1.-17.

J. JONES.]

35

bluffed. I never got the Royal Commission. On the 13th May it was mentioned in the public prints that a Royal Commission was going to be set up, but we never got that. Dr. Findlay is cute enough to say he has no interest, direct or indirect, in the firm of Findlay and Dalziell, who were solicitors for Herrman Lewis. Herrman Lewis was warned in writing by Messrs. Stafford and Treadwell that he had better not interfere with this property, because there was litigation going on, but when Flower's executors transferred the property to him—as you will see, for no consideration, whatever —it was then that Dr. Findlay must have voted for the Royal Commission, or else Mr. Treadwell is telling you and me what is untrue. In a letter written at Dr. Findlay's dictation by Paines and Co., solicitors to the New Zealand Government, to the editor of Truth, it is set out that Dr. Findlay voted for the inquiry. The fact is concealed that he refused an inquiry two years previously, and that be blocked the sale that Sir Joseph Ward was going to carry out with me, and Mr. Treadwell's letter shows this. The first interview I had with Herrman Lewis was when he stopped me in the street. He said he had bespoke the services of Messrs. Findlay and Dalziell, knowing that there was going to be trouble about the title, but that Dr. Findlay was the man to put it straight. As I said before (lie Committee, he made a good choice. In the Native Land JSILI of 1909 1 think there is a clause providing thai the Governor ma}', in the public interest, authorize the dealing in certain blocks of Native lands. Whether it was put there by design or riot 1 cannot say, but there it is. An Order in Council was issued enabling the freehold of this land to be bought. 1 must ask the Committee to remember that my title was a leasehold. But, as Dr. Findlay sets out, there was a certain amount of litigation between the person whose name was put on the Land Transfer Register, Herrman Lewis,, and some people in Hawke's Bay, to whom he could not give any title. Herrman Lewis had been three years in possession and could do nothing with the property. In the House the present Native Minister, in 1911 I think it was, stated that he sat on an inquiry called the Massey inquiry into this Mokau Block. He said that but Jor the Order in Council there would have been no dealings with the property at all. So far as Herrman Lewis's title was concerned, I believe I could have assailed, that successfully, but the transfer to the big company included the leasehold. Had that Order in Council not issued I have no doubt 1 could have successfully assailed anj' title Herrman Lewis had, but I niaitain that, through the breach of compact by Flower's executors in preventing me dealing with the property, it reverted to the same position that it was in when Mr. Flower died —namefy, that they were trustees of the property for me, and it was their representatives here on their behalf who transferred the property to Herrman Lewis. I maintain that when the transfer took place to Herrman Lewis the trusteeship was not dead. 1 desire to go back to Lord Justice Parker's decision in London. He put the question —and a very natural one — "Who holds this property now? " That was on the motion by the other side to strike out the action as being frivolous. My counsel remarked, " Flower's executors." "But," said the Judge, " 1 thought they sold it at New Plymouth on the 10th August, 1907." "Yes," was the reply, " but they bought it in at the upset price." His Lordship said that in going through the form of sale they merely passed it from one hand to the other, and if so, as was alleged by Jones, they were his trustees. Ihe claim was for ,£M,OOO. He said, " What is the value of this property? " Counsel for me said it was of untold value —" it is an immense coalfield and contains hydraulic limestone." He said the value lay in the minerals. His Lordship looked up and said, " How do you know.' " Counsel said, " I belong to New Zealand, and know the proverbial value of this property." That was Mr. Jellicoe, who appeared for Mr. Edmund Buckley, because he was accustomed to New Zealand law. Mr. Jellicoe appeared and Mr. Buckley sat behind him. His Lordship said, " Your contention is to stay the action, but 1 do not know that 1 ought to let a vast estate like this to pass. However, i will make the order," and he did so. I was acting under the friendly advice of Sir John Lawson Walton, who with others thought that jurisdiction was out here, and the action I had entered I allowed to lapse. 1 left instructions with the solicitor I had to consent to its dismissal or to allow it to be dismissed, and the action was dismissed. The Judge here, Sir .Robert Stout, says it was dismissed for want of prosecution. That is true technically, because 1 was prepared to let the action slide and came out here to re-enter it. 14. Mr* McCallum.] It was a technical matter. Did you discontinue it?—l think it was dismissed. I have a letter bearing on the point from Mr. Jenkins, managing clerk for the firm of solicitors acting for me in London. It is a most important letter. It is disputed here that Lord Justice Parker expressed the belief that the proper place to try the action was in New Zealand. .Mr. Jenkins writes, " I was in the Court and heard the Judge's opinion," and in the margin of his letter Mr. Edmund Buckley writes, " I confirm this." He confirms that the belief was expressed that tin- jurisdiction was out here. In the Stout-Palmer report it is set out there by the Chief Justice that Jones held that the Judge in England gave a decision on the point. He said, "There is no such decision." I did not say that the Judge gave a decision; I said he merely expressed the opinion. But to show that that did take place Mr. Jenkins writes this letter, and Mr. Edmund Buckley on the margin of it says, " I confirm this." It was so put in the Stout-Palmer report to discredit me and to show that I made statements I could not bear out. 15. Hon. Captain Tucker.] Did not the statement of defence which was before Lord Justice Parker set out that defendants would oppose your application on the ground that there was no jurisdiction?— What they said was this: "We shall plead that the jurisdiction is in New Zealand." 16. They did say that that would be one of their means of defence? —Yes; it is in their statement of defence. 17. Lord Justice Parker did express an opinion on that point, although he gave no decision : is that not so? —Yes. 18. But Justice Warrington did not dismiss the action on this ground, but on the ground that you went no further with your action? —Yes. The reason was that I believed there was no jurisdiction. The other side said, "We shall plead that the jurisdiction is in New Zealand."