I.—IB

28

(2) and by such legislation and litigation he has become a pecuniary loser to at least the amount claimed. Both Claims Absolutely Baseless. —Sir Walter Buller is entirely responsible for the incurring of the costs. If the Public Trustee had been permitted he would have simply filed his writ and statement of claim to comply with the statute and take no further step. The statement of claim could not have been made public. Sir Walter. Buller could not have been damaged by anything in it. Within the year ordinarily allowed for service the judgment of the Native Appellate Court was given. That judgment showed the action against Sir Walter Buller was hopeless. It found that Kemp was not a trustee. The actual decree is not yet issued. Immediately upon the judgment being given the Public Trustee would have consented to a final decree in favour of Sir Walter Buller. Sir Walter Buller's only costs would have been the trifling amount for drawing up the decree. The larger costs incurred ought not to have been and never would have been incurred if Sir Walter Buller had wished that justice should be done. His Alleged Reasons for forcing on the Trial. —(l.) The charges against him in the statement of claim : These were known to none but those who filed the writ. To have published them would have been contempt of Court. The ordinary run of man would hardly have considered an abortive, mutilated inquiry the best way to dispose of them. (2.) He wanted his titles put right: Sir Walter Buller knew that until the final decree of the Native Appellate Court his titles could not be put right. Yet that did not prevent his doing everything in his power to hinder the giving of the Native Appellate Court's judgment. (3.) His personal convenience : A matter that requires no comment. Surely it is not of such great national interest that the country should be mulcted in £700 to meet it. The Real Reason. —Brushing all subterfuge and special pleading aside, the real reason was that Sir Walter Buller feared the decree of the Appellate Court, and wanted the Supreme Court action to be disposed of on an incomplete basis before the Appellate Court decision could be given. Mr. H. D. Bell has characterized as a grotesque argument the second ground advanced, and has twisted and distorted it to bear that appearance ; but he has carefully refrained from facing the real position. Surely the fairway to look at the matter is this :If Sir Walter Buller had asked the country to indemnify him against any loss he had been put to by this litigation, he would have based his claim on as high grounds as could properly be advanced. He cannot be entitled to anything more, and so stated it would be quite obvious that if he had suffered no loss by the litigation, but, on the contrary, had profited by it, the country could not be asked to pay him anything. And that is really what has happened. Far from being a poorer man, Sir Walter Buller by this legislation and litigation is richer by several thousands of pounds. And that in a very ingenious way. The Position of Major Kemp. —Under the certificates of title Major Kemp was registered as the sole owner of Horowhenua No. 14 and as one of the two owners of Horowhenua No. 11. He was, therefore, concerned in all the litigation affecting both these blocks, and Sir Walter Buller, who was the lessee of No. 14 from Major Kemp, very nobly undertook to commence active work again, and to act as Kemp's agent and solicitor. The result was that at his death Major Kemp was the nominal owner of Horowhenua No. 14, while Sir Walter Buller, under a certain memorandum of mortgage, and under a trust in Kemp's will, is entitled to charge against the land £6,810, which is more than the whole of the land is alleged to be worth by Sir Walter Buller. Particulars of £6,810. —It appears that £2,920 18s. 7d. were incurred as Kemp's costs up to the date when the Horowhenua Committee sat. Particulars are given at page 343 of G.-2 of 1897. The bulk of this amount—viz., £2,098 Bs. 7d. —was for professional costs and disbursements, £822 10s. representing the money advanced. A liability of £3,596 16s. 6d., portion of the balance, was incurred since that date and is made up as follows : —£soo were advances to Major Kemp, £588 Is. 6d. advances to other persons, while the balance of £2,508 155., were Sir Walter Buller's profit, costs and fees, the great bulk having been incurred since February, 1897. Included in this £6,810 is this very sum of £300 95., part of the money petitioned for by Sir Walter Buller. Particulars having been, refused by Sir Walter Buller of certain items, it is impossible to say exactly how the amounts are made up, although obviously it is a matter of some moment. Hoiu Sir Walter Buller secured himself. —(1.) Mortgage. —ln October, 1894, when Sir Walter Buller first advanced any considerable sum to Major Kemp, he took from him a mortgage over Horowhenua No. 14 to secure the balance due on the account current for moneys already advanced and owing, and for moneys which might be thereafter advanced and owing. Sir Walter Buller at the date of the Commission and the sitting of the Appeal Court contended that the mortgage would also cover all costs previously incurred, amounting to some £1,000 and upwards, and all costs subsequently incurred. (2.) The Will. —Sir Walter Buller seems to have been shaken in his entire reliance on the mortgage, for within a few short weeks of Kemp's death a will was prepared, which Kemp signed. Under this will, after certain petty bequests, all the real and personal property of Major Kemp was devised upon trust to sell, and out of the proceeds to pay to Sir Walter Buller a definite sum of £6,810. It will be noticed that the trust is not to pay what is really due, or what is found on taxation to be due, but a specific sum. If the will is valid Sir Walter Buller is legally entitled to £6,810 no matter what his costs are taxed at. All the talk.about the taxing is beside the point. A definite sum of £6,810 is willed to Sir Walter Buller. How the Litigation affected Sir Walter Buller. —We find that under the litigation subsequent upon the Horowhenua Block Act of 1896 Sir Walter Buller has secured to himself as actual clean net profit some £2,500, and prior to that Act another £2,000, since 1892. 1. This is absolutely secured to him whatever his costs maybe taxed at, and the more his costs are taxed down the more apparent it will be how he has profited. Supposing it to be shown that his costs are £1,000 too much, he is still entitled to the extra £1,000 under the will, and but for the legislation and litigation Kemp would never have made that will.