AUCKLAND BUMBLES SEEK TO CHARGE

NZ Truth, Issue 1294, 2 October 1930, Page 7

AUCKLAND BUMBLES SEEK TO CHARGE

FOR ADMISSION TO MOTUIHf ISLAND „ . ...' :■ '. .... ... . , .•.; ... t :... ;. ■. ■- ■ . ■•<* .• •■,'■•■■ ... ■,: ■; „"■'....-' : „'■ : . ' . — ; — ♦ — : — ; ;.•- ; ■* •■■ . . • . ;•":■ '"~ l ' ' "_ ' '.-; .•; : y ■' ■ - . . ' . ' , -Truth" Throws Searchlight On Harsh aiid Shocking Treatm^ttt of (^ AMAZIM BLUNDERS HIDDEr^^

BUT combined with this belated endeavor to cover up. its hotchpotch of a housing scheme* the Council is also asking Parliament to give it power to exploit its ratepayers over the recent gift of Motuihi Island to Auckland as a public. domain. , This beautiful little island m, the Hauraki Gulf, until recently used as a quarantine station,: has this year been ' set aside, by the Government as a '. public domain, and the , control vested ' m i he Auckland City Council as a domain board. Instead of passing the benefit on to their ratepayers, however, the Auckland city fathers 'are now seeking to turn the ' island into a i revenue-producing concern . . for . the > Council, and' are asking Parliament to give them the right . to charge all persons landing on .Motuihi for * the privilege of entering a public domain. A charge of threepence for adults and one penny for children is suggested, the Council arrogating to itself the right to impose this fee on any persons landing^ , above the low water mark. It . further proposes that it be allowed to make this charge oh 865 days m the year instead :of the statutory 20 day s allowed other domain boards. fA TOTAL area of 410 acres has been A handed , over to the Council,, this comprising the. whole of the island With the exception of 31 acres set aside for! quarantine purposes.- It -is- the expressed intention of the Council. to run Stock-lover this area >"to keep down the grass," ."But a. more material result than mere grass-eating' can /be .expected in 'view of the fact .that . last year £he Agricultural Department showed a profit of £500 on the stock it ran on the island. . . ' v ■ "With 410 acres.of • fertile land; at its disposal 'for grazing purposes, the , Council l . has undoubtedly . a,:, valuable source of revenue iii. Motuihi Island, quite apart from the "fees which' it proposes to? charge its ratepayers; for landing : bh their own domain,. I In spite of this, however, £2000 has been set 'aside on the coming year's estimates^ to V provide .for. -the upkeep of the new domain?: « ; It is reported 'that- the "Council, proposes tqjjpprid 1 £1250 on 'a new. jetty, despite the "fact' thatUhe'vold one was recently' put, into excellent repair at a. cost of £250. . «•-. ' ; •• ■ If the island is properly, managed, the revenue' 'derivable , from grazing stock should; be adequate to pro vide for upkeep' wfthput;v.further taxing the ! ratepayers;: of • : >vho wish to visit thehdpmain^ ..^L £ . -.; It is for- the purpose , Of obtaining, the desired Ppw.ev^ 'with^egard to Motuihi; Island,- aiid- the: Tigßt : ; tb ; :spend:! £ 3945, unexpended : :f rbm Vits -, last , ; WorkersDwellings ■ loan,' toge'tfier,. with a reversion to the cross method :of voting at local body, elections, :that- the Auckland ' City "Council has 'brought before the" House, the.Aucklarid, City* Council and jijOtuihi 'Island; Dpinain . Board Empowering Bill. ' ' i The Liocai; Bills Committee has alvre idy - reported that the measure should be allowed to proceed, arid alth Dugh it was • referred, . back „tb the 1a hds Committee for further evidence, - it has also passed .that body without ell eration.Y . .-■■.. . jWlien the facts of^the bill are known; however, it should receive^ scant consideration from anybody, for it is nothing, more or leis than a barefaced endeavor 'by the Auckland City Council to cover 1 up- its own ; mistakes and obtain , machinery "^hich » gives it; dangerous powers to exploit its ©wn ratepayers; •: ; ; /V ; ; " '. : - ■ .;■ ■■'.' ■' ( . The: remunerative } purposes Jto f , which the island domain of. Motuihi. can be • turned is a matter which has /only recently, occupied the x , attention of the Auckland s City Council, but 'the prob-. lems of the workers'., : dwellings' jiaye long been a festering sore .m the municipal politics of the XJueen City. Rushed; up. at ;_bopm'_ prices, _during the period of ftie housing shortage, jerry-builtx ,arid> badly- situated, this nucleus of Auckland's proposed work- : ers' city represents one. of the. supreme bungles of Auckland civic: administration. ■•-■■•• -: : '-- '■:';■■ > •■:'■... ~. ': ; ■■■'■■:../ The scheme was. originally fathered by Labor Councillor .Bloodwprth, and "its alleged purpose was! to solve the Jhbusing difficulties of married workers with families,; who were unable tb obtain homes. .:../.'; -v. ■■' '■■■' But although':, he 'began the scheme, Councillor Bldodwbrth has left jt: to take, care of itself, and '^.instead-'' of watching the- interests' of the -unfortunate ' worker-owners, . has been a party! to. the 'policy of ; indifference which the Council .has pursued towards the complaints and " grievances of the occupiers of. workers' -dwellings* As a result of this ■cbrd-shoulderirig of the men who Selected him, Mr. Bloodworth has been put on the mat at the Auckland. Trades Hall and: still has gome explaining to. dp. To finance the . scheme, three ■different loan's were raised' from; . the State/Advances Department.. - The first, m 1920, was for £20,000, and' erected .1.0 houses.' It was followed m 1922 by another for £5000, with Which five houses were built, but the most considerable of the three was for £40,000 raised m 1924 and used to build 50 houses. When this last contract was completed, £36,055 of . the; £40,000 lifted, had been expended, and it is the balance of £3945- which ,the. Council is now asking Parliament to allow it to use m repairs and additions "ur the houses. ■ »- The Councils contention; contained m the Bill, that the permission to expend this £ 3945 on repairs and alterations will restore the ' depreciated values of the properties to some extent, cannot ! be substantiated and Undoubtedly calls for further investigation. ■ ""'.- '. v .'-/""■ '..'';-■ ■ ".'■' ' Under section 47 of the Finance Act; 1929,:. and provisions m . the •. Local Bodies' Loans' Act^: ; the Council could *aye obtained the permission ■it is seeking from Parliament, by 'making .Japplication to the Local Bodies' Loans Board to divert the unexpended bal-

