I.—17

116

the mortgagees in respect of the occupation of the mortgaged premises by any persons whose occupation they wrongfully confirmed. I am also of opinion, notwithstanding the doubts expressed by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, to the contrary in Jones v. Flower (24 N.Z.L.R. 451), that the New Zealand Supreme Court possesses ample jurisdiction to determine all the foregoing questions, and full power to give Mr. Jones any relief to which he may be entitled. The mortgage of 1906, although executed in England and consequently an English contract, created both a security over land in New Zealand and an obligation enforceable in the colony; next the legal title itself passed to the mortgagees under transactions carried out and completed in New Zealand, and the mortgaged premises are still vested in the persons to whom the estate so passed, or, in their alter ego or creature, Herrman Lewis, who is resident in the Dominion. In view of the delay and difficulty in bringing proceedings in England I advise Mr. Jones, in the first instance, to test the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Courts by preparing and filing a proper statement of claim and applying for leave to serve the writ upon either the mortgagees' attorney in the colony or upon the mortgagees out of the jurisdiction under Rule 48 of the Code. I may add that I am convinced that the Attorney-General, Sir John Lawson Walton, never could have advised that the compromise of the 27th June [July], 1904, would ipso facto become a nullity by reason of the mortgagees at any time unduly asserting their claims or influence with the object of depriving Mr. Jones of the power of redeeming the property. He must have been referring to some possible prospective refusal on Flower's part to perform the terms of the consent order. E. G. Jellicob, Gray's Inn and Counsel of the Bar of New Zealand.

EXHIBIT NNN. In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington District. Between Joshua Jones, of Mokau, in the Colony of New Zealand, farmer, plaintiff, and Sarah Jane Lepbot, of 123 Blenheim Crescent, Notting Hill, in the County of London, wife of the Rev. William Hammond Lefi'oy, clerk in holy orders, Archibald Bence Bence-Jones, of 56 Upper Buckley Street, in the County of London, barrister-at-law; Henry Kemp-Welch, of Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, in the County of London, Esquire; and Sir Coins Campbell Scott Moncrieff, of Cheyne Walk aforesaid, retired colonel, executors of the will of Wickham Flower (deceased); and Herrman Lewis, of the City of Wellington, ex-publican, defendants. Statement op Claim. J. Wickham Flower, late of the City of London, solicitor (deceased), was in the years 1893 and 1894 retained and employed by the plaintiff in the capacity of a solicitor to develop the property hereinafter mentioned, and under and by virtue of such retainer and as and being the plaintiff's solicitor the said Wickham Flower acquired in his own name an estate in New Zealand (hereinafter called " the Mokau Estate "), comprising upwards of 56,000 acres, for a term of fifty-six years from the year 1883 at a rental of £104 for the first twenty-eight years and of £393 for the residue of such term, and became entitled to an equitable lien thereon for a sum of £9,452 and interest. In all the foregoing matters, and in particular in the said purchase and in all negotiations for a resale of the property, the said Wickham Flower acted as the solicitor and trustee of the plaintiff and not otherwise, and thereafter was always liable to be decreed to transfer the said properties to the plaintiff, subject to repayment of what upon the taking of an account should be found due or payable to him in respect of the aforesaid lien. The said lands were and are of great value, and subjacent thereto are the richest and most extensive coal-beds in New Zealand. 2. In 1906, in order to settle the respective claims of the plaintiff and the executors of the said Wickham Flower, the said Wickham Flower being then dead, the said defendants other than the defendant Herrman Lewis transferred, under the provisions of the Land Transfer Acts, 1885 and 1902, the said lands to the plaintiff. 3. By a memorandum of mortgage bearing date the 27th July, 1906, and registered in the Land Transfer Registry at New Plymouth as No. 18964 a, and then made between the plaintiff and all the defendants other than the defendant Herrman Lewis, in consideration of £17,500 then alleged to be due to the same defendants as executors of the will of the said Wickham Flower (deceased), the plaintiff covenanted with the said defendants as such executors that the plaintiff would pay to them at the office of Flower and Flower, Mowbray House, Norfolk Street, Strand, in the County of London, £17,500 on the 30th November, 1906, with interest at 5 per cent, from the 27th July, 1906; and the said mortgage contained a condition that it should not be lawful for the mortgagees to execute any powers of sale and incidental powers as were then in that behalf vested in mortgagees by the Land Transfer Acts, 1885 and 1902, and any amending Acts until default in payment of said principal moneys, and the mortgagees shall have, in lieu of the notice required by the Land Transfer Acts, given a notice in writing to pay off the moneys owing, or left such notice on the premises mortgaged or at the plaintiff's usual or last known place of abode, and default should have been made for six months thereafter; and for the better securing to the said defendants as such executors the repayment in manner aforesaid of the said principal and interest moneys the plaintiff thereby mortgaged to the said defendants as such executors all his estate and interest in the Mokau Estate.