MOKAU JONES CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 988, 1 December 1910, Page 7

MOKAU JONES CASE.

CLAIM FOR OPEN INQTJIET. ' A long letter has been''addressed bv Mr. Joshua Jones to the Prime ■ Minister asking that a competent' open tribunal should be set up to investigate facts connected with the history of what is known as the.Mokau Jones Estate. It will be remembered that a petition bearing on' the same subject was, earlier in the session, considered by the A to L Petitions' Committee, which, in addition to finding that a number of allegations made in it were without foundation, and that petitioner did not appear to have, any legal interest in the estate, recommended the Government to endeavour to bring about an amicable understanding between the parties concerned with a view to settling the land, also that in any such mutual understanding petitioner's claims to equitable consideration should be clearly defined. In tho course of his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Janes- says he takes exception to tho committee's report and to. the form of procedure adopted by it. Mr. Jones asks for an immediate and full investigation of the circumstances in public by an impartial tribunal, and that, the witnesses be. examined on oath. Mr. Jones expresses dissatisfaction with the constitution of the A to L Petitions' Committee that heard his petition on tho ground that thero was a preponderance of Government members on it.

In the course of a covering letter, Mr H. OKey, M.P., says he thinks Mr! Jones's statements as to the proceedings of the committee which considered his petition : are fairly correct. Mr. Jones, he says, was informed by the chairman (Mr. Davey) at the commencement that the committee was merely called'to-de-fine as to how the petition should be dealt with. Neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Okey was prepared for the full investigation, or other steps would have been taken to present tho evidence of the committee. Amongst other shortcomings the committee committed a grave error and inflicted injury on Mr. Jones by refusing to permit him to call evidence to contradict material, statements made by tho witnesses, many of which he had evidence to .contradict. Another serious mistake was made in preventing Mr. Jones, producing evidence of the circumstances that occurred in England,which necessarily would havo an important bearing on what had been done with respect to the 1 property in the Dominion. Mr. Okey expresses tho opinion that had the inquiry taken place in the open, with the witnesses placed upon oath, a very, different conclusion would have been-sub-mitted to Parliament. As the casonow stands Mr. Jones has very just grounds f or complaint.