MOKAU LANDS INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15131, 23 October 1912, Page 3

MOKAU LANDS INQUIRY.

A SOLICITOR'S EVIDENCE.

liiY T.i.r,r:r.n.\ru. —-ritESs association.] Wellington-, Tuesday. At the Mokau lands inquiry to-day, C. IT. Tread well, solicitor, who acted professionally for Joshua Jones, said it would be incorrect to suggest that in argument before the full Court, it had been held < hatno impropriety had been alleged on the part of Flower's executors. He did not understand Sir Joseph Waul at certain interviews to make a bargain that the Government should acquire- the fee simple of the land. It was rather stretching facts to say that any definite understanding was given. , The stumbling block all through was the leases. If the freehold was taken for £15.000, the leas©? would have to be taken oompulsorily.

The Committee adjourned until to-ninr row.

A CONFLICT WITH PETITIONER. trtv tklf.gr.vrn.—rnrss association*.] Wki.i.ingtox. Tuesday. During the Mokau lands inquiry to-day, C. 11. Treadwell, solicitor, Wellington, who had acted professionally for Jones, was a witness. When Jones began to examine him, witness got into conflict with him regarding Dr. (now Sir John) Findlay's statement in the Legislative Council that he had refused to set up a commission. Mr. Treadwell said he had no doubt a letter of Ids (produced) correctly stated the position. Ho did not know why Jones should endeavour to bring him into conflict with Sir John Findl.iy or any other person. His evidence before a similar committee last year gave the whole, of the facts as he knew them, and could be taken as his statement at the present time. Jones : I think you are here as a witness. Witness : I don't want, your comments on what I say. Petitioner asked witness several questions about Sir John Findiay's alleged refusal to give an inquiry, and the fact that the firm of Findlay and. Dalziell were acting for Herrman Lewis.

Witness said lie looked at. things in a different light from Jones. Ho did not impute, dishonesty to a man because his partner was acting in a case where ho happened to be concerned politically. Petitioner had never paid him sixpence in his life. All he ever did was to give witness his note of hand for £1000. and witness was prepared to discount it for a very liberal sum.

Petitioner's method of questioning witness drew a rebuke from the chairman. It appeared as if petitioner, he said, doubted the veracity of witness.

Jones (heatedly) : I do. Chairman : That is not right. You must not say that.

Witness : Surely I am entitled to be protected from this kind of base insinuation. I have devoted years, of my best ability and money in trying to have, this rum'?, wrongs—and they were, undoubtedly grievous— righted. Continuing, ho submitted that it wa.s a, disgraceful thing, and claimed that, witness was entitled to as much protection before the Committee as lie would receive before a. Court of Law.

Jones then ceased questioning witness.