1.—17.

23

J. JONES.]

10. The Chairman.'] Can you tell us how much you got out of this £7,652? —Not half of it. 11. Hon. Captain Tucker.] What wag the debt of the mortgage?—£7,6s2. Wickham Flower bought it in his own name. 12. How did you get any money out of it if this was the amount of the mortgage?—lt was the money originally advanced. There was a mortgage on the property. 13. The amount of money you originally got was part of the original debt —it was pot owing on the sale? —No. But Flower went round and said he bought it for himself while acting as my solicitor, and charging me actual fees for purchasing it and for the cost of cables, &c. T was on the broad of my back. A gentleman in London named Colley said he would lend me some money, and lent me] off and on, perhaps a couple of hundred pounds at a very high rate of interest. 14. Mr. Statham.] Have you any bill of costs showing that Flower was acting as your agent? I w ill give you something better than that to satisfy you. I have the bill of costs down at Messrs. Stafford "and Treadwell's office. When Mr. Flower brought the money to buy the property for himself, Sir Richard Webster was Attorney-General, and he said, " If he is playing that trick with you lay the matter before the Incorporated Law Society." I went to the Incorporated Law Society several times, but they would not hold an inquiry. At last Lord Alverstone made an order that they should hold an inquiry, against their will, and it was a very lengthy one. Sir John Lawson Walton appeared for me before the Committee, and the Committee exonerated Flower. A bill was put in by Flower for over £1,000, but I have not got it here. Lord Alverstone had ceased to be Attorney-General and was then on the Bench. He said to me, "You put in an affidavit that I advised you to appeal," and T did. He set up a Court with two Judges, who decided that Flower was guilty of malpractice. 15. Hon. Captain Tucker.] Was not the end of it that Flower was struck off the rolls? —No, he was made to pay the whole of the costs, amounting to some £4,000, by way of a fine. That is what happened. He appealed and wanted to pay the amount as costs, but the Full Court said, " No, you must pay it as a fine." What I am leading up to is what has taken place in this country with regard to the property. The effect of this judgment was to hold Mr. Flower as trustee for me, that he did not buy the property in his own right, but held it for me. That was why he had to pay the costs as a fine. That decision still holds him to be trustee for me to this day. 16. The Chairman.] Mr. Bell says you have the bill of costs. Can you produce it for the Committee? —I have a case full of legal documents. 17. Hon. Mr. Paul.] Have you any documentary evidence bearing on this question of costs —printed or otherwise —taken at the time of this alleged fraud?—l think I have plenty of documents to show that, llie matter was commented on by the London papers at the time. 18. Have you any printed evidence by reputable London papers?—l can produce you a book by a man signing himself " Ignotus." Mr. Wilson has it. There is also the Westminster Review and Mr. Labouchere's Truth. 19. We cannot very well accept the evidence of Mr. Labouchere or "Ignotus"?—l have Truth for the 23rd June, 1898. There are twenty-one columns of it in the first article Mr. Labouchere wrote. I will put it in. [Exhibit J.] 20. The Chairman.] With regard to the bill of costs, will you try to produce any evidence as to that? —T will hunt up my papers. What would guide the Committee more in coming to a conclusion is what took place much later with regard to the property. Mr. Flower went to the Court of Appeal—firstly, to the Master in Chambers, and to Judge Lawrence and the Court of Appeal, consisting of three Judges. They upheld the decision of the Divisional Court below, and said some very strong things, and further ordered him to pay the costs by way of a fine. They held him to be guilty—that is the end of it. Consequent upon this conduct of his I was delayed years in dealing with the estate. One agreement I had was of selling the property to an Australian mining company at a stipulated sum, they putting up £20,000 in cash as a deposit, but through this man claiming the property they shied off. A solicitor named Jellicoe came to London and offered on the 10th August, 1894, to pay Flower's claim and everything due to him. 21. Mr Mander.] What date was Flower tried and his case upset?— The Court case ran into 1901. Mr. Jellicoe called upon Flower and remonstrated with him, but Flower said he bought the property for himself. Mr. Jellicoe said, "I will put up £12,000, and whatever is shown to be due to by an accountant you can take out of it." Here is his letter : " The Langland Bay Hotel, Langland, near Swansea, 10th August, 1894.— 1 ie Joshua Jones.—Dear Sir, —There seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Jones's advisers as to the position you took up regarding this matter. At the interview I had the pleasure of having with you last week I told Mr. Jones that you denied that he has any interest whatever in the Mokau property, but that, without prejudice, you were willing to reconvey on payment of £30,000, and that it was useless to offer you anything less than that sum, as you had definitely stated you would not accept it. Kindly let me hear whether I am correct in my recollection of the position, and whether you will accept a sum equal to the amount you have actually paid, plus your costs, if T tender it. T have said that I am certain you will waive a tender of the latter sum if Mr. Jones can establish a right to a transfer, as I am prepared to pay a s\im not exceeding £12.000 for the property at any moment. —Yours truly, E. Tγ. Jellicoe." Mr. Flower wrote back, " 1 Great Winchester Street, London E.C., 13th August, 1894. — Be J. Jones.—Dear Sir, —In reply to your letter of the 10th instant, we beg to say that there can be no real misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Jones's advisers as to the position we have taken up if they have read the correspondence, in which the position is clearly explained. Since the sale by auction in New Zealand in April, 1893, Mr. Jones has had no interest whatever in the Mokau property, which was conveyed by his mortgagees, acting under the direction of the Court, to our clients, and so became their absolute property ; and all that has happened since then has been that our clients have, at Mr. Jones's request, on