THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9180, 9 October 1888, Page 6

THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND INQUIRY.

The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the taking of certain land at Point Resolution by fche Government, asrain met yesterday morning at fche Harbour Board offices. Dr. Giles, R.M., and Colonel Roberts were the Commissioners. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the orphans and others interested in the conservation of the trust, Mr. E. Hesketh for the Trust Board, and Mr. E. Mahony for Mr. S. Kissling. The evidence of Mr. Thos. Mackay, given at the previous sitting, was read by the secretary, Mr. W. Berry, jun. Mr. Mackay was cross-examined by Mr. Napier, and deposed that when he gave the estimate for £1250 he was under fche impression that there was a claim for consequential damage by reason of the battery being placed so near the house, and by the curtailment of the grounds. The estimate was made before fche Act of 1885 was passed, defining what damages were to be considered in land taken for defence purposes. Presuming the Acfc had been passed, and section G brought under his notice when his estimate was made, the amount would have been modified. He had no knowledge of the Bill until the sitting of the Court. During the conversation witness had with Mr. Kissling and his solicitor, nothing was broached respecting a desire on the part of Mr. or Mrs. Kissling to become possessed of the freehold. By Dr. Giles: He doubted whether fche increase in the value of the land in 48 years would be very much. Mr. Cochrane's evidence was read, and Mr. Cochrane was cross-examined by Mr. Hesketh, and said that in this instance, in making the calculation previously mentioned, he dealt with the present, and nofc with the prospective, value of the property. By Mr. Mahony : There was a restriction on the block of which this was a part, that the buildings erected there for forty-eight years must be private dwellings, with not more than one building on each lot. By Mr. Napier : Until the Board passed the resolution accepting £632, they were nob awaro of any negotiations in progress for the transfer of tho balance of the property to Mr. Kissling. The question never was discussed afc the Board as to whether the property should be taken back or not. There was no discussion at the Board meetings as to whether the Government intended to convey the freehold to Mrs. Kissling, and he was nofc aware what the feeling of the Board was on the subject. He did nofc know what the value of the land was ab the time at which it was granted by Sir George Grey. He did not see that there was any other way of properly estimating tho growth in value of the interests of the trusts than by taking a sum which, in 48 years, would yield the present value of the land. The construction of the tunnel would deteriorate the value of the land as residential sites, but he knew that there was an agitation to build a railway station at Parnell. He made his estimate on the supposition of fche land being suitable only for residential sites; presuming, however, thafc the city extended in that direction the land ought to be considerably increased in value. The trustees did not desire to sell the property before the Government entered upon it for defencepurposes : they had no desire to sell any of their property. Mr. Napier read the following letter, dated November '21st, 1885, and written to C. Y. O'Connor, Under-Secretary for Public Works:—"ln answer to your teleerram of the 19th instant, re land in the occupation of Mr. Kissling, Point Resolution. Sir, when the Hon. the Defence Minister was in Auckland Mr. Kissling went to him, taking a plan of his property, and explained everything. The claim made for Mr. Kissling was £2500 for the piece to be taken, but this was understood to include the Church trustees' interests as well. The property belongs to the latter, but is let on a long lease (40 years of which have yet to run) at a nominal rental. The Minister sent for me and instructed me to settle for the property for less than tho sum claimed, if possible, but to give more sooner than take the case to Court. I had soveral interviews with Mr. Kissling, but he would not take less. I discovered, however, that he was very anxious to get the freehold of the property. Now the trustees cannot sell, although they would like to. 1 suggested that the Government might be asked to take it and hand back tho portion not required, but that he would have to reduce his demand very much. He agreed to this, and I think I shall settle the whole matter for £1750. I am only awaiting a reply from the trustees. This will be a saving of £750. The cost of the whole property will be £6000, and I have a written undertaking from Mr. Kissling thafc he will give the Government £4*250 for the portion not required. The property is a very choice one ; in fact, one of the prettiest spots in Auckland. There are many wealthy men here who would not consider the price if they could get such a place. If we took the case to Court we should certainly lose, so if I settlo the matter on the proposed basis we shall be well out of an awkward claim. There is another small piece belonging to Dr. Philson. This is not settled for yet.— (Signed) H. M. Bbewf.r, Land Purchase Officer." Witness further deposed that, so far as he knew, Mr. Brewer had no authority for stating that the trustees wanted to sell. Mr. Napier read a copy of a telegram from Mr. Kissling, dated July 15, 1888, in which it was alleged that the trustees did know the intention of the Government to transfer the freehold to Mrs. Kissling.

Mr. Cochrane said that as a matter of fact he believed the trustees did not know of this intention. Hβ could not say whether, if they had known that the Government did not require the whole of the land, the Board would have taken steps to get the balance back again. By Mr. Hesketh : There was no idea in the minds of members that Mr. Kissling was to get the freehold of the land. By Mr. Mahony : If the Board's interest had been sold subject to Mr. Kiseling's lease for 48 years it would probably not have realis £632.

