THE POINT RESOLUTION PURCHASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 241, 12 October 1888, Page 3

THE POINT RESOLUTION PURCHASE.

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

(Before Dr. Giles, R.M., and Colonel J. M.

Roberts, J.P.) The Royal Commission, appointed by Hi 3 Excellency the Governor to' inquire into the purchase of certain land at Point Resolution, was resumed at 11 a.m, to-day. MR SCHWARTZ KISSLING'S EVIDENCE. George Schwartz Kissling stated that his wife was the present owner of the Point Resolution property. In the beginning of 1885 the Government began operations at Point Resolution. He had no previous in timation of this except from what he saw in the papers. On the day before operations were commenced, Mr Bell, tho Engineer, called upon him and informed him, as a matter of courtesy. He (Mr Kissling) wrote to the Government asking what their intentions were. On the advice of his solicitors he made a formal claim, which resulted in an action being brought for trespass against the Government. This action was stranglod by an Act which was passed. Witness had several interviews with Mr Mackay, but be did not think they went into the question of compensation at ail. Subsequently, after several interviews with Mr Brewer, he claimed compensation to the extent of £2,500. Previously ho had been informed that tho Government had the • idea of taking the whole of tho property, and ho asked Mr Brewer if it could be arranged that the Covernment should hand him (Mr Kissling) back the freehold. In September, 1885, in order to ascertain vhat the trustees' interest in the property would be, a valuation was made by Mr Waymouth on September 3rd, 1885. On receiving that valuation witness showed it to Mr Upton, and told him that that was the basis upon which he was dealing with the Government. Witness asked Mr Upton to give his opinion as to what he thought of it. Mr Upton paid that ho was quite surprised at the smallness of the amount. Witness left Mr Waymouth's letter with Mr Upton to calculate for himself. He stated to Mr Upton that Mr Waymouth had incorrectly stated the thing because the trustees had no power to sell, and that the arrangement would have to be made by tho Government taking the land. Mr Upton told witness on tho following day that he had worked out the figures and was satisfied that the valuation was a cor- | rect one. Subsequently witness saw Mr | Brewer, and they arranged what was set ! forth in witness's letter of the 20th Nov- ! ember. In making that arrangement MiBrewer said tho Government must understand what lixed sum they would be liabie for, and that tho Trustees' interest might be brought before a compensation court. Witness told Mr Brewer that if any compensation court allowed the Trustees more than £652 he would pay that. He thought that on November 10th he wrote to .Mr Cochrane, that the Government were going to take the whole of the property, und askedhim by what process the trustees would like to have tho value of their freehold interest ascertained. On the 20th he received a letter from Mr Cochrane stating that the trustees would prefer valuation to be fixed by the Government. Witness handed that letter to Mr Brewer and he wrote to the trustees making this oiler. On December 3rd and 4th, the trustees decided to accept the Government otler, and they subsequently carried out this arrangement. That completed the transaction so far as the trustees were concerned. In answer to Dr. Giles, Mr Kissling said he did not remember having made a claim for £5,000. If thero was such a claim it might have been made with the view of a surrender of the whole of the lease. Dr. Giles read from a memo that on the 23rd July, 1885, Mr Kissling claimed £5000 for land" actually taken, 3 roods and 13 perches, and for damage done to the rest of the property. . ~__., In answer to Dr. Giles, witness said that ho could not remember whether Mr Upton made any objection to the £6,000 upon which the calculation in Mr Waymouth's letter was based. Witness concluded 1 that the letter he handed to the trustees clearly conveyed the meaning that ■ whatever land was not required for defence purposes was to bo handed back to witness. In answer to Mr Mahony, witness said that Mr Upton had possession of Mr Waymouth's letter from one day to the other. Neither Mr Upton nor any of the trustees ever said anything to show that they repudiated any part of the valuation in Mr Waymouth's letter In making the statement contained in a telegram to Mr Reeves, that it was well known that it was his (Mr Kissling's) intention to acquire the freehold, he informed Mr Reeves that it was no secret whatever, and it was no secret. Witness never did anything I with the view of concealing the ultimate arrangements. Mr Brewer appeared to be driving as hard a bargain as Im could on behalf of the Government. Witness thought that when he received a letter from the trustees stating that they preferred to deal with the Government, they nnderstood that he desired to accept the freehold. £2.000 would have been an excessive value, but the valuation was not £2,000; it was £1,250 per acre, and £1,000 ' for improvements. In answer to Mr Napier, Mr Kissling said he claimed so much for land taken and so much for improvements. He claimed £1 000 for improvements. He made his claim for £2,sooabontAugust,andpriorto the first meeting of trustees held on Augustl9th. He made no claim in writing to Mr Brewer. Did you tell him verbally for what you claimed £2,500 ? I told him it was for property taken and for damage clone to property. But at that timo no property was taken. I looked upon it that the property was taken. . Had any intimation been conveyed to you as to the site required to be taken for defence purposes ? I knew it was about an acre. 'From whom did you get that informaI think from Major Cautley, who marked off'the ground. That was two or three months before this arrangement was effected with Mr Brewer ? It must have been before. Then you are perfectly clear that the Government did not want, for purposes of defence, the whole of your property—you say in August? I did not imagine they did. From the time you saw Major Cautley mark off the ground did you have any reason whatever to suppose that tho Government would require the whole of the

