MOKAU CLAIMS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1574, 18 October 1912, Page 9

MOKAU CLAIMS.

AIR JOSHUA JONES' PETITION.

STORY TOLD CHRONOLOGICALLY. PETITIONER UNDER EXAMINATION. LEGISLATIVE DIFFICULTIES. The Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which is inquiring into llio claims against tho State of Air. Joslim. Jones in respect of Jos.-, of lands at Monad, met on Wednesday morning. Mr. Jones continued to give evidence in answer to questions by members of tho eominitteo in turn.

'lo Mr. Bell: Alter he started negotiating with the Natives ho poriormed some services, for the Government, and the Governnient in return promised to help him in his negotiations. Tho Native Land Restriction Act in 1881 blocked iiis dealings, mid lie got special legislation. Tho Native Land Court, however, held that .a subsequent Act in 18S(i blocked him, and alter a second appeal to the Government, another Act o£ 1888 did away with all hindrances again. His position was, theretore, satisfactory after the passing of the 1888 Act. He lind spent tinio and money in surveys, but ho accepted tho Act as final and'satisfactory. Ho had, however, conceded a good deal to the Government then in accepting the .let as final, and now he asked the committee to take .this into consideration. In 1883 his titlo's were reasonably complete. 1 Before ho went to England he had incurred liabilities or. the place to tho extent of nearly J2BOOO, and ho hnd given a mortgage. In. England lio endeavoured to get Flower to lend him tho money to pay oft' tho mortgage, end to help him to iloat a company. Then Flower bought in the place for himself. At that time his action was not against the Government, but against Flower. Tha English Courts had found that Flower had been guilty of malpractice, and Hut liis true position ivas one of trustee for hiin (Jones). A Misleading Report. Flower sent out an expert to examine the coal deposits at Mokau, and this expert, who had only been eleven days in the neighbourhood, piit in a misleading report. This report hnd caused considerable trouble since, and Flower hud used it to block negotiations with other peoplo who might be able to deprive Flower of tho interest ho had wrongfully acquired. In ISW he (Jones) brought un action against Flower's executors for slander of title. This action was compromised. It appeared to petitioner that if he went on with the action he cuuld not have got any damages, for defendants' were riot worth powder and shot. There were three conditions in the compromise to which he objected.. He objected to tho tenancies created by the mortgagee, and on that point defendants gave in; he objected,to tho land being dealt with under tho Land Transfer Act instead of under tho special Act, and on this part he gavo ini and tho third point; on which' defendants had to give in, was that defendants must agree not to slander the title again. On those terms lie signed tho compact, and lie regarded himself as in a satisfactory position. Subsequently it appeared that the most important part of the compact was that relating to slander of title, and this was .not included in tli9 order of tho Court following tho compact. No nolo was taken of tho terms agreed upon so far as he knew. Mr. Bell put it to Mr. Jones tint this was a serious hurdle he hart, to get over —the'fact that no record had been tnken of this point. . Satisfied Again in 1904. Mr. Jones said the barristers- and the Judgo had agreed that this was a question of law, and went'without, saving. In 1901 he :had again, reached finality, and after that his complaint was not against the Government, but against Flower's executors. But, again, after 1901, in 1907, ■lie, Jhought, Flower's executors again slahdered the title. It was after he had Riven the mortgage 10. Flower, and after he.had: given, the extension,- that he heard df'Hi? title being again slandered:' When he signed the dooiinients promising not to put any obstacles in tho way of registering the mortgage, ho did not know of tho damaging reports. Ho could >iot payoff the mortgage becauso. the damaging reports prevented him from financing. If tbey had not circulated these reports ho would have had no claim against Flower's executors for selling under the . mortgage. Ho commenced an action in tho Chancery Court in England for redemption of the ■mortgage.

■Mr. Ecil'soid the statement of claim for that action mis not put in, and tho statement of defence did not mention the reports about the property. The presumption, therefore, was that nothing was alleged concerning it in the statement of claim. This was another hurdle Mr. Jones would have to yet over.

