THE NINE CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 14511, 1 November 1910, Page 4

THE NINE CHARGES

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE. TJIE OASIS of MR SYMES.

; (From Qdr Pabliajiuntarv Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 1. The Hine Committee of the Lower House mot this morning tf> inquire into the charge agajnst Mr Walter Symes. Mr M. Myers appeared for Mr nine, and Mr Syipes was represented by Mr Skerrett and Mr Sharp, Henry Otterson, clerk to tho House of Representatives, called’by Mr Myers, said ho had in his pustody a petition presented by Mr Symes in 1905 and 1906 on behalf of cei’ta| n West Coast, lessees. A petition by George Johnson and sixteen others was presented on the 15th August, 1905, praying for a refund of sums paid by them in connection with the West Coast lease awards. In September the M to Z Public Petitions Committee reported having no recommendation to make. This report was referred back to tho Committee on Mr Sy nes’s motion, and on October 12 the Committee reported again, recommending the petition to the Government for faiorable consideration. Mr Symes presented two petitions in 1906, praying for refunds of money paid to uplift the award under the Native Lenses Act. One was from Mr George Hutchison, the other from Mr I* 1 . B. Lysaght and throe others. Tho A to L Public Petitions Committee referred both these petitions to the Government for favorable consideration.

* In reply to Sir Joseph Ward, Mr Otterson said the A to L Committee of 1906 consisted of. Messrs Symes, Hall, Lewis, Lethbridge, Lawry, 11. M'Kenzic, Remington, Gray, Wood, and the Hon. J. A. Millar. Mr Lawry was chairman. The M to Z Committee consisted of the Hon. C. H. Mills, Messrs Allison, Buddo, Davoy, Fowlds, W. Fraser, Kidd, Rhodes, Rutherford, end Smith. Mr Buddo was chairman.

Witness, to Mr Millar, said it was usual for members, when they received an unfavorable report, to move to have it referred back to the Committee.

Mr Skerrett said it was common ground between himself and Mr Myers that the ground of tho petitions of 1906 was exactly the same as that of 1905.

Bryan Ciithb&'t Lysaght, farmer, near Hawera, said he was one of the executors of tho will of his late father, James Richard Lysaght, who died about seven years ago.' His father and a number of other West Coast lessees surrendered their leases in expectation of getting new valid leases. His father had been to tho expense of £347 5s 4d in connection with an award concerning these leases, which had proved abortive. About sixty to one hundred lessees were placed in the same position. He and his brother, as co-trustees, desired to obtain a refund of this money, and signed a petition to Parliament in 1905. He received £347 5s 4d from tho Government. Subsequently he received a communication from Symes as follows: Executors of James R. Lysaght’s estate, Hawera. Dr to Walter Symes, Stratford. To commission, at 5 per cent., for procuring £547 ss, amount of costs paid for lifting an award under the West Coast confirmed leases, £l7 7s 3d. The commission includes stamps, telegrams, stationery, and. time devoted-in hunting up documents and evidence, preparing tho petition, attending before the Petitions Committee, and giving evidence nt length on two occasions. Stratford, 30th

March, 1906. Mr Myers: D ; d you pay it? W’itness: No. Mr Myers: Did you receive any further communication from Symes? Witness: Yes, I got a letter as follows : Stratford, 20th April, 1806. Executors J. R. Lysagbt’s Estate, Hawera. Dear sirs,—l omitted mention in my claim for commission and expenses incurred that tho whole of the work, oven send ing your claim to tho Government and getting it before the Cabinet, was done by myself; and although you have long since received the amount of your claim (£347 5s 4d), my small but just claim of £l7 7s 3d, sent you a month ago, has so far been ignored. Had you pcrfoimcd a like service for myself, and made a similar claim, I would have sent you a cheque by return post, with a letter of thanks, but apparently all men are not built on the same lines. I would not again undertake work or render similar service (to say nothing of out-of-pocket expenses) for double the amount of my claim. My business is insurance and general agency, and I caimot afford to work for nothing; and as I have rendered service and incurred expense in successfully getting refunded to you £347 5s 4d, which you had long ago written off; as irrecoverable, I expect my claim to be paid. So far Messrs P. Wilson and T. Frero are the only lessees who have \md my claim and thanked me for getting a refund of the money they had long ago given up as past recovery. I shall bo glad for cheque by return post.— Yours truly, Walter Symes. Witness also received this letter : Stratford, July 28, 1906. B. Lysaght, Esq., Executor late J. It. Lysaght’s Estate.

