I.—3a

120

[F. (i. DALZIELL.

98. You are quite satisfied of that? —Yes. 99. About this possible claim for £80,000 that was suggested by Mr. Skerrett : do you think, speaking as a member of the legal profession, that there is any ground for such a claim?— Yes; I felt satisfied that there probably was, although I had no occasion to go into the question closely. 1 merely concluded that it was a claim which ought to be avoided if possible. 100. Let me put it in this way : Suppose 1 leased certain land to you, and urn registered the leases in the ordinary way under the Land Transfer Act : do you think, in the event of things going wrong, that 1 would have a claim under the Land Transfer Act if I had signed the leases willingly and freely on my own behalf I—No,1 — No, not unless the Registrar knew you were under age and registered in despite of that. 101. You do not suggest that any one was under age in this transaction? — The Natives were in a similar position : they were prohibited from dealing. 102. Mr. Herrits.] At that time? —Yes. LO3. Mr. Mastey.] If a man signs a lease with full knowledge of what he is doing, can he come along and claim damages under the Land Transfer Act because of something that has taken place? —Not if he is a free agent; and the Maoris were not free agents. When I say that, lam presuming that Mr. Bell's content ion, and Mr. Skerrett's, is correct, that the Natives had no power to sign these leases. Both these gentlemen advised that the Natives had no power to sign these leases, and that they were illegal documents. J O4. Why had they no power to sign leases of Native freehold land held under Crown title? —Because the law at the time did not permit them to do so. So the Chief Justice anil Mr. Bell and Mr. Skerrett say. 105. Of course, you are aware that neither Mr. Bell nor Mr. Skerrett agree with the opinion expressed by the Native Land Commission, consisting of Sir Robert Stout and Mi , . Jackson Palmer?—l understand they agree on that point. 106. The claim was supposed to lie for £80,000, was it not I—No, not necessarily. What Mr. Skerrett said was that he gave formal notice of a claim for £80,000. He did not determine what the exact amount of the claim would be : it was not necessary to determine at that stage. 107. Of course that would be supposed to represent the value of the leasehold interest, if anything?— Yes. 108. If the leasehold interest is worth 80,000, what is the freehold interest worth —what is the whole block worth? —If the leasehold interest is worth £80,000, the whole block would be worth about £110,000. 109. Then you think the leasehold interest would be three times as valuable as the freehold interest in such a case? —Yes. 110. Even though the property would be greatly improved at the time the lease expired?— More than three times as valuable, I think. This is the test :If you take the total value as being 690,000, the value of the leasehold would be only .£25,000 or £27,000. 111. You were asking for legislation in connection with this matter prior to the passing of the 1909 Act? —Yes. 112. Did that request, in your opinion, have anything to do with the insertion of the provision in the Native Land Act allowing sales to take place, or alienations to be made, by way of Order in Council?—lt could have had nothing whatever to do with it. The provisions had no resemblance to one another in any respect. They did not serve the same purpose. 113. You have been connected with this transaction from the first, 1 think?- —From the 3rd August, 1908. 114. From the time that Mr. Lewis became connected with it? —No. 115. At what date did he become the owner of the leasehold interest) —Some time in 1908, I think. 116. And you became connected with it then/—On the 3rd August, 1908. That was nearly a year after Mr. Lewis first became associated with it. 117. I think you probably know more about the transaction than any other man/ —I have had to do with more phases <rf it than any other man --except Mr. Jones. 118. I made a statement on the day the inquiry opened before the Committee, and I will read some paragraphs of it to you. It begins in this way: " 1 have committed to writing a statement of the position as it appears to me, and with your permission I propose to read it: (1.) The Mokau-Mohakatino blocks, consisting of 53,000 acres of land, were leased by Mr. Joshua Jones from the Native owners for fifty-six years from July, 1882. (2.) With the object of providing sufficient capital to develop the property, Mr. Jones mortgaged his interests to an English firm. (■'(.) In course of time the mortgagees foreclosed, and the property was sold in New Plymouth by order of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and was bought in by the representatives of the mortgagees. (4.) The mortgagees, having become the owners of the leasehold interests, sold such interests privately to Mr. Herrman Lewis." Is there anything incorrect in those statements? —1 think those are correct. 119. "(5.) Mr. Herrman Lewis mortgaged the property to the English firm from whom he had purchased it, or their representatives, for the amount of the purchase-money or thereabouts i —That is correct. 120. "(6.) Messrs. Findlay and Dalziell were solicitors for Mr. Herrman Lewis, and mortgagees of that individual's interest to the amount of £1,000 "1 —Yes. 121. " (7.) Mi. Herrman Lewis apparently approached the Government, through his solicitors or otherwise, and the result was that an Order in Council was issued so as to enable him to purchase the whole block from the Native owners, by so doing avoiding the provisions with regard to limitation of area in the Native Land Act, 1909 " ?— That is not correct. 122. In what way is it incorrect? —It did not avoid the provisions: it was in pursuance of the provisions.