Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 11

Hawke's Bay. Native Lands Alienation Commission. — Report of Inquiry into the Heretaunga Purchase

page break

Hawke's Bay. Native Lands Alienation Commission.

Report of Inquiry into the Heretaunga Purchase.

Wednesday, 5th March, 1873.

The Commissioners took their seats at 10 a m., and complaints Nos. 17, 79, 96, 129, and 134, relating to the Heretaunga block, were called on for hearing.

The following were the complaints, as published in the Hawke's Bay Provincial Government Gazette:—

No. 17—Te Waaka Kawatini against Messrs H. Parker, T. Tanner, J. N. Williams, J. N. Wilson, G. E. Lee, and J. Cuff—Complainant states that they have taken his land from him, and begs that the matter be looked into.

No. 79—Henare Tomoana, Peni te Ua, and others, against the put chasers. Nature of complaint: Sale, 300 acres of land; £500 promised to complainants, which has not been received. They beg that the transaction may be looked into.

No. 96—Manaena Tinikirunga against the purchasers. Complains that he never received payment for his share—the other grantees kept the money.

No. 129—Kaiaitiana Takamoana against Thomas Tanner, James Williams, J. D. Ormond, J. G. Gordon, Capt. Russell, and Capt. Hamilton Russell. Complaint—that alienation was made under circumstances of unfair pressure by and at the instigation of the parties complained against, or persons acting for and on their behalf; that complainant and several of the grantees were most unwilling to part with this the most valuable block of land in the province; that the price was greatly inadequate, and the consideration was not paid to the grantees in money, but was in a large proportion handed over to publicans and storekeepers, whose bills and demands arose to a great extent out of the supply of spirits and other liquors, which the grantees had in few instances an opportunity of examining; and page 2 for payment of which they were threatened with extreme measures, both against person and land, to avoid which they were induced to sign deeds of sale. Complainant further states that certain arrangements made with him as part of the conditions of sale have not been carried out, and he asks from the Commissioners a full and searching enquiry into the whole transactions, and calls for production of all accounts and papers in any way connected with the transactions, and for the examination of all parties concerned.

No. 133—Renata Kawepo and two others against the grantees. Complaint—that the land was leased, mortgaged, and sold without consulting outsiders on the division of the money.

No. 134—Hohepa te Ringanohu and eight others against grantees—complain that land was sold without consulting outsiders, and beg that it be returned.

Mr Sheehan appeared for the complainants; Mr Lee for Mr J. N. Williams; Mr Lascelles for Capt. W. R. Russell, and Caps. A. H. Russell; Mr Tanner, one of the respondents, appeared in his own behalf.

Mr Sheehan said that though Te Waaka's case appeared first on the list, he would prefer to open with another witness. It would greatly add to the convenience of these proceedings if all the complaints were treated as one case; and possibly the reason why so many separate complaints appeared in relation to the one series of transactions was this—that the natives imagined they were showing their personal importance by making a separate report. Yesterday he had obtained by the indulgence of the Commissioners a few horn's further adjournment, to the purpose that he might state his case fully at its opening; but he regretted to say that such was the magnitude of the case—so great the number of the witnesses to be examined,—and so large was the quantity of documentary evidence to be gone through—that it was impossible to give at the outset such a succinct outline of facts as he desired. Inasmuch as this Heretaunga block was possibly the most valuable that had been dealt with in this Province—that the grantees were leading natives, holding positions of considerable influence—and that the complaint would affect not merely publicans or storekeepers, like most of the others, but men of high public position, both in the province and colony—he thought it desirable at the opening of the cases, to lay the fullest possible explanation before the Commission. The question bad been asked how it was that this Province alone appeared to be the spot whence these complaints had arisen, and why there should be here a kind of general uprising of native owners in protest against the transactions which had taken place—but he confessed he had been unable to find a satisfactory answer. He was anxious—for the sake of other work than that on which he was at present engaged—to arrive at the real facts concerning these complaints—of the truth or untruth of which he was at present unable to satisfy himself. Up to the passing of the Native Lands Act very little native laud here had been alienated, and there appeared to be a strong objection page 3 to its sale by the original owners. In 1867, when the Lands Court sat, it appeared that they went to the opposite extreme, so that it became a kind of race who should quickest dispose of his property, and waste its proceeds in the most improvident manner. Among these blocks was that of Heretaunga, which became subject to Crown Grants in 1867. Immediately afterwards a lease of this block was granted to a gentleman figuring very prominently throughout the transaction—Mr Thomas Tanner. This lease appeared to be based upon one previously existing, of an invalid nature. It was for a period of 21 years, beginning with a rent of £1,250, increasing to £1,750 per annum. It comprised about 17,000 acres, and amongst other conditions contained improvement clauses of such a nature that no European in possession of his senses would have entered into them—their practical effect was to make the transaction an absolute parting with the land on the part of the natives. As regarded the rent, it would not be made a subject of objection—it was not so much undervalued that a Court of Equity would have considered itself justified in setting aside the lease. The next document on the register was remarkable. The first lease had only dealt with one man—it was now found that as to a large area of the land this man was only an agent. This second document—a deed of covenant—revealed the position of affairs, and contained the names of four or five gentlemen, all men of good standing, property, and information. One was Superintendent of the Province, member of the General Assembly, and General Government Agent; and in the name of Williams he recognized a member of one of the oldest Mission families in New Zealand. It would be part of his case that at the time of the lease the natives were not aware that Mr Ormond and others were parties to the transaction; and that during Mr Tanner's endeavors to obtain that lease the natives had occasion to resort to Mr Ormond for advice, and were advised to sell. Not that he advised them to sell Heretaunga, but their land, in general terms. He would allow the Court to draw its inference whether this was right and proper in the position occupied by Mr Ormond. After the date of the deed of covenant there were a number of documents in furtherance of the lease—all unexceptionable. These preliminary transactions all took place within a year, and it was not until another year had passed, or in 1869, that we came to any documents relating to the disposal of the land in fee. In the interval the property had vastly increased in value. The first shot in this direction was fired by Mr Tanner. There appeared on the register a document of a most remarkable character, regard being had to the block and the persons who were its grantees. It was very short, and would not more than fill a page of note-paper. In this paper, bearing date December, 1869, Karaitiana and Henare Tomoana undertake to sell the block to Tanner—not only on their own behalf, hut that of the other grantees. Before going into details it was only fair to enter into the state of affairs existing at that time. The value of the property in the hands of the natives was exceedingly great—it being estimated that they received £25,000 or £26,000 per annum for rent, derived almost exclusively from page 4 blocks which would come before this Commission. He had hoard that the Commissioners had already expressed a very decided opinion on the subject of payments in liquor—to the effect that it was not desirable that they should be held to vitiate in any way these, land transactions. (The Chairman interposed. Mr Sheehan had been misinformed. The Commissioners had carefully refrained from giving any legal opinion on the subject, not being competent to do so. Their remarks had been based entirely on moral grounds.) He intended to ask the Commission that he might be permitted to put the matter from his point of view. It was not his intention to enter into the legal aspects of the question; but to take it entirely on moral grounds. (The Chairman stated that in this direction the field was perfectly open.) The next transaction in order of time—he spoke subject to correction—occurred on the 13th September, 1869; and it was without exception the most extraordinary transaction he had ever heard of between Europeans and natives. The native concerned was an old chief named To Waaka Kawatini, described by a legal gentleman of high standing as a person of the densest ignorance, of intemperate habits, and apparently unable to comprehend the simplest matters of business. This native who possessed so extraordinary a capacity, being in trouble, was met by a benevolent European named Parker, who suggested that he should convey to him his interest in the Heretaunga block (then unascertained, but known to be very extensive), together with his interest in 17,000 or 18,000 acres elsewhere, in return for a small annuity. This was done without the slightest reference to the other owners, He would now endeavor to show how Mr Tanner and his friends became connected with that transaction. According to his instructions, when Te Waaka began to fully realize the nature of the transaction in which he had engaged, and was also beset by his hapu on the subject, he applied to Europeans for advice, and was recommended by them to take the matter to a Court of law. On the best advice he could procure, action was taken in the Supreme Court to set aside the transaction. The case was ripe for hearing when Mr Tanner and his friends stepped in between the native and his counsel; procured a withdrawal of the action, and a transfer of Parker's arrangement to themselves. When the Commission became more fully acquainted with the particulars of this transaction, it would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was one of a very extraordinary character indeed. During 1870, the year in which the greater part of the conveyances were taken, the whole native population capable of consuming liquor—with one on two solitary exceptions,—was given up to one continual debauch—to a drunkenness, which so far as that year was concerned, seemed to have neither beginning nor end. In nearly all of these transactions spirituous liquors formed a considerable part of the consideration, and he believed a statistical statement of the amount of liquor supplied to the natives during that period would show a sufficient quantity to keep every man of them drunk during the whole time. In ordinary cases, perhaps, he might not be inclined to dissent from the opinion reported to have been expressed by the page 5 Court, but in this case and in one or two others of a similar kind be would fail in his duly if he did not express his opinion that where men of high standing and public position resorted to this description of dealing with the natives, their conduct was in an extreme degree discreditable. While these large purchases were in progress, the natives, being continually drunk, could not be supposed to understand the nature of the documents to which their signatures were attached. In most instances they had not the slight satisfaction of buying drink with the cash they received, being obliged to devote it to the settlement of old scores. He would now describe more in detail the dealings with the freehold of the land. There were ten grantees, one of whom, Matiaha, being dead, a succession order had been granted by the Land Court to Rata te Houi, On the 19th September 1870, Rata conveyed his share to Tanner and others for the sum of £1,000. He appeared to be the one sole grantee who received in cash the consideration money mentioned in the deed—a fact only to be accounted for by the providential circumstance that he resided out of the Province. On the 21st March, 1870, was executed a deed—described as a conveyance by Manaena and others to Gordon and others—to which were attached eight native signatures. By this deed seven more out of the ten deposed of their interest in the block. The eighth signature was that of the husband of one of the grantees, expressing his concurrence in the sale. On the 2nd May, 1870, Waaka Kawatini, by some involved transaction, in which Gordon, Parker and others were parties, parted with his interest in the block, the consideration being £1000, and the re-conveyance of certain lands outside the block, already mentioned as having been conveyed to Parker in consideration of the annuity. This re-conveyance had been duly carried out. Nine grantees were thus accounted for. The remaining share was disposed of by deed of Tareha Moananui to Gordon and others, dated 20th July, 1869—the first of these conveyances in order of time. It was signed by Tareha in Wellington, where he was waited on by a deputation of gentlemen whose names were familiar in these transactions—Messrs Maney and Peacock. He might be in error on this point; if so he would be glad to make corrections. He was not yet so fully acquainted with the details of the case as to be able to give so full an outline as he could desire; and could only set forth those general points on which he intended to rely. He would first touch on the subject of consideration. One strong ground of complaint was, that neither during the negotiations, nor at any time since, had any of the grantees received any account of the disposition of the purchase money, which as expressed in the various deeds should amount to nearly £20,000—a sum perhaps subject to reductions to be explained by the other side. As to Tareha—the first conveying party whose name appeared on the record—he was instructed that as regarded cash, he had received nothing. He still wanted an account, and was somewhat anxious to be informed by the purchasers what distribution they had made of the purchase money. In the dealings with Karaitiana, Henare Tomoana, and Manaena, it would be a part of his case to show the page 6 existence of a state of things very nearly approaching fraud upon the other owners. He would show that to these natives secret promises were made of a much larger share of the consideration than was to be paid to the other grantees. He was fully aware that the shares might be unequal in value; but this did not explain the fact that a part of the consideration was secret—it being expressly stipulated that it was not to be known to the other owners. One of these promises made to Karaitiana was this—that if he concurred in the purchase, he would receive back, for the exclusive use of himself and his hapu, a reserve of about 1,600 acres. These promises were kept entirely secret, both by the purchasers and the three grantees. It would be a part of his case to show the reason why these promises were given, which was this—these three were the leading men in the district and of the tribe to which Heretaunga belonged; and, their consent being obtained, little or no persuasion would be required to induce the remainder of the grantees to consent. Of the consideration Karaitiana received £1,500; Tomoana nothing in cash, Manaena—concerning whom he spoke with some degree of reservation—also alleged that he received nothing. The amount received by Karaitiana was much smaller than had been promised by the purchasers, but—and this was one of the extraordinary features of the case—he, Tomoana, and Manaena, were at present in receipt of annual payments amounting in the aggregate to, £300, which they had been informed were to last for ten years. Such was the state of ignorance in which they remained respecting the whole transaction, that they did not even know the name of their generous benefactor, and were not in possession of a tittle of evidence to show that they were entitled to this annual sum. Another grantee, Pahoro, was amongst those who had not the pleasure of handling any part of the consideration. In justice he must state that he was aware that £600 was paid to this native's order by the purchasers; and the Commission—one of the functions of which was to elicit facts relating to these transactions—might well look into this matter. In some mysterious manner the money—which Pahoro never sees—is transferred to a publican named Harrison, who invests in a flax-mill. He becomes bankrupt, and the concern, in which Pahoro is informed he is interested to the amount of, £600, is sold by auction for a nominal sum—and Pahoro never hears again of his money. He had not had time to master the whole of the numerous details, and facts might come out in evidence which would cause him to modify some of these opening remarks; but it would be clearly shown that throughout the whole of these transactions undue and unfair influence had been used to induce the natives to consent to the sale. The chiefs were being pressed for their debts, some of which were incurred for supplies for sections of the tribe which had gone out at the request of the Government to meet Te Kooti and the rebel natives. These claims, he was advised, had not yet been recognised by the Government, though application had been made by Karaitiana both to Mr Ormond and Mr M'Lean, to step in on behalf of the Government, and prevent their land going in that way. He page 7 would show also that the price was much below the fair and reasonable value of the land. The evidence generally would show that from beginning to end the process followed in these negotiations was to attack the various interests separately, and that in no single instance were the whole of the grantees called together to discuss the terms of purchase. It would be also part of his ease that in many instances the documents had not been fairly explained to the natives by the interpreters employed; and the Court would have already noted that one of his strong points was that no documents of account were rendered. It was only reasonable and fair that such accounts should be tendered now—a proceeding which would materially shorten the inquiry. He had now given briefly as complete an outline of the case as the short time at his disposal had enabled him to prepare. The first witness he would call was Karaitiana Takamoana.

Karaitiana Takamoana, examined by Mr Sheehan, deposed: l am a grantee of Heretaunga block—one of ten. The grantees were—Henare Tomoana, Manaena Tinikurunga, Waaka Kawatini, Tareha, Matiaha Tuhutuhu, Paramena, Pera Pahoro, and Arihi. How many of these represent your own hapu?—Myself, Te Waaka, Tareha, and Manaena; Henare belongs partly to our side, and partly to another. I remember the land being passed through the Court. At the first land Court was anything said about tying the laud up?—Yes, at that time I objected to the names of Tareha and others; at the third Court Mr Tanner told Henare and I that the rest had no power to sell—it all rested with Henare and myself. I objected to the names of the proposed grantees. Mr Tanner suggested that I should allow their names to remain, because they would have no authority. They were the names of Tareha and others—I was opposing Tareha. When the land passed through, what was said as to tying it up?—We agreed to what Tanner said, and I asked Henare to tie the land up. Where was the Court sitting?—In Napier. Who was the Judge?—Judge Munro. I was not present at the Court, and I do not know of my own knowledge what took place. Did you afterwards find that a grant had been issued without restriction?—I heard that from Henare while the Court was sitting. Was Tanner then in occupation of any of the land?—Yes, he had a lease. After the land had gone through, was a, new lease given him?—Yes, he asked for it and we agreed to it. It was for 21 years, at £1,200 rental for ten years, beginning again at £1,500. Where was that lease signed?—I do not remember, the writing of that deed was not shown to us. Do you know where it was signed?—I cannot remember distinctly; some documents were signed at Napier, and some at Pakowhai. Was the deed sufficiently explained?—All in the lease was explained; but I objected. Nevertheless, you signed?—I objected to the documents when they were read to me; because they included the whole land; not only the portion leased. I told them it was only the portion leased, and already occupied by Tanner. What portion of the whole block?—I do not know the acres; it was the largest portion of the block that had been leased to Tanner before the block passed page 8 through the court. Tanner asked me not to leave the lease aside, but to sign then. Another objection was that the lease said nothing about the land coining back to me at the end of the term; the interpreter said that would be written in the deed, and when that was agreed to, we signed the document. Did you agree to include the whole of the land that had gone through the Court in this lease?—Yes; the lease included the whole, and I agreed. What was the next application made to you to sign documents relating to Heretaunga?—There was a sale by Te Waaka and Tareha. The first thing was this—an arrangement between Te Waaka and Parker, that if Te Waaka died Parker would be like a son, and lake his land. We did not come in; but we heard that the assembly against Parker had upset that arrangement, and the land had gone back to Te Waaka. I do not know what assembly it was; it was in Napier—perhaps the Provincial Council. All I knew was that To Waaka had got his land back. It was after that that Tareha and To Waaka sold. It was a good while after when we heard that Tareha and Te Waaka had sold their shares. Did you then take any action?—I began to think what should be done. Was any application made to you to dispose of your interest?—Tanner came to me; he had perhaps heard that Stuart wished to purchase Heretaunga. He had not spoken to me but to others. Tanner wanted me to sell the block from the first. The price he named was £12,000. I do not know that any one was with him; he came frequently and spoke those words until the time I went to Wellington to meet the Queen's son. Stuart was going with us in the same vessel to Wellington, and something was said about not taking money from Stuart. Up to this time you had not sold your interest in the block?—I had not. On your return did Tanner again apply to you?—The time of the fighting at Taupo was the time. He then came to my place at Pakowhai with F. E. Hamlin. What was the object of their coming?—They told three of us, Henare, myself, and Manaena, their object; they continued to go backwards and forwards during three days. What about?—Asking us to consent to the sale of Heretaunga. Did they give any reason why you should consent?—Yes, summonses had been issued on account of Henare's debts, and Tanner was anxious to purchase Heretaunga that Henare might pay his debts. £12,000 was the price named; we were to have £2.000 for us two—Henare and myself. I was in another room, and when I went in they had consented. I asked Henare why he had signed; he told me that he was continually told he would be taken to jail for his debt. I heard that from Tanner and Hamlin. Was this negociation for purchase the only matter of business on which they called during these three days?—It was about Heretaunga principally—the other grantees had signed. (The Chairman—Have you any knowledge of the circumstances attending the other signatures?—No.) About how long did they remain each day?—All day till evening. Were they all this time engaged in talking the question over?—Yes. I was objecting to let my share go. Henare was the person who was talking, I objected. Did both Tanner and Hamlin speak the Maori language?—Tanner spoke in English, but he understood a little Maori. Did you converse at all page 9 with Tanner, apart from Hamlin?—When I went outside, Tanner came out to me. For what purpose?—He told me not to go out, but to consent. I had signed; but I was objecting still. What did Hamlin say?—He said if I would consent Mr Tanner would give me £1 000. Was this the last time you signed a deed of sale?—It was the commencement. The document we signed was written by them. It was merely a piece of paper saying we consented; it was not a deed. Was it like this—We, the undersigned grantees of the Heretaunga block, have this day, 16th December, 1869, sold to Tanner, Russell, Williams, and Ormond all that land leased to them, about 16,500 acres, for the sum of £13,000, £4,000 of which is already paid; and hereby undertake to execute a deed of conveyance of the above mentioned land to the above-mentioned parties, in terms above-named?—No. Had you and Henare then received £4,000?—No, not then. Had that money been paid for you in any way?—Not that I am aware of. That date was about the time of the sitting of the Land Court at Waipawa. Do you remember any conversation with the interpreter, as to how far Henare and you were authorized by the other grantees to sell the land?—(Mr Sheehan here read the declaration by Mr Hamlin, who signed as attesting witness, which was to this effect:—Before I signed, this document was fully and faithfully interpreted, and it was fully understood by Karaitiana and Henare, who stated that they were authorized by the other grantees to deal with the land, and to execute binding agreement for the sale thereof.) How did you know that the other grantees had sold already?—I heard of it. I had no knowledge of my own.—(Document handed to witness.) This is what I referred to as having been signed by Henare and myself. (Document translated to witness.) The first document I signed was not so read to me. Did you afterwards sign any document similar to this in appearance?—The second document was similar, it contained the words which have been real. I agreed to them and signed it. You have heard this read; what do you recollect of the contents of the first document?—It was nothing like this—the consent of the other natives had not then been given; it was only shoeing that we consented. After signing this document, what was the next thing you did with regard to the sale?—It was in reference to the first document that I said I had not then received any money. After I signed the first document I came to Mr Wilson, solicitor, to object to that writing of mine. What did you do after consulting Wilson?—I went to Auckland; M'Lean had written to me to go there, and I went to speak to him. My reason for going was to speak of Heretaunga; he did not invite me for that purpose. I saw M'Lean, and spoke about Heretaunga, Mangateretere, and Ohikakarewa. M'Lean said, "Wait till Fenton comes, and we will speak about it." The day Fenton came, they sent for Major Heaphy, and M'Lean said Heaphy should come here respecting mortgages and sales of land. After that I said to M'Lean, could not the Government purchase be returned. He asked how much the debts were, and I asked the Government to give me £3,000—this was to pay the debt for which Henare was summoned, as I have page 10 mentioned. I understood M'Lean to agree; but it appears he did not agree, though he spoke satisfactorily. My idea was that he agreed. I asked him on two occasions; he made the same answer. I returned to Hawke's Bay, and went to Pakowhai, my place, and remained there. M'Lean made no arrangements about money or rations, only asked me respecting debts. After my return Major Heaphy came. What then took place in reference to this block?—I told Major Heaphy to give back the land. This was not done with Heretaunga; it was said there was a mortgage on it, and that was his reason for not taking it over. Major Heaphy, then, left matters much as he found them?—The same. How were the rest of the grantees engaged at the time you were asked to dispose of your interest?—They were at their own settlement. Were you aware whether some of the grantees by getting into debt had been pledging their share of Heretaunga?—I was not aware. A number of pieces of land were taken care of by Major Heaphy, but Heretaunga was not one of them. After this Mr Cuff and Mr Hamlin came. When I returned from Auckland I remained at my own place till Mr Cuff came. I remained because I was sad regarding the sale of Heretaunga. Mr Ormond was the first Napier man who went to Pakowhai. He saw me and talked with me. What conversation took place?—I spoke to him about Heretaunga. I referred to my conversation with Mr M'Lean. I told Mr Ormond that I had asked M'Lean to purchase Heretaunga for the Government. A number of us were present, besides Ormond and Hamlin. Mr Ormond asked me if Mr M'Lean consented. I replied, "Yes: M'Lean said, "It is well.'" Ormond said M'Lean's agreeing was not right—the Government had no money. That was the end of our conversation. It was after this that Cuff and Hamlin came; I do not know the date. What did they come about?—To bring the balance of the money for Heretaunga. Do you remember what took place?—They came to show how the money had been expended. I was asked on that occasion to sign a document selling the land. There was a great deal said. The balance of money left was £1,000 or £1,100. They asked me to sign the deed and take the balance. That would have been £3,000 for me, adding it to the other £1,000. I did not sign then, and they went away. The pakehas who were purchasing Heretaunga met in Napier; so I was told by the two who came to me. On the day of the meeting I did not come in. Two days afterwards I received a letter. The letter said that if I did not come to Napier, Pakowhai and all the houses there would be taken. Whose writing was the letter?—Hamlin's writing; but Ormond's name. I do not say it was Hamlin's writing, but he was the person who wrote Maori letters. I have looked for that letter and have not finished my search for it. (The Chairman said the witness must make a complete search, and produce the document if possible.) I immediately came to Napier in consequence of receiving that, letter. I said "This has brought me in; they are leaving Heretaunga, and are about to seize Pakowhai—now I will go and sign Heretaunga that it may go. I should have been clear if I had been myself taken prisoner; page 11 as it is, those persons who remain have sold without consulting me, and I must go and get the money remaining on the land." Henare said that was right. I came to Cuff's office, and found Tanner and others there. I said, "I am come to consent to the sale of Heretaunga, that you may have it." I told them the contents of the letter, which they said was not true. Cuff, Tanner, Williams, and M. Hamlin were present. They wanted me to get the other persons in the Crown Grant. I said I would consent at once to Heretaunga going. I received £100 that day. I went back to Henare and told him that I had consented to the sale, and had received £100 that day. I agreed to the sale, hut did not sign my name. They said Alibi was to get £3,000, out of which I was to take £1,500. By whom was this said?—They said they would not be able to do that, the matter was to rest, with Wilson. I sent for the rest of the grantees, and Henare did the same. After that four of the grantees came in. Henare and myself remained in town. Did they sign?—I do not know of the signing, but they all came into Cuffs office. I signed my name, and so I believe did the others; it was the time when we all signed. Henare was living at the club. The four who came in were Paramena, Pahoro, Noa, and Manaena, besides Henare and myself. When did you first receive money on account of Heretaunga?—When I received the £100. Had you received money from Tanner or the other purchasers previously?—No. What was the next payment? When we all came in. How much did you get then?—It was more than £1,000; it might have been £1,400 or £1,500. Did you ever receive any other monies?—After that Matiaha's successor had come in and received his £1,000 I received no more money after that. What amount were you told you should receive as your share?—£2,000. Was any thing said about giving back part of the land as a reserve?—Something was said about it. Cuff and the others said the matter of the reserve would be left to myself and Henare. They promised that it should be for Henare and myself; but it was afterwards found that all the grantees had a right to it. We found it out afterwards when we had a talk with Alibi's solicitor, Mr Wilson. Before this, we thought the reserve belonged to the whole tribe. (Witness identifies his signature to the deed.) Do you remember any reference to the reserve in the conveyance?—I do not. When you found that this piece of land was available for all the grantees, did you think that the purchasers had kept faith with you?—They told us that Henare and I should get a man to look after it for us two. (Question repeated.) I cannot exactly say: there, was a great deal of talk at the time. (The Chairman: Who selected this Karamu reserve? Was anything said about Karamu by name when the conveyance was signed?—Perhaps so, I cannot distinctly say. I do not remember even thing chat took place, for it was not a clear sale; we were troubled. I should have mentioned it before that when the land was first leased to Tanner, Karamu was divided off. It is a place of my own; my houses are there. It is a large piece of ground that we surveyed for ourselves; we did not know page 12 of Tanner's survey including a portion of it in the lease.) Where was this promise first made to you?—If the division had been made at the time of the sale, I should have been clear about it. When they saw you at Pakowhai, was anything said about the Karamu reserve?—Tanner and the others said we should make some arrangement about getting a Crown Grant for that land—it was to be divided off to different people at 100 acres each. What did take place between you and Tanner in reference to that reserve?—I was to send a surveyor to divide it into blocks, and then pass it through the Native Land Court. It was after Heretaunga had been investigated—we thought that only the portion leased to Tanner was included in the survey : and that ours had not been investigated; but we did not see Tanner's survey. Had you any conversation with Tanner or any other purchaser as to what was to be done with this piece when the land was sold?—We were continually talking about it, but were informed that the Court had already dealt with it. You have said Tanner told you this reserve would be left with you and Henare—when was this?—I am not quite clear; it was perhaps after selling. You have mentioned receiving two sums of money, £100 and £1,600. Have you not also received a further sum of £100?—I received £100 last year. Where did that come from?—It was money that Mr Tanner said was to be paid yearly. When did Tanner tell you that part of the consideration would be paid in this way?—At the time of the selling; when the deed was signed. Wilson said that the £2,000 for me should be mentioned in the deed. Were you to receive £2,000 more than was mentioned in the deed?—I was to receive £2,000 in addition to the payment for my share. This was told me alone, apart from the other grantees; the talk was Tanner's, not mine. Was there an interpreter?—Yes, the interpreter and Cuff heard, but no Maoris knew of it. (The Chairman; Why did you not mention it to the other Maoris?—They did not know it when Tanner said it, but when I mentioned it they knew. When did you mention it?—After the sale, to Henare Tomoana, and I asked him what, Tanner was going to do for him. Was the £2,000 to be paid in cash, or was the interest to be paid annually?—£1,000 was to be paid, and the other to remain for ten years, to be paid at the rate of £100 per year. I have not received the £1,000. Then the £100 you received is a part of the £2,000?—I am not quite clear, Tanner did not so explain it. Do you expect £100 per annum for the next nine years?—I am not sure; that is what Tanner says. Did you have any writing to that effect?—No. Mr Commissioner Manning: Did you receive any writing about the £2,000?—No.) What did Henare say when you told him?—That he was to get £1,500. Were you aware before asking that Henare had received over and above his proper share?—I knew Tanner would do the same with Henare. Did you also ask Manaena?—No. Did you think him also one of the favored few?—I heard last year when I received my £100, that Manaena was to receive £50 per annum. Was the £2,000 promised in addition to your share?—Yes. Did you afterwards find out that it was page 13 to be any smaller amount?—No. I went and saw Cuff on the subject, and be said he only knew of the £100 for ten years. Did you reply?—I said "Where has the £1000 disappeared to?" Before going to Auckland did you go to Ormond about this matter?—Yes. What did you go to see Ormond for?—I am not sure whether it was before or after I went to Auckland. I went to ask him for money because my gig was taken by the pakeha. They had then for a long time been pressing me to sell Heretaunga. Martin Hamlin was present with me—I had asked him to go. I asked Ormond for some money for my gig, which had been taken by the pakeha. I asked him to give it to me in Government money. He said there was not any. I said, "Well, if you have no Government money, give me some of your own." He replied that he had not got any. I then asked Hamlin to come to an hotel to see if there was any money there. I went to an hotel and asked for £10. I had £30 in my possession. I said to the publican, "You can get the money from the pakeha who has Waikahu." He told me to write an authority, and paid me. The conversation with Ormond which I have related was all that took place. Ormond had never refused me money before, and my thought was that it was on account of Heretaunga.

Mr Sheehan here withdrew the statement made in his opening address—that Mr Ormond had recommended the witness to sell his land. He had been wrongly instructed, and on this point the evidence did not bear him out.

The Commission then (5.45 p m.) adjourned.

Thursday, 6th March, 1873.

Mr Sheehan continued the examination of Karaitiana: During the time you were pressed to sell the block, was any pressure put upon you by your creditors? were any summonses issued?—Yes, for my debts. Do you remember the names of any creditors who summoned you?—Knowles and Sutton; they are the two. You told us you went to Auckland to see M'Lean?—Yes. Do you remember the occasion when the summons was served?—At the time I went to Auckland. How long before yon went on board the vessel?—The same day. (The Chairman: Were they for large sums?—Perhaps £100 each; I do not know how much more.) Do you know whether at this time Tanner and others were inquiring in Napier who your creditors were?—I thought at that time that they were doing so. Have you been informed so? [Question disallowed.] (The Chairman: What reason had you for thinking so?—Because Tanner was very strong at that time to get me to sell.) You said yesterday that you went to Wellington with Mr Stuart, and that there was a word that you should not take money from him for Heretaunga?—Yes. By whom was that said?—Mr M'Lean told Henare Tomoana and myself in Wellington, when we desired him to give us money. He replied that Tanner and Ormond said we had been taking money from Stuart, and he said, "Do not take money from Stuart; if you desire any money, come to me and I will give, it." Did M'Lean say that Tanner and Ormond had told him this?—He told us that Tanner and Ormond said we were not to take money from Stuart.

page 14

Mr Sheehan said he had now arrived at the question of accounts, and applied that he might be allowed to retire for a short time with the witness and an officer of the Court, to examine the vouchers which had been put in by Mr Tanner, This, if permitted, would greatly simplify the examination—Mr-Tanner was not only willing, hut desirous, that the application should be granted—The Chairman said he would grant the application. The course proposed was unusual; but the whole proceedings were of an unusual kind, and the Commissioners would make their own precedents.

Mr Sheehan accordingly retired, with the witness, the secretary, and the interpreter to the Commission After an absence of 45 minutes, he returned, and stated that the first side of the sheet handed in referred entirely to amounts paid to persons, other than the grantees, and to those accounts alone the vouchers related. Of those amounts, only one concerned Karaitiana—an item of £100, which he admitted. The vouchers before the Court only covered a sum of £5,800, out of £19,726. Did the other side intend to produce the cheques and other documents showing payment of the balance?—Mr Tanner: Certainly. Mr J. N. Williams took charge of the payments, and will produce the bank-book in proof.

Karaitiana's examination resumed: You have seen the vouchers handed in?—Yes. There is one for £100, signed by you, which you admit?—Yes. Have you ever received a statement of account similar to that now handed in by the other side?—A document, was shown to me. Do you know whether it was similar to the one in Court?—Yes. Was it merely shown to you or left in your possession?—It was shown to me. Yon were informed that of the £2,000 you were to receive £1,000 at the rate of £100 per annum?—Yes. Do you know what is to become of the £1,000 at the end of the ten years?—I will then get the body of that money.

Cross-examined by Mr Tanner: You stated that Knowles and Sutton issued summonses before you went to Auckland?—Yes. Was not this on the occasion of your attempted, not actual going?—No, it was when I went. Did you not put off your going?—No, not on any occasion. Did you not meet me at the toll-gate, and did I not ask you how it was you had not gone?—Yes. Te Heu Heu went, and I remained on account of the summons. He went in one steamer, and I went in the next. Did you not tell me that you were resolved before going to see how your debts were be paid, as you would not go with a load on your back?—I do not remember tip's taking place at the time. I do not remember meeting you there; I am not quite clear about it. Did I not ask you to have a meeting of natives at Pakowhai, in reference to the sale of Heretaunga?—I remember that clearly. When was that?—When the sale was first spoken of. Are you sure you do not remember meeting me at the toll-gate, by the horse-trough, and my expressing surprise that you were not gone to Auckland?—I am not quite clear about it—it may be so. Do you remember my asking you, at the same time and place, what you purposed doing to relieve yourself of the debt?—Those words took place on some occasion when I met you; I cannot say when; I met you frequently. Did you not reply, "I must either sell Heretaunga, or some other block of sufficient size to pay these debts"?—I did say so; but the particular occasion I do not remember. I did not page 15 mention Heretaunga. I have said it several times. Do you remember saying you would go to Pakowhai and talk it over with Henare and others, and see what they would say?—I remember that. Can you recall my reply?—Perhaps I may if you repeat if. Did I not tell you if you should decide to sell Heretaunga, to let me know?—Those were words of yours. Did you not send for Paramena, Henare, Noa, and others, to talk about selling Heretaunga?—To what period do you refer? (The Chairman What period elapsed between Henare's going and yours?—A week.) During that week?—I do not know; I had no meeting with Noa and the others. Did you send for them and have a meeting at some time before agreeing to the sale?—I do not remember, perhaps I did. Did you not meet them there, and part with the understanding that the dealing with the land was to be left with you and Henare?—I do not know of that arrangement at all. On your return to Pakowhai, had you and the other grantees any talk about selling Heretaunga?—After Te Heuhen's going away? Yes—I am not aware. Did you have it before he went?—I am not aware. You said you told me yon were going to call them together to discuss it; did you have any such discussion?—I am not aware of having sent for them, and do not know that they ever came. Did you never have a discussion with Paramena and Pera Pahoro about Heretaunga?—Those persons were not near me to talk about it. They were not friendly. When was the consent of the other grantees known?—It was after I went to Auckland that you went round asking the other grantees to consent, and getting their signatures. While I was in Auckland you went to Henare to get his signature to a document other than the one we first signed. There was no meeting at all respecting Heretaunga; you went with an interpreter to each native singly. Was not that document signed by you and Henare executed before you went to Auckland?—Yes. On whose behalf did you and Henare sign that agreement to sell Heretaunga for £13,500?—The reason Henare signed it was the threat that he should be taken to jail; it was not that he had the consent of the others. Was it known when the second document was signed, that the other grantees' consent had been obtained?—Which was the second document? This (6th Dec. 1869.)—How should I know? Where did Noa live?—At Ohiti, (eight or ten miles from Pakowhai), and at Omahu. Did Arihi live at Waipukurau?—That was her place; but who knows whether she lived there? You said I asked you to send for me, if you concluded to sell Heretaunga. Did you send for me?—I do not remember those words. Did you ever send for me to go to Pakowhai to talk over the sale of Heretaunga?—No: I had nothing to say about selling Heretaunga. Do you not remember sending for E. Hamlin, as well as myself, to talk it over?—I am not aware of having sent; your coming up was on your own account. Did I not once tell you that I was perfectly content with the lease; and if you wished to sell to let me know?—I will return to the subject of Stuart; the talk about Heretaunga was all yours; I did not speak of selling it. Do you remember page 16 saying that if you sold it it would be because the mana of the land had been broken by Tareha's and Waaka's sale?—I did not say that respecting my consent to sell. (The Chairman: Did you not complain that, the mana of the land was broken?—My words were that the land should not go; we would upset the work of Tareha and Waaka) Did you ever consent to sell the Heretaunga block?—I consented to your words, when you came to get our names, when Henare and I signed. Did you then know that the others would consent?—I did not know; the reason of my signing was the document showing mo Henare's debts. I was not agreeing to sell the land; I did not talk about selling. Was that the first occasion on which you became aware that Henare had debts?—I was not aware until you showed me: you were always showing them to me. Were you aware of them from any other person?—You were the only person wanting to buy, and it was from you only that I heard of the debts; you did not say what we should receive, but showed the debts as payment. Did you not hear of Henare's debts from himself?—Yes, on that occasion. Were you not aware, previously to this, that a writ had issued against Henare?—I was aware of it; the time you wished me to sell was the time of the summonses. Were they issued before or after the negociations to sell?—There was no period when you did not ask us to sell Heretaunga; and the summonses continually came to Henare—let him speak about them. Did you not raise particular objection to selling your interest, and ask us to let it remain conjointly with our own?—Those were my words, when you came to Pakowhai; I said my share should not go. Did you not say you would be quite satisfied if the others sold, so long as you retained your own share?—When you explained the debts the others owed, I said, "Let them be, it is their matter; but let my share remain." Did you then understand that the others were willing to sell?—I. was not aware of their consent. When did you first hear of Paramena and Pahoro's consent?—When we came in and finished the matter. Do you remember, when the agreement, was signed by Henare, allotting the money to the different members of the tribe?—No. Did you ever agree what should be the shares of the other grantees?—I did say so but it was not at the time of signing this document; it was when I came here to sign that I asked what the shares were to be. Was it at Cuff's office?—Yes. At the time of payment and final signing?—Yes. Do you remember, when the balance of the purchase-money was placed on the table, your taking it up and saying you would appropriate it to your own use?—Yes, clearly; that is quite correct—I said I would appropriate it. Yet you say that was the occasion when I asked what each person was to get?—Yes. What was the answer to that question?—The shares were arranged. Who did you ask what the shares would be?—They were all sitting at the office table, and I asked them. Who was the interpreter present?—Martin Hamlin. How came you to ask what each man was to get, when all the shares had been arranged? Who replied to your question about the shares?—There were two persons who could speak Maori, Hamlin and Williams; Mr Williams spoke to me. What did he say?—He showed me the amounts each person was to get. Do you remember those amounts?—No. Did you not tell Williams and I not to discuss the division of the money, as you intended to appropriate the balance, page 17 after paying the debts to your own use?—I inquired how much of other people's money had been taken, that I might know what balance remained after the debts were paid. Did you ask privately, or before the other grantees?—Henare and I were the only grantees present. Do you not remember F. E. Hamlin and I sitting on the floor of your house at Pakowhai, and putting down on paper the different amounts each grantee should receive?—I was not present at such an arrangement. Did you not sit on the floor with us at the time?—I remember sitting in the house with you, but not apportioning money. Do you not remember our arranging that a fair apportionment would be £1,000 to each grantee?—I did not say that. You say that your and Henare's shares were £2,000 each?—You said at Pakowhai, I was to get £1,000 for my share. Did you agree?—No. Did you agree to £2,000?—I did not agree. (The Chairman: Before you signed this agreement, did you know what share you were to receive?—Mr Tanner said each grantee was to get £1,000.) Did you understand that was to be your share when you signed?—Yes, that and £2 000 for myself. Was the total amount of the purchase money named in the agreement?—Not in the document signed at Pakowhai, but in that signed in Napier. (The Chairman: The document sets forth the purchase-money as £13,500.—I only agree to my signature, not the words; I do not remember that sum being mentioned.) Mr Tanner: Was it read to you?—The words were not like these; if it had been like this, that it was for the whole of us, I would not have signed. If you understood that £3,000 was to go to you, how did you suppose the remainder of the money was to be distributed?—I was not speaking my own words; Tanner was raying these things to me. (The Chairman: Do you wish us to believe that you sold your share without knowing what the whole purchase money was to be?—It was not a proper sale; I was confused. The Chairman: You should give proper answers, and not fence the questions, if you seek relief: now was not the total sum mentioned? it appears in the written agreement which it is said was interpreted to you.—I am not clear that that money was mentioned when Tanner and Hamlin were there. This agreement names £13,500; can you not remember that amount?—I am not clear.) What then did you suppose the whole purchase money to be?—£12,000 was the amount named by Tanner as the price Now was not that in the first agreement, to which you did not consent?—I am not clear. Did you not sign the second document in consideration of the amount being increased from £12,000 to £13,500?—No, I merely signed it. Do you not remember claiming £1,000 as the share of Matiaha?—Yes. Was not that when Hamlin and myself were at Pakowhai; and the agreement was signed?—It was in town. Was it never mentioned at Pakowhai?—No. Do you remember suggesting that Paramena and Pahoro's shares being small, they should go together for £1,000?—No. Was there any discussion at Pakowhai as to what Arihi's share was to be?—It look place at Napier. Was there in your own idea any allotment of shares?—No, and I made no proposal. What did you understand was to be the distribution of the money after your share was paid?—I do not know those thoughts. Did the subject never occur to you?—No. (Karaitiana page 18 questions Mr Tanner: When did these conversations take place?—During the three days I was at Pakowhai.) How much was Arihi to have? I said in Napier £1,000. I do not allude to Napier—I did not speak on that subject at Pakowhai. Do you not remember after allotting the portions of the other grantees, £2,000 remained, which you said would be appropriated to you and Henare?—That was not done at Pakowhai. What then was the subject of the three days discussion?—Your request to buy Heretaunga. Did I do nothing but repeat that request?—You had all the talk, both about buying and allotting the shares; I would not listen, I vent into another room. Did we not have long discussions about the shares?—I was not aware that I was the person you really talked to. Would you sign an agreement without a great deal of preliminary talk?—I have no answer. Do you remember any discussion about the mortgage?—No. Do you remember the first arrangement proposed at Pakowhai, respecting the offer of £12,000, and the proposed division of the money—was that arrangement made?—You made it, but I did not. (The Chairman: Was there not a mortgage at the time?—Yes, £1,500.) Were you satisfied with the £12,000?—No, I did not agree to it at Pakowhai. (The Chairman: Did you not agree, provided the mortgage was paid off?—I have said before I did not say those words at Pakowhai.) The agreement says £1,500; how do you account for that?—The agreement was made with Henare, not with me. You remember leaving the room at Pakowhai while we were discussing Henare's troubles?—I know of that. When you returned, were you shown that Henare had signed the deed of Heretaunga?—Yes. Was not the arrangement made with Henare then explained?—Yes. Do you remember what that arrangement was?—No. Do you remember refusing to sign, throwing down the pen, and walking out?—It was after I signed that I went out; I wanted it undone. Did you not know that Henare bad signed on condition that he was to receive £150 per annum for ten years?—I was not then aware of it. Did I not follow you out into the veranda, and ask what was your objection?—I had signed then. Did you not object because you did not get something like Henares annuity, to which you thought you were entitled?—No. Did you not ask for £1,000?—No; when I came out you offered £1,000, and I refused to accept it. Why did you refuse it on that occasion?—I was objecting to my signing; I did not wish to sell: I had signed after Henare because he was in trouble; but it meant nothing. Did you not say you went to Auckland to get more money for Heretaunga?—No, I did not say that. Did you not say that nothing but Heretaunga would be huge enough to pay your debts?—I did say that; but my thoughts were to sell other land, not Heretaunga. When did you first bear that Henare was to receive £150 for ten years?—When we came into Napier, and I consented to the sale of Heretaunga, I heard the talk about it. When did you understand that you were to receive £100 per annum for ten years?—I had heard that long before. On what occasion did you hear it?—When Cuff and Hamlin came to Pakowhai, it was finally settled. Was it not at the time of signing the agreement at Pakowhai that it was first talked about?—Yes, you mentioned it there. Was there not at the same time a conversation about Henare?—No, that was separate. Did you not page 19 know it at that time?—I do not remember. Concerning the reserve—was it not recommended by Cuff and myself that the whole should be included in the deed of sale, in order that we might reconvey the reserve in such a way that it might be tied up to prevent alienation?—That was arranged at Napier. Did you not suggest cutting the reserve up into hundred-acre blocks, so that the remainder of the tribe might have reserves?—Yes, that talk was before the sale. Did you not say that if this were not done you would have all the tribe or the paddock at Pakowhai, with their horses and cattle, which would be more than it would support?—No Did you not wish to prevent the alienation of the Pakowhai reserve?—Yes. Why then did you say yesterday that that reserve was a present for yourself and Henare alone?—You did not carry out your arrangements; that was the reason of my saying that you surveyed the land; I thought that it had not been included in the survey; the talk of making Karamu inalienable was at the time of the sale. Did you not express a wish that you and Henare should have the reserve conveyed to you as trustees for the other parties?—Yes. Did not we say we had no objection to that course, if the others did not object?—You agreed to it. Did you not know that Wilson and Purvis Russell, as trustees for Arihi, refused to permit of this arrangement?—This has been talked of. Do you remember who were finally appointed trustees with your consent?—Locke and Williams; I asked that they might be appointed.

Commission adjourned at 4.15 p.m.

Friday, 7th March, 1873.

Cross-examination of Karaitiana by Mr Tanner continued: You have stated that you were not aware that the annuities were secured to you: are you not aware that that they were purchased from the Government, and that it is from the Government you receive them?—I know that. Then why did you state that you did not know they were secured to you?—On account of the number of years during which the money has not been paid since the selling. You said you expected the body of the £1,000, at the end of ten years?—Yes. Was it not explained (hat you were to receive the £1,000 in instalments of £100 per annum?—I was not clear. Was it not my reason for paying Henare in that way, that he was of extravagant habits, and would spend the whole at once if he got it?—I do not know Who told you that the £1,000 would come back to you after ten years?—That was my own idea.