land for defence or public purposes ? It was stated to me that they had an idea to take the whole place, and give the house to be used as officers' quarters. When you made the claim for £2,500 you must have known how much land was to be taken ? There is no question about that. And when you made that claim you knew that the Government did not in fact contemplate taking the whole of the land for defence works ? I only made my claim for what they had taken. And you knew that they did not contemplate taking any more ? I cannot say that. When did you express a wish to Mr Brewer to acquire that portion of the land not required for public works ? I presume it musb have been some time in the beginning of September, or prior to the beginning of September. When you expressed the desire to Mr Brewer did you not know that there would be a portion of the land not required by the Government ? Of course. In my own mind the suggestion was that the Government should hand me back the portion, which they did not require. Had you not grounds for believing that the Government did not, in fact, require the whole of the land ? I must have thought that they did wish to do so, of course. Was it you who suggested to Mr Brewer, or Mr Brewer who suggested to you, that the Government should take the whole of this land under the Public Works Act, 1885, and then re-convey 3 acre 3 and 2 roods back to yourself or to Mrs Kissling ? I cannot tell you as to whom the suggestion came from. We discussed the possibility and legality of such an arrangement. I knew nothing about tho law, and I had been led to believe the Government had power to take the land Did you read over any law on the matter ? I did not go into any law at all. Did Mr Brewer know, when you discussed the legality and propriety of acting thus, that the Government did not require the whole of the land for the battery ? Of course he must have known, because tho arrangement was that the balance was to be handed back to me. In answer to further questions Mr Kissling said he was under the impression that the Government could take such land as they liked, and for any purpose, and deal with it as they liked ; that if the Government liked to take four acres instead of one they had a perfect right to do so. But for purposes of giving it back to the private perse n ? I understood that the Government had a perfect right to do wh.it they liked with the balance. Did you consult your solicitor as to whether your impression was correct ? No. Nor as to the legality of your arrangement with Brewer? Brewer was not then on the scene at all. The sole question at tha,t time was whether the Government had a, right to enter on my property. The Act of 1882 did not give them power to take property for defence purposes. Therefore an action was brought against them, and I consulted my solicitor about that. . But you did not consult him as to the legality of your arrangement with Brewer ? Certainly not. I never dreamt for a moment that the .Government would make any arrangement that was illegal. Did it not strike you that you were acting morally wrong in your arrangement with Brewer f Certainly not. Did you not know that in order to get | this land the Government would have to make a number of false statements, both by proclamation and otherwise? No. I heard that statement first, when you drew attention to it. Did not you know the Government could only take such land as was necessary for the work ? I did not. Did Brewer never mention to you that if the Government were to take the wholeof the land and only required a portion of it, they would be compelled to offer the balance back to the freeholder? No. Ido not think that was ever mentioned. Of course I have learned that since. Did he mention to you that the land not required would have to be put up to public auction, and that under no circumstances could they transfer the property to any private person without special statutory power ? I No. iMr Kissling was further cross-examined at great length as to the valuation made by ;Mr Waymouth on the basis of £6,000. He repeated the statement to the effect that ihe showed the estimate of Mr Waymouth's ito Mr Upton and that he was under the I impression that he gave Mr Upton clearly to understand that he (Mr Kissling) was to have the balance of the property re-con-veyed to himself. The £6,000 wasanamount , given by himself to Mr Waymouth and it was reckoned upon the basis of the valuation of the land at £1,250 per acre and £1,000 for improvements. .Mr Napier: Did Mr Brewer accept this valuation of £6,000 without demur or question ? I do not think he raised any question ; I cannot remember now. Immediately you mentioned it he assented to it ? I cannot tax my memory to say that. We might have talked it over. Did he not express surprise at theamount named ? I cannot remember that he expressed any surprise. Did he say that he thought that it was cheap or fair ? I tell you I cannot remember. Well, did he agree to the £6,000 eventually ? We took that as the basis of our negotiations. Did you employ any valuer to value your interests in the land ? Yes, I employed Mr Vaile of Vaile and Douglas. He reckoned that a fair value would be £1,250 per acre. Was the £6,000 communicated to Mr Waymouth as the basis upon which he was to reckon the value of the two interests ? That is just it. # In answer to further questions, Mr Kissling said that he did not consult the trustees in reference to this matter at all beyond the communication he had already mentioned with Mr Upton. He also insisted that the letter which he showed Mr Upton clearly indicated that the balance not required for defence purposes was to be handed back to himself. Mr Napier : But it does not say so. Mr Kissling: I think it does, as clear as can be. '■ ' '". Mr Napier: Do you wish us to believe that you specifically made Mr Upton aware of the fact that you were going to get back 3£ acres of land ? Mr Kissling : I had no doubt in my own mind that he understood that from the letter. In answer to further questions, Mr Kissling stated that he told Mr Upton one part of the letter was wrong, and that it would have to be the other way about. Inasmuch as one part of the letter was wrong, it did not follow that the rest of it required explanation. He did not therefore inform Mr Upton directly that he was going to get 3£ acres of land back because he thought that was understood. Moreover it was general talk at the Clubs and elsewhere. He could not say within what spkee of time after receiving the letter from Mr Waymouth he showed it to Mr Brewer, for the reason that Mr Brewer might have been out of town. It was true he was anxious to get this matter settled, and that he asked his brother to write

