TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 243, 15 October 1886, Page 3

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The evidence of James Slays and Oliver Mays was, this morning, read over to them and signed.

Alfred Ashton was the first new witness called. He said he was a son of Herbert Ashton, and connected with him in business. Ho know that Mr Stark, in August, ISS3, gave instructions in writing, for the sale of his property nt North Shore. The instructions, which were then produced, were as follows :—

" Stark, August ith, IS£3. H" Ist. House, stable, cowshed, out-houses, etc., etc., with 5 acres of land, having part frontago to main road (50 feet), fenced complete; one entrance gate : sea frontage, with concrete way to beach—£3,ooo. Terms one-fourth cash, balance at fi per cont. for threo years. Commission, £15. 2nd. House, lodge, stable, two entrance gales, cow-sheds, etc,, complete ; fenced, and 8J acioj of land, having main road and sea frontage— £3,500. Terms one-iifth cash ; balance, 5 per cent, three years. Commission, £60. 3rd. Tho above and 20 acres to narrow neck, having sea and main road frontages, thoroughly drained with tiles and ti-treo, £5,000, oue-fifth cash; balance 1 per cent., turcc years. Commission, £75. Present insurances to be kept on properties in my name: House, £1,100 ; stable, £200 ; lodge, £200."

On tho hack of this paper there was tho following memo, in ink: ''Stark, June 22, '83. £3,500, houso and stables, With 5 acres j £1,000 deposit, and balance G pur cent; hot and cold water laid all over the hou?-c."

In order to sell the property ho advertised it, and spoku to a good many people about it. It was taken out of their hands in 1885. [Plan of property produced and explained.] He did not withdraw the propei ty by written notice. By Mr Cooper : .Looking twain at these written instructions, it was evident that Mr Stark gave instructions lor the sale on June 22, ISS3, and that in August. 1883, he reduced his selling price by £500. Up till 1885 they had no inquiries for the property. By Mr O'Mcagher : lie had brought with him the following telegrams received from Mr Mitehelson :— " Wellington, 3rd July, 18S0. " Messrs Ashton & Sons.-Understand Stark's property was placed in your hands for sale. Would you kindly forward mo full'particulars by wire, statins price you were instructed to sell for, if you had any chance of selling, date of withdrawal from sale, value you placed on property, time Government purchased. Important you send information, as Government are trying burke question.— B. Mitchelson. " Wellington, sth July, ISSG.

" Ashton & Sons, Land Agents. Auckland.— Kindly wire information asked for to F. J. Moss, Chairman Public Accounts Committee. Collect telegram.—X. Mitchklso.v. Heceived half-past 10. Answer sent before 10 u-m., Monday."

SHe was not a director in the now I erry Company, but he had been one from the commencement till July last, lie was a shareholder to the extent of 100 sh'ircs. He was not one o£ the promoters of that company, but hia father was. Mr Mitchclson had been a director of the company. His (witness's) father had 100 shares in the company. He did not sec that it was dishonourable for him to divulge to Mr Jtitchelsoii Sir Stark's secrets, for 31 r Stark had then ceased to be their client, Mr Milchelson requested the information and it was given him. He was not aware that Stark sent him a letter at the end ot 1883 or i-he beginning of ISSI withdrawing his property from their hands. During the prorogation of Parliament ho had had no conversation with Mr Mitchelson on the subject of this enquiry until this morning. He had had several conversations with Mr Philoox on the same subject and had shown him Stark's instructions before the date of the telegram. He did not know whether Mr Philcox was a shareholder either of the old or new Ferry Company. He believed his father held o shares in the old By Mr Cotter : The seaside property abutting on the old Lake Road was 25 per cent, more valuable than the property on the landward side. At the time of the sale of Stark s property to the Government he was trying to sell Hammond's property, fronting the main road, at £3 10s to£l per foot. Hammond s properly 13, acres) was worth from «100 to £.'OO per acre, and he had heard Unit th» owner hart asked £1500 for the block. He had no recollection of it bomg ofteicd to the Government ut that price. It would be a high price. The next property-Professor fhoiiias s was sold tohimZfor £1000, but he could not say what was its vafue at the time Stark's property was bought by the Government. He could not (five any idea of the per centago of difference Between the price asked tor a property by the owner and that offered by the intending pur-

