in my opinion, untrue and misleading.
But, if the testimonial were a genuine one, I don't know that any useful end would be attained by my expressing an opinion on the extent of Mr. Chinn's moral culpability in not criticising the accuracy or truthfulness of the testimonial which he was using; as he does not put forward the document as his statement, but as containing some one’s opinion concerning him.
2. The second charge by the said Honorable James Fowler is in connexion with the testimonial purporting to be signed by J. Falkingham, railway contractor.
The document.is in the words and figures following :—
"'Warleigh,' Brighton,
Victoria.
Mr. Henry Chinn, Civil Engineer, has been employed by me during a great number of years Engineer-in-Charge of Construction, &c., on almost all the large contracts I have engaged in and I can, without the slightest hesitation speak of him in the very highest terms as a professional gentleman.
I have carried out some of the largest contracts in New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania under both the Governments and Harbour Boards of these States, also many of the underground connexion with the sewerage scheme of Melbourne, and I owe a deal of my success to the untiring energy and marked ability displayed by Mr. Chinn as my engineer in all these works.
To hear of his further success will give not only me great pleasure, but the great body of contractors with whom he is deservedly popular, and it is due to him to state he is an engineer of exceptional ability and that no more competent and popular gentleman in his profession is known to me.
(Signed) J. FALKINGHAM,
