Stark Purchase Commission.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 242, 14 October 1886, Page 2

Stark Purchase Commission.

Oponing of the Inquiry.

The ndjournod sitting of the Royal Commission appointed by the Government to investigate tho circumstances under which the properly of Mr K. A, M. Siark at the North Shoro was purchased at tho high

price of £17,100 for dofenco purposes was op;tied at tlio Harbour Board offices at ten o'clock this morning. There wore present the Cour-niusiuiifci-s, viz , Colonel Haultain (Chairman), Jud^o llarvcy and Mr Weatonra ; the Socretury, Mr Kennedy ; Mr T. Seiiman and his f-olioitor, Mr T. Cotter; Mr Chapman (in tlio alwonca of Mr Button), to watch the proceedings on botailf of tho Govcrnmcr.tj •MrD. S Chamber* (Secretory of tho Vigilance Committee), and tho Commit'oo's couinio), Mr A. JL'evore; Messrs G'Aleugher, VV. Cokinao, and E Coiemun (for Mr Stark); Mr B. \V. Ali-:on, Mr P. Jeuno (Kadicul Reform League), Mr Jas. Da-:re, Mr W. Tliilcox, Mr O. Mays, and several others, Tho proceedings were commenced by the feeding of tho following lottor from Mr J. M. Lonnox to Sir Julius Vogel :—

Simnyside, Mount Kden, August 0, 1880. Boar Bir Juliuß,—l have read tho report re Sturk'a purchase, and must express surprise at some of the infornia.ion laid before tho Cominitceo of Inquiry. ■ . , Herewith, 1 beg to hand you an offer received by mo from Mr K. Hammond on tho lath August, 1883. You are at liberty to niuke whatever u*o of it you pi iisn. The area of land beyond the narrow neck reforrcd to (£3 000) is about 22 aoreß. Ithca Deyond Stark'a property between the Now Luke Koart and tha Bea, having v. sou frontage and a frontage to tho old road, but not to the New Koad. Plea-o note tho plan and compare with Dacre'ssisuement. The plen includes Professor Thomab's lund, a.3 I understand it. Some 420 eot were offered to me. He a«ked £1 per foot, ut would let me have it aa a special favour for 3 It's. He was indifferent about telling. Relieved it had a stlil Kroater value. Note the drpth of Hammond's property, as compared to iftark'H referred to. Thero waß every indication at ihut time of land ii inn in value. I had not the meaoa at my disposal, or in all probability I would have purchuscd. There is no better site nca? Auckland, I feel Eitl isilcd that the Government could not have purchased for less money after it becime known as tho most eligible site for defence purlioscp. 'J'huse in authurity who received tno land, and incautiously published it as tho best and only eligible site, *ro responsible for any advanced price tbat muy have been put upon the laiid. Had tho retult of the inaction been kept private, and tho Government apprised in the or.ilrjarr course, doubtless some savins n.islu have been sfiocUd. it teoms unfair to my mind to blame the Government for d-.irg the best they could under the circnrciitancca, and must so present lteclt to anyonu blest with ordinary discrimination.—l have tho honour to remain, your obedient servant, N. G. Jjeknox. To tho Honourable Sir Julius Vogel, Wellington

Tho Chairman paid tho Comownon wcro not limited to any forms of procedure, but would take tho course thoy deemed most expedient to elicit all material evidence The (iret witnees who had been summoned for examination was Mr E. W. Alison, from whom the iollowing letter had been received :—

Dovonport. Auckland, 13th October, 188 G. To tho lioynl Oomm'Fsion rs appointed to inquire into the matter of the Government p^r-cha-e o[ Mr 11. M. Stark'a property at North

Shore. Qkntlkmkn,— Having bnen sumir oncd to Klvo tviuuuuu in thin inquiry, and ha,vin« betn /iven to undtroUnd that I am to be the flri-t witness to he examined, I boX io hand you thiß protest. I have respectfully to submit that I em not bound to give evidence before this Commission on the .'cl.'Gv.ing grouada : — That it hns boon i-tatcd in efTctbyMr Mitcheiaon before the Public Accounts Uummlltce tint the Stark purchase was a conspiracy to uVfraud the colony, and that one of the principal conspirators was -Mr K. VV. Alison (meaning That Mr Mitcnolson has associated alosg with himself in makluK thetc charges I'hilcox and 'jther persons. Tli it then; [icrionapeiit'oncd, or caused to bo petitioned, Parliament foruHoyat Commission to inquire farther into theao matters, alleging triut ihey had further ovidence to adduce to prove their charts That the Mima try, in compli.mco with the p^titiomio'rcquotjt and Mr Mitchclcon'a letter to tin) Premier, has now Krcutod tha present Ccmniitision. The following U a copy of the potition :— ' To the IJon. tho Speaker and Mombors of tho Honso of KcpiveentD.tivcß.

