THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9182, 11 October 1888, Page 6

THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND CASE.

The commission of inquiry met again yesterday, when 'the evidence of Mr. H. M. Brewer was taken. He deposed that in the year 1885 he was in the employ of the Government as Land Purchase Officer, and in the latter part of that year he was engaged by the Government in settling questions connected with the taking of land at Point Resolution. The first communication he got in respect of this matter was from a conversation in the Public Works office, but his first direct instructions came from Mr. Ballance. He did nob see Mr. Mackay about this matter so far as he (witness) remembered after he came to Auckland. Witness was quite unaware of any specific recommendations made to the Government by Mr. -Mackay. Witness did not remember having seen any recommendation by Mr. Mackay that the whole of the land should be taken by proclamation. After his interview with Mr. Ballance, he went to inspect the property, and Mr. Kissling showed him about the place. They had a general talk, and witness said he would see what he could do towards arriving at a settlement. Witness reported to Mr. Ballance that he thought the case was an awkward one, and would involve a considerable amount of compensation, and Mr. Ballance in reply instructed witness to do the best he could in the interests of the Government. It was some time after this till he saw Mr. Kissling again, but several letters passed between witness and Mr. Kissling, and the ultimate agreement arrived at was that the Government should purchase the whole of the land from the General Trust Board, and transfer the piece not required to Mr. Kissling. As far as witness recollected, Mr. Kissling said that lie would like to obtain a re-convey-ance of the land. Witness then telegraphed to Wellington, and obtained a reply from Sir t!eorge Whitmore that full power had been obtained to take the property, and authorising witness to do his best in the matter. At that time witness knew the state of the law in regard to the taking of land, but he overlooked the clause which required that any land not required should be handed back. On the 6th iSovember Mr. Kissling wrote to witness a letter, in which he stated " under your arrangement the land will have to be taken under the Public Works Act, and the balance conveyed to me.'' It did not occur to witness that the trustees should have been offered any balance of the land which was not required for defence purposes. His sole idea in taking the action he did was to enable the Government to get out of an awkward claim, and he thought the arrangement adopted was a very good way of settling it. He subsequently received a telegram from Mr. Ballance approving of his action. A telegram was read by Dr. Giles, which stated that the terms suggested by Mr. Brewer were as follow : —" That the Government. buy the whole property for £GOOO. £1750 will be accepted by Kissling and St. Stephen's trustees in full of all damages. Kissling will retain the balance of this property, paying Government £4250 for it. As Kissling's first claim was £2500, the Government will save £750 by this arrangement, and the trustees will be satisfied." Mr. Ballance had approved of these terms. In answer to Mr. Mahony, Mr. Brewer said that he was under the impression that even if the trustees wished to sell they could not do so, and he was also under the impression that the trustees were not adverse to doing so. He was not swayed in his judgment by Mr. Kissling's interests. In his communications with the trustees he did not withhold any information that he thought they ought to be in possession of. He acted under the impression that the Government had the power to convey the whole, and reconvey part to Mr. Kissling. By Mr. Hesketh : It was owing to an oversight that the balance of the land was not handed back to the trustees. He did not feel it his duty to inform the trustees that Mr. Kissling was to pay more than £632 compensation if more was required, or to inform the trustees that Mr. Kissling was to get back part of the freehold. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Napier, and said the reason he had stated to Mr. Ballance that the claim was an awkward one, was that it would have been a very difficult one to fight in Court. He knew nothing of the Public Works Act Amendment Act of 1885 in this matter; the Act of 1882 was the one he had always gone by. He was of opinion that if the claim had gone into Court, the Government would have had to pay more than £1750. The suggestion that the freehold should be reconvcyed was made, witness believed, by Mr. Kissling. Witness thought this step a good one, as the compensation claim would be reduced. Mr. Kissling and lie were perfect strangers in the matter, and he (witness) received no consideration, either directly or indirectly, apart from his salary, for making this arrangement with Mr. Kissling. He certainly did not know that lie was breaking the law when lie made the arrangement with Mr. Kissling, and they did not think so in Wellington either. He did not consider Mr. Kissling was paid an excessive price. The inquiry adjourned at one p.m. till eleven a.m. to-morrow.