MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 966, 5 November 1910, Page 6

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

. A -TARANAKI. ESTATE. SHOULD POLITICIANS ACT AS LAND AGENTS? .STATEMENT BY IFL C. E..IAJOR. INTERESTING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

- The Select Committee of the House .of Representatives that is inquiring into the allegations made by Mr. Hine, •M.P., met again yesterday. Mr. M. ■Myers appeared for Mr. Hine, and Mr. C: P. Skerrett,-K.C. (with Mr. Sharp), on behalf of Sir. Symes.

The .following were the charges under investigation:

' "(1) That Charles Edwin Major, •in or about the year 1904, while a member "of Parliament, conducted the sale-, to the Government 'of a • property, of Frederick . Bayly, at Toko, and received from the said IVeden'cU . Bayly . a., commission .or 'money* for • io doing. "(2) That Charles Edwin Major and Walter Symes, or one of them, in or about the year 1905, while both members of, Parliament, conducted the sale to the' Government of the property previously referred to, and divided the commission received.from Alfred Bayly." Mr. Major was present, but was unrepresented by counsel. ' Mr. Myers said he understood that Mr. Skerrett would reserve his defence until all the evidence on Mr. Hine's . fcehalfi had been given, but he understood the Prime Minister wished to call some evidence in reference to the newspaper charge dealt with : on the previous day.,' Sir' Joseph Ward said he proposed to call two witnesses —Mr. W. T; Jennings,- M.P., and ..Mr. W. H...Atack, manager of the New Zealand Press. Aseociation. .'. ■ •History of the Purchase. ' Mr. J. D. Ritchie (Government Land Purchase Inspector), examined by Mr. iM.': Myers, said F. Bayly's property was first offered to the Government on March 9, 1903. He offered about 900 acres at £12 10s. an acre The offer wasi made through Mr. Major. On March 18 Mr. Scddon instructed Mr. ! A. Barron (Land Purchase Officer) to negotiate for the property. On April 14, 1903, Mr. J. Barron (Crown Lands Ranger and a brother of Mr.-A. Barron) ..valued the land at. £11 10s. per acre,' and said it was suitable for dairying. , . ' ' ■ . . Mr. Myers was proceeding to examine the witness in detail regarding the correspondence , on tho 'file, when •-, The chairman said it was scarcely ■worth. going ' into the matter' at such length, seeing that Mr. Major admitted the charge. • .. Sir.'" ; Jdseph' Ward''''said he preferred that nothing should be kept back," and iMr. .Ritchie proceeded to give a sumimarlv. of the correspondence on the 'Departmental file.. ' . The correspondence showed that the jTaranaki Land Purchase Board, Messrs. IBarron, J. F. Mackenzie, and John■Tieslop, njet at Stratford on July. 29, - arid considered an offer for. 880 acres of ;iMr. Bayly's property in the Toko'. Block, vat £12 10s. per acre. It was resolved that an offer be made at £12 10s., with .£450-for improvements made since the .property .was first submitted, on condition, that certain buildings and fencing should be completed; also that £20 an acre'be made for five acres ,in section 8, block. 16, to give access to one division, f The only valuation was the £li 30s. one by Mr. J. Barron. On August •1, 1903, Mr. A. Barron reported to Mr. ISeddon the result of the board's deliberations.. . This went to Cabinet on fAugust. 2, and tie recommendation being approved, the purchase was completed at £12 10s. per acre. Mr. Myers: That property is known •&s the Clandon Estate.now? Witness: "Yes." Mr. Myers: That was the only estate •acquired for some time in that district? '—"Yes." ■Mr.; Myers: The next one was Mr. (Alf. Bayly's?—"Yes, so far as I know." Mr. Alf. Bayly's Property. . Witness said this property was offer- - ed by Mr. Arnet, of Stratford, in November, 1903, at £12 10s. an acre, but nothing was done until April; 16, 1904, when the late Mr. Scddon forwarded a letter .to Mr. Barron, stating that he had been communicated with .by Mr. Major with .reference to the suggested purchaso of the estate. "I replied to Mr. Major," he concluded, "that I would mention the matter to you." On July 6 Mr. Barron reported on the estate-to ,the then Prenner at considerable length. The estate was offered at £12 10s. per acre,' and the land tax value was a little under £7 per acre: The report concluded by the statement that if the land could be purchased "at, say, £9 per acre, it could be disposed of. Itis difficult to.say what demand there will be for butter next season, but the property could be let for grazing in large areas."

Mr. Myers: The land tax value was '£7. per acre, was it not? Witness replied that it was slightly under £7. He went on to read through the files. On July 31, 1904, when the ■before-mentioned letter was submitted to Cabinet the Government declined to go further with negotiations for the purchase, of the property, and on August 4, Mr. Bayly was notified to that effect-.'- Negotiations were reopened on 1 'August 31, 1905," when Mr..Arnet was written to.. The files did not show bow the matter came to be reopened. The Department's letter , stated that the previous offor of Mr. A. Bayly's estate at £12 10s. per acre was considered to •1)0 in excess of its value to the Government. The Department wished to know if this was the lowest price which , Mr; Bayly would accept. ' Immediate Action Urged. If not, would lie quote tho lowest price? Nothing further seemed to have been done until June 28, 1906, on which 'date Mr. Walter Symes forwarded a petition to tho Hon. W. Hall-Jones, then Acting-Prime Minister. The petition was from 49 settlers from Toko, .asking that Mr. A. Bayly's property at Toko he acquired by the Government. In bis. accompanying letter Mr. Symes pointed out to tho Minister tho advantages of the land for .closer settlement, and especially its adaptability for dairying. The present owner (he wrote) had ■assured him that he was tired of the •share system, and would not renew his agreeriient witli those' milking on the share principle. Tho owner intended to : sell all the cows and restock with sheep. If this wore done, Mr. Symes pointed out a number of settlers would be driven away. Theprice at which Ah. Bayly was. willing to sell was £lf 10s. per acre; which was reasonable and. cheap, •is land in that district ran to £14 and £J0 per acre. Mr. .Symes urged the *»«: ftfssity for immediate action ak the diking season started in Augustj and

some of the .agreements were on the point' of expiry. He strongly recommendedi that. the estate should be acquired. Member of Parliament or Agent? - Witness, in answer to further questions, said that Mr Symes was member for the district at the time. Mr. Myers: Does that' letter show any indication of its being signed by Mr. Symes as an agent?— No. Mr. Myers: It is written on General Assembly.; Library':' paper.:—Yes. In' answer to further questions, witness said that on July 11 Mr. HallJones wrote to Mr. Symes saying that Mr. Barron would inquire into it. On July 24, 1906, the property was" valued at £20,800 capital value, or £11 per acre. On July 25 the board met at Stratford and made a recommendation that a price not exceeding £11 per aero be offered for 1900 acres. On August 11 this recommendation was approved, and on August?2l Mr. Barron advised Mr .'A. Bayly that he was authorised to offer £11. per acre. On August 24 Mr. Bayly wired accepting tho offer. The 'chairman (to ; Mr. Major): Do you want to ask him any .questions? Mr. Major: I have no questions to ask, but'l have a statement to make. . At "Sir Joseph Ward's request, Mr. Ritchie was sworn, and stated that he had. been : Land, Purchase ' Commissioner for a year. ■ Was there Ministerial Interference? Sir Joseph Ward: During that time has any attempt been made at pressure or representation been made'to you to purchase any estates in the country?— Not- the slightest. By a- Minister or anyone else?— No. Has there been any attempt, at interference with you in your duty?— None at all. Has any Minister , attended a meeting of the Land Purchase Board when an estate was ;under offer?— N0... Has , any 'estate been purchased at a higher price than recommended by tho board?— No. .. . The Hon. J. A. Millar: During your term of office can you say what has been the greatest difference between the price asked for the estate and the price at which it was stated in the land valuation roll? —There has been as aiuch as £10. Mr. Millar expressed surprise/. Ho said ho had known as much as £40. Mr. Ritchie: I am speaking of farming land, because I have.,not dealt.with suburban land. ' : Mr. Millar: In the Assessment Court havo you found a great difference, between the price awarded by the. Assessment Court and the valuation? —I have not dealt in compulsory acquisition. Mr. Massey: Your evidence only re-; latos"'to 'tlie past' 'twelve moiiths' or thereabouts ?—Yes. Mr. Allen-: In a letter written by Mr. .W. Symes,. when forwarding a petition, lie stated that Mr. A. Barron had valued a thousand acres ■at £14. Is there "any record of that valuation? — There is nothing on the file. Mr. Fraser: Was there much rise in tlie price of dairy produce between'the years 1903 and 1906 ?—I do .not think there was a great deal. There might have been a penny a pound on butter, but not much. Would that in any way account for the rise in valuo of dairy land from 1903 to 1906?—0h, undoubtedly. There, has continual rise right through from then till the present day. You don't know the land tax value of this land in 1906?— I don't know. A little under £7 I think. Mr. V. H, Reed: Did Mr. Major write his communications as a land agent or as a member of Parliament? — 1 'Mr. Symes' sent his as a member, Mr. Major as a land agent." . Position of Mr. Major. The chairman: So far as your knowledge goes, was Mr. Major directly or indirectly concerned in this sale to tho Government of the property of Mr. A. Bayly, at' Toko? —"No. There is notiling in, the documents to show that Mr. Major was communicated with at all. The communications were sent to Mr. Bayly himself and tho offer was sent to Mr. Bayly.''