i 1 lllllimi||imi||||||imm|||||m||||||||||| " m I Having made a gross bungle of its much talked of WorkersV Dwellings scfe j | , at Grey Lynn, arid indulged m Star Chamber tactics tohide this bungling from the know: I I ledge of the ratepayers, the Auckland City Council is now asking Parliament to adflow it | 1 to use^the unexpended balance of the State Advances Ldan^ it raised to build the | j to repair the botch which bad workmanship, inefficient supervision; and cheap I : I material have made of what were described as 65 "admirable little homes. V 1 i| , And round these 65 "admirable little homes' V hangs a tale which would have I | made^even the ears of the Auckland City Council tingle had it ever been indiscreet enough j i | to let it see the light of day. ' J ■ : =Ti(rifriiiiiiitiiifiiHiiiirtiii4tii( (fiiiJiiiirfiitniiiriiiiJiiiiiMiif itiiriiiiMrrtiMiMiiurtfiiirriiitiiiuiiii'iiiiJiiii'itiiiiiit mumi tiiiiiiiittiiiiitiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiitiiMmiimttn uiitiiiiiitiiiiiiittttiiiitiiiiiiMiuiKii tuiiiiiiiiiiitiMiiM truiiiit niiriiiiri tuiiiiutiiirfiiif if iMttiitiiiiii tiMrirtrriiiiiiiniitMiiriirciinitf iiiuu MiiiiiiiiMiiitrMMJiimiiiiut*^ '

