THE MOKAU CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 142, 2 November 1912, Page 5

THE MOKAU CASE.

JOINT COMMITTEE'S REPORT-

RECOMMENDS PAYMENT OF £3OOO.

By Telegraph—Own Correspondent. Wellington, Last Night. In the Legislative Council this afternoon the joint committee of both branches of the Legislature appointed to enquire into the petition of Joshua Jones, one time of the Mokau, presented its report. The report is a very long document, and was read when presented m the Legislative Council by Mr. Ritte by the Clerk. 6b

Mr. Bell raised a point as to whether the document should be read in full. In reply, Mr. Rigg, chairman of the joint committee, said that the committee had put on record a concise history of the case, and then made recommendations. It was necessary for the Council to understand it that the whole thing should be read. The effect of the report, he held, would be to say the last word that could be said on'a subject that had occupied the attention of the Legislature for years past. There would be no necessity for any further enquiry on the part of the Government, and in view of the extreme importance of the report it should be read.

The report was then read and ordered to lie on the table.

The order of reference submitted to the committee was to enquire whether the petitioner has suffered the loss of any right conferred upon him by Statute, by reason of any amendments made to the law by the Government. After detailing in very clear fashion the history of the petitions and law transactions, the report says that private Acts granted petitioner, in 1885 and 1888, were repealed by the Statute Repeal Act of 1907, during the absence of petitioner from New Zealand, and without his knowledge and consent. By this repeal the petitioner was deprived of a preemptive right to acquire a lease or leases of some 1500 to 2000 acres •of Mokau lands not included in that portion of the land which has, been the subject of litigation. The committee was of opinion that this was the only loss of. right which petitioner had suffered by reason of any amendment of Statute law. The committee, therefore, recommended that a sum of £3OOO, and that the Government take into consideration of lodging any'such sum with the Public Trustee in trust for the use and benefit of petitioner and his wife and family, be paid to petitioner in compensation for the loss of right mentioned, and as an ex gratia payment In consideration of the fact that by reason of a certain course of events petitioner had not, in fact, received the reward which it was originally intended that he should receive, in return for very considerable services rendered by him in bringing about peace with the Maoris in the King Country. The committee recommended that if such payment is made to petitioner, it should be made subject to the express provision that it is in full satisfaction of all and every claim (if any) which petitioner may have against the general Government of New Zealand. Petitioner claimed that an Order-in-Council issued in 1907 had enabled the executors of Wickham Flowers to acquire the freehold of the land of which petitioner held the leasehold tenure. On this point the committee held that since the petitioner had, prior to anfr such action, lost all legal claim to the said leases, lie had not been prejudiced by tln> Government's action. Petitioner also asked that Parliament should give him the right of action by special statute, in order to be enabled to prosecute his case here, in which the Full Court had held that he had no power. ThU the committee recommended should not be granted, because petitioner had not yet exhausted his legal rempdieg.