' Tho ooiuion of the uudei>ij<uo(i inhabitants of t-.o Province or Auckland, of tho colony of Now Zi-ii'-iiiui, hereby fslißWoth:— "1. llmt jour p^t.tionura bt-Hevo that in tho purch'ibu of the Stark property h, the Government, at Dovonport. North Shore, in the district u!ori;saiu, fcr £17,000 a very great public wron^ has uten cOiimitttd. "2. From the evidence already submitted to a committee o i your Honuu<&bl.: House, and the further information that can be supplied if a Commission were appointed to take evidence upon tao spot, your petitioner liuUeve that it ciiq ho cno.yn tmt a. coubpiracy had been ft rnv.;d previous to the sale, to defraud, by mis representation, the Government, and thus rob the taxpayers of the colony of a largo aum of "3 VV'e, therefore, pray your Honourable House toappointa Uorumiesion, to take evidence with a view to the puaiishintnt of these ugaiußt whom such ull'cncc. as aforesaid, may be proved. ■' jf jonr Honourable Housd will tfivo effect to the pray r nf our petition, wo, your petiiionera. as in duty bound, will evorpray."

1 h it boinn charged &i a consnirator, I mast ri'dpul'uHy decline to tive evidonee (it all KVHi la. at ihis>- a<eof the icqulryl, as it if, as I undoretand, against Kngluhlaw to do 80, Hun 1. thcrciuro. rcqut-bt the Conuiiiasionera to summon Mr Mitctielson, Mr Philcox, and

>Line. at nil oveiits, of tto poiitioaerf, and mako them prove their allegations, it they can.

Sir.cc (he .Fariiainentary Committee inquiry, Mr3ll!chelson has been mo:t a'tiva in obtaining Die prcs'nl. Commission. eayinKho had further evidence to bring forward, and that the Cointniftiion lisa been granted ut hrs and his cclicuguoa' request. Tl.o poeitiou which I occupied a< a witness at Wellington before tha Public Account! Committ- o wjw a very unfair ono. Mr Mitchclson, in giving ovidenco beforo the Committee, stated (Cla"!EO 70), that ho conaid»?redltho wbo'e thing had Loen a cleverly-contrived conspiracy to difraud thn Government, and also ?aid.

" Tlie ugliest feature that I s-je iv tho case ia that one of the principal conppirawra in tli- tianstction, who is a partner In land transactions with ilr Stft'.k, was appointed Reviewer (or that locality, and bb iur as I am able to uiderctand the question, it waa through him that tho bot;u3 offer was ni&da to Mr Stark." Mr Mitchelson then quotes certain letters to confirm his opinion and statement, including a letter full of misrepresentations and vindlctivenoss fiom a man named Philcox, who la a perH'miil enemy to me. I was summoned to Wvllingtou to give evidence before the Committee, and examh.oci without any intimation that iir Mitchelson had Riven evidence, or that he hail stated tlnro had boon a conspiracy to de!raud the colony, or had charged mo with being oe of tho principal conspirators in tho iransaction.

Certain of tho Parliamentary Coromitteo used every means ihat intelligent mm ;s could deviße to extraot evidence to trip mo into saying something which mißlit confirm Iho chaises made by Mr Mitehelnon, ia order that X shoule, in facr be cormcted on my own evidence, lhis, Iresjieotfuily ro iteiid, was not a fair position for aDy person to bo placed in in any la.d under British »ule, aud as Mr MitchelEon and hisoaesoclat-s, Phllcos unrt others, have again plsced meiathe nosltioo of ono of tho so-culled conspirators. It is ontv fair, as I have already given ray evidence fully imd without hesitation beforo Uio Public Acc-iu ts Uo-nmitte?, tha: Mr Mitcholson and this 80-oal'( d Vigilance Committee, consist ng of I'hilcox. 13 vrtley, Ashton, and others, should brinff forward whatever ovidenco they have (if a-.y) to establish their chances cf conspiracy. It i 8 a l'tmarkiible fact that according to these poopla evoryono connected with this purchase wsb vemil, from tho Ministers o£ tho Crown down to tho Government Assessor.

