36

1.—17.

[j. JONES.

19. But the judgment of that Court was given because of the non-prosecution of the action? —The dismissal of the action was on that ground. 20. And you say you did not prosecute the action because you thought, had , you gone on with it with their plea that there was nu jurisdiction there, particularly after the expression of Mr. Justice Parker, you would not have been successful? —1 thought it would hold good. But there was a stronger reason besides. They had already obtained a foreclosure order ten years previously over this very property, and could not use it here. It was of no effect. 1 am told here by one of the High Court Judges that Jones said a decision was given, and 1 say there is no such decision. The object was to discredit me—that is all about it. 1 want the Committee to be clear about this. It is quoted from the Stout-Palmer report, page o: " Mr. Jones undertakes not to apply to .Mr. Flower's executors, to the Court here, or in New Zealand, for any further time to delay the registration of the above-mentioned documents, the present extension to the Ist March, 1907, being final." It is also quoted in Mansard. "I, the undersigned, Joshua Jones, hereby undertake, pursuant to the order in this action dated the 11th day of August, 1900, to lodge no further caveat with the District Land itegistrar in New Zealand in respect of the title to the Mokau property, the subject of this action. Dated this 16th day of November, 1906. —Joshua Jones." [Exhibit FF.] Those two documents were threshed out before Lord Justice Parker as a reason why my action should not be upheld. Mr. Ashton, counsel for the other side, dwelt very strongly on the point that 1 should be prohibited on account of signing those two papers. My agents were selling the property when the damaging report was again circulated all over London. 1 met Mr. Seward in London, and he said, " 1 want you." This, you will remember, was during the currency of the mortgage —the time allotted to me to pay —in 1906-7. He showed me a document condemning the coal. I said, " This is the report of ten years ago that Mr. Flower put out." He said, " Yes. Upon the face of this I cannot do anything further with the property, neither will any one else in London." That stopped the sale. Here is a letter that I would like to put in : " 32 Southampton Street, Strand, London W.C., 18th July, 1907.—Dear Sirs, — Ec Mokau Estate : Adverting to your letter informing us of the intended sale of this estate on the 10th August next, we shall be obliged if you will let us have a copy of the particulars of the area to be sold and the conditions of sale forthwith. With regard to the tenants put upon this estate by the late Mr. Wickham Flower, our client instructs us to inform you that he does not in any way admit the validity of their holdings, as the Court of New Zealand has already held that there was no power to mortgagees to grant leases, which decision our client has always maintained as being a correct one. —Yours truly, Lewin and Company.— Messrs. Flower and Flower, Mowbray House, Norfolk Street, Strand." Then comes the answer : " Mowbray House, Norfolk Street, Strand, London W.C., 19th July, 1907. —Dear Sirs, —Flower against Jones, Mokau Estate : In reply to your letter of the 18th instant, we will let you have copies of the particulars and conditions of sale as soon as we receive same from our agents in the colony. At present they have not come to hand. We note what you say as to the tenants on the estate, but your client is under a complete misapprehension in the matter. The subleases to the tenants were granted by the late Mr. Flower in conjunction with Mr. Sneath as absolute owners of the estate —not as mortgagees —and they had a perfect right as owners to grant such subleases. Subsequently Mr. Flower was registered as the absolute owner of the Block If, in respect of portions of which the leases had been granted, and he or his executors remained the absolute owners of the estate until it was conveyed (pursuant to the order of the 27th July, 1904, and the 18th August, 1906) to Mr. Jones by the memorandum of transfer dated the 26th July, 1906. —We are, 4c., Flower and Flower.—Messrs. Lewin and Company." I ask leave to put in Hansard, session 1910, pages 597, 598, 599, and 600. [Exhibit GG.] It contains a, speech by Dr. Findlay in the Legislative Council, but it is very important. The Hon. Mr. Jenkinson asked, " Why was the inquiry set up under the Chief Justice and Chief Judge Palmer? " The Hon. Dr. Findlay said, "It was part and parcel of the Native Lands Commission of Inquiry." I deny that it was anything of the sort. It is absolutely incorrect, and in support of my statement I say that a Committee of the House threw out that Stout-Palmer report as being illegal. 21. Hon. Mr. Paul.] Where is it stated that the report was thrown out?— You will find it in the Mokau-Mohakatino Block inquiry. Jones was giving evidence and referred to this StoutPalmer report, when the Chairman said, "We cannot permit you to refer to that." I said " Why? " And he replied, " Because we have discarded it as being an illegal document"; and they mentioned the names of three King's counsel who had given opinions that it was not a legal document —Mr. Hosking, Mr. Skerrett, and Mr. H. D. Bell. I said, " Let it come back, gentlemen, so that I may comment on it " ; but they would not do it. 22. Did a Committee of the House ever declare this document to be an illegal document? —Yes. 23. When and where? —Last year, in this Massey inquiry. 24. Three solicitors of high standing may have said it was an illegal document, but that, after all, was a private opinion : I want to know whether a Committee of the House has ever declared that that Stout-Palmer report was an illegal document? —I thoroughly understand the question, and I know it is here. [Native Affairs Committee's Report on Mokau-Mohakatino Block, 1911.] 25. Hon. the Chairman.] I think you had better make a note of that and supply the information as soon as you can?— The Chairman of that Committee said, "We will not allow you to refer to it, because it is illegal." 26. Hon. Mr. Paul.] I do not want the Chairman's opinion or that of any one else : I want you to find where a Committee of the House has thrown that report out?—l will undertake to produce it. 27. Son. Captain Tucker.] Do you remember what year it was?—lt was before the Native Affairs Committee in 1911.