39

I.—sa.

T. W. HISLOP.]

Mr. Fisher: I should like to put in in evidence a copy of an order of the Supreme Court dated the 7th November, 1902—an order from the Crown giving Mrs. Williams notice to quit. Copy of Order referred to. "In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington District,—No. 29.—Under ' The Crown Suits Act, 1881.'—His Majesty the King against Mary Anne Williams, of Wellington, xvidoxv. " Statement of Claim. " On Friday, the 7th day of November, 1902. " Frederick Fitchett, Esquire, Solicitor-General of our Lord the King, for and on behalf of our said Lord the King, by Francis Henry Dillon Bell, Crown Solicitor for the Wellington District, sues the above-named Mary Anne Williams, and says,— " (1.) That certain lands, to wit, — " (a.) Part of Section 488 on the plan of the City of Wellington, containing 42 perches, bounded as folloxvs, that is to say : On the north-east by part of the said Section 488, 1367 links; towards the south-east by a right-of-way, 191 links; toxvards the south-xvest by other part of the said Section 488, 139"1 links; towards the north-west by Wellington Terrace, 19 links: " (6.) Another part of the said Section 488, on the plan of the City of Wellington, containing 655 perches, bounded as folloxvs: On the north-west by part of the said Section -*\o. 488, 702 links; toxvards the south-east by part of the said Section 488, 567 links: towards the south-xvest by Section 487, 749 links; and towards the north-west by Wellington Terrace, 565 links: are Crown lands or demesne lands of the Crown. " (2.) The said Mary Anne Williams is in possession or occupation of the said lands unlawfully and without any right, title, or license. " (3.) If the said Mary Anne Williams ever had any right, title, or license to or in respect of the said lands, such right, title, or license has become forfeited and cancelled, and His Majesty is now entitled to possession of the said lands. " (4.) The said Mary Anne Williams still retains possession of the said lands, and withholds the same from His Majesty. " Wherefore our said Lord the King claims (1) possession of the said lands; (2) such sum for mesne profits as the Court may deem His Majesty entitled to." Witness: The position, so far as the Council was concerned, xvas simply this: that, knowing they assisted us to get the work done, xve had always found in our dealings xvith the Government that the Government were quite able to look after themselves. I was no party ever to putting anything before the Government xvhich xvas not absolutely correct, and there the matter rests. We have had litigation with the Government over other pieces of ground, and we found them quite able to look after themselves; and we look after ourselves.

Friday, 21st August, 1908. Thomas Kennedy Macdonald examined on oath. (No. 9.) Witness: Some few months after Mr. Hislop's election as Mayor I learned—I forget whether by conversation, or by reading of the matter in the nexvspapers—that it was intended to improve Woodward Street. At that time I was interested in the leasehold. I was seen about the matter, and was informed that the Council's Engineer xvanted to take a corner in order to carry out the xx'ork. I forget who first saxv me on the subject, but 1 remember one day Mr. Hislop coming in about some other matter, and the then oxvners of the freehold, Mr. and Mrs. Love, xv«re there, and he asked me if I thought they xvould agree to give a piece of land for the purpose. He knew them, and knew that they were the owners. We (the Loves, the Mayor, and I) had a short conversation. Nothing much xvas said, but Mr. Hislop explained that it was desired to carry out the xvork, and he xvanted them to arrange the matter with the Engineer. I did not take much part in it, but left the conversation xvith them. They said, after Mr. Hislop went, that they xvould see about it xvhen they came back to Wellington again. I spoke to them on several occasions afterwards, but they kept putting it off. My firm collected these and other rents for the Loves, and accounted to them for them. We had sold land for the Loves before. This particular property was only bringing them in a rent of £50 per annum, and they had been borrowing money at a high rate of interest, and they told me that they xx'ould like to sell the freehold. This xvas shortly after my illness. I told them that I would get a valuation. I got one from Messrs. W. H. Turnbull and. Co., the land agents and valuers, xvho valued the land, subject to the perpetual lease, at £1,000. I afterwards showed the valuation to the Loves, and I said I xvould be willing to give that price. I instructed Messrs. Bunny and Petherick, the solicitors, to prepare conveyance. Messrs. Menteath and Beere, solicitors, acted for the Loves, and the matter xvas put through the Native Land Court, and was afterwards completed by the solicitors. I considered, during the time the purchase xvas going through, the carrying-out of the roadmaking, and I also became curious to know whose the adjoining ground was. I saw the City Engineer, and I also saxv a sketch of the land proposed to be taken, and I thought that if I could get the vacant ground on reasonable terms it might be xvorth while. I got the notion from the sketch that the amount required xvas 4 perches, and Mr. Morton told me that he could not tell exactly how much was wanted until he got an accurate survey. I took steps to ascertain whose the vacant land was, and found it belonged to the Government.