MOKAU LANDS INQUIRY

Southland Times, Issue 16839, 15 September 1911, Page 7

MOKAU LANDS INQUIRY

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 14. At the Mokau inquiry Mr Dalziel, in continuing his statement, said that he and Mr Skerrett carefully went into the validity of the title, and having satisfied themselves, applied for an Order-in-Council. Both witness and Mr Skerrett attended a meeting of the assembled owners on January 6. Mr Skerrett advised the Natives that they_ must either hold on to the land or go in for expensive litigation, which must ensue. Witness offered them £25,000 for the block. Mr Bowler, hvho presided, said that the attendance was not large enough to decide, except on an almost unanimous vote, so the meeting was adjourned. Both Messrs Skerrett and Bell advised the Natives that the leases were defective, and that they could claim damages for non-performance of covenant. Witness later received word that the carrying of the resolution was doubtful, and so advised his client to withdraw the offer and test the validity of the leases. Mr Hosking, K.C., advised witness that Lewis was not liable for non-performance of any covenant before his taking up the lease. Lewis had at this stage entered into a contract to sell, whereby he was, to get £46,000 for the leases, and £25,000 for the freehold, or, if he could not obtain the freehold, the leases were to be sold for the price mentioned. At the meeting on March 10, Mr Macdonald said that the Natives were arriving at the opinion that they ought to sell, but asked for an adjournment to enable a consultation to be held with the Mokau Natives. This was agreed to, and at a meeting on March 20 a resolution agreeing to the sale was passed without dissent. Mr Massey had stated that the interests of the public had not been studied, that the Interests of the natives had not been safeguarded, and that the Government had committed a breach of public .interest in granting ah Order-in-Council. Mr Bell, in evidence, had seriously reflected on Individuals. He had said that Mr Skerrett had been employed by the Government and not by natives, but this was incorrect. Mr Bell said that at the first meeting there was an overwhelming majority against the sale, whereas a majority of the acreage was in favour of the sale. Another incorrect assertion of Mr Bell’s was that the natives were misled into believing that they must either raise £BOO to fight the case or sell, whereas they might retain possession of the block without litigation. The natives knew that litigation must ensue. Witness also had authority to state that Mr Skerrett had not given up the case to Mr Bell, and that the Land Board had made no order for payment of costs, as stated by Mr Bell. Mr Dalziel also strongly resented Mr Bell’s assertion that Mr Macdonald must have been bought. To Mr Ngata: At the final meeting of natives Mr Holland advised the natives only on points of procedure. To Mr Herries: Mr Skerret had been employed by the Government in the proceedings before the Commission at Te Kuiti. Mr Bowler received permission from Wellington, before becoming trustee for the natives. As far as witness knew witness had been acting on his own account. Mr Bowler was indemnified by Messrs Lewis and Co. from any resultant litigation. The Committee adjourned till to-mor-row.