Sir.' Allen: What about the letter of April 16, 1904? ' .

Mr.-Major: I can. dear that up in a moment if you will permit me. The letter, which wa6 re-read, was from the late Mr. Seddon to Mr. Barron, stating that Mr. Major had suggested having the proporty inspected, - and that lie'(Mr. Seddon) had'replied to Mr..Major that"lie had mentioned the matter to Mr; Barron. Mr. Myers: Is : Mr. Major's letter filed? Mr. Ritchie: No, I do not see it. A Speech In Parliament. At this stage Mr.. Myers put in an extract'from a speech made in the House by Mr. Synies on October 9, 1905 (Haasard, volume 135, page 579). The extract was as, follows

"I know next to nothing about tho Land for Settlements '" Act. • There is only one estate in my district that has been acquired under the Land for Settlement Act. That estate was not. wisely acquired, and whether it was the Government or tho board who were to blame I am not sure; but, whichever it was, they gave £2 10s. per acre nioro for that land', than;l could have, bought it for. .And the ■strange thing is that whon they bought that land the owner of it was cutting it up, whilst, lands that had been offored to them that were not being cut up they would not look at. I am not quite certain whether it is the head of,tho.Department who is at fault; but the Government seem to be quite powerless or quite indifferent about tho whole matter, so far as my district ' is concerned. I am satisfied that ■ if they had asked my opinion in '. regard to the estate they acquired I should at once have advised them ■not to buy it at the price they gave for it." The reference in this speech, Mr. Myeissaid, wa« evidently to Mr. F. Bayly's property, as Mr. A. Bayly's was not acquired till later. Evidence by Mr. Flannagan. Frederick William Flannagan, ValuerGeneral, produced copies of entries of valuation of the two propertibs. The property of Mr. F. Bayly was entered on the Valuation Roll as follows, in 1897 :— Unimproved value £1900, capital value £4655. In 1897 the capital

valuo was reduced to £4355, although the unimproved value remained the same. In 1900 there was a valuation for a loan for the" Public Trust Offics. ajid the figures were: Unimproved £4144, capital value £8406. In 1901 thero was a revised valuation, and the figures wore: Unimproved valuo £4144, capital value £8490 (tho samo as in 1900).. In 1903 there was a special valuation for the Lands Department: Unimproved value £8404, capital valuo £12,002. In 1904, after the land had been subdivided, a valuation was made with the following result: —Unimproved value £4012, capital valuo £82S1. The area then was practically the same as in 1901.

Continuing, Mr. Flannagan stated that the valuation made in 1903 was entered in tho supplementary roll, and was therefore not used for rating and taxation purposes. Mr. Myers: May we presume that tho valuation of £12,602 was probably for the Lands for Settlement Department, and that even after tliat it was valued at £8281 for taxing purposes. Mr. Flannagan explained that a special valuation must necessarily go on the supplementary roll. The ordinary roll could not be altered except at stated intervals. Mr. Myers: ■ But when the ordinary roll could have been altered according to tho law it was not altered. Mr. Flannagan said the valuation of 1904 was an ordinary roll valuation. The one of 1903 was a special valuation, in 1909 the figures were: Unimproved value £7246, capital valuo £12,670. This was pretty well up to tho valuation of 1903. Areas and Valuations. At Sir Joseph Ward's request witness gave the acreage of the property at tho time of different valuations as follows: —1900, 944 acres; 1901, 944 acres; 1903, 831 acres; 1904, BSO acres; 1909, 880 acres. • Continuing, witness gave the following figures relative to Mr. A. Bayly's property: —1897, unimproved value 5000 acres, capital value, £10,374. In 1901 a revised value took place, and_ the figures were: Unimproved value £5773, capital value £12,292. In 1907 the property was subdivided, and the figures were: Unimproved valuo £6107, capital value £13,009. In 1909 the valuation was: Unimproved value £13,258, capital value £23,377. The areas of the land at these different periods were: 1897, 2011 acres; 1901, 1841 acres; when subdivided, 1853 acres.