In my opinion, the torm of conspiracy applies much more fully to IV'cjers Philuox, Mitchelson, untl Company—Philcox and his party being only actuated by vindictive personal animosity to myself and Mr Stark; whilst, judßinK Mr Mlith'.:lion'* conduct throughout, no evidently hfis a political purpose to httf ye.

1 bo« theC. mmi-aioiiurs clearly lo uuderttand that 1 havo no rcutson to wiihol" uiviDp; evidence, but I ft el tlin having been chawed by Mitcbel--Ban, I'ollcox, mid others with biinj; a party to a conspirary, 1 should not be called upontOKivo ovido'.ico until my accuoerp, or rather dermnors, have first niven (if they rjui) what ia virtually iho ovidt'neo for the pro3ecution, or rather pereeculion

On theao grounds, then. I vesp-etfully submit that I thquld not bo called upon togivo evidence boforo this Couuniasion at thisi-tißo of tho inquiry, and I r. quest tho Commissioners will bo good onougti to euiriinontaeDctitioneriVorßonio of them, includ n? Mit;tielson and Phikox, atd make Uura prove ih ir al:cK!itiODs-allegations which liavo been spread far und wide, and which,*.Uhnugh entirely false, yot on account of bcinp a'ated liefnreamrlinmentary committee lire Uiornforo louvidk mo powerless to prosecute my detainers in a durt of law, and obtain rtdross.

1 have thu honour to l>n. Gentlemen, Yours most obediently, Kwkn Wji, Alison. Mr Cotter announced that he appeared for Mr Alison.

Mr H. Ashton, senr., arrived while Mr Alison's lottor was being road. Ho interrupted the reading to express his demur to the uso of tho word "conspiracy," and on being called to order excused himself.

Tho Chairman said the Commissioners were of opinion that Mr Alison should not bo oxarainod until tho witnesses to be brought forward by the Vigilance Committee had given evidence. Mr Olivor Mays would thorefore b> tho first witness. Mr O'Meaghor thought the witnesses not under examination should loave the

Tho Commissioners did not think 'it necessary. They considered that the examination of Mr Mays should be conducted by tho counsel for tho Vigilance Committee.

Mr Devore submitted thnt (his was tho duty of tho Government, He was not prepared to lead the inquiry, nor to conduct it. That was in consonance with hia protect, the other day. Jud^o Harvey pointed out that the Committeo had made certain charges, nnd thoy hud now the opportunity of eliciting evidence in support of thoso chances. Tho witnesses named by them had been subpoanaed.

Mr Uevoro said that this would have the ellect of placing the Committee in the position of prosecutora.

