STARK PURCHASE COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7772, 19 October 1886, Page 3

STARK PURCHASE COMMISSION.

—■ ■» The sittings of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the purchase of property belonging to Mr. Stark on the North Shore, were resumed yesterday in the publie room of the Harbour Board. The commissioners were the Hon. Colonel Haultain (presiding), Judge Harvey, and Mr. Weatenra. Mr. Laishley (for Messrs. Devore and Cooper) appeared for the Vigilance Committee, Mr. O'Meagher for Mr. Stark, and Mr. Chapman (for Mr. Button) watohed the proceedings on behalf of the Government. There were also present Messrs. Seaman, Alison, Chambers (secretary of the Vigilance Committee), Brewer, Jeune, and others. In considering the question of the witnesses to be summoned for the following day, Mr. Laishley asked that Mr. Tanner should be ordered to produce the valuation roll of Devonport, and that Mr. Burgess should produce the rate book for the last six years. Instructions were given accordingly. Mr. Laishley asked that Sir Julius Vogel, who was to be summoned as a witness, should be instruoted to produce any documents in his possession bearing on the sale. The Chairman said he believed Sir Julius Vogel would not be able to attend personally at the inquiry there ; but if they considered that his evidence was material the Commission would adjourn to Wellington to take it there. The committee could either give the committee a list of questions to which they wished an answer to be given, or they could employ counsel to examine witnesses in Wellington on their behalf. Mr. Laishley said he was not awsre that the commis.iou had power to sit in any other place than Auckland. The Chairman said they could obtain the power if necessary. Mr. Laishley said it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the committee if the commission were adjourned to Wellington. The Chairman said they could obtain power for the adjournment from the Governor. Mr. Laishley might be aware that they had no power to summon a witness who lived more than 200 miles away from the "place of sitting. Unless they considered the evidence of Sir Julius Vogel absolutely necessary, the Commission would not adjourn to Wellington, but they would do so if it were specially wished. Mr. Laishley said he would like to leave the matter until next day, and then give the Commission an answer. Mr. Westenra said they were aware that Sir Julius Vogel had undergone an operation, and could not attend there. They could examine him at Wellington, and the committee could be represented by counsel, or state such questions as they wished to be answered. The matter was left to Mr. Laishley to mention again next morning. Mr. J. C. King said he had bought an acre of land opposite to Mr. Stark's. There was an acre 13 perches, with about 235 feet frontage. He gave £295 for the lot just about the same time as Mr. Stark's property was sold to the Government. It was eighteen months ago that he bought the property. Judge Harvey said it was advertised in March 31, 18S5, that the Government intended to take Mr. Stark's property. By Mr. O'Meagher : He purchased from Messrs. Hill and Hull. He had paid his money for his purchase and had suffered by it. He had the pick of the block. In 1885 Mr. Seaman put a valuation of £395 on the property, but he objected, and it was reduced to £295. He considered his land was as well situated as Mr. Stark's, though there had been a swamp at the back. There was still plenty of mud there, but so there was in Queen-street. He had been offered £100 profit on his purchase, perhaps three months ago, but did not accept it. He had also been offered £2 a foot frontage for 235 feet, but it was not a positive offer. It was made by Mr. T. L. White, who said he thought he could find a purchaser. That was about twelve months ago. By the' Chairman : He said he had to suffer because there was a deficiency in the quantity of land he got according to the stated measurement, Mr, Alfred Ash ton said the last advertise' ment he could find, put by him in the Herald, was on the 31st January, 1884. He could not positively state that that was the last advertisement. Mr. Stark was frequently in after that. Mr, Josiah Martin, photographer, pro-, duced a photograph of a plan of Mr. Stark's property taken in April, 1885, by Mr. Stark's instructions. By Mr. Laishley : Mr. Stark did not say what he wanted the photograph for. He said nothing about a sale to trie Government, but he said it would increase the value of the land very materially, if it were cut up, in the way of compensation. Witness had said it was a pity to cut up such a nice piece of land into allotments. Mr. Stark gave him the impression that he did not intend to cut it up, Mr. E. Hartley, architect, said the cost of Mr. Stark's house was £1492 18s lOd, which was paid to the original contractor. The total cost, with extras, would be about £1700, inoluding stable. The other outbuildings, not in the contract, would cost about £100, and there was fencing, chaining, planting, with other extras, which would bring up the total amount to £2150. By Mr. Laishley : He had supplied the information as to the cost of the house before that gentleman sent the valuation to Wellington. By Mr. O'Meagher: He was not desirous of giving evidence, and would rather have been about his own business. He never authorised Mr. Mitchelson to say that he was desirous of giving evidence. Mr. Mitchelson had Bent for him, and he had given him the information he had. It was not correct to say that he was desirons of giving evidence. Mr. Stark and also Mrs. Stark were elated with the sale having been effected. They said they had made a mistake in building such a large place. By Mr. Seaman: He had never heard that the drainage of Mr. Stark's property had cost £500 or £600. He valued the property of Mr. Stark at £200 per acre. He did not know what price had been obtained for Mr. Hammond's or Professor Thomas's property. He did not know that property round about had sold for £1300 to £2000 per acre. That was not the value of the property, though people might choose to give a fancy price. In 1885 Mr. Seaman's valuation was accepted by the Devonport Road Board and the Borough Council. At the Road Board they had not seen the valuation of Mr. Seaman when they agreed to take it. They had agreed to take him as their valuator, as he was the Government valuator, before seeing his valuation, They did that because they thought Mr. Tanner was giving a low valuation for Messrs. Stark and Alison's property. He believed Mr. Seaman had made fair valuations generally. By Mr. Laishley : The valuations of Mr. Tanner were considered low, and it was treely spoken of in Devonport that he favoured Messrs, Stark and Alison by valuing their properties low. By Mr, Alison : He advocated Mr. Seaman's valuations as against Mr. Tanner's, Although Mr. Alison objected to that of Mr. Seaman as being too high. Mr. Samuel Vaile (Vaile and Douglas), in inswer to Mr. Laishley, said he was aware )f the evidence given by him at Wellington, ind was prepared to confirm it. The Chairman said the Commission had letermined not to recognise the evidence ;aken at Wellington, so if Mr. Laishley wished to elicit it he mast put the questions leparately. Mr. Laishley then put the substance of mestions answered by Mr. Vaile at Weiington, and answers in accordance with lis previous evidence were given by that gentleman. He valued land all round at £130 an aore, and the total value of the mprovements were about £2000. Properties it North Shore were put at purely specula live prices. Looking »t the plan of the property out up into allotments, he said he lid not think it possible to sell them in that way, even at any time. It was ridiculous . bo put them at the price of £5 per foot \ frontage. Nor could even half of £16,000 i have been obtained for the property. , Mr. S. Percy Smith, assistant surveyorgeneral, said he bad received instructions from the Government to mark off the site < for the battery at Takapuna Point, on the ' 17th' Marob, 1685. He proceeded to the J work very shortly afterwards, when Mr. ] Stark was in hio house. He sent Mr. Stark ' i formal notice on April 2, that he was ' going to the survey site. Mr. Stark replied j on the 4th of April. The letter expressed > thanks to Mr. Smith for his courtesy, j ind also a hope that defence works would J not be required on his property, and that he [Mr. Stark) might be allowed to enjoy his .< aouae in peace, The answer was to th <