a letter to Mr C. Y. O'Connor with the view of facilitating matters, bub that was after tho difficulty was settled. He supposed thab Mr Brewer had a copy of the letter. It was somewhere in the middle of November thab Mr Brewer agreed to the terms for the apportionment of the two interests. Before coming to this arrangement, he did not communicate it to any of the trustees, nob even to his brother,, When the trustees wrote in reply to his letter of the 13th of November, that they preferred to deal with the Government in the matter, he thought it was unnecessary to communicate with them further. . He did not think it necessary to go into details in the letter which he wrote to the Trustees. He did not inform them that ib was proposed to reconvey three and a-half acres to Mrs Kissling, because he supposed it was unnecessary. If it had been decided to deal with the matter m a compensation court or by arbitration, details would then have been placed beiore the Trustees. Mr Napier : Did you not wish to convey to the Trustees the impression that the Government were going to take the whole of the land for defence purposes? Mr Kissling: Certainly not, because 1 had previously shown Mr Upton this letter of Mr Waymouth's from which he could clearly gather that three-quarters of an acre was to come back to me. Did you not simply shew the letber to Mr Upton and ask him if the apportionment was fair ? Certainly not. Does it nob strike you as strange, that seeing the re-conveyance of this 3£ acres tvas such an important feature in the transaction that you allowed this letter to be the sole means by which it wa- conveyed to his mind. I suppose I saw Mr Upton only once about this matter, and I had no doubt that he then clearly understood the thing. Did anyone ever tell you that the Government were going to take the whole _of the land for the purpose of a fortification until you had suggested it to Mr Brewer ? Yes, I had heard it suggested by Government officers as one mode of settlement. Did you tell Mr Brewer that the trustees would like to sell the land if they could ? No I did not. # Did you know that the trustees were adverse to selling that land or any other portion of their trust properties? Mr Upton told me on the occasion of the interview I have referred to, what he has repeated in his evidence, viz., that the time would probably Come when the Government would re-enter upon and take over these properties for educational endowments. Did you not know at the time you were making this arrangement with Mr Brewer that yon were deliberately breaking the law. Certainly not. I was in total ignorance of the law. You said that Mr Brewer appeared to be driving a hard bargain for the Government, and you also admit that he did not demur to estimate of the value of the property at £6,000. How can you make that statement ? Because he represented to me that my claim was too high. And yet he agreed to your maximum claim of £6,000 ? I suppose he was satisfied in his own mind that that was a fair value. I suppose he had reason for agreeing to the valuation of £6,000. No doubt he had reasons. There was no diminuition of the original demand, for £6,000 was the amount asked, and also the ultimate amount agreed upon. Yes. And that you call driving a hard bargain lon behalf of the Government? Now, did you ever reckon on a greater sum than i £6,000 as the value of the property ? I do not think I ever slated, a larger sum than £6,000 to Mr Brewer. Did you employ an agent in the matter ? No 1 acted entirely'myself. Did you employ Mr Brewer as your agent to repurchase this land ? Most certainly not. Did you pay him anything tit all for the part he took in his transaction. No. Nor make any gift or consideration in connection with his action ? I made him no gift and gave him no consideration whatever. In answer to other questions, Mr Kissling said he had no recollection of ever speaking to any member in refer_:nce to the re-conveyance of this property., and he did not think that he received a copy of the bill which was passed by the House. In answer to Mr Hesketh, Mr Kissling stated that the item £6,000 was the valuation he and Mr BireAver had agreed upon. He (Mr Kissling) gave Mr Waymouth the £6,000 and asked him to work out the interests of the trustees and the leaseholders. He thought £632 were worked out on the balance of 6 per cent. Witness obtained the item of £6,000 by seeing a valuator. Mr Napier : He said he got the value of £1,250 an acre from a valuator, and then pub on £1,000 for improvements. Mr Kissling, having obtained permission, then made a statement, the substance of which was that property situated next thie Bank of New Zealand, in Queen-street, had been sold by auction for £3,800, whereas,, if dealt with in the same way as the Point Resolution property, it ought to have fetched £4,250. Mr Brewer : You say you had several conversations with Government offLcers, and you are under the impression they informed you the whole of the land would be required. Now, as far as you remember, were not these conversations with officers who were surveying or engineering for military purposes ? I think ib is very likely thab they were. As all these officers had left Fort Resolution before I arrived, it must be your impression, then, that it was generally known the land would be required by' Government even before I arrived in __uckland ? Yes: Looking to the interests of these so-called destitute children, do you know what £632 would come to at 6 per cent, for 48 years ? Mr Kissling: £10,500 or £10,600. Dr. Giles stated that this was all the evidence so far as the Commission knew, and that counsel would be heard on Monday. The inquiry then adjourned.