13,671. Was Williamson on the property when Mr. Leask bought it?-Yes. Mr. Leask has been at very great expense on Williamson's property, repairing houses, and one thing and another, and very likely he would have raised the rent in consequence of that. I think he paid about £20 one year for improvements, and there were other improvements carried through which cost a great deal of money; and I consider that Mr. Leask was entitled to a percentage upon that.
13,672. Did he get a rise of rent?-I don't know that he did. I am only saying that if he did get it he was entitled to it.
13,673. But is it not reasonable to suppose that man can pay a higher rent for a piece of ground if the fishermen in the district are under an obligation to deliver their fish to him?-He ought certainly to pay more for a monopoly; there is no doubt about that.
13,674. Do you not know whether the rent was altered after Mr. Leask bought the property?-I believe the rents in general were raised a little,-not the whole of them, but a great many of them,-because Mr. Leask has been at a great deal of expense in building new houses, and otherwise.
13,675. Have you any doubt at all that the fact that the fishermen were fishing for Mr. Williamson and Mr. Johnston was taken into account in fixing the amount of their rents?-It had nothing whatever to do with the fixing of the rents.
13,676. Was it merely as a favour to the merchant who occupied the premises that the tenants were directed to fish to him?-Quite so. It was merely a favour to recommend the tenants to fish for him.
13,677. That was no favour to the fishermen, however?-I don't think it was, but it did them no injustice, because I have no doubt Williamson would have paid them the same price as other people.
13,678. Did Williamson become liable to Mr. Leask then for the rents of the fishermen?-No, never. Williamson never became liable for anything but the balance in his hands.
13,679. Mr. Leask's letter states that he had directed the fishermen to fish to him, and that Williamson had become liable to him for the rents, and he complains also that Williamson had not fulfilled that obligation: had he not become liable?-He may have talked about doing so, but he never did so.
13,680. Did he promise to become liable?-He may have promised to become liable, but to the best of my knowledge, he never did so.