I.—lα

8

of Wellington, at £6,752, and Wickham Flower bought it at that price as my solicitor for me, afterwards saying that it w r as for himself, and not for me. I brought him before the Incorporated Law Society, which left the matter an open question, and I then brought it before the Master of the Rolls, who advised an action by way of appeal from the finding of the Law Society, and the High Court held that Flower had committed a fraud, and ordered him to pay a heavy sum byway of fine. He was held guilty. The effect of the decision was to hold that he bought the property as solicitor for me; therefore he was trustee for me in addition to holding a mortgage, as stated in my petition to the Legislative Council, 1908. In all these transactions Travers was engaged with him, though Travers was at this end of the globe. After years of litigation an action for slander of title was brought in the King's Bench Division —Jones v. Wickham Flower and three other defendants. After I had been in the box two days they threw up the sponge, and said they would surrender the property. I strongly objected to the compromise; but my counsel, Sir J. Lawson Walton, when they surrendered the property said that the defendants were men of straw, and it would be better to get the property. - I objected to it for a long time, and raised three points against coming to a compromise — (1) as regards the tenants illegally placed on the land by Flower; (2) as regards waiving my private statute of 1888 and giving the other side a mortgage under the Land Transfer Act of New Zealand; (3) as regards the bad report on the property made by Wales in 1894, which I feared might crop up or be put forward again, as well as that respecting the title, as before. The jury were kept idle in the box for considerably over an hour, and the Judge retired to his room while my objections were being discussed. "My objections, however, were overcome —(1) that the tenants must have been legally placed on the* land, or they would not be tenants at all. It was admitted that these were not legal tenants, and I insisted on having it specified in the document of compromise that they should be removed by the other side. (2.) As regards the statute, I was advised that the point was not material if I dealt with the property unmolested by prejudicial effects from the other side. ' If a sale were effected neither statute would affect me. (3.) As regards the false report by Wales and the previous improper claim to the title, I was advised that, as these were malicious, and had done injury in the past in preventing my dealings, if they again prejudiced my dealings in the future by following the compromise or being again circulated to my damage, I was to treat the compact as being void, and the Court would uphold me. I thereupon consented to a compromise. It was pointed out to me in the compromise that I was compromising with my own trustee at his own request. I entered into the compromise on the 27th July, 1904, and Flower died immediately afterwards, and his trustees stood in the same position towards me. There was no other trustee appointed. Mr. Okey.- Will you tell the Committee the compromise you entered into. Mr. J ones: That I had to pay certain sums of money within two years; failing that, I was to give a mortgage. During the two years I did not pay the sum, and I gave a mortgage. That went on for eighteen months more, and I did not pay. That gave them the opportunity of a foreclosure. The reason I did not pay the moneys was that the damaging report of Wales, saying that the coal was no good either for house or steaming purposes, and also another document, had been put forward at the time of the compromise in 1907, again disputing my title. I have a copy of it. I could not sell the property. It was morally impossible. I went at once to my counsel, who said, "I advise you to discard the compromise—they have vitiated it; not you— and enter an action for redemption in the Chancery Court." I entered the action accordingly, and a motion was entered to strike out the action as frivolous. Mr. Justice Parker, however, said, "This is not a frivolous action by any means." He had the New Zealand statute before him,' and had affidavits from the other side from New Zealand solicitors. He refused the motion to strike out the action, and ordered it to proceed. This order has bean disputed by no less an authority than Sir Robert Stout, Your Judges here said it was frivolous, and kicked it out. I have here an answer from my solicitor's clerk, indorsed by Mr. Buckley, my counsel, certifying that the order was made. The Chairman: Do you wish to show that, because the English Judges said the action was not frivolous, you should be heard before the bar of the House? Mr. Jones: It is a question of jurisdiction. The Chairman: But this Committee cannot go into that. Ido not want you to go into the whole of the English Court cases. If you will tell us the story without reading so much, and place the papers on the table, we will go into them afterwards. It will not do you any good to read all that. We want you to show that you have been unfairly treated. Mr. Jones: Yes; but I thought you would want the grounds why I came to this Court. Sir Robert Stout said that Judge Parker had not given the decision that the action was not frivolous. In that connection I have here the signature of my counsel to a document confirming my statement that the action was held to be not frivolous. Your Judges said to me, " You have got no more interest in the property. We will not allow you to go to the Privy Council or enter an action." I then laid the matter before Sir Joseph Ward. The Chairman: Have you got the judgment wherein it is stated that you had no case, and would not be allowed to appeal? Mr. Jones: Yes. It is here fully reported in the Dominion, and the same report was published in the New Zealand Times. [From the Dominion, 21st July, 1908.] Law Reports.—Full Court.—The Mokau Leases .—Removal of a Caveat.—" Projected. Action Frivolous." At a sitting of the Full Court yesterday, when His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and their Honours Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman were present, argument was heard relative to a caveat forbidding dealings with certain leases of portions of the Mokau-Mohakatino Block, aggregating over 44,000 acres.