ance of the loan m. the; direction it desires. . .'. ... ',' . .. • The fact that the Council has not taken this course, but has had recourse to Parliament, lends sorne color to the .assumption that m view. of the muddle it has made of its scheme, it is unwilling to face the close scrutiny of its financial arrangements to which it would be subjected by the board. By August, 1924, the Auckland 'City Council was the proud possessor of ••.65: so-called "admirable little homes," and was indebted, to. the .State /Advances Department to t the extent of £55,000 at 4% per. cent., for which the property of the whole of-, the ratepayers of Auckland was pawned. , PAWNED The last fifty houses were built during the . height of the 1924 building shortage,, and the 'eagerness with which they were snapped -up can be gauged from .the fact, that there were 144 applications for the first 28 completed. ... ..■■':.■■.'■' • ■, V They were sold at an average price of £1111, the loSvest price paid being £1045 sand the highest £1185. The variations were caused by. the fact that the prices of the sections to the purchasers varied from £160 to £300. , : On this end of the deal alone the Council turned considerably mo^e ' than an honest penny, for the land on whjch the houses were built was Council freehold acquired iri the early days at ••'«"• peppercorn •■ price. In' addition to this, the prices paid fpr these five-roomed cottages was excessive even taking into account the inflated values " that prevailed at .the timei Council allegedly -set out with the laudable intention of providing 'reasonably' cheap- homes for workers, ; but right .from . the /jump it- indulged m. exploitation by turning the house shortage to* its own- advantage. In. their anxiety, to obtain a roof over their heads', very few of the unfortunate purchasers stopped ( to consider the value of the goods they were purchasing. They accepted the fact ,that the houses had been built under Council supervision and under the provisions of a Council, scheme, as sufficient guarantee that they ■> were to be fairly treated and' that the City ' Council was making a ; conscientious' effort to'solve. the housing problems- of harassed workers.. ' \ • ■ Instead of this, the workers found that they had been rushed into homes oyer which they had been complaining bitterly since and were exposed to harassing financial conditions., . . All the purchasers were to be ntarried men with families, yet the Council, right from the outset, committed a breach of faith- by allotting one of the houses to a single man and m anbjther case taking a mortgage from a man wh.o was earning a' salary we'll above that of the workers ..for. whom' the houses -were designed. i 1 -A deposit of,, £30 was .required': to obtain possession, and interest V ■:, on the Sbalance .of :> the purchase ' money, was; fixed .'at .the high .rate of SJ/2', per cent. ■ payable .in v halfyearly or monthly -vinstalments ..-,- over the- usual Z&/z year mortgage ■ period. " In order to prevent default rit was announced that: all. of the payments by purchasers would-be monthly, but' this was not adhered to, and a num-. ber of the occupiers' have paid half-' yearly.; In addition to the usual' charges on the purchase Of a rnprtgaged property", the tenant-owners also '■'■.I • - ' • : ' ■' -"v. '' ■• ■ -■'" '■'• ' ■ •.' DEPRECIATED had. to pay fire .insurance, mortgagee indemnity insurance, and rates. They were also saddled on a separate account with the legal costs of conveyance, etc;, and 'if they; did: not pay. this amount right- outthey Had to pay interest on it. ; ■' '■■>■■.. '■>■■ ■'■ ' All the legal work m connection with the houses was carried out by , the Auckland .city .solicitor, .who collected as much as £26 on some of the trans-' actions. ' When, tKe nature of the houses, became known and dissatisfaction- was 'rife, transfers were frequent, and on some!' of these the Council reaped advantage. ,'.■■'".< Taking all charges into .account, on a weekly .payment „basis,; the purchasers of £1111 -or 'average-priced houses paid £1/11/9 ■ a week Ito ..the Council. ' ■' .. This looked all right on the surface, but, worked out on ,the ' actual figures of one of the purchasers, the whole transaction makes . different .,, reading. This man purchased one of the higherpriced houses at £1145, and after paying the £30 deposit was . left .with £1115 s,till to pay off, m 73 half-yearly .payments of £35/12/-. • A simple arithmetical, calculation shows that at' the end of 36J^ ' years the purchaser would have ' paid £2598/16/- for his £1145 house. Adding insurance, £33 12/3, and rates, reckoned on the present-day level at. £392, the grand total is £3023/16/-, without taking into account the/cost of upkeep and repairs which might be necessary. And at the end of • 361/fe , .years the house would, probably have depreciated to a. value of : £500 if it had not fallen d ; bwn m ;the meantime." ■•' contract for "the •; last batch ; of 50 houses^was signed on September 13, 1923, and 11 months later, m August,

