THE CADMAN-REES CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4676, 21 June 1893, Page 1

THE CADMAN-REES CASE.

THE ACTION FOB LIBEL. £Pas Pbbbs Association. J NAFIBB, June 20. ! Mr Eeea then continued hia evidence, which still dealt chiefly with what had been done in Parliament relative to Native matters. He said Sir George Grey had on several occasions told him that he had been assured by Mr Seddon,, on the authority of Mr Cadman himself, that the latter had nothing to do with the purchase of Native lands while Native Minister. He repudiated any ill-feeling toward* Mr Cadman. When he was accused of personal feeling in the Native Affairs- Committee when considering the Tahoraite Validation Bill, he walked out and refused to vote, or the Bill would have been thrown out. The reason why witness wrote to the Premier the first of the letters the subject of the action, was because shortly before the end of the session two or three of the members of the House sent up to Napier and had searches made in the register. Thiß was in consequence of a paragraph in the HawJce'a Bay Herald to the effect that Messrß Smith and Cadman had completed their title to a block of Native land at Danevirke. Mr Buckland subsequently showed in the Houbo the results of this search, by which it appeared that Messrs Smith and Cadman had obtained a block of Native land. Witness did not take much notice of the matter until he heard that he and Mr Shera were accused by Olr Smith of having opposed his Tahoraite Validation Bill, but that he (Mr Smith) had succeeded in passing the Bill in spite of their opposition. Witness held a meeting in Napier, at which Mr Smith attended and Btrongly opposed witness' proposals. Witness then felt convinced that there must have been some strong objection all through, in the persistent opposition to his proposals. He then enquired into the alleged land transaction, being then perfectly under the belief that Mr Cadman, while he was Native Minister, had nothing to do with Native landß. Had he known to the contrary during either sessions he would at once have taken proceedings in the House, as he considered it highly improper for any Minister, let alone the Native Minister, to have anything to do, indirectly or directly, with the acquisition of Native lands for himself. Witness had searches made, and found that the title to the Umutuoroa Block had been completed. This was nominally in Mr Smith's name with respect to the later shares, but evidently on behalf of Messrs Cadman and Smith, aa the. . mortgage to the Union Bank by Messrs Cadman. and Smith showed. Witness next saw the figures of the valuation made by Mr Horace Baker when Chief Surveyor, and of the value at which the land was actually being sold by Messrs Cadman and Smith. Witness then wrote to Mr Ballance the letter of March 10, sending a copy of it also to Mr Cadman. The reasons for sending the letter to Mr Ballance were fully stated, and were to the effect that Mr Cadman, in conjunction with Mr Smith, had been purchasing Native lands, and had delated: legislation on the , qpeation. of Native lands. Mr Ballance replied to the effect that the matter would be brought before his colleagues- and the Native Minister, and stating that witness must have been misinformed about Mr Cadman. This confirmed witness in his opinion that Mr Cadman had denied to his colleagues any dealings in Native lands while he was a Minister... Witness asked for an inquiry into the matter. About a fortnight afterwards he learned, from statements by Ministers, that Mr Cadman denied purchasing Native lands for his own benefit, and that no inquiry would be held. Wit* nees believed that there ought to bean inquiry,: and then published the letter. He then wrote the letter of March 24. The facts alleged in that letter were discovered by witness by a personal Bearch. He found out how the pencil memorandum of the*origin of assessment came to be on the face of the Crown grant of the block. The second letter also asked for an inquiry. No promise of an inquiry was granted, but the receipt of the letter was acknowledged. Not getting any satisfaction he published the letter. He was aware that if he waited till Parliament met he could have had the letters produced and have made any statement upon them he chose without fear of actions for libel, but under all the circumstances he believed it his duty to make the statements public. He had no further interest in it than any other member of the public. The cross-examination was chiefly directed to show that Mr Eeea published the memoranda because Mr Smith opposed, at a public meeting in Napier, Mr Bees' proposals for the. Sale of Native lands through Committees. This he denied. He did not then know about tTmutuoroa, but he did know that Messrs Smith and Cadman had dealt in another block named Tamaki;. but aa that was before Mr Cadman was Native Minister he did not trouble about it* though he thought it sufficiently startling* Mr Smith's strong opposition to witness at the public meeting aroused hia suspicions, and he then had the registers searched. Messrs Smith and Cadman had leased part of Tamaki, 5000. acres valued at J86250, for JBSOOO for timber cutting rights. Mr Baker, formerly Commissioner of Crown Lands, who made the valuation of £19,619 in 1883, said he had had a good deal to do with the survey ol Native blocks for purchase by the Government. He considered that Umutuoroa, with the timber off it, was worth £A an acre. Knew that parts had been sold for special settlements in the neighbourhood, which went at low prices. These were not sold in the open market, but were practically given away. With the bush on, that land was worth £2 to £& an acre, and when cleared £& to £7. Umutuoroa had some of the best totara in New Zealand on it. But for that he would have valued it at £2 an acre in 1883. This closed the defendant's case, and rebutting evidence was called. Mr William Frederick Knight, oocupier of Tahoraite blocks Nob. 1 and 2, gave evidence that he was an active mover in getting the Tahoraite Validation Bill passed, because it was found that the Native Land Court had not power to remedy the mistake by whioh the owners of No. 1 are put in the grant for No. 2, and vice versa. He asked Mr Smith, as the member for the district, to assist in its passage through the House, and he agreed to do bo. In 1891, one of the Umutuoroa Natives offered to sell witness his share, but witness refused, as he did not want to interfere with Messrs Smith and Cadman, who it was well known in the district then held a lease of the land, and he had heard that they were buying the freehold. He had had some experience in buying Native lend, and looked upon it largely as speculating. He would not give more than 25a for Umutuoroa for pastoral purposes. Mr Alfred Fraser, Native interpreter, deposed to being engaged by Mr Knight to promote the Tahoraite Validation Bill. Mr Smith employed him to negotiate for a share in Umutuoroa, but unsuccessfully He was paid by a cheque, signed Cadman and Smith. The Court then rose.