P. B. COOKE.]

T.—3a.

19

make an award that may have the effect of giving one set of claimants an undue and unfair preference over another. In conclusion, may I say this : lam not now concerned, as I formerly was, to represent Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., but during their negotiations with the Tongariro Timber Co. they were represented by the late Sir Charles Skerrett (then Mr. Skerrett), and T was in close and constant touch with him and with the whole matter as his assistant. Ido know of riiy own knowledge that they went to endless pains and trouble to try to straighten out the mess into which the Tongariro Timber Co. had got, and I say that although it may well be that certain items in their claim require consideration, and although it. is quite true that certain of their representatives stayed at the Midland Hotel, it is grossly unfair and grossly unjust to describe their claim in the way in which Mr. Grace described it yesterday. I ask the Committee to disregard that sort of criticism. I do not now represent Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, because I thought it better that T should not act for both them and Sir John Houfton's estate ; but I have felt constrained to make these observations because I want to protest against the tone and spirit of those comments. The Committee probably knows that they sent out here two highly qualified engineers, both of whom had, I believe, had war experience, and one of whom had been concerned in the building of railway works in Africa, and from here, as far as I remember, went to some harbour works at Rangoon or somewhere else in India. They also sent out an influential representative from Home in the person of Sir Edwin Cornwall; and although their claim may be open to objection in certain respects, T suggest to the Committee that it is quite unbecoming to characterize their claim as a claim for the expenses of people who stayed at the Midland Hotel. Captain Rvshworth.] With regard to page 6 of G.-7, clause 5, the figure that I have down is £19,250 ?—That is in respect of Western B ; that is our 3d. out of the 6d. royalty. And the other figure is £116,666 ? —That is what I worked it out at. I was wondering what the consideration was —why the difference ?—You mean, what the difference was for. I understand that the Tongariro Timber Co. was at its wit's end, and was prepared to give almost anything to get the money to save them from ruin at that moment. That is shown by Mr. Atkinson's letter to Dr. Chappie of the 7th August, 1922, from a copy of which I read extracts. The original of the letter is in Dr. Chappie's possession. Perhaps you would not mind my leaving him to deal with the matter as I understand he knows all about the royalty claims. That was really in consideration of the £14,000 ? —I am reading from the copy of the letter from which I read extracts. It is a copy of a letter from Mr. Atkinson to Dr. Chappie, and is dated the 7th August, 1922. That was after the £6,000 was advanced. [Letter read —to be put in later.] It was, I submit, a further offer to Mr. Houfton and Dr. Chappie to get them to put up this £29,000 which the Tongariro Timber Co. in its desperation was anxious to get. But, leaving Dr. Chappie out for a moment, the £14,000 was to be provided by Mr. Houfton ' —£29,000 came out. £1,000 was provided by Miss Wright and £28,000 was provided by Mr. Houfton, and half of it was for Dr. Chappie. There may be another reason for the difference in the royalty. I think there may possibly have been a suggestion that it was to be in substitution not only for the 6d. in respect of Western B, but perhaps also for another 6d. on Western B that belonged to Dr. Chappie, in which Mr. Houfton had no share. That may possibly be the answer to your question as to why the jump ; but Ido not know. But I have explained my clients' attitude about this claim to the Committee. Dr. Chappie can answer any questions in detail about it. Can you put it this way : as far as Mr. Houfton's investment is concerned, he invested £14,000 in the expectation of getting £166,666 ? —I submit that cannot be said, because I have a letter from Mr. Houfton's solicitors, dated the 9th August, 1923, in which they say he had heard nothing of the draft agreement as to this Northern and Eastern royalty. I can put it in this way ; that what Mr. Houfton was entitled to under the documents was the original 6d. on Western B, because that document is registered here. But as to a royalty on Northern and Eastern we have that letter from his solicitors, dated seven years ago, saying that he had not heard about the draft agreement; and there is the other difficulty, that the document was executed by Dr. Chappie as attorney for the Tongariro Timber Co., and I have expressed my own view about that. His solicitors said he had never heard of the draft document. On the other hand, what I understand to be copies of extracts from Dr. Chappie's diary state that (on the 9th August, 1922) Mr. Atkinson's letter to Dr. Chappie of the 7th August, 1922, was explained to Mr. Houfton by Dr. Chappie, and that Mr. Houfton said he thought the 4d. and 2d. a reasonable division and was agreeable to this. And Mr. Atkinson, in his report to his company dated the Bth November, 1922, said that Mr. Houfton was to receive the £14,000 back within a year, with 10 per cent, added, and, in addition, the 2d. per 100 ft. log measurement (see the 1,400,000,000 ft. in Northern and Eastern areas as cut). However, in a document dated the 4th September, 1922, addressed to Mr. Houfton and signed by Mr. Atkinson, the only royalty mentioned is a royalty of 6d. per 100 ft., presumably on Western B. lam unable, however, to give accurate or complete information on this aspect of the matter, and if the question is of importance I should like an opportunity to refer to the English solicitors representing Sir John Houfton's executors for information as to his expectation or otherwise (at the time when he advanced his money) of getting any royalty on Northern and Eastern.