MOKAU JONES BLOCK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14897, 28 July 1910, Page 5

MOKAU JONES BLOCK

REQUEST FOR A COMMISSION.

A NEGATIVE REPLY

(From Oub Own Correspondent.)

■WELLINGTON, July 27. A lengthy reply has been; given by tho Government to a (question by Air Ok'ey in reference to what is known as the JlOkviu Joiies. Estate.. '.Onedaiise of lho : question put-by; Mr Okey to tho Prime Minister was: "Whether he is aware that, in the late of the recommendation of the Select Ccmihittee of the Legislative Council in 1003 that ,the Government shculd order an inquiry into tli-> .'circuit-stances connected with the Mokau Mohaltatini block, and that, pending such inquiry, stens should be,taken to prevent further dealings with property, thej Ali'jonie.v-'genreal refused fo give effeet to the recommendation, and such inquiry has not been held, nor the property nrotected from further dcujiugs." Tho Prime Minister's reply ■is a.s follows:—" This question has obviously been so drawn as to 'convey personal insinuations. The. statement's and implications by which these -insinuations are raised arc quite baseless. Tlie recommendation referred to was made to the Government, and. not to tne Attorneygeneral. He was not asked, and ho had no power to give effect to it. It wim fully considered by the Government, but was not .carried out for several good reasons. Among these were: (1) The fact that the present Solicitor-general advised that there was no power to set tip a Royal Commission as • Mr Jones's solicitor was, informed'of this advice, and statedi to the Solicitor-general that he agreed it. (2) Tlie reason why the Government did not take steps to i»'event dealings with lbs block was that ,the title is under the Land Transfer Act, 'and <he Government had no power whatever to prevent dealings. Mr Jones .and bis oolicitor have, heem in almost constant communication with the Government about this matter, ever since the date of tho recommendation in : question, and have never .sugeesled that any Such step should, or 'could, be taken.' The legal claims of Mr Jones were finally dismissed as groundless by the Court 'of Appeal in the case of in re Jones (1S08), 11 Gas. R. As legards the second branch of this question, it is true a caveat vijis lodged, bat it was lodged. to protect not Mr Jones, but the Land Transfer Assurance Office Fund, and upon the suggestion of the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court that' the leases granted to Mr Joshua, Jones hinioplf were invalid and should never lijave been registered. There never hasVbeen any o/vestion of fraud or improper dealings raised throughout the history of this case, apart froth tho dentins; by Mr. Jews himself with his Native lessors, awl Mr Jones's. own suggestion i with regard to his.stealings with his Enn- \ lish rn'ortgngiee. The caveat lodged for the reason above- stated was mir-oved when the mortgage of Mr T.'G, M'Carthy referred to in the question (3), was pr» sented for registration bv bis solicitors Travsrs. Campbell,' and Pearocke). The caveat was- not removed until after proceedin,"s in tbe.'Kmireme' Court were threatened .bv Mr M'Parthv's solicitors, and after' the Rcqistra.iH'ciieral arid thf loial ■ registrar had satisfied themse-lvi* that it. was impossible in law to support the caveat. As wards the -mortgages in the third branrh of this -m«>f : lion, they were not re-<ristwcd until MR The Attorney-srenaral has not. hnd hdVr had, au\-*>fnterest. direct or indirect.! in these mortgages. Thcv were Igtol mnrf,. given hr fiho ■ vwal wav for valuable consideration. He has never seen Or acted-professionally for Mr Lewis in conmctfci'i with tli»<s maMer. The Ytw courts arp.ort"n to Mr Jones tn invcuti. troto any 1 l»i*sil -vrongs he alleges he h.'s snfffred. Tim nnvernment is, as alreadv ■''taM. a/lvispd thai no rnmmission can lv>. set nn in ,fMs rfl. Jnnp/: is. "f course, freo to bavo hi« jtrievaiifes invest!-, gated by petition to Parliament."