MR LYSNAR’S CHARGES

Hokitika Guardian, 27 March 1925, Page 1

MR LYSNAR’S CHARGES

MR EVEN Alt AND ARMOUR AND CO.

WELLINGTON, .March 25

This morning evidence was adduced before the commission concerning the negotiations made hy .Mr Lyn.sar witn representatives of Armour and Co for the sale of the Poverty Bay Farmers’ 'Meat Works to that firm and for financial assistance from Armours.

Irving Carney, representative in New Zealand of Armours, Ltd., said that after Mr Lysnar approached him, .Mr Lvsnar put a proposal in writing tlia Armours should lend the Meat Company £340,000 for a term ot seven years. The total value of the works and the steamer Admiral Codringtou was represented as £(>.31,802. Mi Lysnar gave him to believe that he had received the Prime .Minister’s consent to the proposition, hut subsequently he learned that .Mr Massey bad not given his consent. Witness’s firm, in reply to Mr Lysnar’s representations, cabled that they were not interested in New Zealand freezing works ami could not take it up. Mr Lysnar propose:l that Armours should take the works over at £225.0(10. because he lb-night the work's could he better worked under lheir jurisdiction than under \ estevs. After some consultation "ilu others interested, witness told Mr Lysnar, that Sims, Cooper and Co. " “c not agreeable to put any money into the works.

Sir John Eindlay: Did Mr Lysiiai express nnv reluctance to selling to a trust:’---No’. He seemed very anxious t„ sill. i think he would have sold to “old Nick” himself. All- li. T. Johnston, lie might haw preferred him. Witness: Possibly, hut he was very anxious for us at the time. The witness said that Mr Lysnar persisted in his efforts, and witness subsequently wired him that Armours were not. interested in any proposition he could make. The witness said he had made a statement that if his hands were not tied he would give C125,(1!M> more tmm Yesteys were olforing, hut he had done on" a statement made to him that (lie works were worth £-IO».C!)0. Now lie considered that Yesteys had paid a verv good price for the works. I ney gave the market value for them. Cross-examined hy Mr Lysnar. the witness said Mr Lysnar had distinctly toil him to believe that he wanted him to biiv the works. Air Lysnar. I will deny Hint m evidence. AI r Chairman. 'fhe witness: l.cl me ask you a question AY hat was your idea m getting Richmond. M’Beth and myselt to M'ur house:-' . Air Lysnar: To see li mere was ell.. way out. ~ , Witness: Yes: any way at all. H didn’t make any difference to you so loll"- as you found some way out. Air Lysnar: 1 wanted to save Dm works. • i ~i The witness: Ye-. you ‘oiwuleud Armour and Co. were going to conic ill and save the works lm >"'<■ . ’ three mouths heimv yon eiiised i U m. cod said you would kick them out ul the country. Air Lvsnar: Yes: it may not 'em logical, hut the bkune The witness: It is nul Ingieai. hu. I mu not a lawyer.

If ifTHEM E\ IDENC E. WELLINGTON. March 2th

ThelV were many healed exchanges I: ,,| u: -e the Meal Works Commission to- lav. dining the lonlinuei! eros.s-ex- ‘ - llt - 'vi,. | v—nar, < oiu entini-' animation ol -ui > . tl>e < ir« uin>tam-es <>l tlu. 1 sale to \ t.-y Bros, of the Poverty Bay . Funnel's’ Aleut Works. Ah- Lvsnar became extremely cxcil,,,l lefc.re the close questioning of S>e ,1 Eiiulh'A . and at one time both \\iland 'counsel were talking at lll'' top of their voices at the same tune, each endeavouring to talk the othet

down. .. Air Lysnar declared that no oiler ol the sale of the works was made to Ycstev’s representative. Asked was there some mention by wav of a proposed offer to sell l ’Y ■uivbudv Air Lvsnar maintained that there was no otfer to -ell. Ho did not protest in any way against what the other directors were doing, except to siiv that the matter was unauthorised.

Sir John: If Rowlands, Vestcv’s renresentative. had given you TIOtUM-o or promised to do so. would you have accepted it? Air i.ynsnar: Certainly not. Me had no authority to accept. 's„. J. Eindlay: What would yon have reoomeinndod yopr Board to do. Air Lvsnar: That depends. If he had agreed to the original terms T me “rested. to avoid the harassing condiHons we were suffering under, f would have done anything. Witness replied: On conditions. Quite so. agreed Sir J. Eindlay, and even sold ‘to Yest-oy.s. Replying further, witness admitted Yeslcv’s were the only buyers of he works' in the field. The terms of the H .||c put. the thing out ot react of the farmers. Witness blamed the law ami the Minister entirely for not fulfilling the spirit of the 1918 Act. Ho would not have encouraged others if be bat not honestly believed the Minister would fulfil his promise. He hehexit there was sufficient protection, and the Minister failed them. The action of the weak Minister hail caused the unfortunate position to-day. Sir J. Findlay: You regarded A ostey’s as an octupus peril to the country and a pernicious trust. AY.itne.ss: Yea. Sir J. Findlay: And yet sir, you tried to sell to Veste.v’s? Witness : 1 deny it.