chaser. There was no value for it. The difference would not he as much as a third or a half. Valuers of property (littered a good dual in their estimates, especially in compensation eases. He knew no one who luul a greater experience than Mr Seaman in valuing property nt the North Shore. . . . The Chairman requested the witness tooblain the date oE the last advertisement re Sturk's i

ri ]lylJlr]iiirve.v'"':' The.'date of the lust appearance of Ino advertisement would give mi approximate iik-ii of ilio date oi llio withdrawal of Stark's properly iromtheiHu'iul.-s. 1! J Unberis, arehiteet. residing in Auckland, deposed that ho ocme. to Auckland three years a"o last August. tftark's iiroperly mi? ollered through him to his son-in-law, Mr Lcliuilly. The oiler was 10 acres of land with house and improvements for .-CoOl). and it was made by JMr | Mlison. That was in .March. ISSI. Hedidnotk'now lhat'llif properly wjik pressed upon him. Re-con- ! vi-yed ii in .Mr. Leltailly but the latter did not accept. He bought another property close at: hand, where Mr J. Ji. Kussell used to live, lie lioin'liL it because he. wanted a good garden, and it wVis beautifully hud out. lie knew Mark's house but had not been through it. lie did not know what .Mr l'hik-ox meant by asserting that, .Mi- Allison had misrepresented facts to him. By JHr Cooper: Mr Allison treated with him as any ordinary commission agent would. He made a note of the oiler at the time. jXote read.] It was dated either the lllth or the nth .March. ISBI. He had two interviews with Mr Allison. .Mr Allison's statement to him that linot her properly at Hie North Shore could not In; !,'ot because it was in C'haneerv was made ! about the same time he bought his ownp.opcrly. He saw from the ollicial report that .Mr Allison had denied having offered tftark's property. Tho otter was made In witness's ollice. and ho, made, a note of it at the time. He' got to know that they were after McLeocVu property and then otl'ered them Stark's. At this second interview witness told Allison that Mi1. Le liailly was quite in love with Mel.eod's property and would not consider Sturk's. When witness pointed Wtark's house out to Mr. Le Haillythc latter said, "What I that place with ihocandlc-cxtinguisher upon it; I ilont want if" At this stage Mr Brewer arrived, and the chairman informed him that as one of the parties Whose conduct was impugned, either he or his counsel would be permitted to examine the witnesses. Mv LclSuiley stated that he had no counsel. Jlr Itobevts (to Mv U'-Meiigher): He did not remember to have stated that llr Allison had pressed StM'k's property upon him witk great pertinacity. He might have used words equivalent to thill. Jlr Leliailly told the matter to .Mr Pbilcox. He might have told Mr LeUuilly that Allison had niisrcpresented facts to him with regard to oilier properties ; he might, have done so. Mr Allison s clerk tried to put him oil" from buying his present property by telling him it was bound up in some way.audjMr Allison eonliniied the statement. He bought it a few days afterwards. Mr Allison said he had been trying to buy it. iiy Mr Cotter: He made the note of Mr Al son's oll'er while Mr Alison remained in the olticc." Hud lie known an inquiry would follow he would have got i\lr Alison to sign it. That note had not been written since the investigation or after his interview with Mr IjO Jtailiy. H wns not a mrro conversation, it was an oiler. He had been on speaking terms with Mr Alison until be saw from the papers that he had denied the fact of the oll'er having been made. Mr Alison knew he was not a purchaser. The Offer was made to him in order that, he might rake it to Mr Le Hailly so that Alison's arguments would have to lie repeated to Mr Lo Hailly. He did not think that Mr Alison went to Mr Lo liailly about the property. The only fact misrepresented to him was with regard to the property bought by him. The mortgagee had foreclosed and got the property. That was the only trouble about it. Mr Alison ottered him other properties, and went with him to see one of them, but h« did not go with him to seeStark's. He did not remember asking Mr Alison to put in writing an oiler of property near the dock. He would not be certain, lie did not make any note of that otter but went to see the property, when ho made up his mind at once not to entertain this otter. This property belonging to Stark and Alison, was not the property he hud mistaken for Sturk's own property. The price was £700, he believed. (.Mr. Cotter now produced Mr. Alison's letterLook and read from it a letter dated 12th May addressed to .Mr. Roberts, and stating that the selling price of a certain property having !lj feet frontage to the Beach Road was £l,'_'Uo.| He had forgotten -this transaction. 'I hut otter of course \>as made in writing. Had he himself been treating for Stark's property he would have asked for that otter also to be put in writing, but it was only a kind of preliminary oiler for him to carry to Mr Le Hailly.

liobert J.undon (partner in the firm of Boylun and Lundon). deposed that ho was a civil enfrf-nee-r. Some time in the beginning of March, ISSS. Mr Stark asked him if there was any chance of selling his property at the North Shore if it were cut up. Witness said lie thought so, and Mr Stark then requested him to make a trheme of subdivision. He made the scheme, and (it Mr Stark's request he then prepared v plan of the subdivision. He did not then know that the Government intended to purchase the properly. He reckoned the value of the frontage to tho main road (old Lake Koad) to be about £o pelfoot. He was not a land agent.

