Stark Purchase Commission.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 247, 20 October 1886, Page 2

Stark Purchase Commission.

Commissioner?: Hon. Colonel Haultain, ExJudge Harvoy, and Mr Westenra.

Jamks Fkater, commission agent, ■was called yesterday afternoon. He said that in March, ISSS, Mr Stark authorised him to offer for sale his house, stables, and outbuilding?, and 10 acres of land for £1,000, and the house and outbuildings, with 20 acres of land, for £6,000. It was only a short time on their hand?. They cot no offers. He considered that Hammond's property at that timo was worth £200 per acre. t)n March 19th, ISSi, 11A acres adjoining Stark's was sold to Hulffor £1,000.

Francis Hull, land agent, deposed that in March, ISS4, he bought about 13 acres for £1,050. He cut the property up and offered the main frontatjee at 30s par foot, and the back ones at loa pel foot, lie had sold *<jmo of them. He gold some sections to Mr King at £245.

Mr Seaman remarked that 30a per foot wa= equivalent to AMjO per acre. By Mr O'Meagher ; The portion of the property fronting the Bwarnp (about four and a-half acres) waa not bo valuable as any portion of Htark's property. The main frontages, however, were equally as valuablo as Stark'a frontago on the opporito side of the road. Of tho thirteen ncrcx bo had sold four, realising thereby £S9j. For tho nine acres remaining ho wanted £"2,200, Yet thete 13 acres ho bought in March, ISS-1, for £1,050. The unfold allotments had been two and a-half years in tho market.

By Mr Laishley : Ho had sold none of tho property since November, ISSS.

Benjamin Tannor, Town Clerk, and former Valuer of Devonport, deposed that ho was Valuer of the Koad Board up till ISSS, when the Government valuation was adopted. The valuations wero made annually up till ISS3. Ho had his rato and valuation books along with him Stark's property was valued last year, upon Mr Seaman's valuation, at ;C10,600. The previous valuation (viz., that rande in ISS2 or 18S3 by himself) was £3,000. That was for 30 acres. That valuation remained in forco up till tho end of ISSS, and Stark was rated accordingly. When he made the valuation in ISS3 tho house was built and tho improvements were made.

By Mr O'Meagher : He believed that the cub-soil drainage had been completed then. He was not aware that tho drainage cost .L'UOO. Mr Stark had nover asked him to undervalue his property. Neither did ho intontionally undervalue Mr Alison's property. His valuations .More rather uver than under. He valued his own frontago (Vauxhall) at £3 per foot He had ISO feet frontage. Some of Mr Stark's property would bo more valuablo than his ; othor portions <»f less value. Mr Hammond's was worth from £3 to £4 per foot all round. Ho had known Mr Alison for 1-1 years, but nover know him to be mixed up in any bogus land transactions. He was not prepared to say there was no dishonourable land ring in Auckland. He knew of nono in Devonport. Mr Alison waa only notorious in tho sense of boing well-known.

By Colonel ilaultaiii : He would have valued Stark's property in ISSS at about £350 per aero all rouDd, or £2 per foot if cut up. That would be exclueive of the improvements. The amount of the Devonport valuations in ISBI waa £7,038 on the rate-

Mr Seaman mentioned that the valuation on th<- capital value this year amounted to £408,513.

By Mr Seaman: Ho gave £1,020 for Vauxhall. He sold lots four and live with a cottage thereon for £300 to Mr George Brown, Ho had sold the sections at £270, £180, £200, £120, £110, and £55 respectively. Ho would not take loss than £S4O for what ho had left. That would leave a profit of £955.

By Mr Brewer: Three years ago he ottered to tell Vaiixhall on behalf of the former owner for £1,050. • Ho did not get a purchaser, aud therefore bouj/ht it hiraeolf for £1,020. Bdfar ho had realised £1,135 out of it, and ho had etill i'filU worth of the properly on hand.

By Mr Laithley : Vauxball waa one of the pyoa of tlio North Shore. He was Secretary of the Ferry Company, of which Mr Alison was Chairman.

Robert Duder, land agent, and a very old resident of the North Shore, deposed he had nothing to do with the Stark property.

By Mr Laiehley : He had had something to do with Hastings, gituated less than half a milo from tho near wharf, while Stark's property was fully two miles off. Tho last transaction he had had in connection with Hastings was the sale of a corner lot (the boat but one) to Mr Ford for £5 per foot. It waa 50 leot by 120 feet, and only a quarter of a milo from the wharf.