Theophilus Kissling, District Land Registrar, depesed that he was brother of Mr. Schwartz Kissling, lessee of the land, and was a member of the General Trust Board at the time at which the Point Resolution transaction took place. When the letter came before the Board from Mr. Brewer, naming the amount of compensation fixed by the Government, it was thought that it would be better to take the offer than to go to the Supreme Court. The trustees were generally agreed upon the report of those members who had checked the calculation as to the value of the Board's interest, and they considered themselves powerless in the matter, sinco tho laud was beiner taken by the Government. Mr. Upton and the Rev. R. Burrows were the members who had made the calculations. Witness had been under tho impression that it was mentioned at the Board that Mr. S. Kissling was to acquire the freehold, but he fancied now thafc he must be mistaken, as the other member* of the Board were unanimously against lhi, j impression. Witness had been told by Ins brother at the time that he was anxious to get part of tho land back, but witness toid him that he could do nothing in the matter, and his brother then went to Mr. Upton, Witness believed his brother went to Mr. Upton before Mr. Brewer's letter was written naming a sum. He (witness) was not aware of any expression of opinion on the part of tho Board that any injustice had been done to tho trust until the question was raised in Parliament by Sir George Grey. The members then expressed their dissatisfaction, not at the Board, but

in general conversation. Witness wrote to the Government urging the settlement of the matter after the Act was passed. This was in hie position as District Land Registrar, and after e\erything was settled except the payment of the money. By Mr. Napier : Witness understood that the Government were going to take tho wholo of the land as the cheapest mode of settling the claims. His brother had informed him that the Government contemplated taking the whole of the land, and that he desired to get a portion of the property back on freehold. Witness was present at the meeting when a letter was read from Mr. Brewer, offering £632 for the Board's interest . That letter did not lead witness to believe that the statement made by his brother was inaccurate. He (witness) had avoided taking any part in the proceedings with reference to this subject because his brother was interested. He thought that the opinion of Mr. Upton,

that the Board should not place any impediment in the way of the Government in a great public emergency, was that generally held by the other members ; but, notwithstanding this, Mr Upton and others disapproved of the transaction. He did not know that the Board would have taken £032 for tho land if they had known as much as subsequently transpired. At the first meeting of the Board at which the matter was mentioned, he did not know that any contract had been made between Mr. Brewer and witness's brother, and he thought he must have heard of it only after tho second meeting. The Board accepted the £632 under the circumstances, thinking that it was the Government they were dealing with. By Mr. Hesketh : He was under the impression that the Government were not bound to return fche land fco fche persons from whom it was taken, if it was not all required by them. The Rev. Robert Burrows deposed that he was a member of the Trust Board when this transaction took place. He remembered that at two meetings there was a general discussion on the subject, Mr. Kissling's letter having introduced the matter. It was not then suggested that the Board did not require the whole of the land. He did not hear that it was intended to convey the freehold to Mr. Kissliug. By Mr. Hesketh : Witness was present at the meeting when the offer was accepted, and he then thought that the whole of the land was wanted for defence purposes, and he also believed thafc if the Government did not want it they could do as they pleased with it; the trust had no power in the matter. The only person that he could remember who made any remarks was Mr. G. P. Pierce, and he did not think that what he said was in direct opposition. By Mr. Mahony : That payment satisfied him that the trust were parting with the land at once and for ever. By Dr. Giles: He did not know that Mr. Kissling had entered into an arrangement with the Government that if the trustees did not accept the £632 he (Mr. Kissling) would re-imburse them the remainder of their claim. By Mr. Napier : If the trustees had known that the greater part of the land was required for Mr. Kissling, the probability was that they would not have accepted the sum of £632. His first intimation that fche Government did not want all of fche land for defence purposes was gleaned from the newspapers ; he might have known this before the money was paid, but the bargain had then 'been concluded. The expression in a letter from Wellington, that " The trustees cannot sell, although they would like to," was not a fact, so far as he (wit ness) was concerned. The statement of Mr. Kissling, telegraphed to Mr. Rees. that it was no secret that the freehold of the land was to be transferred to Mrs. Kissling, was not a fact so far as he wan concerned ;he did not know of it. By Mr. Hesketh : If the Board had known that they could have resisted the Government in taking the land, they would have resisted.

James Dacre, member of the Trust, Board, corroborated the previous evidence as to what had transpired at the Boarrl meetings in reference to this transaction. Witness was one of those who calculated whether £632 was a fair value for the interests of the Trust, and he thought

it was. This was made on a basis of C6OOO as the value, but they did not consider what its value would be in 48 years ; they were bound to its value at the present time. He certainly thought that the Government might have offered the land again to the trustees when they found that it was not wanted. By Mr. Hesketh: He did not know that if the consideration of fche prospective value in 48 years had been allowed he would have fixed a price. Hβ thought the compensation a fair one. Tho land was taken against the wish of the Board, and he believed the Board would have

resisted the Government if they could have done so. By Mr. Napier: The land ought to be very much enhanced in value by the end of 48 years. In 48 years hence the land certainly ought to be worth £1-2,000; but he knew nothing at all as to whether the land could then be

put in the market and sold for £12,000. He knew nothing about that question ; he did not see what they had to do with 48 years hence. Witness was further questioned by Mr. Xapier upon this point, and said that they might be able ro sell the land for £12,000 in 4S years hence. The trust, therefore, had certainly not benefited by the transaction ; but the trustees were nofc to blame. The trustees had never expressed a desire to sell the land, and Mr. Brewer must have been under some misapprehension in writing to the Under-Secretary for Public Works that the trustees would like to sell, but they had not the power to do so. Witness believed that tho trustees would have resisted the taking of the land if they could have done so. So far as he recollected all of the members were under the impression that the land was required for defence purposes. He did not think the Board would have consented to the matter being arranged in tho way it was if they had known all the facts of the case.

At this stage the Commission adjourned until eleven o'clock this (Tuesday) morning.