Mr, Jones pointed out, however, that Lord Justice Parker had made the order (put in) without pleadings on that point. Mr. Bell said the inference was that lie had not made the order on what Mr. Jones regarded as the principal ground. He would like to have known on what grounds the judgment was given refusing to dismiss the action. What Mr. Jones regarded as the principal condition of tho contract was not relied upon, and breach of it was not alleged. Mr. Jones replied that he had not tho statement of claim, and, so far as he could remember, tho order was made on several grounds. More Trouble and a Caveat, In the end he decided to abandon the action on the ground that the English Courts had no jurisdiction. He allowed the action to lap-*, therefore. He came out to New Zealand- to enter another action, and in order to safeguard his right l ; he lodged a caveat against tho title. As a result of this caveat the persons holding the title brought on proceedings calling upon him to show cause why the caveat should not bo removed. This action was heard by Mr. Justice Edwards, who referred it to the lull Court. The Full C.oui t: lefused to allow him to keep the caveat .on beeaueo they did not consider he had a reasonable cause of action against Flowers s executors. What the English Courts.had decided on the same ' evidence wns a good can,so of action, the New Zealand Court had decided was a frivolous action. Tho Now Zealand Judges hnd oil the Himo- pleadings decided the h'Vu °P oSlfp °. f . lvhat the London Judges' iuld. the-question of slander of title wu« not pleaded,-but this, he mentioned ; matter of-evidenco. ■ muu ' one<1 > «•>» J , M , r - T B f n that tho New Zonland Judges had all implied that so Imi" as no reasons were put forward, X t ? agreement entered into in England sLVu not b* upheld, the taiSffK kept. on. Every one of the.Judges feemed Mr. Jones said that he was put into the presented in, London. It had been to the Judge in London that h." (.lem's) proposed- to rely on the damaging renovt «s a violiLtion of the compact, and he was not sure whether that, had been nut before the New Zealand Judges

He Distrusts the Judges. He did not.agree that this could 1* accepted as a sufficient reason' for Mi * differefiee in the judgments given in E»n. land and in New Zealand. The Ko»Zealand Judges must have known he hud some good ground tor repudiating tho agreement. lie had had no ciinnce of submitting to-them his reasons, Tlicv would not even allow him to put in hi'statement of claim in the action-in chief' and they would not allow him to against the decision regarding the protection of the caveat. Ho declared that the Judges had «ud he was not to be entitled to bring an action. Mr. Bell suggested that the Judges'hat not snul that, for they had no power to prevent his bringing an action. Tlrv hail sii.-iply said lie was not entitled meanwhile! lo the protection of the caveat. Mr. Jones: They said a lot. more 'than that. .They nrcu.-cd uic of dishonesty lor contracting under one dilute and repudiating under another. They mi id a. ni.r.i wlio would do that would jo anything! Mr. Bell: Then- is no mention of t"linr in the judgments. I'm quoting from the official report., Mr. Jones; Ihej- iaid a lot more'from

the Bench. They are very careful what they put there (indicating ilio bound copy 01 the buy report.-), lie said he entered an action lor redemption of mortgage, but it was rulrd out by tin- 1 'hid' Justice. I.eave was given to appeal t-.> the Privy Council, but. Im l did not prosecute his appeal because he had nut the luiul--. At fho time (he Courts refused to allow him to keep his caveat all his claims wei-c_ against executors, anil not against the Government. The Government,becomes a Party. Then ho petitioned Parliament to pins an .Act to allow him to go to trial in ail uction against Flower. Parliament had never agreed (0 this, but the desire of Parliuiuciii; was I Invnrtcil. Tlio (k'cisinn of tho Legislative Council Committee was that; a Ho vat ot' Inquiry should b(« up, and j|) a | in (|, O monti--111110 all wit In the lam! should he Hitcnlicfcd. The only Koyal tliat had sat was tlio Stuut-PalnKT Commission, and it had not done him anv good, The recommendation of the Coin 111 it tee, of the Legislative Council of 1008 and of the Committee of the House of Keprosenlativps in 11110 had been completely ignored. And the Government, b.v assisting Lewis to purchase, and through Lewis tile. Ha.wke's ttay syndicate, bad prejudiced his rights, because if he took action against Flower's executors the property was not. in the same condition as it was formerly, and he could not lie fully restored to the position he was in.

Mr. Boll: Supposing you had no further rights against, Flower, you would not have been harmed by the .Order-in-Conncil?.

Mr. Jones: 1 don't think you should ask me to suppose a negative. I' don't think that's a fair question. ... The Or-der-in-Coimcil places mo in a'very difficult position

Mr. Bell:. Supposing you are to eventually succeed against Flower. Mr. Jones said again that nil he wanted wns to be allowed by Parliament to determine his rights by a local trial 'of action.

• lo Mr. Paul: Hp had completed his title to the land, tmd lie hail lost it owing to file dealings with tile land of Wickham Flower and his executors. The illegal actions of-Flower, had put him in his present position. Pie did not admit that the title to the land was lost to "him, although other people were 011 the register. He wanted Parliament (.0 give him by legislation a right of action. The Privy Council was open to him, but he hud not the means to prosecute his claims. The present title of the holders was one in fee, whereas his had been a leasehold title. As to what reasons had prompted the Government to assist Herrman Lewis he could not sov. About Early Dealings. To Mr. M'Callum: He had paid moneys to theT Natives' for rent, for eight'or nine years; until 110 went to England in 1893. He did not spend money on the' land in improvements.- ■ : . -i •• Ml'. M'Callum: Y.Oll found your claim . 011 sympathy . ' Mr. Jones (rising): I had bettcr.go.' If. a man comes here intentionally hostile, 1 need not go 011. "' The chairman said there was nothing' to object to in. the question. ' . Mr. M'Callum reassured Mr. Jones as tollia friendly intentions. Ho naked: "Yon found your claims to the passing of. these statutes 011 certain services to the Government f" Mr.-.Tones: Yes. Mr.''M'Callum: Sir George Grey was. in power then. Can yo;i give us a reference" to ally promise made to you by Sir George Grey.? ■ »

