MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 964, 3 November 1910, Page 8

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

m. IYERS SUMBISES THE POSITIQfi ■v : '., i THE-NAI'NAI PURCHASE, T SEARCHING QUESTIONS-AND SHARP ACQUISITION OF LOVE'S ESTATE,

The sittings of the special committee, of ..the-Legislative Council which/is .hearing-the charges brought by. Mr. Hine, M.P. for Stratford, against tho Hon. T: K. Macdonald, wore resumed last night. The charge reads: — ■ "That Thomaa Kennedy Macdonald, in or about the year 1904 and subsequent years, while a ; member of the Legislative Council, either alone-or in. conjunction .with his then partner, (a land agent), conducted the sale to the Government of tho: property of one John Motley Leigh/ of Nai Nai, and the proper- ■ ties'of--two other .persons, and receiyed from , the- said John■ Motley,'Leigh andthe vendors of such other properties commission or other such eums' of money, or alternatively, the .■. said T. K. Macdonald and his said partner received the said commission or other sums, and divided the same.","'.,''. '■..,. ■ Mr. Myers appeared on behalf of.Mr. Hine and Mr. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. ■ Sharp) for Mr. Alacdonald; ' Mr. Myers said that Mr. Leigh had not- received'.the,wire .from, the., com-, mittee asking him to give evidence until it was.too late for him to catch the boat from Christchurch. to Wellington that' day. He understood that . Mr. Leigh; would:.arrive in Wellington this. (Thursday) morning. ';.. .. ~','., The chairman: That is so. .- '. Evidence by Mr. J as. Mackenzie. Mr. Jas. Mackenzie; Commissioner for Crown"Lands, Wellington, was "then called. He stated that'the amount of the expenditure on".'the property since it was acquired was £1539. Tho details included £1250 for draining and roading; 1 and; roughly, two-thirds of that amount would be for draining. Tho .total' income was £1463,. including £936 from the sale of land:.. The area.of land sold was 5 acres 3 roods, and the price was £156 .per acre. This.land was.purchased for special purposes—for . a school .site and for a recreation reserve. , These 'sites were about-. the ceritr" of the property..■' The rest of the land was simply" ijeing grazed, and the gross/ rentals, .amounted to "£133 16s: per annum, ..consisting, '.of: cottage £13, cottage £20,.. and grazing ' £100.',' The land had been, subdivided into 378 acres,"''ranging in area from 33 2 acre's 11 perches.. Nono nf the sections had been ..disposed of, and no attempt: had been made in his time to dispose of.them. „' Has the question of. its suitability for,'workers' homes been raised?— "There is no. communication about workers', homes on the file." ',-'■ .It is simply lying 'there?—" Whilst the slump: is here-it and other estates are lying in the same way." . -Under what: class of the Land Act is the property?:—"Under the' Lands for Settlement portion. It was a land settlement purchase, and is lying there awaiting development, in other words, we are waiting for better times to come along when we can do something with it-, . "' •■.' ■■ ■. : '■ •■■ ":-.-. • . ; A MarK6d Slump. : ■'To Mr. Skerrett:. Education hoards were charged just what a property stood.in to the' Department. . They were" under no j obligation'to purchase from the Government if they could get a , suitable property in the vicinity from anyone else. Ho could account for the difference in price in. this instance of £6 per acre by -the .margin of'.iinprovements. .. .■"''; . '.;'.', ~ : The natural inference, would be that the board ' would select a central site for a , school ?—"Yes." : Continuing, witness said' that he was '' away . from Wellington the period of intense activity in land values here. . No attempt had been made to put:the land on the market. He knew that there had been a marked slump in regard to the sale of suburban sections. , ' ! ■'For the purpose of workers ,, homes it •would be natural for the Government to purchase in advance—that they must have their eye on the future ?—''Personally, I would try to: sec what was the • demand. The Department ■ might be lefin. The demand; might appear intense, but when tho Government purchased a property the people might refuse to take the land/ , ■ . -..'.. ■ .'■ ' • 'Witness, resuming, said that , the Epuni property was 42 chains nearer Wellington than Nai Nai. It was a property of about 50 acres. Tho property was .•bought at £95 per acre, ■ and in JtineJ 1901, it: was offered at the capital value of £108' per acre: He found that several sections had become forfeited in 1904—a year - before. tho Nai Nai purchase. In. 1904 a number w.ere parted.with at-the rate of- the unimproved value of £200 ner acre. How -Nal Nai Was Subdivided.; As the Nai Nai property was subdivided into 378 sections, it looked as if the officers of the Department anticipated a substantial demand?