1924, it was completed. Hailed at the time as a record m speedy-building construction, ,it- has since proved' to be a spurce of much complaint and lamentation.. .v . ' All these 50l houses were five-roomed and built of brick, white rough-cast. They were constructed on what is known as the brick on edge, cavity principle, and occupied, as they were, immediately after completion and before they had'time to dry. out, they proved terribly damp and cold.. .. In a very short ..time faults m their construction are said to .have evidenced themselves, and letters were despatched to the. Council complaining, of alarming cracks and strainings. "The house which I purchased was built by the. Council itself," wrote one man, a schoolmaster. "Having every confidence m- your fidelity, I felt quite safe m buying, but from the outset, as I then pointed [out to you, the house leaked and ..the .-■> windows, doors, and skirting boards proved faulty. . I repeatedly 'drew your. Council's attention to this, but. without avail. "The health of my wife has suffered, 'due m. a grea£ ineasureto the mustiness and dampness of the house. Originally we had one advantage here. The locality was quiet and-' the. view delightful, factors which influenced our purchase;, ' Now your Council has deprived us of these. Your pine trees, for which . we did not ask, but for the removal of which we vainly. 'petitioned you, have robbed us of our view, and your Stadium' has -filled the air "with a din that is nerve-wracking. During the week,- our evenings are spoiled by the noise from /machines m practice!, and on Saturday .- evenings we are driven out by the din until 11.30 p.m.-, by which time the pandemonium has subsided. . ;. .-■''. "In view of these facts/the only - step that will satisfactorily meet my' wishes now, is that your Council will cancel the sale, and take the house over. You stand, to lose nothing, as m addition to. a • £50 deposit, I have promptly, paid rates, interest, and instalments on - .' a much over-valued, house for the last eight yedrs." "It is years now since we residents arid owners, asked you for a fair deal,"

wrote another man, with 4 wife .and four children. "You refused . to grant - anything we asked for m our petition, arid V things have become unbearable, what with the cold damp and general mouldiness arid leakiness, and permanent discomfort. '.-. . ;:.'. "We have stood the flies, insects and bugs as well as we- could;" and the shocking sanitary convenience an d; ill- ventilated washhouse, bathroom and lavatory, 'but it is very galling to see the Council sp c n d ing pur money m huilding aijd fitting a fine npw sanitary con- .:. ve'nience outside of a house recently let to a well-paid Council • . employee at less than onehalf of the rent

that your Council has been compelling me to pay m, the form of instalments on this unwholesome and nerve-shattering abode." Another man, who was later sorted put by . the . council as. a subject, for legal proceedings, wrote m March of this year: "I did my best to keep faith with you under most depressing conditions while others, got into arrears and proved themselves to be unworthy and indifferent occupiers. I succeeded m improving my* premises considerably, and at substantial cost. . "Like many of the. fifty, my wife and I soon found we were up against a , stiff, problem owing to the inefficient workmanship, faulty planning, poor materials and. careless supervision of. the job. Also I had no**cho:ce of selecting my home, and was even turned down by you on the first allotment and single men . preferred to me, although I am a family man, a native 1 of Auckland, one of your employees, and- a certified marine engineer;." "One pound thirteen and five pence is what I started to pay < per week m August, 1924, under the illusion that the house allotted to me willy nilly, was fit for human habitation. . It was not. 'It never was. It is not now," wrote another workman, who found that he was unable to obtain any hearing from the council. . "The 'Municipal Record,' of October, 1924, refers to the chosen 50 as a 'thrifty and generally .excellent class of "workers. 1 And that record declares, 'general satisfaction \ exists among those who have been, provided with these admirable little homes, occupied by those for whom the scheme was framed'— that is, houseless married workers Avith growing families for preference,. "To the Ananias who wrote that, we reply with an experience of disappointment, disillusionment, and despair. These 'admirable', structures included, leaky roofs; rusty steel window frames, damp ou^er walls— built on cavity type, single brick, on edge,. though contrary to the city by-laws— water-logged , plaster ceilings through which the roof, drips have penetrated, ill-fitting, rain -admitting, and di : aughty outer doors, penetrating draughts:

m " all rooms, faulty ventilators and chimneys', "arid an entire absence of warmth throughout; each dwelling, with the 'resultant loss of vitality, (and sometimes death), persistent ill-health, and exhaustive, doctor's bills." ' . ;">'■. ■ Perhaps the most interesting of all these letters is one written by .a. building foreman who is- now engaged m a responsible .building job m the city, arid his opinion, as an' expert builder; is valuable. He occupied one of the first batch of houses built by the Council.' "Relj'ing upon the faith of these representations and upon the reputation for ability and integrity of your designers; constructional and overseeing officers,. a"hd also upon the skill of your highly-trained tradesmen, to evolve a perfect dwelling for sale to working men and their families .. at cost price, and. in keeping wit;h, modern town-planning .'ideas , and. city council by-laws," he says, "I • ; paid over the above-named .cash sums -out of my hardly- won savings, and became the owner of this „ wretched arid much over-valued jerry building, AVhich is, to the knowledge of- your experts, faulty and defective m design, construct:on and materials, and not built to comply with, your own ..bylaw's." ' ; These letters are only a few of the many received by the Council. Yet, despite the shoals of com- . plaints, the Council has refused to ,read the letters m open council, and. has turned a deaf ear. to all requests for fair treatment. The dissatisfaction and irritation of the' occupiers 'was aggravated when the Council let a number of the houses vacated by owner-tenants at lower sums than the weekly payments being made by those who still remained m possession, with the, inevitable result that the values of the houses st:ll further depreciated and the owners lost all chance of realising their equities on their own dwellings. Then the owner-tenants istill remaining m possession ; banded together, and formed an association known as the Grey Lynn .Workers' Dwel-. lings Ratepayers' Association. At a' meeting .of . that asso^iatio".

held on June 7, 1928, the following motion , was car- , ried with only two dissentients: "That this meeting .? ask the City Council of AuckSlarid to take over 'the d well ings known as the workers' homes, pay us for improvements made, return th« "deposits .pad and accrued, and rent the houses to us on the same .conditions as to . the weekly/ tenants at the present time," > Two men, R. A. Cpwley and J. B. Proul, at this time came into prpminv ence as president and secretary respectively .of the Association, and it was they who were later sorted out for prosecution when 1 the Council decided to take -action against the occu-

piers ot tne nouses for arrears of payment. The Association 1 !? representations had no effect, despite the fact that on August '6, 1928, a deputation presented a petition signed by 41 occupiers of the workers' dwellings. The petitioners were sent to the Finance Committee, hot to the full Council, and thus publicity was avoided. They were also told, to restrict their speeches- to a length which did pot permit of any -adequate presentation of their case. Following this deputation, it was decided to hold N another meeting on August 30, to which all City Councillors and Labor Ms.P. were invited by letter. Apparently, however, the councillors were not anxious to hear the Avorkers' grievances at first-hand;' and the only reply to the invitation was a four-page circular letter from the Town . Clerk, declining the prayer of the petitioners for relief, and, m effect, asking' the^ owners to hang on and hope for better times, which they could take the assurance of the Auckland City Council, were due to arrive at any time. . • 1 Yet at the time this petition was lodged, eight of the houses had been abandoned, and "it was afterwards discovered that the Council had relieved all eight of . -these owners from> their arrears and ■ indebtedness amounting to i £8,804/5/7.- , Finding that their representations had absolutely no effect, the 1 occupiers were driven to desperation, and at a meeting held m September, 1928, the remainder of . the original ownertenants bound themselves by •a- "gentleman's agreement, I .' nol to pay any further money to the Council until their grievances were redressed. . ■The fact that hard-headed city, workers, steady-Roing men .with family responsibilities, could be brought to such a condition of mind, .is alone eloquent evidence of the "pitch to which' their feelings had been wrought' up. '•; Not only did the Council's circular refuse the harassed occupiers any relief, but it intimated that the Council, as the trustee pf the ratepayers as «. whole, was doubtful whether it had the power- to. make any. concessions. ■ >-. -„...- •- ' . ■ -,' . ... .;, . : , This was perhaps quite true,- but' the