Judge Harvey concurred. The cha ' " had been made by the Ccmniittee, *>es Mr Dovoro replied that it was'the dnti of the Government to elicit .the truth Mr Wostenra said tho Commi ?e i O n er . ai* not know what quo=tio Dß to put. & ing far himself, he had abstained frn reading the evidence given in W»lli D J, n m so ;ia to keep his mind perfectly unbiassed Mr Ucvoro replied that neither didll know what the witnesses were going t say. Tho Committee only knew that th witneseeß whom they desired to bo call A had been mixed up with the purchase Mr CMeagher chaiaeterited the nn.se of the Vigilonco Committee as S" dinary. It was abeurd to say that the 3' ;s denco wua not known, feeing that tl charges had beon pown broadcast. It all moonshine Tho Committee wereghnßß ing'the white fcaiher. Thoy had raiS^ all thu f-moke, and now wished to rotfrom th<; fon-frort of the battle. re Mr Cottor submitted that' unlew \y" Dcv.ro took up the position preseiibcd hi the Comiuistion he had no locus stendi *• Jui;ge Harvey: Then, Mr Devore' voi^ decline to put any questions to the witnZj Mr Dcvorc : Yos.and for this rea.enS had I boon condacting the inquiry I ahov s not have commenced with Mr Maya ; ; Tlio Chairman pointed out that if r * Maya's nanio was the first upon the id after the witno?ECß oxempted from eiarhina tion at the present stage. If Mr Devorß declined to ask queetions, the Coinmißsion would ask Mr Mays to state generally what he knew of the purchase. This having been done, Mr Oliver Mava said he was Chairman of the Waitemata County Council, and knew the property purchased by tho Government. The firat intimation he had of the intention to nfll chase was in a conversation with Mr Brewe" about the time Mr Seaman made hfa valuation. Mr Brower asked him hK opinion of the value of Stark's pto perty, and witness referred him ti> Mr John Boss (Sargood. Ewen, and Coj), to whom a portion of tha property had beea offered some time before ' A day or two after Mr Brewer called njnn him again, and they wont down to Mr Sea'"" man's office to see hi 3 valuation, Mr • Seaman's son showed him the book containing the valuation. Mr Brewer I bad told him the Government wanted tho property. Mr Seaman's valuation wan £16,600. He had been a resident of the' North Shoro for 25 years, and knew tha' property all tbat time. Mr Stark bought: bis property at about £40 or £50 an acre nnd it had an area of about 40 acrei When he was asked to name an extremfl value for the property he mention*)! £10,000. He would be inclined to allow five per cent, discount for cash. The Go vernment took possession of the property' before his con vereation with Mr Brefferi and he, therefore, knew at that time thai they intended to purchase a part if not tho whole of it.

Cross-examined by Mr Devore: This conversation took place come tima lattj year, but he could not definitely etate tha: dato. He belfeved it was at the eid^oT last year—about October. In his opinion - £10,000 would have been an extreme price for the property. He learnt afterwards that the Government took 26 or 2ft* acres of the property. He regarded it as! worth about £200 an aero. It was difficult to know what had been spent upon improvaments. £2 000 or £2,500 would probably ' cover tho expenditure under this beai Still he had no decisive information at the time. Besides Mr Brewer, nb'one consoUed lisas to the value of tbe pro! perty—neither any Minister of the Crown; Mr Alison nor Mr Stark. He understood that the property had been offered by Mr Stark to Mr Roes. He had been told that, and Mr Ross told him be was goinß back to live at the North Shore, He had no recollection of a price.

• . After an objection by Mr Cotter to the mode of tho question, which objectionthe Commissioners overruled, Mr Dovoro 'quoted from Mr Maya'sovidonco before tho Parliamentary Committee! to the effect that Mr Boss bad told him he was going to give £3,000 or £3,500.' ?M Mr Mays now s=nid be was not sure who told him this. The property on the opppi silo side of the road from that purchutd had no water frontage, and was therefore worth about £50 an acre lees, viz, £150 per acre. By Mr O'Meagher : The property on the oppo?ito side of the road faced a mud swamp. He would not be surprised to learn that land on the opposite aide of the road from Stark's had fetched from 30a to 35j per foot. Assuming the 28 acre* taken by the Government had beencutnp Into-villa sections of an aggregate frontage of 10,Wff feet, he did not think it would sell well\a such bits. The average of Stark's property should not fetch as much as the frontajfe on the opposite side of the road, whjcli ought sooner to have a commercial value. Property fronting a side road wag not W valuable as property fronting tha main road. Mr O'Meagher wanted to know when tho property would acquire a commercial value, but Mr Mays did not know.

Judge Hirvoy reminded the learned gentlemin that the witness was not a claift voyant. : i'j Mr Mays, in further examination, admitted that Stark's property was the largest in area, and the moit suitable for villa sites near the wharf. He did not know what might bo the sentimental volue of "tl& land. Ho did not think the Russian war ■scare had improved the property. Heregarded it as of no value far the purpose! for which the Government had taken ifi-