Karaitiana examined by Mr Ormond: Did you offer, in Auckland, to sell Heretaunga to M'Lean?—Yes. Did you propose an actual sale?—The Government were to pay the debts, and M'Lean take the land on lease, the rent to pay the debts. Were you authorized by the other grantees to make this proposal?—No. Had not several of the other grantees already sold?—Yes, they were in debt. Did M'Lean promise you any money on these conditions?—He consented, but he did not arrange about any particular money. Then what you proposed to sell M'Lean for £3,000 was your interest in the lease, and what else?—I was desirous that he should pay the debts of all the grantees that would agree. Who was with me when I saw yon at page 20 Pakowhai, after you returned from Auckland? was it Hamlin?—It was one of the Hamlins. Did you tell me that you had offered to sell Heretaunga to M'Lean?—Yes. Did you tell me then that you had offend it for the debts?—Yes, I explained then as I have done now. Did you ask me as Government agent whether M'Lean had authorised me to pay £'3,000 on account?—No. Did you ask me for that money at any time?—No, I did not ask you, I only informed you of the debts. Then why do you say that I told you the Government had no money?—You said so at Pakowhai. Then you did ask me for money?—I told you what M'Lean said, and you replied that die Government had no money. Did I not tell you that I had not heard anything from M'Lean in reference to the subject, and that on that account the Government had no money?—Yes. You have mentioned a letter bearing my name, and threatening that unless Heretaunga was sold, Pakowhai should be seized; how was my name placed in that letter?—It was where persons usually put their names. You have received other letters from me?—Yes. Were they not all signed with my proper signature?—Yes. Was this one so signed?—I do not know what the letters were like, the name was at the foot, not in the body of it. Did any one else see that letter?—I read it to the whole of us. Do you think that letter came from me?—I thought it was yours, though it was not in your writing. Did any pakeha see it?—No. Did you mention it to me?—No, I came to town to consent to the sale. Did you tell Tanner or Williams of the letter?—No. I showed it to Cuff. You have said that you mentioned it to Tanner and Williams in Cuff's office. (The Chairman: Who was present when you told Cuff?—He had an interpreter, M. Hamlin, who said it was not true. Were any other pakehas present?—No, I told those two, I do not remember showing it to others. Was it not in Cuff's office, when you came in to sign the deed?—Yes. (Mr Ormond said he wished to prove the letter a myth; it had never been shown to any one that could be brought in evidence, and if true, it would have been a very bad feature in the case.—The Chairman: It does not appear to me to be material; the letter is disavowed, and the witness himself says he was told it was a forgery.) Did you at that time in Cuff's office, say from whom the letter came?—I said from Ormond. Did you show it?—No. Concerning the application to release the gig; where was it made?—In your office. Who interpreted?—Martin Hamlin. You say you asked me at first for Government money; what did I reply?—That the Government, had no money. Did I not say no money for such purposes?—You may have said that. Was Heretaunga mentioned at all by me on that occasion?—No; I have my own idea why you refused me that money. Have you not said so elsewhere?—(This question objected to by the Chairman.) Did I ever, on any occasion, have a conversation with you concerning Heretaunga?—No.

By Mr Commissioner Manning: I do not know who delivered the letter to me.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Did you ever send for Paramena or Pahoro to consult with them, before the sale?—No. After you had agreed and taken some money, did you send for them?—Yes, when we came to Napier. Was this that they might join in the sale?—Yes, that page 21 we might all sign together. Did you on any occasion before the sale, send for Tanner about Heretaunga?—No. Then, so far as you are concerned, he came on his own account?—It was his own doing, I did not ask him to come. You have said that when you came in to sign the deed, and receive the purchase-money, that you asked Williams and Tanner not to discuss about the balance, as you would take it yourself; did they consent to that?—Yes. Did they so consent in the presence of the other grantees?—I did not tell them to conceal my words; I said that I myself would inform them of the wrong I was doing. Did Tanner and Williams agree to that?—Yes. And did you take the balance?—Yes; they gave it to me. With reference to the three days negociation at Pakowhai, by Tanner and F. E. Hamlin: you had during those three days a great deal of conversation?—Yes. Was any part of that conversation about the division of the purchase money among the other grantees?—I did not speak about that. What was the subject of discussion?—All I remember was the proposal to purchase Heretaunga, and asking me to consent to its being sold. You have said that you are aware of £1,000 being dealt with so as to produce £100 per annum: through whom did you become aware of that?—Through Tanner. From no other persons?—He was the only one. Was not something said about the Karamu reserve, when you and the other grantees came in to complete the sale?—Yes. By whom was it said? We did not make the arrangement at the table; we retired to another room. Who did so?—Tanner and Williams. What was said there? It was about making that land over in our two names. By whom was this said?—Henare and I asked about it, and Tanner and Williams replied that it should be so. Give if you can the exact words—That our two names should be placed upon that ground, according to some European rule, or law. Was anything said about this being made known to, or kept from the other grantees?—It was to be placed in our two names, and some European was to look after it for us; this talk was to be with us only. (The Chairman: Who was to have the use of the land?—The persons who were to look after it were Locke and Williams; those were the names mentioned. Did you understand it to be reserved for the hapu, or your private property?—It was to be in our names, but for the whole of our hapu, the hapu of Henare and me.) Was anything then said about keeping this secret from the other grantees?—Yes. By whom?—By Tanner and Williams: The four of us were talking together.

By the Chairman: Are Paramena and Pahoro in your hapu?—No. Is Te Waaka?—Yes. Is Noa?——No.

Mr Tanner asked to be allowed to cross examine the witness on the question of the Karamu reserve. Permission being given, the following additional evidence was elicited: I am not aware that Paramena and Pahoro were present at Pakowhai at the time that F. E Hamlin and you were there: they were not there at that time. Were they there just before?—I cannot say; if they were I did not see them. You have said that yon never sent for me, and that I went to every place: what places did I go to?—To various places, to see the different persons; they were not all written at once. What do you mean by saying they were not all written at once?—That page 22 we did not all meet together. Name some of the places I went to?—Pakipaki was one of the places where the grantees resided. Did I go there?—I do not know, I believe so You said something was said by us about keeping the matter secret : what did we say? It was your arrangement that my name and Henare's should be written, and that we should not tell the hapu. Was it not your proposition that you should be made trustee, and that it should not be mentioned?—(The Chairman: The wrong would be the same in either case, no matter from whom the proposals came; I. observe that the terms of the deed of trust ate sufficiently extensive to include the natives) Was it not your wish that you should be left to divide the reserve amongst the people, and that we should not interfere?—I said we were sufferers because we did not know how the land had been surveyed; it was not your wish, we proposed it, lest the land should be devoured by the other natives; you consented to that request. Has not that arrangement of yours been carried out; the reserve surveyed into hundred-acre allotments; and the people settled upon it?—It was my idea to divide it like that. Has it not been done?—It was surveyed before. But into 100-acre blocks?—It has been so done, and the people are living there; I wanted Crown Grants for each person.

Henare Tomoana, sworn; examined by Mr Sheehan: Was not Heretaunga leased to Tanner before it was passed through the Native Lands Court?—Yes; at the first Court the Crown Grant was not obtained; and it was not finished at the second Court, on account of my not agreeing to the names of some of the persons being in the Grant. What persons?—Tareha, Te Koko, Paramena, and Arihi. Was it on account of this disagreement that the first two applications fell through?—Yes. Was a third application made?—At the time of the second application Tanner asked Karaitiana and mo to allow Tareha's name to be placed on the Grant, but we refused; at the next sitting of the Court Tanner continued to ask us; he said that the authority would not rest with Tareha, he would only be a minor person in the Grant. Did Tanner give any reason for wishing to have Tareha's name in the Grant?—No; my reason for objecting was that I was afraid Tareha would sell if his name was in the Grant. What took place on that occasion?—It was finished satisfactorily; I then stood up to speak, and asked the Court to make the land inalienable. The Court said "We are not strong enough; if this was the finishing of your lands we should be able." Then the Court refused?—They did not consent; I told them the reason of my application was that I feared the land would be sold. When the Crown Grant was ordered, the Court sent us outside to arrange about, the names that should be put in the Grant. We, about a hundred of us, went outside and consulted, and selected the persons whose names should be in the Grant; myself for my hapu. What were the names of your hapus?—[The witness here enumerated in detail the names of the hapus, some twenty in number, represented by himself and the other nine grantees respectively, as agreed upon by the natives assembled.] These hapus were all written down by me and given to the Court, together with the names of the persons as I have stated them, and those names were page 23 agreed to. After that Tanner had a new lease of the block?—Yes. Can you give particulars concerning the first leave?—I can give some particulars. At the first when I did not know Tanner, he came to talk about leasing Heretaunga; Manaena and I were cutting grass. He asked us who had the tikanga of the land; I replied, 1 had. He said "Would you not be willing to let me have the land?" I replied, "If you can give me guns I will agree." He said, "How many guns?—I said, two guns and the race horse, the Bishop's son. (Mr Tanner explained that "The Bishop" was the name of an entire horse.) He agreed and said he would give me the guns; I held on to his consent, and went to his place at Ruataniwha. Did you show him the boundaries?—Not at that time; he came again some time after with Karaitiana to ask us to agree, and it was agreed that he should have the land; he said he was to be our parent, and we were to be his children; then we talked about the price of the laud; and the sum mentioned for the lease was £700, but I am not quite clear on that point. We then pointed out the boundaries of the land to be leased. Was this lease larger or smaller than that given after the land went through the Lands Court?—The second lease was the largest, it took in all the ground, the first lease was small. Was the reserve in the first lease larger than the present Karamu reserve?—Yes, it included another piece. When the new lease was read at Pakowhai by F. E. Hamlin, Karaitiana objected. Why did he object?—Because it did not provide that the land should return to the natives at the end of 21 years; they had told us that that should be written, but it was not done, and we feigned it with the understanding that those words would be added. Myself, Noa, Karaitiana, Paramena, and Pahoro were present at that signing. You understood the terms to be as Karaitiana has described them; rental £1,250 per annum for the first ten years, and £1,500 per annum for the remainder of the term of 21 years?—Yes. At that time the rents that had become due were paid?—Yes. Do you remember giving a mortgage over this block?—It had been mortgaged previous to the lease being signed. Do you know the amount of the mortgage?—£1,500. For what purpose was that money borrowed?—For sugar, Hour, blankets, clothing, ploughs, &c. Was the cost of fencing the Karamu reserve included also?—Yes. After that did you hear any talk of selling Heretaunga?—Yes. When did you first hear it? Tanner first spoke of it to me at Pakowhai; Hamlin was with him. Had you sent for Hamlin?—No; the wrong was their own. Were any of your people present?—No; there were persons of the Crown Grant, myself, Karaitiana, Pahoro, and Paramena. What reason did Tanner assign for his coming?—He said "I have come respecting the sale of Pahoro's share of Heretaunga." I thought he wished Karaitiana and I to consent to Pahoro's selling. Can you relate the conversation?—Yes; Tanner said, "I have come to ask you to consent to the selling of Pahoro's share; the money for Pahoro and Paramena to be £700." £300 was taken to pay their debts; I inquired of Paramena and Pahoro if their debts were correctly charged, and Pahoro said no; his debts were but £27. That was all that was said; we did not consent that Pahoro's share should be sold; and the pakehas left. That was all that was done then; the next I heard was Stuart's desire to page 24 purchase. Tanner told me not to consent to Stuart's purchasing. Had Stuart asked you to sell?—We had heard that he was anxious to purchase. How had you heard that?—Tanner informed me, and after that I saw Stuart in Napier, where he met me and took me into his room at an hotel where he was staying; he said, "Would you not like to sell your share in Heretaunga?" I said I would not consent. Did Stuart name any sum?—Yes; he offered £12,000 for the whole block, hut he did not name any sum as my share. I did not consent, and there the matter ended. It was after this, I do not know how long, that the Government asked us to go to Wellington to see the Queen's son, and we went there. Had you any conversation with Tanner before you left?—Yes, Tanner said, "If Stuart offers you money, do not take it." Stuart was going in the same vessel. Was that all Tanner said?—He also said that M'Lean would give us money while we were there. Did you see any person concerning Heretaunga, while you were in Wellington?—We saw M'Lean, who told us the same words as Tanner; M'Lean said "Has Stuart given you any money? because I have the money for the use of you two if you want it. If Stuart offers you money, do not take it." I said "We will not consent to the talk of that pakeha," and that conversation ended; but on another day we got money from M'Lean. (The Chairman: Was this money charged against you?—It was charged against the rent; it was £40 or £60, I am not certain which.) Nothing more was said about it until after we returned to Hawke's Bay. After our return the next thing was Tanner's purchase; he came to Pakowhai and asked me to sell Heretaunga; he had F. E. Hamlin, his interpreter, with him; they came to Karaitiana's house. I was sent for; I came and found Karaitiana with them; we talked about selling Heretaunga; Tanner said Heretaunga must be sold. (Mr Tanner objected to this rendering of the words, "Me hoko Heretaunga."—Mr Commissioner Manning considered the expression too strongly rendered.) I said I would not consent to sell. He said, "What is to be done about your debts?" I said, "Leave that to me; I have plenty of Crown Grants with which I can pay my debts." He said, "The only land by which you can settle your debts will be Heretaunga." I said, "Let the persons to whom I am indebted speak about that; my creditors are not pressing me; you are the one who is always speaking about my debts." I got angry, and went away, leaving him at Karaitiana's. On the second day Tanner and the interpreter came again, and spoke about selling; myself, Karaitiana, and Manaena were present. Did Karaitiana remain during the conversation?—No, he had gone into the kitchen. What conversation took place?—Karaitiana said to me, "You talk to those pakehas respecting their business; I am not able to talk to them." Manaena also got up and went outside. I said to Tanner "I have three words to say to you respecting this block; if you consent to £12,000 for myself I will agree; if you agree to give me 5,000 acres, I will consent." Did you require both £12,000 and 5000 acres of land?—Yes, the money for myself, the land for my hapu. When I mentioned that sum he laughed, as though I had asked too much. I became angry at his laughing, and went out. My reason for asking so large an amount was that I did not wish to sell. Tanner came out after me, and wanted page 25 me to talk, but I would not agree. It was then he said "What about your debts?"—and I replied "You are the only person speaking about them, my creditors are not pressing." I then left Karaitiana's house and did not return; I went to my own house. Tanner's visit on the third day was also about our selling Heretaunga. Karaitiana again said that I must talk to the pakehas, as he was not at all able to do so. Tanner said "I have the account of your debts; how much do you suppose you owe?" I replied, "What I have to say today is similar to what I said yesterday; you must give me £12,000 for myself alone, and 5,000 acres for myself and tribe, and then I will agree to sell." He then said they would not be strong enough to do that; he would not consent to give 5,000 acres; all he could agree to was to give the portion arranged in the lease. He said "The only money I will agree to give you is £3,000." I said if that was the amount I should not be able to pay my debts, and asked what my debts were; he said £1,000 to Sutton, and a number of other amounts which I do not remember now. I said it would be useless for me to take £3,000, as it would not be sufficient; I said "You must consent to what I ask, let it be £6,000." He replied "Yes, I will consent to £6,000." I said "Do not take the money for the mortgage out of that, let that go when the land is sold." He agreed not to include the £1,000 mortgage money in that sum. (The Chairman: Was the £6,000 to be for yourself alone, or for you and Karaitiana?—For myself alone.) Was there any land reserved as well?—Yes the Karamu, that is the piece excluded from the lease; I had asked before that I might have 150 acres, when it was leased to Rich. Tanner got it when Rich died. I spoke to Tanner about the 150 acres, and he agreed; I asked for another 150 acres outside the boundaries of the Karamu, making 300 acres, and Tanner consented to it. He agreed to give back 100 acres, which he held under lease, which would make 300. I asked him to place my son's name on the 100 acres, and he agreed. 100 acres were to be for my son, and 200 for myself. He said he would not pay the £6,000 all at once; but that he was to pay me £150 each year, until the payment was finished. At the end of ten years the money would be gone, and the annual payments would cease. I was to get £4,500 when the rest of the money was paid. Tanner agreed, and I asked him about the money for Karaitiana; how much he was to gel. Tanner said he was to have £3,000. I said it would not be right unless we both received the same amount. He agreed to this, and promised to pay Karaitiana £6,000. I then consented, and signed the document. Were you in the Court when that document was read?—I have heard a document read, but am not clear about it. Here is the document; (witness identifies his signature)—can you recall any of its contents?—It is an agreement, signed by Karaitiana and myself, agreeing to sell .Heretaunga; I do not remember anything being in it about the debts (On the document being read to witness, he asked "Where are the names of the grantees; did you have them all there that you could write a such document as that?") Was it interpreted to you that £4,000 was expresed as having been paid?—No, it was not so interpreted. Had you then heard that Waaka and Tareha had sold their interests?—I knew that Tareha had sold. Was page 26 it explained to you that out of the amount named any portion of Tareha's share was to be taken?—No, Tanner had already shown that each man in the grant was to get—£1,000. Then Tanner had already spoken of the amount to be paid to each man?—Yes, £1,000 each. Can you remember anything Tanner said in reference to that?—I had asked him how much each grantee was to get, and he replied £1,000. You say a document was then signed?—Yes. You say the interpretation was not the same as that you have now heard?—Yes; nothing was said about £4,000. Did Karaitiana come in when the document was signed?—I had signed my name, and Tanner told me to go and bring Karaitiana; I went and fetched him, and the document was read over again, the £4,000 not being mentioned. Karaitiana then signed. Was Karaitiana present when you were speaking of the apportionment of the money?—No. If he had been present and taking part in the business must you have seen him?—Yes; if he had been present he would have spoken. You said that you bargained for yourself and Karaitiana?—Yes. Did you bargain for any other persons?—No; the reason for my arranging for Karaitiana's money was this; that he was very strong in opposition to selling. Did Tanner lead you to believe that he was making the bargain for any other persons beside himself? (Mr Hamlin's declaration was here read to witness.)—That is not right, that we were authorized by the others to sell. Did you state that you were, on that occasion?—No; if it had been so, why .should Manaena go out? Tanner did not want the other natives to know; he said it would not be well for a number of natives to be in the house, or they might hear our talk. Karaitiana said "I suppose it is all right now that you have got the land." I then went outside. What did Tanner and Hamlin then do?—They remained there some time, and Hamlin afterwards told me that arrangements had been made outside by Tanner, or himself, with Karaitiana, about the payment of the money. I do not know anything about that of myself. After that the pakehas went away, and I did nothing more in the matter; but Karaitiana objected to the document, and told the whole of us so. How long was this after the signing?—It was about two days after signing that he objected, and his anger continued for three months. He asked that the document might be given back. He continued to talk about it till the time he left for Auckland. When he came in to Napier on his way to Auckland, he consulted Wilson, wishing him to try to get the document back for him. His business in Auckland partly related to Heretaunga. Were you aware of this before he went?—Yes. Did Karaitiana tell you that that was his business?—Yes; he told me two things; that he had appointed Wilson to take his name out of this document, and that in Auckland he would ask the Government for money to pay ray debts Do you remember Karaitiana's return from Auckland?—Yes. What was the next matter connected with the sale?—When Karaitiana returned from Auckland the rest of us had all signed. [Mr Tanner asked that this answer might be repeated—Mr Sheehan said the witness was no doubt mistaken in point of time; or there might possibly be other documents which were not on the register.] Up to the time of Karaitiana's return, was he still opposed to the sale?—Yes, it was not until March that he told me he had page 27 agreed. Did he tell you why he agreed?—Yes, it was in consequence of receiving a document of Ormond's, threatening to seize Pakowhai. He came to me and said "I have received a letter," and he gave the letter to me.

Mr Lee asked if search had been made for this document, and said that no proof of its existence had been given.

Commission adjourned.

Saturday, 8th March, 1873.

Examination of Henare Tomoana by Mr Sheehan, continued; Was it in town, or at Pakowhai, that you saw Karaitiana with that letter?—In town. Did you see the letter?—Karaitiana gave it town. Did Karaitiana say what he purposed doing when he received the letter?—He said it was on account of that letter that he agreed to sell. This was after he returned from Auckland?—Yes. During the absence of Karaitiana in Auckland, did any Circumstance take place relative to the sale?—Yes, the first thing during that time was Tanner's coming to me at Pakowhai, to get me to sign a document of agreement. He came alone. I said I would not consent, and he left. He came again alone, and asked me to sign an agreement of sale. I said I would not consent in the absence of Karaitiana. Tanner said Karaitiana would be wrong, and that if I took the document into the Supreme Court, the Court would decide the correctness of my having signed, and that then I should not get the £1,000 which was to be paid during the ten years. That was all that he said on that occasion. I said "Never mind, wait till Karaitiana comes." Tanner then went away. He came a third time, accompanied by F. E. Hamlin. His object was to get my consent to sign. Hamlin said "Why do you delay consenting to sign your name?" I said that it was because of the absence of Karaitiana, and that if he were here and consenting, I would sign. Tanner said again, that Karaitiana would be really wrong: and that it would be left to the Supreme Court to decide, and then he would not get the annuity. He also said "You will be taken to jail for your debts; I am the person preventing this." I replied "You are the only person talking in that way; my creditors are not talking to me about my debts." They then left me. On another day I came into Napier and saw Cuff, who told me to call on him at his house at noon on the next day. At his office?—No, at his residence at Waitangi. I asked for what purpose, and he said to show mo some way of saving myself from my debts. At eleven o'clock next day I went to Cuff's, and arrived there shortly before twelve. I went in and waited. I had been there a long time when Cuff, Tanner, and Hamlin came from the direction of Napier. They found me sitting on the sofa. As soon as I saw Tanner I understood that what Cuff had said about clearing mo was a device. When they came in I ran to the door, for I wanted to get away. Hamlin ran to the door to prevent my going out, and we pushed each other about at the door. Tanner said "Why do you want to go? our talk is good." I said "You have deceived me." Tanner said "You must remain quiet, and not go." Hamlin was then holding the lock, and I was still pushing him away. His hand was strong to bold on, and mine was strong to put him away. I then saw page 28 the door leading to the kitchen, and went to that door, but. Tanner got in front of me. I said "If we quarrel I shall be worsted, as you are so many, but I will really kill one of you." Tanner slapped me on the shoulder, and said that that was not a chief's work; it was foolish: so I remained. Cuff asked me to have a glass of wine, but I refused. The dinner was laid at that time; they alone had it, I did not eat; though they asked me to join them, I refused. I was frightened, and Tanner said "Do not be so sad." Tanner then produced the documents that he wanted me to sign, and they asked me to sign them, but I remained silent, I would not consent. It was not until four o'clock that I consented to sign the documents; I wished to get away before signing but they would not let me. Had you partaken of any wine?—No, I was in fear. When I had signed one document another was produced, it was for me to consent to Tanner's giving Sutton £1,000. (Document produced: amount named therein being £1,119 3s 5d.) Is this the document?—Yes; I signed that also. What next took place?—I went to Pakowhai, and told Manaena that I was killed. I said, "Perhaps Tanner told Cuff to ask me to his house"—that was my thought. I told Manaena that I had signed a document selling Heretaunga, and said, "You be very strong not to sign your name till Karaitiana comes back." That was all the work that was done respecting myself. (The Chairman: Were the documents read and explained to you at Cuff's house?—Yes, Hamlin read them to me; but I did not listen attentively. I was vexed.) When Karaitiana returned, did you inform him of what you had done?—Yes; on the day of his arrival, when he came to Matahiwi, I told him. When I told him, he was sad—he knew that the land had gone. The pakehas asked the reason why Karaitiana did not return, saying "Perhaps he thinks to prevent the sale of Heretaunga by staying away." (Mr Commissioner Manning: What pakehas were they who said this of Karaitiana?—Sutton was one of them.) The next thing I saw was Karaitiana receiving £100 in Napier; that was the time when he showed me the letter. Did you receive any money when you signed the documents in Cuff's house?—I do not remember; if I had taken any I would have known. Was any offered?—No. Do you remember signing more than one order on that occasion?—Sutton's was the only one I signed at Cuff's house. Did you give any between that time and Karaitiana's return?—Yes; by the time he arrived I had signed some other orders. What was the next event after Karaitiana took the £100?—He informed me that he had received it, and that he had been asking that Karauria's money should be divided, but that it was not agreed to; that was all he said. Was it not said that the other grantees were to be sent for to sign?—Yes; Karaitiana said Noa and the others would be brought in to sign. In the morning they came to my residence, and went from thence to Cuff's; myself, Karaitiana, Manaena, Paramena, Noa, and Pahoro were present. Who did you see there?—Cuff, Tanner, James Williams, and Martin Hamlin. The first thing said was that all my money had gone to pay my debts; that was after we had signed. What took place before signing?—It was explained Low the shares were to be arranged; but I cannot repeat that exactly. Do you remember what balance there was?—I do not remember. The only money mentioned as remaining was that for the lease. It was shown page 29 that some of the rent had been expended in paying debts, and some remained. It was the money of Paramena, Pahoro, and others that was expended; not that of Karaitiana or Matiaha. Mr Tanner said to Karaitiana and myself, "Let us go into the room at the back." We did so; Williams and Tanner both went in with us; also Martin Hamlin. They said they were about to explain about the division of Karamu. Tanner said "My reason for asking you here is that the other persons in the Crown Grant may not hear our talk respecting Karamu." He asked me "Is it to be given back to the whole of you?—My thought is that it be given back to you two: this is not according to law, but to Maori custom; if it was given back according to law, all the persons named in the Crown Grant would be entitled to it. You two will be appointed to look after that land, so that the other persons in the Grant will not be included." (The Chairman: Did Tanner propose that some of those persons named in the Grant should be shut out?—Yes.) Tanner said we were to name two Europeans to look after it, and he mentioned Locke and Williams, to which Karaitiana and I agreed. At the end of the conversation I said it would not be right for all the persons in the Grant to have that land, as it was ours, and did not belong to all the persons in the Grant. I said not us alone, but Manaena also. I then heard that it had been passed through the Court, and included in the other Mock. (The Chairman: Did you agree to include the names of Noa, Tareha, Paramena, and Pahoro?—No. Did you intend Arihi to be included?—No. Te Waaka?—No.) Did the conversation end here?—Yes. Do you remember after this, your going to Cuff's office to ask for your money?—Yes, Tanner was there, and he said it had all been expended; this was the second day. Were you shown how it had gone?—He said it had all gone to pay my debts, and that other debts yet remained; that £800 still remained unpaid. I asked at that, time for the accounts of the money due and paid to all the grantees; I said "Make clear the debts of each person that 1 may see how the money has been expended. This was not done. Did you receive any written papers with which to answer your credit-ore if they had applied a second time for their debts?—No. Then if they had so applied you had nothing to show them?—No; I was summoned immediately after by a person whose claims were said to have been paid, and I was continually asking Tanner for an account. Had you received anything in writing regarding the existence of the annuity?—There was no writing whatever, it was only told to me. By whom?—By Tanner. Up to the present time you have received no such document?—No. Nor any accounts?—No. I believe you have received an instalment of the annuity?—Yes. How much?—I have taken it two or three years; I have received £150. How did the matter of the summons end?—I paid the claim. To what amount?—I was summoned for £85, but the pakeha did not get the best of it, as I had to pay only, £12. Who was the pakeha?—Maney. Do you know the amount you have actually received?—No, I did not get any at the time we signed at Cuff's office. (The Chairman: Did you sign a second deed at Cuff's office?—Yes, one with the names of all the grantees upon it. Do you know how much was expended on your debts?—Yes, from Tanner telling me; he said that the £4,500 had all gone.)

page 30

Mr Lascelles complained of the way in which the ground was shifted in these complaints. They had just heard a long story of Henare's signature having been obtained by intimidation, of which no hint had been given, either in Henare's complaint or in the opening address of the learned counsel for the complainants. He was not prepared for this new matter, and should require Mr Cuff's evidence to answer this part of the case.—Mr Tanner said he was only desirous that the fullest latitude should be given to the complainants.

On the application of both sides, the Chairman consented that the Commission should not sit on the following Wednesday and Thursday; those days being public holidays. He acceded with great reluctance, the work before them being so great and the time so limited.

The Commission then adjourned.

Monday, 10th March, 1873.

Henare Tomoana, cross-examined by Mr Tanner: Who was Te Koko, to whom you referred as objecting to, as being one of the grantees in the original giant?—I did not wish his name includeed. Had he no influence?—He had a claim, he was senior to me, and I could have represented him. Why did you object to Paramena?—I did not wish his name to appear. Why not?—Because formerly, when Hapuku was selling land, Paramena belonged to his party, and had authority. After wards we fought and defeated them; that is why I objected to Paramena, Arihi, and Te Koko. Another reason was that at the time of fighting, Paramena took Moananui's wife. Had he a large claim?—Originally he had, but he lost it by defeat. Why then did you afterwards allow Paramena in the grant?—By your advice, I consented because you said he would merely remain on the grant, and have no authority. Why did you want Arihi excluded? did you think she had no claim?—She had a claim, but I have already stated the reason of my objecting to her. Did you consider that her interest became absorbed in yours, at the time of the fighting?—My answer will be long; do you wish for it?—I do—Te Hapuku was chief; all the land belonged to him. That land was mine, but he had it. After the fighting, it came back to me, and his relatives and the junior people had nothing to do with it. Was Arihi any relation of Hapuku's?—She is in the position of a grand-child to him. Did you allow her name to be put in without recognizing her claim?—It was only at the third sitting of the Court that I consented; I had refused on the two previous occasions. What relation was Arihi to Hapuku?—Grand-daughter. When you consented to her being in the Grant, was it not on the understanding that she was to remain under you, without rights of her own?—No, What then was the understanding?—That she should be a principal person. Why then did you allot her only £1,500 out of the purchase money?—I do not know anything of that arrangement. How much did you give her out of the annual rent?—£100. How much did you keep for yourself?—£200. How then can you say that her claim was equal to yours?—There was £100 for me, and the other £100 for my hapu, the Ngatikaiutu. Arihi always, in every year, received her £100, What did you consider should be her share of the purchase money, if any?—I did not know that that could be affected page 31 by my talking; Purvis Russell was her trustee. I was not aware of what the sum was that she was to receive. Did she sell her interest Wore you sold yours?—I cannot say. I did not know if she did I heard of Pahoro and Tareha's selling their interests, before we sold ours. Was Arihi to be a party to that selling of Heretaunga, to which you agreed?—No; nothing was said in reference to Arihi's selling when you came to ask us two to sell. Were you aware that her interest was affected by the conveyance you signed in Cuff's house?—I was not aware of it. Are you not aware that Arihi's name, with others, was mentioned in the deed you signed, where the consideration money was mentioned as being £13,500?—No. Then whose names were in that document?—There were no names that I know of, except those of Karaitiana and myself. What did you sign on that occasion?—My own name. But what to?—I wrote it in ink. What on?—A parchment lease. What was in that deed?—I have already said I was too sad to understand. If you were frightened would you be able to make your usual signature?—My signature was the same as usual. Would you know the document again?—I would, if I was to see it. At the time of the first lease, did I not meet you with a large party at the place you mentioned, and did you not in their presence, ask me to lease the land, and did I not reply that I would look at it?—No. Do you remember my telling you that you ought to let the Government have the block?—No. Did you not say that you had no intention of letting the Government have any more land, but that you would deal with your lands yourselves?—I do not remember that. Did you not afterwards offer it to Whitmore?—I do not know of having any talk to Whi more on the subject. Did you not offer it to him for £400 per annum?—No. Was it Karaitiana that did so?—I do not know, but if Karaitiana had done so I should have known. Did not Karaitiana quarrel with Whitmore because he would not allow him to run his horses?—No. Do you not remember asking me to take Mangateretere West, at the same time? was not the rent you asked me £600?—It is so long ago that I am not clear, but it was between £500 and £600; perhaps it was £600. Did I agree to pay that amount?—Yes. Did you not then tell me that you were the principal chief, and that you had the entire control of the block?—I told you that it was so within a certain boundary which I showed you. Had you the consent of all the others?—No, because they had been defeated, as I have already mentioned; at the time of the lease I told you that I had the entire control. Was it not in consideration of this that you agreed that I should be father to you?—No, it was not on that occasion. On what occasion then was it?—It was not my talk, it was yours; you said that we should be your children; you would instruct the young Maoris in cavalry drill; your third promise was that you would educate my son. All this was that I might look favorably on your proposals. Was it not you who asked for these things yourself?—No, it was your talk. Did you not expect me to find yon in cash?—No, that was your proposal to myself, Manaena, and Karaitiana. You leased the land at £600; had anyone else a lease?—No. Do you not remember, a few months after the lease was arranged, my meeting you and Rich on the ground?—Yes. You remember telling me that you wanted Rich to have a portion of page 32 the land nearest Havelock, about 2000 acres?—I do not remember that, but I said that Rich bad got a portion. When was that given to Rich?—After the block had been leased to you; there had been no survey. What rent did you demand from Rich?—£300 per annum. Was there not a considerable contest between you and I, and likewise between Rich and myself?—We did not dispute much. Did not I object to Rich, as it was after I had leased for £600?—Yes. And you insisted that I should let Rich have the land, because he was a good friend, and found money and goods?—Yes. Did not I demand that £300 a year should be taken from my annual rent, that it should be reduced by that amount?—I do not remember. Did you not refuse to reduce the rent by one penny?—No, I do not know any thing about that. Did I not at last submit, and agree to continue to pay the £600, though I had lost the most open part of the block?—Yes, you continued as before. Did you consider that the proper way to treat your father?—I thought it was the way for my father to treat me. Did not the original reserve include the swamp where you kept your pigs?—Yes. What arrangement was made about that?—That was to be kept by us for our pigs, but we found that it had been surveyed and included in the lease; we disputed about that, as you said it was in the original lease. Was that the first, or the second lease?—The first. Are you aware that the land was not surveyed at the time of the first lease?—Yes. Then how could that swamp have been surveyed and included? do you not remember after that time your pointing out to me the boundaries of the reserve for the first Lands Court?—No, the going over the land was before that; you had the lease first, and the surveying was afterwards; we did not go over it after that, as we said that you had stolen the land, that is, the place which we had reserved for our pigs; you afterwards agreed to give us £200 a year for that place. Do you not remember going out with me a second time to enlarge the boundaries, at the time the line was carried out towards Wahaparata?—You told Karaitiana not to say much about the £200, as your friends might object. You knew, then, that I had friends who were interested in the lease?—I knew of Williams, Gordon, Capt. Russell, Henry Russell or Purvis Russell: those are all the persons I knew of then; I heard of Ormond since; this was previous to the second lease. Then before the second lease you had agreed to give up this swamp for £200 per annum?—Yes. Then it was agreed that the swamp should be included in the second lease?—It was talked of, and you agreed to give the £200 a year. Then as both reserves were equal in extent, why did you say that the second was the largest, or how could you say that I stole the swamp?—I spoke of the time before you paid the £200 per annum; when that agreement was made those words ceased. Was that the only encroachment to which you referred?—Yes. Do you remember going out with me, before the second lease was signed, to extend the boundaries of the reserve, because Williams said you were a large party and would require more land?—No, I do not remember that; on one occasion you and land another native went out through the fern land to Awahou; there was only one going; there were no boundaries made; the only new matter was the giving you 100 acres more of that which had been reserved. Was not that page 33 given in exchange for another hundred acres inside the gate?—No. Do you not remember my signing an agreement for this exchange?—No, we had some talk about it but we did not write it; I wanted 300 acres. Was not the reason of the proposal because the Awahou could not be fenced?—No, Pene and Karatiana agreed; you asked for the acres, hut you did not propose any exchange; if you had offered 100 acres in exchange I should have known of it. What then did I give for the 100 acres?—I do not know; perhaps £20, or it might have been leased for three or four months. Do you not remember a conversation we had at Pakowhai, in Karaitiana's presence, when the map was produced and the exchange arranged; if Karaitiana and Pene consented, what did you mean by saying that I Look it?—Because you were to have it for a few months only, and it has not been returned. Were you largely in debt to pakehas, prior to the agreement to sell?—My debts were large, but you were the person who went about asking the pakehas to give them into your charge. Do you know any pakehas to whom I went?—Yes, Sutton was one. Did he not sue you for large debts?—Yes. What amount?—I do not know, but I told Ormond that I could not go to Taupo in consequence of the summons; then Ormond prevented the summons, and I went. When I came back, Sutton did not ask me for that debt, but you asked me for it. You remember Karaitiana's not going to Auckland, because of his being pressed for debts?—Yes. Did you not at that time speak to him about your debts, or his debts?—No. How then did you propose to deal with your debts?—I said to you at the first that I did not wish Heretaunga to go for debts, but that Kakiriawa, or Mangateretere, or Kaukauroa might go. Did you ever after those places for sale?—Yes, but the smallnes of the price offered for them prevented me from selling. I did not know of the smallness of the price, it was you who mentioned it, you said that Heretaunga was the only block that would pay my debts. Did you mention to me any prices that had been offered for other blocks?—No. Did you not at that time say that you would never have consented to the sale of Heretaunga, if it had not been broken by Tareha and Te Waaka?—No. After this discussion about selling land, was not a day appointed for Hamlin and I to go to Pakowhai?—No, I know of no day being appointed for it, but I remember your coming. Who was there?—Karaitiana and his wife, and myself; I know of no others. Were not Paramena and Pahoro there?—No. Do you remember the time when Paramena and Pahoro were there?—Yes. Was there at that time any talk about Heretaunga?—The coming there was your own, and so was the talk. Had Paramena and Pahoro sold at that time?—They had sold to Stuart, and that was why you came; Pahoro told me that Stuart had asked him to sell. Had he sold?—No. Stuart was wanting to buy, and that was why you came. Did I ask Pahoro for his consent to the sale at that time?—You asked me to sign my consent to Pahoro's selling, but myself, Karatiana, and Paramena objected. Was Pahoro's share sold to is at that time?—We did not consent. Were you aware that Pahoro had signed?—No. Did you not say that the mana of the block rested with you, and that you would not allow others to sell?—Yes. Did the other natives that were present agree?—I mentioned it in their presence, but I did not page 34 hear them consent. Did you then understand that you had the right of selling the block, and that the others would agree?—I did not know that I could hold on to the other shares. Did you not tell Pahoro and Paramena that you would shoot them if they attempted to sell?—That is true; but it was before I heard of Tareha's selling; not at this time. Had you ever any discussion previously with Paramena and Pahoro about the sale of Heretaunga?—Yes; the same day, before you came. Did you send for Paramena and Pahoro to have this talk?—No; perhaps you asked them to go. What did they say when they got there?—They said they had come about Pahoro's Crown Grant being sold. Had you heard of that before they came?—No; we heard it first from them, at that time. Do you know whether Karaitiana sent for Paramena and Pahoro?—I am not aware that he did; I only know they came. Was Noa Huki there?—No. Did you ever send for him before the selling of the block?—That person was not seen during the discussion; his signature was obtained at his place; he did not appear till the money was paid. I heard from Noa and Pene that Noa signed at his own place. Did he ever come to Pakowhai previous to the sale to talk it over? No; the only time he was seen was when Karaitiana agreed to sell, when the land went. Are you not aware that Karaitiana agreed before that, at Pakowhai?—Karaitiana agreed at Pakowhai, I know, but he ran away to Auckland to undo the document. I never saw Noa at Pakowhai on the subject. Was it after this meeting at Pakowhai, with Paramena and Pahoro, that Stuart wanted to purchase the block?—It was not Stuart who said so; you said "If Stuart wants to buy the block, do not consent." You said Stuart took you to an hotel in Napier—That is true, but you had told me previously. Was it after the meeting at Pakowhai that you saw Stuart?—Yes. Did I not tell you if you sold Heretaunga you should give those in occupation the preference over strangers?—Yes. Did you not agree to that?—I promised, when you asked me, that I would not sell it to anyone else. I said "If the other person gives me more money I will agree to him; if you give me more money I will agree to you." This was before you went to Wellington?—Yes. Was it long after this when the next talk about Heretaunga took place?—Yes. In what position were your debts when you returned? They remained in the same place; no one interfered with them. After my return from Wellington I went to Taupo. When you returned from Taupo what was the position of your debt?—When I came back, Sutton did not say anything to me; you were the first person to speak of debts. Were any other writs issued besides Sutton's?—I do not know. Was there one from W. St. Hill?—I received a bill, not a summons. Had you made up your mind what to do with the debt?—I was thinking it over; I had spoken to Locke about Pukahu: I did not mention debts; I only said that I wished to sell that land. Did you expect that piece to pay your debts?—I knew it was not sufficient; I thought of other blocks, Pekapeka, Kakiriawa, Kaukauroa, and Tautitaha. Was not Kaukauroa mortgaged?—Yes. Were any of the other blocks mortgaged?—No. How did you expect to get money from Kaukauroa?—Sutton told me if the mortgage was not paid in seven years he would sell the land, and give me £1,000. Had you not given up all idea of sol ling, because the blocks were insufficient?—No; page 35 it was you who told me that. Did you think that all the purchase moneys of these blocks would have belonged to you?—No; I would have paid my debts out of my share. Why did you not sell that land?—I could not find a purchaser; I spoke to Locke, suggesting to sell them by auction, and getting more money that way; Locke told me that it would not be satisfactory; too much money would go to the auctioneer. The reason I could not pay my debts from those lands was, that they were mortgaged; but when I sold the others I would be able to pay. Had you any other blocks besides those named?—Mangateretere. Were you not satisfied that these blocks would not cover your debts?—I will not say that; my only large debt was that owing to Sutton. How did you propose to pay Sutton's debt?—I considered I should have land to pay it; but not Heretaunga. Did you ever tell Sutton that you would be obliged to sell Heretaunga to pay him?—No. Did you ever tell Sutton to wait, as you intended to sell Heretaunga?—When was that?—At any time?—Yes, when Karaitiana and I signed the document; I did not tell Sutton this before I signed. Do you remember, between the serving of the summons and signing of the deed, being repeatedly pressed by Sutton for payment?—No; his pressure ceased when Mr Ormond interfered; I went to Taupo, and returned, and Sutton never asked me for it. Previous to the agreement did you not tell Sutton that you intended to sell Heretaunga?—No. After your return from Taupo do you remember receiving a second summons, for £200, from Sutton?—Sutton had no summonses after the first. Not about four or five months after the first?—£1,190 was the amount for which he summoned me; there was no other summons after that till lately. That was the amount Sutton got out of Heretaunga. Have you any knowledge of the total amount of your debts at that time?—No; I did not know. Were you aware you owed Lindsay £450 Yes £130 to Tuxford?—Yes. Peacock, £194?—Yes. Douglas and Hill, £271?—Yes. Newton and Irvine, £194?—I do not know how much I owed them. Robinson, £93?—I do not know. Were your debts never shown to you?—No. To Boyle, for horses, £110?—Yes. Was £700 to Tanner mentioned?—the account of the different things from Sutton was not shown. Did you agree to Sutton's account?—How could I object to the accounts—the pakehas were continually saying "Sell the land and give me the money, or I will get a warrant out." How did you expect to pay those debts—about £3,000?—I have said before, I was a person not without land. If I had consented to Stuart, and sold Heretaunga, I could have paid long ago. Then why did you not sell it to Stuart?—What could be done? would you have consented? you had told me not to sell; it was in consequence of your untruths that you got it. How much did Stuart offer?—£7,000 to me; I did not know whether for the whole block or not. I said I would not consent. Did not Stuart offer you £12,000?—Yes, that was for two people. Why did you not accept it?—You said "Don't sell it; the Apostles are on that ground, and you must not let a mean person have it." Why did you say you would sell it to the highest bidder?—Because you desired me not to do so, and, besides, I did not wish to sell. Do you remember meeting me in Napier a day or two before the three days' negociation at Pakowhai?—No. Do you not remember ever previously talking to me about page 36 going to Pakowhai?—I never said that you should go there. Do you remember the nature of the conversation on the first day?—Yes; I have already related it. What principally took place on that day?—You have heard my evidence. Did we talk about the sale of Heretaunga?—You have heard that before; if you ask about something new, I can tell you; the Chairman has already written it down. (The witness, being pressed for a reply, states that what he says now may not exactly coincide with his first account.—The Chairman: It is the duty of the witness to reply. If he wishes the Court to believe he is speaking the truth, he must answer when he is told.) There was no talk on the first day. We were not talking. You two said you had come to ask Karaitiana and myself to consent to sell Heretaunga. How long did this discussion last?—I cannot say how many hours. Did it last till evening?—No. Do you know that Karaitiana said we remained till evening?—I heard hire say so. Do you agree to that?—No. You heard Karaitiana say that he left all the discussion to you and myself: is that correct?—Yes. Then what occupied us all the first day till evening?—About the sale of Heretaunga. Karaitiana said he would leave matters to me. Nothing was said about the arrangements on the first day. I said, "If you will consent to my two words, I will talk." Did you not say to Hamlin and me, "It is getting late; go home, and come again in the morning?"—No. When you would not consent to my two words, I went out of the house and left you. What were your two words?—The first was £12,000 for Karaitiana and myself; the second, 5,000 acres to be returned. When you would not consent, I went out, and did not say anything about coming next day. Are you aware that you have already said this took place on the second day?—My impression is that I said the same before. Which is correct?—I believe this took place on the first day. I afterwards asked for the £10,000 for myself. What took place on the second day?—My asking for, £10,000. On the third day?—The matter was finally settled, and Karaitiana and I signed; I was to receive £6,000. Do you not remember us sitting on the floor in Karaitiana's house, with pencil and paper, and calculating what each native was to receive?—I do not know of that. Will you swear that it was not so?—It was not; if it had been so done I would remember; it never occurred in my presence. If other witnesses contradicted you, what would you say?—That I was not present. Was such a calculation made on the table?—The agreement was signed on the table. Was the document showing the shares written there?—No. Will you swear that no such thing took place at all; that nothing was said about the distribution of the purchase-money?—Nothing of the kind was done—The talk was all about Karaitiana and myself selling. Do you remember giving me a statement in pencil of your debts, as near as you could remember?—No; you showed me the list of my debts. Did you not say £2,000 for you would not be sufficient; because it would not cover your debts?—Yes, I do remember that. I said that because I wanted £6,000, and you offered £2,000 Did you not say you wanted £1,500 more?—No; that was said not to be mentioned in the money for Karaitiana and me. Did I not say it was no use giving it to you, as you would only squander it, and the best way would be to let you have £150 per annum for ten years?—No; your page 37 reply was that you could not pay it at once, but would pay it during the years. Did I not say it would be a comfort to you to know you would not want money for ten years?—I consented, because you said you had not got the money. Was this £1,500 to come out of the £6,000 that you asked?—My thought was that it was. From whom did the proposition of £150 emanate?—From you, because you said you could not pay it then. Did you ever regard that as secret money?—Yes; £1,000 and £1,500 as secret money; you told me how to deal with it. How could it be secret if it was part of the purchase money?—It was you said it was to be secret. It was not mentioned to the other grantees, neither was the £1,000. What £1,000?—It was said to go for my debts. You agreed to the £6,000 and distributed it in this way: £3,000 for the sale, £1,000 to be kept secret, and £1,500 to be paid through the years. (On being reminded that this did not come to £6,000, witness said the secret payment was to be £1,500, which, with the £150 annuity, would make the total correct.) The reason you gave for keeping it secret was, that the other grantees should not ask for similar payment?—Karaitiana was to get £1,000, also to be kept secret. If £6.000 was your fair share, why was one-half kept, secret?—I asked for it all to be paid; the concealment was yours. What did you suppose the other grantees were to receive?—£1,000 each; that was what you said, and I agreed to it. At what time did you agree to that?—When you first spoke of the purchase you mentioned that amount. After contending about it, I agreed. Why did you demand so much more than others, if you considered they had an equal claim?—My reason was that Karaitiana and I were the only ones who had not agreed. Had the others agreed to the £1,000?—That thought was yours; it was your talk that disclosed it to me. Had the other grantees mentioned it?—No. You said the other grantees had signed; did you see their signatures?—No; the talk was yours; you wished Karaitiana and I to be quick to sign; you said Paramena and Pahoro had signed, and the money would be paid when our signatures were obtained. Did I say Noa had signed?—No; you said Paramena and Pahoro had signed, and you had Tareha's and Waaka's share. How came you to agree to Noa receiving £3,000, when you considered your share worth £6,000?—I did not consent to Noa's share. You said you consented to all the shares being £1,000?—It was your wish that the shares should he thus divided. (The Chairman: Did you not tell Karaitiana he was to have £6,000?—When I went out to bring him in to sign I told him he was to have £6,000.) Are you aware he said it was to be £2,000?—Karaitiana is confused; I did the talking. Did you hear Karaitiana say that you and he were to have £2,000 each?—Yes. Is that statement correct?—No; his not understanding is quite right. I did the talking. Did Karaitiana know what he was about when this negotiation took place?—He was absent during part of the time, and I told him; I told him he was to get £6,000; and when he came to Napier he saw Wilson, who looked at the deed and said it was £3,000. We had two conversations after this, one at Tanner's and one at Williams's. We wanted to know the reason of Karaitiana's money being expended. Did not this meeting take place at my house?—Yes. Had we any other discussion?—That was all. Did you make any complaint?—Yes; I. said Karaitiana and I were both to get £6,000. Was the conversation page 38 about the £6,000 or £1,000?—About the £1,000 for Karaitiana. Were the accounts gone into on this occasion?—By you and Williams, who understood writing. It was explained by you that it had been expended on Karaitiana's debts. There were two conversations on this subject?—I do not know the end of it. A long time after I heard that Karaitiana was to get £100 per annum. Did you not hear of this before the sale?—No. About a year after the money was paid I received my £150; Karaitiana did not receive his £100, and there was disputing. I had taken £150 for two years when Karaitiana got his first £100. This is the second year for Karaitiana, and the third for me. At this meeting did Karaitiana speak of his £6,000?—No; their talk was all about the £1,000. When we went to Wellington we both spoke to Travers; Karaitiana spoke about the £1,000, and I spoke of the £500. What £500?—£4,500. £4,000 went for my debts, and £500 I had not received. Did not Williams and myself ask you to get a lawyer or friend to go into this question of £1,000?—Yes; but we did not listen, because there are only the local solicitors in this place. Was not the talk confined to the £1,000?—No; my £500 was spoken of also. I said it was troubling me; you said you had written enough cheques, and that it was all gone; you said that Karaitiana's statement was correct, and mine was not. This took place at my house?—Yes. Was this the only time any discussion took place about the deficiency?—Yes; I spoke afterwards of it to Travers. The subject of the 300 acres was also spoken of; I spoke of these things also in Cuff's house. We heard that when the Government found we had engaged Travers they gave him a large sum of money not to act for us. Who told you this?—Travers himself. He came to the Club and told us; he mentioned the amount, which I have forgotten. He came here at our request; but the Government got him altogether. Then the ground of your complaint is the £500 and the 300 acres?—Yes, and the making me prisoner. Then you acknowledge receiving £5,500?—Part of that is being paid annually. (The Chairman: Does that include Neal's mortgage?—No; that was not included in the agreement for sale.) At the time of sale I asked for 1,000 acres, which you refused, saying you would pay the mortgage as well. Have you at any other time claimed this £500 and the 300 acres of land?—I only mentioned the £500 at your house, not the 300 acres. I did not ask for it at any other time; Karaitiana's had not been shown to him, and I did not think mine would be. Do you remember signing an agreement at Pakowhai?—Yes. Was it explained to you by Hamlin—No. Was it read?—The only portion read was, "This is a consent of ours to sell Heretaunga;" the portion about the £4,000 was not mentioned. If that part had been read would you have remembered it?—If it had been so read I should have asked that it be at once paid. Where did you first hear of the £4,000?—Here, in Court, when it was read to Karaitiana. Had Sheehan not read it to you before coming to Court?—No. (Mr Sheehan: I had a pencil extract, which I read to Karaitiana, but not to Henare.) Do you remember making an appointment with me to talk over your debts at Cuff's?—I do not remember. Might we have had such a discussion?—No; the first thing was Cuff asking me to go to his house, as I have said. Did you go on the first day of appointment, or was it not the page 39 second day?—I went on the day appointed, and Cuff said, "Come tomorrow to my house, and dine with me. Had he not made an appointment with yon for the previous day, for which you came to town too late?—I do not know of it. Did you not meet me at Newton's corner and tell me?—I do not remember; if that had taken place I would have known; you wanted me to sign, and I would not have gone. Did you not tell me to go next morning, with Hamlin?—No. Do you remember, after dinner at Cuff's, spying "Have you brought the deed with you?"—No; I was full of anger and fear; he asked me to have a glass of wine, and I would not. Do you not remember asking us to let you sign your death-warrant—pukapuka kohuru—and laughing at your joke?—No. Why did you sign?—I was afraid of you; I sat there from 12 till 4 o'clock, and you were urging me all the time; I wished Karaitiana to be present, that we might see each other sign. Why did you sign at last?—Did you not make a prisoner of me, you at one door, and Hamlin at another? I signed to get free. Were we not sitting round the table, doors and window being open, when you signed?—Yes; that was at 4 o'clock, but I knew that if I rose you would shut the doors. Was that proper conduct, to make me prisoner? I think you are ashamed now. Had any one else signed before you?—I was too much frightened to see. (Mr Commissioner Manning: Why did you not go at once to a magistrate?—Because all the people here were alike; that was my thought.) [Deed produced and shown to witness by Mr Tanner] That is not the deed I signed at Cuff's—to my sight it is much larger; but if you say so, it is. The signature is mine; but the deed is not the same. You signed two; is that one of them?—I do not know it; my idea is that Tareha's name was first, because my signing was after Tareha had sold. Was there any discussion about consideration-money between the time of our interview at Pakowhai and the signing at Cuff's?—No. After your signing the agreement to sell, at Pakowhai, did I not ask you to sign the conveyance first as all the natives looked on you as the chief man in the block?—No; you said that all the others had signed. [The Chairman explains to the witness that it is not an agreement which is now referred to, but a parchment deed of sale.] No. Why did you sign the deed without discussion, if not on the understanding that the matter was already settled?—I have already said. Was there any more discussion between the signing at Cuff's house, and the final signing at Napier?—No; I remained in fear. Did you sign the last deed willingly?—You asked me to sign—otherwise I would not have done it. Did I force you?—You were strong to continue asking. Did you not send for Paramena, Pahoro, and others, at the last signing?—I did not send for them. Was there any pressure?—We signed it in fear, because you said a warrant was issued to seize Pakowhai Did you mention to me that you bad received a letter?—No; I saw it on the day Karaitiana received it, and on the following day, when we came in to sign. Do you know who sent that letter?—No. Did you see the signature?—Yes. What was it?—The name Karaitiana has mentioned. Whose name?—The name of Ormond was at the bottom. Do you know Ormond's writing?—No. You said it was long after the sale when you first heard that Karaitiana was to receive £100 for ten years—bow long after?—I bad taken two years' money when Karaitiana received his page 40 first; that was when I first heard of it. [Mr Tanner quotes from witness's evidence in-chief, page 27, line 27 to 37.] How do you reconcile this with your present statement?—Were you perfectly sober on every occasion when you signed the deeds relating to Heretaunga?—I was sober on every occasion. Was this deed read to you before you signed?—Both these signatures are mine; but I did not sign it at Waitangi. I do not know where I signed it; my idea is that I signed it at Cuff's office, in Napier; I do not quite know. I do not know whether it was read to me. Would you sign a deed without its being read to you?—Yes; the words of the first lease were read over, but we did not plainly understand them. You have mentioned signing an order on Sutton in Cuff's house; did you not sign it in Sutton's store some time before?—That was another document; the one I signed in Cuff's was an order to pay him the £1,000; it was not in Maori. Would you know it if you saw it?—The document at Waitangi was in your writing; I signed it, and you promised to pay Sutton the money. The other was in Sutton's writing. [Order produced.] This is not the document I signed at Waitangi; it is in Sutton's writing. Was the document I wrote signed before or after this?—The Waitangi one was the first. Did you not sign an order in favour of Sutton before Heretaunga was sold?—No; the money was paid in March; but you had my name long before, at Waitangi. When you signed at Waitangi, did you not say, "Now you must satisfy Sutton, and prevent him pressing me for my debts?—No. Are not the people you intended to be on the reserve settled upon it?—Yes. Are you then satisfied with the arrangement as it has been carried out?—Yes. Have you not, within the last two years, asked me to sell you some of my land?—Yes. How much an acre did you offer?—I did not say; I suggested that, instead of paying me £150 per annum; you should give me back some land. I had been complaining before, but this was my first asking. When did you ask about the 300 acres?—At the time the money was paid. Have you asked since?—I asked for 200 acres. What was my reply?—That, by and by, you would give me a document; you consented, both at the time of sale and afterwards. Have you asked me since?—Yes, and you refused.

