I.—3a.

142

[JOSHUA JONES.

one hand to the other, but the sale did not dissolve the trust." The statement of Dr. Findlay in Hansard for 1910, page 599, that his firm's client, Herrman Lewis, had bought from the mortgage through the Registrar of the Supreme Court is untrue. In 1907, prior to the sale at Xew Plymouth, I entered an action in the Chancery Court for redemption and accounts, so that there was an action pending xvhen the sale took place. On the Ist November, 1907, a motion by the executors to strike the action out as being frivolous was dismissed by Mr. Justice Parker, xvho knew the New Zealand law, and the action xvas ordered to proceed. Ihe Court order I have already produced. Judge Parker, however, expressed a belief, for both sides to consider, that the jurisdiction lay in New Zealand where the property was, and where the contract of mortgage had been consummated. My counsel, Mr. Jellicoe, xvho appeared with Mr. Buckley, one of the leaders of the English bar, was of the same opinion. I also had the friendly opinion of Sir J. Lawson Walton, the Attorney-General for England, who prior to taking office had acted for me in several actions in the case. 1 was advised by Sir John to disregard the compact and docu meiits signed iii England, particularly the documents emphasized by Dr. Findlay on behalf of his client Lewis in Hansard of 1910, page 598, ill respect to not lodging any further caveats, on the grounds that the executor's side had prevented my carrying out the contract by spoiling my sale; and he advised me to return to New Zealand and re-enter the action here. The document there referred to is this : " I, the undersigned Joshua Jones, hereby undertake, pursuant to the order in this action, dated the 10th day of August, 1906, to lodge no further caveat xvith the District Land Registrar in New Zealand in respect of the title to the Mokau property, the subject of this action. Dated this 16th day of November, 1906. —Joshua Jones." It is held that my entering the action here was a violation of that document. The Court here xvould not allow me to enter an action to prove that I was compelled to violate the agreement, but it is now thrown up against me. 1 informed blower, the solicitor to the executors—this is not the Flower that died, but a young fellow, who was. however, still ihe solicitor —of my intentions, and left London on the 28th December, 1907, arriving at Mokau towards the end of February, 1908. The English action I allowed to lapse, and it became struck out, with costs. In March I consulted my solicitor respecting the action to be commenced here, and on the 2nd April I lodged caveat against dealing with the property. It appears that after the purchase by the executors in August, 1907, a person named Orr, in the office of Travers, Campbell—l am quoting from the evidence given by Herrman Lewis before the Legislative Council Committee' in 1908 —knowing Lexvis, put him on to this property. To use Lewis's words, he " was the only man that could be found to even look at it." Mr. Treadwell had warned Lewis in writing, about January, 1908, against dealing xvith the propi rty, and of the order of the English Court, and upon my arrival from England 1 also warned Lewis. However, on the 12th June, 1908, Travers, Campbell—no doubt Orr —went through the form of sale to Lewis at ,£14,000, but took a mortgage back for the same amount of £14,000, no money having passed hands. Lewis informed me that this was done by Orr xvith the viexv of facilitating some intended sale, but the transaction xvas not binding. After this I xvas served with a notice to show cause why 1 should not be ordered to remove the caveat, and on the 20th July, 1908, the Court of five Judges—Sir Robert Stout presiding—ordered the removal of the caveat, refused me the right to try the action for redemption xvhich the English Court held I was entitled to try, and refused me leave to appeal to the Privy Council, even if I brought the amount of the mortgage-money —.£14,000 —into Court. On the 23rd July the transactions of sale and mortgage of the 12th June became registered, but no considerations were paid at all. The documents are in Orr's handwriting. Lexvis informed me about this time that, knoxving there would be trouble about the title, he had bespoken the services of Findlay- and Dalziell specially for the ease, in the belief that Findlay could square anything wrong in the title; but the services of that firm, it appears, xvere not required until early in August. There is a memorandum on this subject by me written about the time upon a document I sent to my solicitor, Mr. Treadwell. Here it is, dated the 7th November, 19(18 : " Mr. Lewis informed me that he and his friends had engaged this firm of solicitors specially for the case. Doubtless he thought the game xvould be worth the candle." Lewis apparently- made a good hit, inasmuch as he never xvould have got a title except for an Order in Council assented to, illegally and improperly, I maintain, by the Cabinet on the sth Decemb»r, 1910, and carried into effect by Mr. Carroll on the 15th March, 1911, when the Governor's signature was appended. After the judgment of the full Court I approached the Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, through Mr. Jennings, M.P. This xvas in August, 1908. Mr. Jennings represented that it was a very hard case, and the Premier said he knew it to be so. Sir Joseph said that the Government could not well interfere xvith a decision of the Court, but he suggested that 1 should petition Parliament and get some recommendation i a Committee, upon which he could ask Parliament to find a way to grant relief. A question by Mr. Jennings and the Premier's reply are to be'found in Hansard for 1908, page 391. Sir Joseph a.ssurid me that he was very sorry, but that what a Committee xvould recommend in my favour he would do his utmost to carry out. Dr. Findlay, in the Council, in reply to a notice of motion by the Hon. Mr. McCardle, while admitting that it xvas open to me to petition Parliament (see Hansard for 1908, pages 279-80), contended, inter alia, that it was an exceedingly unwise precedent for Parliament to step in in the xvay suggested and interfere after the highest Court in the country had decided the legal rights of the parties, &c. He wished honourable members to share with him the view that they should not encourage this kind of recourse to Parliament. He, hoxvever, xvent so far as to admit that xvhere rights had been defeated in some wholly unexpected or unfair xvay they had some precedent for such recourse. Noxv, gentlemen, this is exactly my case out of the mouth of the Minister for Justice himself. But he wound up that it was unconstitutional to come to Parliament and ask it to interfere in such a case as this. For that reason he thought Mr. McCardle's motion should not be passed. Now. will it be believed that when Dr. Findlay-"made this speech his business firm were the solicitors for Herrman Lewis in this Mokau