THE COUNCIL INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 965, 4 November 1910, Page 6

THE COUNCIL INQUIRY

NAI NAI PURCHASE. HOW THE COMMISSION WAS PAID, CURIOUS CHEQUE TRANSACTION. MR- HINE'S CASE CLOSED. A further sitting was held last night by the Special Committee of the Legislative Council which has been appointed to inquire into tho charge brought against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, M.L.C., with reference to the purchase by the Government of tho Nai Nai property and another property at the Hutt known as Love's. Mr. Myers appeared for Mr. Hine, and Mr. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. Sharp), for Mr. Macdonald. Mr. John Motley Leigh, settler, Wellington, was tho only other witness in regard .' to the Nai Nai purchase. He deposed that he sold the Nai Nai estate to the Government. It was purchased by him in March, 1903, from Mr. Jounax at £70 per acre, or .£10,003 17s. 6d. in all. Of the total .£BOOO remained at the time of the salo to the Government.

Mr. Myers: What was the amount of the deposit? ■ ' , Mr. Skerrett: Are all these details relevant? ' Mr. Myers: I don't intend to elaborate the matter, but I will not pursue the subject. . ■ ' : Witness: It cost me more than .£IO,OOO, 1- might say. • ; ■ . -Continuing, -witness said that he 6old. to the Government in Jnly, 1905. He first offered theproperty to the Government in March or April, 1904. This offer was signed by himself. Ultimately it was offered by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. to the Government. He never withdrew the property from Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co., but he may also have had it in tho hands of other agents. Mr. Skerrett: I again complain as to the nature,of the evidence. ■ The chairman: The evidence must be confined to the sale, to the Government. Continuing, witness said he dia not know, whether .he or Mr. Macdonald suggested that it should be offered to the Government .on the second occasion. While' he was absent from Wellington between March and August, 1901, he did not think Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Cq. wrote to him. He saw them on a number of. occasions when ho was in town. The Government paid him .£21,473, and he paid Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. .£536 as commission. - ; How the Commission was Paid. How did you pay, the ■ commission ?— "While I was writing a cheque for the commission, Mr. Macdonald asked me to write the- amount- on two cheques. I think he said ho did not want the'whole of the. amount to go into the one. account. He , said, 'Make one «CIOO, and the other for the balance.' I did. so. Do you know if they were paid into an account ?—"The bank manager said that they were cashed over the counter." To Miv Skerrett: He agreed to pay Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. commission at the rate of 2Ss per cent. It has been suggested that you paid to Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. a much larger sum than 2J per cent.?—"lt is untrue." ■ ' ■■ Mr. Myers: When was that suggested? Mr. Skerrett: By you in your examination- of Mr. Wilson. . Witness: It is a very wicked thing. I never paid anything more to Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co., or anyone else. Have you got your bank book?—"No, it is'mislaid." Have you obtained from the bank a copy of your bank book?—" Yes." • Mr. Skerrett here said that he noticed on the credit side of the account an item of J25189 from Messrs. Bell, Gully, 8011, and Myers.—"There wore two mortgages on the property, and Messrs. Bell, Gully, 8011, and Myers paid them off." "A Legitimate Question." Mr. Myers said that he wished to deny that he had made tho suggestion to which Mr. Skerrett alluded.' He asked Mr. Wilson if any other moneys were paid. Surely, that was a legitimate question? The chairman: It was a quite legitimate question. ■ Mr. Skerrett: I havo my own opinion on the question, because Mr. Myers might have waited with patience till Mr. Leigh had given his evidence. Mr. Skerrett went on to 6ay. that ho also noticed in the bank statement an item for .£21,473, which no doubt represented the purchase moneys, and items for .£IOO and <£436, which no doubt represented the commission. Did you bring any influence- to bear upon any member or Minister or Government official to get rid of this property on the Government?—"No, I did not know a member 'of Parliament or a. member of tho Ministry." But you have now remedied that?—"l only know two of them how, and I don't want to know any more,"

