THE MOKAU LANDS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 72, 15 September 1911, Page 2

THE MOKAU LANDS

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Wednesday. At the Mokau enquiry Mr. Dalziell,) continuing his statement, said he and! Mr. Skerret had carefully gone into the validity of the title, and having satisfied themselves, applied for an Order-in-Council. Both witness and Mr. Skerrett attended the meeting of assembled owners on January 6- Mr. Skerrett advised the natives that they must either hold on to the land or go ,in for the expensive litigation which must ensue. Witness offered them £25,000 for the block. Mr. Bowler, who presided, said the attendance was not large enough to decide except on almost unanimous vote, so the meeting was adjourned. Both Messrs Skerrett and Bell advised the natives that the leases were defective, and that they could claim damages for the non-appear-ance of the covenant. Witness later received word that the carrying of the resolution was doubtful, so advised his client to withdraw his offer and test the validity of the leases. Mr. Hosking, K.C., advised witness that Mr. Lewis was not liable for non-performance of any covenant before his taking up the lease. { Mr. Lewis had at this stage entered into a contract to sell, whereby he was to get £40,000 for leases and £25,000 for the freehold, or, if he could not obtain the freehold, the leases were to be sold for the price mentioned. At the meeting on March 10 Mr. Mac Donald said th natives were arriving at the opinion they ought to sell, but asked for an adjournment to enable consultation with Mokau natives. This was agreed to, and at the meeting on March 20 a resolution agreeing to the sale was passed without dissent.

MR. BELL'S STATEMENTS CONTROVERTED. Wellington, Thursday. Mr. Dalziell, continuing, said Mr. MasBey stated the interests of the public had not been studied and the interests of the natives had not been safeguarded, and that the Government had committed a breach of public interest in granting the Ord«r-in-Council. Mr. Bell, in his evidence, had seriously rcllected on individuals. He said Mr. Skerrett had been employed by the Government and not by natives, but this was incorrect. Mr. Bell said at the first meeting that there was an overwhelming majority against the sale, whereas the majority of the acreage was in favor of the sale. Another incorrect assertion of Mr. Bell's was that the natives were misled into believing they must either raise £BOO to fight the ease or sell, whereas they might retain possession of the block without litigation. »The natives knew litigation must ensue. Witness also had authority to state that Mr. Skerrett had not given up the case to Mr. Bell. The Land Board had made no order for payment of costs, as stated by Mr. Bell. Mr. Dalziell also strongly resented Mr. Bell's assertion that Mac Donald must have been bought. • To Mr. Ngata: At the final meeting of the natives, Holland only advised the natives on points of procedure.

To Mr. Hemes: Mr. Skerrett had been employed by the Government in the proceedings before the commission at Te Kuiti. Bowler received permission from Wellington before becoming trustee for the natives. As far as witness knew, Hermann Lewis had been acting on his own account. Bowler was indemnified by Lewis and the company from any resultant litigation. The commitee adjourned till to-mor-row.