Against Mr. Henry Eustace de Bathe Brandon, Chief Clerk and Accountant in the Stomp Department at Wellington, preferred by and on behalf of the said Department:—

1.	That he has on divers days between the dates hereafter particularly set forth, and while acting as such Chief Clerk and Accountant, received from the persons hereinafter mentioned various sums of money covering requisitions for duty stomps intended to be supplied to the persons applying for the same, which stamps have been supplied but the moneys received for the same by the said Henry Eustace de Bathe Brandon have not been paid into the public account or otherwise accounted for according to law, that is to say:— 1. That on a day between the 3rd day of April, 1871, and the 30th day of April in the same year, he received the proceeds of a Post-office Order for £9 11s. 2d, which had been sent to the department by one H. I. Jones, of Wanganui. 2. That on a day between the 31st day of March last and the 8th day of April last he received the sum of £5 11s. 7d. from one Walter Hislop, of Featherston. 3. That on a day between the 18th day of June and the 24th June last, he received from one J. W. Gannaway, postmaster at Foxton, a sum of £5. 4. That on a day between the 5th day of June last and the 24th June last, he received from one—Roberts, Postmaster at Alevandra, the sum of £4 17s. 6d.
2.	That he has at divers times, and particularly in the cases before mentioned, supplied stomps to stamp distributor's and other's contrary to the rules of the Stamp Department.
3.	That he has at various times, and particularly during the months of April, May, and June last, unlawfully been engaged in dealing in buying and selling duty stamps.
4.	That he unlawfully has, or lately had, in his possession duty stamps, the property of the Government, and particularly certain promissory note stomps.
5.	That he has acted as agent for various persons in passing legacy and succession duty accounts, and in procuring deeds to be stomped and registered, and otherwise acting in such matters contrary to his duty.
6.	That he has been habitually negligent in the discharge of his page 5 official duties, and has discharged his said duties in an inefficient manner, and has been guilty of such offences, breaches of duty, and other misconduct as to render it unfit that he should remain in the Civil Service of the Colony.