workers ; did hot know at the" time, that 'before issuing; the bulletin, "the' council had quietly written off ." the total : indebtedness of eight selected owners who had fallen *into arrears and abandoned their dwellings, while' leaving their unfortunate fellows, not similarly '.favored,, .--to battle * along as. best they could under the financial "burden which was bearing so , 'heavily upon their, ihoulders. .•'•' Nor did the main body of the white city dwellers know that eleven days before the receipt of that circular reply, the indebtedness of nine selected owners, including arrears of .^interestand principal, costs of deeds, and- the whole of their respective mortgage in-, debtedness totalling £9,973/1,2/8, had LOCKED SECRET been quietly wiped . offj the ledger by the Council which was "doubtful if it had the- power to ; make any concessions." " . Further than that, the same preferential treatment was later given seven other owners who were considerably m arrears, and .nothing was said about ''it! at., the Council table..' \ Altogether, no. fewer ti;an Z4 owners had' their indebtedness wiped out at a: toy tal cost of £26,486 to the ratepayers. There were no stated: reasons.,, for preferential treatment being extended toany.of these 24, and ' •the whole of v the transactions j were kept as a locked secret m the * ledgers of the Council. .It is true that at a later stagey suspicions •_ were aro.used, and questions ask- ,'j ed, but the Council : throughout preserved a stony silence, both as regards the complaints of the own- . ens and requests for/information. The; whole affair has been shrouded m far too.m uch secrecy,.;, and' the Council's hush-hush policy, • adopted apparently at every^turn, is 'not reassuring to ratepayers^ Indeed,' the Council v seems to have constituted itself a Star Chamber, 'and gone back to medieval days foi* the glaringly unjust policy it has, pursued., Two important reports which "Truth" bel: eves' w:ere made by Chief City Building. Inspector Maxwell and City Valuer Notley' have never been made public. This paper believes that they substantiated the owners' claims that the houses have deteriora ted m value, and that one of these 1 flicors wont so "far as to state the i depreciation could be set down at 22% ■ per cent. • , Will Mayor George Ba'ridon deny s that these reports .were' made? Will he state why they were not made public? Wi|l he not make them! public? ".■ "Truth" challenges ■ him to do so. \ ■' .•»'■•'■.•. • 1 Public" feeling became so intense over the matter that on i July 16, 1930, a mass" meeting was held 1 - by the Association and attended by 6ver 1000 people. By this time the Council had decided to take action against certain of the owners to recover arrears and this had heen the subject -of ffurr r ther protest. At this meeting the following motion ; was carried unanimously: •'. ' ■ -. ■ . v '■■ "That the -decision of the Auckland City Council to . take proceedings to recover arrears from only some of the owners of workers' ' dwellings, at Grey Lynn is unfair and unjust. '■ ■ ■'. '■•.'.., "That court proceedings for debt cannot s*olye the problem^ confronting the city regarding these "That a substantial proportionate reduct:on .all round, m the purchasing prices of, and. the mortgages oye'r, these dwellings, to conform with the official reports of Chief,; Building InALTERNATIVE spector Maxwell .and City Valuer Notley is respectfully suggested. . "That as an alternative, if the £26,000 or more already written off the indebtedness, of 24 of the registered owners be a part of the Council's settled policy, the remaining registered owners should now have extended to them an offer of like treatment." The Council delegated to its finance sub-committee the work of reporting upon the position of the dwellings, and when, after lengthy delay, this was finally tabled, it recommended that proceedings should be taken against both Proul and Cowley if their arrears were hot paid within 14 days. The report, disclosed that arrears of principal, interest, rates, or rent were owing by no fewer than 69 occupants or one-yme occupants of the workers' dwellings at Grey Lynn. It also" made special . . recommendations ' regarding each tenant and owner,' but the only recommendations it made with regard to Cowley and Proul, the president and secretary respectively of the Ratepayers' Association, was that they should be summoned 'if . their arrears were not paid within fourteen days. At the date of this decision, August 12, Cowley was shown as being £120/2/10 m arrears and Proul £171/5/2; Yet at the time, there were two other owners m an even worse !". positi on' than Proul, and no recommendation was made that proceedings should be taken against them. The same applied to Cowley, although, m his case, there are eight men further m. arrears than he was. On the face of it, it appears as though Cowley and Proul,, as the exec-, utive officers of -the Ratepayers' . As- ' h . ... ... /'.;.'...> .-..•- - ;.. . . ■

