F. G. DALZIELL.]

103

I.—3a.

have said, the Commission had no jurisdiction at all to inquire into the validity of these titles, and I suggest that it should not have done so, for the reason that it was impossible for the question to be fairly tried unless the parties interested in the leases were afforded the chance to produce evidence going back to the date of the execution of the leases, and this they had no opportunity at all of doinp. Now, the findings of this Commission are important. -\s to Block If, the Commission found that a considerable number —about twenty, 1 think—of the owners had not signed the lease. The Commission also said that the lease was illegal. They said that, as Burning it to be legal, it was liable to forfeiture, because the covenants in it had not been properly performed. With regard to the other three blocks, Ig, Ih, and Ij, the Commission found that all of these leases were void; they should never have been registered : and, notwithstanding tinprotest mi (lie part of the representatives of the lessees, the Commission also suggested that this defect had not been cured by the terms of the Land Transfer Act. As to those findings, I should like only to say this : with regard to the signatures to the lease of If, it was plain that a mistake had been made, and that in fact the owner of every interest had signed the lease. That has since been proved conclusively. With regard to lα, Ih, and lj, both Messrs. Bell and Sker rett, who have been employed on behalf of the Natives, said that in their opinion these leases were wrongly registered, but they both advised—-find there can probably be no doubt at all — that tile effect of the provision of the Land Transfer Act was to make Ihe title of the leases absolutely good in the hands of Mi-. Lewis. They also advised that the lease of If was good, in their opinion, subject to the right of the Natives to take proceedings for forfeiture. So that we have the authority of two eminent K.C.s for saying that the only defect in these lenses is the question of the breach of convenant with regard to If. And it is very important at this stage to note tins: that the Chief Justice said—and, of course, on this matter he was expressing his view as to the proper exercise of the discretion of the Supreme Court—that in his opinion the Court would relieve once from forfeiture. He said that in the report of the Commission. So you have there <he opinion of the Chief Justice to the effect that, although the lease might be liable to forfeiture on account of the breach of the covenant, nevertheless the Court would relieve from forfeiture, and permit the lessee to have an opportunity of fulfilling the terms of the covenant in the future. Prior to this there had been some negotiations with the Natives with a view to their putting a price on their property. 8. Mr. fffrries.'] Could you give us the date? — 1 could not be sure: it was before they heard the report of the Commission, at any rate. Prior to the report of the Commission beiner published,' negotiations had taken place between Mr. Lewis and the Natives, in which the Natives said—in fact, they wrote him —that they were prepared to sell at £15,000. 9. Could you say what Natives?— Andrew Eketone, I think, it was. They were shown, apparently, by sonic one the report of the Native Commission, and then they came to the conclusion that they would not sell for £15.000. and said so. On the 14th July, 1009, 1 wrote a letter to Messrs. Carlile, McLean, and Wood, the Hawke'a Bay purchasers' solicitors, which explains how matter? stood at that time: "14th July. 1909. -Messrs. Carlile. McLean, and Wood, Solicitors. Napier.—Without prejudice. T?r Mokau.—Dear Sirs,—Mr. Lewis has handed to us your letter to him of the Sth instant. This is a very complicated business, nnd we have been endeavouring to so arrange that litigation (which, if commenced, must necessarily be complicated and expensive) may be avoided. Mr. Lewis has done nothing in the wav of releasing his transferors from any liability they may be under in respect of the transfer to him. The whole nueßtion has been allowed to stand pending negotiations which are proceeding for arrangement with the Natives for the disposal of the Mokau Block. We were hopeful that these negotiations would have resulted in a settlement of the whole trouble ere this, but. owing to the postponement of Parliament, the matter has been again delayed. The Natives are anxious to come to some fresh arrangement with regard t<. the blocks, nnd we have been in negotiation with them and the Hon. Mr. Carroll with a view to the arrangement of terms agreeable to the Natives nnd our client. Mr. Carroll is very desirous of having the block cut up and disposed of in small areas, and there seems every prospect of an agreement which will be satisfactory to our client and also Mr. Campbell's clients, being come to before Parliament meets. We have no doubt tint Mr Campbell would release any claim he may have against the moneys lying m Messrs Moorhousc and TTadfield's hands without waiting for the final disposal of the The question between rour clients and Mr. Campbell's clients as to the moneys on deposit with Moorhouse and Hadfield seems to us to be one in which Mr. Lewis is not direetlv interesterl. Mr. Campbell does not claim in any way through Mr. Lewis, but under an independent undertaking given by him to Moorhouse and Hadfield. The claim your clients have acrainst Mr. Lewis is. we understand, one either of specific performance of the agreement, or for recision of the contract. Tf your clients are entitled to rescind, then, no doubt they are entitled, so far pp Lewis cerned to recover the money from Moorhouse and Hadfield. but Moorhouse and Hadfield, before paving yon have no doubt to consider the question of their undertaking to Campbell. In the circumstances it would seem best to allow matters to rest for a while in the hor,e that some satisfactory arrangement can be made with the Natives. We hope your clients will so, thetr way to ■vn-ee to this course. -Yours truly. Findlav, Dalziell, and Co." That was -n July, 1009. Shorth iter this Mr Jones lodged a fresh petition. We could not induce the Government to move in the matter because they were desirous of having this question determined before they would nteHere a all. T then took up fresh negotiations with Mr. Treadwell These continued on for S -hile. A letter that T have here from Mr. Treadwell dated' *c 18th December 1009. will show you that we were negotiating at this time : " Wellington, 18th December. 1900.--F _C, Dalziell eTo Solicitor. Wellington.--Dear Dalziell. -7?, Mokau: It is evidently desirable that we should X legislation in any event this year. Possibly it may be the case tha we may not be We to fix up the contract before Thursday. T have therefore made some alterations n the poed clauses and send you a copy. These alterations can do no harm, and would enable us. if