105

1.—17

EXHIBIT W. Panama Street, Wellington, N.Z., 10th January, 1908. Dear Sir, — Re Mokau Property. We have been for some years acting for Mr. Joshua Jones in connection with this estate. We understand that an option has been granted to you from Messrs. Travers, Russell, and Campbell, on behalf of the executors of the late Mr. Flower, by which they have given you the right to purchase the Mokau Estate. We desire to give you notice that Mr. Jones claims that this property is still his. He has commenced an action on a writ dated the 18th November, 1907, claiming the right to redeem and damages against Mr. Flower's executors, and we give you this notice in order that you may see what the position is as far as Mr. Jones is concerned, and so that you should not be able, should you complete, to plead notice of non-existence of Mr. -Jones's interest. Mr. Jones is on his way to New Zealand in the " Ruapehu," and will arrive at the beginning of next month. If you care to see the statement of claim in the action we are prepared to show it to you. Yours, <fee, Herrman Lewis, Esq., Wellington. ' Stafford and Treadwell. 1907.— J.— N0. 1410. In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Mr. Justice Parker). Writ issued the 7th August, 1907. Between Joshua Jones, plaintiff, and Sarah Jane Lefrot (wife of the Reverend Anthony William Hamon Lefroy), Archibald Bence Bence-Jones, Henry Kemp-Welch, and Sir Colin Campbell Scott Moncrieff, defendants. Defence. 1. The defendants say that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem the lands comprised in the mortgage of the 27th July, 1906. 2. Paragraph 2 of the statement of claim is denied. 3. The mortgage of the 27th July, 1906, is incorrectly stated in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim. The mortgage was and is expressed to be subject to " the existing tenancies thereon." 4. The defendants deny paragraph 7 of the statement of claim. The defendants for many years before and at the date of the mortgage of the 27th July, 1906, were with the plaintiff's consent in possession of the mortgaged premises. 5. On the 30th November, 1906, the plaintiff made default in payment of the principal sum of £17,500 and the interest thereon, and on the 10th December, 1906, the defendants served him with notice requiring payment of the said principal sum and the interest thereon, and informing him of their intention of selling the mortgaged property if the same were not paid within six calendar months after the date of the notice. On the 4th March, 1907, the defendants served the plaintiff with notice to pay the interest due under the said mortgage on the 30th November, 1906, and in such notice informed the plaintiff of their intention to sell the mortgaged property after the expiration of one calendar month from the date thereof. 6. On the 10th August, 1.907, the defendants duly offered the mortgaged premises for sale by auction in New Zealand. The said sale was conducted by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. There were no bids at the said auction. The defendants accordingly as mortgagees bid the sum of £19,500 for the said mortgaged premises and became the purchasers thereof at that price, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court declared the defendants the purchasers. 7. On the 3rd September, 1907, the Registrar of the Supreme Court duly executed a transfer of the mortgaged premises to the defendants in accordance with the provisions of section 105 of the Land Transfer Act, 1885 (New Zealand), and the said transfer was duly registered under the said Act. 8. By the law of New Zealand, especially section 107 of the last-mentioned Act, the effect of the facts stated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 hereof is that the estate or interest of the plaintiff is now vested in the defendants freed and discharged from all liability on account of the said mortgage, and that the plaintiff has no right of redemption. 9. The defendants will also contend that any action to redeem should have been brought in the Courts of New Zealand and not in the High Court of Justice in England. W. F. Webster. Delivered this 20th day of December, 1907, by Flower and Flower, of Mowbray House, Norfolk Street, Strand, in the County of London, solicitors for the defendants. EXHIBIT Y. Wellington, 24th October, 1908. Dear Sirs, — Mokau Lands Petition. As some form of agreement is about to be brought forward with the view of a settlement herein, it may be as well to commit to paper the circumstances attending such proposed agreement should reference thereto be required at any future time. The Select Committee, as Mr. Treadwell is aware, were unanimous in their report, and the same was adopted on the 9th instant without dissent or discussion by the Legislative Council. Mr. Treadwell subsequently had personal interviews with the Hon. Dr. Findlay, M.L.C., Attorney-General, who represents the Government in the matter, and also in company with Mr. Dalziell, Dr. Findlay's business partner. I

14—1. 17.