Sir Joseph Ward: What is your experience of tile values by owners as against tho values when the Government purchase. Do they vary?—" Yes. My experience is that', the amount asked by the , owners is largely in excess ol the Government valuation."

What is Your experience in connection with tho valuation registered for taxing purposes ? —"When the owners have land for sale the values go up, and whon they pay taxes they go down. (Laughter.) . . So that the owner's value m neithor case would be accepted as reliable?— " No " ~ Mr. Buchanan: Do you recollect a property of 10,000 acres offered at £7 an acre? .v.

Sir Joseph Ward: If you are going into' this, I will mention a. case in which Mr. Buchanan advocated the purchase of a property at about £8 over its value. ' The question , was allowed, and an. Buchanan, asked witness if lie knew of 10,000 acres within a short distance of Masterton being offered to the Govern-, mont'at £7, and refused. The property was cut up, and sold at £11 to £13 an acre. Witness disclaimed knowledge of tbo case. Statement by Mr. C. Bayly. Clias. Bayly, of Toko, and brother and executor of tho ; late. Mr.-A. Bayly, said that the property of Alf 1 and Fred. Bayly had lam soven miles apart by road, and three in a direct lino Ho produced - a p.n. dated September 10, 906, due November 13, made out in favour of Walter Symes by Alf Bayly for £300. There was no-entry iu Alf. Bayly's books about this p.u. Sir. Myers was proceeding to _ ask witness if he knew of any business transactions botween his brother and Mr. Symes, when opposing counsel objected. • • Mr. Massey asked if this were a court of law, or a court of equity, or a Parliamentary Committee ? Mr. Myers said Parliamentary Committees were not as a rule bound by the rules of evidence. The chairman (Mr. Hanan) said ,he supposed he had been put into the chair on account of bis legal knowledge. He had given his rulings accordingly, but if the committee wished him to bring no more knowledge than the layman possessed to bear he was 'quite willing to do so. Mr. Skerrett: It is perfectly fair that if it is suggested that this £300 was commission, I should have the books here to examine them. Mr. Myers: It occurred to me that if witness says there is no entry in. the books, there is no uso putting the country to the expense of delaying till the books are brought down. Keplying to Mr. Myers, witness said he had only his late brother's bank book. He had no letters or papers relating to the purchase. Mr. Symes and the Messrs. Bayly. Skerrett: Now you see the false impression, that might have been created. The inference was that there were no business transactions between Mr. Bayly and Mr. Symes, but there are no books to show. Mr. Myers proceeded to ask whether, apart from this transaction, witness knew of any business relation between his brother and Mr. Symes. Mr. Skerrett objected to the question being even - put, because, even although it might bo ruled inadmissible, it might bo reported in the press. Mr.Myers did not press the question. Sir Joseph Ward: Are you trustee for your brother, A. Bayly?—"Yes." ' As his trustee, can you inform the committee whether the full payment for the estate was paid into your brother's banking account?—"As far as I know, it was.

Was the amount of £21,026 paid into your brother's account on October 11 the total payment by the Government? —"As far as I know." ' Can you inform the committee where that £21,026 came from ?:—"Malone, Anderson, and'Johnston, a firm of solicitors." For whom were they acting?—"l cannot say." . So far as you know, that was the full purchase money of the estate?—" Yes."■ At this stage Mr. Myers wanted to call Mr. Symes. Mr. Skcrrett objected to Mr. Symes being called before the case against him was closed. .Ho proposed to put Mr. Syines in tho box himself. Mr. Major Civos Evidence. Mr. Charles E. Major, land agent, now of Auckland, but formerly a member of the House of Representatives, on being called, said he wanted to discover what he was guilty of. The chairman read over the charges to him. Mr. Major then gave evidence in his own behalf. He said lie sat in .the House of Representatives from 1902 to 1908, and was defeated at tho last election by Mr. Pearce. He said he wished to answer tho second charge first. The only concern he had with that was at the instance. of Arnet, who negotiated tho proposal to purchase Alf. Bayly's estate. Mr. Arnet asked him to write a letter to the Premier, telling him his (Mr. Major's) opinion of the estate. He replied: "If I can help you in any way, Harry, I shall ho glad to do so." Ho had no other interest in the matter, and no knowledge of any commission paid.