The Commission then (5.35 p.m.) adjourned.

Tuesday, 11th March, 1873.

The Chairman said that before proceeding with the business of the day, he wished to make a statement. The Commissioners desired to express their entire disapproval of the terms of one of the new notices of complaint. In fact, it could only have passed in its present form through inadvertance on the part of Mr Locke, whose services the Commissioners took this opportunity of acknowledging, as being of great value. The complaint in question contained expressions of a highly objectionable character. He requited that persons bringing their grievances to that Court should express their complaints, however serious the charge they might convey, in the language of gentlemen, and avoid slang and irritating expressions. He particularly objected to the expression, "pocketing £500"—it was vulgar, unbusiness like, and uncalled-for. He was aware of the great rancour existing on the subjects of these page 41 inquiries, and regretted it; but it must be kept within the ordinary bounds observed in Courts of Justice, and the terms of the complaint certainly exceeded these limits. The Commissioners had already given orders to expunge all offensive and impertinent expressions from the complaints, and this one must have passed unseen by Mr Locke. The Commissioners would not allow the complaint to to be laid before Parliament in its present form. They did not object to the charges them-selves, however serious, being definitely expressed; but the style in this case was intentionally offensive—Mr Locke (who shortly afterwards entered the Court) said he would stop the issue of the Gazette if desired—The Chairman thought it desirable. Let the edition of the Gazette already printed be suppressed, and the charge referred back to the complainant for amendment. If Mr Russell had, as alleged, bought the property at £3,000, and sold it at £3,500, let the fact be stated—it was the form and spirit of the complaint to which the Commissioners objected. There were already plenty of ugly aecusations on the list; but this was the first in which objectionable language had appeared. In addition to the term he had already quoted, he objected to the word "extorted."—Mr Tanner said he felt more or less responsible for the complaint in question; for though he did not write it, it had passed under his observation. It had been hurried to press without due contemplation. He now made apology for the expressions complained of; he fully admitted that the terms objected to should never have been used.

The Chairman said that before going into the accounts, he would take occasion to remark upon the imprudence of the purchasers, in not paying the purchase-money to the natives direct, instead of involving themselves in storekeepers' accounts. The Government, in conducting land purchases, had always taken the precaution to pay the natives in hard cash, so that, though seized by the storekeeper at the door, the purchase-money had been duly paid.

Mr Sheehan re-examined Henare on the subject of accounts: The order for £53 10s, in favor of Maney, is mine; I cannot say whether the amount is correct. The order in favor of Peacock is correct; also the order for £450, in favor of D. E. Lindsay. I admit my signature to the order for £1,119, in favor of Sutton; but do not know how my account reached that amount. I admit the orders in favor of E. W. Knowles, for £39; of Maney for £89 10s; and Tuxford for £138 15—I come now to the cash payments: you are charged with £10. a cheque, given by Mr Ormond; do you remember getting that sum?—Yes. Next, a cheque, for £207, from Williams, on the 24th March, 1870; one for £11 16s.; and one for £781 4s., all purporting to have been drawn on the same day? did you at any time receive three cheques in one day?—No; I remember the £11 16s; but not the other amounts. Do you remember any payments in cash besides the £10 and £11 16s.?—No; there was a cheque for £100 for each of us, on account of the rent. I wish to speak of one of Maney's orders. I was summoned by Maney for a bill which I had paid. I said that I had paid that bill, and he denied it. It was a claim of over £80, for posts. It was what I spoke of before. Maney obtained judgment for £12—the amount which I admitted.

page 42

Cross-examined by Mr Lee: You say you do not remember how Sutton's account was made up. Do you not remember Sutton suing you in August, 1869, for upwards of £9001—Yes. Was not judgment given against you?—Yes; the only summons I did not defend was the one stopped by Ormond. Do you remember the time you came back from Taupo?—In November; I do not know the year. [1869.] Was not this order of £1,100 given to pay this judgment, with costs, as well as some other debts you owed to Sutton?—I signed that document. Did you not know how your account stood at that time?—Sutton told me my debts were £1,000. You knew before this there was a judgment of the Supreme Court against you?—I did not know; I did not receive notice. The only summons I know of is the one which was stayed by Ormond, and that was not taken. Was not that order written in Sutton's store, at his desk?—Yes. Was not Sutton's book open in front of you at the time?—No. Did you not run up the figures, and see what the debt came to?—No. Do you remember being summoned in November, 1869, by Douglas and Hill?—I may have been, but do not remember. Do you know what you owed Douglas and Hill?—£200 odd. Do you know how they were paid?—Out of the money for Heretaunga. Do you know how much was paid out of the Heretaunga money?—The account was not shown; I was only informed that each person's debt was paid. Was I not then pressing you for money for Douglas and Hill?—Perhaps so. Do you remember signing that order on Tanner for £271 7s. 2d., being the amount of that debt, with interest?—Yes. Was not that settled in part by taking a portion of the rent for Tautitaha and Mahanga, and the remainder out of Heretaunga?—It was clone that way. Do you remember how much rent was due?—£60.

Cross-examined by Mr Tanner: Do you remember drawing an order on me for £5 in favor of Tuke?—Yes. [Mr Sheehan objected to the question as irregular—Mr Tanner said he had paid many accounts of which he retained no record, and should actually require Henare's assistance—The Chairman said the examination bad better go on; he would give Mr Sheehan an opportunity of re examining on this point—Mr Tanner, in answer to the Chairman, said this was all under the general head of £781 4s.] Do you remember an order on me to pay Coleman £25?—Yes. One in favor of Reardon, for £55 11s.?—Yes. One to Boyle, £110, for horses?—Yes. And one in favor of Robinson, for £93 5s.?—I do not know of that. [Mr Tanner: I cannot give any account of the items composing this amount. I went to Mr Robinson before he left; but he told me that his books had been burnt] Did you not go with me several times to Robinson's and get goods?—Yes, but not to the amount of £30 or £40 at a time. On one occasion I took largely, but cannot remember the amount. I don't remember going with you frequently. When Heretaunga was being sold, I asked you for an account; you replied that I. was always-asking for goods and accounts. Did I not get Robinson to give .me a memorandum of the amount, which I handed to you?—No. Did you not know the amounts at the time?—No; you used to say to Robinson, "Let Henare have credit, and put it in my account." I complained of not receiving any account. Newton and Irvine, £194 13s. 5d.?—I have the same complaint against that account. When I put these amounts in my pocket- page 43 book, did I net regularly give you a memorandum of the total?—No. (The Chairman: Have you any place for such accounts?—No Tanner told me not to inquire, because he was my parent—Mr Tanner remarked that he seemed to be the parent of a very ungrateful child.) Did you not drag me into these shops, against my will, that you might have credit?—No; when J asked for money you used to offer to get me goods. Did I not constantly curtail your demands for credit in those shops, saying they were too much?—I am not aware of your having done so. Did I not tell you you were drawing too much for me to meet?—You continually told me, if I was in want of money or credit, to come to you.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Is the Karamu reserve larger or smaller than when the land went through the Court?—It is not as large. Is the difference in size considerable?—Yes; it was at first considerably larger. Have you, or any of the people, consented to a reduction?—No. Has it been made with your knowledge?—Yes. How were you aware of it?—I became aware when the survey was finished. How did you become aware?—It was divided off in 100 acre pieces. Did you then first become aware that it was smaller I—We all knew at that time that it was less. Are you aware of Tanner and Williams ever volunteering to increase the area of the reserve?—Yes; I know of their increasing it, and also making it smaller. They decreased it to 1,700 acres. Did they ever propose to you to increase the reserve, because it was not huge enough?—No. Do you remember Tanner proposing this?—No. Yesterday Mr Tanner said so. Do you remember going to Taupo?—Yes. What month?—August. What month was it when you returned?—November. You said, yesterday, that when you were asked to sell, you told Tanner of other blocks—mentioning Tautitaha, Kakirawa, Kaukauroa, Mangateretere, &c?—Yes. Do you know the acreage of Kakirawa?—I have only an imperfect knowledge. How many grantees are there?—Eight. What extent of interest?—I had the largest claim. There were three of us with equal claims—myself, Paramena, and Hone, Hone was the chief. Mangateretere—how many grantees?—Eight. What was the extent of your interest?—I was the principal person; the land was mine. Both Mangatereteres belonged to my ancestors. We were always in possession of that land. You have said that Kaukauroa was mortgaged?—Yes. Do you remember the acreage?—4,000 acres. Is it still mortgaged to Sutton?—Yes. What is the acreage of Tautitaha?—3,000 acres. What was your interest?—Mine was greater than the others. You came back from Taupo in November, and on December the 6th you signed the agreement?—Yes. Did you, in the meantime, make inquiries respecting the sale of these blocks?—Yes. Did you not, at the request of the Government, take a large number of your people to Taupo?—Yes. Were not your debts largely incurred for supplies for this expedition?—Yes. [Mr Lascelles objected to the introduction of new matter; he would have no opportunity of cross-examining.—Question allowed; respondents to have the privilege of cross-examination on the subject.] The greater portion of my debts was incurred in consequence of that expedition. I gave authority to the storekeepers, and the debts of all the people were put down to my name. Had you not at that time large claims against the page 44 Government on that account?—Yes. You have received some payments on account?—Yes. Is the amount still claimed much in excess of what you have received?—Yes. I believe, after Heretaunga was sold, you embodied this claim in a petition to the Assembly?—Yes; I claimed the money for the fighting. A committee of the General Assembly reported unfavorably?—Yes. Your claim is still undecided?—Yes. Before you sold Heretaunga, did you give any person an order for your debts to be paid out of the purchase money?—No. Then all orders on that account were given after December the 6th, 1869?—Yes. You have related a number of transactions in which F. E. Hamlin was employed by Tanner?—Yes. Was he the interpreter who had most to do with the transaction up to the time of the sale?—Yes; both with the sale and the lease. Were you aware he was then a Government officer?—Yes. Was he employed or paid by the uatives in any way throughout?—No. When did you first hear that Karaitiana was receiving part of the purchase-money in the shape of an annuity?—When the money was paid at the time of signing You have heard accounts read of monies paid on your account; do you know of any other transactions of the kind?—Some of the accounts mentioned to day were paid by me, not by them; I wish to make inquiry respecting £51, said to be paid to Reardon. Those amounts which I have admitted, were paid out of the money for Heretaunga, and a number of my debts still remained unpaid. I mortgaged some of the pieces of land which remained, to pay those debts; I did not mortgage them to Tanner. (The Chairman: Do you remember any other bills paid by Tanner?—I do not know of others paid by him out of that money.) You have said that at the meeting at Tanner's house, he recommended you to get some friend or solicitor to assist you?—Yes. Had he ever before given yon similar advice?—On no other occasion; it was when he heard we had engaged Travers that he told us this. After your land and money were gone?—Yes.

By Mr Lascelles: You say you went to Taupo in August?—Yes. When did you begin to purchase these goods?—When the natives first went to Tauranga. Then it was not for the Taupo expedition alone?—No; we also went to Tauranga, to fight Te Kooti. Were you not paid in full for Tauranga?—Yes. What portion of these Heretaunga debts were incurred for the Taupo expedition?—Sutton's £1,000. But you were sued for £900 before you went to Taupo—The debts commenced with Tauranga and Wairoa; the Government paid that. Did not Sutton's debt commence eighteen months before the Taupo expedition?—I do not know that; I was in debt before, but not to the extent of £1,000. Were you not summoned before you went, for £900?—Yes; just as we were leaving for Taupo, some of the people came from Pakowhai and got things, and Sutton summoned me What was the value of the things bought on that last occasion?—I can only say that one hundred men went to buy. Can you swear it amounted to £20?—No. Was the debt to Manoy and Co., £53 10s, incurred on account of that expedition?—I did not say so. Knowles, £33?—That was for Taupo. How long before the expedition was that debt incurred?—A portion was just before leaving. What portion?—I cannot say. You say the Government owe you money; did not the Government give daily pay to your men?—No; the money was merely handed over to us; on the first page 45 occasion, £550; the next was payment for horses taken by the Hauhaus, £280—that is all I know of. You went to Taupo in 1869?—Yes When did you petition Parliament for money?—In 1872. In the mean, time you did nothing about this money?—I made a demand after my arrival, and before petitioning. To what Government official did you apply for money?—To Ormond, on my return from Taupo.

This closing Henare's evidence, the Commission adjourned to 2 p.m.

On the Commission resuming, Mr K. M'Lean said he wished to place in the hands of the Commissioners a number of withdrawals of complaints in certain cases relating to the Ngatarawa and Mangaroa blocks, in which the Hon. D. M'Lean was concerned One of the parties who withdrew his complaint was bedridden, and had made an affidavit, which had been taken before a Justice of the Peace—Mr Sheehan objected to the admission of any such documents without notice. A recent Gazette contained four withdrawals of complaint, and he had since received letters from three or four of the natives whose names appeared in that Gazette, utterly repudiating having signed any such retractation.—The Chairman said that the withdrawal should be made by the parties themselves in open Court. It would be the only fair and satisfactory way—Mr Sheehan added, that the natives in question admitted having signed a paper, but denied that it had been explained to them as a withdrawal; and they had further stated that they had received money for signing—Mr K. M'Lean said that Paora Nonoi, one of the alleged complainants, denied ever having put pen to paper (The Commissioners, having examined Nonoi's complaint, said the signature was not in a Maori handwriting.) He would like Mr Stevens to be examined on the subject, the complaint having improperly appeared in the Gazette, without the authority of the so-called complainant—Mr Sheehan said the Court was the proper judge on the subject of genuineness of complaints. It would strengthen the respondents' case if the retractations were made in open Court, and it would be done if they were teal—The Chairman said that it would be only fair, in cases where a retractation was made, to give it the fullest publicity.

Manaena Tini, examined by Mr Sheehan: When did you first hear anything concerning the sale of Heretaunga?—When Tareha sold. From whom did you hear of Pahoro's sale?—From Tanner. I saw him in Napier. He said, "You are the only person who will listen to my request; sell me your share of Heretaunga " I said, "I am not willing." We had nothing more to say on that day. I next heard of Henare and Paramena selling. Do you remember Hamlin and Tanner going to see Henare at Pakowhai?—I saw them there, but did not hear their talk; Tanner was unwilling that I should. He invited Henare away from me; I said, " Perhaps I should go to he said, "No, you remain." I did not hear what took place between Tanner, Henare, and Hamlin. Did they afterwards apply to you about your share?—Hamlin asked me to sell. Tanner and Hamlin came to my house at Pakowhai. Tanner asked me to let him have my share of Heretaunga, and sign a document. I said I was not willing. Tanner said, "Won't you show your love to your friend; do not you know that I am your parent?"—I refused, and told him to return. He did so. Karaitiana was then in page 46 Auckland. In a week, Tanner and Hamlin came again. I saw them approaching, and ran quickly out of the house, and went into a willow tree. I said to the people, "If Tanner and Hamlin ask where I am, do not tell them." They came to my house, find asked where I was; and the people said I was gone. I could see them; I was looking down on them. They remained perhaps two hours, and when they had gone I came down. Next time they came it was raining hard; they found Henare and I playing cards in the room. They had got there unobserved. I put on my blanket, and went out. Tanner said, "Where are you going?" I said, "Outside." As soon as I got outside I ran into the Maori minister's house; I said to the minister, "If they come inquiring for me, don't say I am here." I then climbed into the room where the powder was kept. When they arrived, it was 10 a.m. They looked all over Pakowhai, but could not find me. Tanner knew I was there. Tanner asked if I was aloft; the minister replied that there was only powder there. They left at 5 p.m.; after that I came down; I had had nothing to eat, and was very hungry. On another occasion they came again and asked for my share of Heretaunga. They caught me then, so I remained. Tanner said, "I have come again to speak about Heretaunga" I said, "I have told you before that I will not consent." He said, "Show your love to me." I said, "Will you not consent to wait till Karaitiana comes back, that we may both sign together?" He replied, "You have your share; Karaitiana has his; you can each manage your own." I answered, "What X say is good; wait till Karaitiana's return, when we can both sign." That was all that was said upon the subject; we began to talk about the money to come to me. He consented, and wrote £100 on a cheque. He asked, "When are you going into Napier?" I said, "Tomorrow." On the following morning I did not so; I remained at Pakowhai Some days after Sutton and Hamlin came in a gig to my house; Sutton Said "Have you not a bottle of champagne?"—I said "Yes; take some of it." After we had finished the champagne, Sutton said " You were not willing to consent to sign the document concerning Heretaunga." I replied that I was not willing to do so. He said, "Then what about your debts to me?"—I asked him the amount; he said £600; I believe that was the amount, he had not written it down; he only told me. I said, "Will you not stay away, and allow Tanner and Hamlin to talk about Heretaunga?" He said, "You must consent to sign your name to a document." I said, "It is well; but you must give me £50." He said it would not be right, but he would give £20. I said to Hamlin, "You should also give me some money for coming here so frequently asking me to sell. Hamlin said he had not any. I then signed my name to the deed. Their coming backward and forward to my place ceased after that. Next morning I came to Napier; I saw Tanner at Newton's. The Union Bank was there at that time, and I had come in with my cheque. Tanner said, "Where is your cheque?" I said, "I have it." He said I should give it to him, and I did so. He looked at it, and said it was no good; he tore it up, and threw the pieces away. That was the trouble that came over me; through Tanner's doing that. I then went to Sutton for the £20 he had agreed to give me, and asked him to give me the money. Mr Tanner had arrived there. Tanner told Sutton page 47 only to give me £10, and he (Tanner) would give me the other £l0 They disputed: Sutton wanted to give the £20, saying he had promised. Tanner said, "No; give Manaena £10." Sutton then gave me £10. I next went to Tanner, and said, "You must give me the money." He gave me £50. This was on the same day. My thought was that it was part of the money he was to have given me for consenting. Did Tanner give any reason for destroying the cheque, beside the one you mentioned?—I did not know the reason. Did you say anything about it?—I said, "Friend, your deception is very great." Had you been told, up to that time, what amount you were to receive for your share?—No. Afterwards Karaitiana returned from Auckland. Henare and I had signed, and they went to Karaitiana. I do not know what took place between them. It was after Karaitiana had signed, that I heard what each person was to get—£ 1000 each. Karaitiana told me. Did you afterwards come in with the other grantees and sign the deed at Cuff's?—Yes. What took place on that occasion?—I only know a portion. There were six of us. Williams said "You were asked to come here, that you might sign your names to the document of the sale of Heretaunga. If you sign your names, the money will be paid to you." We then all signed our names. It was said there was to be £1,000 for each man's share. Were you told that Henare was to receive over £4,000 for his share?—No. Did you know it at that time I—No. All I heard was, we were each to get £1,000; Did you hear that Karaitiana was to get nearly £4,000?—No; that was Tanner's reason for saying I should not go with them, when he took Henare to talk by himself. Did you sign on the representation that you, Henare, and Karaitiana were to receive £1,000 each?—That was my understanding. Would you have signed if you had known of any disparity?—No; I would not have agreed. If it had been read out that some were to get £4,000 and I was to get only £1,000, I would not have signed. When did you first hear that these large sums hid been paid to Karaitiana and Tomoana?—When they were disputing, and Karaitiana was asking Tanner and Williams for money. How long was that after signing the deed at Cuff's?—A long time. My relationship with Tanner was far removed. He was only our parent while treating for Heretaunga; afterwards he sent his children adrift. When I found what Karaitiana and Henare were getting, while I was only getting £50 per annum, I went to Cuff's office to see if there was any document about the money. He told me it was prepared. When he showed it to me, I saw Henare's name and the amount he was to get. I saw that he was to get £150 per annum for his share, I saw Karaitiana's document also, that he was to receive £100 per annum. It was then my thought that I was the only one who had been entrapped by my parent about Heretaunga. It was then I knew, for the first time, what others were, receiving. Was the £50 per annum part of the £1,000, or additional?—The £1,000 was for my share; the £50 was a different thing. Will it grieve you now to hear that this £50 per annum has been taken out of your £1,000?—I did not know it was from the £1,000. Before we signed, it was said that when we had done so, £1,000 each would be paid. After we signed, the money was not placed on the table. How much money have you received in your own hands?—I have told you, £50, No cheques, or page 48 other money?—No; only the £10 from Sutton besides—that is all I have received. When we were all together in the room, I asked Williams to give me the money. He said. "Leave it, and I will pay your debts to Sutton and the others " I asked him to give it to me, and I would pay my own debts. Karaitiana, Henare, Tanner, and Cuff, had then gone into another room; Manaena, Pahoro, Paramena, and Noa remained. Our friend who remained with us was Williams. I had debts at that time. [Document produced—witness identifies his signature.] The stamp was not upon the document when I signed. The document is correct; I owed Mr Sutto £604 when it was signed. I signed it at Sutton's own place. Was this after Sutton went to your kainga?—Yes. That is how the £1,000 has been expended; I do not know if all my debts were paid. These orders came to £660; what has become of the balance?—Mr Williams could tell. Do you consider yourself still entitled to the balance?—I heard Karaitiana say he would take the balance, so I suppose that is where it has gone. If Karaitiana asked Tanner for it, he would say, "All right; Karaitiana received whatever he asked for." Have you received from Tanner, or other parties, any account, showing how the £1,000 went?—I was told it went to pay our debts; to Newton, Maney, Sutton, and Tanner. The documents were shown to me; I took them, so that I should know how much was paid. I took Sutton's account from his own house. I don't know about Newton's account, whether I got it myself, or whether Tanner showed it to me.

Commission adjourned to Friday, 14th March, at 10 a.m.

Friday, 14th March, 1873.

Manaena, cross-examined by Mr Tanner: Do you remember Hamlin and myself going to Pakowhai, to talk over the sale of Heretaunga?—Yes. The first occasion, when Karaitiana and Henare were there?—Henare was there; Karaitiana was in Auckland. Before that; the time mentioned by Karaitiana and Henare, when I went three successive days?—I only know of Henare being there. Do you remember the time I came three days in succession?—Yes. Do you remember coining into Henare's house in a colored blanket, and sitting on the floor?—Yes. Do you remember what was spoken about on that occasion?—No. Did you hear us talk at all?—No. Were we not talking?—I do not know; it is true I was there; but I cannot say. If we had been speaking, would you have heard us?—Yes. Did I not speak then to Henare about the sale of Heretaunga?—There was no conversation with him on that subject in my presence. Do you know what we were talking about?—No. Did you know the occasion of our coming?—I knew it was about Heretaunga. How did you know it, if you did not hear me speak?—I had heard previously that you were trying to get Heretaunga for yourself. Did not Henare give you some hints to leave the room?—No. Was there no mention of Heretaunga during all the time you were there?—I did not hear any. Would you have heard it if it had taken place?—If you had said, "I have come to talk of Heretaunga; slay and listen," I should have known. I did not stay long in the room; but went out almost immediately, and have no recollection of the subject of conversation, (The Chairman; Did you see Karaitiana leave page 49 the room?—Yes.) [Henare's evidence on this point is read.] That is correct; I did not stay long. (The Chairman: But you contradict him about the conversation which took place in your presence—I heard that the talk was about Heretaunga.) Mr Tanner: Why did you just say that you did not bear that we were talking about Heretaunga? Were you aware, from this conversation, what were to be the terms of sale?—No. (The Chairman: Who left the room first, you of Karaitiana?—Karaitiana; when he got up, I followed.) Did you not agree to leave the terms with Karaitiana and Henare?—No. Had you no discussion With Henare about it?—Not at that time. When did you and Henare first speak about it?—A long time after. What did you hear from Henare?—The naming of £1,000 for each person. What lime was this?—A good while after the conversation with you; I do not know how long. How long was it before I came and asked you to sign?—I heard before Henare's signing at Mr Guff's. How long, after the three days' visit, did you hear of this?—A long time. Did you not ask Henare, at or before the close of the three days, what bad been decided?—It was Considerably after that time. (The Chairman: When you went into the willow, did you know you were to have £1,000 for your share?—Yes.) Do you remember Hamlin and myself going to Pakowhai while Karaitiana was in Auckland?—Yes. You knew all about the terms of sale at this time?—Yes. And had agreed to it?—I had not agreed. Had you not agreed with Henare and Karaitiana?—I did not say to Henare I had agreed; I said, "You have signed; take me back to Karaitiana." Did you not tell me you had agreed; but wanted something for yourself?—No; nothing of the sort. Did you not say you would agree to the terms of sale, but wanted £100 for your consent?—It was a long time after, when that was said, not at this time; when Karaitiana was absent, that occurred. That is the time I spoke of. Did you not then tell me you had heard from Henare that he was to receive £150 per annum, and Karaitiana £100 per annum?—I had not heard they were to get that. I thought they were to have something additional, but did not know how much. I thought the arrangement; was this—that Karaitiana and Henare were asking for money for them selves; I did not know the amount, but thought it was probably a good deal, and I asked you what they were to get. What did I say?—That Henare and Karaitiana were not to get any Did you not say you expected something too, as well as them?—I did not say that at our first; talk. (The Chairman: When was this £50 per annum first spoken of?—At the first visit I would not agree; the second time I got into the willow; the third time into the powder magazine; the fourth time we talked, and the £50 per annum was spoken of That was the first time we talked, and after that was the £100 cheque. Was the promise to give you £100 before or after the £50 per annum arrangement?—Before. Was the £50 per annum arranged at Pakowhai?—I first asked them at Pakowhai; but the arrangement was made in Napier. I had my parent's cheque in my pocket when I asked for the £50 per annum.) Was not that cheque given you for consenting to the terms of sale as arranged by Henare?—No. Had it no reference to your consent to the sale?—I had not consented at the time. What did you get the £100 for?—It was just for my use, to entice me; it had nothing to do page 50 with the sale. Was it not handed to you in consequence of the sale?—No. If I had agreed, I would have signed. Did you not sign an agreement to Bell on that occasion?—No. That was afterwards, when Sutton and Hamlin came. Did you not sign a document, acknowledging the receipt of £100, and consenting to the sale?—If you have the document, show it; my idea is that it was given when Sutton and Hamlin came. [Mr Tanner produces the document] The signature is mine. I know the part about the £100; the other words were not mentioned to me. Did you not tell us to come next day, and you would sign the deed?—Yes; I said I would sign it in the morning; but I did not come in—it was wet. (The Chairman: Was this after Henare signed at Waitangi?—Yes.) Why did you not come in and sign?—I was not willing. Did you not finally consent, on condition that you should get £50 per annum for ten years, instead of the £100 cheque?—That doing away with the £100 was yours; I had nothing to do with it. Did you not consent to it?—When Sutton and Hamlin spoke to me I consented to the £50. There was no £100 now; the cheque had been torn up. I had signed the deed before the cheque was destroyed. Did you not say that as Henare and Karaitiana were getting so much, you would prefer £50 per annum to the £100?—I did not hear that the others were to be paid annually; but it was so arranged respecting mine. Did I not tell you that if I agreed to the annual £50, you must give me back the £100 cheque?—That was not said. If you had said that, I would not have taken the trouble to come in; I would have thrown the cheque aside. Did not you have a long argument with me, wishing to retain the cheque as well?—No; I did not say that. When I demanded the cheque back, did you not ask to be allowed to retain £50—one half of it?—I did not say so. Did I not give you £50 on that occasion?—Yes; when I did not get the £100, you gave me £50. Did I not tell you that that was your first year's annuity in advance?—Yes. Was it not the change in your mind from the £100 to the £50 per annum, that made you get into the willow?—It was after I was in the tree that I took the £100. Why did you go up the tree?—I was trying to escape from your continual coming; I was tired of it. When the conveyance of Heretaunga was brought to you, what signatures were attached to it?—I do not know; perhaps Henare's. Were all these signatures to it when you signed?—Yes. Did you not go up the tree because you wanted to make better terms for yourself?—Why should a person run away into a tree, if he was willing? I had not heard of the arrangement with Karaitiana and Henare; I was tired of you and Hamlin; you were like bush-dogs, chasing me. Was it not to make better terms?—No. If good arrangements were made, would I have run away? (The Chairman: When did you first know Karaitiana was to get £100 per annum, and Henare £150?—After the deed was signed; when I came to Mr Cuff's office to see the documents.) What did Henare tell you about it?—He never spoke about it at all. Did you mention your £50 per annum to anyone?—No.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Had you any knowledge from Karaitiana or Henare Tomoana, before Karaitiana went to Auckland, that either of them were receiving more than £1,000 per share?—I did not hear. Between the times of Karaitiana's going to Auckland and the signing of page 51 the deed, had you heard from Karaitiana or Henare of this large consideration?—No. Had you heard of it from Tanner or Hamlin?—No. You have heard the receipt read?—Yes. Was it interpreted at the time of signing?—No. I asked what it was for, and he replied, "For the £100." Had you at that time refused to sign the deed?—Yes. Why did you leave the room on the first of the three days?—Because I was unwilling to discuss the sale of Heretaunga. Had you agreed to be bound by any agreement Henare or Karaitiana might make?—No. Had you in any way left it to them to make the sale, on the understanding that you would be a consenting party?—No. Did Karaitiana and Henare tell you that each grantee was to receive £1,000 for his share?—Tanner and Williams told me so. Did Karaitiana and Henare agree to that as the terms of sale?—I was told so; I was not present at the time. Were you told that Henare and Karaitiana were to get more than £1,000 each?—I did not inquire. Did you not, this morning, say that you asked Tanner?—Yes. Where was that?—At Pakowhai. Before you signed the deed?—Yes. What reply did Tanner make?—That Karaitiana and Henare were not to receive more than £1,000. Did you avoid Tanner and Hamlin to make better terms, or because you objected to the sale?—Because I was unwilling to sign.

By the Chairman: Did you ever receive an account of what was paid on your account?—Yes; to Sutton and Maney. Any others?—They were the only ones I received. Do you know what accounts were paid for you?—No; perhaps they did not reach £1,000. Did Tanner pay money on your account to Robinson?—Yes. And Newton?—Yes, but I did not see the accounts. Did he pay other small accounts besides?—I do not know. Have you received small sums of money from Tanner from time to time, during 1869?—After the mortgage there were some.

Te Waaka Kawatini, examined by Mr Sheehan: Do you remember leasing your land to Tanner?—Yes. Had you anything to say against it?—I objected to it. For some years I had received my money and paid my debts to Sutton; but afterwards my share of the rent was stolen from Tanner by Parker, The lease itself was right, and was agreed to by us. How came Parker to steal your money?—He was going about signing my Crown Grants and stealing my money. I said he must be driven off Waikahu. Had not you and Parker some dealings about land?—Yes. Did you not sign a deed handing over to hint Heretaunga and other lands?—No. (Witness here named a number of blacks, including Heretaunga.) These were the grants belonging to me that Parker signed. Had you not some talk with Parker, In reference to leasing all your lands to hint?—I had no talk with him; but he came to me with a document relating to all my lands. Did you not sign a lease of all these lands to Parker, which was interpreted by Martin Hamlin?—No; I gave Parker the writ. Do you know the deed produced? is It like the document showed to you by Parker?—He did not give mo this; the document he showed me was a lease. This is a lease: did you in Lee's office sign a document handing over your land to Parker?—No. I signed my mark; but this laud, Waikahu, was not there. Did you ever go to Lee's office with Parker?—I came to get my money—£100. I went to the house page 52 on the hill; Tanner beckoned me to come; I climbed up. Tanner and Hamlin were there; they asked me to sign a document authorizing Mr Wilson as my agent. What did you want a lawyer for?—To fight against Mr Parker's lawyer, because £120 of the rent had been retained. Tanner asked me to engage Wilson as my solicitor. Long before that, do you not remember going with Parker to Lee's office?—I do not know of any of these visits because Parker was continually supplying me with liquor. Do you remember signing a deed whereby you handed over all your lands to Parker in consideration of £360 per annum for life?—Perhaps so; I do not remember. Wilson was appointed your lawyer, to get back the rent for Heretaunga?—Yes. How long was it after this when you were first spoken to about selling Heretaunga?—A long time. Who was the first person who spoke to you about it?—Martin Hamlin and Maney. Where?—At Kohupaeiki; they went there to purchase Waikahu; they said Tanner's money had been expended. Did you not sign a deed of sale of Heretaunga?—No. Did you ever see Tanner on the subject?—Yes. What took place?—He asked me to come on a certain day, and I came; he was upstairs in this building, and called to me from an open window. I went upstairs. Tanner said, "I have come to ask you to sign a document to throw Wilson over." Those were the words; Hamlin was the writer; I signed my name.. Did Tanner speak about your selling anything to him?—Yes. Hamlin and I took the letter to Wilson, and returned. Hamlin asked for my Crown Grant of Heretaunga. I went away, and came back another day. Parker took me to his house, gave me a great deal of liquor, and took me to Lee's office; Lee, Martin Hamlin, Cuff, and Tanner were there. Do you remember what you did there?—No; I could not see the persons; I merely wrote and went away. The documents were about Heretaunga. Were you told when you signed how much you were to get?—No. When I came in I saw Martin Hamlin; he said, "Do you know me?" I said, "How can I tell, when I have been murdered with so much rum?" After a while I saw Tanner; he gave me a paper of Ngatehinemoa. He said that Parker must be driven away, and I must give him my Crown Grant; he was looking after it. He said, "Are you not willing to let me have your grant?" I said, "It will depend on your payment. What is the amount?" He said, "£1,000." I said, "It is too small:—the price of a race-horse, only; I will not consent." He said, "What do you ask?" I thought he might be afraid at what I was going to say. I said, "My price is £15,000.", Tanner said, "That is correct; I have plenty of money; T consent to that." I had not expected so much. He said, "Your money will go into the bank, providing no others of your tribe come in." On the Friday my hapu, Ngatihinemoa, came in to take all the money. I went and asked Mr Tanner to put the money on a large table. He said he would put it on a very large table. I said we were hungry, and he gave us £5 to buy food. We received no more money that day, and returned. Tanner fixed a day to come again. When that day came we returned. The persons sat round the table; I again asked Tanner: "Be quick to give me £100, that I may pay my debts." He gave me £5, and on another occasion £5, making £15 in all. I had a quarrel with Tanner, and that was the end—the money was not received. I have had no money since. The money was devoured by? page 53 Cuff, Tanner, and the other?, after I left. When Cuff and Hamlin afterwards spoke to us about Waikahu, they told us the money had been all spent. I went to Cuff's office, and inquired; Cuff said there was £14 left for me. Were you told how the money bad been expended?—For my debts, he said. I said, "Here are my hands to pay my own debts—you give me the money, and keep the land." I saw Tanner, who told me to come after he had got his friend. I came, and there were three of us. The documents wore brought, showing low the money had gone for the debts; I said, "Tanner, you have been stealing it very greatly." Next morning we had the, land surveyed. [Plan produced. Witness shows the portion he claims] (The Chairman: So you claim more than half the block; where is there room for Tareha and Karaitiana?—On the portion remaining.) I have no more to say; I have retained my land, and will keep it. I do not believe in people who steal our laud and keep the money. Did you take the £14 from Cuff?—No, I left his leavings. Do you know what monies were paid by them for you?—No. Tanner says he paid £789 for you to W. & H. Parker—For what purpose? Were you not indebted to Parker?—Where was his store, that I should be in his debt? He says be paid £100 to Maney—I only had one bottle from Maney on credit. Did you not give an order for £100 on Tanner in his favor?—Who was to see that document? that was a theft of Maney's to get the money; I only owed him for one bottle. Then there is £51 8s to Robinson.—That was my debt; I would have paid it myself. Then there is a debt to M'Murray.—I owed him for five gallons Tanner says he has paid you in cash at various times, £35.—Tanner perhaps knows; I only know of having received £5 three times. Yon told the Court you signed a document to turn Wilson out of some business in which he was engaged.—Tanner asked me to sign it. Did he give any reason?—No. Did you know at the time you signed it that there was a Supreme Court action pending between yourself and Parker?—No. Did you get all the rents for Heretaunga till the time of sale?—No. Did you get the last £120?—No. Do you know what became of the last payment of that money?—If I had received it I would know; perhaps Tanner or some of the others know.

Cross examined by Mr Tanner: Was it not a condition of the sale of Heretaunga that we should recover from Parker your interest in all the other blocks, and hand it over to you Where was this conversation? In Napier.—In what house? In the street, I believe.—Parker was not a person that I cared about, that I should give him my land. (The Chairman: Did you not agree that if Tanner got back for you Petane, Waikahu, Ohikakarewa, and other blocks, you would sell him your share in Heretaunga for £1,000?—No; the Government were helping these people to get back the land. Did not Tanner agree to help you to get back the lands from Parker?—I do not know. Tanner was Parker's friend. I should have been clear if Tanner had allowed me to keep my lawyer. They drove him away, and said the words were mine. Tanner was wanting Lee and Cuff. Did you not yourself go to Wilson's office?—Yes.) Mr Tanner: Do you not remember meeting Williams and myself in Cuff's office, and going through the accounts?—Yes. I disputed some of the accounts, and when we came to Me Murray's, I laid it aside. Do you remember us asking you to show us what you disputed, and we page 54 would go to the storekeepers and dispute them for you?—Yes, I agreed to that. Had you not some younger friends with you?—Yes, Raihania and Paora Torotoro. Do you remember us making a list of the accounts you disputed?—I got angry, and went away. You said you did not receive the last rent of £120?—Yes. Do you not remember asking me in the street to hand it to Wilson and Carlyon, as they were your lawyers? [Witness indignant.] Did you not give as a reason, that they were the only two gentlemen in Hawke's Bay?—No. Did you not go with me to Wilson's office about that rent?—No. Have you not addressed Wilson in the street, and said, "You tiefy my money?"—We met in the street; I asked you for my rent; you said the lawyers had it; I said, "The money spent by Parker?" you said, "No; last year's rent,—you must ask Wilson for it." he did not understand me when I asked. Who do you think has got the money?—I did not get it, and do not know what has become of it. I believe you have it.

The Commission then adjourned.

Saturday, 15th March, 1873.