By Mr Seaman: Mr Seaman valued his interest in Hastings at £12,000, but after two hour*' cjnver?ation he brought it down one-half, viz., to £6.000. He bought it at the l.trer end of ISS4 for £1 200 By Mr Laiahloy : Hastings was out of comparison moro valuable than Staik'g pttiperty. Early in 18S5 Mr Brown offered him the whole of StarkV property for £7,500. Mr Seaman's valuation.? had always been excefsive to his mind—tip-top - in fact, the top df the free. Jbfo had never been able to agree with his valuations.

Uy Mr Seaman: Although tho valuation of Hastings waa brought down from £!i.',000 to £0,000, he cunsiderod tho latter valuation ridiculoualy high. At this stago tho Commission adjourned,

Aftor the Commissioners had taken their seats this morning, Mr Laishley, addressing the Chairman, said : " I wish to say that after the repudiation yesterday by the Committee of what I was expressly and deliber". ately authorised to do in the matter of Sir Julius Vogol, I decline to appear further for them, and only act for to-day as a matter of personal obligation to Mr Cooper who i 3 compelled to be absent at the Supremo Court." Edward Hammond, Registiarof the Na five Lands Court, was the first witness called. He said ho had three and a half .acres of property adjoining Stark'p. H e hud it for sale at an averifge of i 3 15n per foot for tho 115 t frontage to the road viz some £1.-100. It had also Gl7 feet frontage to the beach. His family bought it 36 years ago, from the Government, at £4 p er iicre. it was more valuable than MrStark'g acre for acre, becaueo it was narrow, and had thoreforoa much larger frontage both to the road and the eoa. He had declined to coll it to Mr Stark. MrStark boughthis property originally from witne?s-thatis,tho property Stark had sinca sold to the Government for £17,100. The price paid w aß £1,500, and the sale took place in 1881. By Mr O'Meaghor : Ho had never offered ! his 3J acros in the lump, nor authorised it to bo"bo offered. He had never authorised it to bo offered for £SOO or £860. He had 22Jacres beyond Mr Stark: s property, and in the Lake district. He valued it at £2,000 but would not sell at that price. Ho thought ho would sell at £2,500. Prices were less now than they were 18 months ago. By Mr Brewer :If h: s land were required for public purposes, and be were forced to part with if, he would not put the screw on. If he had made his home th»re, and were obliged to sell against his will; he would certainly increase the price.

Geo. Richard Burgess, rate collector at Devonport, produced the receipt blocks of the rate book, and stated that for 1885 Mr Stark was rated at £3;000 for the property be afterwards sold to the Government. That was for tho year endiDg 31st March, 1888. Mr Stark never spoke to him of the property being over-valued or under-valued. By Mr O'Meagher: Tho valuation of £3,000 for Stark's property was made in June, 1353, and it held good till March 188 C.

By Mr Seaman : This year the valuation was £15,000, and he had been ordered by the Borough Council to collect the rate on that value. Mr Coleman had objected, on Mr Stark'e behalf, to pay, on the ground that tho property was sold before the rate was struck. Edwin Mitchelson, M.H R., deposed that ho remembered urging the Premier on the 2nd September to grant a Eoyal" Commirsion| tor inquiiy into tho Stark purchase. He waa not acting for himself but for various gentlemen who called upon him after his return from Wellington, and informed him that tho purchase at such a high price wa=i the result of a deliberate conspiracy. He understood that the poreona a°Bociated with Mr Stark, and mixed up with the purchase, were thost) said to be implicated in tho conspiracy. So far, there did not appear to have been any evidence furnished to prove the conspiracy. It was matter of common report that Sir Julius Vogel and the Public Works Minister were associated with tho blunder, and that they had been well paid for consenting to the purchase. He could not indicate one person who made such a statement, for there were so many.

Mr Harvoy remarked that in that event

it would be an easy matter to select one, bring him forward, and if it were fonhd that he was deliberately speaking that which he knew to be false, to have him severely punished. That was his own opinion. Mr Mitchelson stated that he did not himself credit the report, because ho did not believe that a Minist rot the Crown would so lower himself ag to bo pecuniarily concerned in such a transaction.

By Mr O'Meagher : He had been three years in Parliament, and bad never been in the habit of acting or speaking there upon! unreliable information. During the 10 months he had been a Minister of the Crown he had never been approached with a view to defraud the Government. He eat on the Opposition eide of the House, and the Opposition was not in the habit oJ exhibiting any great tenderness towards the Government. He had no reason during the session nor since to imagineany member of the Government was sharing in the allegedl plunder for the Stark property. He did not believe that Sir Julius Vogel was mixed up with any conspiracy in th« matter. In urging the necessity for the inquiry ho wished the country to be freed from a grave scandal. He epoke as a poli-. tieiax He declined to state from whom he received the information re the Stoipurchase that he bad made utc of. Ile'fii not know who the Vigilance Committee were. He knew two of them, but declined to give their names; nor would he state any reason for this refusal.