Uy Mr Cooper: In making his plnn he had tlio area and dimensions to work by, hut not a single peg was put in to mark the subdivisions. It was only a scheme or design for cutting up. The plan had been p! otographed. He would not swear to the position of the house as shown on the plan. He cut the property up on paper without putting a chain over it. or a pen in it. Tin; plan whs finished on the 30th .March. 18fc>. |Mr Cooper read from the Herald of :*lst March, ISBS, an article stating that surveys had been made of property '(amongst others Mr Stark's) proposed to be taken by the Government for battery purposes.] He did not then know of the Government's intention to purchase tin? property. IMr Cooper produced a Jln-itlil of the Ktth March (living a plan of the defences of Auckland and showing a gun on Tnkapuna iiead (Stark's property)], lie was at Waitara on tho 13th of

Mr Cooper produced ami put in evidence a Stau oi.tlie Mill Alurcli. IS!\>. stating that the Government had selected Mr Slurk's property as a site for part of tlie defences.

The Chairman pointed out thai the rrtiele also stated that tho property fortlio situs hail been tuken some time before.

The Chairman said the Commissioners would like 10 have produced the Governor's lecture on port defences, and the date of its delivery.

Mr Cooper said he wtould endeavour to rroeure it. The date was October. 18s). 110 also tendered a Stau of the 2ith .March, 1885—and these dates were most sifcniliciint—wherein it was stated that the engineers had that day been examining Mr Kissling's and Mr Stark's properties as sites for defence works, and that these were the most likely to be taken.

Mr Lundon (examined by Mr O'Meagher): He estimated the value of Jlr Stark's property ad follows: IGOUft. of road frontage at £o. £80GO; 21S0ft. of beach frontage a! ;tl)s. ,-t::i72o; 2000 ft. of frontage to inner road at 308, £3000; 21U0ft. frontage to main road, .-IS2IO. Total, £17,960. This allowed Mr Stark to keep tho house and buildings for his own use. He was away from Auckland from the nth to the 20th of March and must havo received his instructions from Mr SUirk after he came back.

By the Chairman: Ho would make a deduction of 20 per cent, from hi* estimate in order to ascertain the cash value o£ the properly. By Mr Button: He did not include the house in his estimate

By Mr Cooper: He was quite sure in thinking: peoplo would Rive £j per foot for allotments of 40 feet frontage by a depth of 120 feet. Property was fetching high prices then. He had cut up another property for Ml Alison which Mr Stark purchased. At this stago the Commissioners adjourned till 2.15 p.m. On resuming at the latter hour. Professor Thomas was called and sworn. He said that ho owned a house and property separated from the Stark property by Mr Hammond's. He bought it in June. 18f*.i. for £1,000. The land was partly improved. He had managed to sell it at £ISUO. He had made improvements which represented the bulk of tho advance in price, so that he would be content to get back what he had paid away. During the lirst year after his purchase property seemed to improve in value. His house was worth its price for its unique position. He valued the site if unoccupied at about £1,050.

ByMrCoopor: The value of Stark's property would Idepend entirely upon the purpose for which it was required. It might do for a large residence. He would not recommend anyone to give £5 per foot for an allotment 10 feet frontage by 120 feet deep. By Mr O'Moagher: He was selling the property bee auso it suited his convenience to live on this side tho water. If it suited him to live at the North .Shore ho would not care to part with his property at £1,800. Tho view from his property was Better than that from Stark's, still it was a matter of taste. His property ho believed had an area of nearly two acres, and as .ho set'down the unimproved valuo at £1,050, that would bo rather more than £500 per acre. By Mr Cotter :—Mr Mays had not offered him £1,200 for his property, but he might have oflered that sum to his agent. By Mr. Cooper : Stark's property was in a breezy and rather bleak position. Mr Cooper intimated that he did not desire to call Mr J.K Boylan.