s.ociation, are „ sorted out for special attention by the Council. ' The report, which was directed to.be ."comprehensive," shows the total arrears outstanding at August 12 ' to exceed £3700, but it contains no mention of the £ 26,486 previously written off the indebtedness of. the 24 owners already v mentioned. It also remains discreetly silent on the question of- the Maxwell -Notley reports. » . As further substantiation of the fall m is a' statement made by the City Valuer at" a Valuation Court sittings m, Auckland m 192.9, when he told the presiding magistrate that none of these, workers' dwellings was at that time worth more than £ 840. At the, present time the valuation is probably below even that figure. x ... The whole position is one which demands "public investigation and proper redress for the unfortunate owners of these dwellings, who m some cases have been' almost forced into bankruptcy, by ' the Council's treatment. . The Bill which is now before the ' House is a last effort ,by the Council to cover up some. of these blunders and . inequities, and it should not be allowed to proceed without ' a full investigation of the jjjsi.tion. Cowley and Proul have both peti--tioned the, House m connection ' with their case, and evidence oh their petition was heard by the Lands Committee, which was*. at that time also considering, the- Bill. t ■''■ But Parliament must investigate 'the -whole affair; for, the matter is one which warrants the closest and fullest investigation. . .

I - - ■ / IT was the opinion of Wilkie that his wife had asked for more maintenance with a view to making things as hard as possible for him, but Mrs. Wilkie's counsel denied that this was the case. Wilkie, who is now only 23, and his wife, who is also rather young, were married m February, 1928, but they never actually had a home. v In February'last they were separated, and Wilkie was then ordered, by the court to pay 15/- a week towards. his wife's support. Inhere were no. children of the marriage. ';> : ]At the time of the separation, Wilkie was not m regular employment, but his wife was engaged as a proof, reader oh a Wellington newspaper at a ; salary of £2/10/- a .week, and though; she is still , in .that position, she is shortly td;give it up' because of ill-heaith; : ; ■ : ': . ;'- Wilkie is working on Tangihau, his stepfather's sheep station m Poverty Bay, and is earning £2 a week and his keep. He is living as one of his' stepfather's family. He claims that he is willing to give his wife any assistance he can afford, but states that at the present time there is no work for a man of his qualifications. He says that he does not want to,' see his, wife suffer, but that he now has no affection for her. When the case was heard recently, Wilkie did not appear at court, his evidence being taken on commission at Gisborne. . ~ Mr. W. E. Leicester, for the wife, said that Wilkie was employed by his stepfather, George Ettie, who is reputed to the wealthiest man m the North Island. Wilkie's father, said Mr. Leicester, was also a man of substance, and his grandfather, Mr. Gampion,, owned sheep, runs on different parts of the North Island. Wilkie, senior, was* m Western Australia, j : where he was conducting a sheep grazing run of about 5000 sheep. He and his wife were divorced, "and, up till the time Mrs. Wilkie married Ettie, he was paying her £7 a 'week alimony. - Mr. A. T. Macandrew, for Wilkie, objected to Mr. Leicester's address, mentioning that the fact that Wilkie's connections were reputed to be wealthy had no bearing on the maintenance that Wilkie should pay. "I want to know that the young man is sponging on his relations," said Mr. Leicester. "If he could not get any money from them he would be compelled to go out and 'work, and could then pay more maintenance."^ t Mrs. Wilkie said m evidence that apart from her earnings as a proof reader and the 15/-. she received as maintenance she had no source of ■ income. Her father was dead, and her mother could not afford to keep her.- ■/' ■'■■' ' ' - • ■ ;; She was now compelled to give up her position, .-.•'. Mrs. Wilkie explained that she had taken the position as proof reader as it was not a strain on her physically. She was a trained school-teacher, but as she was unable to stand for any great length of time, she was unable to fpllow that profession. . . A few months after she, was married, she had suffered an illness which* 4 had affected her physically since. She was under medical attention and had been advised to give up working.

