MOKAU INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1578, 23 October 1912, Page 4

MOKAU INQUIRY.

MR. JONES AND HIS COUNSEL

' QUESTIONS OF VERACITY.

SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE,

The Joint Committee of Ikilli Houses of Parliament, which is dealing with the petition of Joshua Jones in respect of tho Mokau Estate, resumed its sittings yesterday.

Mr. C. H. Treadwcll, who had acted as wilicilor for Jones in (he negotiations with the Government, and in (lie litigation in New Zealand, appeared as a witness. In answer to Mr. C. K. Slatham, witness said that to get up the history of the case would entail three or'four days' work and he did .not feel disposed to devote that time to the matter. He would answer specific questions so far as his memory would serve him Mr W. 11. D. Bell suggested to witness that the principal reason Jones had been claiming that he was entitled to his redemption wns that in the compromise arrived at in 1004 it „•„.„ understood that 1 lower s executors would not again circulate the damaging report on the proparty and on the title which prevented Jones from dealing with it. A breach of this compromise would constitute 'a good cause of action for Jones to have his cttveat allowed. Yet this point had struck him:. That when the Full-Court wns deciding this question, every ono of the judges said no impropriety by Flower's executors was alleged since the mortgage wasl given.

Mr, Ireadwell: I was not aware that tho judges said .that, but if thev did say so, the statement is incorrect. _ Mr. Bell proceeded to quote from the judgments to this effect. The Chief Justice had said: "He (Joncs)does not allego any improper dealing by the mortgagee since that date (December, 1900). That being so, the action for redemption in my opinion is frivolous." Mr. Bell said h« wanted to get the evidence from Mr. Treadwcll which would show the judges to \be wrong in their statement that no impropriety was alleged against Flower's executors, particularly bearing on tho point of circulating the report, Mr. Treadwcll said that au affidavit was sworn by Jones on July 16, 1908, and Paragraph'll dealt with the point. It said: "Tho effect of the promulgation of the report of the said Mr. Wales,, in Lon,don. was in recent years, and indeed down to the present time, to prevent the sale of the property, and' the following are instances of the effect that the report has had. Instances were then quoted to show that the report had paralysed attempts to dispose of the said property. Mr. Jones: Was this nlfidavit'before the Court? Mr. Treadwell: Yes. •Mr. Jones (to Mr. Bellh That exactly cuts the ground from under your feet. Mr. Bell told Mr. Jones thnt' he was not against him, but desired oillv to find out the position. Mr. Treadwcll further said that he could not say from memory whether in his argument before the Court he had dwelt, on this noint, but he had in his notes, this: "Effect of promulgation of report," and he judged he would have referred to it. At tho same, time these questions were hardly fair because the compromise was effected in England and he could not say what took place there. He was. quite certain.that lis would nut the case on the. ground that (here would bo an obligation in the compromise not to prevent the-other party carrying out the bargain. , ' ■ ,

Mr. Jones: That is exactly what the barristers in England said. They said it was a matter of law. To Mr, Austey: In the comnromise made between .Tones.and Flower in England it must hove been an implied condition that Flower would not, by the circulation of had reports or otherwise interfere wilh Jones's rieht to carry out' his side of the bargain. That was merely an elementary matter of law. Ho.remembered seeing Sir JoS«ph....Ward., with'. Mr. Jones, concerning a scheme for the .settlement of tho trouble. At that interview he did not understand Sir Joseph Ward to make a bargain that the Government should acquire tho fen simple of the land and then settle with Jones on a basis proposed. Sir Joseph Ward lind been in favour of (he proposition, but it was rather stretching facts to say that any. definite undertaking was given. "Don't be Rude." Mr. Jones questioned witness closely on ns negotiations with Mr. (now Sir Join," I'iiidlay coiitern'm? fhs inquiry, and a letter written by witness to Jones concern. !"S: them which, Mr. Jones said, was in. conflict with, what Dr, Findlny had said. Mr. Jones said that Dr. Findlny had denied ever having refused an inquiry and ho asked witness who was telling tho truth. Mr. Treadwell replied that he could doubt that his letter when 'written was a perfectly correct one. He did not <ec in any case, how it affected the matter

Mr. Jones: fl ill yon swear you did not come back to me that night in October after being with Dr. Fjndlny, and show me scraps of paper, and say that vou had to go to Mr. Dnlzicll and. come to an agreement? •

Mr. Ireadwell: No, certainly not. Mr. Jones: And you are on your oath 1 Mr. ireadwell: Don't ho rude. He went on to read a letter from Dr. Findlav dated October 21, 1908, expressing regret that the Government felt it would 1-e wholly contrary to precedent for the Government to interfere with the rights'of private persons in a caso fh«i before tho Court.

Mr. Jones: And you knew when ho wrote you that letter that his firm was acting for Hcrrman Lewis? Mr. Treadwell: Yes, of course. But you and I look at things in a different light. I don't impute dishonesty to a man whose partner is acting in a caso in which he is politically concerned. Mr. Jones, after consulting Hansard, asked witness how ho reconciled that letter Willi Dr. Findloy's remarks in tho Legislative Council. Mr. Treadwell: Why should I try? . (", r -, 4 on . os: Surely as n legal expert you might tell us.

Jlr. Treadwell (laughing): This seems to bo more n question of metaphysics than anything else.

A Question of Veracity. Mr. Jones next approached the question of costs paid to Mr. Treadwell. Mr. treadwell explained that before Jones had been client he had been paid by .Tones s solicitors in London a bill of costs of some .£80; half of which was for out-of-pocket expenses for work done iii connection with tho Mokan case. ■ Mr, Jones argued persistently that, payment from the London solicitors was payment from him (Jones), Mr. Treadwell said that the monev paid' by the solicitors to him was for work done for the solicitors, and would have had to be paid whether Jones paid them or not. "But," he said, "to say that you paid mo sixpence is another matter. All that jou ever gave me ; s a note of hand for ,£IOOO, which I am prepared to discount considerably." Mr.- Jones was going on with cross-ex-amination on this and kindred matters, and tho chairman interrupted him, saying that tho examination appeared to him to be futile Mr. Jones was, he said, crossexamining -Mr. Treadwell as if he doubted his veracity. Mr. Jones: T do. Mr. Bigg: That is what von have no right to do. .

■ Mr. Jroactwell: It does seem to me that I am entitled to he protected from this kind of base insinuation. I have helped this man at mi expense of manV hundreds oi pounds. 1 have devoted years of my best ability for Iho purpose'of assisting him to recover from his wrongs, which were undoubtedly grievous, and this is the kind of thanks 1 get. This'man has written letters lo newspapers suggesting Hint because I did not give my evidence on oath last year it was all lies. Uit lint disgraceful that that sort of thing should bo done? Why should witnesses not lie protected hero ns in a Court of law ? Several members of the committee joined in protesting against the waste of time involved in the questions relating to matters of opinion. Arthur Vickars Slnrtevant. District band Registrar at New Plymouth, appeared to produce documents connected with the case, The committee adiouracd until 10.30.' a,m, to-day.