10,989. At that time was it the practice for the men [Page 269] to receive payment of their wages at the agent's office?-Yes.
10,990. Was that done during all the period from 1854 down to 1867?-Yes, but not including 1867.
10,991. Can you say that, during that period you retained no portion of any man's wages for debt of another agent?-It is quite possible we may have done so, but I don't recollect.
10,992. I suppose your books will show whether any portion of a man's wages was so retained?-Yes.
10,993. Do you remember any case in which that was done?-I don't remember any particular case, but it is quite possible; in fact, it is even probable.
10,994. Do you think that some retentions of that kind took place every year?-I don't think so. Of course, if a man gave an order on Mr Leask to pay a debt or an account for him, he was bound to pay it if the man had funds in his hand. I have seen that done- that a seaman gave a special order in favour of another agent or another party.
10,995. Is that done frequently?-Not very often, but it is done sometimes.
10,996. Is it done by the man of his own accord?-Decidedly.
10,997. But probably at the request of the other agent?-I don't know about that. For instance, instead of getting money from the seaman, he might get an order on the agent, the same as he might get an order on the bank.
10,998. But the other agent who was the creditor of the seaman does not know necessarily that you have money belonging to the man in your hands as agent?-Not unless the man tells him.