OTAUTO RESERVE DISPUTE.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 119, 14 October 1896, Page 2

OTAUTO RESERVE DISPUTE.

EEl’OliT ON THE PETITION OE JOHN BOSS AND ANOTHEIv, OE PATE A. Petitioners pray that they may be granted relief on account of certain alleged wrongs clone them by Mr George Hutchison, M.H.R., and the Public Trustee. I have tliG honour to report that the petitioners are settlers and reside at Otauto, near Patea. In the year 1894. Mr Ross (one of the petitioners) borrowed considerable sums of money from Mr George Hutchison, M.H.R , and mortgaged to that gentleman all his leasehold property and stock. The land was Native land and under the control of the Public Trustee. Afterbe* ing mortgaged the 1 an d which comprised oue thousand acres, was subdivided, and 360 acres placed in the name of a Mr P. P. Yerdon. The mortgage and instruments secured only money aetata Tj- advanced, and disbursements, am the rate of interest was the same as vir Boss had paid to a former mortgagee. Mr Ross alleges non-fulfdnient of a verbal agreement alleged to have been entered into under the following circumstances. Mr Hutchison, while mortgagee, through his manager, entered into an agreement dated the 16 th day of July, 1894, with Messrs Ross and Yerdou regarding the secur ity wTiich he held. Messrs Ross and Yerdon allege that, to enable this agreement to be executed, Mr Hutchison’s manager (Mr Muldrock) verbally agreed with them to take over the property and stock it, and take ten per centum of the profits, and the balance of the profits w r ere to go to hem. There were other and minor matters referred to. This is denied by Mr Muldrock and letters to that gentleman, instructing him, bear out Mr Hutchison’s statement that he was never authorised to make any such proposal. ' Though this verbal agreement is alleged in the petition, th/ whole case of the petitioners is admitted in evidence to stand upon a subsequent agreement which was reduced to writing. Apart from ' any agreement, Mr Hutchison had, at this time, full powers to sell under Ms mart gages and he had actually realised on some of the stock. The allegations made against the Public Trustee were abandonedbythepetitiouers during the hearing* of the case, and the ease resolved itself into a demand by the petitioners that Mr Hutchison should specifically carry out the terms of a letter of dato 7th August, 1895. This I tter or agreement has been the ground of a Supreme Court action against Mr Hutchison. The case, j after great delay, was settled by the petitioners consenting to judgment being entered up against them and in favour of Mr Hutchison. The subsequent proceedings were the ordinary proceedings to enforce a judgment against an unsuccessful litigant. Daring the hearing of the petition, ir was sought to establish the fact that great cruelty had been shown to the pedtiouer’s family by persons acting on Mr Hutchison’s behalf, but the evidence showed that that gentleman used every endeavour to minimise the effect of the proceedings necessary to recover possession of bis own property. The evidence failed completely to establish that the estate had been mismanaged by Mr Hutciuson, or that the petitioners had been defrauded of their just rights, or that no accounts had been rendered to them. ,

The committee accordingly have no recommendation to make. ('Signed) Id. Meredith', Chairman, Bth October, 1896.