THE HINE CHARGES

Southland Times, Issue 14580, 22 November 1910, Page 3

THE HINE CHARGES

FURTHER EVIDENCE. (Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON. Nov. 21. The Hine Committee met this morning. Mr Skerrett said he ■would call no witnesses in the Te Akau case, which is now closed.

Hugh Pollen, Under-Secretary for the Lands Department, gave evidence touching the dispute between Messrs Durie and Hutchison, wherein the former claimed one-half refund of expenses of the West Coast leases arbitration, Mr Symes did not appear in the matter, but wrote to Dr. Findlay, then Minister for Internal Affairs, concerning the refund on £125 expenses incurred, by Air Hutchison in fighting the test case. The letter was written on the House of Representatives’ note - paper, but the Cabinet declined to pay the amount.

Edward Hemingway", town clerk at Stratford, said he first saw the letter from Mr Symes to Mr McCluggage in 1905, and had a copy of the letter, which witness in 1908 read publicly in response to a challenge by Air Symes. Witness had never been a director of the “Stratford Post.” Witness got his copy from a director of the "Stratford Post.” It had been handed to the Opposition party at Stratford in 1905, and they obtained a legal opinion as to whether it brought Air Symes under the Corrupt Practices Act. The letter remained undisturbed in possession of the solicitor for five years. Air Symes had referred to Mr Hine and witness as “quack” persons, and in an insulting way. He challenged witness to read any letters witness might have of Mr Symes’, and witness considered he was justified in reading the letter. Witness went to Mr Cahill, Stratford correspondent of the “Taranaki Dally News,” and gave him particulars of Air Hine’s reception, which Mr Cahill sent, and inadvertently’ it was published as a Press Association telegram and copied by surrounding evening papers. The statement in the long telegram was a true account. To Mr Millar; Witness was one of those who drew up an address to Mr Hine applauding his desire to purify public life. The copy witness had of Mr Symes’ letter did not have a marginal note, “private and confidential.” Witness w r as secretary" in 1905 and Chairman in 1908 of Air Hine’s committee.

To Mr Skerrett: Witness would not be a party to the disclosure of a confinder.tial letter. Witness understood Mr Symes’ challenge to embrace any letters which witness might have. Henare Kaihau said that he had often personally paid out sums of money for natives in connection with petitions and court cases. Witness went with Horomona to Auckland and searched the court records there and did other work for him. Horomona paid £5 to witness’s clerk, but this was not for any work done by witness as. member. Horomona paid no other sums to witness. Witness had advanced £5 to Kamanamana when the latter was in Wellington and this was refunded long afterwards. All sums which he had obtained from other witnesses had been for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in work outsidp his parliamentary duties. In Keretoki’s case witness spent much more than he had received. Witness gave particulars as to the manner in which the expenditure was incurred in eacli transaction.

T% Air Myers; Kaihau said that he knew it was wrong to charge for services rendered as a member of Parliament. Witness did not charge fees for nearly every petition presented by him. Other witnesses were wrong if they said that they had paid witness for presenting tlie petition. Horomona did not pay witness £ls at Ngaruavvahia. Witness did not send nis secretary to Auckland to interview the natives mentioned in the charges against witness. Mr Myers questioned witness regarding his absence Tom his Parliamentary duties in 1907 on the ground of illhealth, while witness was really conducting a case in the Land Court: but on Mr Skerrett’s objection, the question was ruled out of order.

To Sir Joseph Ward: Witness said he had never received any payment from the Government for the sale of land.

F. W. i' lanagan, Valuer General, called by Sir Joseph Ward, gave figures relating to Flaxbourne. He said that the estate comprised 57,373 acres, of which 11,700 were returned by Sir Geo. Clifford. Some 46,073 acres were valued in 11104 at £170,709, but-Sir G. Clifford was awarded by the Court £181,675. The homestead block was then valued at £40,200. In 1909 the value of the estate was increased to £220,677. James McKerrow, formerly chairman of the Land Purchase Board, gave evidence showing that the Government’s action throughout had been in accordance with the Board’s recommendation. The Government could not purchase the estate at a higher price than the Board recomended. A.' L. Wilson, re-called, said that lie was at Flaxbourne from Sunday to Friday Inclusive, and not only from Sunday to Tuesday, as stated by Mr Griffen. Witness gave a detailed report on each sub-division. Witness had a horse each day at Flaxbourne except Tuesday,, when witness inspected buildings and some of the paddocks. Witness said that Griffen’s evidence was incorrect. He denied having made a statement to Griffen that he was not particular about inspection. Dr. Findlay said that he was counsel for the Crown in past negotiations and the purchase of Flaxbourne estate. Witness had never had a client so persistent as Mr Seddon, who acted as if every penny came out of his own pocket. When witness was first instructed he had..a list of witnesses handed to him, all from Marlborough; but all except one refused to come forward and give evidence. Consequently witnesses had to be brought from all over the Dominion. Mr Wilson had been assessor frequently in large compensation cases. At this stage Mr Massey objected to the irrelevancy of Dr. Findlay’s statement: hut Mr Hanan ruled that it was advisable that every opportunity he given to refute any reflections which might have been made against the Government of late.

Dr. Findlay said that in December, 190J, lie met Mr Seddon, who said he was uneasy about some of the Crown witnesses and expressed the opinion that Mr Wilson should go over and report. The idea of sending Mr Wilson over was for him to prepare a report for the guidance of counsel in Court. Mr Wilson said he had spent sixteen days inspectings the property and preparing a report. Griffon’s evidence was incorrect wherein lie said that witness had told him lie had no intention of calling Wilson to give evidence. Did not consider Wilson's fee excessive. Over £500.000 been saved to the country in the acquisition of thirteen estates throdugh the persistence of Mr Seddon in having competent valuation. To Mr Massey; Witness certified to the correctness of Wilson’s voucher, although witness had not arranged terms with Wilson. The Crown employed between thirty and forty valuers; but Sir G. Clifford had more.

To Mr Myers: Wilson was mistaken when ho salfl that he hat I received instructions from witness and that witness fixed his fee. Witness was Instructed in Juno, 1903. Would say that Wilson had played the part of a rogue if he spent only two and a half days at Flaxbourno. Griffen was employed valuing and showing witnesses round the property. The reason why Wilson was sent was that Mr Seddon did not hold a high opinon of Griffen’s reliability. Witness did not agree with Mr Seddon’s view.

To-morrow Sir Joseph Ward will call the Secretary of the Cabinet and Mr Barron.