Ho was not a strategist. " Cross examined by Mr Cotter: He had been out of business for 2J years when, the property was sold, and daring that tim^ property had rison rapidly in value. He had stated to tho Parliamentary Committee that he would not advise anyone to lend more than £10,000 on the property. His idea was rather as to purchasing than lending, jj H^ would not have advued a speculator to have given more than £10,000. The improvements might have cost £4,400, bnt that estimate was subject to revision, wH$ might either reduce it or increase it 'Tut had examined, with a view to purchase, Mr Hammond's property ; £1,500 was aekedfor |. it, and on the assumption that it had an area of 5 acres he would hare given £1,000 for it, but as it was only 3£ acres he would only have given £750. He con-, s:dered £1,500 an extravagant price, Bo was willing to give £1,200 for Professor Thomas's residence and 1J acres "of ground, but £I,B* 0 was wanted for ii. His estimates might seem low, bat people were going mad about property at the time he mentioned. Cross-examined by Mr Devore: There were properties of greater commercial value between Stark's and the Devonport Wharf. Hammond's was equal to Stark'i property as unimprovad land. Start, by planting trees, had sheltered, k& property. Without trees no one wbolq have lived there. The property oa the" right-hand side, near Vauxhall (Mr J. B. Russell's), and abutting on Cheltenham Beach, was of more value than BtarkV land, Ipjjj The Chairmau aaked if Mr Brewer weft present, or anyone representing hiu), bat I there was uo response. -, ? I Mr Mays (to tho Chairman): The rafae of property a«- Dovonport culuiiiiatad during Greonwood's sale of Sunnyade, I in ISS4. Since then, prices, Vfct tho outsido blocks^ at, any ratei! had boon decreasing. The Property T&k. valuations were made trionnially. Mr Seaman made a valuation in ISS2, but the Devonport Road Board objected to it*B: too high, and appointed Mr Tanner to m&ft a separate valuation - Mr Seaman made his next valuation in ISSS.

James Mays (brother of last witness) W; then called. ■ ' 1i ■ Under examination by the ChairmaVi he eaid that ho was a builder and lived at Deronport. Ho knew nothing of the Stark purchase. The priefc paid by the Government might Juwi been a good price —that depended on circumstances. If the land mania had con- . • tinued it would not have been a good pticft As the mania had not continued, itwaS* '■ ■ good price. He thought Mr Stark got a fair price for his property. (Laughter- . He had heard of charges of coDspiiacytO extort an excessive price. By Judge Harvey: He knew of Mr Stark's house frcm the plun. He had tandered unsuccessfully at £1,180, while tbo. successful tender was £I,UO. ThatwM I for' the house alone. An outhouse cost £iW extra alone. By Mr Devore: He had not been fa Stark's house since it was compleMUo did not remember beiug tJwfß along with Mr Seaman. Mr Seaman did ask him to assist in valuing »■ :, number of new buildings, and witness gave . him the contract price for a great many of them. He did not know whether Stark* building waß amongst them. Hewasp'id by Mr Seaman to assist him in valuing buildings. He ■ gave him information respecting the tenders, and the contract price for Stark's building. He bad no re- • collection ot any stable or outbuildiDg being ' included in tho tenders for tho house. ', ' By Judge H.irvey: Mr Khodes was thai . succoßsful tondorer. , a By Mr Dovore : Mr E. Bartley was the architect. ','■■' ~S Ky the Chairman : At the time the valM tions were made it was generally known » the district that the Government intended *

to take part of Stark's property for defence purposss. He bad hoard that they wero in possession. ■ James Daore wai then called arid sworn. 8.3 said that he was a partnor in the firm of S. Cochrsno and Son, laud agents, etc. He had written a letter to Air Mitchelson, stating that he had valued the land before it was taken for defence purposes between £S,OOO and £9,000 ide hud hoard that an offer hud been made tor it at £5,500. Mr Stark showed him a plan of hjw he proposed to cut it up for sale, but witness told him ho did not think he jvould sell it in that way. Mr Alison instructed his partner to inako an offer in writing for the property, but Mr Stark declined it, saying he did not want to bo piid £100 dow and .CIOO then. If it were a cash transaction he might have considered it. Ho did not think Mr Stark know who t!io intending buyer wae. Witness did not think the land waa worth the price offered for it. A few —himself amongst the nnra ber—at that time knew of the Uovernmcvt'e indention to take part of the property. Ho believed it to be a bona fide offer. I'iie price offered was £10,000, of which £2 rOO was to be cash, and the balance extending over 3 or 5 years ; and cash to be paid for any portion sold in that time. Col. Haaltain :Do you consider Mr

