THE STARK PURCHASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7926, 31 July 1886, Page 5

THE STARK PURCHASE.

CURIOUS DISCLOSURES. [By Telegraph.] [from our special correspondent.] WELLINGTON, July 30. The evidence taken before the Stark Purchase Committee is far more interesting reading than the average sensational novel, and brings to light some very surprising facts. The evidence is not yet completed, but I make the following abstract of the earlier portion. I find from the evidence of Mr Sperrey, that the Property tax valuation in 1882 was £4500, and in 1885 it had actually increased to £15,000. He says he knew nothing of Brewer's valuation of £17,000, and added that Brewer was not an officer of his department. He considers the value of land in Auckland has fallen the valuation. Mr Mitchelson, under examination, gave it as his opinion that the value of the land at the time was about £BOOO. As far as he was able to judge, the whole thing was a cleverly arranged conspiracy to defraud Government. The ugliest feature he could see in the case was that one of the principal conspirators in the transaction, who is partner in land transactions with Stark, was appointed reviewer for that particular locality. Through him a bonus offer was made to Stark, and Mr Mitchelson submits a letter from Dacre in which the writer says he advised Stark that the property could not be sold in small lots. According to a plan drawn up they then made the offer of £15,000, which was declined. Mr Leaman then valued the property, Stark not objecting, and Dacre proceeds to say Leaman would just as soon have put it down at £20,000, his valuation being excessive. The house was a very poor concern. Stark could not have got more than one half the price paid from outside persons, and the Government need not have purchased the whole property. From a letter written by Mr Philcox to Mr Mitchelson I find Stark originally purchased the property for £ISOO. The house and other improvements cost £2IOO. Stark only had it four and a half years.. In 1883 Stark authorised Ashton to sell the house, &c, and five acres for £3OOO, and Ashton reports that there was never the slightest chance to sell them. Mr Philcox, in 1884, says:—"ln March, 1884, E. W. Alison, Stark's partner, offered Roberts 10 acres containing all buildingß and improvements for £3500, or the buildings and five acres for £3000." Other offers are referred to, and Mr Philcox continues :—" I observe that an offer of £16,000 was made for the property. It is asserted that the person who made this offer was no other than the partner of Stark, the notorious E. W. Alison, who was also made Property tax reviewer for the district, thus adding insult to injury." The properties of Professor Thomas, Mrs Burgess and Mr Hammond are quoted in Mr Mitchelson's further evidence as to its being for sale at a lower price. Mr Mitchelson said there was great dissatisfaction at Allison's appointment as valuer. He had heard that Stark was a probable candidate for Mr Hurst's seat. The Minister of Puolic Works throws light on the commencement of the negotiations. He says when he went to Auckland a Government officer waited on him and told him heavy claims would be made for damage caused to Stark's property, and Stark, who was a stranger, called himself, and said nothing would induce him to take less than £20,000 for it. He told Brewer to prepare himself to go into the Compensation Court, and he said if he did his evidence would be to the effect that the property* was worth not less than £17,500,. Mr Richardson then took steps to ascertain the Property tax valuation, and found it was £15,500. He spoke confidentially to other gentlemen, who told him this was a fair value. With the consent of his colleagues he offered £17,100, and said I

Government would not pay more. Next day Stark accepted the offer. Mr S. Vaile, land agent, in his evidence, refers to the existence of a land ring in Auckland. He says one ring buys land which they themselvc s put in the market, at high figures; that they submit to an excessive Property tax valuation for purposes of catching the unwary. He knew of a valuation of £9 per foot being paid on land near Calliope Dock, where it was not worth £1 per foot. Land had been receding in value in Auckland for the last year or so. He could see nothing to warrant the valuation of £15,600 put on Stark's property in 1885. No respectable chimney sweep would have put the price paid, £17,100, on the property. He declined an offer by Stark to take the property in hand for sale, and believed the price then quoted was .£SOOO or £6OOO. This, like many others of Leaman's valuations, was a very wild one. Mr Z. Leaman, land agent and land and mortgage property tax valuator; said it was in the Borough of Devonport, about a mile from the wharf. An error occurred in valuation-in 1882, as the amount for the whole property stood in his note-book at .£7500. The Devonport Board did not, however, accept the valuation that year. He thought the house and 28 acres worth in 1882 from .£5700 to £5900. Both Quick and Stark asked to have their properties | valued before they went to England, and he consented to do so. , -Property in the district had more than doubled in value in three years, and consequently in 1885 he valued it at £15,600. When he told Stark he thought the fair valuation was £16,000, Stark said he could not accept it, and offered to show him an Offer of £16,000 which he had received for it. Stark also told him if he liked hecould make the valuation £16,000. but this he declined to do. Mr May, Chairman of the County Council, told him he and other gentlemen had seen an offer of £16,000 in writing from W. Cochrane. He thought the decline in the ,price of land only a ternporary one. There was a great deal of bitterness between the Ferry Company Directors, Stark and Alison representing one section, and Edson, Philcox and Bartley the other section. He bad reason to doubt the statement that bogus sales were got up in Auckland for the purpose of fixing future prices of land. He believed that Stark's property, if cut up, would have realised £2 10s per foot. He had valued it. He believed it was Stark's intention to contest Mr Hurst's seat at the time Mr Bichardson inspected the property. He valued the, land at Calliope Dock, and believed some of it was valued nearly as high as £9 per foot. Alison Bros, had some land there valued at £7 per foot. He had heard of dissatisfaction at Alison being reviewer. He thought Stark's property was worth £4OO per acre. Mr W. Alison deposed that he was one of the reviewers, but did not seek the appointment. He was Stark's agent, but a solicitor now held his power of attorney. He was not interested in the land sold to Government, which had nothing to do with the land that he and his brother held jointly with Stark. Several gentlemen (he believed they were from Australia) authorised him to offer £450 per acre for seven acres of the property at the Narrow Neck. He had no hesitation in saying that it was untrue that nearly every agent in town had had the property in hand for sale. He never knew Stark to offer the property at all for sale. He had only laughed at the offer of £450 per acre, and expressed surprise at his making it. The offer of £16,000 was not for a Syndicate, but for his brother and himself. They proposed to pay £2OOO cash, and the balance in five years at five per cent. They knew then that Government required the property for | defence purposes, and that it would also be a good speculation for residences. He did believe Stark till this, day. Knew who made the offer of £16,000. He was the actual purchaser of the land. He bought at Calliope Point. They bought Beveral acres, and in February, 1884, sold one-half the property for upwards of what they paid for the whole. In arriving at his offer of £16,000, he allowed for 5000 ft of frontage, at a selling.value of £2 10s per foot, which would equal £12,500, after the battery site was taken out. He estimated £BSOO as the value of the battery site, allowing two acres of land with the residence. This makes £21,000. They allowed £IOOO for interest, so that a profit of £4OOO would be shown. Stark and himself had been joint purchasers in the speculations. It was untrue that he offered ten acres of Stark's property to Roberts for £3500. Philcox, in making such a statement, must have been animated by animosity to himself, and a desire to injure him. Stark divided his furniture between Coleman and his brother, probably from motives of friendship. Stark's property was the finest in Auckland, without exception. He would not believe anything Ashton said in this connection, because he was antagonistic to P. Stark. He could not credit the statement to the effect that they had offered 20 acres of property for sale without the house in 1883 for £SOOO. He would not credit Eingsford's statements. He believed the offer to Ross was £3500 for the house and five acres. He could not credit the offer to Mr E. Bayley. He and his brother made the offer to Stark through an agent, because tbey had been so successful in their speculation that the knowledge of the mere fact that they were after a property increased the value of it.