—"l heard that it looked as if the tram terminus would be at or about tho property, but that is ancient ( history;" In reply to a further question, witness said that if one waited.a time he did not see much to be alarmed at in connection with the property, looking at everything else. To Dr. Findlay:.The Epuni property and'the Nai Nai'property were on the same metalled road. For the purposes of workers' dwellings overy chain of distance told. In areas of 1 acre to 5' acres the Nai Nai' : property would probably move. The purchases at Epuni were for small settlement, under village conditions. Although the Workers' Homes Bill was not law, it was looked upon as a workers' settlement.. Tho land that had been sold at Epuni for £200 was for gardens, etc., and residence was compulsory. .-..,'. Dr. Findlay: When lands are taken compulsorily the Government has to pay not only the full value but a great deal for , expenses, especially for legal oharges—"l remember the purchase of the Carrington Estate. It would not have run into so much money had it not been taken compulsorily." . • If tho straightening of tho : Hutt railway was going to facilitate communication, the Government would have to pay in regard to that in resuming land foi workers' homes? —'.'Yes." If land were necessary for the purposes of workers' homes at the Hutt, and tho. Government had in contemplation tho straightening of the Hutt lino would it not be a prudent thing to purchase beforehand?—" Yes, as a genera fmnciple, but not especially as regard; and for workers' homes." Re-examined by Mr. Myers, ■ witnesi said that Epuni was nearer the centr< of the Valles by the length of a section

Epuni was rich land. • He had heard that the Nai Nai'was not taken compulsorily. .' : : "Did You See a Minister?" . Mr. Alexander Barron, retired Civil Servant, formerly chairman of the Land Purchase Board, said he first yisited the Nai , Nai property in that capacity on May 4, 1904,- with Mr. M'Gowan and Mr. Reeves. He visited it again on April 17,' 1905, with the Hon. T. Duncan, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Macdorield, and ;;Mr. Kensington. .Ho. did not know whether the property. was ever offered to the Government before the time ho had -first mentioned. He did not reraember Mr. Oarerhill . seeing tho property with him on any occasion. .He Knew of no. documents relating to'.the property other than those on the file which he held in his handj'and which was the ohe used by Mr. Ritchie, in his evidence. ■ •■ ... ". . Mr. Myers: Dp you.know of- any communication between Mr. Macdonald and any Minister about this property? —"No." . , .._." . . '..,.'. Did you have any conferences ■ with any Minister about this property?— "No. Not about'this property . particularly." . ■ , . ; .'. .■■'.'•' Do you remember when the Land Purchase Board decided to offer £120 per, acre.for.the land?—" Yes." And we have-had-it. in evidence that about a week later the board offered £150 an''acre. r Did you see any Minister in regard to the acquisition of this property within that period?— "I saw Mr. Seddon, but not. particularly about'this property." Bid you discuss.the price of the property with any Minister. during that period?—" No. There was. not a word said, about the price.' Mr. Seddon's desire was te acquire.the land, and he did hot , inquire about the. price." Do you know whether any member of Parliament'saw any Minister in regard to tho acquisition of.that property?— "No." Mr. Skerrett interposed at ' this stage, .and submitted,.that Mr. Myers was putting cross-examination questions, such as were not usually permitted during an exarnination-in-chief. , Dr. Findlay: I.' think"Mr. Myers should be'allowed the. utmost .latitude to prove'ahythirig he can againjt the. late Mr. Seddon. ' '' Mr. Myers: I am not trying to do that. ■■'.-■■ . , Mr. Skorrett said he was quite willing that Mr. Myers should bo allowed to go on:'. Mr. Myers said he resented the suggestion that had been made. This was an'inquiry, for, tho purpose of getting 'at facts, and he was making no charge. Mr...Skerrett::. , .Every.-question is an insinuation. ■'-■■'■'■■'-•■■' - v .... Dr. Findlay said that Mr. Hino had been asked at the outset whether he / intendeuV to make any charge against' any member or officer of the Government of that day,, and he had made an unequivocal statement that no such thing was intended. If these questions'that were ■ being put by Mr. Myers were not intended, as .an innuendo or reflection, he would like to know what purpose they, were to serve. ' Mr. : Myers Explains. Mr. Myers said he would indicate the purpose of the questions,--as he had been- asked, and he would have to make a short speech to do so. Mr. Hine had said that it was wrong for a member of either House to act as an agent in any purchase by the Crown, and he (counsel), therefore, said that the .circumstances had to be inquired into, and that the.circumstances might show, not that there was anything wrong in this particular transaction, but. that there was" danger in transactions ■• of the kind. .