J. JONES, j

33

1.—17.

8. You think? You say he signed the document, but you do not say what name? —I do not say he signed his own name. But get the original document and you will find Stout's name on it. [Exhibit Z put in.] 9. You say this is the notice he signed?— Yes. I remember the discussion in the presence of Mr. Lewis. He said he was acting as Native Minister in the absence of Mr. Ballance. Ido not say that to throw any aspersions on Sir Robert Stout, but as to the fact, I am on my oath, and I wish that to be borne in mind. There is one particular point I wish to draw your attention to. Sir Joseph Ward —I think, on the 14th November, 1910 —was asked why he did not set up a public inquiry into this case, and his reply was that in view of a recent decision of the High Court—he was referring to the Ohinemuri case, and Dr. Findlay says the same in the Council— there was no power to set up a public inquiry. You will .find in the proceedings before the A. to L Committee that the Ohinemuri case was a bar to setting up an inquiry. My opinion is that this inquiry was refused on the 17th or 18th October, 1908, by Dr. Findlay to my solicitor. On the 29th October Mi-. Treadwell writes, " The writer several times saw the Attorney-General with reference to the matter, and a perfectly plain intimation was given to him by Dr. Findlay that the Government would not either appoint a Commission to deal with or investigate the allegations in the petition." That is clear enough. What I wish to impress on the Committee is that the Ohinemuri decision was given over nine months afterwards. Therefore it was not the bar, but Dr. Findlay's own words. The Ohinemuri decision was given in April or May of the next year. What I submit to you is that the inquiry was refused by Dr. Findlay before the Ohinemuri decision was given. Here is an article in the Auckland Herald of the 6th December, 1911, headed "Light on Mokau —A Drama in many Acts," in which the writer —I do not know him—says: "In his statement on August 17, 191.0, Sir John Findlay remarked, 'The present SolicitorGeneral, in view of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, pointed out that a Royal Commission, in the circumstances I have referred to, could not be set up.' Sir John was referring to the Ohinemuri decision, which, as Mr. Jones explained in his evidence, was not given until May, 1909." [Exhibit AA.] It is necessary that the Committee should know a little about the question, of jurisdiction. Yesterday I took the opportunity of mentioning that there had been a foreclosure on this property in England in June, 1895. I. am now giving you a document written by William Thomas Locke Travers in contradiction to an article which appeared in the New Zealand, Times from its London correspondent. Mr. Travel's wrote to the New Zealand Times on the 14th of June, 1901, an article headed " The Romance of Mokau : Another Version," in which he says, " But Mr. Jones was unable to carry out cither of the alternative forms of payment given by the decree, and in the end of the month of June, 1895, a decree of absolute foreclosure was made against him, and the property then became absolutely vested in Messrs. Flower and Hopkinson." That is true. But the object 1 have now in drawing the attention of the Committee to it is this : that it could not be enforced here for want of jurisdiction, and was not enforced. Mr. Travers was a man who knew how to enforce it if it had been of any value. In June, 1911, a case came before Sir Robert Stout, as Chief Justice on the bench, for leave to enter an action for redemption here. He said, " No, you shall not have leave." We said, " Will you grant us leave to appeal to the Privy Council? " He replied, " Yes, you can do that." I merely mention that to say I am perfectly satisfied, as Mr. Travers was, that New Zealand had jurisdiction over this matter. I prefer to accept the opinion of such well-known men as Mr. Justice Parker, Sir John Lawson Walton, Sir R. Webster, and Lord Henn-Collins that the jurisdiction was in New Zealand. I still maintain it. The property is here, and what title was vested in Flower's executors they obtained here, and J maintain that the proper place to try the action is New Zealand. Lord Justice Parker did not give a decision; he said, "My belief is that." He said, " You can take your order and try your action." When he said that I went clown and consulted Sir John Lawson Walton, who was then Attorney-General, and we saw Lord Alverstone —he was not sitting on the bench, but he got two other Judges to go in with him, and they were of opinion that the jurisdiction was in New Zealand. [Exhibit BB.] I will put in a cutting from the Evening Post of the 28th January, 1899, containing some remarks from the same gentleman, Mr. T. L. Travers. [Exhibit CC] Here is a report of a controversy about it in London which is published in New Zealand in 1907; I will put this in. [Exhibit DD.J They wanted me to compromise and take the tenants over, and I refused to do so, because they were illegally on the property. I will put it all in. In Hansard, of the 17th August, 1910, Dr. Findlay gives his own version of the petition that I presented to the House in 1910, when there was an inquiry. I replied to him under date 23rd August, 1910, as follows : " The Mokau case. —Sir, —Dr. Findlay, in paragraph 3 of his story from behind the bridge |read 'hedge'] in the Legislative Council, amongst other statements that will be questioned by me at the proper time, sets forth that I signed an undertaking in London to lodge no further caveats in New Zealand in respect to the title to the Mokau property. He says this document was part of an agreement under which I had undertaken to pay certain sums of money and failed to do so. But he is silent upon the fact that this is stated in my petition to Parliament now awaiting to be investigated, and the reason given that I was prevented carrying out the compact by certain improper actions of the other side. This should be well known to the Attorney-General, whose duty is not under any pretext to prejudice a pending case." (Dominion, 25th August, 1910.) [Exhibit EE.] I have to complain to the Committee with regard to the issue of the Order in Council by the late Government. It was assented to in Cabinet on the sth December, 1910, but the issue did not take place until the 15th March, 1911. The issue of that Order in Council was kept very sacred from me. On the Bth December I was in the front lobby of the House when Sir Joseph Ward came out. He shook me by the hand and said, " I am very sorry I have not been able to attend to your matter, Jones, during the session. I am now going to Rotorua." His motor was at the door. He said, "If you come and see me when I come back from Rotorua I will fix this thing up for you." I said, "Upon what basis, sir?" He said, " Treadwell's letter." I said, "Very well, that will

s—l. 17.