I.—3a.

4

[t. s. weston.

35. These agreements are for growing timber ?—They are for timber fit for sawmilling purposes, whether standing or lying on the ground. 36. Mr. Vile.] You consider that matured timber is in the same position as matured flax, or any other matured crop? —Yes ; just the same. 37. You know that it is proposed to make all these transactions illegal and retrospective ?— Yes. 38. Do you know whether there have been many transactions of this description—transactions besides the four you have acted professionally in?—l know of others. Mr. Skerrett's opinion has gone to other solicitors who have acted on it. 39. By general repute, and from your position to hear these things, you having been mixed up with sawmillers, have you heard of many other transactions such as the four you have acted professionally in ?—I have heard of others. The proposed change would be a very drastic change. It would hit a large number of sawmillers, because, owing to the scarcity of timber land, rights like these have been taken up very much during the last few years. Of course, the danger is this :to ask them to go before the Maori Council now would be unfair in this way, that there has been such a rapid growth in the value of timber during the last few years that it would be difficult to say what would be a fair value at the time the agreements were taken when the country was not opened up. 40. Do you know anything about the big Taupo syndicate?— No. 41. Mr. Field.] You have seen the proposed clause 31a, have you not?— Yes. With regard to future contracts the clause is very strong. If you only allow the Native owner to cut and remove the timber the only chance of enforcing the agreement is by an action for damages, and an action for damages is sometimes abortive. It would give every chance for litigation to arise. 42. Assuming that a sawmiller has a contract with Natives for a block of timber, and the contract can be sustained in a Court of law, but which, nevertheless, in the point of view of a fairminded man, would be shocking to his conscience, owing to the terms given to the Natives : what would you do in a case like that? Perhaps you would not like to express an opinion ?—Well, the country is not very much opened up yet, and it is only during the last few years that a good deal of roading has been going on. 43. Hon. Mr. Carroll.] You consider, Mr. Weston, that, according to the law, standing timber on land would be a chattel ?—Yes ; that is the basis of the whole thing. 44. Mr. Fraser.] With your previous proviso, that it is matured timber?— Yes. 45. Hon. Mr. Carroll.] Timber, whether matured or not, would be timber? —I do not think young trees are contemplated. It must be timber fit for cutting. 46. You declare, of course, that your contracts are perfectly legal and will hold good in a Court of law ?—Yes. 47. Do you register them ?—No ; we have not registered. I question whether we could register them under the Land Transfer Act. 48. You are secured by your contract in any Court of law on what is not a registrable document ?—Yes. Under our Land Transfer Act Ido not think you can register. It is not an interest in land within the meaning of the Land Transfer Act. 49. You have complied with all the forms required by the Act for the protection of the Natives, by having a Native interpreter, witnesses, and so forth ?—Yes. 50. Except one of the requirements of the law, and that is by some official—the Trust Commissioner under the Native Land Act —to see whether the consideration is fair or otherwise : that is omitted ?—Yes; there is no jurisdiction for the Court to interfere or to grant such a certificate. 51. And there is no remedy, I infer from your remarks, in the case of a transaction the terms of which would shock the conscience of members ?—Yes, there is certainly a remedy. In equity, if there was a fraud, I think these agreements would be set aside. 52. How would they come before the Court ?—The Native would be looked upon as a person under a disability, and if it could be shown that the case was so shocking as to satisfy the Court that the Native did not know what he was doing the contract would be set aside. 53. That would be the remedy ?—Yes. 54. What would be the remedy of the sawmiller if the Native revoked his contract ? —Now you open up a question which I cannot answer straight away. I think he could go on the land and take the timber, as the timber is sold to him. 55. Mr. Fraser.] He could go for damages ?—Yes; but that is rather a brutum fulmen in certain cases. You find in practice, however, that the Natives in the interior of the North Island are straight dealers. 56. Hon. Mr. Carroll.] The question is, what they could do ?—Yes ; what their legal right is. 57. You wish to impress upon the minds of the Committee that the value of the consideration should not be gauged from what the value through the opening-up of the country is now, and that it should not be based on the present valuation ?—No. 58. But when there was not that rise in timber and the country was not opened up?— Yes. 59. The Baetihi blocks forming the subject of the agreements are on the Pipiriki Boad, are they not? —I could not say. It would be very awkward to get the timber into the market. 60. You have not been up through that country ? —No ; but I know the locality. I have been interested in sawmilling myself. 61. Mr. Hone Heke.] You know section 117 of " The Native Land Court Act, 1894 "?- -Yes. 62. The restriction there is not strong enough to prevent the sale of growing timber?— No. 63. The Chairman.] Would you consider maize, oats, flax, or potatoes as a matured crop, the same as timber? —Yes. 64. Then, if a Native were legally entitled to sell a crop of oats or maize, would you infer from that that he would be entitled to sell a crop of timber ?—Yes; the English cases are clear on that.