■■'"'.' ; The chairman: It: i s admitted that Mr. Macdonald acted as" agent, and. probably that he received commission. Mr. Myers: Take the circumstances of this. case. The property was sub•mitted to the Government in 1904 by the then equitable owner anda Government value.i — Mr. Skerrett: I object to this. Quite a short answer is air that is 'necessary to the Attorney-General's inquiry. If my friend makes, as he'says, a brief speech, I shall ask leave to reply in a brief speech,, and the thing will bo never-ending.'. No one is standing in my friend's- way, but I- can't understand his questions, unless ho is trying .'to show that the late Mr. Seddon exerted an improper influence. The suggestion obviously is that some undue influence was' used -by Mr. Seddon. It is. quite "unnecessary for' my friend to show whether a member of Parliament should act as an agent. The committee is competent to decide that. " The chairman , (to'-Mr. Myers): : You have. admitted: that you .make no charge against the Government or any officer of'the Government, and I suggest that you should not question the witness in any way that would bear the inference that you are trying to make out that the Government did something wrong. Mr. Myers said he wished to finish what. he had been saying about this particular case. A private owner submitted the property to the Government in'"l9o4. A Government valuer, who . was sent out te • it, valued tho property at £80 per acrej and reported that, iii his opinion, it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was proposed to acquire it. Nothing was done. Then, a year afterwards, a member of Parliament appeared on tho scene and-within; a fortnight or three weeks, the property was acquired for £150 an acre, without any further revaluation.' Dr. Findlay said tho committee had had it in evidence that the method employed for arriving at the value of tho property was by a special visit of the members of the board.' , Mr. Myers said there was an inspec-tion,-but tho matter was not referred back to the valuer. There was no proper revaluation. Circumstances.of that kind seemed to show that there was something not proper. Chairman Supports Mr. Myers. Tho chairman: You are addressing the committee on the evidence. Mr. Myers: I was forced to do so. Mr. Skerrett: Thoro is a quotation which I think would apply to my friend's conduct in this matter—"Desirous to wound, and yet afraid to sirike." Tho chairman: That is unfair. I don't think you ought to make that observation. Mr. 'Myers: I think Mr. Skerrett's remark is quite improper. Throughout this inquiry ho has beon making insinuations of which I have taken no notice. Mr. Skerrett: I , 'don't withdraw it. Mr. Myers (te witness): Did you instruct that tie. intermediate nurchase

price should bo omitted from the conveyance? —"No." , Is it usual to recite the intermediate purchase price-? Mr. Skerrett (to Mr. Mjors): It is not usual. As a conveyancer and counsol of long standing, I contradict you. Dr. Findlay: The chairman has probably longer experience than any of us. Was the question put to you as to whether the price should bo inserted? — "No, certainly not." Did you know the intermediary price? —"No, not until it was completed." Did Mr. Macdonald have a conversation with you as to tho value prior to purchase?—"l have no doubt he did, for he was the agent of the property." Could you sav whether he Knew that Mr. Caverhill- h'nd valued it at £80?— "He should not have known; he did not know from my office." Continuing, witness said that ho could not say whether Mr. Macdonald saw him shortly after Mr. Caverhill made the valuation. He kept a record of urgent matters in regard to interviews. He had very little in the way 6f records in his diary in regard to Mr.'. ■ Macdonald, s visits in connection with the purchase. ■ . Was tho date of the first entry in your diary of a conference with Mr. Macdonald?—"The date on which Mr. Duncan, Mr. Kensington and others went out with Mr. Macdonald to see the property." So Mr. Macdonald went with them? — "Yes, and the date was April, 1905." Had Mr. Macdonald seen you before that?—"l think he did. He saw me on the Saturday before. My note is: 'He arranged to go out and see the property?" Any interviews prior to that?—"No, I don't think so." "Where is the.Offer?" Did Mr. Macdonald see you on a previous occasion when an offer was made? —"I don't think so." - Resuming, witness said that Mr. Wilson also saw him in the matter. Mr. Macdonald-probably said that tho property, was worth the figure asked. A letter which you sent to Mr. Macdonald starts: "The Land Purchase Board having had under consideration the offer made by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. on behalf of Mr. Leigh." Where is that offer?