Seaman's valuations to be excessive '' Air Dacro (laughingly): I have always considered him the best valuer the Govern-

nioiit have got. By llr Davore : Alison's offer was made about the time last year it was reported that the Government intended to place a fort On the North Head, lie believed Mr Cochrane had a copy of the instructions. They cbuld tie produced he believed. He thought Alison's offer bona fick (it the time, and he had not changed his position ointfo. The diverting of the road had not ;damaged Stark'E property, seeing that it was too far away to have a Commercial value. When Alison made his oSer he would not have cared to have given £8,000 or £9,000 for it as a speculation for house and land together. If he had heard of Mr Seaman's valuation at the time, he would have thought he had been ehown their offer, and could not help himself. He did not know that be had been shown their ofi'er. Ha considered £8,000 or £9,000 as a high enough price for anyone to pay who wanted to make a»y money out of the proporty. The fact of the Government taking the property did not increase its value, except as regards compsnsation. Ho could not say why the Government paid £17,009—h0 w?aa not in their secrets. He had not had any dealings with land in Stark'a locality By Mr O'Meagher z Ho knew the land on the other side of the road. Stark's, having a soa frontago, was much more valuable. He had not regardod the property with the eye of a strategist, nor waa ho skilled in military eugincoring. In making his valuation he had not had regard to the fact that it could sweep Cheltenham Beach and the Bench beyond. As the sits for a fort, it might be worth more to the Government than to a private individual. He had been in businees 16 yeara. Ho considered it would be utterly wrong for a land agent to divulge to the detriment of a client information entrusted to him by that client. At the request of Mr Mo?e, they cent him a copy of Mr Alison's offer. Mr Mitchelson had talked to htm on this subject since his return from Wellington. By Mr Cotter; It was some time since he had been on Stark's property, therefore he was not acquainted with the value of the improvements at the time Mr Alison made his offer. He had previously done business for Mr Alison, and therefore know him to make a bogus offer. His (the witness's) estimate was a rough one. Mr Alison had been pretty successful in his acquisitions of property. By the Chairman : Property began to increase about three years ago, and attained its maximum about twelve months einco, when Stark'a property was Eold.

By Mr Westenra : He had successfully appealed against uou.o of Mr Seaman's valuations.

\V, S. Goohrane (partner in tho firm of S. Cochrano and Son), auctianeor, land agent, valuer, etc., deposed : He wrote to Mr Stark last year on tho subject of an offer foe his property by Alison. [Letterdatedl3th August, 18S5 prduced asking Mr Stark if his property were in tho market, and nt which price be would sell ] Mr Stark re plied that his property was notinthe market but that he was prepared to consider an oflVr. He wrote again. [Letter dated August 17th, 18S5, produced an offering of £16,000 for the property, the terms being £2,000 cash, and the balance on mortgage for 5 years at per cent, Mr Stark to join tho conveyance of any land subsequently sold and to have option of loafing the house and grounds.] At that time it was known that the Government intended to take part of the property, Mr Stark 8 answer was a decided" refusal. It was not withmore than£lo,oooor £10,000 c»bh in hie opinion. He considered it a bona fide offer, and he supposed that Mr Alison saw his way to make this money oat of it.

Mr Devoro : Both Mr Stark's answers were in writing. He subsequently jaw Mr gtark who told him be saw his way to do better with his property, as tho Govern' ment were likely to want it. He (3tark considered it worth nearer £30,C03 than £16,000. He took a note of Mr Aliaon'B instructions befrra making the offer. Personally, he did not know the property, as he had not b-en on it for 12 years. Neither tha Government nor Mr Seaman had consulted him about the vailuo of tho property. He supposed the optional leaso of tho house and grounds to Mr Stark did not mo; n tba •whole of the property, but only the house, yard and garden, and only for such a term aa might be convenient to Mr Alison. Such an arrangemehtdid not seem to him strange as from an intending purchaser. He hod not Mr Stark's replies with him, but lie would look for them.

By Mr O'Meagher ; He had no reason to regard Mr Alison's offer as a bogus one. He should cay, from Mr Stark's manner that he had not the slightest suspicion from what quarter the offer came, nor did he (the witness) divulge the fact.