The chairman: You are confining that remark to the Lower House. (Laughter.) Mr. Skerrett: I don't know, whether to condole with you or to congratulate you. So far as you know;, it was a perfectly bona-fide transaction ?—"I never had any suspicion that anvthing was wrong. Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. only got the cheques and nothing more in kind or anything else." In any communication written or verbal from Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co., was there anything to lead you to suppose that there was anything undue or suspicious about iliis transaction?— "Absolutely none; absolutely nothing suspicious." To Mr. Bigg: The cheques were payable to Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. or bearer ?—"Yes, that is so." Is it your practice to make large sums payable to bearer?—"No, I.make them payable to order. Mr. Macdonald may have asked me, or I may have done it on my own account." A Challenge. Witness said he would like to say something himself. He proceeded to remark, that he had never influenced any member of the Land Purchase (Board or any members of Parliament—not by suggestion or any other way. No one had had Is. from him. If anyone could prove that he had paid Is. to any person as a bribe to get tliis matter through he (Mr. Leigh) would- undertake to give ,£IOOO to a Wellington charity. He would do thia if they could prove that he had even offered or. suggested it. He did not do this sort of thing. Mr. Myers said that he.would like to make it clear as to the purpose for which the property was being used. It would be remembered that he had interrogated Mr. James Mackenzie (Commissioner of Crown Lands) on the subject. The Hon. Mr. Sinclair: Mr. Mackenzie said that it- was at present being held under the Lands for Settlement Act. Mr. Myers pointed,out that a copy of the newspaper files showed that in an interview with a Dominion reporter, the Hon. J. A. Millar said that he considered that the property was" not suitable for the purposes for which it was acquired. Dr. Findlay: It is unusual to accept a newspaper report, and especially a report of what may have been said at an interview. I think that the Minister ought to, be called if it is intended to prove that statement. I don't' rely on newspaper reports. Mr. Myers: I want to .show that it was bought for the purpose of workers' homes, and Dr. Findlay: If it is relevant, it should, as I have said, be proved in the proper way. I don't know whether that statement is true or not. , - Mr. Hino's Case Concluded. Mr. Myers at this stage intimated that he had concluded the case on behalf of Mr. Hine. ' Mr. Skerrett, for Mr. Macdonald, said that lie would like, to put in certain files of Hansard. It would bo remembered that he had intimated his intention that Mr. Hine should be put into the witnessbox for the purposes of examination. It was obvious that if he called him, he could not cross-examine him, for by calling him he would make him his witness. He would, therefore, defer his examination to an opportunity, which might occur in another place. At the very commencement of the inquiry it was quite obvious that the matter was narrowed down to a purely general question. Mr. Myers: "I understood no addresses were allowed." Tho chairman, to Mr. Skerrett: You are giving an aUdress. • '. Mr. Skerrett (jocularly): Do you think so? (Laughter.) The chairman: Yes. Mr. Skerrett-. My intention was to deliver only a very small speech. (Further laughter.) ■ .... . The chairman, to Mr. Myers: Do you object? . . . , Mr. Myers: Yes, I object to any speeches. Sir. Skerrett raised objection on a previous occasion. Mr, Macdonald Not Called. Mr. Skerrett: I don't think it necessary to call Mr. Macdonald in reply to the evidence that has been given. I have no objection nor has Mr. Macdonald to any member of the committee or Mr. Myers asking him any .question which they may think relevant to the inquiry. Neither Mr. Myers nor any member of the committee put any question to Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Myers said he would havo cross-examined Mr. Macdonald had he been examined by Mr. Skerrett. ■

Should Mr. Hine Testify? Mr. Rigg said he did not .think the inquiry could be complete without the examination of Mr. Hine. He thought Mr. Skerrett would have called him, but he was going to ask the chairman if he would call Mr. Hino in order that he might he examined by the committee. There were only two questions he (Mr. Kiirg) wanted to ask him. The chairman: That is a question for the committee to decide. I would ask the other gentlemen present to retire outside while the committee consider the matter. The pressmen and others present immediately left the room, and, on being invited to . return after- about ten minutes, the chairman said the committee had considered the .suggestion in regard to the calling of Mr. Hine, and had come to the conclusion that inasmuch as they have been informed by Mr: Myers that he can give only hearsay evidence it is not necessary to call him. At this etage the committee adjourned until a day to ,be fixed.