Mr. M'C'alluiii asked Mr. Jones for any. rpferenco. iu proceedings in the English Courts to the fabe report on coal deposits, prepared by Wickham's .agent, Wales. . " Mr. Jones said that in the Court this had been .a matter of consultation among the Judges.and the rival counsel. It. was explained (bat. if the title wore slandered he would havo an action at. law, and 110 .would get relief ju the. Courts. For. this reason, he presumed, it had not been incorporated in the order following the compact mr/ip.nfter the action for slander of ..title was compromised. • YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THE STOUT-PALMER REPORT. • Tho Committee tat again yesterday morning. ' The petitioner, ;Mr, Joshua Jones, continued to give evidence under examination by members of the Committee. In reply to Mr. R. M'Callum. he pointed out: passages in the Stout-Paluu-r report to which ho objected. He said the report dealt only with tho Mokau lands, and it was framed, he said, with malicious intent. The Commissioners had not sought te learn the truth; they had allowed all and sundry who hoped to benefit b.v tho findings to come forward and give evidence, and they did not call upon him (Jones). In fact he did not know at the time that" toe inquiry was being held. Ho refused even to suppose that the Chief Justice considered that he (Jones) had no longer any interest in tile property at the liino tin- iiujuiry was held. Some of the report he affirmed, was written without any regard to facts. In the course of a long argument, witness said that the, report was framed in bad faith, and he asked tho Committee to remember that Sir Robert Stout's ex-parlner. Sir John Find lay, was an interested party in the findings. "A Damnable Life." To Mr. Anderson: When he came to New Zealand to open up negotiations 110 had about .£250 to ,£3OO of his own in cash, but after he had entered upon the negotiations he sold more of his property ill South Australia and he got money from his wife's relations. Probably he embarked .about .£ISOO in all or his own. He borrowed money 011 the security of the leases, some .£7OOO, but mostly. at very heavy rates of interest. There was a great deal of litigation in England for which he had not paid. Since ho had entered upon the negotiations lie had given most of his time to litigation about the estate. When he was in England lie 'worked in Wales taking con-" tracts for ploughing, and mowing har and corn. His children, ten of them, hail had to earn their living as best they could, bush-felling, ai\d the like, at Mokfui. They-had lived n life of misery. In the meantime he could not neglect tho properly, and he had been following up the business all these vears. It was "a damnable life," he had led. He had had money from relations in England,-' too. On one occasion he had been in a public, hospital in London ill, and one "J'liif aunts, hnd paid his account there. Hn liad been unable to do 50 himself. Sir George Grey, had given a definite promise to protcct Jones' interests, and he hid told .his Minister for I,auds in witness's company to give him' f.Tones) a letter to that effect. The letter Tind been put in. The Negotiations Again. Mr. C. E. Statham said he proposed to ask petitioner questions' with a view to showing what tho particular grounds were on which Mr. Jones claimed against tho Government, apart altogether trom his claims against Flower and those who had come after him.

11l reply to questions, Mr. Jones covered much of the same ground as he had covered under examination by Mr. Bell, but ho referred very frequently to Flower and the trustees agaio. Mr. Statham asked petitioner to suggest a reason why Flower should circulate damaging reports about a property on which tbey had lent a considerable sum of money. M''. Jones said their object was to prevent him dealing with the property, in order that they, might secure it tor themselves.

In ISS3, he said, he was satisfied with the special Act the Government had given hiin, and'there was then not liing at issue between hims-eli* and the Government. After that he did not come into contact with the Government for twenty years, in 1908, after the decision of the' Full Court in New Zealand. He petitioned Parliament for legislation which would enable him lo go to trial, and the ease was investigated by the Legislative Council. They recommended an inquiry, but none was ever granted by the Government. Sir Joseph Ward had promised to give an inquiry, but Dr. Findlav ?aid lie would peveT get an inquiry, and had made to his solicitor. Jlr. Treadwell, an offer of certain terms on behalf of Herrman Lewis, who, .loncs alleged, was the dummy purchaser for a syndicate with whom the Flower Tru-te'es were in treaty. Lewi-, the then holder of the lease, was tlio client of Dr. l-'imllay. At this time Horniian Lewis hnd oiilv a leasehold interest. He acquired the t'rr-e----hold under the Order-iu-Couneil subsequently.

The Committee adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-daj.