Mr Sheehan said that he had experienced great difficulty with regard to the account". He did not say that the other side had not rendered assistance; but he found the accounts very imperfect, and the natives could give no assistance. The Court was entitled to a full account; and if there were shortcomings in it, they could be pointed out and allowed for. He asked that such an account should be rendered,

John Nathaniel Wilson, sworn: I am a solicitor, in practice in Napier. Some time about the end of 1868, or near the beginning of 1869, I was communicated with by Mr Samuel Williams, about a transaction between Waaka Kawatini and a person named Parker. I made certain inquiries, and found it opened up so large a subject, that I also communicated with Mr D. M'Lean, the then Superintendent, and with the Native Office, and I have an answer which I received from the latter. An intelligent native, named Harawira, gave me a good deal of assistance. He informed me that Te Waaka Kawatini represented seven natives. I instituted a suit in the Supreme Court, at the instance of Waaka, against the brothers Parker, to set aside a deed of the 29th December as fraudulent and void. I have no doubt the document produced is the deed. It purports to convey Waaka's interest in various properties to a trustee, W. Parker, subject to a rental of £360 a year for life, and subsequently to H. Parker, absolutely. It was to set aside this contract that application was made. Shortly after the application, the Judge appointed a registered receiver. Various proceedings took place in the suit; demurrers, and pleas, and applications to amend pleas, being filed. The last order was made on the 15th September, by which the demurrer to the declaration was struck out by consent, leaving the plea standing, so that the complainant could have pushed the case if he had been so advised. On the 13th September, 1869, Waaka called on me in company with F. E. Hamlin, with a letter in Maori, to the effect that he had made fresh arrangements with Parker for fresh consideration, and requesting me to discontinue the action. I endeavoured to explain to Waaka that he had not done right in discontinuing the action—that page 55 I was acting on the written retainer of those who claimed under him, and of the chiefs Henare and Karaitiana, not for himself alone. As I could make no impression upon him, I told him at last that he must give his reasons personally in Court; but he replied, irreverently, that he would not, he did not believe in Courts. I thought it necessary to send in an affidavit on the subject, describing my share in the case, though I had no locus. I appeared, and complained of the irregularity; but his Honor held that Waaka's letter and affidavit was a sufficient termination to my retainer. I then ceased to act farther on Te Waaka's behalf. At the time I was asked to undertake these proceedings I had more than one interview with Tanner. He professed a great interest in the suit, and made inquiries as to its progress. He objected greatly to the land passing into Parker's hands. I saw him about the time of the discontinuance of the suit; the subject was discussed; I had previously been informed in some way that the matter was settled. Some of the circumstances have escaped my memory; but they are correctly stated in paragraph 8 of my affidavit. Tanner called upon me, and told me the matter had been settled by his interference. I had made considerable inquiries into the circumstances of the agreement with Parker. I have resided thirteen years in the Province, and had at that time a good general idea of the quality and extent of the lands transferred to Parker by deed. I considered that the transaction was clearly one which the Supreme Court would set aside. Did your application to the Supreme Court ask any-thing regarding the future management of the property?—I thought of doing so, but did not; I considered it necessary, in the first place, to set Parker's deed aside. It was understood that, if he succeeded in the suit, some means would be adopted to settle the land upon him. I knew that no person had acted as separate solicitor for Te Waaka in the settlement. Are you still of opinion that he is unfit to transact business without professional assistance?—Certainly; he would sign anything for a small gum of money. He has repeatedly offered all his worldly goods for a small consideration—two gallons of rum, for instance, he has frequently mentioned. Waaka had spent, on this business, far more time than was necessary in my office—at least a whole week. I used to be assisted by Mr M'Lean and Mr Samuel Williams, as well as regular interpreters. I have not since acted in any way as his solicitor. I have had no direct dealings with the Heretaunga block, except that I am a trustee for Arihi's share. I have never acted directly for either purchasers or natives. Possibly one or two deeds of confirmation may have been prepared in my office. I remember a deed, signed by all the grantees, and not carried further. Was it prepared by Cuff?—I believe so. Was it amongst the deeds submitted to you while the business was on foot?—Yes; I believe I was a party to that deed; but refused to execute it. One of my reasons was, that the last two names, and, I believe, others, had been added after the execution of the deed. Neither my name nor Purvis Russell's were signed, and I would certainly not sign a deed after it had been executed. There were other reasons, but that was sufficient. I was not certain that the consideration had been properly stated. There had not been any proper arrangement as to reserve; the whole block being conveyed. Were you consulted by Karaitiana, in reference to a deed of conveyance of Heretaunga, signed by himself and Henare?— page 56 Karaitiana called, much disconcerted; I sent him for an interpreter. He brought Grindell, and told me he had been served with two writs from the Supreme Court. He was anxious at the time to go to Auckland. I told him, if he would undertake to pay, I would defend the case, and gain him time. He gave me proper authority to defend, and hinted that when the matter was settled, he would consult me about Heretaunga. He did not do so, as he found a difficulty in getting an interpreter, I have not advised Karaitiana since. Do you remember, subsequently to this, any conversation with Mr Ormond in reference to Karaitiana's difficulties?—Unless you connect it with some date, I cannot answer. For a short time last year, in a special matter, I was acting for Mr Ormond. With reference to that I claim my privilege. Do you remember a conversation with Mr Ormond in reference to an application made to him by Karaitiana for pecuniary assistance?—Application was made by Karaitiana to me, and I. considered it necessary to apply to Mr Ormond. I object to repeat the conversation unless Mr Ormond is willing. [Mr Ormond said he had no objection.] This conversation took place quite recently—within the last month. I told Mr Ormond I was not disposed to facilitate Karaitiana's obtaining this money. It related to realizing a fund over which I had control; and Mr Ormond agreed with me in my reluctance. I said, "He had better sell what he has got." Mr Ormond said, "You had better be careful what you say; he accused me of advising him to sell Heretaunga; but it was not true." I was quite aware that Karaitiana had repeatedly made this accusation. This conversation occurred quite recently—since the opening of this Commission. Are you aware what was to have been the consideration for Arihi's share in the first instance?—Yes, £1,000. This was before you occupied the position of trustee?—No; afterwards. No arrangement was made; that was the first offer. Purvis Russell and I made a valuation, after a long discussion, and fixed the price at £2,500, refusing loss. Had £1,500 ever been accepted by you and Purvis Russell as trustees?—Never finally—there was never but the one agreement. The 8th September, 1869, was the date of the agreement, and in December of the same year the interest was disposed of to Tanner for £2,500. We estimated Arihi's share as one-tenth of the block; she being a large claimant. There were grounds for supposing her entitled to a larger share; but we did not consider it prudent to press for it. Was that a fair and reasonable price for her interest, taken at one-tenth?—That was our opinion. There was an unexpired lease of twenty-one years, on the basis of which we made our calculations, and we did not consider it desirable, as trustees, to hold an undivided tenth, the remaining shares being disposed of. There were also onerous improvement clauses in the lease. You did not consider you were driving a hard bargain?—No. Mr Tanner considered it too much, and an acrimonious discussion took place before he agreed. That bargain for £2,500 subsequently fell through?—It was rescinded, and at, the same time a new one was entered into with Mr Watt, for the same amount. That interest was afterwards transferred by Watt to Tanner, at on advance of £1,000. A fresh dealing between Watt and Tanner subsequently took place, confirming this one. Would you consider £2,500, multiplied by 10, the number of grantees, a fair price for the whole block?—Yes, Would you consider page 57 £13,500 a fair price?—Certainly not; very insufficient indeed. Were you at any time informed what amount had been paid Karaitiana for interest?—No, and, except from the public papers, I do not know now. He has often told me, vaguely, that he received too little. Were you aware that Karaitiana received three times as much as any other grantee, except Arihi and Tomoana?—Certainly nor. Were you aware that Henare received between £4,000 and £5,000 or his share?—No. I had nothing to do with the settlement. I revised the deed, but the consideration was left blank, to be settled at the time of execution. In estimating Alibi's share, did you not take account of what was paid to the other grantees?—No; we did not take it in any way into consideration. I believe that the sum of £13,500 was tilled in to the deed when it was revised by me. And of that sum you were to receive £2,500?—Certainly. Mr Tanner, throughout, the business, was the chief actor on behalf of the purchase?—Mr Tanner and James Williams. I take this opportunity of denying statements made by Waaka about me.

On the application of Mr Tanner, the cross-examination of this witness was deferred till after the examination of Mr. James Watt; who was to leave on the following day by the "Dakota." For the sake of connexion, however, we insert it in regular order.

J. N. Wilson, cross-examined by Mr Tanner: Do you remember how you became aware of the transaction between Waaka and Parker?—I cannot say. The first regular intimation I received was from Mr Williams. Did you not send for Te Waaka in the first instance?—No; I should have been sorry to have done so. He came, I believe, with Mr Williams. Did you otter to go into the case for him?—No, I merely said I would examine if he had any case. I wrote to the Government, suggesting this as a matter for interference. Did you undertake it for charity?—No; I consider it would have been very wrong to have done so. I took it up to carry it through, and took my chance of being paid. I did not tell him it would cost him a great deal of money. You said you took it as a matter of business; did you not think him wronged?—I considered him cruelly wronged; but would not have taken it up if he had not brought it to me. Did you get paid?—Yes. Did you ever furnish him with your bill of costs?—No; Mr Carlyon made it up. An amount was agreed upon—a little over £100, and I afterwards received a cheque for that amount. Do you remember my coming with Waaka, and speaking of the rent, when Waaka asked me to pay the rent into your and Carlyon's account?—That sum, by agreement, was paid into the Bank of New Zealand in the names of Mr Lee and myself. I did not know Carlyon in the matter. It might have been Carlyon. You are not clear, then?—I consider myself perfectly clear. That was a year's rent, nearly due, £120. What became of that rent?—I cannot say. After the order of discontinuance was made, a cheque was brought by Carlyon, and was drawn either by him or myself. Where did you get the £100 for costs?—From Carlyon; it might have come out of the £120—I have no doubt it did. What became of the balance?—I do not know. I signed a cheque for the whole amount. Has not Waaka often asked you for that rent?—Yes; so lately as yesterday, after the rising of the Court. Have you ever told him what became of it?—I page 58 have tried to explain it to him at great length, but without effect. Do you remember me coming with Waaka, and telling you he was always bothering me for money, and asking you to tell him you had it; when you replied that you had £100, and that Carlyon very likely had the balance?—I do not remember; but it is just what I would have said. How did you become aware of the settlement of Parker's suit?—By common gossip. Do you remember me coming with Waaka, and asking you to acquiesce in that arrangement?—Yes; and I remember telling him it was a very improper settlement. You refused to acquiesce, or to be a party to it?—I refused to be a party to carrying out the settlement; I could not refuse to acquiesce. On whose behalf did you refuse?—Waaka's, and the people claiming under him. Had you authority at that time?—Yes; long before. Did you get any of the costs out of the others?—No, certainly not. Why out of Waaka?—Because he had made an improper settlement. Did you not say you would not be a party to anything which would allow Parker to go unpunished?—Very likely. I considered the transaction a gross swindle. Directly I heard the small sum to be paid to Waaka, and how it was to be applied, I looked upon the arrangement as one which I could not for one moment tolerate or sanction. Had not Parker, at this time, threatened you?—He wrote so disgraceful a letter to me, on another occasion, that I had the authority of the Government to prosecute him for libel. He was a very low and vulgar fellow, and shortly before the commencement of Waaka's suit, he offered me a large sum of money to "do his business." It was no personal feeling to Parker that prompted me to refuse to agree; if the terms of settlement had been reasonable, I would not have opposed it. Do you remember Cuff coming to you on the subject?—No; if he had come my answer would have been the same. Did I not ask you to reconsider the question?—There were repeated conversations with you; you pressed me to go into it; I refused directly the terms were mentioned to me; I considered them thoroughly improper. You would not discuss the subject?—I am sorry to say we did discuss it, and with considerable warmth, and were not much nearer. I gathered that you had already got something signed, when you came first of all, and that it only remained to get me to carry out the formal steps. You understood that nothing was settled then?—On the contrary, I understood the terms to be settled; they were stated to me, and I refused to agree to any such terms. Do you remember me saying, "Parker means to deal with that property; he won't stand a law suit, and if we don't buy it some one else will?"—That was much earlier; I was quite aware of that, and knew with whom Parker was dealing. Do you not remember my veiling you I would go on independently of you?—Yes, certainly; you spoke all through as if you had Waaka in your pocket. I told you it would be improper, as well as a very great risk, for you to carry it on unless Waaka was represented by an independent solicitor. Were not these the terms—that Waaka was to receive £1,000, that we were to re-convey the other blocks, and the suit to be stopped?—Yes. Are you not aware that Parker offered to treat with J. M. Stuart for the sale of his interest?—Yes. Did I not tell you that if Waaka would not treat with us, Parker would sell to Stuart?—Very likely; it would not affect my decision; it would not have done Waaka any harm. Did you not pre- page 59 pare the final Conveyance of Hereiaunga?—No; I revised it. Did you not object to the conveyance prepared by Mr Cuff?—Yes. And do you remember my replying, "If you are not satisfied, prepare another yourself?"—It was revised in my office; the draft to which I objected was made use of; I did not consider myself as drawing the deed. I believe I corrected it in pencil, and sent it to Cuff. Are you sure?—I am never sure of anything in writing, when it can be produced. Have you not charged us for drawing that deed?—No. Then it formed no part of the £200 I paid you on my private account?—No. You remember the deed produced?—Yes. You remember my coming to Waipukurau with this deed, and meeting you there?—Yes. I said £2,500 was too much?—Yes. Did you not refuse to take less?—Yes; I considered that it was a fair valuation. I said that Henare and Karaitiana valued Arihi's share at £1,500?—Yes, and I refused to be guided by their opinion. I finally acquiesced to £2,500?—Yes. Will you swear that Arihi and Purvis Russell did not sign the deed with your full consent?—I do not believe I was present when it was signed; I believe Arihi insisted on signing; if I had been present I would have told them not to sign. I do not believe they signed in my presence, or asked my consent. I did not attach much importance to the deed; I brought it away with me, and had a memorandum controlling this deed. Were these names not written there when Arihi signed?—I believe Hamlin will tell you—he put them in himself. The usual system is to leave the names blank, and fill up and attest them in detail, as the game is caught. How was the sale to us for the £2,500 rescinded?—Because the consideration had to be paid by a certain date; the time passed, and the natives wrote down, asking roe to sell the property to some one else. I wrote to yon on the subject. Had you not a discussion with Watt on the subject before you wrote to me?—Only in a general way; he had made no proposal. Did you never tell me I had given too much for the block, and that, if I had left it to you, I could have got it for £18,000?—Yes. Before any agreement had been made for the sale, Mr Tanner had applied to me, and I made a draft memorandum, by which the sale would have been conducted with the sanction of the Native Land Court or the Supreme Court. By this proposal, the interests of all the sub-claimants would have been protected, and the money not squandered. The total consideration might, possibly, have been less even than £18,000; the sum named was purely speculative. [Draft produced by witness.] Did you not draw this as being your idea of the way the purchase should be conducted?—Yes. Before Tareha and Waaka had sold their interests?—Long before.

By Mr Sheehan: Do you remember Hamlin calling upon you with Waaka, in reference to the discontinuance of the suit?—Yes; Mr Tanner had called some days previously. Did you understand Tanner to ask you to sign the deed of withdrawal; or that the native had already done so?—I understood throughout that the native had already signed, and that I was only expected to prepare the necessary deeds. He afterwards brought me a memorandum how the £1,000 was to be applied. You understood that some of Waaka's money was to go to pay the costs of Parker's defence?—Yes. Was it at Tanner's request you drew up the draft, showing a fair method of conducting the sale?—Yes. You proposed that the deed .should be under the sanction of the Land Court, page 60 confirmed by the sub-claimants, and the reserve described?—Yes. Did Tanner approve of the draft?—Very highly, in the abstract.

At the close of Mr Wilson's cross-examination, the Commission adjourned.

James Watt, sworn, examined by Mr Sheehan: I am a merchant, carrying on business in Napier. Are you acquainted with the facts connected with the purchase of the Heretaunga block?—I advanced the money for the completion of that purchase; but, of all the grantees, I only came in contact with Arihi and her husband. What time did your connection with the purchase begin?—In February, 1870. I bought Arihi's share, but my name does not appear in the deed. At the time I considered I was virtually acting for Tanner. We had conversations previous to Arihi's signing; Tanner had spoken to me about my advancing money to complete the purchase of the whole block. I think the terms had been then pretty well arranged. They were confirmed within about a week of the conveyance from Arihi to me. You got £3,500 for Arihi's share, and a bonus of £2,000 for finding the purchase money?—I found the whole of the purchase-money, receiving a bonus of £2,000, and £1,000 advance on Arihi's share, in addition to 10 per cent, on all advances. My reason for asking the additional £2,000 by way of bonus, was that the advance was for an indefinite period. Had it been for ten or fifteen years, I should have been content with the £1,000 on Arihi's share. What was the total amount advanced, for which you received the bonus of £3,000?—About £29,000 altogether, including legal expenses, and costs of all kinds. [On some further questions being put to the witness, the Chairman interposed. He explained the object of the Commission—simply to inquire into alleged frauds; not to decide upon rancorous accusations, bandied about between Europeans—such, for instance, as whether A. B. committed perjury in another place. For charges such as these the Courts of Equity were open.] I did not pay any orders for natives; the orders are mostly signed by Williams and Ormond. [Both sides here requested that the witness's file of orders should be deposited in Court, as they would throw great light on the question of the distribution of the purchase-money. Mr Watt did not object, so long as he was satisfied that they would be returned. The Commission here took the usual adjournment for an hour, and on its resuming, the file of orders was produced. The witness's examination was their resumed by Mr Sheehan] I observe that a number of these orders are payments of accounts to storekeepers.—Yes. They were, in some instances, received by the storekeepers from the natives, and handed over to you?—Yes. Was Mr Sutton, at this time, largely indebted to your firm?—He was to some extent; I cannot say how much. I was not pressing him in any way.

Cross examined by Mr Tanner: What first led to negotiations for the purchase of Arihi's interest?—Mr H. R, Russell proposing to me to purchase it on our joint account. Did you accede to that request?—Yes. Do you remember going to Waipukurau for the purpose?—Yes, in January or February, 1870. Who was with you?—Mr Wilson. What was the position of affairs, as represented to you by Mr Russell?—That the purchasers had agreed to buy the share within a certain page 61 time, which time had lapsed. Did you carry on any negotiations?—I cannot speak the Maori language. I saw Arihi, and considered that Mr Russell had arranged the matter with her. Had you any security on the block?—I had no registered security; I held certain documents; I do not know what they were worth. What did you consider was the value of Arihi's share when you made the purchase?—£2,500. Did the trustees ask more than that?—No. You dealt with the trustees?—Yes. They signed, as well as Arihi. Do you remember why you said you were going to ask £1,000 profit?—No; we had a good deal of conversation, and you were telegraphing to your friends. Do you not remember that I said I had no authority to make an arrangement, and that Ormond telegraphed to me that in the absence of others I must ask for more time?—No. Did you not tell me, on the lawn, in front of Mr Russell's, that you asked the extra £1,000, because you had to divide it with Mr Russell? [Mr Sheehan objected to this question, which was disallowed, as irrelevant.]

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Independently of £2,500 being a fair price, was it not an inducement to you to purchase that sole outstanding interest existing?—There were many other interests to extinguish.

Monday, March 17, 1873.

Paramena, examined by Mr Sheehan, deposed; I remember Heretaunga passing through the Native Lands Court, and its subsequent leasing to Tanner. When did you first hear of the selling of the block?—A good while after. What did you first hear?—Of Stuart's purchase; his sending Grindell to Pakipaki I was there when Grindell came; he spoke to Pahoro, and I listened. Did he ask Pahoro to sell his interest in Heretaunga?—Yes; the price named was £1,100 for his share, which would be given at once if he consented. Pahoro did not agree to sell. After that, Mr Williams, the minister, came. He is a relative of Williams, one of the purchasers of Heretaunga. He said Williams and Hamlin would come, and we were to sign a document, disposing of Heretaunga, and prevent its being sold to another person. Did he mention any person as desirous of purchasing it?—He said it was in reference to Stuart's talk. Did he give any other reason why Pahoro and you should sign?—No. After this did Williams and Hamlin come?—Yes, to Pakipaki. Did they see you?—Yes. They told us to sign our names, and those of our hapu, to hold on to the land and prevent its being sold. Did Pahoro and you sign the documents?—Yes. That was all that took place at that time. What next did you hear about the sale of the block?—After that, Tanner came with Martin Hamlin to Waitahora. They came to ask me to sign the selling. What conversation now took place?—When they arrived, they said to me, "Let us go to Coleman's house, and sign there." I said, "What is this writing for? we have already signed a document to prevent this land being sold, and now you ask us to sign a document to sell it." Tanner said, "Noa and Henare Tomoana have already signed; you must go and sign it there." I said, "How is it that Henare and Noa are the only persons of Pakowhai who have signed? how is it that Karaitiana and Manaena have not signed?" He said that was no matter; when he returned from Waipukurau he would get Karaitiana's signature. He said the reason of his coming was page 62 to get the names of the grantees—I was one; Pahoro was another; Arihi was another. Tanner said the purchase-money of Heretaunga was £13,000. We then went to Coleman's to sign. We signed there, and Tanner went inland. When he had been some time inland he wrote a letter to myself and Pahoro. In consequence of receiving that letter we came to Napier, to Cuff's office, to the laying down of the money. Myself, Pahoro, Noa, Manaena, Karaitiana, Henare, James Williams, Tanner, Martin Hamlin, and Cuff were present. Those are all that I knew. We were asked there to sign the documents. The other document was a list of the debts of the people, Did you sign any document?—I signed three. Were they read over?—Yes, but I did not exactly understand them. There were some debts shown to me—one was a deception of Harrison's. Harrison had asked me to give him £500, for him to look after; that it might not be spent in goods or liquor. He was a friend of mine—he is not now; he has run away. Of course he left the £500 with yon before he left?—No, he ran away. Was this £500 one of the debts shown to you at the time of settling?—Yes. Had you given an order for it?—I had written a document on the subject, which the pakeha said was correct. Were any other documents shown to you?—Yes, a small debt to Tanner. After deducting those debts, did you receive the balance?—There was also £40 to Davie. I did not receive the balance. Did you not say anything about your money?—I asked Tanner, "Where is the money for me? is this all?" Tanner said, "Yes; that is all remaining for Pahoro and yourself." Pahoro's debts were shown to him at the same time. Before coming to Cuff to sign, had you received any money?—No. Did you receive any at that time?—I did not receive any; there was £500 for Harrison, and £40 for Davie—those persons saw the money; I did not. Were Karaitiana and Tomoana present?—They were there, and went into another room with Tanner, Cuff, Martin Hamlin, and James Williams, leaving us. We were still in the room—four of us—when they returned. Henare said that was all the money that was for us two. I was very sad, and came outside. Did you not receive, with Pahoro, £700? there is a cash entry to that amount?—No; we arranged that with Sutton; the money was paid by Tanner to him a good while afterwards—half a year or a whole year. What was it paid for?—When Sutton received it, he held it; he said it was on account of our debts to him. I knew of my own debts; Sutton said they amounted to £400. When did you first hear of the £700?—A long time after. Who first told yon that money was there?—Sutton and Worgan; they told me to write to Tanner to pay Sutton that money. Sutton afterwards told me he had received the £700. Did you get any back from him?—No, he got the whole of it. Were you at the time in debt to Sutton?—Yes, the debt was upon a mortgage of Mahanga. How much were you to receive for your share of Heretaunga?—I am not clear whether it was £1,000 or not. Had you never been told by Tanner?—No. At the time of the signing at Cuff's, was anything said about what each man's share was to be?—No, Did you know what Karaitiana or Tomoana were to get?—No. Do you know now?—No. If you had known Karaitiana was to receive over £3,000, and Henare over £4,000, would you have signed?—No, I would not have consented to £1,000 for me. Had you, previous to the sale, placed in any other per- page 63 son's hands the power of dealing with your share?—No. No other person had authority to deal with your Interest, or receive your money?—No. The only matter left to Karaitiana and Henare was that of the lease. Do you remember, a considerable time before, some talk of Pahoro selling his share to Tanner?—I only heard it from Tanner. Were you at Pakowhai at any time when this was talked about?—Yes. That is the time when there was talk of shooting the people if they sold. Over and above the orders you have given, have you received any cash?—No. Have you seen Tanner recently on the subject of this inquiry?—Yes, on the Saturday before last. Where did you see him?—The other side of Newton's. He sent Josiah Hamlin for me. I went to Hamlin's office; Tanner was there. He asked respecting his meeting Pahoro and myself by the Waitangi bridge. Tanner said I was to consent to what he had said at Waitangi, when our consent was finished that Karaitiana and Henare should sell Heretaunga. I said I did not know of that talk. That was all that was said, and I went to Henare's house. I afterwards mot Tanner and Pahoro, and we went beyond town. Tanner said to me, "You know me well; how is it that you know me?" I said, "We will speak about this; I will talk there," (in Court.)

Cross-examined by Mr Tanner: When Samuel Williams came, did you not understand that it was to get you to sign some deeds of trust?—Yes. Did you not understand that the wish was that yon were not to sell Heretaunga at all?—I did not wish to sell it. Did you not understand that this was to prevent the sale?—I have already said that. When James Williams and Hamlin went with the deeds of trust for signature, was not the same reason given?—Yes, Was any desire expressed to purchase Heretaunga at that time?—No. Do you remember, a long time subsequently, previous to my meeting you at Waitahora, any discussion between you and I about selling Heretaunga?—I saw you and spoke to you. I said, "I am always writing; it is nothing else but writing." Do you not remember meeting mo between Waitahora and Napier, and my saying that there was some talk about selling Heretaunga?—I do not know; but you have documents, you can write it down and remember. Do you remember saying you could not talk about it without Henare and Karaitiana—it must rest with them?—I do not know of that conversation. Do you say no such talk ever took place?—It did not take place. I know nothing about it. Did you not know the sale was spoken of previous to my going with Hamlin to Waitahora?—No, I did not know of it peviously. Did any one, other than myself, tell you there was a proposal to sell Heretaunga?—You and Hamlin were the persons; you came with the documents. You told us just now that Stuart came.—That was a different purchase. After the signing of the deeds of trust, did I not speak to you about Stuart?—No; our talk about Stuart ended when the documents were signed. Did I not tell you if ever you sold Heretaunga, to sell it to those in possession; not to Stuart, or any other speculator?—That was not said on that occasion; it was said when all the hapu were signing; you only said, on the occasion you name, that we were not to sell. Do you remember my saying those words on any occasion?—I do not know of that conversation; I was not willing to sell that land, Were you taken by surprise page 64 when Hamlin and myself came to Waitahora and asked you to sign?—I said at that time, "There is nothing for me to do hut to sign; I am always signing; I am not desirous of selling." You said Henare had agreed; I was the only person to prevent it, and it would not be right to do so. I asked you why you did not get Karaitiana and Manaena to sign; you said when you had got Pahoro, and I, and Arihi to sign, you would also get Karaitiana's signature. You have already said I mentioned the purchase-money; did you know that sum had been agreed upon by Henare and Karaitiana?—I was not aware of that; I thought it was your own proposition. Was not the deed interpreted to you by Martin Hamlin?—I thought the document was not of importance; I saw Henare's name, and Noa's. I did not see any document with words. It may have been a parchment—it is so long ago, I cannot say. As it was so long ago, how can you remember that the writing was not explained to you?—I have no recollection. Was this the deed that you signed?—Yes. Was not tire writing explained to you by Martin Hamlin?—The words were read to me, but I thought no more of them. Did you raise any objection to the terms of that document?—No; because you said it would be useless for me to oppose it. Did I not ask you to sign, because you had said that when Henare consented to sell Heretaunga, you would also sign?—Henare had signed at that time; I had not consented that I would sign if Henare did. Go back to the time when Henare, you, and Pahoro met at Pakowhai—do you remember Henare saying he would shoot the first man who attempted to sell Heretaunga?—Yes. Did you not consider Henare had the mana?—I was not aware that he had. You heard about the shooting?—I did not suppose there would be any talk of selling after that. Did I not ask you how Henare came to possess the mana over the block, and did you not say it was because Henare had conquered Hapuku, and taken possession of his land?—It is true that Hapuku was defeated by Henare; I said so to you. Do you not admit that Henare and Karaitiana had power to sell or withhold the Heretaunga block?—I am not clear about the selling; I am about the lease. [Mr Tanner asked for a decision on the words me haere—We must go. The question had arisen before.—Mr Commissioner Manning: It entirely depends on the context and the accent. In the present instance we would understand—It is necessary that we should go.] To return to Cuff's office. When the deed was signed, did you not see Williams put a cheque on the table as the balance of the purchase-money?—No; when the deed was being signed, it was said there was £1,000 for Pahoro and myself. What amount did you expect out of the purchase-money, when you signed:—I thought it was for you, who had knowledge, to count out the money for each person. You heard the deed read and explained by Hamlin?—Yes. Did you raise any objection to signing on that occasion?—No. Was it not because you saw Karaitiana appropriate the cheque, that you left the room, under the impression that you would not get any?—No, My reason was, that when I asked what was to come to me, you said £500 was all my share. I went outside; but I did not return; I did not see Karaitiana get the money. Did I not tell you Karaitiana had the balance?—You said that when I asked you for the balance of my money. I said it was for you to give it to me. What did you mean by the balance? page 65 —Other money from the sale of Heretaunga. You said Karaitiana was to give it to me; I said that it was for you to give it to me. (The Chairman: You were told you were to receive £500. That sum had been paid to Harrison. What balance did you expect?—I was not willing to accept £500 for my share.) Then you left it for me to divide the money, and did not think I gave you enough?—I did not. You did not stipulate for any amount?—No. Did you not give Sutton a power of attorney to act for you and Pahoro in this matter?—Yes. Did you not sign another document, requiring us to pay this £500 to Sutton as your agent?—Yes. Did you afterwards give us a deed of confirmation of the sale of your portion, signed by your hapu?—Yes.

By Mr Sheehan: Had Karaitiana and Henare the power to dispose of the land, including your share, without consulting you?—If all the people consented. The management of the lease had been left with Karaitiana and others, when the land was first leased. What rent were you receiving from the lease?—£100 for myself and Pahoro. It was for us and our hapu. I had to divide it. Who settled that you and Pahoro were to have £100?—Karaitiana and Henare. You received the same amount after the land went through the Court?—Yes. Was it after Henare and Karaitiana had their conversation in the other room, that you were told your amount was expended?—It was when Hamlin and Tanner came out that I inquired. Had you then, or at any other time, consented to accept £500 as the price of your share?—No. You said the £700 to Sutton was secured by mortgage?—Yes. The commencement of the debt was the mortgage of Mahanga. How came you to mortgage it; did you not owe him money?—Not at first, when he asked me to mortgage it. From whom did you purchase the steam flax machine?—Harrison. Where did Harrison get it from?—Watt. Then the price of that was not part of the money owing to Sutton?—Yes, it was £200 of the debt. At any time before the sale, did you give Tanner to understand that you had given Henare and Karaitiana authority to make a binding engagement in regard to the sale?—No. At the time the deed was signed in Cuff's office, are you quite clear Tanner told you you had no more money to get?—Yes. Do you remember afterwards signing the deed to which your hapu were parties?—Yes. Was it then that this £400 was obtained, which went to Sutton?—Sutton had received the money before the signing of that deed. How was it, after signing at Cuff's, and being told that there was no more money for you, that this other £400 was paid?—It was through a summons of Sutton against Tanner that the money was paid. Sutton and I talked of it, and we wrote it on paper. [An order.] Then, when you were disappointed of your purchase-money, you went to Sutton for advice?—I went to Sutton; he asked me how much money I had from Heretaunga; I said " £500. I am very sad about this money, only having £300." Sutton advised me to write to Karaitiana for money, and, if I did not get any, to write to Tanner. I told Sutton to write for £700. Sutton said, "Leave it £400." Had you ever agreed to accept £500?—No. (Mr Commissioner Hikairo: Did you think the mana of Henare and Karaitiana existed after the Crown Grant was issued?—My idea is, that after that we all had equal authority.)

page 66

Pera Pahoro, examined by Mr Sheehan: Do you remember Heretaunga going through the Court, and afterwards being leased to Tanner?—Yes. After that, when did you first hear any talk in reference to selling your interest in that block?—Mr Grindell came to Pakipaki, to purchase the land for Smart. Whose share did he want to buy?—Mine. Did he name any price?—Yes; £1,100. For your share only?—Yes. I told him I would not consent. What occurred next?—Williams, the minister, came and asked us to sign a document, for us to hold on to the land for our people. He said it was to prevent our selling the land for liquor. He did not bring the document—he said James Williams and Hamlin would bring it. After this we were asked to meet at Pakowhai, in reference to a statement that I had sold to Stuart. Paramena and I went there; Tanner was there. Henare Tomoana said it would not be well for any one to sell—if they did so they would be shot. I said I did not know anything about the selling of the land. We went back to Pakipaki, and, after a good while, came to Napier, to receive the money for the land. Tanner said if I wanted anything for myself, I might have it; his reason for this was, that he heard I had been selling to Stuart. I said, "Let the money for the lease be paid." Tanner paid me £20. We went to Worgan's office to sign. Tanner said it was for a sale; Rota said, "No." He told Karaitiana and the others that he had given me £300. Karaitiana and the others asked if it was true that I bad £300. I said I would not be able to take that money. After this, Martin Hamlin came to Pakipaki, and requested me to sign a deed, selling Heretaunga. I refused, saying I should be shot if I did. He said, "The amount is £13,000." Tanner stayed at Waitahora; Hamlin was the only one who came to me. Hamlin said, "All the persons in the grant have consented." I asked, "Who are they?" He replied, " Henare and Noa." I said, "I will not consent." He went on then to Arihi; I did not sign. When he came from inland, Paramena came to me and said he had consented. I asked Hamlin how much each person was to get, and he said, "£1,000." I then agreed to sign, and I did so. A good while after this, Tanner sent a messenger for us two. The letter said, "If you two do not come in, the money for Heretaunga will not be placed before Karaitiana." We came in; Harrison came with us. To look after your interests?—Yes. We went to Cuff's office, and were asked to sign. Mr Tanner, Cuff, James Williams, and Martin Hamlin were the pakehas present. Were the deeds read over to you?—I do not know; all I remember is, that I had first to sign this and then that document. Noa, Karaitiana, Henare, Manaena, and Paramena were present. For some time we were all together; afterwards, Tanner, Williams, Cuff, Karaitiana, and Henare went into another room. After the signature of the deed, it was said that each person was to get £1,000. Was anything said about the debts?—To some of the others, not to me—I had no debts. It was Tanner who said we were to have £1,000 each. Did you get any money?—No; it was arranged that Harrison should take care of it for me. Had it been so arranged?—No; it was his saying. He said he would take care of the money for a long time. I did not consent to it; it was his proposal. Paramena said that Harrison should take care of his money for a flax mill. Was that the sum of £273 that I find put down to your page 67 order?—Yes. Over and above that sum paid to Harrison, did you get any money?—No. Was anything said about the balance of the money?—Only one word—that it had all been expended on the debts. £267 was the only balance of my £1,000. Did you afterwards get any more money?—Only the mention of it; Tanner paid it to some pakeha. To whom?—Harrison. Had you at any time, previous to the sale, authorized any one to sell your share, and receive the purchase-money for it?—No. Had you given such authority to Karaitiana or Henare?—No; each person had their Crown Grant, and I had mine. Did you say anything when you heard that all the money had gone for the debts?—I did not believe it; because I had no debts; I knew within myself that Tanner had my money. We summoned Tanner, because we had been premised £1,000 each, and only got £500. Afterwards there was £300 paid by Tanner, but not to me; it was paid to Sutton. We sent to summon Tanner; but he was not summoned. Tanner paid £500, but not to me. Did it ever find its way into your hands?—No; Tanner gave it to Sutton, who kept it. I told Sutton to give it to me, and I would purchase from him. He said, "No; leave it with me." Did you owe him anything then?—No; but when he would not give me my money, I began to take it out in credit. You had a mortgage On the Mahanga block, had you not?—No; I had nothing to do with that Then you had not the pleasure of spending even £1 of the purchase-money?—No. (The Chairman: Are you sure you were not in debt to Sutton?—Not at that time.) After that, you and your hapu signed another deed?—I do not remember. You spoke of Samuel Williams telling you to put your land under protection, and saying that James Williams and Hamlin would bring the papers?—Yes. Did they bring those papers?—Yes. Were they signed?—Yes. I signed another document in Cuff's office, Mr F. E. Hamlin being the interpreter. Did you understand that you were signing an absolute conveyance of all your interest, and the interest of your hapu in the Heretaunga block?—No; I understood it to be on account of the lease that I received the £20 when I signed. The deed says you received £750; is that correct?—No; that is the £700 that Sutton got—£400 for Paramena, and £300 for me. Were you offered more than £27—£20 for yourself, and £7 for Rota?—No. Shortly after this, a meeting took place at Pakowhai?—Yes. Was Tanner present?—Yes. You said there that you had not sold?—Yes. Did Tanner object to that statement?—Not that I am aware of. The deed was signed about nine months before the meeting of the grantees in Cuff's office, and conveyed your interest for £750.—When I received the £20,I signed on account of the lease; I cannot say whether I received that money before or after the meeting, where Henare said he would shoot us. The conveyance I signed at Pakipaki, after Paramena had signed, was the first conveyance of Heretaunga signed by me. You were then told by Hamlin that you would receive £1,000?—Yes. And you afterwards told the same thing to Tanner, in Cuff's office?—Yes. Up to the time you signed at Cuff's, had you heard that Karaitiana and Henare were to receive much more than £1,000?—No, not till long after. You have heard it since?—Yes. If you had known that Karaitiana and Henare were receiving these large sums, would you have agreed on the terms you did?—I would not have agreed. And you page 68 signed on the representation that each man was to receive an equal sum of money?—Yes. Have you seen Tanner recently, in reference to the Heretaunga case?—Yes. Where did you see him?—At Josiah Hamlin's office. Tanner said to me that I should agree to Karaitiana and Henare being the head of the other people. How came you to be in J. P. Hamlin's office?—They saw me, and asked me to go in, and questioned me about this case. They saw me in a public-house, and Hamlin came and fetched Paramena and myself—I went away.

Mr Tanner said that this man was one of the witnesses for the respondents, and that Mr Sheehan had taken the wind out of their sails. He had not been aware that he would be called in support of the complaint.

The Commission then (4.45 p.m.) adjourned.

Tuesday, March 18, 1873.

Pahoro's examination continued, by Mr Sheehan: You mentioned a recent interview with Tanner; how did the meeting take place?—I was going home, and Tanner asked me to consent that Karaitiana was the person who had the control of the land, and the division of the purchase-money. I said I was not aware that it had beer, agreed that Karaitiana should be the person to do this. He said, "What are you afraid of?" I then went to the hotel—Paramena was there, and Mr J. P. Hamlin was sent for him, to take him into Hamlin's office. It was after this that Tanner and I went into Hamlin's office. Who did you see there?—Josiah Hamlin and Tanner, and Martin Hamlin. Paramena was there; they were talking, and he was not agreeing to what they said. They wished me to speak about Karaitiana having the management and disposal of the monies for Heretaunga. I said I did not know of that talk—we had made no such agreement. Tanner said, "Do you not remember our meeting with Paramena at Waitangi Bridge?" I replied that I did not know. Hamlin said, "Why do you not speak of your consenting to leave the management of the money of the Crown Grant with Karaitiana and Henare?" I said, "I do not know anything at all about those monies." I said to Tanner, "If you persist in asking me to speak those words, you will have to pay me." Tanner said it would not be right. He said, that would do, and I replied, " Very well, I will leave." Tanner, Paramena, and I went away together. Tanner said to Paramena, "How is it you know me?" Paramena said to Tanner, "I do not know of this talk," That is all I remember; there were other words, but I forget them. You spoke of receiving £20, previous to the sale?—[Mr Lascelles objected to the question. Mr Tanner said that on his own behalf, he would not offer the slightest objection to any course pursued by the learned counsel. The objection was then overruled.] Where was that £20 paid to you?—In Napier, by Tanner. Where?—The cheque was written in a house. Did you sign anything at the time?—No. How long afterwards, was it, when you signed?—Another day. Where did you sign?—In J. P. Hamlin's office In whose presence?—I do not remember. I cannot say which son of Hamlin's was there. I think it was F. E. Hamlin. Tanner asked me to bring Rota and Patarika. This was after the £20 was paid. £7 was paid to Rota. I cannot remember what sort of deed I signed; I cannot identify it; but that page 69 is my signature [to the deed of the 29th July]. Were the hapu with you when you signed?—I do not remember; I think I may have signed before. When Rota came, the £7 was given. They told Rota I had sold my Crown Grant. Rota said it would not be right. Rota came to say to me that I had sold. I said, "No; I have asked for money to be paid out of the lease." It was said at that time, to Karaitiana and others, that I had sold my share; this was not true; I asked for money on account of the lease. This document says you sold all your interest in Heretaunga for £750; is that true?—No, all I received was £20. Did you, at that time, sign any document which you understood to be a conveyance of your interest in Heretaunga?—No; it had been previously said that I was to be shot, so that I had no desire to sell the land.

Cross-examined by Mr Tanner: You remember Grindell coming to see you at Pakipaki?—Yes. He told you what he came about?—Yes. He took you to a public house?—Yes. He told you he had come to buy your share for Stuart?—Yes. Did you get something to drink?—Yes, we drank a good deal; there were twenty persons drunk. Before commencing business, were not both you and Grindell very drunk?—Not when he spoke to me. Do you remember the day of the week?—No. Was it not a Saturday?—I do not remember. Was not the next day Sunday?—I have no document, so I could not write it. Were many people present at the time of the conversation?—I do not know the number of persons; he was speaking to mo. It was when we got to Havelock that I told Paramena Grindell had come for us to sell Heretaunga. I said I had not agreed. When Grindell came, did he take you at once to Havelock?—Yes. Did you not got some spirits as soon as you got there?—Grindell got drunk there, and Paramena and I returned. Have you a very clear recollection of what took place there?—Yes, Did Grindell produce a deed on that occasion?—No. How long were you at the public-house before Grindell got drunk?—I was not drunk at the public-house at Pakipaki. Were you drunk at Havelock?—Not quite. Did you not commence drinking at Havelock as soon as you arrived?—Yes, we had some rum. Did Grindell not produce a deed, and ask you to dispose of your share for £500?—No, £1,100 was the price named. We will now come to the time of Samuel Williams's visit: do you remember being recommended to sign a declaration of trust, knowing you were an intemperate character?—Yes. He said it was for the hapu to sign, as Grindell had drawn up a deed for the purchase You signed those deeds, and understood that you could not deal with the land without the consent of the hapu?—Yes. Some two or three months after, you remember coming to Napier, and seeing me?—Yes. You also saw James Williams?—I do not remember. Did you not sec him by the pakeha club?—I do not remember. I remember seeing you only. I was drunk during all those days. Do you not remember saying to James Williams—"Why does not Tanner come and buy my share? If he does not, I will sell it to Stuart, or Some one else?"—I did not say those words. Nor anything like that?—I did not talk with Williams. Do you remember my coining and asking if you were willing to sell your share in Heretaunga?—You did not say that to me. What did I say?—That I might want something for myself; I said, "It is well; let me have the money for the land." You asked, "What does Paramena do page 70 with the money?"—I said, "Some years he gives me £30, and distributes the £70 among the hapu. Give me £20." You said, "Yes, let Rota and Paramena come." They came, and you gave them £7. Was nothing said about the sale?—You told the others I had sold. Karaitiana charged me with selling my share for £300, and I denied it. Was nothing then said about selling your share?—Samuel Williams told me to hold on to it; you said nothing except what I have stated. Do you remember signing this deed?—It is my signature; but I have no knowledge of the signing. Did you sign when you got the £20?—It was after the day I received the £20. Were Rota and Patarika present when you signed that deed?—It was on another day that they came; you paid the second balance; I did not see it paid. Do you remember my saying to Rota and Patarika, when they objected to the sale, that my object in purchasing the share was to prevent their selling it to any one else?—Henare had said before, and it was a law at Pakowhai, that any one selling should be shot; hence my saying that it was money for the lease. When Rota and Patarika signed, were you present?—No. Were you not told that my reason for purchasing the share was that you might not sell to any one else?—Rota and Patarika told me that a document was shown them, and that I had sold. Did I not tell them I should hold that to protect their interests till the whole Heretaunga block was sold?—They did not tell me that, nor anything else. Did they not say they did not wish their interests disposed of until the whole block was sold?—You continue saying these things; but I know nothing of them; there is nothing more behind what I have said. Do you not remember meeting me between Waitangi and Ngaruroro?—No. Do you remember speaking to me about your conversation with Karaitiana?—No; Karaitiana and I did not talk. You just told us that you and Karaitiana did—that he accused you of selling for £300—That was at Pakowhai, not Waitangi. Did you not tell me of this talk of Karaitiana's?—I do not know; it was just a question of Karaitiana's to me. Did you not tell me that Karaitiana would not consent to the sale, and said that you must revert to your original position, as a grantee who had not sold?—Karaitiana did not say so, and I did not say so. Do you not remember my asking you if you wished to be as before, and to sell when the rest hold?—No. Do you remember signing this deed, of March, 1870?—No; I do not know the mark. Do you not sometimes sign your name, and sometimes a mark?—Yes; but I have no recollection of this. Perhaps some one else did it, and said it was mine. Then what document did you sign when Hamlin and I returned from Waipukurau? was it not this?—That was the document by which all sold; I thought you were asking me about the time when I received the £20. Why did you sign then, as you were afraid to sign before?—Because it was said that all had consented. Paramena signed before me. I objected at that time; but when you returned from inland, I consented. Do you remember coming to Napier, to sign the final deed of sale;—Yes. Do you remember James Williams explaining the debts of the grantees?—He did not; nothing was said about it until after signing. Did you hear Paramena's evidence on that point?—Paramena was angry when he heard there was only £500 for him. Did you not hear Paramena say that the debts and accounts were explained?—I have no recollection of it; all which I page 71 know about were our own—Harrison's. Were you told that you and Paramena were to have £1,000 between you?—Yes, at Cuff's office. (The Chairman: Did you see any account of the balance of the money at Cuff's?—I do not know at all. Did you hear Karaitiana say anything about it?—I did not hear; Paramena heard. What did Paramena tell you about what Karaitiana had said?—I am not sure that he told me at all. After the sale, Paramena objected to his portion being so small) Did you join with him in that objection?—Yes. To whom did you go about it?—To Sutton. Do you remember writing a document for me, authorizing Sutton to act for you, and receive monies on your account?—Yes. That any further money I had to pay you was to be paid to Sutton?—I did not understand that it was to be paid to Sutton, but to myself. Do you remember signing this document?—Yes. Was it read and explained to you?—No; I have just now seen it. Are you in the habit of signing documents without their being read to you?—(No reply.) I now come to the meeting in J. P. Hamlin's office: Do you remember me asking you about our meeting and conversation at Waitangi?—Yes; I said 1 did not remember. Did I not ask you if Henare and Karaitiana had invited yon and Paramena to the meeting at Pakowhai, previous to the sale of Heretaunga, to talk about the sale?—I said I did not remember. Did you not say that Henare had sent for you, either by word of mouth or letter?—You said so; I did not. That meeting was on account of Stuart's purchase, not yours; we were all asked to go there. Were you not given to understand, on that occasion, that the selling of Heretaunga must be left to Henare and Karaitiana?—It was not arranged that those two should have the disposal of the land. Did they not say so?—No. Then what did you understand by Henare saying he would shoot any one who attempted to sell?—At that time Henare was holding on to the land. And you agreed?—Yes, for I was not willing to sell. Then you considered that Henare and Karaitiana had the mana?—At the time of the lease it was so, but I had at this time mana over my own Crown Grant. Karaitiana and Henare did not say they would have the mana. Did you not tell me that if Karaitiana and Henare were willing to sell, you would also agree?—No. Did you tell Williams so?—No. Why did you not tell me on Saturday that Mr Sheehan was going to call you as a witness?—You had known, long before, that I was with Sheehan. How?—You were speaking in fear in Hamlin's office, knowing that I was to speak afterwards of Heretaunga. Did you tell me you were to give evidence in this case?—I did not say so there; but you knew. How?—I remember now that I did say so; I said that when I came to give evidence, I would speak to this effect. Did you say you were going to give evidence for Sheehan?—Yes. When we were tiding to Napier did I not ask you if you would give evidence, or if you were afraid of Karaitiana?—No. Were you sober on that day?—Yes. Has any one told you to say all this?—It is my own. Did you have a conversation with Henare last night?—No. Has he told you anything to say in Court to-day?—I did not ask him for any talk, and he did not give me any.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles: Have you made any complaint to this Court?—No, i told my complaint to Russell Why did you not complain in the same way as Karaitiana and Henare have done? Do page 72 you not know that all complaints were to be sent to Locke?—Ours went to Russell. Have you ever brought your present complaint before any magistrate, or person in authority?—We have continually complained. To whom?—Tanner, and the purchasers of Heretaunga—James Williams. [Air Sheehan said the witness was answering as though the question was, "Of whom?"] To whom?—To persons of this place. To Tanner?—Yes. To James Williams?—Yes. Did you ever complain to M'Lean?—No. To Locke?—No. To Turton?—I did not go to him. To Sealy?—No. When you thought you were defrauded, you went to Sutton, did you go to him a second time?—The money was not all for me; only £300 of it. These words were not known at that time. What words?—That there would be a Commission. Then if there had been no Commission, you would have had no complaint?—No; because all the magistrates and commissioners of this place are just like the purchasers—they are all of one mind. How much did you tell Sutton to ask for?—£1,000. How much did he get?—It was said we were to get £1,000 between us, but my thought was to ask for £1,000 for myself. Were you told this when you signed?—Afterwards. When you asked Sutton for money, did you know how much you had already received between you?—No. Then why did you only ask for £1,000?—Tanner gave the money, £700, to Sutton. If he had given £1,000, would you have thought you had received all to which you were entitled?—Yes, I should have been just like the others, and would not have asked for more. Yet you say you do not know how much had been already paid. What had you received?—£267. What did Paramena receive?—He knows; I do not. Was that the whole?—£567, including Sutton's, was all I had. How do you make out that £1,000 more would settle it?—Perhaps Paramena had received about £1,000. There was £500 to Harrison, and £400 to Sutton; I do not know the rest. Then, though you only got £300, when you expected £700, you asked no more from Sutton?—No. And never complained to any official, or any one but H. R Russell?—No. Where did Tanner meet you on Saturday week last?—On the road near Cuff's. Did you go straight to Hamlin's office?—I went to the public house; Tanner went to Hamlin's. He afterwards came and fetched me from the door of the hotel. Were you drinking?—No. You are quite sure Tanner came for you?—Yes. Last night you said Hamlin came to fetch you.—I said he came for Paramena; the other is incorrect. Where did you go with Tanner?—Into Hamlin's. And Paramena and Martin Hamlin were there?—Yes. Was it then that the conversation commenced?—Yes; Hamlin spoke to me. Did the interpreter speak to you?—Yes. Martin Hamlin or Josiah Hamlin?—Both. Did they use the same words as Tanner?—Yes. Was Paramena present all the time?—No; he left before me. When you were telling Tanner your version of what took place between you and Tanner, did not Paramena check you, and tell you to be cautious what you said?—No, he did not. Whose company did you leave the office in?—Paramena's; he had come to fetch me; Tanner, also, was with us. Did Paramena tell you upon the road to be cautious what you said?—No, he was angry with me for going there, and at Tanner for questioning me. Did Tanner do anything more than ask you if you remembered what took place at previous interviews? page 73 —His questions related to what took place previously. When Tanner asked you and Paramena to go to Cuff's office, did you make any objection to going?—No. Are you quite sure that you told Tanner you were going to give evidence for the complainants?—I said, By and by you will hear some good words, when I stand up to speak." From what Tanner said, did you not expect him to call you as a witness?—No. He did not say anything about it?—I sail to Tanner that I had condemned him. I did not think then that I should stand up for him.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: The first thing in Cuff's office was to sign the deeds?—Yes. Was it after that that you and Paramena were informed that you were only to get £1,000 between you?—Yes. And when you asked for money, you were told there was no more to get?—Yes, and my companion ran away; he was angry. Did you see any cheque in the room?—No. Any money?—No. You were asked if you had not complained to a number of people; had not the whole of the grantees of Heretaunga been complaining of the way in which the business was done?—Yes. Had they not had meetings on the subject?—Not Paramena and myself. Were there not meetings of the tribe to which you belonged, about this land and others?—Yes Did you not send petitions to Parliament, asking for a Commission?—Yes. Were you aware that the present complaints were being lodged by Karaitiana and others?—I had heard of them. Had you not gone to H. R. Russell in reference to your own complaint, previous to the sitting of the Commission?—A long time before, and several times. Were you satisfied when you got the £300 from Sutton?—I did not receive it. Would that sum have been full satisfaction for your claim?—If £700 had been paid me, it would have been very near it.

