THE HINE CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 191, 22 November 1910, Page 5

THE HINE CHARGES.

YESTERDAY'S EVIDENCE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Monday. At the sitting of the Hine Committee, Mr. Skerrett said he would call no witnesses in the Te Akau case, which was now closed,

THE CASE AGAINST WALTER SYMES Hvi"ii Pollen, Under-Secretary of the Lands Department, gave evidence touching a dispute between Messrs Dune and HutchlSon, wherein the former claimed a one-hal{jrefund of the expenses of the West Coast leases arbitration. Symes did not appear in the matter, but wrote to Dr. Findlay, then Minister of Internal Affairs, concerning a refund on £125 expenses incurred by Hutchison in fighting a test case. The letter was written on House of Representatives' notepaper, but Cabinet declined to pay anything. E. F. Hemingway, town clerk of Stratford, said that he first saw the letter from Symes to McCluggage in 1905, and had a copy of the letter which witness in 1908 read publicly in response to a challenge by Symes. Witness had never been a director of the Stratford Post. Witness got his copy from a director of the Stratford Post. The original had been handed to the Opposition Party at Stratford in 1005, and they obtained legal opinion as to whether it brought Symes under the Corrupt Practices Act. The letter remained undisturbed in possession of the solicitor for five years. Symes had referred to Hine anil witness as "quack parsons," and in an insulting way challenged witness to read any letters witness might have of Symes', and witness considered himself justified in reading the letter. Witness went to Cargill, the Stratford correspondent of the Taranaki Daily News, and gave him particulars of Hine's reception, which Cargill sent, and it was inadvertently published as a Press Association telegram and copied by surrounding evening papers. The statement in the long telegram was a true account. To Mr. Millar: Witness was one of those who drew up the address to Mr. Hine applauding his desire to purify public life. The copy witness had of Symes' letter did not have the marginal note "private and confidential." Witness was secretary in 1905 and chairman in 1908 of Hine's committee.

To Mr. Skerrett: Witness would not be a party to the disclosure of a confidential letter. Witness understood Symes' challenge to embrace any letters which witness might have. THE KAIHAU CHARGES.

Henare Kaihau said he had oiien pers6nally paid out sums of money for natives in connection with petitions and court cases. Witness went with Horomona to Auckland and searched the court records there and did other work for him. Horomona paid £5 to witness' clerk, but this was not for any work done by witness as member. Horomona paid no other sum to witness. Witness had advanced £ls to Kamanamana when the latter was in Wellington, and this was subsequently refunded long after. All sums which he had obtained from other witnesses had been for out-of-pocket expenses incurred for work outside his Parliamentary -duties. In Keritoki's case, witness spent much more than he received. Witness gave particulars as to 'the manner in which expenditure was incurred in each transaction.

DR. FINDLAY GIVES EVIDENCE. Wellington, Last Night. To Mr. Myers, Kaihau said he knew it was wrong to charge for services rendered as a member of Parliament. Witness did not charge fees for nearly every petition presented by him. Other witnesses were wrong if they said they had paid witness for presenting petitions. Hbromona did not pay witness £ls fit and witness did not send his secretary to Auckland to interview the natives mentioned in the charges gainst witness. ' "Mr. Myers questioned witness regardin" the absence from his Parliamentary duties in 1907, on the ground of illhealth, while witness was really conducting a case in the Land Court, but on Mr. Skerrett's objection the question was ruled out of order. To Sir Joseph Ward: Witness had never received any payment from the Government for the sale of land. Mr. Flannagan, Valuer-General, called by Sir Joseph Ward, gave the figures relating to Flaxbourne. He said the estate comprised 57,373 acres, of which 11,700 were retained by Clifford. The 45.673 were valued in 1904 at £160,709. but Clifford was awarded by the Court £lßl.G75. The homestead block was then valued at £40,200. In 1907 the value of the estate was increased to £220,677. James v MeKerrow, formerly chairman of the Land Purchase Board, gave evidence showing the Government's action throughout in accordance with the Board's recommendations. The Government could not purchase the estate at a higher price than the Board recommended.

A. L. Wilson, re-callecl, said lie was at Flaxbourne from Sunday to Friday, inclusive, and not only from Sunday to Tuesday, as stated by Griffen. Witness gave a detailed report on each subdivision. Witness had a horse each day at Flaxbourne, except Tuesday, when witness inspected the buildings and some of the paddocks. Witness said Griflfen's evidence was incorrect. He denied having made a statement to Griffen that he was not particular about the inspection. Dr. Findlay said he was counsel for the Crown in'part of the negotiations and purchase of the Flaxbourne estate. Witness had never had a client so p?rsistent as the late Mr. Seddon. who acted as if every pennv came out of his own pocket. When witness was first instructed he had a list of witnesses handed him, all from Marlborough, but with one exception tliev had refused to come forward and give evidence. Consequently witnesses had to be brought from all over the Dominion. Wilson had been assessor frequentlj- in large compensation eases.

•At this stage, Mr. Massey objected to the irrelevancy of Dr. Findlay's statement, but llr. Ha nan ruled that it was advisable that every opportunity should be given to refute any reflections which might have been made against the government of the late Premier.

Continuing. Dr. Findlay said that in December. 1003, he met. Mr. Seddori. who said he. was uneasy about some Crown witnesses, and expressed the opinion that Wilson should go over and report. His idea of sending Wilson over was for hint to prepare a report for the guidance of counsel in the Court. Wilson said he had sp n nt sixtrnn days in inspecting the m-uiierty and in preparing his report. Crill'en's evidence was incorrect, wherein •ie said witness had told him he had 110 intention of calling Wilson to give evidence. He did not consider Wilson's fee excessive. Over £<loo,ooo had been saved to the country in the acquisition of thirteen estPtcs through the persistence of Mr. Seddon in having competent valuations.

lo Mr. Massey: Witness certified to the correctness of Wilson's voucher, although witness had not. arranged tile terms with Wilson. The Crown employed between thirty and forty valuers, but Clifford had more.

To Mr. Myers: Wilson was mistaken when he said he received his instructions from witness, and that witness fixed his fee. Witness was instructed in June, 1908. He would say that Wilson played

the part of a rogue if he only spenttwo and a-half days at Flaxbourne. Grifi : en was employed in valuing and showing the witnesses round the property. The reason Wilson was sent wa» . that Mr. Seddon did not hold a high opinion of Griffen's reliability. Witness did not agree with Mr. Seddon's view. To-morrow Sir Joseph Ward will call ' the Secretary of Cabinet and Mr. Barron.