following effect:— " Fernoliff, Devonport— April 4, 1885— S. Percy Smith, Esq., assistant surveyor-general. Dear Sir, — am muoh obliged for your courteous letter I of the 2nd April re your surveyors intending » entering my grounds for the purpose of making surveys for defence purposes. 1 ! believe you can quite understand how the matter was overlooked during last week's * scare. I, therefore, aooept your letter, ) thanking you for the courtesy it shows me. , I hope there will be no necessity for the defence works further than those in course of construction at the North Head, and that 1 1 may be left to enjoy my home in peace. — ' am, &o„ R. A. M. Stark. JP.S.— Mr. Wil- • lianas was careful to put us to no inconveni- ' enoe, and showed every consideration for my property.—R. A. M. S." Witness was not on the ground himself to conduot the ' survey. ) Mr. Hales, District Engineer, in the 1 Government Works Department, said he had instructions on the 12th of December, 18S5, ! to put men on to work at the battery at Takapuna Head. He did so on the 17th. He sent notice to Mr. Stark on the 14th but, received no reply. Mr. Vaile was then further examined by Mr. O'Meagher on the evidence he had given at Wellington, and fully adhered to the statements he had then made as to the value of property at the North Shore. With i respect to his evidence that sometimes property was offered for sale by a ring of speculators and that sometimes a high price was offered by one of them. He declined to give . any name as an instance in which that had oo* i ourred. When pressed as to whether he could say if Mr, Alison had ever done so, he said he knew very little about Mr. Alison, but knew nothing at all against him. fie was a keen business man, and one who knew his business. That did not imply anything against him. He said in Wellington that he was engaged as a land speculator, and that he believed Mr. Alison was engaged pretty extensively in some of the rings. He spoke then of general reports. Mr. Alison had since told him that he was not mixed up with any ring, and he believed Mr. Alison. They were unfortunately obliged sometimes to believe in rumours, but he accepted Mr. Alison's statements. When he said at Wellington that he was certain Mr. Alison would sooner have parted with all his teeth than have offered £16,000 for the property he had no idea that such an offer had been made by him. He thought he was defending Mr. Alison in making the statement, as it seemed a most improbable offer for a business man to make. By Mr. Seaman : He had no interest in property at Devonport, and if he had he should not put higher value. He appeared to object to one of Mr. Seaman's valuations in the Court, and the objection was partly sustained. He did say at Wellington that he thought land near Calliope Dock had never, in his opinion, been worth £1 per foot. He had made that statement respecting Mr. Dilworth's land, but then he was under a misapprehension as to its position. He would not have been surprised to learn that a portion had since been sold at £5 a foot, as nothing would surprise him now. By Mr. Alison: He had accepted Mr. Alison's statements respecting bogus sales having been made by him. He bad already stated that he accepted that contradiction of what witness said at Wellington. By the Commissioners : He would rather have the sum of £13,000 cash than £16,000 on terms, or would even prefer £10,000 unless he had a very substantial buyer, because he should have felt sure that the property would come back upon his hands. He was sure that the value of £16,000 could not be made out of the property. By Mr. O'Meagher: He did not know anything about the plan produced made by the Government after the purchase, and showing what they proposed to do with it. iThe plan showed an estimated division by which the Government would have 5029 feet of frontage, valued at £2 a foot, making £10,058, for the land left after the Government had kept the house, battery, and road. The plan was dated May, 1886 ] The Commission then adjourned until Shis morning.