By the Chairman: Paramena and you live together?—Yes. Paramena used to receive and divide the rent?—Yes. Which was the largest hapu, yours or Paramena's?—They were equal. You said you received £30 of £100 rent?—That was for myself individually. Was not Paramena's share of Heretaunga larger than yours?—It was.

Noa Huki, examined by Mr Sheehan: Do you remember the Herelaunga block passing through the Court; and afterwards being leased to Tanner?—Yes. After that, when did you first hear anything in reference to the sale of the block?—I did not hear anything about selling for a long time after; it was quite lately when I heard. What was the first thing you heard?—It was after my signing, that I heard of the selling. Where did you sign?—At Owhiti. Do you remember F. E. Hamlin calling on you, about the sale of Heretaunga?—Yes; he said, "I have come to get you to sign; Karaitiana and all the rest have signed." To sign what?—The document. For what purpose?—I have been thinking about that conversation all the time I have been here, and cannot remember; the only thing I can remember is, Hamlin's request for me to sign my name. To what kind of document?—I am not clear. Was it a document like this?—Perhaps. Is the signature like your writing?—It is like mine—it is my writing. Did you know the object of the document?—I did not know. Was it read and explained?—I do not know; perhaps it was. Was there any pakeha with Hamlin?—No, he was alone. Did the document concern any piece of land?—I page 74 remember nothing that was said on that occasion. But you signed the document that Hamlin brought?—Yes. Did you ask what it was about?—I have already stated that I do not remember anything said between us. What next do you remember?—My knowledge of any other portion would be similar to this. Another person I saw was Martin Hamlin; I remember going with him along the road, but what our business was I cannot say. If he says I signed a document, I did. Was anything said, on either of these occasions, about your debts?—I do not know. When did you first hear of your debts?—I am clear about that occasion; it was when Martin Hamlin, Maney, and Peacock came to speak about my debts, and also about my share of Heretaunga. What was said on that occasion?—They came to show my own debts and Renata's; Maney mentioned my debts as £300. I asked Maney what the £300 was for; Peacock said, "You don't know." Did he not tell you?—No. Did you owe him any money?—Yes. Do you know how much you owed?—I thought it was £200, not so much as £300. Did Peacock ask you to do anything?—Maney asked me to sign Renata's name. For what purpose? For Renata's debts to Maney. What did you do?—I said, "You have come from Omahu; why did you not get the signing done there?" I was then at Owhiti. Maney said, "I have come to you two, that your debts may be paid out of Heretaunga." (The Chairman: What two did he speak of?—Renata and myself.) It was to be for him to show to Henare. I cannot say whether I signed it or not; it will be for Maney to say that. [Two orders are shown, and read to the witness,] Do you remember signing any documents similar to those?—They know about the words; they asked me to sign, and I signed. Did you owe Maney any money?—No. Did you owe Peacock £660?—I do not know; he can speak for that. I am clear about my signatures; but the words are theirs; they were not read to me. To whom did you owe money?—To Peacock, only; I owed nothing to Maney. After this, what occurred next?—Afterwards I went to Pakowhai; there was a talk about coming into Napier; it was when we came in to get the money. When you came in, where did you go to?—To the building formerly used as the Native Lands Court; Karaitiana, Henare, Manaena, Pahoro, and Paramena were with me. Were any pakehas there?—Cuff was there, that was my first seeing of him; Tanner, Williams, Martin Hamlin, Peacock, Maney, and it may be others. Did you go inside?—Yes. I again heard then from my friend Peacock that my debts were £300, and Renata's, £700. I heard also that there was £1,000 for each person in the Grant. I was angry that there was only £1,000 for each person. I spoke out loudly in the room, and asked why Arihi should have £2,500, and we only £1,000 each. I then spoke in reference to Karaitiana, and said that his portion should be given to me. Where were Karaitiana and Henare then?—In another room, with Tanner. Cuff replied to my word; he said, "You yourselves have agreed that Karaitiana should be the head," I began to think within myself that perhaps my friends had arranged this; for I did not know of it. Had you signed the deeds at this time?—Yes. Before this talk began?—Yes. We were merely sitting in the room when I spoke my thoughts. You say you were surprised to hear of Karaitiana being the head?—Yes; I then beard it for the first time. Had you ever agreed that Karaitiana page 75 should manage these monies?—No. What took place after this?—Williams said, "Your money is expended; there is only £100 left; said,. "Keep that for Renata," and went outside; I was vexed and angry. Renata is a brother of mine, and our claims were equal. Karaitiana asked me to remain, on account of the money for the lease; I went back, and he gave me that money, £150. That was all, and I went away. At the time you objected in this way, did any of your friends also object?—Yes; I know of Paramena running away, when Tanner said, "That is all the money for you two." You had come in to get money from the sale of Heretaunga?—Yes. Did you see any money?—No. Did you see any cheques?—I do not know. You told James Williams to give the £100 to Renata?—Yes. Do you know what became of that £100?—Yes; when I got to the settlement, I spoke to the people, and to Renata, saying the money was all gone; I spoke about the £100 to Renata. I afterwards saw Williams,—I do not remember where—and said, " Friend, where is the £100 I told you to keep for Renata?" Williams replied that Cuff had said that I had signed that it was to be given for my debts; but I suppose my friends Peacock and Maney had got it. It was in consequence of what they said that I concluded they had got it. When the Commission first sat, I saw Mr James Williams; I was with Hamlin, at the time. I said, "Friend, we two and you will talk to the Commissioners." He said, "What for?" I said, "For the money." Williams said the incorrectness of my talk would be seen in the writing. Before last Sunday I saw Williams going out of the other door. I went after him, and detained him. I took him outside, and said, " Friend, you are not one of my friends, to get that money, which was for me." He stood, and said, "Which money?" I replied, "The money which you said was for me—£100." He said, "I do not know." I said, "Friend, my talk has continued to exist concerning that word." He paid, "Wait; I will find out," and went in. I kept standing and walking about outside, and that was the end of it.' Were you aware, at the time of signing, that Karaitiana and Henare were to get more than £1,000?—I did not hear that; the signing was all done before we began to talk about the money. After that, you proposed dividing Karaitiana's money?—Yes. Was that part of his £1,000?—No. Karaitiana had £1,000 in the land, and £1,000 out of it. If you had known, before signing, that these people were to get so much more than you, would you have signed?—No; was I not disputing it among ourselves? And you had never been told that these two were to get so much more?—No. Did you hear what was to be done with Karamu?—Yes. What did you hear about it?—It was a word—perhaps of the Europeans—that all of us in the Grant should be included in that piece. Your money, then, seems to have gone entirely in these two payments to Peacock and Maney?—Yes; that is what Renata and I complain of. Have you ever received one shilling in cash out of the business?—No. You have said you represented Renata as well as yourself in the Grant?—Yes. Have you ever received any accounts, showing how this money was made up?—No.

Cross examined by Mr Tanner: You said, just now, that it was after your signing—quite lately—that you first heard of the selling?—I said I was not quite clear what took place at the first writing, on account of so many people coming for me to sign different things. Are you in page 76 the habit of signing documents without their being explained to you?—Maoris often sign papers without knowing their purport. You are an ordained minister, I believe, and should know better: are you in the habit of .so doing'?—I am acquainted with missionary teaching; but not with this kind of thing At the time of writing I know, of course; but after a long lime, who can tell? Then you admit you knew what you were signing at the time?—The words of those orders are unknown to me. You admit signing them; would you have done so if they had not been explained to you?—No. How do you know that the amount in the orders is not what was mentioned to you?—I said then that my debts were £200, and I continue to do so now. My signing was for the money I owed. If you only owed £200, why did you not object to the amount named in the order? Did you lead them before you signed them?—I do not know. [Mr Tanner reads the orders.] They were not so read to me when I signed them. When you were signing this paper, did you not put on your spectacles, and read the amount?—I did not know of these figures then; if I had known at the time, the knowledge would have remained with me. When you went to Pakowhai, to talk over the sale of Heretaunga, did you go at Henare's or Karaitiana's request?—I had been staying there some time. Did they ever send for you to talk over that subject?—No, I heard of the selling of Heretaunga, and came. From whom did you hear of it?—From the others, who had sold and arranged—Karaitiana and others—after the arrangement had been made about their selling. Did they tell you what those arrangements were?—No. Did you ask them?—No. Then what did you go there for?—That was one of our places; I merely went there going backwards and forwards. I heard of the sale of Heretaunga at all the places; not only at Pakowhai. I saw them at various places in the district. What did you say to them about it?—Nothing. Why did you not speak, being a grantee?—What was it to talk about? I did not say anything to them. Were you satisfied with their arrangements?—I was agreeable to what they said about the selling. What particulars of the sale did they give you?—f do not remember. Do you mean that you agreed to be bound by what Henare and Karaitiana would arrange?—I agreed merely to their words. Did you raise any objection to what they said about the sale of Heretaunga?—[Witness did not answer] (The Chairman: Do you remember what the total purchase money was to be?—I was not quite clear then about that. Did you hear what each person was to get?—Yes. You were not clear about the whole?—I was not. When did you hear that each man was to receive £1,000?—In Cuff's office. Had you not long previously heard the terms of sale?—No.) What terms did you hear?—None; I only heard of the selling; all the talk about the amount, occurred when we came in. Did you never tell the Rev. Samuel Williams that you had a meeting at Pakowhai to talk about the sale of Heretaunga?—No. Nor that Henare and Karaitiana had sent for you to that meeting?—No. Had you any conversation with him on that subject?—I have no recollection of any. I. ask you now about signing the deed in Cuff's; was it read to you before you signed?—I do not remember anything other than what I have stated. I can only speak of what I remember; I did sign the deed. Then perhaps you can remember if it was read over?—I have spoken page 77 of that already. Do you remember the amount mentioned in the deed, £15,000?—If I had obtained my knowledge then, I would have retained it. Did you expect that Karaitiana and Henare would claim no more than the others?—It is only in this Court that I heard of those things. Did you think Henare would take a larger share than he would give to Paramena or Pahoro?—I have heard that here. I did not think at that time that it would be so. Did you not know that Henare was entitled to a larger share than Pera Pahoro?—We have all heard here, for the first time, of this saying. I knew that Henare claimed that land from two different sides. Did he not, then, have a larger interest than Paramena?—No. Were they equal?—Yes. And Waaka Kawatini?—They were all the same; Henare claims on Karaitiana's side, and also on Arihi's side. Whom do you consider the largest claimant?—They were all equal. Was your share equal to Henare's?—My land is included in the Crown Grant for the block. Could you sell without the consent of the others?—I would not have done so. Then was it understood that no one was to sell without Karaitiana's and Henare's consent?—No. Did you know Henare threatened to shoot any one who sold his interest without Henare's consent?—I did not know of it; we have all now heard of it at one time. If I had come to you to buy your share, would you have sold without Karaitiana's or Henare's consent?—I do not know. You say you have received no money—do you not consider an order the same thing as money?—No, it is not the same; it is not given to me to pay my friends, to whom I am indebted. Then if you write me an order, am I not to cash it?—It would be right if I wrote it myself, and knew what was in it. Do you not know that signing a document is the same as writing it?—It is time for you to cease asking me questions—I will not trouble you further.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles: If Renata wanted money, would you give it to him?—Yes. If he asked you to pay his debts, would you do so?—Yes. When you signed those documents, was it not explained what Renata owed, and what you owed?—Yes. And you agreed?—Yes.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Did you agree that you and Renata owed Maney £345?—No. Did you agree that you owed Peacock £667?—No. Did you know how much Renata owed Peacock?—No. Had Renata told you how much it was?—He had not spoken to me about it.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: According to Maori custom, have Karaitiana and Henare any mana over the end belonging to you and Renata?—No. Do you think that now a Crown Grant is issued for it, they have a mana over your share?—No. Explain what you meant when you said you would not sell without Henare's and Karaitiana's consent?—At the time of the lease, Karaitiana and ourselves were one; Karaitiana would take the money, and I would send Renata for my share. Renata and myself received £150. Some years Karaitiana would retain the £50, and we would only get £100. Did Henare and Karaitiana claim by Arihi's side?—Not Karaitiana, but Henare. When the Crown Grant was issued, Arihi got her own. My reason for saying I would not sell unless Henare and Karaitiana sold, was because I was unwilling to sell. Who divided the rents?—Karaitiana and Henare.

The Commission then, at 5.40 p.m., adjourned.

page 78

Wednesday, March 19, 1873.

Tareita Te Moananui, examined by Mr Sheehan: When were you first spoken to about your interest in Heretaunga?—After I had been two years in Parliament in Wellington. Who first spoke to you about it?—Maney, Peacock, and Tanner. Did they come to Wellington while you were attending the session?—Yes. Which of them was it you first saw?—They, the three, came together. Where was it in Wellington that they spoke to you?—In an hotel in the town; the name of the place where the hotel was is Kaiupoko. Did they come to see you, or you go to see them?—No, I went there to Parliament. But when they met you at the public house?—They came to me. What was said at that time?—F. E. Hamlin was with them. They said their coming was to ask me to give up my Crown Grant of Heretaunga. I said I was not willing. They said, "How is that?" I said, " Because your word is wrong; coming to me away from my own place." That was all I said to them on the first day; I ran away. On another day I was brought from my house at Te Aro; I came to their place in the public house. Who brought you?—Maney and Peacock. I was led into a room in the public-house, and the talk of these two commenced, the same as on the first day. They asked me to consent to give up my Crown Grant, and I would not agree. They urged me to consent, as my debts were unpaid; if I did not agree to give up my share, perhaps a summons would issue against me. They continued from breakfast to dinner time urging me to consent. We dined there; after dinner the talk began again. I was sad on account of the work of those people. I then consented that they should have my grant. At the time I consented that Maney and Peacock should have my Grant, I saw Tanner; he then came in for the first time on that day. I had seen him before, on the first day. Tanner and the others talked in English, and then Tanner spoke to me. I said, "Have you finished your talk with Maney?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Where is my strength now? you are killing me." Tanner said, "It is well; the matter rests with you, you have consented." When we saw Tanner, we had finished our talk, and come down stairs. What took place further?—Tanner's word ended, and so did mine. He at first said to me, "What is your thought about the Grant?" I said, "My money is £2,000." Tanner said he would not be able to consent to that sum; that the money that was arranged for each person in the Grant was £1,000. I said, "If you knew that, why did you come here to murder me? why did you not wait till I got back to my own place?" We contended over it, and Tanner agreed to give £1,500. This was the end of that conversation, Tanner consenting to the £1,500. Who was the interpreter?—F. E. Hamlin. The management of the £1,500 was with Maney and Peacock. The £1,000 was divided—one side to Maney, and one to Peacock; out of the £500, £300 came to me; the £200 went with the £1,000. I said to Tanner, "You hold the £300. Wait till I go back to my own place, and when I meet you, and ask you for it, pay me." Tanner consented, saying, "It is well." Maney, Peacock, and Hamlin heard all this. Our conversation about the money ended there, and we went to another room—myself, Maney, and Peacock, perhaps Hamlin, for they were never separated. My talk with Tanner was then page 79 finished. When we got into that room, Maney paid me £20 in cash, and Peacock another £20, making £40. When the £40 was paid, I said, "Let me have the gig." Maney agreed, and we went down the street until the gig was discovered. Maney and Peacock found the gig, and, in the evening, came to Te Are. They told me they had seen the gig, and purchased it. They told me to go to the hotel, where they were staying, after dinner. I said, " What is the price of the gig?" They said, "£100." After dinner I went to their house. They said, "We must go and drive about in the gig." They went to the house where the gig was, harnessed the horses, and got in; we droye from town to a place called Ngahauranga, and back to the hotel. I asked them to arrange with some person to take charge of it, and to put it on board when the steamer left for Napier. That is the end of my talk about these pakehas getting my Grant. I continued to think of the £300 Tanner had promised. Did you sign a deed in Wellington?—Yes. By whom interpreted?—F. E. Hamlin. I continued to think about the £300; sufficient for the European was the £1,200. After the session I came to Napier, and tried to see Tanner. When I met him, I said, "Where is my money?" I saw him at Maney's. He said, "We will talk about it by and by.". I ceased to question him, He went to his own place; I remained at mine. During another month I saw him again. I said, "I want my money—the £300 I asked you to take care of in Wellington." Where was this meeting?—I do not remember. In reply, Tanner said, "Maney has got the money; Maney has written to me, saying you have consented that the money should be given to him." I said, "That statement is untrue;—is it so—has Maney got that money?" he said, "Yes " I then became angry with Tanner. I held on to my words till the Commission came, when I again say Tanner. He spoke to me during the sitting, making the same statement as before—that Maney had written to him, saying that I had authorized the money to be paid to him. This money I had intended to distribute among the outsiders in my hapu. My idea, after all this, is that my money has been stolen, and I request that Tanner and Maney give back my money—the £300—that is my word now. You have described their proceedings as a murder [_patu]—for what reason?—Because I was living in another district, on another person's land, and they came to me there. Were there any of your people in Wellington, whom you might have consulted at the time?—Do you think that is a place where my friends are to be found? I had no friends there; I was alone. Do you remember speaking to Wilson, the lawyer, in Wellington?—I do not remember, and will not speak of anything that I do not remember definitely. H. It. Russell is the person I remember speaking to; he spoke to M'Lean—this was at the same time, when I was in Wellington, in Parliament. You were indebted to Maney and Peacock?—Yes. When you went to Wellington, did you know how much you owed them?—That is what I did not know. When they were talking to you in Wellington, did they show you any papers relating to the state of the accounts?—Yes, they brought them with them. Did they ask you to sign those papers?—No. Did you know, of your own knowledge, that you owed them £1,200 when you signed the deeds?—All my debts to them were paid by that £1,200—that was my idea, Did you then receive from them page 80 any papers showing that your account with them had been settled?—No. Have you received any such since?—No; there is nothing to show it. You say you got £20 from Maney, and £20 from Peacock. How came you to get those monies?—I thought it was a present, on account of my consent that they should have my Grant. When it was paid I asked them for a gig, and I consented. Did you ask for that money?—No; it was paid to me without asking. When they gave it to me, they said, "There is some money for your own use while you are here." Had the gig been spoken of before the conclusion of the sale?—No; it was after the sale. How did you understand this gig was to be paid for?—Out of the £1,200, which they had received—not out of the £300. You say you had breakfast and dinner with them on this day?—Dinner; not breakfast; it was after breakfast when they came for me. They asked you to dine?—Yes. Did they ask you to drink as well as eat?—I did not drink; I was not drinking during the Parliament. You were told by Tanner that Maney had represented that you had given him authority to receive it; did you, in Wellington, give him any such authority?—No; I did not consent; I told Tanner it was untrue when I spoke to him. Did you give such authority at any subsequent time?—No. Have you received from any person any account or explanation, showing how this £300 has gone?—None from Maney, and none from Tanner, who had charge of the money. Outside of the £40, have you received on account of that sale any cash whatever?—Nothing over the £40, no other money. Why did you consent to sell this land—you say these people attacked you in a strange place, and that it was a kohuru?—There were two days during which they pursued me, and I ran away. At last I was tired out; I was there alone, and that is the reason I say I was murdered. At the time they applied, had you any idea of selling Heretaunga?—No; I had no thought of selling my share. Who spoke to you about being summoned?—Maney, and Peacock, and their interpreter. Was that said more than once?—During the second day it was once mentioned; not on the first day. Who did you understand would summon you?—The persons who said that to me. That is what all the pakehas in this place say; they take a bottle of rum with them, and go hunting after each grantee, telling him that if he does not sell, he will be summoned, and sent to prison for his debts. When the Maoris come into town, these pakehas take them into public-houses, make them drunk, and place documents before them to sign.

Mr Tanner complained that he was quite taken by surprise by Tareha being called. He was in possession of important documents bearing upon this statement. Mr Sheehan said that after Karaitiana's complaint, setting forth the particulars so minutely, the other side could not complain of being taken by surprise. The Chairman said he would see that the surprise, if it look place, should be only temporary.

Cross-examined by Mr Tanner: Did you not see Maney and Peacock in Wellington, and have a good deal of talk with them about the sale of Heretaunga, before you saw me?—On the first occasion it was Peacock, and not you. I then ran away. You say all the talk about the sale of Heretaunga had concluded when I first saw you?—You ask what I have already stated. Had not the price been settled before you saw me?—No; it was only my conbenting, with them. When we came page 81 down stairs, you asked if my talk with Maney and Peacock was over. I said, " Yes, my Crown Grant is gone." After this we arranged about the division of the money. When Maney and Peacock asked you to sell Heretaunga, did you not ask what you were to get?—Yes, and they said they could not say what the grantees would get. It was when you came that the amount was arranged; I asked £2,000, and you said you could not give it. Did not Maney and Peacock mention £1,500 before you saw me?—They merely mentioned that; I mentioned the £2,000, and they said they would not be able to give it. The talk was not finished then; but when you came it was settled, and remained according to your arrangement, £1,500. Did they offer you less than £1,500?—I do not know of that. Do you not remember when I came to see you, my asking if you were willing to sell your interest to Maney and Peacock?—I have mentioned that; I replied, "It is gone; I have consented." Did I not tell you to understand that it was your own act—that I did not ask you to sell?—You did not say that; I believed you were the foundation of their coming—that you were the person wanting to buy Heretaunga. Did I not tell you that Maney and Peacock had sent for mo to go and speak to you on this subject?—My idea was that you were the purchaser, and that they had conic to conduct the purchase. Are you quite sure that Mr F. E. Hamlin was the interpreter in Wellington?—Yes, or if it was not him it was his brother. There were two occasions when those interpreters came with Maney, in two different years. It was F. E. Hamlin who went about Waipiropiro; the Heretaunga affair was two years after that. Were Maney and Peacock present when you asked me to retain the £300 for you?—Yes. Did they consent to that?—Yes, you all three agreed. Did you not then give me an order to pay Maney and Peacock £1,500?—I have said before, I signed a document for £1,500, but no document such as you describe. Then what was the document for £1,500 which you signed?—The document consenting to the sale. (The Chairman: What did you mean by saying that the management of the £1,500 went to Maney and Peacock?—That was the money for my Grant; it was divided; I took £300 out of it. Did you not understand that if you gave the management to Maney and Peacock, Tanner would have to pay it to them?—The division of money was made at once, when the terms were arranged, £1,200 to Maney and Peacock, and £300 to me. Do you not understand that if the management of the £1,500 rested with Maney and Peacock it would be for them to pay you the balance, not Tanner?—It rested with Tanner to pay me the £300. The division was made at once.) Was the carriage given you before or after the division of the money?—After. Was it spoken of before the division took place?—It was after the £40 was paid that I asked for the gig. Then how did you expect the gig to be paid for?—Out of the other money—the £1,200. I have already said that all I received was the gig, worth £100, and £40. As that £1,200 had been already divided as the amount of your debts, how could the carriage come out of it?—That is a wrong question. I told you to take care of the £300, which was divided for me; the management of the £1,200 was with Maney and Peacock, and out of that the gig was paid for. (The Chairman: Did you not know that the £1,200 had been already eaten up by your debts?—Yes; but the £100 for the gig came out of the £ 1,000. The £1,500 was divided page 82 in this way—£400 to Peacock and £600 to Maney. The other £200 increased this to £500 to Peacock, and £700 to Maney. I did not know what was the amount of my debt to Maney; the £700 and £500 were for my debts; that was the reason for my agreeing. In the evening, when the gig was purchased, I asked how much it was, and they said they had taken one of the hundreds to pay for it. What was I to do, but to pay for the gig?) Are you quite certain that you have asked me for this £300 since?—I saw you at Maney's, and asked you for it. In Maney's presence?—No, you were outside, at the bridge. I said, "Is my money still remaining?" and you said, "We will talk of that by and by." My question referred to the £300, but I did not mention the amount. In another month I saw you in town; I asked you if you still had the money I asked you to look after in Wellington; you said it had gone to Maney; that you had received a letter from me, authorizing you to pay him the £300. I then said you were a bad man. Nothing more was said till after the Commission sat, when I asked you again, and received the same answer. Are you certain you have spoken to me since the Commission sat?—Yes; outside, on the grass-plat. Were any other persons present?—Yes, but they did not hear. Did you not ask me to go to Robinson's and buy you a suit of clothes? was not that all our conversation?—This was afterwards. You told me Maney had it; you asked me over to Robinson's to get a tarpaulin. Did you not see me walking with Samuel Williams, and run after me and ask me to go and buy you the clothes?—I do not know of that talk of yours. Perhaps the coat, waistcoat, and trousers are still remaining in the shop for me. When did you decide to complain to the Commissioners?—Since I have heard the discussion. Who recommended you to bring this matter forward to-day?—The thought was my own. Did Mr Sheehan send for you yesterday?—Yes, and told me this was the day for me to talk.

The Chairman said that Mr Tanner must give the Commissioners credit for some degree of intelligence. Both sides had examined Tareha to an extent not warranted by the importance of his testimony.

By Mr Lascelles: You say Tanner told you he had received a letter from Maney; how long ago was this?—I cannot say. Soon after your return from Wellington?—No. Since Karaitiana has been a member?—Yes. Did you go to Maney and ask if he had received that £300?—No. If Maney says you did, and that he showed you how the money had gone, will that be untrue?—Wait till Maney has his say, and I will know. [Question repeated.]—If Maney says that, I will say that he did not inform me—that it is not true. If a man takes your money, do you not know you can go to Court and get it?—That is the reason of all our troubles—you pakehas know all these things, while we remain in ignorance. That might have been done if I had gone to Maney, but I did not do so. I thought of that, and that 1 would not be able to get it. Have you ever mentioned this to Locke or M'Lean?—No. They are friends of yours?—Yes. Is Wilson a friend of yours?—No; he is a lawyer. Is Kinross?—No; he is the same as the rest. Have you mentioned this £300 to any one except H. R. Russell?—To no one except Tanner—he was the person who gave my £300 to Maney.

page 83

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: You told us it was said in Wellington that the grantees were to receive £1,000 each; was there a talk of the others having sold?—No; I was the beginning.

By the Chairman: What amount of rent did you receive from Heretaunga before the sale?—£100. From whom?—Karaitiana and Henare, the persons who managed the lease and the money. When the rent was paid, they used to send for me, and give me that money to divide among ourselves.

Rota Porehua, examined by Mr Sheehan: You belong to Pahoro's hapu?—Yes. Do you know anything of the circumstances under which a deed of trust was executed by Pahoro, on behalf of himself and Patarika?—On a Friday, Tanner asked me in Napier to go and fetch Patarika from Pakipaki. How came you to be in town?—I followed Paramena and Pahoro. On the Saturday, Patarika and I arrived. Did Tanner tell you what you were to bring Patarika for?—No. Where did you and Patarika go?—To F. E. Hamlin's office. Hamlin was writing a document. Had you received any money about this time?—After I had been standing a good while, Hamlin opened the document he had been writing, and laid it on the table. He said it related to the sale of Heretaunga by Henare, Karaitiana, Tareha, and Manaena. I said that I was not willing, and would not agree. That was all he said, and I went out, followed by Tanner. He gave me £7 on account of the rent. Did he say anything to you when he followed you out?—He said there was £700 remaining for Pahoro. To whose selling were you asked to consent?—I did not hear of the selling. (The Chairman: What was the £700 for—the rent?—I do not know.) Did you consent to the sale?—No. Did you knowingly sign any document at that time consenting to the sale by Pahoro?—I do not know of so doing. You are said to have signed this document, giving consent. [Document read to witness.]—I do not remember any such document. I cannot write. Was anything said by the pakehas about any share of the £700 to which you or Patarika might be entitled?—Nothing was said by Tanner, except that there was £700 to Pahoro. Who told you that Henare, Karaitiana, Manaena, and Tareha had sold?—I did not say they had sold; it was in the event of those persons selling. I said, "I am not willing to sell Heretaunga." No pakeha came afterwards to speak to me about the selling of Heretaunga. Did you not sign a second document, after Paramena and Pahoro came in to get their share of the money?—I did not sign, and did not go to their signing. Do you not remember signing another document after that?—No; since the first signing I have not seen Tanner till now. You have heard that Heretaunga has been sold?—I heard it afterwards. How much of the purchase-money have you received?—None at all. Do you not remember, perhaps a year after receiving the £7, signing a document about Heretaunga, Worgan being the interpreter?—I have no recollection of it; it is Worgan's own talk. It is said that about fifteen months after receiving the £7, you, Patarika, and Pahoro, signed a conveyance of Heretaunga for £300, Worgan being the interpreter—The signing when Worgan was present was about giving £500 to Harrison. I did not go to that signing. [While waiting for the deed to be produced, another witness was called.]

page 84

Patarika Rehua, examined by Mr Sheehan: You are one of Pahoro's hapu?—Yes. Do you remember being asked to come into town by Rota?—Yes; Tanner sent the old man for me, and I came. To what place did you go when you came?—To G. Worgan's office. What persons did you see there?—Tanner and F. E. Hamlin—they were all I knew. What took place?—I do not remember the words. Did you do anything?—I remained there. For what purpose?—Because I had been sent for about the £7 for myself and the old man—that was the reason of my staving Did you sign any pukapuka?—No. Is this your signature?—It is not my writing; but it is like it. [Document read.] Do you remember signing any such paper as that?—No. You have heard that Heretaunga has been sold?—It was when Paramena, and Pahoro, and others came in, that I became aware of the sale. What did you do with your share of the money?—I received none whatever,

Mr Tanner declined to cross-examine this witness,

The Chairman here asked Mr J. N. Wilson if he ever gave Karaitiana any information as to the amount due to him out of the purchase of Heretaunga: whether he explained to him that he was to receive £3,000—it having been so stated in evidence. Mr Wilson replied in the negative.

Richard David Maney (called, by permission, by the respondents), examined by Mr Tanner: Do you remember telling me you were going to purchase Tareha's interest in Heretaunga?—Yes. Mr J. M. Stuart commissioned me to purchase two or three shares in Heretaunga, and gave me £2,000 for the purpose. I was then aware that Tareha's share could be bought, and believed that Pahoro also would sell. Tareha was at that time in Wellington. Peacock, to whom Tareha was indebted, accompanied me, with an interpreter, to Wellington. The subject was the matter of conversation between Tareha and ourselves for several days. Was I present on any of those occasions?—No. I had seen you in Wellington, but had no conversation with you. The negociation with Tareha, which occupied some two or three days, resulted in his agreeing to sell to Peacock and myself, his share in Heretaunga, for £1,500, for the purpose of paying his debts to Peacock and myself. When we had received Tareha's consent to the sale, I saw Tanner in reference to the matter. He at first objected to the price, saying it was too much; he said he did not think he could give more than £1,000, or at most £1,200, for each share. I then informed Tanner that Tareha had agreed to sell his share for £1,500, and that if he refused to take it, there was another person, for whom Peacock and I were acting, who would take it at that amount; that we did not want it ourselves, but merely to receive the amount of our debts—in proof of which, I showed Tanner my pocket-book, containing Stuart's cheques. Tanner agreed to the amount, and, at Tareha's request, the money was paid to us. Mr Tanner: Did I not require an order from Tareha for the amount?—Yes. Was anything said about outsiders?—You stipulated that Tareha's people should get some of the money, and, as a matter of fact, they did. Did I ask that they should endorse the deed?—Yes. Did they do so?—Yes. Do you remember what I said to Tareha at the hotel?—I remember a long conversation.

page 85

Mr Sheehan said he could not undertake the cross examination of Mr Maney this evening.

By the Chairman: What conversation took place between Tareha and Tanner about his consent to the sale?—Tareha told Tanner, in my presence, that Peacock and myself had worried him into the sale about his debts. Can you remember anything about the gig?—Yes. "When was the £1,500 paid by Tanner?—Immediately after the arrangement was made. Was Tareha aware that the whole of the money was paid to you and Peacock?—Perfectly aware. Who was your interpreter?—Martin Hamlin. Did Tanner go to Wellington at the same time as yourself and Peacock?—Not so far as I know.' Who engaged Hamlin?—Peacock and myself. For what purpose?—Expressly to negociate with Tareha. Did you hear any arrangement that £300 was to remain with Tanner?—No. Tareha's only stipulations were that the money should be divided between myself and Peacock; that we were to buy the gig; and that he was to have a small sum given to him for his own use Have you heard before about this £300?—Not until now. At this time I held a promissory note from Tareha, for £1,004, which he has admitted; and it was to obtain payment of this that I went to Wellington.

The Commission adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

Thursday, March 20, 1873.

R. D. Maney's examination continued by Mr Tanner: I remember, now, that Tanner was on board the steamer, with myself, and Peacock, on the voyage to Wellington. Had you ever, before going to Wellington, any discussion with Tareha as to his sale of his interest in Heretaunga?—Yes. After Stuart had given me the £2,000, I was in a position to treat with Tareha. Peacock and I went to Petane, where Tareha was staying, and spoke to him about selling his share He agreed to sell, and gave Peacock and myself a written memorandum of agreement, in the Maori language. (The Chairman: Is that agreement in existence?—I have it at home. Can you fix the date?—About a month or two months previous to Tareha's going to the Assembly, the year after I went to Wellington about Waipiropiro.) Did you speak to Peacock and myself about Tareha's interest, before going to Wellington?—Yes. You expressed some doubt of my getting Tareha's share, and I told you I already had the promise of it. Did you ever see this document before?—I remember your writing it, and Tareha signing it, after considerable conversation [The document referred to was an authority to Mr Tanner to pay Maney and Peacock £1,500, dated 20th July, 1860] (The Chairman: Was this your principal business in Wellington?—My principal business was to recover the £1,000 from Tareha.

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: You told us yesterday that you had a commission from Stuart to purchase interests in the Heretaunga block, and money of Stuart's in your hands for that purpose?—Yes. You were to receive remuneration from Stuart for so doing?—There was scarcely a definite understanding, but I was to receive commission. When you went to Tareha, at Petane, did you have an interpreter?—I believe I had Hamlin with me, but cannot say; it might have been Villers. Is Villers licensed?—No. Did you go there on behalf of Stuart?—There page 86 is no doubt that my having Stuart's money placed me in a position to purchase. Was it in consequence of your arrangement with Stuart that you turned your attention to acquiring Tareha's share?—Certainly. Did you tell Tanner, at that time, that you were going out to buy?—No. But you told him after you returned?—Subsequently. How long before you went to Wellington did you first tell Tanner you were going?—It might be a week, or a fortnight, or even three weeks. Was your first informing Tanner of this agreement, and that you were going to Wellington to obtain Tareha's signature, the subject of one conversation?—What I remember telling Tanner is, that Tareha's interest would be sold, and that if he did not purchase it, some one else would. Why did you think it necessary, having Stuart's commission, to tell Tanner?—I had no commission. How came you to have the money?—To keep for him. Unless I could purchase the shares Stuart desired, it would have been of no use to purchase Tareha's for him. Why did you consider it necessary to go to Tanner and inform him of the fact, instead of carrying out your engagement with Stuart?—In the strict sense of the word, I did not undertuke any engagement for Stuart. Unless I could purchase the interests of Henare and Karaitiana, it was of no use my undertaking the commission; it was quite open to me to deal on my own behalf, with Tareha, for his share. When you received this £3,000 from Stuart, with what qualifications did you receive it? tell me, first, what you said—any reservations you made, leaving you to any extent a free agent?—Stuart fully understood that I might purchase shares on my own account. His instructions were, that unless I could secure a majority of shares, it was no use purchasing on his account. If I could not do this, I was at perfect liberty to purchase on my own account;. If I had purchased two shares only, I would have had to keep them myself—Stuart would have debited me with the £2,000. You said yesterday,—"Stuart had commissioned me to purchase two or three shares;" now you say a majority of interests—which is true?—Mr Stuart gave me distinctly to understand that, unless I purchased a majority of interests, I would have to keep them myself. In consequence of that, did you not go to Tareha?—Partly in consequence, no doubt; I often went to Tareha, about the money he owed me. I request a direct answer.—I should say certainly it was. This was about two months previous to your going to Wellington?—I believe so. After negociating with Tareha, what was your next step?—Either Peacock or I saw Tanner. Between seeing Tareha and Tanner, had you taken any other steps in regard to the purchase?—I believe not. (The Chairman : Was Stuart living in Napier at this time?—He was on a visit.) What did you go to Tanner for?—I did not go to him; I believe I met him; but I am not certain whether it was myself or Peacock. Heretaunga was the subject of conversation. Did you mention that you had been to Petane, and obtained a written consent from Tareha?—I am not certain; but I certainly told Tanner that Tareha was willing to sell Before meeting Tanner, had you gone to Stuart?—I do not know that Stuart was in Napier at the time; I believe he had gone away; but cannot be certain. Did you not consider it necessary to inform Stuart, of the progress of the negociation?—Certainly not. How long before was it that you received your commission?—Two or three months, I believe, but I really cannot say. Did you get page 87 the cheques from Stuart himself?—Yes; Peacock and I. It was a short visit that Stuart paid to Napier?—I cannot say; I do not know that I got the money till very near the time. The promise and understanding had existed six or nine months. I am not perfectly sure I had the money when I went to see Tareha; but I believe I had. Was the interview with Tareha the first step taken by you to carry out Stuart's instructions?—I cannot say it was; it was one of the steps; I do not know that I had taken any steps at that time. You understood that Pahoro's share could be acquired?—I had heard so; but never went to see. After the receipt of the money, had you seen any of the grantees?—I had seen some of them before. But after?—I do not remember that I did. Your instructions were to acquire a majority of the interests?—My instructions were, to do as I liked. [Question repeated.]—Of course they were Then you took no steps to acquire the other shares in the market?—I did as I thought fit. You had heard that there were others willing to sell?—From my general knowledge I knew they would soon have to sell. After acquiring Tareha's consent, and before taking further step?, you felt yourself at liberty to communicate with Tanner?—Quite so. What did Tanner say?—As far as I remember, that if we could purchase Tareha's share, he would purchase it from us. Was anything said as to the price?—I believe so. What was the price mentioned?—Tanner said he could not go beyond £1,000, or at the most £1,200. Did you accept Tanner's commission?—I did not; I never received sixpence commission from Tanner. (The Chairman: That is not the meaning of the question; did you undertake to complete the purchase for Tanner?—No; as far as my memory goes the understanding was, that if we purchased the share, and did not want to keep it, we would sell it to Tanner.) Did you see Tareha again on the subject before he went to Wellington?—I do not think so. Why not?—I pleased myself in the matter. Was it not that you had the prospect of making a better bargain in Wellington?—Certainly not. You allowed him to him go without completing the negociation, although his promissory note for a large amount was running?—It was past due. Did you have more than one interview with Tanner?—Very possibly. Did you inform him that you were going to Wellington to complete the negociation there?—Most probably. Was Tarehas till in Hawke's Bay at the time of the first interview with Tanner?—I cannot say; if there were two conversations with Tanner, probably one was before, and one after Tareha's departure. When did you first ascertain from Tanner that he was going?—It would be about the time that I was going myself Was it not arranged that he was to be in Wellington at the time of the negociation?—-It was an understood thing. When was that arrangement made?—In Napier; perhaps a week before we left—possibly less. What were the terms of the arrangement about Tanner's going to Wellington?—was there not some arrangement in reference to the payment of Tanner's expenses?—There was an arrangement about the expenses of Peacock, Tanner, and myself. What was that arrangement?—That if we sold him Tareha's share of Heretaunga, he should pay our passages; if we did not, we should pay his. A fourth person went, Mr F. E. Hamlin?—Yes. For what purpose?—Interpreting between Tareha and ourselves. Who was to pay his expenses?—Peacock and myself; we page 88 employed him. Was there any arrangement about being paid Hamlin's expenses?—No. Do you remember what they were?—Pretty heavy; my share—one half—was £20 or £25. Can you ascertain from your books the exact amount?—No, I always paid him cash, £2 2s. per day, and his expenses. How long were you away?—It might be ten days, or three weeks. Why did you consider it necessary to take Hamlin, when you could have got an interpreter in Wellington at less expense?—I did not know them; Hamlin always did my native business. You took him at an expense of £20 or £25 each, in preference to employing an interpreter in Wellington?—I should say so. Had he nothing to do but interpret?—No; a Wellington interpreter would have been equally serviceable. The arrangement was, that if you bought you were to hand over to Tanner?—No; in fact my friend Peacock wished to keep the share after we had got Tareha's consent, as an investment; we neither felt bound, legally or morally, to hand it over, unless so disposed. Tanner had told us he would not give more than £1,200; we were disposed to give £1,500 ourselves. What time elapsed between your first seeing Tareha in Wellington, and finally concluding the business?—We saw him on two or three different days. In dealing with Tareha, did you disclose the fact that you were dealing possibly for Tanner?—It may have come out during the negociation; I believe it did. It was a question of price—if we had gone a few hundreds more we might have kept it ourselves. You do not think Tanner would have taken it?—Not at that time. You cannot say you disclosed that fact to Tareha?—I cannot say; but believe, as a matter of fact, that we did. Before you went for Tanner, had Tareha been informed that the share had been purchased under these conditions?—Yes. And Tareha knew, before Tanner appeared, that he was the purchaser?—Yes. At what stage had Peacock scruples about handing over his half?—I cannot say. After Tanner came?—Before he agreed to give the £1,500. After Tanner came, what took place? Peacock and the interpreter are there, and you enter with Tanner—Tanner had some conversation with Tareha, asking him if he had made up his mind, and agreed to the sale. Tareha replied; the conversation might have lasted from five to fifteen minutes. Tareha was then aware that Tanner was the actual purchaser?—Yes. Did not Tareha then ask Tanner for £2,000?—I do not remember. Will you undertake to say that he did not?—No. They were at least five minutes in conversation?—I should say so. Can you remember the whole of what took place?—I can remember the substance During the time you were in Wellington, did you see any other person beside Tanner interested in the block? Mr Ormond, for instance?—I am quite certain I did not. To revert to the meeting at the Empire Hotel—what further took place after Tanner's conversation with Tareha?—Some general conversation followed, and the interview perhaps occupied three quarters of an hour, or more. Tareha gave Tanner an order to pay the £1,500 to Peacock and myself—each to have half the money. What was said about Tareha's debts at this time—the bale having been agreed to?—I cannot remember more than this—that he owed me more than £1,000, and that I was to receive £750 out of the purchase money. Had you taken any accounts?—No; I had no occasion while the promissory note was running. Wets the order written at that time or not?—I cannot page 89 say; Hamlin wrote two or three letters for Tareha at the time, and may have written this; Tareha wrote to his people, telling them he had sold, and that they must agree to the sale. Ton said Tareha made some stipulations about the hapu getting a share of the money?—Yes; he asked if the hapu was to get any. My reply was, that the hapu had already received their share of the money; that I had found labor and fencing material for their land. Did not Tareha make any stipulation?—What we gave to the tribe was according to the stipulations made by Tareha—that when we returned I was to give Taraipene £20, and some provisions during his absence, as he would not be back for a month or six weeks. Were any stipulations made with Peacock?—Yes, something similar, but it was a private arrangement, I do not know what it was. [unclear: Are] you unable to recollect whether the order was signed on this occasion or not?—Yes. Was it when the order was signed that the discussion took place about the division of the money?—About the same time. Were you present at the signing of the deed?—Yes. Where was it signed?—At Osgood's, I believe. Was any solicitor present?—Not to my knowledge—there might have been. By whom was the deed pre pared?—I do not know. Was it drawn by Hamlin?—I do not think so; it might have been; I had nothing to do with that part of the business. About what time of the day did you finish the negociation with Tareha, before Tanner was sent for?—In the afternoon; I am not sure that Tanner was sent for at once. Then it might have been another day?—It might have been the following day. Then you are not sure that the order was signed at the time of the interview between yourself and Tanner?—I believe it was after the signing of the deed. At any time, during the negociation, was any portion of the consideration reserved by Tareha?—I never heard of it. Then no arrangement was made that he should have part of the purchase-money, or that it should he retained by Tanner?—No; the only stipulation was, that we were to give him and Taraipene some money, and purchase certain things that he wanted in Wellington. When you saw Tanner at the Metropolitan Hotel, did you tell him what sum you had agreed on?—Yes. Was it a correct statement you made yesterday, that you told him if he did not take it, you knew another person who would, and showed him Stuart's cheques, saying you did not want it yourself?—I may have shown him the cheques; I should be inclined to say that I did; I certainly had them with me. It was true that at that time you were acting for Stuart, whose cheques you had in your pocket?—Yes; I was acting for myself. You were playing off Stuart against Tanner?—I was playing off myself. It was no use doing anything for Stuart, unless I could obtain five shares. You say Tareha agreed, by his order, to hand you over all this £1,500?—Yes. You mentioned an order on Napier as part of the payment; what was the amount of that order?—I cannot say; but I received the whole amount in cash immediately on arrival. A number of other grantees were at this time running up accounts with you?—Yes; Renata, Henare, and Manaena; theirs were small amounts at that time—Henare's, I believe, was under £100; the accounts were mostly for fencing, posts, wire, &c. I see an order from Renata, for £340; what was that for?—Payment of an account. Peacock and I wont to the pa for the purpose of obtaining his signature. Whose signature did page 90 you obtain first, Noa's or Renata's?—I cannot say. Did you take the particulars of the account Yes; not a detailed account; hut the lump sum. Do you remember what took place when you obtained Noa's signature?—I remember Hamlin explaining the document to Noa. You recognize this document as the order?—Yes. Do you remember the circumstances under which it was given?—Yes. Where?—At Omahu and Owhiti; we told Noa we had come to be paid, and that the debt was to be stopped out of the Heretaunga purchase. Did he object to the amount of the order?—He made no objection to my account. Did he not ask you why you did not go to Renata?—No. Did he make no demur about signing?—I remember nothing of the kind—if he had, I would remember it; I hear now, for the first time, that Noa objects. Was the order in favor of Peacock signed at the same time?—Yes. Before the same interpreter?—Yes; F. E. Hamlin. Were you present at the time?—Yes. Did you hear any conversation in reference to Peacock's claim?—Yes, Noa said it was very large, I believe, but he ultimately signed. Noa did not owe me anything at the time, so I did not take much notice. Henare Tomoana's dealings with you were not very large?—No. You received an order from him, on December 29th, for £53 10s, and, at a later date, another for £87 10s.?—Yes. From whom did you obtain payment of the £53 10s.?—From the Heretaunga purchasers. And the £87 10s. also?—I believe so. Did you not take proceedings against Henare for those amounts?—No; it was for a subsequent account, which Henare disputed. Some one had told him he need not pay it, because he was charged for grog in it. Did you ever lend Waaka Kawatini £100?—No. I produce an order for that sum—did you advance that money, as stated?—I paid some money for him in Napier, and advanced £10. I believe Dr Carr's fee was £40—he had at first demanded £100, which the Maoris agreed to pay him; but I refused to pay it. A child had recovered under his treatment, and they would have agreed to pay him any demand he liked to have made.