Sir O'Meagher insisted upon the informa-i tion required being given.

Mr Laishley maintained that the witnen could not bo compelled to divulge what might be private and confidential informsl tion.

Mr Harvey remarked that the Commis< eioners knew Mr Goldie to be Chairman of tho Vigilance Committoe, and they conld call him.

Mr O'Meagher said the poiot was that a witness had obstinately refused to answer a certain question. Waa that to be permitted ?

The Commissioners conferred together, and the Chairman then said that they were ot opinion that it way not necessary that the particular question in point should be answered. It might bo assumed that Mr Mitcbelson had received his information from tho Chairman of the Vigilance Committeo (Mr Goldie), who could be called in duo course.

Mr O'Meagher considered that it wm establishing a bad precedent to relieve any witnesses from the duty of answering quostions. v He doubted whether Mt Mitchelson's information had been derived from Mr Goldio.

The Chairman retorted thit the Commissioners did not want any comments from counsel upon their ruling. Crcss-oxnmination resumed : Mr Philcmt hud not told him the things he had mentioned. Ho had simply said the inquiry

was necessary. Mr Cotter explained that to expected momentarily to be called away, and he wished therefore to have the opportunity of recalling Messrs Philcox and Mitchekon in tho afternoon for cross-examination.

The Chairman said the Commission could not await tho convenience of counsel.

Mr Mitcheleon having been consulted, expressed his willingness to attend again in the afternoon for cross-examination.

Mr Cotter also requested that Mr-Pbilwi should be notified to attend in the afternpoo for croßs-examinatkra as well. The Chairman then intimated to Mr W. Philcox (;vho was present) that the Connotef ioners desired his attendance at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Mr Philcox at onco handed in the following medical certificate from Dr. Murray Moore, which the Chairman iead out, viz :'. Liverpool Hill?, Symondarßtreflt, 1 Auckland, October 19,1886.; I hereby certiff that Mr William Philoex to suffering from brain tag, nerveia prostraupßi g ant. at tho present mom--nt, from excessive vascular exoitement I understand that tie n»» b ;en Riving evidence before the Kojal Comnufr sion tbia morning, and, knowing Mr PhllcoH temperament tor some years past, I oonßUlw this excitement highly injurious to hlalißaltn,, at tho present, lime. It is quite clear to meWJJ ■ a tecocd exposure to the same mentalßtMlßr: might result in a break-down of his nervoiu i bIB Tmuhray Moore, M.D., M.R.C.S.,&c. ! Mr W. Philcox.

Mr Cotter said that of course after.We, production of this certificate he would not ask for tho attendance of Mr Philcox this,, afternoon.

Mr Ixaishley explained that a further letter from Dr. Moore had been receivw from Mr Thos. I'bileox (son of Mr flg Philcox). As Mr W. Pbilcox migflf* ft consequence of medical advice, leave on,»: trip South to-morrow.he thought this letter should also be read, lees the gentleman! motives for leaving at this stage might». misconstrued. , The letter was then handed in and imIt was as follows :—

Symonds-stroot. October 18. 188S« ; My Doar Sir,-I think it my dnty to inform you that your father is very ill suffering tt«» brain lag. nervous prostration, and thismO«»B from intense vasoular excitement I CSMJ* help reiterating my advice to you of some wee" ago. with even stionger emphasis, «** "S'' Philcox should at onco go away foe onange"; air, Boene, and ousmes*'cares. A sboit voy«s» would be highly benoflclal; but wherever r» goes, his doparture mußt bo prompt, or noL"i* . break down, I am cortaiD. knowine.as J- ™ well for acmo years past, your ratners ™i 7-. I perament and peculiarities.-.! reinalD, »<""" truly. ~ n J. MUHBAV MOOKB, M.U. Mr Thos. Philcox. The Chairman intimated that under the circumstances the Coruniissiuners wouldß v take any stepa to prevent Mr Pbilcoxfrom carrying out his intention. ~ Mr Alison said that after the reaoW of the medical certificate, it was quitee«\ . dent that Mr Philoox was seriously unweu. and under the circutni-tances it was UDW" to press him to submit to further exsnUM" tion. Mr l"hi I cox had suffered sufficientlyfor tho wrong 1,0 had done. If he nowcafM forward and acknowledged in \. n ~j c t<' way tlmt ho had acted wroDgly, hw «« neps might be alleviated, and W -.»^ ; cjvery be quicker,