—"l-cannot trace ''V,,T nnye y may-have intervened personally." You cannot find it?—" Possibly the board dealt with it 011 Mr. Seddon's telegram to the effect that Mr. Macdonald had informed him that the section was' available." ' Where is the telegram that Mr. Macdonald sent .to Mr. Seddon?—"lt would bo addressed to Mr. Seddon,-and he would keep it." . Did anyone from Mr. Levi's office see you in regard to the conveyance?— "I think that one of them did see me about that.date; but 1 left the details te someone else. They had to submit a draft of it." Was there any discussion as te the purchase price that' Leigh paid?—"No, there was none." . ■ To Mr. Skerrett: The purchase was completed on July 31, 1905. Mr. Levi was the solicitor for the Crown and would not divulge any communication which took place between witness and himself. The conveyance recited the three previous transactions. Preparation of the Conveyance. Is it -not a fact that the only object, in reciting the.purchase money, in the conveyance was tor the purpose of ascertaining the stamp'duty?—"No. I don't know that." You know that no duty is payable by tho Crown?—" Yes." ■ There would be no object, therefore, in , reciting the price?—"No necessity for it." .' . It has been suggested that you gave express instructions to Mr. Levi to depart from what was said te bo tho usual custom by omitting the consideration in'tho recital. Is there a word of truth in ■ that?— "No." ■ It has been suggested that Mr. Levi telephoned to you on tho subject of whether ho should insert the consideration in this recital?—"l have no recollection of it." Can you imagine Mr. Levi transmitting that information to anyone else?— "No." . .■ .• • To Dr. Findlay: He was 49 years in the Public Service. He did his best for the people in. his position as chairman of the board.. Hβ probably did better for the people than he . would have done for himself, Did you ever prostitute your office by recommending a price higher than you believed to be the proper value?—"No, certainly not. In every case I was supported by the.board." "Not One lota." Did tho fact that Mr. Macdonald was interested on behalf of the.vendor, influence you , in recommending a higher price than you believed to be the proper price?—" Not in the slightest degree—not one iota. Mr. Macdonald was simply a lang agent doing his best for simply a land agent doing his best for the country." ' " . '. The fact that. Mr. Macdonald. was a member of the Legislative Council had no more influence oh you than if he lad been any .other laud agent?—" Not a bit." Was there at any interview between' Mr. Seddott and yourself any attempt on his part to influence you in making a recommendation of which you did not approve?—,';No, never. Mr. Seddon never said a word about the price in any transaction we had dealings about. He was very anxious to get laud at the Hutt, and very eager to buy as much as possible. He pressed a little strongly perhaps to buy there. He never influenced us or said a word about price." Then • any suggestion that you were placed under undue influence you posixively deny?—" Ye 5."..... -. How many years were you associated with Mr. Seddon in the capacity of chairman of the board ?—"From 1902 until his death.". Was There Bribery, Collusion, or • Fraud? Have you any reason to believe that Mr. Seddon took a bribe in connection with the purchase either from Mr. Leigh or from Mr. Macdonald?—"l cannot conceive of him doing it." Mr. Myers: No suggestion has been made by me to that effect. Dr. Findlay (warmly):. I make my questions from the general inference in regard to the questions you asked. Have you any reason to believe ho was in collusion with Mr. Macdonald to put this property on tho State at a higher value than it was worth ?—' "N0. , . , Have you any reason to believe that there wa3 . any > fraud on. his • part in connection' with this matter? —"No." Do you believe that, at any of the interviews a bribe was accepted by any othor Minister, or that there was any fraud on their part?—"No; it is iuconceivablc." Was Mr. Macdonald the first member of Parliament who has ever spoken to you in regard to tho acquisition of estates under the Lands for Settlement Act?—" Certainly not." There were many others? —"Yes." Did you not observe "the danger and vice" in allowing yourself to be spoken to in that regard?—"l think 1 am strong enough to meet any influence, if there wasany." You were not overawed by the fact that they were members? —"No, I dealt with them as laud agents." If Mr. Hino had come to you it would have been the same? —"Yes." Have discussions with you in regard te proposed purchases beon entirely confined to one side of the House? —"I do not know sides." Members of Parliament generally havo discussed the purchase of estates in their district, and you saw no impropriety in their action?—"No, because ■ they were merely urging the board to 11 acquire'them."

