MOKAU ESTATE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1566, 9 October 1912, Page 3

MOKAU ESTATE.

MR. JOSHUA JONES'CLAIMS. . ' WHAT HAPPENED IN LONDON. EVIDENCE AT THE INQUIRY. The Joint Committee of Ijoth branches of tho Legislature, sat.up-to inquire-into the' petition for relief of Itr. Joshua Jones, some time of Maknit, met yesterday morning. The order : of reference of the' Committee was: "To inquire whether the petitioner has suffered, any loss of any right conferred upon him by statute or 'under the provisions of any deeds of lease by rea-oii of any amendment fit the stiitiite law of New Zealand, or of any matter ov thing done or omitted by"- , the Government ot New Zealand." it is scarcely necessary to explain that Mr. Jones claims that he suffered injustice by losing his titles to the tract of land now known as the Mokau Estate. • A letter from Jtr. Joshua Jones, repeating his request that counsel .should ba provided for him was read to the committee. Ho pleaded that lie was entirely without means wherewith to engage counsel for himself, and that the subject matter of the inquiry was so complex, covering incidents occurring over a long period of years, that he could not possibly present the case clearly enough to enable the committee to come to a satisfactory conclusion. He further stated that if he were not represented by counsel he could not accept as final any unfavourable answer to his petition. The committee decided to make no further recommendation to the House. The petitioner; on being called in to the committee room and informed of this decision, forthwith proceeded to lay his case before the committee. What Mr. Jones Wants. / ' Joshua Jones, the petitioner, read the following summary of what he asked .of Parliament: (I) A special Act ot Parliament, empowering the trinl of hU action upon the grounds that the English Court, with full knowledge of the law, made an order on November 1, 100". for the trial to be heard on its merits, but doubted the jurisdiction being in England, whereas the New Zealand Court of five Judges, .on July 20, 100S, on precisely the same evidence as was before the English Court, except that of the dummy transfer of the property to Herrman Lewis, which was not material to the issue, threw the case out on its merits, and would not allow the action to be tried, or allow an appeal to the Privy Council. And also, on Juno 1, 1911, the Court (Stout, Chief Justice) refused leave upon the question of juris--! diction, to enter the action here, but gave leave to appeal to the Privy Council, which leave the petitioner has not t-ho means to prosecute. Petitioner states that the executors of Flower's estate, who, he alleges, were trustees of his interests, obtained what title they possessed in New Zealand, and he has been advised that his right of action lies where the property is situated. G?) That flic Government may arrange to take over the property fr</m those in possession, and then arrange to coiunen-' sate the petitioner, either' iii land "and minerals, as had been agreed in 1910,' or in money value. (3) That as the present holders of the property .only paid for tho surface land and at surface valuation, and did not pay for tho minerals, although tho same are included in the Crown grant, the minerals should be 'rallied either in fee or,by royalties, and tlu> values paid to thp'.petilioner or to the State, as may : bear'rauged. such values to extend over, other, lauds held by Ihe same parties on the north bank of Mokim River. ■ (i) That the petitioner's private statutes of 1885-1888, improperly repealed in 1007, be re-enacted as though they had not been repealed, a»d all dealings with the other portions of the land consequent upon such repeal be rendered void; , or elsss compensation paid to petitioner. fNote.—The lato Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, promised in 1008 and 190!) to have,.these statutes're-enacted, but he did not doso.] (5) That the Stout-Palmer report of, 1909 upon theso. lands bo removed from' ■the Bfue.-Books.' This Irepdit has, upon the iadvice of. leading counsel, been held by a Parliamentary Committee- of 1911 to be an. illegal, production.. ' \ , ■•<;»- [Note.—The Primo Minister,' Sir Joseph Ward, was warned in 1909 of the illegality of this report before it became bound' up in tho Blue,-Books, and requested to : remove it from the table of the House, but he did not do so.] ' - ■ '• (G) That the'scope ot the order of refer-' ence be enlarged so as to include .tho; actions of Flower,, his executors, and! those holding or claiming- from them. . Original Negotiations, Continuing his evidence, Mr. Jones told,' with frequent reference to documents and Parliamentary appendices, tho story of lis negotiations with- the Natives for a , lease of .the Mokau Block in 18""> and succeeding years. He stated that ho had received from the then Minister for Lands, tho Hon. John Sheahan, a letter dated April 25, 1879, to the effect that in consideration of his (Jones's) services in opening up this Mokiu land, the Government would give him the right to acquire a leasehold title to this land. He obtained a lease from (he Natives iu 3882, and he went to Adelaide to form a company with ,£40,000 capital. Some Natives became mischievous in lus absence, and pulled down fences, and the people wlio came over to inspect the property refused' to embark in. a venture which looked so precarious. In ISB7 the old negotiations were abandoned, and a new lease drawn by-which he was to hold (he laud on leaso for 5G years, at an annual rental Of .£125 per year, which was then, he believed, a very fair rental. Special Acts of Parliament were passed confirming the agreement. In 1802 he went to Australia, but Rowing to bank failures and a money I stringency, he could obtain no capital. Trouble With a Solicitor. He then went to England, and the documents were rent Homo to Flower and' NUssey by n solicitor named Travers in' Wellington, who had also written a letter to. the effect that' the property was of great value, "and w-as worth as a speculation .£70,000 or' .£BO,OOO. Flower was to form a company, nnd he was to receive .£IOSO for his cervices. He did not float the company. In tho meantime, John Plimmor, of Wellington, who held a mortgage on the property of ,£7052, nut the property up for sale in 1893. Flower would not find the money for petitioner, bnt fail , ho would buy the property for him, allowing Jones'to repay the money. The property was put up for sole in New Plymouth, nnd it was knocked down in the uamo of Wickham Flowery when ho. Jones, was in London. Flower and others then got a .man to »ial;e him a bankrupt in London. Flower had. while-acting as solicitor for him, charging him for the cost of the purchase negotiations, finally purchased the property at a forced sale, and then declared that the purchase was on his own account. Subsequently he referred the matter to the Incorporated Law Society, and an inquiry was held. . Flower was adjudged to have been guilty of wrong practice both iii the Divisional Court, and on appeal. This trouble in London delayed him in dealing with the property, and he lost opportunities of. profitable sales. Flower's rightful claim against the property lie (Jones) could have easily liquidated, but Flower made an extravagant claim for ,£.10.000, and debarred him from .selling. In 1901, after he (Jones) had entered an action in Court, Flower compromised, by agreeing to accept £17,000. At that time r.ofit ; onor had an .opportunity to sell for J;200,000. A form rf )-»'}onve.vance to Jones was executed by Flower, and Jones agreed to repay < ,£17,000 in two years. Immediately after ; the eoiupionmo Wickham Flower" died, and liis interests were take;) over by his i executors. Petitioner did not pay the ■ money, and :i inorlgnie was rxceiite'd. ox- i lendine the time for six months, and add- I inu .£.'.00 to the amount payflblo. Ho i claimed Hut mi ill-report .conc-eniiiig the ■ .Mokau bind* lmd been circulated which ; prevented his maki'is a sale to prospoc- ( tive hilars, and in 1907 the trustfos, who ( now hold if valid ino.-ti?a?o. pill: the pro- i perty up for sale, and bought it in at the i up-rt price. ,£II.OOO. i The inquiry, was adjourned until 10.30 I a.m. to-dny. ' ' ■ I i \ ] • I