MOKAU LANDS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 880, 28 July 1910, Page 6

MOKAU LANDS.

A QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT.

KEPLT'BY THE BBEMIER,

Mr. Okey, member for Taranaki, r(*r cently asked'the Prime Minister: " (1)Whether he is aawre tliat —in the face of the recommendation of the Select Com-mittee-of the Legislative Council, in I'JUS, that tho Government should order inquiry into tho circumstances connected with-the Mokau-Mohakatini Block, and that pending, such inquiry steps should be taken to prevent iurther dealings with the property—the Attorney-General refused to give effect to the recommendation, and such inquiry has not been held, nor tho. property protected from further dealings; (2) whether, at the suggestion of the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, the District Lswl Registrar ofTarannki did lodge a caveat against dealings with the property, and whether tho Registrar-General on May 2, 1910, proceeded to Now Plymouth, and, without judicial authority, orde're/1 the removal of such caveat; notwithstanding that a protest had been lodged against such intended removal, upon the grounds that there had been fraud 'in the dealings that were not allowed to be investigated; (3) whether, on the date of such removal of caveat by the Registrar-General, Herman Lewis registered to the legal firm of Findlay, Dalziell, .and Co., a. mortgage over half the estate, an area of 20,705 acres, for .4:1000, and Mr. T. G. M'Cartliy a mortgage over '51,205 acres for. =£"25,271 Bs. 2d., thereby raising an alleged liability on the property of ,£14,000 to JM0.271 Bs. 2d.; and (4) whether ho will causo inquiry to be made info the foregoing transactions, and all' transactions in connection with this . property, since January 17, 1803, as recommended by the. Select Committee above referred to?

The Pritno Minister replied to the question yesterday as follows — '.'This question h;is obviously been so drawn as to convey personal insinuations. The statements and implications by which these insinuations .are raised .are quite baseless. The recommendation referred to was . made i to • the Government, and not to tho Attorney-General. He was not asked,- and he had no power to give effect to it. It was fully considered by the Government! hut was. not carried out. for several good reasons. Among these were: (IV The fact that the present Solicitor-General advised that there was no power .to set up a Royal Commission' as suggested. Mr. Jones's solicitor was informed of this advice, and stated to the Solicitor-General that he agreed with it. , (2) The reason why tho Government did not'take steps to prevent dealings with' tho block was that the title is under the Land Transfer Act, and the Government had no ■ power • whatever to prevent dealings.. Mr. Jones and his solicitor have been in almost constant communication . with ■ Hid Government about this matter ever since tho date of the recommendation in.question, and have never suggested that any such step should or could be taken. '■ The .legal claims of Mr. Jones were finally -dismissed as groundless by the Court of Appeal in thfi case of in re Jones, (1908), 11 Gaz. K. ''As.regards tho second branch of this question, it is true a caveat was lodged, but it was lodged to protect, not. Mr. Jones but tho Land Transfer Assuranco Office Fund, and upon tho suggestion of tho Chief Judge of tho Native Land Court .that the leases granted to Mr. Joshua Jones himself. were invalid and should netoi-'havc been registered. There never has been any question of fraud or improper dealings raised throughout the history of this case, apart from the dealings by Mr. Jones himself with his Native lessors, and Mr. Jones's own suggestion with, regard to his.dealings., with his English mortgagees. The ■ caveat lodged for tho reason above stated. was removed when the mortgage of Mr. T. G. M'Carthy, referred to in the question (3)y as-presented for registration by his solicitors, Messrs. Travers, Campbell, and Peacocke: The caveat was not removed until after proceedings'in the Supreme Court were threatened by Mr. M'Gartby's solicitors, and after tho Eegistrar-General and the local Registrar' had satisfied themselves that it'was impossible in law to support tho caveat. "'•

"As regards'the mortgages iu the third branch- of'this'qU6stion, they wero pot .registered until' 1910. The Attorricy- , General has not and novcv had any interest, direct' or indirect, in these mortgages; they were legal mortgages given' in' ■the usual way for valuable consideration. He has never seen or acted professionally for Mr. Lewis in. connection with this matter. As regards the last part of this question, it is clear that the Law Courts are open'to Mr. Jones to' investigate any legal wrongs ho alleges ho has suffered. The Government is, as already • stated, advised that no commission, can be set Up in this case. Mr. Jones is, of course, free to have his grievances investigated by petition to Parliament." '