Did the fa«t that it was Mr. Macdonalclinfluenco you in tho slightest degree?—" No.". Whether it was Mr. Macdonald or anybody else your recommendation would have been the same?—" Yes, I treated him as an agent." And there was nothing said by Mr. Seddon or anyone else to affect j - our recommendation ?—"No.". ■ Re-examined by Mr. Myers: Witness would not know whether a member of Parliament was receiving a commission on such a sale. This concluded the evidence on tho Nai Nai case, except that of Mr. Leigh. The case of Mrs. Love's property was taken next. • . NATIVE LAND AT WAIWETU. INQUIRY INTO ANOTHER TRANSACTION. Mrs. Hohepine Love, of Picton, wife of Mr. Daniel Love, said she was the owner of 04 acres of land at Waiwetu. On October 23, 1905, she was engaged in negotiations with Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. about this land. Alost of the interviews she had were with Mr. Macdonald. The firm were to buy the land from her. Before that time they had not advanced any money to her. They advanced £100 to her to bind her to the agreement to sell the land to Messrs; Macdonald, Wilson and Co. It was the whole of the land, except that she retained the homestead with two acres. She agreed to sell to jlessrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. on a certain date. She was in Wellington when they paid her the £100. She remembered seeing Mr. Morrison, Mr. Macdonald, and Mr. Wilson. Sho did not know there had been any,effort by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. to get the Government to buy the property before that time. They told.her later that they would not purchase, and the sale was not completed. Advised to Sell to the Crown. Part of the property was sold to the Government, namely, about 25 acres on the frontage, and the balance on the other side of' the creek towards the hills .remained in her hands. Nothing was said'to her by Mr. Wilson as to the desire of the Crown to buy any of the land, but Mr. Macdonald advised her to soil her land to the Government, as otherwise they would take it under the Public Works Act. She did not want to.sell the. land at all, as it was her marriage dowry; Tho price of the twenty-four acres sold to tho Government was £6075. Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. apparently charged her a commission on the sale to the Government. .'She asked for a statement of the expense, . but they would not give it. She was, therefore, unable to say what commission they charged. What happened to the balance.of the land was that Mr. Macdonald gave her to understand that. she owed some monoy for.interest or a mortgage, or something, and he 'took it. Mr. Myers: It was mortgaged, and it was sold privately. Mr. Macdonald's Partner, ■ Mr.. Alexander L. Wilson, auctioneer, of Wellington, formerly in partnership with the Tlon. T, K. Macdonald, said the firm of Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. were never trustees for the Loves, but they were agents for them, and collected some rcntsfor them. He remembered the agreement of October 23, 1905, for" tho sale of property at Waiwetu. He thought tho matter over, and decided to have nothing to do with the transaction. Ho understood that the sale prices was te be £6500. Did you know of any quasi-trustee-ship, or anything of the kind? —"I knew that Mr. Macdonald was acting under somo power as a trustee, or agent, or attorney, or something." Did you tell Mr. Macdonald that you objected to the transaction?—" Yes." And,tho. salo was not proceeded with? —"No." "•" Do you know whether,, up to that time, your firm or Mr. Macdonald had boon in negotiation with the Crown about this property ?—"There was somo mention of it, but nothing definite at that time. Somo suggestions wero made." By whom?—"l could not tell you. Nothing definite was done." Were the authorities interviewed by you or Mr. Macdonald prior to this agreement to sell?—"I don't remember." Commission at 5 Per Cent. Witness further said that after the abandonment of the agreement with the Loves, Mr. Macdonald and he entered into negotiations with the Land Purchase Board, , and an area of 23 acres 1 rood 22 perches was sold to tho Crown for £6075. The price wa-s based upon the price obtained shortly before for some adjacent land,which was sold at, £250 an acre. The Loves wero left with 29 acres across the river, of which 8 were flat and the rest on the hills. The Government also agreed that when- tho subdivision took place there should be provision for access to the Loves' land. Macdonald, Wilson and Co.'s commission was 5 per cent. —£303 155., and half of that was paid to Mr. Morrison for his assistance in the negotiations for the sale to the firm. But he had to sue you for that?