1.—17.

52

[j. JONES.

Justice Parker, but you say your counsel mentioned it to Lord Justice Parker; and it was not mentioned to the Supreme Court Judges here, and that may explain the difference? —No; the Supreme Court Judges here must have known that I had good grounds for my action. 102. 1 am not taking up a hostile attitude—l am only pointing out the hurdles you have to get over? —The action here in May, L9ll, sets it out. 1 must put you straight. Let us be clear about this. Mr. Justice Williams said, " You compromised under one Act." At the compromise of 1904 Sir John Lawson Walton said, " This false report vitiated the compromise— again they broke the compact —ajid you fall back on your own statute." It was submitted to the Judges here that something had occurred to cause me to fall back on my private statute. Mr. Justice Williams said, " A man who would compromise under one statute and repudiate under another would be capable of anything." So that these Judges must have had something before them to show that 1 had reason for taking the course I did. 10-S. The immediate answer to Mr. Justice Williams, if he said that, would be, " But there is reason for repudiating"?—He must have known that we had some reasons. We only asked for time to file our statement of claim, but they T said, " No, out you go." They would have seen it in the statement of claim if they had allowed us to file it. 104. As a result of your proceedings your caveat was removed? —Yes. 105. They did not prevent }'ou entering an action—they only said " We will not allow you to keep your caveat on." They said, "We are not going to give you a caveat pending your action "?—I beg your pardon, they said more —" and we will not allow you to appeal." 106. But they did not say you were not to bring an action? —I fancy they did. 107. They did not say that —1 am quoting from the official report. They had no power to say you should not bring your action?— Mr. Treadwell said in the Legislative Council Committee that the Judges refused to try the action or give leave to appeal to the Privy Council. 108. I know they said they would not give you leave to appeal to the Privy Council?--! think my counsel says that in his evidence before the Committee in 1908. 109. They could not stop you bringing an action. The only effect of these proceedings was that you were not to be entitled to your caveat?— They are very careful about what they say in their judgment, but they said a lot more in the Court. 110. The effect of their judgment was to say, " You are not entitled to keep you)' caveat." They did not say, " You may not bring an action "J —It will be found in the evidence of Mr. Treadwell before the Legislative Council, report of 1908. 111. Subsequently you did commeuca uu action in the Supreme Court claiming redemption, and you applied to the Chief Justice for leave to serve the writ of jurisdiction ? —And he refused it. 112. He said you might appeal to the Privy Council to do that if you liked, but you had not the money?— Yes, but in 1900 lie laughed at it. 113. When he refused to issue the writ out of jurisdiction he said, "You have the right of appeal to the Privy Council "1 —But he refused it previously. 114. But you still have leave to appeal to the Privy Council?— Yes, that is so; it has not been appealed against. 115. Up to the point we have reached now your complaints are against Mower's executors, and not against the Government? —Not up to that time. Do not mix the action of 1911 with the action now. In last year's action 1 have a complaint against the Government. 116. Anywa}", your complaints were entirely against Flower's executors at the time that the five Judges refused to let you keep your caveat on ?—Yes. 117. And all your claims were against Flower's executors and not against the Government at that time? —That is so. 118. Since then you say that the Government, by permitting Herrman Lewis, and through Herrman Lewis the Hawke's Bay syndicate, to purchase this land from Flower's executors, has prejudiced your rights?— Will you kindly put a question prior to that? You might put the question, " What took place after the Judges said ' You get out ' ? " 119. 1 will ask you that? —Well, I went straight to the Prime Minister about it, and Mr. Jennings was with me. Sir Joseph Ward said, " This is a very hard case. I suggest to you that you petition Parliament and get a recommendation from the Committee." 120. What did you want Parliament to do for you?—My petition will show it—the petition of 1908. 121. Did you want Parliament to say that you were entitled as against Flower's executors, or what did you want Parliament to do? —To inquire into the matter; and Sir Joseph Ward said he would act on the recommendation of a Committee of Parliament. 122. What did you want them to recommend? Did you want them to pass an Act to upset the decision of the Judges in not allowing you to keep your caveat on?— 1 think my wisest plan is to put the petition in. 123. Let me see the prayer of the petition. of petition read.] You wanted Parliament to pass an Act saying that Flower's executors were not entitled to the land at all, and it was to be handed over to you? —The decision of the Court was different here to what it was in England, where they said I had been defrauded. The difference between the two Courts ought to have allowed me the right of action. 124. You did not ask for that. You asked that you be put in the position you were in before Flower came into the title? —"And further to give leave for him to hold an action in the Dominion Courts for accounts and restitution, and to grant such other or further relief as may be just and final." 125. I do not see how they could put you in the same position as you were in 1903?— The prayer says that there was a distinction between the decision of the Judges here and in England which 1 was not accountable for. " Let him have the right to try his action."