By the Chairman; Did Stuart ever complain of the course you adopted?—No. Did he place a limit on the purchase-money?—Yes, £12,000. What was your motive in preferring Tanner to Stuart?—I always held that it would be a betrayal of my duty as a settler to purchase a share in a block from the natives as against the person in occupation, because one or two shares taken out often will deteriorate the value of the block. I have consistently adopted the course of allowing the occupiers of the land to take it of me at the same price as I gave for it myself. I never received a bonus except once, from Russell Brothers, and that was because I held a mortgage. My real reason for objecting to purchase for Stuart was, that he was not a resident in the place. At the time you purchased Tareha's share in Wellington, had there beer, any revocation of the original instructions given by Stuart?—No. Did you tell Stuart that you had these scruples at the time?—No. Did you leave Stuart under the impression that you would use reasonable exertions to obtain the interests for him?—Yes, and I believe I faithfully carried it out; but he would not have accepted less than five shares, and I had no wish to have debited against me the purchase-money of three or four shares of Heretaunga. [Mr Tanner objected to this line of examination.—The Chairman thought it was not relevant to go into the case as between page 91 two competing European purchasers.] Since the conclusion of the business, have you furnished Tareha with any account of the money received by you for him out of the purchase-money for Heretaunga?—Yes, and I have received his promissory note for the balance still owing. In what way did you furnish him with the accounts?—By reading my books over to him. You received an order from Manaena Tini for £62 15s. 6d.?—Yes. On what account?—His current account.

Re-examined by Mr Tanner: You said you considered the purchase entirely for yourself, and that if I did not buy it, others would. Did you, in any way, act as my agent? (The Chairman: That is partly a legal question—the question has arisen in a former case, when a controversy arose between a cross-examiner and witness, on a point exactly similar. Put it what way you will, it involves legal questions, on which the witness's opinion is of no value. It is a mixed question of law and fact.) Concerning Noa's account, the witness swears that the orders were not read to him: is that true?—They were read and explained to the full extent of the interpreter's ability. Did Noa read them?—Yes. Is he a careful man?—Yes. When he signed those orders, did he express himself perfectly satisfied?—He did not dissent. Nor object?—He said he did not think he owed so much.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: You see Tareha's name to this deed?—Yes. It was signed by himself?—Yes. In your presence?—Yes. Did the interpreter write the other portion of the deed?—I believe so. It is signed with a cross?—Yes. Did you not say, in the Waipiropiro case, that you were not satisfied unless he signed his name?—Yes, in cases where I was concerned. Did not Tareha say in that case that he only made the cross where he was doubtful of the nature of the document?—Yes. Was Tanner to pay your expenses if he bought the land?—Yes. Were .you not working for Tanner?—Partly; not in a strict sense. What did Stuart agree to give for each interest?—He did not mention; some would receive more than others. His limit was £12,000. Was Tanner aware that you were engaged for Stuart?—Not from me until the very day of the sale He might have known from outside talk; it was pretty generally known here. (The Chairman: Did you receive, outside of your expenses, any commission or bonus from Tanner?—No; I believe I received £10, for passage-money and expenses.)

Renata Kawepo, examined by Mr Sheehan: I produce two papers: Do you understand that one of these is an order for £667, and the other for £345, out of the purchase-money of Heretaunga?—Yes. Do you wish to say anything about them?—The signature is like mine, but it is not my writing. It is a forgery, by some one who has knowledge of my writing. My debts were not the amounts mentioned. (The Chairman: The money was received by Maney for you: there has been no theft of the money, for it has been put against your debts in Maney's books.) I wrote my name to that document. If Maney had said £200, and Peacock had said £100, it would have been correct.

Mr Sheehan said that if the other side would call Mr Sutton, and the Rev. S. Williams, he would close the case for the complainants here.—Mr Tanner said he had no such intention.—Mr Sheehan said he would have to call these witnesses.

page 92

Samuel Williams, examined by Mr Sheehan: You are a relative of one of the purchasers of the Heretaunga block?—Yes. Are you interested in that purchase?—I have an interest in it. Along with whom?—Mr James Williams. Is it a considerable interest?—Yes. Did it begin with the lease?—My interest was left an open question at the time of the lease. It was left open for you to go into the lease?—Yes. And you did so?—I had money in my brother's hands. I was urged to go into it by the natives. It is difficult to define, but I give it as my answer, that I had an interest in the lease. Who were the natives who urged you?—Karaitiana, as spokesman for the whole, asked me to share the original lease with Tanner. This was before the land went through the Court. I declined; but after some pressure, I asked if they would allow me to name Mr James Williams. They agreed to James Williams joining Tanner and the other gentlemen. Do you remember when the question of putting it through the Court was discussed by the natives?—Yes, but I was never present as any of these discussions. Do you remember being applied to by Karaitiana for advice as to whether the land should be put through the Court?—Generally, but not with respect to that particular block. Do you remember Karaitiana expressing has fear that putting the land through the Court would facilitate the grantees in disposing of their individual interests?—I have no recollection of it; the apprehension on that subject is of considerably later date. I have no recollection of his applying to me on that point; he did on others. If Karaitiana said he did, and that you told him it would not rest with the grantees, would you say he was correct?—I would tell him, in such a case, that the grantees could do as they pleased; I told them it would place them in the same position as the pakehas. Renata Kawepo spoke to me on the subject; I told him I had complained to Mr Smith, the Judge of the Native Lands Court, of so few names being placed on the grants. I strongly advised Henare Tomoana to eat the Heretaunga block up among the whole of the owners, before putting the land through the Court. I never said a word to lead Karaitiana, or any other native, to suppose that the individual grantees could not dispose of their land. I also advised them generally to sell their land; not on any account to let it except for a very short period, as it would interfere with the sale. Your interest really began when your brother went in as co-lessee with Tanner?—Yes. After the land went through the Court, and the lease was granted, what was the first you heard of any grantee disposing of his interest?—I believe the first I heard was of Waaka Kawatini disposing of his interests to Parker. I will not be quite sure whether he or Tareha was the first I heard of. The first time I heard the question raided was by Henare telling me that Mr Henry Smith had assured them that individuals could not sell. I did not hear Smith say so; I only hear I it from Henare. When you declined to go into the lease, and mentioned your brother's name, did you know he was anxious to go in?—No. Had you previously ascertained from him whether he desired to go in?—I cannot say; I was only present at the negociation with Tanner, at Karaitiana's urgent request, to see that no misunderstanding between himself and Tanner should arise Had you not heard, up to the day of the meeting, that it would take place?—I cannot say positively; I had no intention of going. Did Tanner consent to the in- page 93 sertion of your brother's name?—Certainly; the responsibility was too great, for him to undertake, and his difficulty was to get persons willing to share it with him. I believe the lease was taken originally in Tanner's own name, about 1866. Did you acquaint your brother with this matter?—Yes, either at the time, or shortly afterwards He was in the vicinity?—Yes. I may have told him it was open to him to take a share if he wished. You were aware that there was a very great objection to part with the freehold of Heretaunga?—There certainly was. That Karaitiana, and Tomoana, and the other principal natives, were opposed to the sale, and felt strongly on the subject?—Yes, they were; they were averse to selling lands generally at that time. Concerning Te Waaka and Parker; you took great interest in that transaction?—Yes. I strongly remonstrated with Waaka on the subject, and explained that he had no right to sell without consulting the other owners. From whom did you hear of the arrangement?—From Waaka himself, I believe. Had you any conversation with the lessees as to the steps to be taken in reference to Waaka's sale?—I do not remember any; but I remember distinctly speaking to Mr Wilson, the solicitor, on the subject. You were instrumental in procuring the services of a solicitor, to have the matter inquired into?—I had nothing to do with employing him: it was an extraordinary transaction—Waaka making over his property to Parker. You saw Wilson more than once on this subject?—In reference to this and other subjects. What was the reason you took this interest in the matter?—It appeared to me that it excluded the other owners from any benefit from the land of which Waaka was a grantee. Was that the only objection?—I objected to the transaction as being a very peculiar one. Was it not that you were much concerned at one of the grantees parting with his interest in a block in which your brother and others were interested?—I should say not. Did you hear what became of the proceedings instituted on Waaka's behalf?—I was informed that the suit in the Supreme Court had been set aside; that was the first I heard of it. Did you hear also of any intention on the part of the lessees to purchase Waaka's interest?—I heard after they had done so—not before. You did not hear, then, of their intention to acquire the freehold of Waaka's interest?—I have no recollection of it. The purchase of Waaka's interest affected financial matters between yourself and your brother?—No; nothing passed between us on the subject for a long period after—I left the thing entirely in James Williams's hands. When you heard of the sale by Waaka, to Tanner and the others, did you make any inquiry into the circumstances?—I do not remember doing so. Did you express satisfaction, or otherwise?—I have no recollection of expressing an opinion of any kind; I considered Waaka in a much better position than before. I heard the facts stilted at the time—£1000 was paid to Waaka, and certain other blocks were handed over to him. Do you remember, after that, calling on Paramena and Pahoro at Pakipaki, in reference to their interests?—Yes. Why did you call on them?—I had promised to see them. To whom did you give that promise?—To James Williams. To any one else?—1 had a conversation with Wilson on the subject; that the grantees, being likely to make away with the property, should be induced to sign trust deeds for the benefit of the hapu. Which did you see first, Wilson or James Williams?—Wilson, I page 94 believe. Why did you go to Wilson on the subject?—Wilson and I had often previously spoken of the advisability of doing something of the kind. Did you promise James Williams to speak to these natives on the subject?—Yes. James Williams mentioned that he was going up next morning to take the deed. Can you remember what conversation took place? did he not tell you why it had become necessary to take this stop?—I heard, from whom I cannot say, that Pahoro, while in a public-house, had been asked to sell his share. Did you consider it an objectionable feature that he was in a public-house?—I heard also that he was not sober—I considered that objectionable. Was it not put to you that these people were likely to sell—that it was necessary to prevent them selling to outsiders, and that the only way to prevent it was to get them to sign this trust deed?—It may have been put to me; but would not influence me in the least, I do not think it was put in that light to me. What was the message you took?—To advise them to sign this deed of trust. Were you asked to use your influence?—I was asked to give the message, and I did use my influence to induce them to sign. The reason I gave to Paramena and Pahoro was, that they were both drinking individuals, and that if they sold, it should be with the consent of the other grantees, who would see they were in a proper condition. You considered sales by single grantees objectionable?—I have always been of that opinion. Has it not always been considered objectionable by the natives?—Yes. Did you see only the natives themselves?—There were several other natives present at the time. Did you give them any idea of what would be the effect if the deed of trust was executed?—I explained that they could not sell the land without the concurrence of the others. Did you say how far the others would be entitled to participate in the purchase-money?—No; I told them they would be entitled to a portion, but did not speak more definitely. Did they agree to take your advice?—Yes. Had you heard nothing of Mr Stuart being in the field as a possible purchaser?—I believe I had; I will not speak positively. You had heard of the offer made to Pahoro in a public house—does not that remind you that you heard of Stuart?—I must have heard of it at this time. Did you not look upon a purchase by a person outside as being adverse to your interests?—Yes. Was it not as much to prevent Stuart acquiring this adverse interest, as on any other ground, that you influenced Pahoro and Paramena to sign this deed of trust?—Certainly not. [The Chan man objected to a man being asked to make an analysis of his motives.]

The Commission adjourned at 5.20 p.m.

Friday, 21st March, 1873.

Mr S. Williams made the following statement in addition to his evidence yesterday: I have stated that I had an interest in the original lease. To guard against a wrong inference, I wish to stale that I had nothing to do with the negociations, nor was I consul led by either party on the subject. The proposition, by Karaitiana, that I should take part in it, was made after the execution of the deed. I was asked my reason for asking Pahoro to sign the deed of trust. One, reason I omitted to mention was, that I had heard of Pahoro offering his share in Heretaunga for sale in the street, and a gentleman told me he could purchase page 95 it at any time for a mere song. I was asked why I did not advise Waaka against the lease. I may state that I had become weary of the subject. I had spent considerable time in advising the natives not to involve themselves in debt, and not to mortgage their land, pointing out the serious consequences that would follow. Many of the natives I had carefully advised, afterwards mortgaged their properties, and, in some instances, I was told by them that it was no business of mine—they wished to be left to do as they liked. I have no recollection of telling Karaitiana that an individual grantee could not sell his share—it is just possible that I may have led him to think so. I did tell him that an individual grantee could sell his undivided share of the Grant.

By Mr Sheehan: After this business with the grantees, what was the next matter concerning the sale with which you had connexion?—I cannot say; I was never brought directly in contact with any of the negociations, and took no part in them whatever. Were you aware, from any of the co-lessees, that negociations were on foot for the purchase of Tareha's share?—I was in Wellington, snbpœnaed to the Native Lands Court at the time; I may have been informed there by Tanner. Were you aware that he was about to purchase?—Yes. Did you see Tareha on the subject?—No. You are well acquainted with Tareha?—Yes. You have mentioned that you considered the sale by one grantee, in the absence of the other owners, objectionable.—Yes. Did you make any suggestion to Tanner to that effect?—I heard Ormond advising Tanner on that subject. Did you also?—I am not aware that I did; I felt they had incurred such heavy debts that it was impossible for me to assist them in any way. Do you remember the advice Mr Ormond tendered?—Ormond advised Tareha very strongly not to sign any document whatever during his residence in Wellington; that he should be allowed to return, and meet his own people, before disposing of his land. Where was this advice given?—In Wellington. I met Ormond and Tanner in the street, and heard their conversation on the subject. Ormond asked Tanner to send Tareha to M'Lean, and he would use his influence to prevent Tareha selling. Did Tanner promise to do so?—I do not remember any such promise. Did he object?—No. Next time I met Tanner, and spoke to him in the street, he mentioned that when he got to Tareha's house, he found he had either signed or agreed to sign. How long was that afterwards?—I fancy it was the next day; I was on my way to the Native Lands Court, as near as I can remember, when I passed him. You were aware, before you left Wellington, that Tareha's share had become the property of the lessees?—I was told so by Tanner. At what time did you leave Wellington?—I was detained in Wellington a fortnight after this, attending the Native Lands Court. Then you would leave some time in August?—I cannot say. While Parliament was still sitting?—Yes. Having seen Tanner and Ormond, and afterwards seen Tanner, were those two the only occasions on which you have conversed with Tanner on the subject of Tareha's interest?—I cannot say; it was by mere accident that I met them on those occasions. I carefully abstained from having anything to do with the negociations; and used my influence to prevent the natives from selling. That was previous to this time?—Until the natives told me they were so heavily involved that they could not help it. When was that?—Shortly before page 96 Henare and Karaitiana sold. I pointed out to them that if they incurred such heavy liabilities as they were doing, they would have to part with the land. In one instance, at least, in trying to deter them, I mentioned that it would lead to the loss of Heretaunga. I succeeded in preventing Henare from signing a contract for a large wooden building. This was prior to the negociations for selling Heretaunga. Within a month after my return from Wellington, he signed a contract for another building. Did you hear of Pahoro having sold?—Yes; how long after he had sold, I cannot say. You heard before the final deed of conveyance?—I believe so. From whom did you hear it?—I believe from the natives. Did you not hear it from the lessees?—I cannot say so; I have no recollection. Did you hear any particulars of the sale, or the moneys paid?—No. You have given a general statement of your advice to the natives about their liabilities: you had conversations with them on that subject?—Of a general nature. They told you that some of them were greatly in debt?—Yes. Did you ascertain from them the amount of their indebtedness?-—Only that some of the debts were very large. Did you make any inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining?—[Reply inaudible.] Their fear was, I understand, that these liabilities would eventually bring about the sale of Heretaunga?—Karaitiana was afraid of this. Did you advise them on the occasion?—I remember advising him on one occasion, when he was hesitating between the sale of Heretaunga and .some other blocks; I do not remember the advice I gave him, other than that he should make the best arrangement he could, and not sell more land than he was actually oblige I to. Were they aware, at this time, that you were beneficially interested in the block?—They always spoke of it as such—Henare and Karaitiana particularly. Did you ever inform them that you were?—I am not aware that I did. Can you say whether the natives spoke of you as an owner, or as merely indirectly interested through your brother being one of the lessees?—They spoke of me simply as having an interest in the block; they would not draw any distinction between myself and my brother. You have said you did not make any inquiry as to the extent of their indebtedness?—They could not mention figures, but knew they were heavily in debt. You were not disposed to look favorably on the disposal by the natives of the Heretaunga block?—Certainly not; I was very sorry to see them parting with it. It was not an unusual circumstance that they should apply to you for ad vice under these circumstances?—They felt they had got into these difficulties through disregarding my advice, and latterly felt very shy of mentioning them to me: latterly it has been unusual for them to refer to the subject. Since the sale of the block?—No, before. Previously, then, they had consulted you very largely?—They had frequently consulted me. When they found themselves in difficulties again, then they returned to the old custom of asking your advice?—No; they felt they had got beyond my reach. Some of your advice was that they should sell as little land as they possibly could, and make the best arrangements?—Yes. When did you first become aware that the lessees had made up their minds to acquire the freehold of Heretaunga?—Some time after my return from Wellington. Can you not mention the time of your return more exactly?—Perhaps a fortnight after Tareha signed the conveyance. That would bring your arrival here to about the 1st or 2nd of August?— page 97 It is impossible for me to say exactly. The first thing I remember further was when I was at Omahu; I asked Noa if he had heard anything from Pakowhai, as I had not been there for some time. How long would that be after your return?—I cannot say; I was a frequent visitor at Omahu. Were you not aware that the lessees had made up their minds to secure the freehold of the block?—I had a general idea that they would avail themselves of any opportunity; but was not aware that they were seeking to buy. When did you have this general idea?—From the time of the sale by Tareha. Were you not informed so?—I. have no idea of any conversation on the subject. You often saw James Williams?—I was constantly meeting with him. The subject of Heretaunga would crop up?—Very likely; but I was not consulted. Were you informed?—Possibly, in conversation. When you went to Omahu, were you aware that the lessees would embrace every reasonable opportunity of acquiring the block?—I have very little doubt that I was. As a person interested, did you offer any objection to that course?—I have informed you that I took no part in it whatever. Did you hear, as a fact, that Tanner had begun visiting Pakowhai, with a view to negociate for the purchase of the block?—I do not know that I had heard it at the time; I did hear of it. From whom?—Both from Tanner and the natives. This was before the conclusion of the business?—I do not know that. I did hear of Tanner being at Pakowhai before the final conclusion of the sale. Did you hear what, the result of the.se earlier negociations was?—The result, I was told, was that the natives had sold to Tanner. You heard this from Tanner himself?—Both from Tanner and the natives. From what natives?—Henare, more particularly. Do you remember Karaitiana going to Auckland about that time?—I do; he and I were hardly on speaking terms at that time—it was before the final conclusion of the transaction. Was it before or after his return that you were informed by Henare that Karaitiana had sold?—After. Were you aware that Henare Tomoana was pressed to sign the conveyance in the absence of Karaitiana?—I cannot say that it was brought to my notice; I believe I heard of it for the first time since the Commission sat. You will not undertake to say, absolutely, that you did not hear of it?—I think I would have remembered if I had. When did you hear of Arihi having disposed of her interest?—Shortly after the transaction. After the first sale?—Yes. You then knew of the intention to acquire the other interests?—Very likely. You were then aware that Tareha had sold?—Yes. That Arihi had sold?—Yes. Pahoro?—I am not positive that I knew Pahoro had sold at this lime. I heard that he had sold, but when, I cannot say. Did you hear of Pahoro's sale before the final purchase?—I cannot remember. Then you were aware of the purchase by the lessees of Tareha's and Arihi's shares?—Yes. You were well aware that the lessees had made up their minds to acquire the freehold?—As opportunity offered. You knew Tanner was negociating with Henare and Karaitiana?—Yes. You knew of the great difficulty in obtaining their consent to the conveyance?—I heard of a difficulty, but did not know what it was, not being on speaking terms with Karaitiana. I am not alluding solely to Karaitiana, but to other persons qualified to give you information, such as Tanner. Being aware that the freehold was being rapidly acquired by the lessees, you say you preserved a strict page 98 neutrality?—I have already said I advised the natives not to sell more than they could possibly help. I understood that to refer to a previous state of things; you did not advise the lessees not to buy?—Certainly not; I did not, at this time, interfere in any way. The result was that the block did become the property of the lessees?—Yes. Have you been long resident in this part of the country?—About eighteen years. You have had considerable experience in leasing, buying, and selling land in the vicinity of Napier?—I have witnessed a good many transactions. Have you not also had personal experience?—Yes. Such as to give you an opinion as to the value of lands?—Yes. You have had experience of the value of land when turned to practical account for agricultural and pastoral purposes?—Yes. You are well acquainted with Heretaunga?—With portions of it. Can you state the value of the block in the beginning of 1870, being about the time it changed bauds?—It would be difficult to give an opinion; I hesitate to express it. I have only a partial knowledge of the block, not having been over a large portion of it. [Mr Sheehan said that if the witness was unwilling to answer, he would not press him; but thought that having preserved a strict neutrality, he was not in the same position as the other purchasers He withdrew the question] you have been over some portions of the block?—Yes. Such as you have seen is first-class land?—There is a great variety; some very good, and some inferior. There are large portions of swampy land, valueless without great expenditure; also sand and shingle-beds. Is there not a considerable area of swampy land in the vicinity of the Karamu reserve?—Not included in the reserve. In its vicinity?—It commences at one end of the Karamu reserve Is not that the only portion of swamp land of considerable extent on the block?—No; there was also an extensive swamp on the other side of the block. You passed through some of Tanner's land recently?—Yes. Pasture land?—It was supposed to be; both sheep and cattle were on the land. In any block of thousands of acres you would expect a pro-portion of swamp?—Yes; but in its original state Heretaunga contained an unusually large proportion of swamp.

By Mr Tanner: You mentioned that you took no part in the negociations; explain how you came to be present at the signing of the lease at Pakowhai? What position did Karaitiana occupy in regard to the lease?—He was the representative of the tribe, and controlled the matter. Concerning the declarations of trust: were you aware that they would militate as much against our purchasing as Stuart's?—Yes; the advice was given to prevent the natives from squandering their property, without reference to any purchaser in particular. Concerning the conversation with Noa: was it in reference to the Heretaunga block?—Not entirely. I told Noa I had not been at Pakowhai for some time, and enquired after the people there He told me that Karaitiana had called the people together to talk over the question of the advisability of selling Heretaunga. I asked "Are you thinking of selling Heretaunga?" His reply was, "We have left it with Henare and Karaitiana to decide, and to do as they please" I do not think anything further passed on the subject. Did Noa mention the names of the people present?—I am not aware that he did; he spoke generally of people concerned in the block. Did you understand from Noa that he had been sent for by Karaitiana? page 99 —Yes, or by Karaitiana and Henare. What is your opinion as to the position of Karaitiana and Henare at the time of the conversation with Noa, from your knowledge of native custom? Did the position assumed appear improper or unwarrantable?—Certainly not; Karaitiana and Henare had always been leading men in connection with the block, and principal owners.

By the Chairman: Tareha was in the Grant as well; do you say his position was inferior, as regards this particular block?—I do not think he put himself forward at all, though he was a large owner He appeared to leave the management in Karaitiana's and Henare's hands. Regarding the Heretaunga block in particular, should you say that the grantees were generally looked upon, both by themselves and other natives, as representing their hapus?—Certainly, for several years; but were afterwards looked upon more in the light of owners. Owing, I suppose, to representations made to them by Europeans?—Yes. Are you aware that sandy and shingly portions you spoke of are within the boundaries of the purchased block?—Yes.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: How long was it after your return from Wellington that you went to Omahu?—I have a distinct recollection of the circumstance, but cannot fix the date. Do you remember the first visit you paid to Omahu on your return?—I cannot say, unless the one I spoke of was the first. Which place did you first visit on your return?—Most likely Pakowhai. Were any persons present at the interview with Noa?—I cannot say; I merely put a casual question to him. Then how came you to have such a clear recollection of the conversation?—I was very likely struck by the information that they had decided to sell Heretaunga. Why should that strike you, when you were aware that two interests had already gone, and the natives had, to your knowledge spoken of the subject?—I believe, it was the first time I had heard that these other natives had actually decided to sell. Did not these conversations with Henare and Karaitiana take place before your visit to Omahu?—I cannot say positively whether it was before or after. [At Mr Sheehan's request, the witness here gave the Maori words used by Noa in the conversation, as near as he could recall them] It was left then to Henare and Karaitiana to decide whether the land should he sold or not?—Yes. Did you understand that it had been left so absolutely in the hands of Karaitiana and Henare that they could sell if they pleased, and only call the others together to receive the purchase money?—From my acquaintance with the natives, I cannot answer. [Mr Commissioner Manning: In some cases natives, by virtue of this authority, will sell without consulting others, and not be called in question; and in other cases, with precisely similar authority, the agents will he under the thumbs of other grantees] Would not Noa and the other natives expect to be consulted again before the final decision was given?—I considered a general authority had been given, the nature of which would be shown by subsequent facts. A native asked to sign a deed, if dissatisfied, will express it, not considering himself bound by the others. Did you inform the lessees of the fact that Noa had said the matter was left in the hands of Karaitiana and Henare?—I do not believe I mentioned the fact to any lessees till the other day, when I heard the question had been raised here. Will you undertake upon your page 100 oath to say you did not mention it before?—No. Did you then mention all the particulars, or the mere fact of the statement being made?—I cannot say. I ask, because when Noa was examined on the subject, no circumstances were referred to to bring the conversation to his memory. Do you not think it very probable that you mentioned this information, given by Noa, at the time?—I knew, after this, that Tanner was in treaty with the natives at Pakowhai, and concluded he knew all about it; I do not think it likely that I mentioned it. Do you remember the day of the week when this convocation with Noa took place?—Most likely on a Sunday.

By Mr Tanner: Do you consider Noa an intelligent native?—Yes, I do. Not one to be led blindfold into a transaction, like Waaka Kawatini, for instance?—Certainly not. What do you consider the chief reason why Noa and the others left in Karaitiana's and Henare's hands the mana of Heretaunga?—They were the leading men. Do you consider they left in their hands the terms of sale, as well as the consent to sell? [Question disallowed by the Chairman.]

By Mr Sheehan: From your experience of Noa, do you consider him truthful?—Perfectly so.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: What did you advise the natives about mortgaging?—I was constantly advising them not to mortgage. Did you caution Noa against selling Heretaunga?—I have already stated what took place between Noa and myself. Was he a friend of yours?—Yes. When you heard that the natives were about to sell, did you go and caution them not to do so?—My caution to the natives was against the mortgaging for debt; when the debts became so large, I ceased to caution them. Which of the other grantees did you caution?—Paramena and Pahoro especially; I also spoke to the others. Were you concerned in the preparation of the trust deeds?—No.

Noa Huki recalled, and examined by the Commissioners: Do you remember meeting Samuel Williams at Omahu, some time after his return from Wellington, a short time before the sale of Heretaunga?—I do not remember. Do you remember Samuel Williams going to Wellington, about the time Tareha's interest was sold?—I do not quite know of his visits to Wellington. You have stated that you were staying at Pakowhai one time when Henare and Karaitiana spoke to you about the sale, of Heretaunga—did you ever mention the fact to Samuel Williams at Omahu?—I do not remember it. Mr Williams has said that he had a conversation with you at Omahu to the following effect: [Convocation repeated to witness, in Maori]—I do not know of that conversation.

By Mr Sheehan: do you think it likely you made such a statement to Mr Williams?—If I had heard those words I would have repeated them; but I have still no recollection of the circumstance.

Mr Sheehan had an application to make He was desirous that some of the registered documents should be copied, and copies accepted by both sides put in as evidence, to be published by the Commissoners as an appendix to their report.—The Chairman said the Commissioners were bound to report the evidence, and must take notice of documents, but would not encumber their page 101 report with anything not material He believed the majority of the documents could be described briefly by a person accustomed to the work. So far as the Commissioners could see, there was no necessity to examine them till after the close of the case.

Frederick Sutton, called by Mr Sheehan, complained that he had appeared on a subpoena, and had not been paid. Mr Sheehan said he was only bound to tender one shilling; he had already paid the witness £1 Is., which he regretted He would undertake to pay any such sum, over and above £1 Is., if any, as the Court should award. The witness was then sworn, and the examination proceeded with. You heard of the sale of Heretaunga?—Yes. You had a good deal to do in connexion with it?—I received some portion of the purchase monies. Did you receive any from Henare Tomoana?—I did; over £1,100. From Manaena Tini?—£604. Pahoro and Paramena?—Yes, amounting to £700. Do you produce detailed accounts, as required by the subpoena?—No; my ledger is in the possession of the Court. I did not consider myself called upon to do so; judgment was given by the Supreme Court for Henare Tomoana's account. You have a detailed account?—It could he made up from my books. You have taken a good deal of interest in this case?—Yes. You have expressed your opinion that this case, like others, is without foundation?—I have done so, in the most public manner. When did you first hear of the contemplated sale of Heretaunga?—Early, I believe, in 1869. It was quite a matter of town talk some time before it was completed. I was aware that Stuart was endeavouring to purchase, some time before the present purchasers commenced negociations. When did you first hear of it from the grantees or purchasers?—The grantees had been talking of it for some time; but I did not hear of it from the purchasers till the time of Tareha's transaction. I had heard that Maney was in treaty for it; but did not know under what arrangements. From whom did you hear it?—Probably from Maney himself. After the sale by Tareha, when did you hear further of the transaction?—I believe the next I heard of was the execution of the trust deed of Alibi's share; I only heard of this from common report. Did you see any of the intending purchasers in reference to the amounts due to you by the grantees?—Yes, I saw Tanner on two or three occasions. Did you go to see him?—Yes, and told him that the grantees, especially Henare and Manaena, were heavily in my debt, and asked him to guarantee them. You commenced an action against Henare, for £930, in August, 1869. Did you see Tanner before or after this?—Before; some time in July. Henare Tomoana had told me that Tanner contemplated the purchase of the block, and referred me to Tanner for a guarantee. Tanner told me he would do nothing of the sort He said if he completed the purchase, he might probably pay. I asked him to put it in writing; he said, no; he would not make himself responsible for a shilling, until some arrangement was come to about the purchase. That was all that took place between us on the subject, until shortly after I had issued the summons. Tanner, I believe, called on me—at all events I saw him—he was very anxious that I should not proceed with the action. Henare was going away on an expedition to Taupo. I replied that of course I would do so, if he became responsible for the page 102 debt. This he declined to do, and the action proceeded—judgment being entered in default of plea. No arrangement was made with you in reference to staying the proceedings?—None whatever, except that Tanner may have repeated, that when the block was sold he would endeavor to have the debt paid. Had you told Tanner that you would take proceedings?—I told him I would unless the debt was paid. Did he say anything against taking proceedings?—I cannot say; possibly he did. Did he not rather induce you to issue it, than otherwise?—Certainly not; on the contrary, my impression is that he pressed me not to issue. After the summons was issued he called on me, and asked me to check the proceedings. Before the issue, he had not suggested this pressure being put on?—Not in any way. I believe it was after it was issued that the conversation about staying the proceedings took place. I did not at once enter up judgment, but waited till about a month after Henare's return from Taupo. Did you ascertain from the purchasers how the negociations were progressing?—Yes; Tanner informed me from time to time; that I might not press Henare's debt, I think. Did he request your offices as negociator?—Not in any way. You remember Karaitiana going to Auckland?—Yes. Did you hear, previously, that he had signed an agreement to sell his share?—Yes; I was informed by Tanner or Hamlin. Tanner informed me that Henare had signed the agreement, and that probably at the execution of the judgment, he would be able to pay. How long was it after this, when you spoke to Henare about giving an order?—The first time I saw him—probably a day or two after. A second summons had been issued against him, shortly after his return from Taupo, in the month of December, I think. Did you not, shortly after this, take more active part than previously?—No, except that I saw Manaena. You went out with Hamlin?—No. I met him on the road; it was arranged that I should meet him. I went out for the express purpose of seeing Manaena, and getting his signature. Where was the arrangement with Hamlin made?—In Napier. With which Mr Hamlin?—F. E. Hamlin. The Government interpreter?—I believe so. At what place?—My shop. I suggested to Tanner that probably I could get Manaena's signature. How came you to suggest this to Tanner?—I had an impression that I could. I believe that I called Tanner in; I am quite certain that the business originated with me, and not 'with Tanner. I asked him if Manaena had signed. You heard Manaena's evidence?—Part of it He was leading a kind of outlawed existence, to avoid signing?—I knew nothing of that. In reference to Manaena's business, I am certain I began the conversation. Had you heard that Manaena was perverse?—I had simply heard that he had not signed. What made you ask that question?—Because I expected £600 when he signed. You had the same assurance from Tanner as in Henare's case?—The same general assurance. You had heard that there was a difficulty in getting his signature?—I had heard that Tanner had been out, and had not succeeded in getting his signature. Tanner reported that he had not signed. I suggested to Tanner that I might be successful in inducing him to sign. In what way?—By argument. On what subject?—My £600. What was Tanner's reply?—Tanner said he would have no objection; that Hamlin had the deed, and would accompany me. Did he not object, saying that Manaena owed you a large page 103 sum of money, end it would look like pressure on your part?—No; I would not expect him to do so. Your object was to use your position as creditor to obtain his signature?—I wanted my money, of course. I did not, directly or indirectly, threaten Manaena with any proceedings for my debt. I did not, on that occasion, tell him, as I had many times told him before, that I would be forced to take proceedings, unless he did something towards paying my money. Did you, before that, ascertain from Manaena what his position was in regard to that deed?—I knew he was a grantee. Before going, did you ascertain from Manaena what his reasons were for refusing to sign?—I had had no conversation with him on that subject. Had you taken any steps to consider whether the transaction was fair to Manaena himself?—That was not my concern; Tanner had told me the terms; I did not go into the question of fairness at all. The only question with you was your £600?—I had heard, both from Tanner and the natives, that the block would be sold for £13,500—Henare had told me that, dozens of times. Stuart was willing to give £12,000 for the block, which at that time was considered a high price. How do you know?—Stuart came to me to negociate the purchase, both of that block, and Hikutoto, which was leased to Government. I refused. From conscientious or business scruples?—Both. Tanner told you Hamlin had the deed—did he tell you anything further?—He agreed, and a time was appointed for me to meet Hamlin. When did you go out?—Next morning. I cooeed to Hamlin as I passed his residence; he followed, and overtook me as I entered the pa, You saw Manaena?—Yes, at his house at Pakowhai. Alone?—Several other natives were about, but there were no others in the room. He, Hamlin, and I went in together. Did you speak first to Manaena?—I believe I did. I told him what we had come out for; and we commenced talking the matter over. Manaena told me that Tanner had been out there a day or two previously, and that he had kept out of his way, because he wanted the annuity to be £100, instead of, £50 He mentioned something about a £100 cheque he had received from Tanner. We told him we could not entertain the proposition of the £100 annuity; it had been arranged that the shares in the block should be £1,000 each, and that we guaranteed the £50 annuity. After some discussion, he said, Well, I will agree to that, if you will let me keep the £100 cheque over and above the £1,000."We told him he must arrange that with. Tanner; we had no authority to offer more than the £1,000, and the £50 annuity. After a little time, he said, "Well, if you will give me a cheque for £20, I will sign" Hamlin then thoroughly explained the deed; and having no money, I gave him a letter that I would pay him the £20 next day. Did you charge that against him?—No, I believe Tanner paid it. I have no note of it. You have a fair knowledge of Maori?—Yes. You followed Hamlin in the interpretation?—Yes. It was that each grantee was to get £1,000, and that Manaena was to get £50 annuity?—This was the way I understood the deed. Hamlin heard you say, "You are to get your share, £1,000, and £50 per annum?"—Yes, he did; we were together the whole time. Did Hamlin interpret the deed to the same effect?—Yes. We had no negociation at all about the £1,000; the shares were fixed at that amount; the only discussion was whether the annuity was to be fixed at £50 or £100, I believe I page 104 gave Manaena a written memorandum, guaranteeing him £50 per annum. You understood that the £50 had been already promised, and you had your information of the terms from Tanner?—Yes. You believe you gave him a written statement to the effect that he should receive £50?—I believe so, but am not quite clear. And thereupon he signed?—Yes. [The deed of the 16th March, 1870, was here produced and identified, and the Commission then adjourned at 5.10 p.m.]

Saturday, 22nd March, 1873.

Mr F. Sutton's examination by Mr Sheehan, continued: When did you get the particulars of the consideration to be paid to the natives, from Tanner?—The day before I went to Pakowhai. At the time you offered to obtain Manaena's signature?—The same time. After that you received the order from Manaena, for the amount of his debt—£594, and an order from Henare Tomoana about the same time, which orders were accepted by the purchasers?—Yes, provisionally. Did you retain the orders yourself, or transfer them in the course of business?—I retained them till two or three days before the final settlement, and then handed them to Watt for collection. So that you had no occasion to be present when the money was paid?—No; I was not present. Some time afterwards you had an interview with Paramena and Pahoro?—I met them immediately after the settlement, near Cuff's office. They explained their grievance to me, and asked me to assist them. They said they had not received so much money as they were entitled to, by about £1,000. I am not certain as to the exact amount; the balance was £1,750, less the amount guaranteed, which would bring it to £900 or £1,000. The order; I understood, had been accepted by the purchasers In favor of Harrison and others. They gave you authority to act for them?—They did, and appointed me attorney by deed, with full authority to sue, or take any other necessary steps. I wrote a letter to Tanner, on behalf of the natives, signed by them, informing him of the fact, and one on my own behalf, stating the amount I claimed. Your application to Tanner was for a lump sum?—Yes. The letter produced is the one signed by the natives. Did you determine the amount for which you would make application?—Yes, after consultation with the natives. Did you see Tanner, or the other purchasers, while this was going on?—I sent letters immediately; about a quarter of an hour after meeting the natives. What did you ascertain in answer to your application?—In about a month, we having taken some steps preparatory to taking an action, if necessary, Watt called on me, and said he had been requested by the purchasers to try and arrange the matter. Had you any reply to your application before this?—I believe I had no reply whatever. You believed they intended to dispute the claim?—Certainly, otherwise I would not have taken steps to commence an action. As the only means of enforcing payment?—Yes, at that time. Watt offered, on behalf of the purchasers, to give £700 if I could get the natives to sign confirmative deeds. Had you a solicitor employed in regard to the intended action?—Yes; I am under the impression it was Wilson. Was Watt aware that these proceedings were to be taken?—He was aware that proceedings were threatened. You were first to obtain the signature of the grantees, secondly of the hapus, and, thirdly, that deeds should be passed page 105 by the Trust Commissioner?—Yes. These deeds were to be obtained at the expense of the purchasers?—They were not deducted from the £700, but the expenses of execution, interpreting, &c., were borne by the natives, by a subsequent arrangement. The £700 was not the full amount claimed; but was accepted in consideration of all the circumstances?—It was accepted as a compromise; I communicated with the natives, and was authorized by them Have you a copy of your application to Tanner?—Yes, at home. [The witness here went for the document. Mr Tanner said he remembered such a document, but had not kept it—Letter produced by Mr Sutton, and described as a demand on behalf of Paramena and Pahoro for £1,750, less the amounts the purchase is have made themselves responsible for] Tanner did call upon me, and informed me that the rent had been paid to Karaitiana. I had an order on Karaitiana for £100, but he has never yet paid. A settlement was come to between you and Watt, on the terms named?—Yes, and the deeds were executed and passed. You received the £700 from Watt?—Yes, immediately the deeds were completed, according to arrangement. It was arranged that Pahoro should receive £300, and Paramena £400 I gave them credit for those sums. Were they indebted to you at that time?—Yes, but not nearly to that extent. You paid away a large sum very shortly after?—£250, within a few weeks, for a steam threshing-machine, Wight from Harrison's estate; I suspect it had been bought previously with Paramena's money. Then he had the satisfaction of paying for it twice over?—I believe so. Why did you retain Pahoro's money, instead of paying it over?—He has never asked for it to this day. Has he made no application at all?—He has come to me for sums of £5 or £10, which I have always paid when he has been sober. (The Chairman: Then you are still in his debt?—There is a small balance of £40 or £50, still.) Is be aware of this?—I believe he is—as much as a man can be aware who is almost constantly drunk. The only time. I have seen him sober for years past, has been during the two days he has attended this Court. You have since been paying sums to the natives out of this money, and supplying goods in the ordinary course of business?—Yes. Have you given credit to the Heretaunga grantees for the sums received on their accounts?—In every case. You have prepared a statement of the amount of intoxicating liquor supplied to the natives?—Yes. The amount of liquor supplied to Manaena, from February 1st, 1869, to January 24th, 1870, amounted to £20 18s., out of, £594. Henare Tomoana's account, during the same period, amounted to £1,119 3s. 5d.; the proportion for liquor being £37 10s. Out of an account of £100 to Waaka Kawatini, the sum of £13 5s. was for liquor. Since you received the £594 from Manaena, has he received any acknowledgment from you?—I believe I gave him a receipt for the amount. Has Henare Tomoana received from you any statement how the £1,100 was made up?—I am not sure that he has; but before he signed the order for the amount, he went through every item in my ledger. You remember stating that, after issuing the writ, shortly before Henare left for Taupo, Tanner called on you, in reference to it?—Yes. Did any other person call on you in respect to it?—F. E. Hamlin, immediately after the writ was issued. On whose behalf?—I understood it to be on Ormond's. I had some words with Hamlin; I told him that neither Ormond nor he page 106 had any business interfering with me getting in my debts. Then if Henare was told that it had been arranged that you should stay proceedings, it was not true?—Certainly not. Henare could not have been under that impression, because he was with Hamlin at the time, and left for Taupo a quarter-of-an-hour after. Did the conversation between you and Hamlin take place in English?—I believe it did.

By Mr Tanner : Did you consider the sale of Heretaunga the natives' own act?—I am not in a position to answer. Did not Henare often tell you to wait for payment till the block was sold?—Repeatedly; I never would have allowed so large an amount as that to run up, but for that assurance. Did you hear of it from other natives—any of the sub- claimants?—Many of them; Manaena and his son, Renata, Reihana, and others. Long before the sale?—Months before. Renata (generally called Big Jim) owed me an account, which was transferred to Karaitiana's account, where it remains. Did you understand that the sale rested with Henare and Karaitiana?—I looked upon them as the principal men in the transaction. Did you look upon it as a settled thing among the natives, that Heretaunga was to be sold?—For months previous to the sale. Referring to Manaena; did you hear from him first of the £50 per annum?—No; from yourself, first, the day before I went to Pakowhai. You have shown the details of Henare's and Manaena's accounts; have you a similar account with reference to Karaitiana?—Yes, but not in connexion with Heretaunga. Was the proportion of wine and spirits much the same?—Much larger. Are you not aware that the native chiefs were in the habit of treating their European friends liberally with liquor?—Yes. What do you suppose is the percentage of liquor drunk by Maoris, as compared with Europeans—the percentage, say, on £1,000?—So far as my experience goes, the percentage of wines and spirits is larger in my business with pakehas than with the natives. (Mr Commissioner Manning: Which do you think would kill most—ten gallons drunk in ten months, or half-a-gallon in half-an-hour?—I cannot say from experience.)