— "Yes, he had?' And I think you and Mr. Macdonald said Mr. Morrison' had not assisted you, but the jury decided in his favour? —"The . arrangement was , between him and Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Macdonald said ho had not agreed "to pay Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Morrison said he had." But you charged. commission on the sale before Mr. Morrison's claim came in?—" Yes. I think so." Witness said tho usual commission was 5 per cent, on the first £100 or £200, and 2i per cent, thereafter, but on sales of' Native land, it took 5 per cent, to repay an agent for the trouble taken. There was a good deal of bother in this case. Mr. Skerrett: Are we inquiring as to tho commission charged to Mrs. Love? I think it goes to prejudice. Mr. Myers: I have no desire to prejudice. Mr. Skerrett. Then why do it? : • Mr. Myers: I think the questions are proper ones. You say you were charging commission for procuring advances, and you got 5 per cent, on the sale. Did that go into the partnership fund? —"Yes. It became part, of the partnership moneys." '. Dissolution of 'Partnership. What became of the rest of tho land? —"When tho partnership was dissolved, Mr. Macdonald offered me a lump sum for ray interest in the business. After some discussion, I accepted it, and ho got tho firm's interest in the Loves' land, over which the firm had a mortgage, and he sold tho balance of the property under the power of sale. They owed us a good deal of money." If you had purchased the property for £6500, and had sold 24 acres of it for £6075 to tho Government, that would havo left you the balance of 29 acres for £425? —"Yes. What was dono put tho Loves in a much better position." ■ • • But you, not liking the transaction, withdrew from it, and then the 24 acres were sold for £6075?—" Yes." Whose idea'was it that the property should bo sold to you?—" The Loves' and Mr. Macdonald's, so far' as I know." It was not your idea?—"lt was suggested to me." Some Interesting Figures. Mr. J. D. Ritchie (chairman of tho Land Purchase Board) produced a letter in which Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. offered the property to the Government, at a price to bo arranged. On September 1, 1905, the Prime iliuistei instructed the board to.

negotiate for the purchase of the land, which Mr. Seddon said was in tho hands of Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. On September 7 Mr. Caverhill submitted a report in which he valued the property at £250 per acre for 24 acres. On October 10 tho board recommended that tho 24 acres should be purchased at £250 per acre. Four days later Cabinet apS roved. On November 11 Messrs. Maco'nald, Wilson" and Co. informed Mr. Barron that they wore prepared to sell on behalf of Mrs. Love the whole property, 52} acres, for £800. In a further valuation on November 20 Mr. Cavorhill valued tho whole of the fiat land at £150 per acre and the hilly land at the rate of £2 per acre. The board recommended tho purchase of the pioperty at £6280, and not more than £6400. Ultimately 24 acres were purchased for £6075. Mr. J. L. Morrison, land agent, Petone, was the next witness. He said that he know of an arrangement be-tween-the Loves and Mr. Macdonald in 1905 under which the latter collected the rents, etc. He obtained au agreement from Mrs. Love to sell to Mr. Wilson, on Octobor 23. Mr. Macdonald instructed him in regard to the agreement on October 22. He did not know that the Crown had made an offer. The price which Mr. Wilson was to pay. the Loves was £6500. At this stage the committee adjourned till this evening. With the object of clearing up a point Mr. Myers, before tho proceedings began last night, referred'to a portion of the press reports of the proceedings on the previous evening. He said that Mr. Skerrett was reported as having said that the commission that was paid to Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson and Co. on the Nai.Nai transaction was paid through the office of his firm. He (Mr. Myers)' wished to say that ho had looked into the flatter and had found that there was ho justification for that statement. No payment was made through his firm. Mr.' Skerrett declared that what he had said was that the transaction consisting of the sale by Mr. Loigh to the Government was completed in the office of Messrs. Bell, Gully, Bell, and Myers, and that th» purchase money was received by them, acting, of course, on behalf of Mr. Leigh. He could not imagine even if he had said that at Mr. Leigh's request a cheque was issued by Messrs. Bell, Gully, Bell, and Myers for commission that would have involved any reflection on Messrs. Bell, Gully, Bell,' and Myers.