MOKAU LAND CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3003, 4 October 1911, Page 41

MOKAU LAND CASE.

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. WELLINGTON, September 26. The Mokau Committee resumed its sitting this morning to hear a statement by M r Jones. The Chairman intimated that the statement would be confined to matter before the committee. Mr Jones said he had prepared a.short synopsis from 1876 to the present day, , and would like the committee to hear it. Mr Jennings reiterated that the statement would have to be confined to matter forming the subject matter of inquiry. Mr Jones's' story was, he said, as well known as Robinson He suggested that Mr Jones'should ,again; petition Parliament; The committee .would; not allow matter from 1876 to be - traversed. '•:'. ,;• ; .:....., ?'- . ..;.•;-'•,- .Mr Jones said he. wanted to produce the report- by Sir R. *Stout and -Judge Jackson Palmer, and to comment on.it. . Eventually the committee decided to adjourn further the hearing till Thursday, to. give Mr Jones an opportunity of recasting his statement, to begin-at. the. time when the negotiations were opened by Mr Hermann Lewis. . .;. .... - September 28. The Mokau inquiry was resumed this morning. Joshua Jones said that March 31,' 1908", was the date, witness had an interview with Mr M'Nab. Witness did notmean to convey that Mr Jennings was there on that diate. Witness wished the production of the letters written by him to the committee during the course of the inquiry, and this was agreed to, and the letters were put in. Witness then read a lengthy written statement. * He eontenided that two previous Commissions had reported in his favour,' yet the Government, ignored' their recommendation. Witness considered that a Government which so acted.would stop at nothing to defeat. witness in his demand for justice. Witness would have been able to sell his interests in London in 1907 but for daitnaging- reports circulated in London by an, interested NewZealand agent in 1906. Mr Hermann Lewis told witness that, as there mightbe trouble about the title, he had specially engaged Messrs Findlay and Dalziell, as he thought this engagement would-prove worth while. Witness considered subsequent eyents had justified this action of Lewis's. Witness contended that Sit.. John Findlay had spoken in the Upper House in a manner that was practically in advocacy of Sir J. G;; Firidlay's own firm's client's case. In the 1908. Commission Lewis stated that he had not paid any money for,the purchase, as he had no clear title, but he, or someone else, would pay when a clear title was obtainable: yet : this statement did not appeao- in the report of the Commission. - Witness coxild not account for this omission. ■ In witness's opinion, Sir R. Stout and Judge Palmer, the members of the Conimissionj had. no legal. authority to deal" with the Mokau case. .After dealing with ' the Order-in : Counlil witness complained that this inquiry would not give the country any idea of the importance of this transaction. Mr Jones further said that when he began negotiations regarding Mokau in 1882 the Native Land: Court had. never 'sat in the Country. He could assays, the" committee that there had been no improper conduct on his part all the way through the proceedings. -.-'... _ . This concluded' the whole of the evidence. • .-•'..,