By Mr Lascelles: How long have you lived in this district?—Fifteen or sixteen years. Are you acquainted with the grantees of Heretaunga?—Well acquainted. And the other principal natives?—Yes. You are doing as large a native business as any storekeeper in town?—Perhaps larger. Had you heard the sale of Heretaunga complaine I of, previously to Seeing the notification in the Gazette?—Not until the sitting of the Commission. You are still in communication with the grantees?—Henare has lately made several unsuccessful attempts to renew the acquaintance. I told him I had looked over my books, and found I had to summon him for every sixpence I had received. The complainants state that they were threatened with extreme measures—is Henare in the habit of paying his debts without being summoned?—No. Has he not been in the Resident Magistrate's Court five or six times within the last few months?—More often than that. Is Manaena fond of paying his debts?—He is different from Henare; he has always shown himself very honorable. On one occasion he brought me £640 in notes, and settled a debt He is about £200 in my debt now. Do you find Karaitiana pay generally?—No; I have had to adopt the same unpleasant process us with Henare. A writ was issued before his departure for page 107 Auckland, which was paid by his own cheque, the day after the sale of the block He was only lately sued for a debt incurred in 1869-70, for repairing and re-shingling his house. [Mr Sheehan objected to this question. Karaitiana might have a different story to tell.] When were these orders signed?—at what date did Manaena give them?—In my shop, on the date which it bears—the day after the execution of the conveyance. On that same day—January 7th—I gave Manaena a cheque for £10. When was Henare's order signed?—A day or two after. I believe it was signed in my shop—it is in my writing, both English and Maori. You have said that the price settled, was £13,500?—Yes. Were you positively aware of the price Stuart was willing to pay?—Yes; he requested me to take it in hand, and we had a conversation about it He said I was not to go above £12,000—he would give no more. It had been said that Tanner and others were prepared then to give £11,000. Henare told me that Stuart had produced a deed, and offered him a large sum of money to sign. You say you acted as attorney for Paramena and Pahoro: was it after consultation with them that you decided to accept £700?—Yes, and with their knowledge. Have they made any demand or complaint since?—No; they have never spoken to me on the subject; they have asked for their account. In the allocation of the purchase-money, had you anything to do with Tanner and the others?—No. I received the £700 from Watt, and gave him a receipt. When Hamlin came about Henare's writ, you were indignant at his interference?—I was. I told Hamlin that, as the Government were so much put out about it, perhaps they would be kind enough to guarantee it, and then there would be an end of the matter. My reply was interpreted to Henare by Hamlin—who was out of temper as well as myself—in strong terms. Can you recall the earliest date of your hearing of the proposed sale of Heretaunga?—I remember Pahoro intimating to me that he had not received his rent for years; that he was ready to part with his share, and that £200 would be acceptable. Did you threaten extreme measures?—I intimated to Henare that, unless he settled his account, I would register the debt on his property, which would place it in the position of a mortgage.

By Mr Commissioner Manning: Do you consider the natives as safe pay as the Europeans?—About on a par; I have had, perhaps, to use legal proceedings oftener in the case of natives; but have made fewer bad debts. Legal proceedings have been taken almost only in the cases of Henare and Karaitiana.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo; Do you know the Heretaunga block well?—I do not; I have been on it once or twice. You gave the natives a good deal of credit?—Yes; they showed me they had certain properties, and certain revenues, with which to pay their debts—and upon that I gave them credit. Did you know when they were to receive their money?—I generally knew when their rent was due. Did you know the amounts?—Yes, I was aware of the rent received by the principal natives for the different blocks. You gave them credit, knowing the amount they were to receive?—Yes; I would not have given them credit without. You know, perfectly, the rent of Heretaunga?—I knew it was £1,250, out of which something had to be paid on a mortgage. I believe I never received anything out of the rent. I knew the page 108 value of the land must be considerable, and that, by selling it, if by no other means, they could pay their debts. Did their annual accounts equal the year's rent?—They were considerably in excess of it. Did you ever inform the grantees of this?—I frequently told them how much they owed; but they were well aware that they could never pay me out of the rent. Did you not think, in your own mind, that your debts would have to be paid out of Heretaunga?—Out of their land. But Heretaunga?—Not in particular; they had other land; I thought of that, because they spoke of selling it. Was it not until you heard of this that you gave them credit?—I cannot say. Can you remember how long before the sale you first heard of their intention to sell?—No;—perhaps ten or twelve months. When was it that Stuart desired to buy?—Eight or ten months previous to the purchase. Was that when you first heard?—I had heard very shortly before. How long after, was it, when Tanner began to negociate?—Very soon. How much credit did you give Pahoro?—None, on that account, at all. When did you hear of I he intention to sell, from Henare?—Some time before. When I asked him for money, he said, "Wait awhile, I am negociating to sell Heretaunga." Was that before Pahoro spoke to you on the subject?—Yes. You gave credit, because you knew Heretaunga must be sold?—I felt safe in giving credit, because it remained unsold. When some of the grantees refused to sell, did you not make reference to your debts?—No; I knew that they had other properties, more than sufficient to cover what they owed to me.

George Davie, examined by Mr Sheehan, deposed: I am a resident in Napier, formerly an hotel and storekeeper at Waitanoa, on the other side of Havelock, where I carried on a European and native trade. I knew Paramena Oneone; but was not aware that he was a grantee of Heretaunga till a person called upon me. I see you had an order for £40, signed by him; is this the paper?—Yes. Was Paramena in debt to you in that sum at the time?—No. How came you to get an order for a larger amount than was due?—Martin Hamlin called at my house, and asked if Paramena and Pahoro were indebted to me. I said, yes, a little; Paramena about £30, and Pahoro, about £20; as for Paramena's, I could get it any time I asked for it He asked me if I would try and get orders from them, as they had signed a conveyance, had received nothing on account, and were getting frightened. I asked him who I was to give the order on, and he said the Twelve Apostles—if Mr Williams would not pay me, Ormond would. Did you agree at once?—No, we rode off together; I went on alone to the pa, where I saw Paramena; I told him he owed me £30, and that I would feel obliged if he would give me an order on Williams for £40; and that in two days I would return the £10. Why did you ask for £40?—Because it was thought £30 was a small sum to ask a purchaser of Heretaunga for. It was useless to ask Paramena for an order for £30, as I could get that sum from him at any time. Who wrote the order?—Hamlin, who arrived afterwards. Paramena objected to give an order on Williams; he would give an order on Sutton or Kinross, for a larger sum, if I liked. After Hamlin came, he consented, and signed. Why did you not accept an order on Sutton or Kinross?—Because Hamlin wanted the page 109 order to be on Williams—that was just about the fact of it. Hamlin came up while you were discussing the question?—After that conversation, Hamlin had a little conversation with him, after which, he consented to give the order on Williams. Hamlin wrote it out, and Paramena signed. After that we went to Pakipaki, to see Pahoro. Were you pressing Paramena for money at that time?—No, and had no idea of asking for money until Hamlin came and requested me. I called on Mr Williams twice, and then on Mr Ormond He requested me to wait in town to see Williams. I said no, I had taken the order to oblige them; it was no interest of mine, and if he did not give me a cheque, I would tear the order up He then gave me a cheque. (The Chairman: You seemed to consider that you were obliging them by taking £10 of them; but you have not made it clear,—I was obliging them by riding about, for it was not my concern, and must have cost me about £3.) Had you previously spoken to Hamlin on the subject, before he called on you?—No. Had you applied to any person to assist you in getting this money, before that time?—No. Was it in the course of trade that. Paramena owed you this money?—Yes. Had he always paid you before?—Yes. Before Hamlin came, had you any intention of asking him for the money?—Not the slightest. Then you received payment of the £40 from Ormond?—Yes. Had you anything to do with Heretaunga after this?—Yes.

By Mr Lascelles: So you considered yourself conferring an obligation by receiving £40?—From the way it was put, certainly. Were you involved at that time?—No. Were you in debt to Kinross?—No; he was in debt to me. Did you owe Neal and Close anything?—A trifle. What commission did you offer Hamlin if he would recover this amount from Paramena?—None, certainly, it was not necessary. Did you not distinctly refuse to take an order on Kinross or Sutton?—Yes. Why?—Because Mr Hamlin particularly wanted the order to be on Williams. What was the difference between Kinross's money or Williams's?—None. I obtained the order on Williams solely to oblige Hamlin. How did you suppose you were obliging the purchasers?—That was the way Hamlin put it, and I suppose they sent him. (The Chairman: Was Paramena willing to give an order on Williams?—No, he was very reluctant, offering to give an order rather on Sutton or Kinross.) Did he give any reason?—No. Which Hamlin was it?—Martin. Are you certain?—Yes. (The Chairman; What did you do with the money?—It was two or three days after the order was given before I got the money; I paid a portion to the carpenters working at my place, I used another portion in settling accounts; but cannot exactly state how I applied it.) Have you given Kinross a different account of this transaction—mentioning another Mr Hamlin?—No; I never mentioned the transaction to Kinross at all, in any way. Have you mentioned it to any other person?—Not that I am aware of, till Mr Sheehan asked me about the £40—I do not know that I have mentioned it to any European. Have you spoken to H. R. Russell about this?—Not that I know of. Why was £40 the exact sum you required; when £30 was all that was owing?—Because £30 was a small sum. Did you ever return the balance to the native?—Yes, in February, 1870, about five days after page 110 receiving the money. In cash?—Not all, only about £6. Is it in your books?—I kept no accounts. Then, if the native swears he received none at all, you have nothing to show to the contrary?—No. Had you showed him the account?—I did when I settled, and gave him the balance, it was not gone into at the time the order was given?—No. Is this a usual kind of transaction?—It is the only one of the kind I have been concerned in. Do you usually receive orders from natives without giving them an account?—I have done so several times; but I have always told them what they owed. Did you make it clear to Paramena that he only owed £30, and that you wanted an order for £40?—(The Chairman: Did you not suggest to Hamlin that he might get over the difficulty by paying £40 direct to Paramena?—Paramena said it was no good giving an order on Williams—he did not wish to receive money on account of Heretaunga. You are certain of that?—Yes.) Did you understand from Paramena that he had refused to take money on account of Heretaunga?—No. How long was Hamlin with Paramena?—About a quarter-of-an-hour. Did you understand what passed between them?—No. Did you see Paramena sign the order?—Yes. Did he sign willingly?—He was unwilling till after Hamlin's conversation with him. I had given the subject up—I did not press the matter, because it was perfectly immaterial to me He had settled with me only a week or two before; I had no doubt he would pay when I asked; I was unwilling to go at all, thinking it was coming rather sharp on him Has any arrangement or promise been made with you about giving your evidence here or elsewhere, as regards the Heretaunga purchase?—None; not any, whatever. [Mr Sheehan required the time and place to be mentioned to the witness] Were not some disputed bills against Hapuku and his tribe, which you could not recover, paid to you, on condition that you should give evidence in the Heretaunga case?—No, certainly not; nothing was said about it. Have those bills, or any portion of them, been paid?—No, not yet. Have they been promised to be paid?—Yes, and I have received a portion of them. Who paid them?—Mr Russell. Was no promise made by Mr Russell that those bills, or portions of them, should be paid if you gave evidence in this case?—Not the slightest—I have answered the question half-a-dozen times; I did not know I would be called on. Did you not yourself, in my chambers, in Hastings street, inform me that some such proposal had been made, and that if those debts, or a portion of them, were paid, you would give such evidence?—I deny it entirely. Was nothing of the kind said?—Not as regards Heretaunga. Then what was said?—All that I can remember is, that you put the question to me. You said you had control of those accounts, which I wanted settled; you asked me if I knew anything of Mr Kinross's, and other transactions, and could give evidence; and I replied that I believed I could. You said you were acting for Russell, and that if I did, there was some likelihood of my getting the money. Then no other names were mentioned, except Kinross's?—No. Then you distinctly deny that you made any such promise on condition of getting the money?—Yes. I found there was no likelihood of my getting the money; so I took the bills from you, and got the money on my own account. The portion paid was after I got the bills from Mr Lascelles.

page 111

By Mr Tanner: You were a party to the arrangement with Paramena—you told him you would give him the balance back?—Yes, Then how was it that Paramena, who objected to give an order at all on Heretaunga, should give an order for nearly £10 more than he owed you—can you account for that?—I do not attempt to account for it. After that, we went to Pahoro, who positively refused to give us an order on account of Heretaunga.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: You had claims against Hapuku's estate?—Yes. I came to town, and went to Mr Lascelles' office, in answer to a letter from Lascelles. Was it he who suggested that you could get your accounts settled if you gave evidence against Kinross and the other people?—Yes. Have you been promised, directly or indirectly, by any European or native, any fee or reward for coming here to give evidence?—No. Have you been promised the ordinary costs?—No; I have not been promised a sixpence by any man. You say that at this time you had no intention of asking Paramena for payment?—Not the slightest. Had you any idea whatever that Hamlin was coming to you on that subject?—No. Was Paramena fully aware that he was giving an order for a larger amount than was due?—Yes. Have you since had a settlement with him?—He has paid me other money, and given me wheat, long subsequent to this affair.

Mr Sheehan said he proposed to close his case here, with a reservation on the matter of accounts—Mr Tanner said that the original accounts were not in his possession He had destroyed them when the matter was settled, merely keeping a memorandum of the gross amounts, gathered from receipts given by the storekeepers—Mr Sheehan said that he would also put in a valuation.—The Chairman, being here about to adjourn the Court to the usual hour (10 a.m.) on Monday, Mr Tanner objected He would have to send for Mr Williams and Mr Ormond He suggested an adjournment till 2 p.m. on Monday—The Chairman said he was very loth to lose a whole forenoon, and there was surely time without this—the sun rose at six o'clock in the morning, still He knew of no small case to occupy the time of the Commission meanwhile—Mr Lascelles hoped that in this important case the Court would give him an opportunity of giving a full opening—The Chairman said he looked with anxiety at the prospect of a lengthy opening, and did not think it would do any good. It should be merely an index to the case—Mr Tauner asked that one hour additional, at least, might be allowed.—Mr Sheehan had no objection to this, and the Commission, accordingly, at 2.25 p.m, adjourned to 11 a m. on Monday.

Monday, 24th March, 1873.

Mr Lascelles complained that evidence as to adequacy of consideration had not yet been produced; though there had been plenty of time—Mr Sheehan said that the valuation was being made, and would, no doubt, be completed in about two days—Mr Lascelles wished a limit fixed, and asked that the estimate should be rendered by tomorrow evening, at the latest—The Chairman suggested noon, on Wednesday—Mr Sheehan said it might, possibly, be prepared before that time.

page 112

Mr Lascelles said that, Mr Lee being unable to attend, he now represented the whole of the respondents. In a law ease he would be content with a bare opening, but in this case the proceedings were so very extraordinary—(The Chairman recomended Mr Lascelles to keep to the regular line of an ordinary opening).—Mr Lascelles said he would require to show clearly what had been stated in the complaints, and how far it had been supported by the evidence, Though thirteen days had now been occupied with this inquiry, and fourteen witnesses had been examined, he would, if these proceedings had taken place in a Court of Equity, have no hesitation in leaving the case as it stood in the hands of the Court; for he maintained, the respondents had been completely exonerated by the complainants' own witnesses. But the complaints were of such a nature as to cast reflections on the character and reputation of the gentlemen engaged in the purchase; and on this point he felt bound to remark; and in addition to this, the learned counsel on the opposite side, in his opening address, had east reflections of a kind altogether uncalled-for on these gentlemen, making pointed and special allusion to their position and character He would, in the first place, advert to the gazetted complaints in their order, and would remark that Karaitiana's complaint in particular was a rare specimen of special pleading. The first charge was that pressure had been brought to bear upon them to induce them to sell. Not by the purchasers. The only pressure which had been shown was that which was inevitable—the pressure of their own liabilities. It was alleged that a large portion of the consideration had been paid to publicans and storekeepers; but every penny paid in this way, was under written instructions from the sellers of the block. The bills were principally for spirits, he read. Not an atom of evidence had been adduced in support of this charge—on the contrary it was entirely disproved. In Sutton's bills against Henare Tomoana and Manaena the proportion due for spirits had been proved to be so small as to be utterly insignificant. The charge that no opportunity had been given to inspect the accounts had been utterly disproved, Mr Sutton having proved that he had gone carefully through the accounts with the principal parties, who were fully satisfied of their correctness, and who had since continued to deal with him. Next he found it stated that threats of extreme measures had been used—and here again, the evidence utterly failed to support the charge. In only one case—that of Henare Tomoana—had any legal proceedings been taken; and then they went no further than the judgment being recorded—it was not even registered against the land. No precipitancy had been shown—no undue haste—nothing more than the ordinary course pursued in similar cases. As regards Manaena, there was no evidence that legal proceedings were even threatened—Mr Sutton had merely asked how he was going to pay; there ban been no urging, threatening, or pressing of any kind. Karaitiana's evidence showed that he had been summoned; but he did not slate that he had been threatened or pressed. It was alleged that certain private arrangements agreed upon had not been carried out. Really the evidence upon this point had been so very compli- page 113 cated that it was difficult to find what Karaitiana really wanted—whether it was an annuity or a reserve He had made one statement which had no doubt surprised the Commission, and which was not likely to find much credence—that he had no idea of the total amount for which the land was to be sold. Passing from Karaitiana to Henare, he found that the latter's complaint, as gazetted, was that he had not received a sum of £500 and 300 acres of land promised to him—but his evidence not only failed to support the statement, but was utterly opposed to it He now came to poor old Waaka Kawatina—everybody's victim—the Peter Peebles of litigation. His evidence was simply a sweeping complaint against everybody he had ever dealt with, and the Court was quite able to judge of its value He had only one remark to make concerning the old chief—he would have been infinitely better off under the arrangement with Parker, described as being so iniquitous, by which he would still have been in the receipt of £360 per annum, than in his present condition—that of a landless and penniless beggar He now passed on to the learned counsel's opening address, and the first question which naturally arose was this—where was the evidence to support so sweeping a bill? We were told in the first place that there had been a kind of general uprising of the native population in this Province against the land transactions. We were told that at the time of the lease to Mr Tanner, he kept the natives in ignorance of the fact that others were concerned in the lease with him—a statement entirely denied by Karaitiana, who said that he knew at the time that other Europeans were interested in the lease He now passed on to the document signed by Henare and Karaitiana in 1869 We had been told that this was the first shot fired by Mr Tanner. So far from it being a shot of hostility, it appeared to be a friendly shaking of hands. Two heavily indebted landholders had been brought through house-building and hospitality—two expensive luxuries—to parting with their patrimony, and had signed an agreement to dispose of their land for a large price. The learned counsel had styled Parker's transaction a most extraordinary one; but there was nothing to show it—had he asked Waaka why he had entered into the arrangement, he would have found that it was because he could not receive the rent from any one else. But Waaka's evidence was altogether so unreliable, that the Commissioners would place no dependence upon it. They had been told that Mr Tanner had interfered between Waaka and his counsel, but of this no evidence had been given; and it would be found that the advance was made by Parker's counsel, and that the arrangement arrived at was greatly to the advantage of the old man, Waaka. The aspersions cast by the learned counsel on the venerated name of Williams, would be perfectly harmless, and would require no refutation His friend opposite had also asserted that the native population, for some time prior to the purchase, had been in a state of continual drunkenness—a statement utterly false, and unsupported by evidence. Henare, according to his own evidence, was perfectly sober when he signed, having even refused a glass of wine, just before; Tareha was sober during the whole of the session of Parliament: and Karaitiana, also, was perfectly sober. Who page 114 could have instructed his learned friend?—In the newspaper report of the opening address—which appeared to be very correct—he found it stated that a great proportion of the consideration consisted of liquor. This was another instance of mud being thrown, in the hope that it would stick; but it would only fall back upon those who threw it. Rata te Houi, it had been said, was the only one who received payment in money—he would prove that Rata was paid by a cheque, of which Karaitiana took possession, and kept half the proceeds He would enumerate the points of complaint. First, that in a transaction involving some £20,000, no accounts had been given; next, that the whole consideration had never been received by the sellers; next, Karaitiana and Hanaro complained that a secret arrangement, made with them, had not been carried out; it was stated that Paramena had received no cash, but that his share of the money had been paid to Harrison, who became bankrupt; that undue influence had been exerted; that part of this pressure was for debts incurred by the tribe, in the service of the Government. Perhaps, out of Henare's liabilities, something like sixpence in the pound had been incurred on this Taupo expedition, for which £500 had been paid him by the Government. Next, that the price was totally inadequate. Was there any evidence of this? Not a shadow. Mr Wilson had certainly put a high value on the last remaining share; but it was evident that the trustees would not be content with receiving the mere value of the property, but had stipulated for a handsome sum in addition. His learned friend next spoke of the purchasers as having attacked the interests separately. The statement was wholly untrue, as was shown in evidence, which proved that a meeting, at which Noa was present, was held at Pakowhai, by the grantees, for the purpose of considering the subject. If it was meant that the purchasers did not call all the sellers at once together, he would ask if such a course was feasible. Many documents, it was said, had never been properly explained to the natives by the interpreters. In that case, why not make a complaint against the interpreters, and have them discharged?—Even if this allegation had been proved, it would not affect the purchasers, unless complicity could be shown He now came to the last objection—one to which he almost felt ashamed to attach sufficient importance to speak of it—that no accounts had been furnished to the grantees. Having advanced this as a ground of complaint, the other side should certainly not have called Mr Sutton. There was not a syllable of evidence to show that the sellers ever went to the purchasers to ask for such accounts. It was not the part of the respondents to put questions on this subject in cross examination, and they therefore left the complainants in the unenviable position of having made charges which they had failed to substantiate The principal part of the transaction was with Henare and Karaitiana, and it would be a part of his duty to ask the Court for an indictment for perjury against one or both of these witnesses. So utterly, so inconceivably false had been some of their statements, as to make it evident that they had been concocted by an abler brain than that of any Maori. It was mainly to the points brought out by Henare and Karaitiana that the respondents' case would be directed. Paramena and Pahoro were utterly unreliable, and, moreover, it had been shown by the other side that they had appointed, as their agent, an intelligent European, who had collected page 115 their dues for them. As for Waaka, the evidence would be short; it would be proved that he perfectly understood what he was doing, and that he was utterly unable to carry on a Chancery suit; and it would also be shown that, by the arrangement he made, he got back a large quantity of his land, and was left in an excellent position. As for Manaena, he now came forward as evidence for Karaitiana and Henare, but it would be shown that, long before the sale, he had gone fully into the whole matter with Henare. It was an admitted fact, that Mr Sutton went out to obtain his signature, but no pressure was used, and the proceeding was perfectly legitimate. If it could be proved that threats had been made use of, the case would be different; but he would ask if, in circumstances of this kind, a creditor was to be debarred from seeking after his money He came now to Noa and Renata, and, in their case, the question was one of account, only. Their statement was very satisfactory. They admitted that the money was due, and agreed that it should be paid He had now gone through the whole list of grantees, except the two leading men, Henare and Karaitiana. Regarding their position and powers, the only thing to guide the purchasers was, native repute. The Act provided that the hares of the different owners should not be assumed to be equal, and the evidence abundantly showed that, throughout the whole transaction, Henare and Karaitiana took a leading position. The only questions, then, for the Court to consider, were these:—Has the consideration been fairly paid, without deception?—Has the consideration been sufficient? On this latter point it had been shown that, though other purchasers were in the market, none of them had offered so much as the lessees He would bring very little evidence in reply, except on one point—which would be to show that Henare had committed wilful perjury in his account of the wonderful transaction in Cuff's house He would now call the solicitor who had taken the principal part in the transaction.

Joshua Cuff, examined by Mr Lascelles: I am a solicitor, residing at Poverty Bay. During the negociation for the purchase of the Heretaunga block, I was resident in Napier. I acted as solicitor for Tanner and the other purchaser's, in that negociation. As far as I remember, the first transaction was the preparation of a lease, there being a prior lease in existence. I prepared this lease, from the grantees to Tanner, after the land had passed through the Native Lands Court; the rental was £1,250 per annum. Did you see the deed executed by any of the lessees?—No; the deed was prepared by me, and handed to the interpreter. Some months elapsed, and the next, transaction took place after Tanner's return from Wellington He brought a deed, prepared by Brandon, and signed by Tareha, and instructed me to prepare a deed for Pahoro's signature, Pahoro being present at the time. I had previously, heard that negociations for the sale were pending. The deed was one of conveyance of his share for £750. The deed produced is the one; it was signed by Pahoro in my presence, and that of F. E. Hamlin. The first entry in my diary, after this, is on the 24th November, 1869, during the pendency of the action against Parker.—"Re Heretaunga: Charge for attending the Supreme Court; watching case for Tanner, in suit of Waaka v. Parker; action discontinued by consent, subject to the pay- page 116 ment of Wilsons costs." It was arranged that Waaka should sell Tanner his interest in the Heretaunga block; the other lands to be re-conveyed to Waaka. Lee appeared—whether for Parker or Waaka I do not know; I believe that Carlyon represented Waaka. I had dealings in the case almost every day after this. I see an entry on the 6th of December, "Attending on Waaka, and going through accounts." I went through the accounts with Waaka several times. After the sale, he brought somebody from the Big Bush to look into them. On the 6th of December there must have been an interpreter present—possibly one of the Hamlins. On the 7th of December there is entered a charge for attendance. I was then informed that the purchase had been completed, and received instructions to prepare the deed. On the 8th, I attended, by appointment, at Canyon's office; at another attendance, on the same day, I received instructions to proceed to Pakowhai, with deeds for execution. Next day I receive I instructions to prepare deeds of covenant with Henare and Karaitiana, for annuities of £150 and £100 respectively, for ten years, a re-conveyance of the Karamu reserve, and a conveyance of 100 acres to Henare, in trust for his son. Had you an interview with Henare and Manaena, or either of them, shortly after?—On the 14th of December, accompanied by Tanner and Hamlin, I attended Henare and Manaena. Where was that?—At my office; the interview related to the pending purchase. On the 15th, I attended Henare at Pakowhai; he refused to do anything then, but appointed 5 p.m., on the same day, at my house at Wailangi, to execute the conveyance. I distinctly remember keeping the appointment myself, but Henare did not attend. When Hamlin and I went to Pakowhai, we took the conveyance for the purpose of getting Henare's signature. On the 16th, the next day, I attended Tanner, Hamlin, and Henare, at my own house. We conversed a long time, explaining Henare's position, and he eventually signed the conveyance. Were you at home when Henare arrived?—I cannot say; we met there, and had dinner. There were five of us, Mrs Cuff being present at dinner. After dinner, we went to business, and talked the matter over, explaining it, so far as it related' to the Karamu reserve and the annuities. A considerable time elapsed before Henare signed, but there was no discussion—only explanation He came there for the express purpose of signing, but it was necessary first to explain about the annuities, the reserve, and the 100 acres for his son. No money was paid, nor do I remember any order being signed—I do not think any was signed. No spirits or wine were drank, except one glass at dinner. Henare sat with us, and seemed to enjoy his dinner very well. We were very friendly at the time, we always have been; we never had any dispute. About two hours after dinner, he had signed, and we all left. Henare was asking questions regarding the annuities, reserve, &c., which were answered. Did any altercation or dispute take place ?—None whatever; it was a very friendly meeting. Was any wish expressed, by any of the party, to leave before the completion of the business?—No. I was sitting on the sofa, till I rose, and got ink for him to sign: The meeting broke up as soon as he had signed. How many doors were there to the room?—One, half glass, opening to the conservatory; one, also half glass, to the veranda; these were French windows, double; there was also a door into the passage. Was there any chaffing between Hamlin and page 117 Henare?—No. Or fighting?—No. I have road Henare's evidence in the paper—it is utterly and entirely false. There was no larking or quarrelling; all the business was conducted in a friendly and business like manner. Did Henare say you might be too strong, but he would kill one of you?—No; the only truth in his evidence is, that we met there He says that, not being able to get through the door, he made for the kitehen.—He could not have done so—he would have to go first through the passage. [The Chairman read Henare's evidence, on this point, to the witness.] In the first place, it is untrue that an appointment was made in Napier—it was made in Pakowhai, for the express purpose of signing the conveyance. No angry words, or struggle, took place. I never had an angry word with Henare in my life. What he has said is entirely false, except that he was there, and signed He had already signed a conveyance. (Mr Commissioner Manning: Did he not say he was dead, or use a similar expression?—He may have said Heretaunga was dead. Was there any joking?—No; I was always very careful not to joke—the natives might afterwards say I was in earnest.) Had there been, previously, any conversation between you and Henare in reference to his debts?—Many, both with him and Karaitiana; not about his own debts, but Maori debts generally. Did Henare mention the deed at all, before it was produced?—The deed was there, and he said if it was produced he would sign it. Did he object to sign the deed?—No, he hesitated, merely. What was he told about the annuity?—I told him that the deed was prepared and was in my office,—that it was all right. Manaena came several times to my office, to look at the deed of covenant. What was stated to Henare about the reserve?—I believe it was explained that it was to be vested in himself and Karaitiana, in trust for the tribe. Did he, at Waitangi, assent to that?—He assented to the whole thing. What was the next transaction?—On the 5th January, Sutton called on me, and told me Manaena had signed the deed of conveyance, and instructed me to prepare a deed of covenant for £50 per annum. Next day a meeting took place between myself and Tanner, when he signed a deed of covenant. On the same day, Manaena and Hamlin came, and the nature of the deed was explained; they afterwards came twice, at least, to look at the deed. On what day did you receive instructions to sign the present existing deed of the block?—I did not receive instructions. Wilson objected to the first deed, because signatures had been added after the deed was executed, and requested me to prepare another. I refused; saying any other deed would be open to the same objection—let Wilson draft it himself. Wilson did so, and the draft was sent to me. On what day was the first meeting, at your office, of natives to execute?—On the 21st of March, 1870; Tanner, James Williams, Captain Hamilton Russell, Martin Hamlin, Karaitiana, Henare, Manaena, Noa, and Paramena were present. Was Pahoro there? I cannot be positive; I think they were all there. That meeting was to pay over the purchase-money, and, as they could not agree as to the division, the meeting was adjourned to the next day. I was engaged two full days after—the whole thing being completed about 6 p.m. on the 23rd, that being the day of the signing. (The Chairman: Are you sure that was the day?—I am not certain; but that was the day the thing was completed, and the money paid over. On the first day it could not page 118 be completed, because no decision had been come to as to the division of the money; on the second day a kind of runanga was held on the subject; on the third day, Tanner and Williams were sitting at the table, making out and checking the accounts. Karaitiana was also going into the accounts. I believe the whole of the grantees were present. Karaitiana, Henare, Manaena, Paramena, Pahoro, and Noa were all present.) What were those accounts?—Vouchers, receipts, and orders. They were very voluminous, including accounts between Parker and Waaka, and very complicated. (The Chairman: Can you recollect the division of the money?—No, I paid no attention; I had nothing to do with that.) Were the accounts discussed on the first and second day?—No, not till the third day. They were there, but were not gone into. Were there any disputes?—No. Karaitiana did just as he pleased. A dispute occurred outside, afterwards, Paramena declaring that it was not fair; he had not received his share; and I afterwards received a notice from Sutton on the subject. Did any of the natives leave the office in a dissatisfied manner?—Paramena did; he left the office, growling. The purchasers had from time to time paid monies on account of the natives, and on the third day the accounts were gone into, and the balance ascertained. The balance was struck, and the money paid, except £1,000, reserved on account of Matiaha, deceased. I afterwards saw that paid; I cannot say to whom. Was the deed signed willingly by all?—I afterwards received a notice from Sutton, as Paramena's attorney. Have you had conversations since with the natives?—Yes. In the Native Lands Court, Rata was appointed the representative of Mataha, deceased. Myself, Tanner, Williams, and Martin Hamlin were present A cheque for £1,000 was paid by Williams to Rata, who handed it at once to Karaitiana. That was on the 19th September. Have you ever seen Henare since?—Often. Have you always been on friendly terms?—Yes. Have you seen Karaitiana since?—Yes, both in Napier and Poverty Bay, and have had long conversations with him about this same matter. I asked him if he had known me to do anything unfair to the natives, instancing the Heretaunga case as the only one in which I had been directly engaged against the Maoris He said, "No; there is only one thing I am not quite clear about; I want you to tell me—that is about the £1,000 Williams was to pay me; I do not know whether I got it or not." I replied, "I do not know; I think he must have paid you. When you go to Napier, see Mr Williams; if he has paid the money, he will show it to you in the accounts—if he has not paid you, he will pay you at once." Did he refer to any other case?—No, he did not make any complaint about the sale; he only said he was not sure he had received all the purchase money. I never heard any complaint, and always considered it a fair purchase. I was constantly doing business for the natives.

This closed the examination-in-chief of this witness, and the Commission took the usual mid-day adjournment. Before the Commissioners rose, at Mr Sheehan's request, the portion of Mr Cuff's evidence relating to the interview at Waitangi was read to Henare.

On the Commission resuming, at 2.45 p.m., Mr Sheehan intimated that Henare was anxious to put some questions to the witness himself He (Mr Sheehan) had his own opinion as to the expediency of this page 119 course, but Henare was very anxious—Mr Lascelles said he did not object, but thought that in that case Henare must conduct the whole cross-examination. The Chairman said, not at all; there were other complainants—Application allowed.

Joshua Cuff, cross examined by Henare: Are you quite certain that it was at Pakowhai it was arranged that I should meet you at your house?—Yes, at 5 o'clock the same day, but you did not come till the next day. Who was present at Pakowhai at the time?—Edwards Hamlin. Any Maoris?—I do not remember. What was your reason for coming to Pakowhai?—As my book states, to get you to execute the conveyance. What conversation took place at Pakowhai?—It was principally between Hamlin and yourself; you did not want to sign there; you preferred to go to my own house. Did you go with reference to the deed of the hundred acres?—No; the conveyance of the whole block. Were you one of the persons to speak about the sale?—No; I went merely as solicitor for the purchasers, to obtain your signature. Who were they?—Tanner, Captain Russell, and others. Then by your going, we had not agreed?—Yes, you had already signed an agreement. On what occasion did you come about the deed of the hundred acres?—I do not remember doing so. Do you not remember going to Karaitiana's house about the deed for the child?—Not specially. Do you not remember me signing it there?—I do not believe you did; Tanner and the others did. Did you know that Karaitiana was present when you went with the deed?—I do not remember going with the deed at all. Do you not remember giving me a gold ring after I signed?—No, I never gave a gold ring to you or any other Maori. Did you not give me a gold ring from Tanner?—I have no recollection of so doing Do you remember meeting me in town, at your office?—Often. Did you not arrange there that I should go to your place at Waitangi?—No, it was arranged at Pakowhai. Also the deed for the hundred acres?—I do not remember that deed being signed at all. Who first arrived at your house that morning?—Either Tanner or Hamlin; I was there all the time. Tell me clearly whether it was Tanner, Hamlin, or myself?—I do not remember. Did you not ask me to sit on the sofa?—Very likely. Did not Tanner and others come after me?—I cannot say,—possibly they did. Did I not speak to you when Tanner came under the veranda?—I cannot say. Do you not remember my saying you had deceived me?—No; you never said so. Did I not stand up then, and run to the door?—No. Did not Hamlin hold the door?—No. Did you not say that was not the work of a gentleman—you and Tanner?—No. Did you not clap me on the shoulder and tell me to sit down?—No; there was no cause for it. Did you not ask me to take a glass of wine?—Very likely, if it was there. While we were disputing?—We did not dispute at all. If there was no disputing, why did I not ask for money?—I had nothing to do with the money; I do not know. You say our talk was very quiet—how long did I remain before I signed?—We had dinner, and you stayed an hour or an hour-and-a-half after. You remember me having dinner?—Yes, and Mrs Cuff remembers it too. How is it we were so long, if there was no dispute or anger?—For some little time after dinner we were smoking our pipes, and conversing Why was not the signature obtained at once, if all was so quiet?—The subject was not broached till after dinner; then page 120 the table was cleared, and we smoked and talked; explanations were given, and translated to you, after which you signed the deed. That was the main tiling. When that was done, perhaps five minutes after, we broke up. Was any other document signed?—I think not; if there had been, I .should have remembered. Until I read your evidence in the paper, I had forgotten what took place; but I referred to my diary, and recollected the circumstance. I am quite certain there was no altercation nor unpleasantness. Then why did I take so long?—Not longer than Maoris usually do. Have you told the whole truth?—Yes, everything I can recollect in the matter; I have hid nothing, and exaggerated nothing. I may have made omissions;—it is possible, for instance, that I gave you a geld ling from Tanner; but I have no recollection of it. Before the sale of Heretaunga, did you ask us to give you all on lands, as trustee?—No; but I urged natives, generally, to place their lands in the hands of trustees. Did you not ask Karaitiana, Manaena, and myself to give you Heretaunga?—I repeatedly urged you and the others to tie up, not Heretaunga alone, but all your lands. Did you then know the amount for the whole of Heretaunga?—No, I had nothing whatever to do with the negociation for the purchase. When you were present at the time of payment, what were you doing?—I was advising the other party, and taking the signatures. Did you not have something to do with dividing the money paid over to the grantees?—No How many days were we signing?—You met on three days, but signed on the last. On what day was the money paid?—On the third. How long were we talking over it?—Three days. When the signatures were all obtained, did that finish your work in respect to the payment?—I had nothing to do with the payment—I certainly saw the money paid, but that was all. Did you not know what was paid altogether?—It cost the purchasers about £20,000, of which about £13,000 went to the grantees. Did you arrange about the annuity?—No; Tanner and Williams did that. I drew the deeds of covenant, but a different arrangement was afterwards made, and Government annuities purchased. Did you not make an arrangement with Lindsay?—Possibly; but I did not have the money. Yes, I had an authority, dated the 19th December, to receive monies due to Lindsay. Do you remember the amount?—No, I had forgotten the circumstance till I referred to my book. Do you remember what took place when you received that money?—No. Can you tell me whether the house was completed, for which that money was paid?—You did make a complaint that the carpenter left without finishing; but I had no knowledge of it.

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: How long had you been here when you were first consulted about Heretaunga?—I first came here in September, 1860. You mentioned being instructed to attend the Supreme Court; did that refer to Heretaunga?—Yes, to an equity action between Parker and Waaka. What was the first transaction, regarding the sale, which came to your knowledge?—When Tanner called, on his return from Wellington, with the deed signed by Tareha. Did you hear of Maney and Peacock going?—I knew of it, but for what purpose they had gone I did not know. Before Tanner went to Wellington, had he any conversation with you about the purchase of Heretaunga?—I believe not; Tanner never gave me instructions regarding the negociation. I page 121 very often received instructions to prepare a deed with the consideration blank. I would give it to Hamlin, and never see it again. Regarding Pahoro's share, what were your instructions?—To prepare a conveyance for £750—Tanner to hold the money till the whole purchase was completed. Pahoro signed the deed in my presence—it was simply to prevent any other person getting the land. Did any other person beside Pahoro sign?—I believe not. Did you not make inquiries about the title before you prepared the conveyance?—No; Tanner knew more about the title than I did. Have you no recollection whatever of two other people signing?—Now you mention it, I remember that two people of Pahoro's hapu signed. You were acting, you say, only as solicitor for Tanner?—Yes. You remember that Tanner was to hold the purchase-money until the whole of the signatures were obtained?—Yes. You believed that to be an absolute conveyance?—Yes, unconditional. Was anything given to Pahoro, to show that the purchase-money had not been paid?—No, there was a verbal understanding. I believe Te Waaka's business was next?—Mr Lee conducted that business; I knew nothing of it; I was kept in the dark purposely, by Parker. I am speaking of what took place when the suit was instituted in the Supreme Court. When did you first become connected with that?—I believe the only thing I did was to attend the Supreme Court, when the order of discontinuance was granted. Up to the time of the action, you were aware that Wilson was acting for Waaka?—I knew Wilson instituted the suit. After the order was granted, you came in contact with the matter?—Yes From whom did you have your instructions?—Tanner. What was the next thing in that business?—On the 26th November there was an attendance on Tanner. To advise him about this affair of Waaka's?—Yes. Did Tanner not advise you that the suit was to be discontinued?—I must have been told of it about this time. Had not the agreement for the withdrawal of Waaka's action been come to?—Yes. Were you not aware of this?—Probably so. What was your retainer for?—To watch the case, and, if necessary, to address the Court in support of the application for discontinuance. Up to that time, then, you had nothing to do with the negociations which led to the discontinuance of the suit?—I believe not. After the order for discontinuance you had to do with the rest of the negociations?—Yes, to prepare the deeds. Under the deed, Waaka's interest in Heretaunga was sold for £1,000?—Yes; I believe that was the sum. Had you much to do with Waaka before that time?—No. In this instance Waaka came to your office?—Yes, on the 6th and 7th of May, 1869. Can you say whether Waaka's conveyance was signed in your office?—No; I believe he did not. Do you remember whether Worgan was engaged as interpreter?—No, I do not. In that conveyance you were acting for Tanner; Carlyon was acting for Parker; who was acting for Waaka?—Lee, I presume; but Maoris very rarely engaged a solicitor. Can you say that he was in this case represented by a solicitor?—I cannot say that he was. Do you remember anything connected with the payment of the money?—Yes, we went through the accounts. Certain receipted accounts were put in by Parker; Waaka and one of the Hamlins went round to the storekeepers to check these receipts, and see that Parker had really paid the money. Were you then aware of the terms on which the action was settled?—Yes, and con- page 122 sidered them very good; I believe he had to receive £1,000 for his share; his other land to be re-conveyed. Was he to receive all the £1,000?—No; I remember the accounts paid by Parker were deducted, and he was shown and paid the exact balance. Some time afterwards a man was sent by Waaka from the Big Bush, who took these vouchers to show to the storekeepers. How long after, was it, that this man came?—Within three months, I should think He took the receipts round to the storekeepers, and, when he returned, said they were all right He was a European. [Receipts signed by Waaka were here produced.] Was not the amount paid to Parker by far the greater part of the £1,000?—Was there not in Parker's account a considerable amount for his expenses as defendant in the action settled?—I cannot remember anything about the money. Here is a receipt for £15 paid to you as Waaka's solicitor; were you acting for him?—I received no specific instructions from him; I drew the deeds of re-conveyance, and they were debited to him; I considered him the proper person to charge; I also charged him with going through the accounts. I wish to find if there was any person charged with the care of Waaka's interests—I took charge of Waaka's interest in preparing those deeds. Can you say whether you were acting for Waaka?—I considered if I prepared his deeds, and charged him, I was acting for him. You received all your instructions from Tanner?—Yes; virtually Waaka was unrepresented by a solicitor. Did Waaka's accounts include the vouchers produced by Parker in support of his claim out of the £1,000?—Yes; [believe they are in the possession of Tanner; though they may be among my papers Next after Pahoro's deed came Tanner's instructions for you to prepare a deed of conveyance, to take to Pakowhai for signature?—Yes; I was to prepare a conveyance from the owners to himself and others. What was the amount of the consideration?—£14,500; I do not know how it was made up; I cannot remember the particulars of the transaction, and had nothing to do with the money part or the affair at all. Was it a common thing for a solicitor here to be left in ignorance of the details of the consideration?—Invariably, so far as my experience went In all probability the consideration was not set forth in the deed. In this case the consideration was filled in months after the deed was engrossed. It is all in my handwriting When you went out on Friday, the 10th of December, was the consideration filled in?—No. Karaitiana refused to sign; this was before he went to Auckland. I took this deed out after he returned. I went out several times. Do you not remember Karaitiana previously refusing to sign?—Yes, he refused to sign a second time when I had money. Who went with you on that occasion?—One of the Hamlins. Did you inform Tanner?—Yes, as soon as I came into town. After Karaitiana's first refusal, you applied to Henare?—Yes. Karaitiana was absent in Auckland at that time; I understood that he did not want to sell, and, being pressed, had gone to raise money to pay his debts. Where did you first see Henare Tomoana?—At Pakowhai, when he made the appointment to come to my house. Had you seen him before on the subject?—I cannot say positively; I think not. You were instructed by Tanner?—Yes. Was it not a considerable time subsequent to the signatures by Paramena, Pahoro, and Noa Huki, that the consideration was filled in?—No, it was when the first signature was page 123 taken—that of Henare. A man would not sign a blank deed. When you first took the deed to Karaitiana, was it filled in?—No; but if he had consented, it would have been; I would not have let him sign without. When you went for Henare's signature, was it not suggested that it was very desirable to get Henare's signature before Karaitiana came back?—You had instructions from Tanner to get Henare's signature?—Yes. At the time you received instructions to prepare the conveyance, you say you had some instructions with regard to the deeds of covenant?—Yes. What were those instructions?—To prepare deeds, contracting to pay Henare £150 for ten years, and Karaitiana £100 for 10 years. I prepared those deeds, and made them a charge on the land. You say they were done away with, and Government annuities substituted?—Yes. What became of the deeds?—They are in Court, I believe. Did you consider that the consideration mentioned in this deed, of March, 1870, was in addition to the annuities?—It must have been so; but I do not remember. This is one of the deeds of covenant prepared in pursuance of instructions given you?—Yes. It is not a first charge on the land?—No. My first instructions were merely to make it a deed of covenant; but I suggested that it would be safer for the natives if it were secured on the land. I was reminded that the purchasers would have to mortgage, and I suggested that it should be done subject to this, which was carried out. How long did you remain at Pakowhai, on the visit to Henare?—Some hours; I had dinner there. How long were you discussing the subject of the signature?—Most of the time. What were the matters that occupied the time?—With a Maori you may wander about for hours without broaching the subject. The conversation was between Henare and Hamlin. At last Henare said, "I will come to your house, and sign at 5 o'clock." He did not wish to sign before the other natives. You did not understand the whole of the conversation?—No, I did not. Did you understand anything more particular than that Henare was disinclined to sign the deed, and that a long conversation ensued with the interpreter?—No. Do you recollect him saying he would come at 5 o'clock?—I do not recollect, except that I have it in my book. Might not that information have come from the interpreter?—Quite as likely as from Henare. Did you use any argument with him to sign?—No; Hamlin had instructions, and carried on the negociation. Henare never refused to sign; it was Karaitiana. Was anything said about Henare's debts?—I believe not. There was no refusal, he appointed that evening to sign, and came the next day and signed it. Did you ever ask him to sell Heretaunga, on account of his debts?—I advised him quite the contrary; but he had got into such a fix that he was obliged to do so. Did Hamlin use any such argument?—I believe not. You have said he did not like to sign in the presence of the other natives: were other natives present?—In and out the whole time, and when a deed is about to be signed, is just the time they flock round. From whom did you understand that Henare objected to sign in the presence of the natives?—From the interpreter. And you cannot remember the names of any of the natives who were in and out?—No, I was at Pakowhai so often. Who asked Henare what time he would reach Waitangi?—I cannot remember; it was probably myself; I believe I just asked him at what hour he would be there—Commission adjourned.

page 124

Tuesday, 25th March, 1873.

The Chairman said that, as to the duration of the sittings, they should be ended on Saturday week, the 6th of April. The Commissioners had decided to take no new case after that date. The value of their labours would more likely be found in their general recommendations than in individual cases Individual cases of fraud could probably only be dealt with by the ordinary tribunals of the Colony; and it was, therefore, quite unnecessary to go through the whole mass, but merely to take a sample of each class of cases. If this decision could be brought home to what was called the "native mind," he would be glad—Mr Sheehan said he believed the natives would be quite willing.

Joshua Cuff, continued: I find, by reference to my call book, that the man who came on behalf of Waaka was Bruce, who acted as Waaka's secretary, and is since dead; he was a man well conversant with accounts.

