W. H. BOWLER.]

55

I— 3a.

• ill. You simply took Mr. Dalziell's word for it.' Yes, but qualified our decision by making it subject to verification of his statement. 315. Do you know whether there is any claim by Mr. Skerrett or his firm on the fund which you hold by means of the collection of 10 per cent, from the vendors 1 No, 1 have heard nothing of it. .'ill). With regard to these £2,600 worth of siiares : do you know anything about the real value of these shares? —No. 317. You know, of course, that there is a difference between the nominal value of shares in a company and the real value? —Quite frequently. 318. Do you know how many shares are represented by the £2,600? —250 fully-paid-up £10 shares. 319. You are quite olear about that? —Quite sure. 320. Do you know the value a< which this land stands in the books of the company?— No. 321. Do you not think that, as representing the Natives, and as one who was expected to look after their interests, you should have looked this point up?— Searched the company's register when the land was Native land? 322. Just let me finish. You should have ascertained the value at which the land stands in the books of the company, and compared that with the amount which was paid for it to the Natives, so as to let them understand the real value —not the nominal value —of the shares which were being handed over to them? The Chairman: That is a statement: will you frame your question now, Mr. Massey? 323. Mr. Massey.] What I am asking is this : Did you satisfy the Native owners as to the difference between the value at which they sold—the price they received for the freehold of the land—and the value at which the land stands in the books of the company who own it now?— No, I made no reference to the books of the company. 324. Do you not see the bearing this point has on the value of the shares?— Yes, but from the evidence we had before us the consideration—the £25,000 —was adequate, apart from the shares. 325. Then the shares were not worth considering, apart from it? —They were worth considering, but they were additional to what we considered the proper purchase-money. 326. The real value of the shares was not considered? —No. 327. Hon. Sir J. Ctirroll.] When the Board agreed on the sale from the Natives to the purchaser.and the £25,000 was paid, did the interests of the Natives as owners in the land entirely disappear? —Yes, excepting that they retained certain shares in the company 328. That is an arrangement between themselves and the company, but as owners in the land ? —Their interest disappeared. 329. The freehold then changed from Maori-owned land to European-owned land?— Yes. 330. And all subsequent transactions, mortgages and otherwise, affected land owned by Europeans ?—Yes. 331. The Chairman.] Of all these documents that have been requested by the Committee, will you see that certified copies are sent? They must be certified by some one other than yourself?— Very well, sir. 1 would ask leave to take my minute-books, if I may —I want them particularly in Auckland; but I will leave certified extracts. The Chairman: Very well. Mr. Berries: There should be certified copies of anything concerning the blocks, not merely of what the witness referred to in his evidence. Witness: I think the minutes of the two meetings of the Board cover everything in connection with the block. Ihe matter was only before the Board twice.

p Edwin Henuy Hardy sworn and examined. (No. 8.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you by profession? —Authorized surveyor and sheep-farmer, Te Kuiti. 2. Have you seen the paper that forms the subject of this inquiry?— Yes. 3. Do you wish to make a statement to the Committee, or are you prepared to submit to examination? —I will submit myself to examination, and, if necessary, enlarge upon any point. 4. Mr. Massey.] You have been connected with the sale of the Mokau-Mohakatino blocks by the Native owners to Mr. Herrman Lewis or other purchasers?— Yes. 5. Will you tell us when your connection with this transaction commenced? —In November, 1910, I was engaged by Tohiriri to assist him to fill in and lodge an application for partition in the Native Land Court. He was an owner in Block Ih. 6. At what date did he approach you ?—Some time in November, 1910. I cannot give you exact dates. 7. What happened then? —His application for partition was thrown out, on the ground that a lease existed over the property, and he could not be heard. 8. What was the next step?— The next step I was not connnected with. 9. I am speaking of the next step you were connected with? —I was not directly connected with it, but I noticed from the Gazette that one Herrman Lewis had applied for the purchase of certain blocks in Mokau-Mohakatino. 10. And then?— That party —Tohiriri —was present at that meeting.