Page image
Page image

1.—6

28

371. Did you refer him to Mr. Stout, then in Dunedin ?—Yes. 372. Did it come to your knowledge at that time, when Mr. Luckie put himself in communication with Mr. Stout, that it was arranged Mr. Pym was to stand on one side, and that all negotiations were to be undertaken by Messrs. Sievwright and Stout ?—That appears from the telegrams, but I am not sure whether it came to my knowledge before the final ratification of the purchase. I think Mr. Luckie told me about it at the time of the conclusion, when he recommended that Mr. Pym should have a remuneration. This is the telegram received from Mr. Luckie, dated the 24th December: — Hon. Sir J. Vogel, Wellington. Dunedin, 24th December, 1884. Tbansaction very good one for department, and greatly indebted to Pym. Unfortunately, although the originator of the purchase, Pym has literally been cut out of all profit. The manoeuvres of agents of the various proprietors and mortgagers necessitated, by advice of Sievwright and Stout, that Pym should stand aside. I think his service should be substantially recognized. Had he not assisted, and kept silence, the price would have been jumped up to fortt thousand. I would recommend one and a fourth per cent, for his special services. We have a large contingeny vote. Please reply. D. M. Luckie. I may state that Mr. Pym is a connection of mine—he is brother-in-law to my wife. I should like to put the whole of the evidence referring to Mr. Pym distinctly before the Committee, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to my position in the matter : — D, M. Luekie, Esq., Dunedin. Wellington, 24th December, 1884. Pym is a connection of mine, and I cannot authorize a special payment to him unless on direct recommendation of the Hon. the Premier, who is better cognizant of the circumstances than I. Julius Vogel. The Hon. the Premier. Dunedin, 24th December, 1884. In consideration of the valuable services which Mr. Pym has rendered to the department in connection with the purchase of the property at Wise's corner, which was first initiated by him, as he aided me in making the preliminary arrangements, and expected a fair commission on the transaction, I respectfully recommend that he be allowed a commission of l-\ per cent, on the purchase-price of the property. D. M. Luckie. This is Mr. Stout's memorandum upon that: D. M. Luckie, Esq., Dunedin. 24th December, 1884. Ido not know that Mr. Pym cannot claim a commission. He put the department on to the bargain, and, though he was not agent at the close of the bargain, he is certainly entitled to be paid for his services, and I think 1J per cent, fair commission. R. Stout. Hon. Sir Julius Vogel, K.C.M.G., Wellington. Dunedin, 24th December, 1884. Premier in a minute considers Pym legally entitled to commission, having put department on the bargain, and says certainly entitled to be paid for his services, and that one and a fourth is a fair commission. Please approve. Shall I give him cheque out of imprest ? D. M. Luckie. Mr. Luckie, Dunedin. Wellington, 25th December, 1884. My view is, that we should not ask House to vote payment to Pym: vendors must pay it. You tell me Premier has minuted that he is entitled to payment. We must compel vendors to pay it, or the bargain is off. Julius Vogel. Hon. Sir J. Vogel, K.C.M.G., Wellington. Dunedin, 26th December, 1884. I have to-day succeeded in securing to Pym one per cent, commission on purchase-money. This was all I could do, and he will be content. I have reported this arrangement to the Hon the Premier. In all things where necessary I was guided by Sievwright, and I assure you the others being after the property was no " bogie : " property could now be transferred for fully ten per cent, advance either here or in Melbourne D. M. Luckie. D. M. Luckie, Esq., Dunedin. Wellington, 26th December, 1884. You should have insisted on full amount certified by Premier. As it is, it seems to me we ought to pay Pym the quarter difference. Will wire A.D.C. approval purchase. Julius Vogel. 373. Upon the authority therein stated, did Mr. Pym receive that J per cent. ? —I think so. I should like to say this generally upon the subject: My own view was this: that, the Premier having recognized that Mr. Pym was entitled to 1J per cent., I wished it to be obtained from the vendors. When only 1 per cent, was obtained, I thought it would be cowardly on my part to refuse to take the responsibility of authorizing the balance of -J- per cent. 374. Had you ever any knowledge that others claimed this commission at that time ?—No; I do not think I knew anything more about it at that time. I heard something about it afterwards. I do not recollect that I had any knowledge of it at that time. 375. Did Sievwright and Stout, within your knowledge, apply for authority to pay that commission of £500 to a Mr. Eeid ?—I cannot say without going through the papers, except that I have no recollection of it. 376. Have you any knowledge of what commission Pym did get in the end, and how the commission was shared ? —To the best of my belief he got his 1-J- per cent, commission. 377. You do not know of his sharing it with any one?— No. 378. Would it not have been a strange thing for the department to have paid that commission, as advised by the Premier, they being the purchasers ?—I cannot exactly say. If I were wanting to buy an estate privately I should adopt the course of engaging some one to act for me, and pay him a commission, so that he would have no inducement to act for the other side. I think that is a good plan for a purchaser to adopt who has little knowledge of what he is purchasing. 379. But do not the papers show that in this transaction Mr. Pym had no dealing with the negotiations ? —The papers show, apparently, to my mind that he was acting more for us than for the vendors. 380. Does not Mr. Luckie report that Pym was asked to stand on one side, so that Sievwright and Stout could conduct the whole transaction ?—Not that they could conduct the transaction, but that other agents might be brought in. 381. There was a telegram that Pym was to stand on one side, and not let himself be seen ?— All I know is what is stated in the telegram. 382. Is it not a matter of fact that Mr. Eeid was then employed by Sievwright and Stout, and did conduct all the transactions ? —I have no knowledge of that. 383. Do you know that the commission was all paid by Sievwright and Stout to this Mr. Eeid? —No; I have no knowledge on that subject at all.

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert