THE MOKAU BLOCK.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 975, 16 November 1910, Page 3

THE MOKAU BLOCK.

MR. JOSHUA JONES'S PETITION. THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. The A to L Petitions' Committee today reported oil the petition of Joshua Joiios in . connection with the Mokau Block. The report of tlio committee was as- under: (1) That the statements made in the petition regarding tlio Hon. Dr. Findlay have no foundation in fact. (2) That Mr. Bamford, EegistrarGcneral, did not proceed to New Plymouth,: nor remove caviafc ro sale of Mokau lands without the nccessary legal authority, as stated by petitioner. (3) That tlio petitioner was not asked to attend tlio inquiry held by Sir Robert Stout and Judge Palmer on tlio ground that ho had no legal standing before the commission. (4) That according to the evidence submitted to tho committee, tlio petitioner does not appear to have any legal interest in the estate, and therefore the committee cannot recommend that he be heard before the Bar of tho House. (•5) That in order to settle the longdispute in connection with tho Mokau-iUohakatino Block, the Government be recommended to assist in bringing about an amicable ■understanding between the parties concerned, with a view, of settling tho land. (6) That in view of the fact that tho petitioner believed his original lease from the Natives to bo legally sound, and taking into account the treatment meted out to him by solicitors in England, whereby ho lost his legal interest in the estate, the committee recommends t-liat in any such mutual understanding the petitioner's claims to equitable consideration should be clearly defined. Statement by Mr. Okoy. Mr. Okey (Taranaki) said this, case was a very important one. He had spent a considerable timo in trying to bring about a settlement of this matter, because it was not wise tliat such a large area as tho Mokau Block should lie idle. Mr. Jones he had found truthful and reliable. It was not till ho had been refused common justice in tho courts that lie applied to Parliament. After 'reviewing', briefly the past history or tho case, Mr. Okey said ho had written to the . Prime Minister this session asking him to fulfil tlio promise ho previously, made. He also put questions on tlio Order Paper, but the reply . was not satisfactory. He was npt going to criticise the finding of the committee, 'beyond' saying that Mr. Jones should have been allowed to bring rebutting evidence. 'He (Mr. Okey) was. satisfied that if tho treatment- Mr. Jones had recoived were made public, the public would rise and demand that British justice should bo done to him. Continuing, Mr. Okey' stated that' tho services of Mr. Jones in the early days had ' been cordially recognised by Sir George Grey. Mr. Jones, was offered and refused £160,000 for his interest in the property. Ho had raised mortgages for £7600 and £1550 oil tho property in New Zealand, and lie went to London to pay off tho second mortgagee, who was pressing; No sooner was this dono than first mortgagee foreclosed. The solicitor who was acting for 'Mr. Jones and another wrote stating that they were buying it for him, and it was knocked down to them at £7500, tlicro being no competition, as it was understood the property was being bought for Jones. No sooner had theso persons , got tho property, than they realised :they had a good thing, and commenced to 1 edge Jones out. He was given one month to pay. Flowers ! and Hopkiuson £10,000, With a bonus of £1000 ,cash, and ten per , oeiit upon the £10,000 far the month, plus all costs , and charges, a total of £12,500. Mr. Jones would .not agreo to those terms. In 1894 Mr. Jellicoe, a Note Zealand barrister, who Jcncw Jones and the Mokau property, was. visiting London, and offered Flowers and Co. a cheque for £12,000 to pay off the mortgage. TIII3 Was refused, the price they then askod being. £30,000. . In 1896 Flowers was ordered by the Court to reconvey the property to Jones''on the payment of £14,500. Jones then arranged with the West Australian Mining.Company to purchaso the property, but Mr. Hopkiuson communicated with the solicitor to the Mining Company, drawing attention to a dam-, aging report on the Mokau property, and the company withdrew from its arrangement. Subsequently Mr. Laboucliero's "Truth" took up Mr. Jones's case, and the exposures led to the Law Society taking action against Flowers, and the depositors making such a run on the hank interested that it had to close, its doors. Jones, got tlio right of redeeming his property, and gave the trustees of Flowers a mortgage over the property. They later foreclosed on the property, and an action for redemption was brought by Jones. The .judge Tield this action not to bo frivolous, but suggested it should be removed to New Zealand. The• Dominion Full Court refused .to allow the action to go on, and refused Jones the ■ right to appeal to tho Privy Council, Jones then appealed to Parliament and a'committee of members of the other House recommended that a commission bo set up to inquire into the whole of tlio dealings connected with tlio case. Various other features of the caso wero touched upon:by Mr. Okey who urged that tho Government should purchase the freehold of the ostato and then go into the question of title. The freehold could be obtained for a very small sum and in tho interests'of the district the block should bo settled. He urged that tho. House should insist upon the Government taking act-ion. Remarks by other Membern. Mr. W. T. Jennings (Taumarunui) said some of tho statements made by Mr. Okoy wore unreliable. Ho denied that Mr. Hedmanir Lewis bought the property privately. The property was publicly advertised and the legality of tho title had been upheld by tlio whole of the Judges. He (Mr. Jennings) said Mr. Jones had had fair treatment, and he objected'to Mr. Okey making insinuations against tho Government and the Hon. Dr. Findlay. The whole thing had been an attempt to get out of a legal liability. This attempt to make out that the Courts here and in Great Britain had been arrayed • against Mr. Jones was absolutely wrong. The offer had been given to Mr. Jones again and again to release the mortgages and lie could havo tho. property. Ho scouted the statement that Mr. Jones had been offered £160,000 for, the property. Ho agreed, however, that some attempt should bo made to settlo tho dispute so that the land could bo opened up for settlement and if Mr. Jones had any right in equity it would no doubt bo conceded to him. Mr. A. K. Glover (Auckland Central) said Mr. Jones had taken his life in his-hand ill tho early days, and ho had suffered many privations and perils. Mr. W. F. Massey (Frank lyn) said ho' could not understand tho action of Mr. Jennings in trying to discredit Mr. Jones's ease. He (Mr. . Massey) had not had timo to go into tho case exhaustively, but he was convinced that Mr. Jones was a deeply-injured man. It had been said it was his own fault, but ho ■ thought the circumstances were against him. There was no doubt lie had been an enterprising and worthy settler. Mr. Massey explained that Sir. Okey's reference to Dr. Findlay was not as a member of tho Government, but as head of his legal firm. Mr. Massey hoped that an equitable arrangement would ho come to which would oj)en up

