THE HINE CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 174, 2 November 1910, Page 5

THE HINE CHARGES.

THE SYMES INCIDENT. ECHO OF THE STRATFORD ELKO j'IUN. By Telegraph.—Press Association. ' Wellington, Tuesday. .The lline Committee ot the Lov.vr House met this morning. The chairman stated that no opening addresses by counsel were required. On Mr. Myers' application, all witnesses were ordered out. The (ir=t eharge taken was No. 3, that against Mr. Sym-.-f, of, while an M.l'., charging and receiving commission from West Coast Jesses* for preparing a petition. Mr. Otterson, Clerk of the House of Representative, produced the petition presented by Mr. Sym.ts to the House on August 15, 190-3, asking for refunds of amounts paid by them in connection with the West Coast land awards. The committee had no recommendation to make, but Hansard showed that Mr. Symes moved that the petition be referred bat-k for further consideration. In Hansard, volume 134, page 054, was the report of a speech by Mr. Symes on the matter of the petition being referred back to the committee, who the second time urged that it be favorably considered by the House, Mr. Symes again making a speech. Next year two petitions were presented by Mr. Symes on behalf of George Hutchison and B. Lysaght, which the committee urged for favorable consideration.

Replying to Sir Joseph Ward, Mr. Otterson said that the first petition was considered by the M to Z committee. Messrs Hutchison and Lysaght did not figure in the original petition, although all the petitions really referred to one matter.

Mr. Bryan Lysaght,. sheep farmer, of Hawera, and trustee of his father's will, said that his father was the holder of a West Coast lease, and surrendered it in expectation of new leases. His father's expenses amounted to £347 and other lessees also had to pay similar expenses. Prior to signing the petition witness had a communication from Mr. Symes, and as a result of the petition received £347 from the Government a (few months later. After the petition had been presented, witness received the account produced from Mr. Symes for £l7, being 5 per cent, on £347, for the stamps, telegrams and time Mr. Symes had devoted to the case. Witness did not pay the amount. He subsequently received a letter from Mr. Symes saying that he could not afford to devote so much time and out-of-pocket expenses without return. Witness then reecived another letter from Mr. Symes expressing surprise at there being no acknowledgment of the claim and saying that as the refund was not yet paid he would not help witness in the matter.

Witness knew that other people who did not petition received refunds. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, witness said he did not know at the time that Ward and Symes were lessees in a similar predicament to witness, nor that Symes privately spent a lot of money on the proceedings after the Arbitration Court had ruled that the leases were abortive, the action of the Government having! been ultra vires. Mr. Johnstone had been regarded by the lessees as a sort of agent in the matter. There was no expressed or implied understanding that Mr. Symes was to be paid for the work. He did not remember whether Moore, witness' co-executor, had any communication with Johnstone regarding expenses. Did not know that his co-execu-tor had arranged that Symes should receive £SO for his services in collecting refunds for lessees not in Symes' constituency. Witness was not a constituent of Symes'. He did not know that Moore had requested Caplen, his solicitor, to collect the amount or that Caplen had instructed him to go to Johnstone, who referred him to Symes. Witness had igiven Hime these letters and accounts during last election, and parts had been published in Stratford at election time.