Sir,—My claim against tho abovementioned estate for £l7 7a 3d, date 20th March last, for getting refunded to the estate arbitration costs incurred in 1889, of £M7 5s 4d, also my letters to you of 20th April and Juno 1 still remain unanswered : in fact, the whole matter has bean treated by you in a most discourteous manner. Apparently yon mean the estate of your late father to benefit at my expense, for you did nothing beyond signing the petition, which was prepared at my expense. Your claim was forwarded by me to the proper quarter. You forgot when sending your claim to mo to put sufficient postage on, and I had to pay the deficiency and penalty, but this is probably one of your ways of making money. Don’t forget your own claim is not yet paid, neither is that of your brother, F. Lysaght, and I hold the key of the position. I alone have all the information, and at the proper time shall know how to use it. You have treated me with discourtesy, but probably you cannot help it. All tho other lessees to whom I sent a claim have paid cheerfully. I am preparing a petition for those lessees who did not sign the last one for presentation this session, but I will take good caro your ungontlemanly conduct is rewarded by keeping your name off, also that of your brother. Witness continued.: He was the West Coast lessee himself. Later on his brother signed tho petition, Subsequently witness applied to the Government for a refund in connection with bis lease, and for a refund of £4O. To Mr Skerrott; lie was not aware that Mr Symos personally conducted very expensive litigation in connection with the leases and acquired a great deal of information in connection with the leases. Witness knew Johnson, who was regarded as a sort of manager of claims. If ho made a reasonable arrangement the lessees would have felt bound to carry it out. He was not aware that Symes was to get anything for presenting the petition. Prior to February, 1906, Mr Moore was a co-executor with himself, but he did not know whether Moore had been in communication with Johnson after Parliament had recommended tho claims of the lessees and Government had decided to grant them. Each lessee had to make his individual ctainpiu proper form, supported by vouchers snowing tho payment made for abortive- arbitration. He was not aware whether most of the claimants had lost many vouchers and memos. He was not aware that Johnson was acting on his behalf and on that of others. He h;id arrangecUwith Byrnes to collect tho amount for them, and charge 5 per cent, commission. Ho wpuld not have considered this a fair and reasonable arrangement, because bn did not consider Symes entitled to commission. Ho (witness) was not a constituent of Mr Byrnes. Mr Skomitt : Then why should he collect your money for you? . If you had gone to your lawyer you would have had to i

/Wityew: Bi ffiigM nofe bftve been neoes-' saxy to pay a lawyer.—(Laughter.) Mr Skerrett: Will you swear your ooexecutor Moore did not go to Caplin and instruct him tp tak° to get his amount front thp Treasury- _ Witness: I lio-vo no xecollfection of it. Mr Skerrett; Did you not know that Caplin had not sufficient information, and referred the matter to Johnson? Witness: Ho may have done so. Mr Skerrett: And Johnson in turn asked Symes to collect the amount? Witness; Ido not know that.' Mr Skerrett; What caused yon to give the letters to Mr Hine? Was it pure affection? Witness: Not exactly. I thought Mr Symes was trying to obtain an amount from mo to which ne was not entitled, and I handed the letters to Mr Hine. Mr Skerrett: Do you know if they were published in the Stratford papers? Witness: Farts of them. Mr All of them except the letter ot 20th April were published throughout the Stratford electorate. Witness: Parts of them.

Mr Skerrett: Then this is no new matter to the public? It was known and published throughout the last General Election campaign? Witness: Yes.

To Sir Joseph Ward: He had made no representations to the Government concerning the receipt of the letter from Mr Symes asking for commission. The £347 4d was not forwarded to him through Symes. He received payment of £4O on a' separate claim on a lease of his own. This also was paid direct from the Government department, and not through Symes. To Mr Millar; He had employed no agent to act for him in obtaining the refund.

To Mr Massey; He had not heard, prior to receiving the account from Symes, that that gentleman intended to make a charge for pressing the petitioner's claims in Parliament.

To Mr Allen: Ho remembered no difficulties in connection with presenting the claims on'bebaJE of bis father’s estate. William Wilson, farmer, Patea, gave evidence that the petition promoted on behalf of himself and Mr P. ITrero for refunds in connection with the West Coast leases had been favorably considered. He aoplied to the Government direct for payment of £l9B 10b, which had been paid. Mr Myers asked whether the witness had seen Mr Symes prior to the presentation of the petition. Witness : “1 could not say.” Witness added that he received a letter from Mr Symes demanding commission, which was paid by cheque on March 24, 1906. To Sir Joseph Ward : He had not paid commission to any Government officer. To Mr Massey : The sum paid to Mr Symes was £9 18s 6d, being S per cent, of the refund.

Joseph George Haddon, solicitor, said that in 1905-07, for about nine months, he had been practising with Mr George Hutchison. A claim had bean made by Mr Hutchison for £134 15s, being the amount paid by him to uplift one of the leases, and also for £125, the costs of defending the action, which proved abortive. Ho put in a letter signed by Messrs Haddon and Hutchison to Mr Symes requesting him to give his aid in securing refunds of both sums. In consideration of the time and trouble to which he might bn put, the firm offered him 10 per cent, of both amounts. The reply of Mr Symes was that the offer of 10 per cent, was insufficient, being merely equal to tho fee for an ordinary debt collector. Ho suggested 20 per cent. 'Jbe firm answered eventu ally that they would be willing to pay 5 per cent, on'the larger claim and 15 per cent, on the smaller one. Mr Myers read another letter from Mr Symes in which he said: “ The claims could be settled or otherwise, and it would be otherwise if his terms were not agreed to. lam not using this as a threat,” ho added, “ but I will not lift a' finger to lift the above claims under 20 per cent, each.” Several similar letters passed between witness and Mi Svmes. Letters were read respecting Mr Hutchison’s lease. Witness received £134 15s' from the Government, and paid Mr Symes £6 15s on behalf of Mr Hutchison, who was then out of the country. This was in August, 1908. Cross-examined by Mr Skerrctt, witness said lie did not think there was anything improper on his jwrt in suggesting payment of a commission to Mr Symes % Mr Symes did not send an account. \\it-ness forwarded a cheque which was received by Mr Symes without demur. Sid*Joseph Ward: Do you suggest, that Mr Symes’s influence with tho Government was responsible for getting tho. payment of £134? Witness: No. To Mr Massey: Witness never thought of anv influence which Mr Symes might exert 'with tho Government when lie suggested payment, and later on when he got a letter from Mr Symes he thought that there might be something of the kind. My Mvers (to Mr Millar): Me do not suggest it was the duty of members of 1 ailiament to attend to the private business of their constituents. Thei payment to Mr Svines, he suggested, was one which lie might make to any agent or solicitor. Tho Committee hero adjourned to liiwsday, at 10.30 a.m.