11

H.—9

The Case of Franz Max. —This man persisted with great tenacity in bringing forward his grievance. He has sent written communications to the Hon. Mr. Bonar, to Mr. Barff, and to ourselves. He gave full evidence on the subject at Hokitika; at his own request we took him down to Jackson's Bay with us, where further evidence was taken, and where we personally iuspectod his ground and the house which is the subject-matter of his complaint. The alleged grievance is that he has been debited with the price of a house which was ill-built, and which he declined to take. Tho price of the house was £29 18s., and, by debiting him with this sum in his store account, he was found to bo in debt at the time he left the settlement in the amount of £14 9s. 3d. He claims refund of the price of the house. The matter has been complicated by the circumstance that the Eesident Agent, in pursuance of an arrangement which he was led to believe had been made between Max and one Lipinski for the transfer of the house to the latter, but which arrangement is now denied by Max absolutely, and by Lipinski in a more qualified sense, has debited Lipinski with £14 9s. 3d., the balance of Max's store debt. Our opinion on the case, after a very careful investigation, is this : It is quite certain, from the evidence, that Max agreed to the building of the house, aud even pointed out tiie site for it. He admits, also, that ho would have taken the house if it had been well-built, but we place no reliance at all on his statement that the faulty building of the house was the sole cause of his abandoning his land and leaving the settlement. The defects in a cottage of that sort could not have made such a difference as is pretended, and a little extra work, or a small reduction in the price, would easily have adjusted anything wrong. But Max cannot be regarded as a bond fide settler ; his own evidence shows that ho never made up his mind to remain. The facts about the house being as we have stated, we think the price was fairly charged against Max, the only question being whether the price was too much. After a personal examination of the house we think it is of inferior workmanship to the others, and, though something was done to amend the defects, yet wo are of opinion that some reduction iv tho price might fairly be made. A reduction of'one-half is certainly more than we should recommend if we had to make a strict estimate, but, considering that such a reduction would wipe off the balance of Max's store account, we should have no hesitation in recommending it. By debiting that balance to Lipinski the same object is attained; but, should that arrangement not hold good, we should not rceommeud that tho amount bo again debited to Max, as the Eesident Agent says would, as a matter of course, be done. In the meantime there is no necessity to do anything, as we consider that, so loug as Max is not charged any more on his store account, he has not been illiberally dealt with. The Case of Tobian. —John and Eudolf Tobian each paid £3 for rent of their sections for two consecutive years. The second payment was not voluntary on their part, the rent having been deducted from their wages by the Eesident Agent at the very beginning of the second year. Tho Eesident Agent had received no notice of their intention to abandon tho laud, aud he thought himself entitled to collect the rent. We think, however, he took an erroneous view of the matter. Section 6of the Conditions of Settlement limits the right to deduct rent from wages to the first year, and prescribes whatis to be done in the event of failure to pay rent in subsequent years. Payments after the first year ought, wo think, to be entirely voluntary ; and wo have thereforo recommended the claims of John and Eudolf Tobian for a refund of the sum of £3 each. The Case of Thomas Fell. —Thomas Fell claimed his passage-money from Hokitika to the Ha.y, which he paid himself. The claim has always been allowed, but he is not satisfied unless he gets it paid him in cash, instead of being deducted from his store account. We thiuk credit should be given for it in the store account, and that he ought to be content with this. Case of German Sattlers. —This is a matter which has been the subject of full discussion and inquiry, as will be seen by a reference to Parliamentary Papers (Journal of Legislative Council, 1876, Appendix No. 4, pages 10 et seqq.). The subject lias been brought up again by Mr. Peter Helmling, who was very anxious to contradict a statement of Mr. Bonar's to the effect that no one was forced to go to Jackson's Bay. The occurrence took place in February, 1876, when some Germans insisted on landing at Hokitika, instead of going on to the Bay. They were at first refused and afterwards granted admission to the depot, and Mr. Helmling could not got payment of his charges for tho supper he had given them. There is evidence that Mr. Helmling himself dissuaded them from going to the settlement ; but, whether he did so or not, wo cannot see how compulsion can be inferred from the facts which he has stated. Case of John Skipper. —This man complains of the loss of his goods. On one occasion the Eesident Agent appears to have interfered to prevent his getting his goods taken on board the " Waipara" until his store debt was paid. But the goods were in his own charge then and afterwards, and no evidence appears which would make the Government or its agents responsible for them. Alleged Assault on a Woman at the Store. —This turned up casually in evidence, and we were requested to have the matter cleared up. It is enough to say that tho woman grossly misconducted herself, and it was necessary to put her out of the store by force. Alleged Assault on Mrs. Klcmpel by Police Officer. —We heard evidence on this subject at the request of the Superintendent of Police at Hokitika. Mrs. Klempel's husband was arrested on a warrant of the Eesident Magistrate in a civil case, and she complained of rough treatment to herself •by the sergeant of police. But there is no doubt that she actively interfered to prevent tho arrest, and there is no reason to think that Sergeant Barrett used any unnecessary violence. It would seem that the warrant under which tho arrest was made was illegal, tho Eesident Magistrate having mistaken the procedure appropriate to the case. We informed Sergeant Barrett that, in our opinion, the charge against him had not been substantiated. We have now gone through the tedious task of sifting and giving an opinion upon the complaints which have been made to vs —at all events, such of them as arc not too trifling, too vague, or too destitute of evidence. No doubt some others might still be found by a careful reader of the evidence, if such could be met with, but it will scarcely be expected that we should enlarge upon the grievance of the settler whom Mr. Marks charged twice for a box of matches, and in whose breast the wrong had rankled, notwithstanding that immediate redress had been given upon the error being pointed out; nor