3

i.—n

That the statement on the Order Paper that the Attorney-General was not asked and had no power to give effect to the recommendation is not in accordance with my information. He represented the Government in the Council, and when asked by my solicitor, Mr. C. E. Treadwell, on the Bth October, 1908, to set up the Commission or competent tribunal as recommended, he replied that the Government would not set up the inquiry to deal with or investigate the petition. That at the same Dr. Findlay put forward, on behalf of his firm's client, Hermann Lewis, as the only alternative for me to consider, certain terms, demanding a sum of £5,000, which a few days later was increased to £11,000 and £14,000, on behalf of Flower's executorship,ooo_ altogether. That the land was to be sold through the Maori Land Board, and these sums to be a just charge upon the proceeds. That arbitrators were to be appointed to determine how much more money, if any, Lewis was to get when the land became all disposed of. That the in paragraph 1 of the replies on the paper that my solicitor agreed with the Solicitor-General as to there being no power vested in the Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into this case requires this explanation : namely, that I informed my solicitor verbally and in writing that I believed both he and the Solicitor-General were wrong in such conclusion, or, at any rate, that if I were wrong I believed Parliament would give the necessary power if requested to do so. That, as to the allegation in the document of alleged fraud by Mr. Jones with his Native lessors, that is a statement put forward in the report of the Stout-Palmer Native Land Commission that held the so-called inquiry behind my back, and that I knew nothing of until several weeks after it had been held. That I am prepared to submit evidence to show that this Stout inquiry had previously been threatened by Dr. Findlay to my injury, in consequence of a letter written the 3rd November by the Hon. J. Rigg, M.L.C., who presented my petition to the Prime Minister, drawing his notice to the terms demanded on behalf of Hermann Lewis and others by the Attorney-General or his firm. That I believe the Stout Commission had no power, and that it was not intended by Parliament that it should have, to inquire into a case of this kind, where the land had passed the Court decades previously, and had been dealt with under the usual formalities, and where the ordinary Courts of law are open for the redress of any grievances. That the statement in the paper that the recommendation of the Committee had been fully considered by the Government is negatived by a reply given to me by Sir Joseph Ward on the 22nd April, 1910, that he supposed the matter had been overlooked, but that he had promised the inquiry, and would see that I got it. Mr. Treadwell, who was present, interjected that the Attorney-General informed him there should be no inquiry. Sir Joseph replied, "That is not my view. The Committee recommended it, and Mr. Jones shall have it." That the statement that the Attorney-General has not and never had any interest, direct or indirect, in the mortgages does not agree with the evidence before me, which is that on the 2nd May last Mr. Bamford, the Registrar-General, went to New Plymouth, and without legal authority ordered the removal of a caveat while there was a written protest against any intended removal without inquiry, upon the ground that fraud had been committed in connection with the title, and that on that same day, 2nd May, the first mortgage registered after such removal of caveat was one over half the property from Hermann Lewis in favour of John George Findlay and Frederick George Dalziell. That this took precedence of the mortgage for £25,271 Bs. 2d Hermann Lewis to T. G. Macarthy, who, the paper states, had threatened legal proceedings. That there are other matters referred to in the paper, as well as in connection with the whole transactions of the title to this property, that, it is humbly submitted, demand the earliest investigation, which has hitherto been denied. That the suggestion that Mr. Jones should go again to the law-courts is not tenable upon the face of the decision already given, and the statement in the paper that the legal claims of Mr. Jones were finally dismissed as groundless by the Court of Appeal. That your petitioner does humbly submit that the Land Transfer Act was never intended to be the medium of fraud by the transfer of properties to dummies, much less, as in this case, by trustees. That the interest of every person holding a foot of land in this Dominion stands in jeopardy while such a state of things, and the disregard of and removal of caveats without judicial authority, is permitted. That your petitioner doth humbly suggest and pray that he may be permitted to present himself in his proper person to your honourable House for viva voce examination and the production of papers,- as being the safest and most expeditious form of disposing of this important matter; and that you may be pleased to grant such other or further relief as to your honourable House may seem meet. And your humble petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. 12th August, 1910. JosmjA JoNESp