I-. 6.. DALZIELL.

117

1.—3 a

11. In one of your letters you state that at one time you offered the Mokau Block to the Government for £28,000 —I mean, Mr. Lewis's interest?— Yes. You will find from that letter that it was not a definite offer: it was a suggestion that the purchaser would probably agree to accept that. You see at this time the whole thing was in a somewhat difficult position. Mr. Lewis was under very great pressure from the other people, and lie might have been forced to sell at a price which he thought was not adequate and yet was the bes( he could ge< ; and this suggestion was one of my efforts to bring about a settlement. 12. That was in January, 1910?— Yes. 13. At that time, if the Government had accepted the offer, Mr. Lewis would have been prepared to sell his interest for £28,000 J Yes, 1 think so. 14. And at that time the Government could have bought from the Natives for £22,500? —Yes, I understood so. That, of course, I was not a party to. 15. The Government, then, could have acquired the block for £50,5001 — Yes. 16. They could have acquired for £50,500 what the company have paid £85,000 for? — Yes. 17. And they would have goi the whole block, whereas Mr. Lewis still retains 7.000 acres? — Yes; but it is necessary to bear this in mind : that the llawkc's Hay farmers hail agreed to buy Mr. Lewis's interest at that price—£28,000—but they came to the conclusion that it was not good enough ami repudiated that agreement. Until Mr. Mason Chambers came along with this very fine offer 18. The second time? —Yes nobody had any notion that that price could be obtained for it. 1 , .). Still, Mi , . Chambers was one of the original three? -Yes. Well, you see he paid £25,000 more the second time than lie was to pay at the first. 20. Can you account for the increase from £28,000 to £46,000 for the leasehold interest? — No. I expect that only Mr. Chambers can account for that. It is a very extraordinary increase. He had already repudiated an agreement under which he i>as to gel the leasehold interest for £28,000. 21. Yet the company think £85,000 for both interests, leasehold and fieehold, a satisfactory price?— They pay anotheV £10,000? — Yes. 22. Mr. Chambers is equally a speculator with Mr. Lewis?— Mr. Chamoera generally speculates in lands which he is prepared to farm, if necessary. He is a farmer. 23. Mr. Chambers is a good judge of land, I think?— Apparently. I understand he has been very successful in the purchase and sale of properties. Of course, the very difficult part to understand is why, having this agreement to purchase for £28,000, he should increase the price in that way. The Chairman: Would it not be well to let Mr. Chambers be called and state his own opinion? 1 think the cross-examination is irregular. .I//-. Eerries: Ido not want to call him. I only asked Mr. Dalziell whether he knew of any circumstances that would cause the increase in the juice that was given. The Chairman: Well, let us get that from Mr. Chambers himself. 24. Mr. Hi-nits.'] 1 wanted to know whether Mr. Dalziell knew of any. I did not ask Mr. Dalziell .Mr. Chambers'e opinion. The result, Mr Dalziell, is that your client bought the lease for £14,000 and the freehold for £25,000. and sold the block for £71,000 and 100 shares of £10 each, and kept 7,000 acres! sTes, Of course, he had to pay a very great deal more than the £14,000. There were expenses. There was £.'!,000 Tor interest. 25. He practically bought for £39,000 and sold for £71,01)0 and 100 shares, keeping back 7,000 acres?— That area of 7,001) acres retained by Mr. Lewis is subleased for thirty years. 26. But he gets the rents?— The rent is a very small sum. .1/;-. Eerries: Perhaps you can tell us what the rents are—or we can ask Mr. Lewis. The Chairman: 1 asked Mr. Lewis what he received in rent from Mr. Walter Jones, who lias nearly 800 acres, and he said £7 10s. per annum. Mr. Eerriet: That is not the whole 7,000 acres. Tht Chairman: That shows what the rentals are. 27. Mr. Eerriet.] 1 want to come back to the present position. What is the position of Mr. Howler? Is he trustee for Mi-. Lewis or trustee for the company, or both? —He is trustee Eor Mr. Lewis in respect of 7,000 acres, and trustee for the company for the balance. He is trustee to see that the land is subdivided. 28. In what position is he with regard to the subdivision of the laud,' —He is merely a trustee. He cannot alienate the land except in accordance with the declaration of the trust which permits the Maori Land Board to sell. 29. He is not trustee as President of the Board : lie is trustee as a private individual?—He is trustee in his private capacity, but that is because the statute did not permit him to take the trust as President of the Board. If is the Board which has the power of disposing of the land, if it is not disposed of by the company within three years. •'SO. What security is there that the land shall be cut up! — There is this covenant. •'5l. It all depends upon Mr. Bowler! —Supposing Mr. Bowler were a dishonest person, is there any means of recovery? —Yes. He cannot sell it. 32. Why can he not give a transfer? —Because, in the first place, there is a caveat on it. 33. The caveat was not on until recently?—lt was put on when the other documents were registered. It was registered when the transfer was registered. 34. No, a month later/ —Was it? It was all part of the same transaction, at any rate. 35. But what is the actual security that the laud shall be cut up! It is only that Mr. Bowler may refuse to sign the transfer? —No. The land is vested in him —that is, the legal estate is vested in him, subject to this agreement : in the first place the agreement, and in the second place the deed of covenant. 36. Hon. Mr. Ngata.] He can be compelled, can iie not?—Oh, yes. 37. Mr. Herries.] Supposing a lease were offered to him that was over the statutory area and he signed it?— Tee: that does not matter.