Thursday, 29 th January.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1115, 31 January 1885, Page 3

Thursday, 29 th January.

The evidence of John M. Smith was read over to him, on account of Mr M<Kenzie not having been present when it was taken. The witness added that on thinking over the matter since he found that he had advanced the men more than £1000 ; in fact, it was double that amount.

John M'Cay, transferee of section 16, block XI., in the course of hia evidence, said that Ball told him that he was going Home, and that if witness liked he could take up his faction. Ball had done some work on the ground, and witness understood at the time that the £170 owing to Mr Smith represented the T_lue of the improvements effected en the land. Ball \ras not-paid by Mr Smith for the

improvements. Witness had cleared aud ploughed fifty-four acres. The improvements he had effected on the land had been made by the aid of Mr Smth's money. He had money of bis own in the bank, but he preferred using Mr Smith's money to his own. He had spent £105 on the ground. Tbe amount of money he owed to Mr Smitb was £275. He was seven years on Greenfield Station previous to taking up the land. There were no agreements in writing made with Mr Smith when the land was transferred from Ball to himself. At the time Ball suggested the transfer of the ground he was working on the homestead. Witness offered to lay out his money on the ground, but Mr Smith told him it did not matter, as he might require his own money on some future time. Tbere were other sections in the same block be could have taken up, but they were only fit for rabbits. He paid the license fees himself. Witness was still employed at Greenfield Station. Mr James Smith paid for the ploughing. All the nnney ho got was paid by Mr Smith. Mr Herbert paid the first instalment of rent, but this was before witness went on the land. He wpuld swear that he had taken up the land entirely for his own benefit, and not for the advantage of Mr Smith or Mr Smith's sons.

The witness having been asked if he had made his arrangements with Ball jbefore be bad been on the ground, caused considerable laughter by saying, in answer to Mr Mouat : "I do not understand you. It's tbe way you corroborate the thing." He had no acoount of what moneys he had received, but he supposed it was £105, beyond what was due by Ball, because on looking over the land be thought the work done had cost more than that. He certainly intended paying Mr Smith tbe money advanced to bitn. Jobn Hughes, licensee of section 20, block V., was examined, and stated that he had bought his section at £3 10s per acre. Mr Smith offered to assist him. He had borrowed £297 from Mr John Smith. Neither Mr Smilh nor anybody else bad any interest whatever in his section — at least he hoped not. He had not given Mr Smith any security for his advances —it was purely a persona! obligation. Long before he took this land he had borrowed money irom Mr Smith, who had never ask^d security nor interest for it. The terms Mr Smith lent him money on were tbe best terms he had ever had. By all means he understood that he waa to repay the money, and he should be very sorry to do that gentleman out of one penny of it. He certainly called himself a bona fide settler. The people round about Tuapeka West used to declare that be was a dummy, and point out. how he was ; but he knew differently, and let them have their own way. He certainly did not resent being called a "dummy." He was not going to quarrel with them about it, and did not care what they thought. John Oxenbould, farmer, Waitahuna West, deposed that he had done ploughing for Wm. Smith and Alexander Wymar. He never called Mr Smith a dummy, nor did he trouble himself about such matters.

Wiiliam .M'Millan, farm laborer, residing at Waitahuna West, said he had done ploughing for Eobert Low, William Smith, John M'Cay, Alexander Wymar, and Jobn Giliand. Mr J. M. Smith paid him once on account of Wymar, Low, and W. Smith. He was a deferred-payment settler himself, but did not require any assistance. If he bad, and had asked Mr Smitb, he believed he would have got it.

Thomas Hughan, Crown lands ranger for the district within which Waitabuna West is situated, said he had been four times over the sections of the licensees who bad eiven evidence at tbe inquiry; the last being in June, 1884. Witness then i cad tbe reports he had previously made on tbe different holdings, and deposed that they were correct, and that he had nothing to add to them. The result of his inquiries into this alleged dummyism was that he was led to believe that these people were all bona fide settlers. Mr Connell said that probably Mr Fraser, who had been instructing Mr Mouat, ond who appeared to know so much about the case, should be called on to give evidpnee. In reply to Mi? Mait'and, Mr Fraser said be knew nothing about the case of his own knowledge.

Tbe Board then decided to postpone further proceedings in this matter until Weduesday next.

It having been intimated that Mr Mouat would not call any witnessep, and that Mr Haggitt had no further evidence to give in this matter,

Mr Connell challenged tbe movers of this inquiry, if they had any witnesses likely to assist the Board in ascertaining the truth, to bring tbem forward. This was the time and place to do so.

The Chief Commissioner: "Or for ever hold their peace." Mr Connell :Yes». Mr Mouat said that there were two witnesses—Reid (the ploughman) and Edie— whom it was desirable to have present if possible; but it was explained that the Board's ranger had made fruitless efforts to ascertain their whereabouts. Mr Mouat could only say that he had exhausted his instructions. CONDITIONS OV LICENSE. The cases in "wliieli the licensees ta^ fesen called upon to show cause why their licensee should not be forfeited, on the grounds that tbe conditions of tbe licenses had not been fulfilled, were then proceeded with. Hush Bruce, the licensee of section 11, block vin., Waifahuna district, said he bad a small farm at Tuapeka Mouth, and in a house upon that farm his wife lived. He himself lived on his section in a temDorary house, but went to the other farm on Saturday night, and stayed there till the following Monday. His section was fenced and cultivated, and he intended building a four-roomed house there and taking his wife to it. To the best of his belief he had slept in the hut on the deferredpayment land about five nights every week for tbe last two years. He could not get money on his land, and though he had been in Smith and Sons' employment he had not asked for any, feeling sure he would be refused.

Peter Eeonau, the licensee of section 9, block XI., Waitahuna, gave evidence to the effect that he cultivated his land, and occupied tbe sod hut that was on it.

At 5.15 p.m. the inquiry was adjourned until half -past' 10 o'clock next morning. — [Abridged from " Daily Times."]