Mr. Skerrett: The charge is that you divided the commission.

Mr. Major: There is not the slightest truth, in that. Mr. Skerrett: Have you divided any other commission connected with sales of land to the Government with Mr. Symes ? Mr. Major: "No." Sir Joseph Ward: Was any influence exercised by you at any time with anyone connected with the late Government to effect this purchase?—" No. The only letter I wrote was at tho instance of Arnet, and the land was now worth double the prico the Government had acquired it at."

Sir Joseph Ward: Have, you received any payment from the Government in connection with such sales?—" Never in my life. Nor have I expected any." Sir Joseph Ward: And you have never divided any commission with a Government officer ?—"No. The charge is absolutely untrue so far as I am concerned."

Mr. Jas. Allen: Have you got a copy of the letter you sent to the Prime Minister in April, 1904?—" I telegraphed to a late clerk of mine to whom I assigned my business, asking him to forward all correspondence with Mr. Fred Bayly, but he has sent nothing down. There has been no response to my telegram, so I conclude he is away. lam of the belief that the document is still in my Hawera office." In answer to further questions on this subject, Mr. Major said he would endeavour to see if there was available a copy of the letter he wrote to the late Mr. Seddon. "Within His Rights." _ Concerning Charge No. 1 (in connection with tile sale of Fred Bayly's property), Mr. Major said: "I consider I was well within my rights, both legally and morally, in making that sale. I am of opinion that I was doing something commendable in tho interests of the State and of the particular settlers who happened to acquire the land. I have only been concerned in the sal© of two estates to the Government —Livingstone's, near Hawera, before I was a member of the House, and Bayly's land, which was sold at less than its value at the time. Had Bayly not sold it to the Government I would have sold it to a syndicate, and the syndicate would have made a profit, whilo the settlers would not havo got the land so cheaply. There was nothing hidden nor secret about it. The people in Hawera knew about it."'

Ho produced his ledger, which showed :vn entry regarding the commission paid by Fred Bayly. There was no entry concerning Alf. Bayly nor Mr. Symes.

Mr. Myers: How long was that property in, your hands for sale prior to its acquisition by the . Government?— "I cannot say." Was it not in your hands for a considerable timo?—"l do not remember."

Did yon not try to dispose of it to other people?—;"I am not sure." Was it not your suggestion to Mr; Bayly that his. property, should be offered to the Government?—" That I don't know." - >

Were you not trying for a considerable time to sell this property privately, and was not the proposal' to sell to the Government an afterthought, a suggestion of yours?—"No, I think not. I cannot answer definitely, because my memory will not servo me in respect of tho details."

Wcro you in the House when Mr. Symes made the spcech I have referred to in regard to this estate?-— "Yes.".

Do you know that lie complained then about this purchase?—'"That is the first I hoard of it. I may h.ivo known of it at the. time, but it is completely obliterated from my memory." "A Prince of Pessimists;" . At what price were you.offering this estate to private people before you offered it to the Government at £12 10s. ? —"It was offered to the Government at less than it was likely to bo offered to anyone else. I have offered a number of properties to the Government, and I knew the* difficulties there wero in getting Mr. Barron to consider them. He is a prince of pessimists. No matter how good the land is, he always undervalues it." . Can you say. at what price you were offering this land to private people before it was offered to the Government at £12 10s.? —"It would not be offered to any person at a less price than it was offered to the Government." Mr. Myers: You have not answered my question— Mr. Skerrett: He has answered it. Mr. Myers: For whom are you appearing? I understood you were not appearing for Mr. Major. Will you please not interrupt? Continuing, Mr. Myers asked: Can you tell at what price you offered it to private people? —"I cannot tell you what price. In offering land to any third party outside the Government it would not be offered at, a less price oliau it would be to the Government." - You do not recollect? —"No." Was it ever in your hands at a less price than £12 10s.?—"No, I think not. It may have been at a higher price, but never less." . When you were trying to sell for Frederick Bayly wero you trying to sell as a whole or a subdivision?—"As a whole. I could have sold it in subdivisions, but Mr. Bayly did not want to. That is one of the reasons ho thought lief could sell to the -Government." Offers to the Government. . Was Frederick Bayly himself about to cut up the property, not being able to sell it as a whole?—" That I can't tell. The matter was discussed, but nothing definite was arrived at." Sir Joseph Ward: I understood you to say that you had offered a good many properties to the Government. How many do you suggest? Witness: "Half a dozen." How many properties wero purchased that you recommended to the Government or the Land Purchase Board? — "Two. Mr. Livingstone's, before I became a member of Parliament, and Fred. Bayly's after I became'a member."