Referring to her husband, Mrs: Wilkie said that he had told her that he had been offered a position" as a motor-car salesman, but he would riot accept the employment as he wanted to live with his mother aild have an easy life. She said.that she was a Bachelor of Arts, and that she intended sitting for her Masters of Arts examination this year. ~ ' ■.;■••• . Mr. Macandrew: Has your husband had experience at selling cars ?— No, but he should be able to sell them. You say that the. state, of your health affects your power of concentration? — Yes. _ And yet you contemplate sitting for an examination this year? — Yes, but. that is 1 a different "kind, of contemplation.—-" '■-- •-•■ '-''*.' ' ,■.:' Wilkie said m his evidence, taken on corhmission at Gisborne and produced m court j that he had been working for bis stepfather'on Tarigihau station for the past five months. Except for the ; £2 a week' he was earning, he had no other income, nor had he. any irioney saved. ' "After my marriage," he said, ?'I did not live with my wife— that is, we had no actual home. Before the maintenance order was . made, I agreed to pay her as much as I could Wool -classic while I was working, and made her payments amounting to £18 under that,arrarigement. I have"kept up all my payments regularly. - ' ' "At the time of the separation my wife was earning >not less than £2/10/- a week, and was m , quite good health at the time. I think that she wishes to make things as hard forme as possible, and that is her reason for asking for maintenance." .. Cross-examined by Mr. Burnard, Wilkie explained that Tangihau station comprised 15,000 acres, but he did not know whether it was the only property owned by his 'stepfather. He thought that he also managed the George Ettie Estate, and was • interested m a property, a sheep farm, at Hastings. "I suppose my stepfather is -a well-to-do man," he said m reply to Mr. Burnard. "I have never experienced his generosity,' and I have never asked him for any money, nor has he ever offered to give me any. My mother has never given me any money. She has no means of her own." ' Questioned regarding his father, he said that so far ,as he knew he' was not well-to-do.. "I have never applied to him for any" money, . and I do not think he is m a. position to' help me," he said. "From his letters I gather that he is up against things. I have one brother and sister." ., : " Wilkie said that he himself had had about two years' experience as a wool-classer, but did riot -hold any diplomas for the work. Last, year a wool-classef could earn about £1 to £1/5/- a day. He was educated at the Gilford Grariimar School, Perth, he said, leaving school when he was sixteen or seventeen. He then went on to his father's place for a time, and then on

-■'■■* i .'.- . • ■-■■..■.-"• to an adjoining cattle station. Later, he came out to New Zealand, and Vent on| u to : his grandfather's station outside Hastings for a while. He then • worked on Flat Point station," • He then .went to work for his grandfather at Okirae station outside ". Wangariui, and afterwards .. returned to his father, staying, with' him for about nine months; ■ ' .;>. =r On his return to New Zealand, he -, again went to Okirae station, and was married, from there, but prior to that he had been employed at a Wanganui wool store. ' Last winter, he said he was employed m another _ wool store m Wanganui at • a salary of £4/10/- -a week,, but he lost his position through the firm; 'closing down. V ' • '■ ■ : - He then went to live; with his grandfather m, Wanganui, paying board while lie was there. He said that he could not get any work at a salary higher than that he was. getting at present, but he could not 1 say that he had: actually made any efforts to get any;- for he had not had the opportunity. , *1 do not know my wife's present state of health," said JVilkie. '1 have no affection for her,; 'but I would not like to see her suffering." i : --' ■■■ - ; .^v_. •;.;■■■.■ •■■ . Re-examined by his icjpunsel, .Mr. Whiteheadi Wilkie sai'd^tfiat he did not -think that there wa^iiny .chance of' Mr. Efiie's giving him Jan increase insalary. . - . "'":.. •'..""'l. "I am quite willing to give her any assistance I can afford. lam defending these proceedings riot because I bear her any animosity, but merely - because she has made the application at a bad time for me financially.;: If she makes:, application for an increase m inain^|n^dcevlater.ion, when times have imp'rlay6a^al%hall only be too pleased tbfgive it*lo"her."To Mr. Burnard, he said that Mr. Ettie had a' son older than he working on the station. He himself lived there as a member of the family., •. Mr. Macandrew said that Mrs. Wilkie's actions were prompted by a spirit of bad feeling. He read an extract from a letter she had written to her husband, and said that that letter showed that she was actuated by some motive other than the desire to gain additional, evidence: . Mr. Leicester denied this, and said that Mr. Macandrew had not read out the whole of- the letter. One paragraph of it may have been a little sarcastic, perhaps, but the rest of it showed no bad feeling. - *« He read out the letter, which was signed, "Yours contemptuously, Zoe.". In it Mrs. Wilkie informed her husband that she was writing it herself to "save a lawyer's fee.' She explained that she had to give up her position, and asked him to make an effort to pay her more maintenance.. , In increasing the order, the magistrate said that, he would' take into consideration the fact that Mrs. Wilkie had to give up her position. When he made the order, he said, it was only meant to be a temporary arrangement, as Wilkie was not then m a permanent position. , J"I do know that he is now being kept, not as an ordinary farm hand, but as one of the. family, , and m these circumstances I shall make an order for £1/5/- a Week," said Mr. McNcdL