F. H. D. BELL.]

17

L—3a,

it is ludicrous to take £80,000 and add to it the freehold and say that that is worth £25,000. Of course, Mr. Skerrett could not have held that opinion. And as Mr. Skerrett launched a claim of £80,000 against the Assurance Fund, I do not think he ever believed that the £25,000 was a sufficient sum. But if he did, he must have believed there was nothing in the claim. Now, there was nothing in the claim; there was nothing whatever in the claim against the Assurance Fund. And I venture to say that the Government Law Officers can never have advised the Government that there was any foundation for the claim. The Act provides that the Assurance Fund shall not be liable in respect of any legal disability of the person who signs an instrument which gets on the Register. That is expressly provided by the statute. In the second place, it is ludicrous to suppose that the Assurance Fund is to indemnify people against their own folly. The Assurance Fund is to indemnify a person who loses his land by the act of another. It is not liable to a person who, by reason of himself signing a deed and thereby inducing the Registrar to register that deed, suffers loss through a transfer to a subsequent purchaser. The only instance in which anything of the kind lias ever been suggested is the case of a Native reserve; but the reason in the case of the Native reserve where the Public Trustee recovered against the Assurance Fund was this : that the people who there signed that deed of lease which granted a Native reserve were trustees, and that the people they injured were not themselves but their beneficiaries, and the Public Trustee recovered for the beneficiaries. There is no instance of the Assurance Fund being held liable to a man because he is silly enough to sign some document which he should not sign. Again, the whole matter is purely chimerical. As to whether these leases were valid or not, great respect no doubt must be paid to the opinion of the Native Land Commission; but there is the Act of 188S — the Mokau Act —which fays that the leases signed in favour of Mr. Jones in the Mokau Block shall be valid for all purposes, and that nobody else shall be allowed to register in respect of those lands. 7. The Chairman 1 Under certain conditions: there were certain conditions specified in the Act?— Yes; but I am referring to the section of the Act. The Commission have reported that because leases were obtained and signatures were not obtained to the original lease, but were obtained to subsidiary leases instead, therefore the leases were invalid; but there was the statute, and these people signed the leases and they got on the register. However, it is immaterial. But the absurdity of the position, as I understand it, is this : If that claim is valid it exists just as much to-day as ever it did. The purchase of the freehold has not extinguished the right of the Natives to damages for the registration of the documents creating leases. It has been held that they did right to take £25,000 for the freehold because of the existence of these leases, and because these leases, being hold by hnnn fide purchasers for value under the Land Transfer Act, depreciated seriously the value of the land. If that is so, and if those leases were improperly registered, then the Natives have just as good a claim for £80.000, or whatever the sum be, against the Assurance Fund to-day as they ever had. The purchase of the freehold by Mr. Lewis has not extinguished the claim of the Natives, if nny claim exists, against the Assurance Fund. Another ground unon which the Law Office's of the Crown could not have advised there was any claim is this : The leases were registered many years ago, and the Land Transfer Act limits the right of action for dam apes in such cases to six years from the time when the cause of action accrued, and the cause of action in this case accrued at the time the leases were registered. It is suggested —and it is possible to found an argument on the suggestion—that the cause of action arose at the time the transfer to the hona fide purchaser for value was registered. That is not the act of the Registrar which is complained of. The act of the Registrar which is complained of is the registration of the invalid lease, not the transfer to the bona fide purchaser for value, which he was bound to register. But the point I wish to make to the Committee, and which was apparent to me all along, and which wns apparent to the Natives who were advised by me, is that if there is such a claim it is not got rid of. I read Mr. Dalziell's letter upon that point with great astonishment. As to the way in which the Natives were led to pass these resolutions—and I expressly say that they were not misled by mv learned friend : they were led into agreeing on the assumption that they had to find £800 as the alternative. It is quite obvious that if any Government officer or the Maori Land Board had considered the matter for a moment they would have seen that if the Natives desired to litigate the matter the Government had already offered them legal assistance. I do not doubt for a moment that the Government would have been just as willing to allow me to act for the Natives as Mr. Skerrett, and to guarantee the Natives against expense. But all that is as to the wrong that the Natives, I think, suffered by being persuaded into the idea that it was a good thing for them to sell this land ani get rid of litigation. Litigation did not affect them. They could enter into it or not as they pleased. If they attacked the leases there would be litigation, but nobody could attack or put them to cost about their legal position. The Maori Land Board, from the point of view of those who were advising the Natives, took a most extraordinary view. The Board's business was to protect the Natives. Now, the sole obiect. of this meeting of assembled owners was to get a conveyance from the Maori Land Board instead of from the Natives. The purchasers could not have got a conveyance of this land from all the Natives. That is well known. Some of them, at nil events, would not sell under any circumstances. The only way to get the thing carried through was to get a statutory conveyance signed by the Maori Land Board, which conveys away the lands of people who do not want to sell if you can get a maiority of those who want to sell to vote that such a conveyance shall be executed. That was the obiect, and the only obiect, of calling the owners together. The Maori Land Board did its best to give effect to that by insisting upon meeting after meeting, until a resolution was passed which put into their hands the power of conveying away the of people whom they knew perfectly well did not want to sell. The Board made conditions. They hnd no power, I submit, to impose the condition which lias been emphasized so much —that the purchaser shall sell the land in pieces to subpurchasers. There is no power given to the Maori Land Board by the statute for that purpose. The

3—T. 3a.