In connection with this particular property—tlio one you offered to the Government as a member of Parliament—did you receive any payment of any kind from the Government or any Government officer?—" No."

Did you make any payment to anyone connected with the Government or any Government Department?—" No. Such a thing never occurred to my mind." Did you at any time inform any member of the Land Purchase Board or of tho Government, or any Government officer, that you were putting this property under offer on condition that you received a commission of the seller of the land? —"No." Did you bring any pressure to bear on tho Government in connection with, the sale of Fred. Bayly's estate?—" No. I would like people who think these things to try it, and see what chance they liave got." A Commission of £300. You were dealing as a land broker: that was your ordinary business?— "Yes, as a land agent. As a matter of fact, most of tho letters wore written by a clerk of mine. . I was not there a good part of the time." .

Mr. Massey: Was there any objection on the part of Mr. Bayly to pay this commission? —"No. He paid less commission because he had to accept less for tho land than he expected. Tho original agreement was that I should receive 2j- per cent. I received a not sum of £300."

The chairman: Do you consider it inconsistent with your position as a member of Parliament to have offered this property to tho Government —to have conducted a sale to the Government ?—"WeIL I am living in Auek-

land now,' and I don't know whother the integrity of Mr. John Bollard, a present member of the House "

Members of tho committeo protested in chorus at this answer, and tho witness was not allowed to finish the sentence. Tho chairman: Mr. Major, will you answer my question? Mr. Major: So far a-s I am concerned. it was quite legitimate business. I think what I have done should be commonded rather than reproved. Tho more the facts are inquired into the hotter it will be for mo and for tho Government. Tho facts. would show what a splendid purchase the Government had made. Mr. Jas. Allen: Supposing two people were offering an estate to the Government and one was a member of Parliament and the other was not, which would be the more likely to get tho business? —"Most certainly the one who did not happen to be a member of Parliament. If ho were a member of Parliament it would bo "an almost certain bar to his obtaining a concession from the Government or De-' partmental officers." "The Public Are Very Suspicious." Mr. Allen: What would be the public view? —"I don't know; the public are very suspicious, and, like certain members of Parliament, they might be unable to conceive honesty in any other man." Mr. Massey objected to such an answer. Witness had no right to reflect upon members of Parliament. Such answers should not be permitted. Tho chairman agreed. Mr. Major, as a former member of Parliament, should, he said, know that. Mr. Major said it would -have been more reasonable on the part of the member for Stratford if he had made inquiries before launching his charges. Ho complained of the inconvenience he had been put to. Ho had been' endeavouring to get back to. Auckland by that day's train, and had sent his luggage to the station, but had to send a cab to fetch it back.

To Sir Joseph Ward: The land he recommended the then Prime Minister to buy at Mr. Arnet's request was acquired at less than its then value. He knew it was cheap land. He wanted to help Arnet, who was his friend. The land was now, worth moro than twice what tho Government gave for it. Mr. Myers: Did you ever . offer tho Government any land that was'not suitable for settlement?—" No. I would not have been ass enough to offer them anything not worth the money."

Mr. Reed: You did not bring any influence as a member of Parliament ? — "I hope nobody would consider me foolish enough, to do it." Sittings Next Week. The committee adjourned shortly after 1 p.m., having first resolved to sit on Tuesday, Wednesday, and ' Thursday. of next week. ! Mr. 'Myers intimated that ho would go on with the Flaxbourne case next, and then the Kaihau case. He said he wished to call Mr. Symes. Mr. Skerrett objected, He said he would call Mr. Symes. Mr. Myers said he was quite satisfied with that.