tho land for settlement, and furnish Mr. Jones with the means of supporting liis declining years. Mr. E. li. Taylor (Thames) said Mr. Jones had had a perfectly fair hearing from the committee. ■ Members of the committee had the deepest sympathy with Mr. Jones, and it was beyond question the time had come when the whole question should be closed. Some legal firms might bo termed vultures sometimes, and Mr. Jones had beyond doubt been very unfortunate. Mr. Wright (Wellington South) said a commission should be set up to inquire into 'this case. ■ ' Sir Joseph Ward: A commission could not bo set up. . • Mr; Wright said it could he done by legislation. This matter should be cleared up. It might be that Mr. Jones had been swindled legally, but his caso was a hard one. Mr. IT. Lawry (Parnell) thought that in equity and justice Mr. Jones had a strong case. It was no credit to the Government having kept Mr. Jones dangling about for two years without having dealt with his case. - He hoped tho Government would sec its way to purchase the estate for close settlement. A Royal Commission should be set up, or other means taken to settle this vexatious question. Mr. Davey, chairman of the commit- ■ denied that Mr. Jones had been unfairly treated by the committee. Every consideration had been given to Mf* Jones, without being unfair to the other side. Mr. Davey pointed out that a charge had been made against Fvthat while ho was chasing with the• hare as a Minister he. was chasing with tho hounds in another direction. Mr. Davey also denied that Mr. Hermann Lewis was a mere dummy. It was also incorrect .that a caveat had been removed by tho Regis-trar-General. It had been removed by t«c Supreme Court. He was of opinion that Mr. Jones wanted to be a perfectly truthful man, but he had been misled, and Mr. Hindmarsh had admitted several statements made in the petition would not hold water. Mr. Davey expressed the opinion that Mr. Jones had no legal claim against the estate, but he-had been fraudulently treated by a solicitor in England. He expressed the hope that some amicable settlement would be come to. The report was adopted.