THE MOKAU LANDS PETITION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 978, 19 November 1910, Page 10

THE MOKAU LANDS PETITION.

Sir,—Although the investigations into this caso have by no means terminated either in this Dominion or England, 1 cannot allow the statements of Mr. JenM.P,, as reported in your imprint ■°l fhis date, to pass without immediato challenge. I had laid the matter before mm as member for the district in 1808, and during the session of 1909 he accompanied Mr. Okey, M.P. and myself to the Prime Minister's o'ffico and supported ray request for independent investigation and upon coming'outside lie complimented mo upon the fair manner I had laid the case before Sir Joseph Ward. He now states what also appears in Hansard, August 17, 1910, as having been asserted by Dr. Findlay, but which is equally incorrect', namely, that Humann Lewis did not buy the property privately, but at sf° auction by the Registrar of the Court. This is contrary to fact, which is that the executors of Havers Estate—who were trustees of the property for me—put fcho mortgage up for sale at New Plymouth on August 10, 1907, and bought it in at .£1 above the claim upon it. The public being awaro of tho risk attached to dealings in the land and that there was an action for dedemption pending in London, refrained from bidding. Lewis did not appear materially on the scene until June 12, 1908, when the agents for the executors, being shown no consideration, transferred, the property to him (Lewis), and placed . his name on tho land transfer register as ovmer. He, in turn, mortgaged.it back to the vendors tho.'samcf day, being shown p.o consideration. In my petition, I styled this a dummy transaction. It will be observed that there is a material distinction betwixt Lewis obtaining a perfectly lepral title, as'maintained by Dr. Findlay by such process, and purchase at the registrar's sale. In either caso I contend the sale is void, and if I iim to bo believed, the "reckless misstatements" are on .the part, of Mr. Jennings, not Mr. Okey. Lewis stated before the Select Committee of 1908 that the property had been offered to several ueopk in Wellington. but Hint'he was the "only person" that could be found to "even look" at it.

. Mr. Jennings alleges that' the inquiry sought by me was in tho form of an attempt to get out of a legal liability. Ho knows that he is privileged ill'such calumny. Will ho come from under cover and utter- such a statement He omits to stats the fact, of which ha must bo well aware, that I had repeatedly offered payment to Flower and the bank, which was refused and that upon pursuant exposure of tho fact in tho London "Truth" Flower's firm burst up and the bank of ICO years' standing in Kcgent Street ran for shelter. to the Bankruptcy Court, and ho is further well, aware that tho .executors are to blame for the property being in its present situation. I might. state that tho Deputy-Speaker of the. Legislative Council, tho Hon. Mr. Carncross, upon my writing to him and speaking personally as well, informed -me yesterday that neither tho Speaker nor. himself were responsible for what appears in Hansard, however incorrect it might be. This was in reference to what had been said by Dr. Findlay. I assutae tho same will apply to' what is settled by Mr. Jennings. Mr. Jennings states that Mr. Okey appeared to havo been "briefed" by some one connected with tho case. I have spoken to several honourable members and been kindly received, but not one, much less Mr. Okey, has ever mentioned , brief' to; me. Mr. Jennings should remember that nullifying the character of another does not tend to establish one's own.—l am, etc., . '• J. JONES, . Novembor IG, 1910.