Replying to Sir Joseph Ward, witness said he had not informed the Government that Symes had claimed commission. The refund had been sent direct to witness from the Government Department, witness in his own claim having employed no agent. Replying to Mr. Reed, M.P., witness said he had given the documents to Hine's committee, but did not know who handed them to the Stratford paper. W. Wilson, Patea, farmer, said he was attorney for his brother. He claimed and received £l9B refund and paid Symes £9 18s 6d. Witness was a constituent of Symes', and was not asked to pay Symes anything personally. The demand was on his brother and partner's part. J. Haddow, solicitor, Auckland, said he acted as agent for G. Hutchison, whose claim for a refund was £259. Hutchison instructed witness to get Symes' assistance in collecting the refund. Symes offered assistance if he received a commission of 20 per cent. Witness agreed to pay 5 per cent, on the amount of £134 and 15 per cent, on £125 spent by Hutchison in testing the validity of the proceedings. Symes demanded £2O for each claim, and witness agreed to pay this. He did not consider at first that Symes was claiming commission for political services but as agent. The committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. till Thursday.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCILOR INCIDENT. PURCHASE OF THE NAI NAI ESTATE. Wellington, Last Night, The Hine Committee of the Legislative Council resumed this evening. Mr. Myers mentioned that his first and most important witness was Mr. Leigh, who was at the moment out of town. He called Mr. T. W. Caverhill, of Petone, a settler, who had been ten years district valuer in the Government service. He said he knew the propertv at Nainai, and had valued it about six years ago ! for the Land Purchase Board. He valued it at £BS per acre. The Hon. T. K. Mac Donald wished him to value the property high, and said his valuation was too low. Witness advised against the purchase of the property for workmen's homes. The property was sold to the Government for £l5O per acre. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett: He 1 was on friendh- terms with the Hon. Mac Donald. He was rather annoyed with Mr. Mac Donald for wanting him to value the property higher than he had done. No form of inducement except argument was used by MacDnnahl. Dr. Findlay asked the witness if the chairman of the board was in the habit of putting high values on properties. The witness answered ''No." Witness would not admit that there was a mistake on his part in the value of the property, but acknowledged that if a mistake in the valuation was made it was an honest one. Mr. Ritchie, land purchase inspector, said the property was offered to the Government first in 1004 by Leighj who

valued the land at £2OO per acre, and asked that price for it, but later he reduced it to £l5O an acre. .Messrs Barron (chairman of the Land Purchase Com-. missioners), Marchant and Kensington (Under-Secretary for Lands) inspected the land on behalf of the Government. The course pursued by the Board in not obtaining a valuer's report, was an unusual one. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, Ritchie said Mr. Barron had reported that if Leigh's property could be purchased tor £l4O an acre it would be a good investment, and he recommended that negotiations should be proceeded with. To Dr. Findiay: There was no reason either in law or practice, to prevent members of the Land Purchase Board making a personal inspection of properties under oiler. The members who inspected the Nainai property were ex perienced and reliable valuators. He believed that conditions had greatly changed since Mr. Caverhill had made his valuations. On several occasions the Board had recommended purchases at prices in excess of the valuations of their own valuers. Mr. P. W. Flanagan, Valuer-General, gave the amount of the valuations of his Department as follows:—In ISO; the property was valued in two sections; in 1905 the property was valuea at £11,870 unimproved, and £12,860 improved value; and the same values were placed on it in 1!)09. To. Mr. Skerrett: It was a notorious fact that properties changed hands at prices far in excess of the Government valuations. Mr. W. T. Strang knew the property, and had had an interest therein. At one time he had about a third interest, in the land, and Leigh took over his interest. When he had an interest in property he agreed with Leigh to place the property under offer to the Government at £IOO an acre. To Mr. Skerrett: He had no documentary evidence in support of this offer to the Government.

To Dr. Findlay: He thought the land was originally bought by Leigh from Jounax for £SO an acre, but .he would not contradict Dr. Findlay if he said the price paid for the land was £7O, and his figure respecting the Government's offer may have been correspondingly above his original figure. Mr. A. L. Wilson said he was in partnership with the Hon. T. K. McDonald at the time the Nainai property was placed before the Government. He, with Mr. McDonald, took part in the negotiations between Leigh and the Government. The firm received £536 commission for the sale of the property. No other monies were received in the office from the sale of the Leigh estate. The firm received the ordinary commission 0f222y 2 per cent, on the sale. To Mr. Skerrett: The only sum the firm received over the sale was the commission 'named. The committee adjourned till 8 p.m. on Wednesday.