THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9184, 13 October 1888, Page 5

THE POINT RESOLUTION LAND CASE.

The Royal Commission met again yesterday. Mr. G. S. Kissling deposed that his wife was the present owner of the Point Resolution property. In the beginning of ISSS the Government began operations at Point Resolution, and the day before operations were commenced, Mr. Bell, the engineer, called upon him and informed him, as a matter of courtesy. This was the first intimation lie received upon the subject. He (Mr. Kissling) wrote to the Government asking what their intentions were. On the advice of his solicitors he made a formal claim, which resulted in an action being brought for trespass against the Government. This action was strangled by an Act which was passed. Witness did not think that he and Mr. Mackay in their interviews went into the question of compensation at all. Subsequently, after several interviews with Mr. Brewer, witness claimed compensation to the extent of £2500. He had previously been informed that the Government, had the idea of taking the whole of the property, and ho asked Mr. Brewer if it could be arranged that the Government should hand him (Mr. Kissling) back the freehold. Witness gave evidence respecting Mr. Waymouth's valuation, and conversation with Mr. Upton on the matter. Subsequently witness saw Mr. Brewer, and they made an arrangement as set forth in witness's letter of the 20th November. In making that arrangement Mr. Brewer said the Government must understand What fixed sum they would be liable for, and that the trustees' interest might be brought before a comrjensation court. Witness told Mr. Brewer that if any compensation court allowed the trustees more than £652 he would pay that. He did not remember having made a claim for £5000. If there was such a claim it might have been made with the view of a surrender of the whole of the lease. Dr. Giles read a memorandum to the effect that on the 23rd July, 18S5, Mr. Kissling claimed £5000 for land actually taken, 3 roods and 13 perches, and for damage done to the rest of the property. In answer to Dr. Giles, witness said he considered that the letter he handed to the trustees conveyed the meaning that whatever land was not required for defence purposes was to be handed back to witness. By Mr. Mahony: Mr Brewer appeared to be driving as hard a bargain as he could on behalf of the Government. By Mr. Napier : Witness claimed so much for land taken, and £1000 for improvements. He told Mr. Brewer that he claimed £2500 for property taken and for damage done to property. He believed Major Cautley told him (witness) that about an acre of the land would be required for defence purposes. This was two or three months before the arrangement with Mr. Brewer. There was no question about it that he knew the amount of land which was to be taken when he made the claim for £2500, but he could not say that he knew that the Government contemplated taking any more. He did not know whether it was he or Mr. Brewer who suggested that the Government should take the whole of the land under the Public Works Act, and re-convey 3 acres and 2 roods to witness or to Mrs. Kissling. They both discussed the legality and possibility of such an . arrangement. It certainly did not strike him that the Government were acting wrongly in the arrangement with Brewer, nor did he know that, in order to get the land, the Government would have to make a number of false statements, both by proclamation or otherwise. He did not know that the Government could take only so much land as was necessary for the work. He did not think Mr. Brewer raised any question as to the valuation of £6000. Witness had not had a doubt that Mr. Upton was aware from the letter which he (Mr. Kissling) showed him, that witness was to get back 3£ acres of land. The matter was general talk at the clubs and elsewhere. Witness was further cross-exa-mined ab some length, but no fresh information was elicited. Dr. Giles stated that this was the whole of the evidence, and the Commission then adjourned till Monday, when counsel will be heard.