By Mr Sheehan: You stated that Henare Tomoana came the next day after your leaving Pakowhai?—Yes. How came it that yourself and Hamlin were in readiness, when no appointment had been made?—Hamlin waited overnight, and when Henare did not come, I believe I asked him to call in in the morning, and wait awhile, in case of Henare's calling before going to town. I suppose you and Hamlin usually rode in about the ordinary office hours?—Yes. Then how do you account for the presence of Tanner?—I can swear he was there, but cannot account for it. It might have been by chance, or I might have sent specially for him. Is your memory so perfect that you can swear it was the day after your visit to Pakowhai?—I can swear positively from my book—I would not otherwise remember; the entries were made that day or the next. Did it never happen to you to miss a day or two in entering up charges?—I kept a large pocket-book on my office table, in which I used to make entries at the time; I would not tax my memory with them. You used occasionally to let a day or two pass before entering up?—Occasionally; but, as a rule, I used to enter daily. Assuming, than, that you made a correct entry in your book, and that your clerk copied correctly, the meeting took place next day?—Yes, but I can swear to the correctness of my book. It has been stated in evidence that the appointment was made in town; can you swear that you did not meet Henare in town the next day, and then make the appointment?—I cannot swear I did not. Would not that account satisfactorily for the presence of Tanner?—I cannot remember what time the Europeans came, or whether Henare came first—I cannot recollect. I might have been in town that morning, and have returned; but cannot say. Can you recollect what time you dined?—No, except that it was in the middle of the day. Can you give any idea how long you sat before lunch?—I cannot fix the time; I have only a general recollection. Can you state what time in the evening the party broke up?—About two hours after lunch; it might have been 4, 5, or 6 o'clock p.m. My impression is that it broke up at 4 or 5 p.m. it might have been 3. You and Hamlin had spent a considerable time at Pakowhai on the previous evening, explaining the terms of the sale?—Yes; and at Waitangi, explaining the same thing. Can you recollect any of the matters referred to you for explanation at the Wai- page 125 tangi meeting?—No, I cannot. You were present the whole time?—I believe so; but will not swear that I was. Was it not apparent to you that Henare was unwilling to sign the deed at the Waitangi meeting?—A Maori is always unwilling to part with land, even though he has agreed to do so He raised no objection, nor was any pressure used. I may say he was not unwilling. When they sign, they often say they are dead, at the same time that they pocket the money. You say he hesitated, but did not object?—Yes. Can you recollect the matters about which he hesitated?—No; he had merely a reluctance to put his name to the deed; there was no unwillingness to execute the deed, or complete the bargain. I have known a Maori take up the pen twenty times and throw it down again before signing. (Mr Commissioner Manning; Was there any verbal expression of unwillingness?—No He had no desire to sell his land; but knew he must pay his debts.) Did he not ask that it should be left over till Karaitiana's return?—No; he did say he should have preferred Karaitiana to be there. After he had signed, I believe he said, "What will Karaitiana say?" but it might have been before he signed. Did he express unwillingness to sign in Karaitiana's absence?—No; if he had, I would not have consented to the transaction. I never had any desire, or saw any on the part of the purchasers, to take advantage of the vendors. There was anxiety on the part of the purchasers?—Yes, the ordinary anxiety to complete the transaction; but no unusual anxiety. Did you remember any conversation about Henare's debts, during the transaction?—We may have been half the time discussing the debts, but I do not recollect. I do not believe anything was said about the debts. A want of confidence in me was shown by the purchasers throughout, and that is why I know so little about the money matters. Did you not complain of this?—Yes, to my partner, if not to the purchasers. I believe I mentioned it to Tanner—I felt it a good deal. You say you cannot remember anything being said about the debts: I want to know what occupied you after dinner until the deed was signed. (The Chairman: Had you any idea of the grounds of this want of confidence?—It might have been want of confidence professionally, or a desire of conducting the business themselves. I believe the true reason to be that Tanner thought himself more competent to conduct the business than any one else. I do not attribute it to a real want of confidence professionally, or in my pecuniary responsibility; but I felt hurt at facts being kept from me. Had you any reason to suppose that things were concealed from you because it was better that you should be kept in the dark?—No, Tanner always told me what he had done; but he did not consult me beforehand.) Can you tell us at all what were the matters of the conversation before the deed was signed?—No, I believe I said before, it was about the annuities, the reserve, &c.; but I cannot remember that these subjects were even mentioned. I can only swear that the deed was not signed till an hour or two after dinner; that, as soon as it was signed, we broke up, and that no discussion took place, or angry feeling arose. Did any business conversation take place before dinner?—No, I believe Henare went round the room and looked at all the pictures, and asked about them. Will you swear that he did not get up as if unwilling to sign, during the time of this discussion?—Yes, most positively. Will you undertake to say page 126 that a good deal of persuasion had not to be used, by Hamlin or Tanner, before he signed?—No, positively not; no persuasion whatever was used. What was your knowledge of Maori at the time?—I was not ignorant of Maori at that time, and fully understood the drift of the conversation. You can be positive that no discussion took place?—Mrs Cuff was in and out of the room the whole time, and confirms my recollection on this point. Were you aware of any expressed reason why Henare did not sign at Pakowhai?—Hamlin told me he would rather sign at my house. Did Henare tell you anything of the kind himself?—No. You afterwards went to see Karaitiana. Why?—He was sulking at Pakowhai, and would not come to town; so I was instructed to go and meet him He was vexed that Henare had signed. I told him that his debts must be paid, and he must meet it like a man. You had already heard from Sutton that Manaena had signed?—Yes. You took some money, did you not?—Yes, a bundle of notes, over £'1,000. Was this to cure Karaitiana's melancholy?—No; it was the purchase-money. From whom did you receive the money?—Tanner. And your instructions?—From Tanner. (The Chairman: At what time did Manaena become aware of the annuities to Henare and Karaitiana?—I do not know. Did he see their deeds of covenant as well as his own?—No.) Were the instructions you received from Sutton, the first you heard of Manaena's annuity?—Yes. Where were Tanner's instructions given?—I cannot say. They seem to have trusted you with some money, this time—can you not remember the circumstances?—Yes; James Williams was in Wellington; Karaitiana had refused to carry out the agreement of sale; Williams was telegraphed to, to ascertain from the Attorney-General his opinion as to the validity of the agreement of sale, which was given in favor of the purchasers. I received instructions to search the register, and institute a suit in the Supreme Court for specific performance of the agreement. Karaitiana still remained at Pakowhai. Tanner gave me instructions to give him one more chance before serving him with a writ, and to go to him at Pakowhai with the purchase-money. F. E. Hamlin accompanied me, and we went to Karaitiana's house. I told him plainly that the purchasers were vexed at his refusal to carry out the agreement, and at his staying away from town. I told him I had the writ, and had the money He said, "Why do not you advise me what to do in the matter?" said, "This is the result of your saying taihoa so long. Do not you remember how often I have come and advised you?—Why did you not ask me for advice before signing the agreement? Having done that, you want me to advise you how to get out of it. That agreement is as binding as a conveyance—the best thing you can do is to come to town, and meet the purchasers boldly, face to face. "You entered into the conveyance knowingly, and it cannot be set aside, except for fraud." He replied, "I did not intend to go to town; but as you ask me to, I will." I said, "When will you come?" He replied, "I do not know; but I will send a letter,"—which he did, a few days after, making an appointment. I spoke to him as a friend; not advising him to sell. I am very clear about this, because less than twelve months after, at Poverty Bay, Karaitiana and I talked the whole matter over. Did you tell him you had brought a writ in one hand, and the money in the other?—I laid them both on the table; I went for the express purpose page 127 of serving the writ, and I did so. Can you not remember what amount of money you took?—No. Nor Karaitiana's share of the purchase-money?—No. Did you take any accounts with you?—Not one. Had you written to Karaitiana before going out?—Not to my knowledge; I believe not. You left Pakowhai, having served the writ?—Yes. How many days afterwards did he come down?—Three or four. What was done then?—He signed an agreement in my office, to execute all the necessary deeds. [The witness here referred to his book.] On the 12th of March, I went to Pakowhai. Karaitiana attended at my office on the 17th, and signed the agreement. You had not then received instructions to get any signatures, except those of Henare and Karaitiana?—I cannot say; I had most likely been instructed to get all the signatures that I could. Can you remember whether you were instructed to get the signatures of any others?—I believe not. Do you remember any reason being assigned why you were to get these two signatures first?—No; I remember it was considered that when these two signatures were obtained, the purchase was virtually completed. After Karaitiana's signing, meetings were held, and other signatures obtained. The first meeting of the natives generally, was on the 21st of March. Do you remember what grantees were present on the first day?—No. "Will you undertake to say that more than Karaitiana and Henare were present on the first day?—I will not swear; but I believe all six were present on all the three days. You say you attended to hand over the purchase-money—did you know what it was to be?—No; Tanner, Williams, and the two Russells were there—I had, no doubt, heard; but it was a very expansive amount Can you remember anything of the discussion as to the division of the money on the first clay?—I remember there was a discussion—but it was entirely confined to Karaitiana and the other grantees. The meeting was adjourned to the next day, at 1 p.m.?—Yes. There was a great quantity of accounts to go through with the natives. Can you say whether the deed was signed on the second day?—It was not; it was not signed till the third day, when the money was paid; and this did not occur till all the grantees were satisfied that they had received their just dues. Can you remember what principally occupied the second day, from 1 till 4 p.m?—The accounts and vouchers, I believe. No objections were raided to the sale, on the first or second day?—None whatever. From the time Karaitiana signed, on the 17th, no objections of any kind were raised. You had not seen any of the other grantees before they came to your office to sign?—Only Pahoro, as I have already said. At what time did the meeting commence on the third day?—I cannot say. At what time was the deed signed?—I cannot say; the meeting broke up at 6 p.m. The grantees were all present when the deed was signed?—Yes. The interpretation was made to them in a body?—I cannot say; but I am positive that the deed was read over. Did the whole of the signing take place at one time?—If I referred to the deed I could say. [Witness referred to the deed.] I am certain, in my own mind, they all did. Did the signing of the deed take place early in the day?—It must have been early in the afternoon, because Sutton brought notices on behalf of Paramena and Pahoro, before the meeting was over. Paramena had time to go to Sutton and sign a power of attorney, and Sutton to write his notes, Then some of the purchasers were not satis- page 128 fied?—I have already said, that after receiving the money, Paramena——. Do you remember Paramena receiving any money at all—any note or cheque?—I cannot say that I do. Do you recollect what Karaitiana was to get?—I cannot say—Karaitiana asked me the same question at Poverty Bay, and I referred him to James Williams. You mentioned a particular £1,000 as being a subject of conversation?—Yes, I knew of the £1,000 bonus; but it appears in the consideration. I required it to be included on account of the stamp duty. Was all the business transacted in one room?—Tanner, Williams, Henare, and Karaitiana, retired into the Masonic Hall. In every transaction with Karaitiana for the sale of land, that I have ever known, something was agreed upon for his private pocket—it is a general thing in native transactions. Then the interview in the Masonic Hall is a Masonic secret, so far as you are concerned?—I knew before, or after, what they had gone for. It was to do something not expedient to be known to the other grantees?—I presume so. Is that the impression left on your mind?—Yes, but it was for nothing incorrect. I do not believe the other natives knew anything about the annuities, for one thing,—had they done so, they would all have wanted annuities. Then you were not present at the interview in the Hall?—No. Another instance of want of confidence in you: did you not think it rather strange?—It did not strike me as strange; I knew it would not have answered for the other natives to have known—it would only have further increased the purchase-money. Was this after the signing?—It was; I am not positive, but have reason to think so Did not Paramena ask you plainly for his money?—No; they all looked to Tanner. You remember him going?—Yes, immediately after the deed was signed. Do you remember anything said by Noa Huki to you?—No. Did Sutton come himself?—I believe so; he served me with a notice, and I afterwards saw his power of attorney. Were Tanner and the others present when Sutton came?—Yes. What had the purchasers to say to that notice?—They rather laughed at the idea. They might have had a very good case, but they were very frightened of litigation. After that meeting, had you much further to do with the case?—Yes, with regard to Matiaha, a deceased grantee; a successor had to be appointed, and Rata was chosen. Had you, subsequently to this, anything further to do?—A great deal—this unfortunate business of Wilson's to fix up, and the title to be made perfect. Have the grantees said anything to you on the subject?—Only Karaitiana, 2t Poverty Bay, and Waaka. Waaka was always complaining, and telling me of a great pile of money he was to receive, and had not got. It became a monomania with old Waaka, he had the same never-varying story, cut and dried. How long was it after this when you saw Karaitiana at Poverty Bay?—About eighteen months ago, some six months after the transaction. Where did the conversation take place?—In my own house How did Karaitiana come into your house?—I very likely called him in, as a friend of mine. Karaitiana denies this part of your evidence. Can you recollect what took place about the £1,000?—(The Chairman : Who were present?—I believe Mrs Wyllie, and Riparata.)—Karaitiana said "I am not quite clear whether I received that £1,000." I replied, "I believe you got it; but I cannot tell you. Go to James Williams; he will show you the book, and if you page 129 have not got it, he will pay yon." You knew what £1,000 was referred to?—Yes, it was called, by the purchasers, a bonus. Did the other grantees know of it?—I should suppose they did not. It is like the annuities, it was not likely they would be informed of it, or they would all have wanted a bonus.

James Nelson Williams, examined by Mr Lascelles: I am a sheep-farmer, residing in Hawke's Bay. I am one of the purchasers of Heretaunga. What was your first knowledge of the transactions regarding the purchase of Heretaunga?—I took no leading part in the negociations until a considerable time after they had begun. When the purchase was first spoken of, before the agreement was signed, I went to Pakowhai with Tanner. Tanner went to Karaitiana's house, and I went and saw Henare, who was lying sick in a whare on the river bank He told me Tanner had offered £10,000 for Heretaunga He thought it should be £15,000, but was not anxious to sell. I said, "Why do you sell; why not keep to the lease?" He said, "I must still something, on account of my debts." Had you any further conversation with him on the subject?—No. What was the next transaction?—With Pahoro. I heard, in Napier, that his share could be bought for a small sum of money, without much trouble. We were anxious, at the time, to prevent individual grantees from selling. We were desirous of purchasing the block as a whole, but not piecemeal. I went to Wilson, and told him, offering to go and buy for as small a sum as Pahoro would be willing to take, to leave it in the hands of the grantees, or leave it till the whole was bought, and at that time pay a fair valuation on it. Wilson did not fall in with my suggestion. Paramena and Pahoro afterwards signed a trust deed. I went to them at the time. I met Pahoro some time after, in Napier; he came to me, and said, "Why has not Tanner been to me about selling Heretaunga?" I advised him to see Tanner. Were you present at any of the transactions at Pakowhai which have been described?—No. When was your next connexion with the negociations? When the money was paid, in March. I can recollect the principal circumstances on that occasion. I came in from the country, expecting to pay the money and complete the transaction, and felt disgusted at having to return and come back on the second day. I remember Karaitiana asking me for money, and my giving him £100 I remember a good deal of talk at Cuff's office; what about, I cannot say; but no business was done on that day. On what day were the deeds signed?—On the following day. Was the balance of the money paid on the same day that the deed was signed?—Yes. What took place on that day?—The grantees were all present in the room with Tanner, myself, Captain Russell and his brother, and Mr Hamlin. The orders that the natives had drawn on us were placed on the table, and a cheque, or cheques, for the balance of the money—I think it was one cheque. The vouchers were shown to the natives by whom they were drawn. What was done with the cheque?—It was placed on the table with the orders. The orders having been shown to the natives, the deed was explained to them, and signed. After the signing, Karaitiana stood up and addressed the natives, saying that Heretaunga had gone through their debts; be had not paid any of his debts out of that money. Pointing to the cheque, he page 130 said, "There is all that remains; I am going to take this for myself," and took possession of the cheque. Was any objection made to this proceeding?—Not in the room. Was any objection made out of the room?—Yes, Paramena came to me and said he was very angry because he had not received any money over and above the order drawn, I told him that all the money had been paid, and referred him to Karaitiana. Some further conversation ensued, and he left. Had you any other conversation with the natives?—Yes, separately, in the Masonic Hall; principally about the reserve. After talking about it some time, Henare took me aside, and said he was in great difficulty, because he had not sufficient money to pay his debts He said, "I am ashamed to speak to Karaitiana myself; I want you to ask him for £200 or £300 out of his money." I went and asked him; he said, "No; there are other people looking to me, besides Henare." I told Henare this; after which he said he was afraid he would have to sell Mangateretere, Kakirawa, or some other land which he mentioned. What arrangement was made about the reserve?—Henare asked me to be one of the trustees, for the natives generally, I understood. You are quite certain Henare asked you to be one of the trustees?—Yes, and I declined to act until I knew who the other would be. Was anything said about the annuities?—There may have been; I do not remember. Afterwards, we went outside, and Noa Huki spoke to me He asked me to keep £100 out of his order in favor of Peacock. I said I had no power to do it without authority from Peacock; we would go to Cuff, and ask him if I should still be liable to Peacock, if I paid £100 to Noa. Cuff said, "You will still be liable to Peacock in full." I subsequently saw Peacock, and asked him to be allowed to keep £100, as Noa wanted it to give to Renata. Peacock replied, "No; Noa has spent the money. You must pay the whole amount," which I did. You can swear that these vouchers were placed on the table?—Yes, and the different vouchers were shown to the parties by whom they were drawn. Was any objection made by any of the parties to the amounts of the vouchers?—No, not in my presence. Did you ascertain the balance due to the natives on the whole of the purchase-money?—Yes. Was the deed signed on this same occasion?—Yes. Was any interpreter present?—Hamlin, I think Martin Hamlin. You have a good knowledge of the Maori language?—Yes. You heard the deed explained I—Yes. Did you hear any explanation between Hamlin and the natives?—No, nothing besides the formal explanation of the deed. Was any objection made to you, or to Hamlin, by any of the natives?—No, When Karaitiana appropriated the money, all the grantees were present, and not one said a word. (The Chairman: Did you hear Noa Huki speak out, and say he had not got his share?—I do not remember. It is my impression that, after Karaitiana spoke, there was a dead silence.) Were you present when Rata signed the deed of conveyance?—Yes. Who paid him the cheque?—I did He handed it to Karaitiana, who was present. Karaitiana put it into his pocket, saying to Rata, "I will give you £500 of this, and keep £500 myself." Rata made no objection. Has any conversation taken place between yourself, Wilson, and Tanner, about the Heretaunga purchase? Several; I remember one in particular, we were talking about the price, [The next question, relating to this conversation, was disallowed.] page 131 Have you since met Henare and Karaitiana?—Yes; a long time after the sale was completed, about this time last year; I met the two of them at Tanner's house. Karaitiana imagined he had not received £1,000 out of the purchase-money. I explained to him that he had, to the best of my belief. After a long, and friendly conversation, Karaitiana said, "Well, you think you are right, and I think I am." I suggested that he should get some pakeha to look thoroughly into the matter; to be supplied with all papers and vouchers in the case, and we would appoint one for our side. Karaitiana said there was not a pakeha in Hawke's Bay he would trust with it. I said he might choose one in Wellington, or elsewhere. Henare was present, and listened attentively He made no complaint. It was a long time after the sale, perhaps twelve months, that I first heard that Karaitiana believed he had not received the £1,000 Have you heard complaints from any of the others?—Yes, from Waaka He asked for the whole of the money; he said he had never got any. I heard of no complaints from any one else, except Paramena and Pahoro, who were settled with Noa, as I have said, applied to me about £100 of Peacock's.

Cross examined by Mr Sheehan: I believe you are, in conjunction with your brother, the largest freeholder in Heretaunga?—I think not; Tanner has the largest interest. You are next to Tanner?—About equal to Gordon and Russell. When did you first acquire an interest in Heretaunga?—After Tanner had leaded it from the natives. I was offered a share in the lease; I received a note from Samuel Williams to the effect that, if I came to town and spoke to Tanner, I might take a share in the Heretaunga lease, and asking that he might have an interest in the block with me. I came down about a week after; saw Tanner, and ascertained that I could have a share. Did you know what other persons were interested at that time?—I believe Captain Russell and Captain Gordon; Ormond and Purvis Russell, I know, came in afterwards. Do you remember the circumstances under which Ormond and Purvis Russell became interested?—I have an indistinct recollection that when they were admitted into the lease, Karaitiana demanded an increased rent. Did the offer come from them, or was it made to them?—I do not know; I do not know that I was consulted. The thing was almost going begging at the time; one person did not care to hold, and sought others. This was the lease obtained before the land went through the Court?—Yes, in 1864. Was not the increase of rent in consequence of an increase of area?—No; I believe solely on account of the increase in numbers. After the land went through the Court, and before the final purchase, what was the first step towards acquiring the freehold?—My meeting Henare at Pakowhai, as stated. Tanner had previously told me that the natives wished to sell. Purvis Russell retired from tins speculation, did he not?—Yes, he sold out to Captain Russell. Do you know what acreage he then held?—About 1,200, I believe. Do you remember what amount he received for going out?—I have heard it stated; I believe it was £1 per acre. About what time would that be?—I do not remember. Before the land went through the Court?—I think not, but, if after, very shortly after. Captain Russell was anxious to get this portion to build on, being a dry piece, and his own land being nearly all swamp. Have you any idea of the time when you saw page 132 Henare, and had the conversation with him which you have related—was it before Tareha sold?—I cannot swear that it was. The negociation came from Tanner?—The proposition was made by Tanner to Henare for £12000. Was it made with your knowledge?—I think not. Had any understanding been arrived at among the lessees, to acquire, if possible, the freehold?—I do not remember any; there might have been. You and Ormond acted, to a certain extent, as treasurers?—Watt was the treasurer. The amounts were paid by orders, signed by you and Ormond, on Watt?—Yes. Had you any knowledge of the mortgage for £1,500, given by the natives?—Yes. Did you hear of it before it was given?—I may have done so. Had you an interest in any of the money obtained under the mortgage?—I am not aware that I had. How came you to go to Pakowhai with Tanner?—I am not aware; I only remember that. I went. Have you given the exact words of the conversation between you and Henare?—As near as I can remember. Was £12,000 offered for Henare's interest in the block?—No, for the whole block. Was anything said by Henare to lead you to suppose that it was for the whole block?—He said Tanner had offered him £12,000 for the block. The land had gone through the Court?—Yes. Did you know of Tanner going to Wellington to purchase?—I think it very likely that I was aware of it. Did you know, before he left, that he was going with Maney and Peacock, to purchase that interest?—I do not think I did. Had you any communication with Tanner, on the subject, while in Wellington?—I think not Any with your brother?—Certainly not. Were you asked to concur in the sale?—Very likely. I remember giving a cheque for my proportion of the money paid to Tareha. Previous to Tanner's going to Wellington, had any arrangement been entered into, amongst the lessees, about purchasing the freehold?—Very likely; but I have no recollection. When did you first hear of Tareha's share being bought?—Very likely on Tanner's return. Did Tanner give you no particulars?—No, but I heard from Peacock that, when in Wellington, he was disgusted with Tanner's action in the matter; that he had another deed, signed by Tareha, in his pocket, and that if Tanner had not come to terms, he would have kept Tareha's share himself. Do you remember any statement as to whether the purchase money was paid in Wellington?—No, I was merely asked for a cheque by Tanner, Do you know anything about Waaka Kawatini's interest?—I heard of it—from whom I cannot say; it was a matter of general conversation. Were you aware, from your brother, the Rev Samuel Williams, that he took a great deal of interest in the matter?—Most likely; but I had no personal knowledge. Were you aware that proceedings were on foot to upset the arrangement with Parker?—Yes. And that they were subsequently discontinued?—Yes. You remember the acquisition of Parker's interest?—Yes. Were not you consulted?—I do not remember. When the settlement was negociated, did you know it was going on?—Very likely. What was arranged?—We purchased Waaka's share in Heretaunga, and the other lands in which he was interested were re-conveyed to him. While the suit was pending, had you seen Wilson, Waaka's solicitor?—I think not. Was there any consultation, among the purchasers, as to the desirability of purchasing Waaka's share?—Very likely; I do not recollect. Do you remember giving a cheque for your proportion of the page 133 money?—No, only a part was paid before the final execution of the deed; the balance remaining was paid then. Regarding Pahoro's share: YOU heard that it could be acquired very cheaply—from whom did you hear this?—I do not know. Did you hear whether any other person, beside the lessees, had endeavored to purchase Pahoro's interest?—I do not know. Had you beard of any person going to Pakipaki to purchase?—No; I heard that if I liked to buy it, I could go and do so without any trouble Had you not heard from your brother that other persons were endeavouring to acquire a freehold interest?—I think not. When you went to Wilson, you suggested the absolute purchase of Pahoro's share?—Yes. And he suggested the deeds of trust?—No: he did not fall in with the proposal, He was my solicitor at the time, and I submitted this as a scheme to prevent Pahoro from making away with his share for £50, as I was told he would do. Can you remember who your informant was?—No. Was the conveyance you proposed to Wilson, meant to prevent his selling to any other person?—Yes. Shortly after this, deeds of trust were prepared?—Yes. Had you any conversation with the other purchasers on the subject?—With Tanner, no doubt; it is very improbable that I conversed with the others on the subject. You took up the deeds of trust, and got the signatures of Paramena and Pahoro, and the other natives concerned?—Yes. Did you afterwards hear of a conveyance of his interest obtained from Pahoro?—Yes. I had previously heard that he was willing to sell. From whom did you hear of this agreement to sell?—From Tanner. Did you agree to this?—Yes. Pahoro came to me, as I have said, offering his share, and asking why Tanner had not bought it. Had the determination then been come to, to acquire the freehold?—Yes Had meetings of the purchasers been held to consider the subject?—Yes. Who conducted the negociations?—Tanner. What was the next event, according to your recollection?—The payment of the money in Cuff's office. Had you not heard of the negociation between Henare, Karaitiana, and Tanner?—Yes, from Tanner. What did you hear mentioned as the purchase-money, when Tanner had made the first agreement regarding the sale of the Heretaunga block?—I do not remember exactly—£12,000 or £13,000. Did you understand that this was to include the amount of Neal's mortgage?—I could not say. Did it include the amount paid to Tareha?—No. Did you not hear?—I do not remember. About the time Tanner obtained this agreement, he had been backwards and forwards several times to Pakowhai?—Yes. Had any active steps been taken at that time, to acquire the freehold of the whole block?—I cannot say. Had you any conversation with Tanner about the purchase-money?—Very possibly; but I do not recollect. Do you remember the particular amounts to be paid to the grantees?—Yes; £1,000 for Karaitiana, and £1,000 for Henare, as part payment. Of what particular sum were they to be part' payment?—I cannot remember. You cannot, then, remember any conversation with Tanner, as to the total purchase-money, or individual shares?—No, beyond that Karaitiana and Henare were to receive each £1,000, over and above the price of their shares that was the way it should be paid to them. Did Tanner tell you how it became necessary to give these amounts over and above?—I cannot say; I do not believe he had consulted me. Had there, up to this time, been no distinct un- page 134 derstanding as to the amount to be paid?—I have no definite recollection. Steps were taken, and it was agreed to purchase. Was this before or after Pahoro's interest was acquired?—Before, I think. Had anything been decided as to the price?—I do not remember; I have an indistinct recollection of meetings, but remember no particular one; [only know it was generally understood that we were to purchase. Were no particular instructions given to Tanner, as to a limit, which he must not exceed in the purchase?—I do not remember. Do you remember Tanner informing you that he had succeeded in obtaining a written agreement from Karaitiana and Henare?—I think I do. Was it on this occasion when he mentioned the bonus?—No, I think that was afterwards He would be mentioning the matter to obtain your concurrence, then?—Very likely. You knew of Karaitiana's objecting to the purchase: did you take any action respecting it?—I took a copy of Karaitiana's agreement with me to Wellington. Did you go for that purpose?—No. How long after your return were you asked to go into Cuff's?—I cannot say. Were you then aware what the amount of the purchase-money was?—I must have been. Can you remember it?—£19,000, I believe. Including the £1,500 to Tareha?—Yes. And Arihi's share?—Yes, £2,500. As well as the mortgage?—Yes. How long had you been aware that that was to be the amount?—I do not know. Had you not been called upon for funds for the purpose?—No, we made arrangements with Watt. At what time of the day did you go to Cuff's on the first day?—I cannot say; I only remember two days at Cuff's. Who did you meet there on the first day?—I believe all the six grantees were present, but cannot be certain; they were all there on the second day, on which the deed was signed. Do you recollect any thing that occurred on the first day you remember—apparently, according to Mr Cuff, the second day?—I remember meeting Karaitiana, and giving him £100. Karaitiana says that this was a week previously—He may be correct. I remember coming prepared to pay the money, and having to return. I cannot remember the cause of the delay—it was with the natives. Was it possible that all the grantees were not present?—It is possible, but I think they were all present. Next day I came in early in the morning to Cuff's office. Had you previously heard of Henare signing the deed of conveyance?—Yes. Had you heard beforehand that he was about to be asked to sign?—I think not Had you heard of Manaena having signed?—Yes. Had it been intimated to you that annuities were to be given to Henare, Karaitiana, and Manaena?—Yes. Who informed you of this?—Most likely Tanner. When you arrived at Cuff's, who were present?—Tanner, the six grantees, Hamlin, and, I believe, Captain Russell and his brother. What was the first thing done?—The orders were produced and laid on the table. Was not the deed of conveyance signed early in the morning?—It was signed after the orders were examined. The orders were shown to the grantees, a cheque was drawn, and, thirdly, the conveyance was signed. Up to that time had you heard what price was fixed for each man's interest?—No, I had not heard. There was some talk of £1,000 for some of the grantees; but the purchase-money was considered more than £1,000 each. You have already said that, when Pahoro signed the conveyance, payment was withheld till the other grantees came in—were you present when the page 135 deed was explained?—Yes. Was anything said by the interpreter about the £1,000 bonus to Karaitiana and Henare?—No; there was the amount expressed in the deed; there were the vouchers, and the cheque for the balance. Was anything said to the natives, before the signature, of the annuities to be paid to Karaitiana and Henare?—I do not remember. Before this, you were aware that Karaitiana and Henare were to receive £1,000, over and above their share?—Yes. Do you remember the amount of the cheque you placed on the table?—£2,300 odd, I believe. Had you any conversation with Karaitiana, previously, about his intentions with regard to that money?—I do not remember. Had it not been arranged that he was to take the money?—No; I had no power to make such an arrangement. Had you been informed that Sutton had been authorized to get Manaena's signature?—Yes. Had you any knowledge of the terms on which the signatures were obtained?—I do not believe that I had. You had purchased Pahoro's interest for £750—did you consider yourself under no obligation to see that he got that £750 when the money was paid?—No. Had the arrangement that Karaitiana and Henare were to get £1,000 extra, been varied, to your knowledge, prior to the execution of the deed?—Not that I know of. Did you see each man sign?—Yes. And then the cheque was placed on the table?—Yes. Were you aware that Karaitiana was to take the whole of the purchase-money?—No. Was it intimated to the grantees, before signing, that the cheque for the balance would be handed to Karaitiana?—No, certainly not; he handed it to himself. You say that when he appropriated the cheque, a profound silence came upon the other grantees?—Nobody spoke. (The Chairman: Have you no recollection of any conference with Karaitiana, as to what was to be done with the balance?—No.) While you were going through the orders, and before the signing of the deed, will you undertake to say that nothing was said to the natives about the amount of their respective interests?—Not in my hearing. Nothing was said by them on the subject?—Not to my recollection. Who was the first to break the silence?—I do not know; they began talking again. How long did you remain after Karaitiana had taken up the cheque, before you went into the other room?—I cannot say. What did you go in for?—I do not remember. Was it that it was not considered desirable to let the others know what you were talking of?—It may have been so. Are you not aware that it was?—No. How long were you in there?—I do not remember. What did you talk about in there?—The reserve, and Henare's debt; I do not remember any other subject. Was not the question of the annuities spoken of?—It may have been; I cannot say. What had you understood about the reserve?—That it was to be re conveyed to Henare and Karaitiana. When the deed was explained, was anything said to the assembled natives, in reference to the reserve?—I do not remember. Was not the adjournment to the other room made that the natives should not know what passed about the reserve?—It might have been; I was quite in ignorance of any motive of that kind. Did you say anything, before or after the signature, to the natives about the reserve?—No. But you conversed about it with Henare and Karaitiana?—Yes. Did not you and Tanner take Karaitiana and Henare in?—I do not remember so. Did you not tell them they could not be appointed trustees?— page 136 This comes quite new to me You were asked, by Henare, to become a trustee;—was not this in consequence of your informing him that his name and Karaitiana's could not be placed on the deed of trust?—Not that I am aware of. You remember their asking you to become trustee?—Yes. Is that all you can remember of the conversation?—I remember nothing else distinctly; there was a good deal of conversation about the reserve. Were they not informed that it would not be expedient to convey the land to them as trustees?—Not that I know of. You do not remember any talk about annuities?—No. Yet these were part of the consideration?—Yes. Had the arrangement been made?—Yes. When?—at what stage was it reduced from a mere promise to an absolute certainty?—I do not know.

By the Chairman: Are you aware whether the annuities were, at any time, looked upon as a gratuity?—No. The arrangement was to pay £1,500, £1,000, and £500 to the three?—Yes. Did you deduct from the consideration-money, £3 000 for that purpose?—Yes. Were you aware that this was made that they should have a partially permanent provision?—Yes, I had heard Tanner speak about it.

The Commission adjourned at 5 10 p.m.

Wednesday, 26th March, 1873.

J. N. Williams, continued: I wish to add to my former statement that the conversation in the Masonic Hall was partly in reference to Matiaha's share. By Mr Sheehan: Did you not discuss, with Karaitiana, the amount he was to to receive, over and above his share?—No, I believe not. Did you not discuss what was to be done with the £15,000 consideration-money?—It might have been so, but I do not think so. Did you not, on the same occasion, go into the question of apportioning the money out to the different grantees?—You were aware that Tanner was negociating for the purchase, with your approval—he reported to you, from time to time, the progress of the negociation?—Yes He reported to you the fact of obtaining an agreement from Henare and Karaitiana?—Tanner must have told me. Did he not, at the same time, inform you of the disposition of the purchase-money?—I have no doubt he did. You have spoken of an arrangement by which Karaitiana and Henare were to get £1,000 extra?—At an early stage of the proceedings there was an agreement by which Karaitiana and Henare were to receive £2,000 each, Paramena and Pahoro £1,000 between them, and the other grantees £1,000 each. This was only a proposal; not an arrangement. Was it not actually arranged that Karaitiana and Henare should receive £1,000 each, over and above their share? You have mentioned Karaitiana's calling upon you about this £1,000?—Yes. You were not taken by surprise at that application?—I was. You understood that that £1,000 was the one he was to receive over and above the other grantees?—If you like to put it so. You could only remember the conversation about the reserve, and the application made to you by Henare—can you remember anything further?—Only about Matiaha's share. When you came out, did not Paramena ask you where the money was that he was to get?—Yes. What reply did you make?—I told him Karaitiana had got all the money that was left. Did not Noa Huki also speak in similar terms?—I have no recollection of it; but distinctly remember his page 137 asking me about the £100. You have spoken about the proceedings in reference to the accounts—you say the vouchers were shown to each man before the deed was signed?—Yes. Was it done in this way—to Manaena, for instance—your share is £1,000, in addition to your annuity; you have given such orders; your balance is so much?—No; the balance was shown on the whole amount—£8,500. Still, taking the case of Manaena, was this said—your share was £1,000; you have had so much; and when you have signed the deed, look to Karaitiana for the balance?—No. Was anything said to Manaena to intimate that there was any change in the terms on which he had made the agreement?—No; if any different arrangement was made, it was not intimated to the grantees before signing. What acreage of land did you and your brother hold at the time of the sale?—3,700 acres. Did you not obtain, shortly after the sale, a large sum on the security of that property?—Yes. What is the amount for which that property is secured now?—£7,000. That sum was advanced upon it very shortly after the completion of the purchase?—Immediately. How long after, was it, that you sold your portion of the land?—A year after. What was the extent?—200 acres, and the price, £5 per acre. You have purchased portions front Tanner?—Yes. What area?—600 acres. How long ago?—Six months. What did you pay for that, per acre?—[Mr Tanner objected to the question, which he considered impertinent—The Chairman considered the question admissible—Mr Tanner said he had no objection to state the amount, £10; but objected to the terms of a private arrangement being mentioned]—£10 per acre. The land you sold for £5 per acre was unimproved?—It was fenced on three sides, partly wire, and partly hedge, and had an artesian well on it. It was otherwise unimproved?—Yes; the hedge was put up subsequently as a division. The wire fence was part of the original fence of the whole property?—Yes. The land you purchased from Tanner was also unimproved?—It had been drained, and was fenced in on three sides. This was also a part of the original fence?—Yes. Have you sold or purchased any other portions?—No. Reverting to the original acquisition of the property—how was the block divided among the lessees—had not you and the Rev. Samuel Williams the first selection?—After Mr Tanner, I think we had. You are sure it was after Tanner?—Positive. The others had to determine by lot?—I believe they had; I was not present. Were not your interests in Samuel Williams' hands?—I believe they were; he held a power of attorney He is your brother, is he not?—My cousin and brother-in-law. Did not you and your brother secure that right in consideration of services rendered in securing the lease?—I am not aware of it. Was not that one of the grounds?—I do not know—it may have been settled by lot; I was away from the Province eighteen months. Will you swear it was not in recognition of Samuel Williams' services in securing the block?—I would be sorry to do so; I have no knowledge. Mr Williams himself may have made such a stipulation, but not to my knowledge. When was it first arranged that Matiaha's successor should receive £1,000?—I cannot say; my first actual knowledge of it was on the 23rd March, when the money was paid. Was not that made known to the assembled natives?—I believe the natives whom Matiaha represented were present; and it is very likely they were informed. I know that page 138 two or three of them called shortly after at my house. Did you not, in the course of the conversation on the 22nd, go into details with Karaitiana and Henare about particular shares; not Arihi's alone; but Matiaha's interest, and others?—Very likely; I may have done. [A voucher is shown to witness.] Now will you not admit that the whole of the natives were informed of the arrangement setting aside £1,000 for Matiaha?—Yes, they were. You had no recollection of that fact until the vouchers recalled it?—No. Will you undertake to say that no arrangement was made regarding the shares of the other grantees?—All I can say is, that I do not recollect. You acted in conjunction with Ormond in operating upon the moneys available for the purchase?—Yes. Was Watt the first person who undertook to supply the money?—There had been a preliminary negociation with the Trust and Loan Company, but they required that the whole block should be secured. The bulk of the orders had been paid at that time?—Yes. Some of the Europeans would be about Cuff's office at the time?—Sutton and others. At the time you gave these orders, you knew what proportion was going to each grantee?—We did not. Who kept the accounts?—Watt, I believe. Not against the purchasers, but against the natives?—The accounts were made up at the time of payment. You were aware that Henare was debited with £3,084; Karaitiana with £2,794; Manaena with £799; Paramena, £690, and Pahoro, £322?—Yes. In addition to which £3,000 was deducted on account of the annuities?—Yes. Was nothing said by any of the purchasers in reference to the fact that you were apportioning to Henare £3,000, and to Pahoro £300?—No; I considered it was for the chief of the tribe and the other grantees to make the disposition of the money remaining. Karaitiana received a cheque for the whole balance, £2,387?—Yes. I see an item of £307 8s. cash to Karaitiana; can you explain this?—I suppose it was for sums he owed. Did you see the account of how this money had been advanced, at the time?—No. Will you undertake to say that such an account was there?—No. There is a similar item against Manaena, £142 4s. 6d—had you any account showing how that money was paid?—No, it was not produced—it was charged in a lump sum among other similar items against the purchase of the estate. Manaena was not charged with that amount then. Was Pahoro charged with this £29?—I cannot say. Or Paramena with this £22 17s.?—I cannot say. Was Karaitiana charged with this £307 8s?—Yes. Will you undertake to say that this sum was explained to Karaitiana, as debited to him on account of payments to Tanner?—I believe so. I see an account, Tanner against Henare, £781 4s.—was this explained to him? £19,920 is the purchase-money paid for the whole block?—Yes. You were present when a convention took place between Karaitiana and others about the annuities?—Yes. Was not the amount of the annuities included in the deed, on the recommendation of your solicitor?—Yes, he said it was necessary, on account of the stamp duty. Were they not supposed to be over and above the consideration expressed?—No; I believe not. Was it not the original intention that the sum of the annuities should not appear as part of the consideration?—I am not aware that it was, I had formed no intention on the subject. Will you swear that it was not intended by the purchasers that it should be left out?—I will swear it was not so intended page 139 by myself; I cannot speak for others. Do you know the amount paid in cash, to secure the three annuities?—£2,134 for nine years—we had paid the throe annuities the first year—making a total of £2,434. Did you inform the natives that you would make £600 by paying them in that way?—No. What was the total amount of the advances made by Walt, on account of the purchase, without reckoning the bonus?—I believe his fall account was £26,000. We have been shown accounts re-presenting nearly £20,000; Watt's bonus was £3,000; how do you make up the balance?—The duty was a heavy sum; there were also expenses of interest, interpreters, &c. Do you know what amount was paid to the interpreters?—No. Mr Watt did not find the money for Tareha's share.

Re-examined by Mr Lascelles: You knew that Tanner negociated the purchase?—Yes. Was the matter left with Tanner?—Yes, principally. Did you ever interfere?—I think not. Was any alteration made in the amount paid for Arihi's share?—Yes, the original amount, proposed was £1,500; the amount paid was £2,500. Were you consulted about this alteration?—No. Were you acquainted with any arrangement by which the reserve was to be for the sole benefit of Henare and Karaitiana?—No. At the time of the sale was the Province in a flourishing state?—No; everything with regard to the natives was very unsettled. What was the state of property?—Extremely depressed. Was properly easily saleable?—No. The property was used as a sheep farm?—Yes. What was then the price of wool?—My wool was sold that year for 1s. 2d. per [unclear: lb]. in London. What was the price last year?—1s. 4d. to Is 7d. for greasy, and 1s. 11d. to 2s. 4d. for washed wool of the same quality. What was the lowest sum offered for land at that time?—The land I bought of Tanner was open for sale for £5 an acre for twelve months. Has there been any change in the rivers there?—They have changed altogether. To the benefit of the block, or otherwise?—To its improvement. You know Tanner's property; how much per acre has it benefited by the change?—I cannot say; but there has been a material improvement. Previous to the alteration, the land used to be occasionally flooded, and I have Seen hundreds of sheep lying dead in the middle of the block. What was the state of this 600 acres when you bought it?—Previously the river used to flow over half of it; now that is not the case. (The Chairman: Is any of the block worse for the change?—Yes, a small portion of it.) Have you ever seen this 600 acres flooded? Yes, three or four feet of water on it, before the river changed its course. What proportion of the block was swamp when it was purchased?—I should think fully one quarter. Is any portion still useless?—Yes, until it is drained. Has any attempt been made to improve it?—Yes; a good deal of money has been spent in draining, which has been, to a certain extent, successful; but a good deal of the land is still subject to floods. What proportion of the block is held by Gordon?—2,400 acres. Of what description is this part?—Various. Any shingle ?—A strip of shingle runs through it. At that time how many years' purchase was the average rate of sale?—I do not know. Have you heard of sales since?—Yes. At what rate?—About ten years' purchase. Did you take part in any arrangement by which the money was apportioned among the grantees?—No. You have stated that such an page 140 arrangement was proposed—how?—It was talked of between Tanner and myself. Had it been proposed to the grantees?—Tanner told me that some such arrangement had been spoken of between himself and the grantees. You see the items in this paper?—Yes. Have they, to your knowledge, been paid by the purchasers of the land?—Yes, Except what you have stated on the part of Karaitiana, Paramena, and Waaka, you have had no complaints?—Yes. When the accounts were gone into in Cuff's office, was it in contemplation to purchase Government annuities?—I believe so. Was it so stated to Henare and the others?—I cannot say.

By Mr Commissioner Manning: Is this 600 acres which you mentioned, the same quality as the rest?—Better in quality than the average.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: You say at the time of the purchase of Heretaunga there was a good deal of trouble among the natives?—Yes. What trouble?—About the Hauhaus. With reference to the fighting?—Yes. Was that the reason that land was thought of little value?—Yes, because it deterred people from settling. Did you tell the grantees at the time that you were afraid of the Hauhaus?—Certainly not. Was there trouble among the natives to whom the land belonged?—No. Between the Government and the Hauhaus?—Yes.

The Commission then took the usual mid-day adjournment of one hour. On resuming, at 2.15 p.m., the evidence as to the value of the block was gone into.

Edmund Tuke, examined by Mr Sheehan, deposed: I am a settler, residing in this district; I have been here twenty years. I have been engaged in sheepfarming. Have you had much experience in selling lands?—I have bought, sold, and leased; but have not had the experience of a broker. Do you consider yourself qualified to give an opinion as to the value of land in the district, in which you have experience?—Yes. You are acquainted with the Heretaunga block?—Yes. What would you consider a fair price for the freehold of the block between July 1869 and 1870—the block containing 17,785 acres, and being leased for twenty-one years, from April, 1867, at a rent of £1,250 for the first ten years, and £1,750 for the remainder of the term, with an improvement clause in the lease, including the grasses?—I should consider it worth £3 per acre all round, taking the bad with the good. A portion of the adjacent block, Papakura, was sold by the Government about that time, for £5 per acre; the upset price was £3 per acre. (The Chairman: That is the value of the land in hand, not subject to a lease.) I consider it worth £3 per acre to the lessees at that time. (The Chairman: Do you know what the Government gave for the Papakura block?—No. I should estimate that at the end of the lease, in 1887, the land will be worth £40 or £50 per acre.) Can you give an idea of the increase in the value of land during the last four years, in the Meanee district?—The Greenmeadows block, at Meanee, sold for £25 per acre, four years ago, and Mr Tiffen has sold some of the same land, recently, at £30 and £36 per acre. How far is the nearest part of the Heretaunga block from Meanee?—About nine miles. Is the soil of Heretaunga in any way inferior to the other parts of the plains?—No; I have always considered it one of the best blocks in this, or any other page 141 Province. In 1867, what would you have considered a fair rental for the block?—About 5s. per acre. Would 3s. below?—Yes (Mr Commissioner Manning: Including the swamps?—Decidedly. There was a large shingle-bed on Gordon's part, which I should certainly not include.)

By the Chairman: Are you personally acquainted with the block?—Yes. Is it drainable?—The greater part, I should think, is; but I am not acquainted with the levels. It has always been looked on as the best block in the vicinity of Napier. From your experience, do you consider it reasonable to expect that, at the end of the lease, it will be worth £40 or £50 per acre?—Certainly. Are the valuations those at which you would have bought the land, had circumstances suited?—Yes—certainly.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles: What is the largest block you ever bought?—Sixty or seventy acres. What is the largest you ever sold?—Perhaps 100 acres. In what part of the Province?—Meanee. Township lands?—No, suburban lands. How far is Meanee from Napier?—Five miles. Is there a good road?—Yes. And omnibusses running daily?—Yes. Are these all the land transactions you have had?—I have leased large blocks. The first block I leased was eighteen years ago; I paid £60 per annum; it was unsurveyed; I do not know the acreage. Have you sold or leased land since 1867?—No. Have you leased the Matapiro block?—Yes; before 1865. It was not a legal lease; I held it about six years; and sold it in 1864 or 1865. How large?—25,600 acres. What rent did you pay for that?—[Witness objects to answer] Did you part with it before the Native Lands Act came into force?—Yes. I believe the rent was £300 per annum; but we had no legal title. How often have you been through the Heretaunga block?—Several times; I was over it four or five months ago. Do you know in what year the river changed its course?—I do not remember. Had it changed its course prior to 1870?—I believe so. Can you state what Tiffen's land was sold for by auction in 1870?—I do not know. Have you ever been concerned in land transactions as agent? Can you state a single instance in which land for a sheep-run has been sold at a rate to give 2½ per cent for the money? or 5 per cent?—I cannot remember any. Will you state the rate of interest in 1870?—It was 10 per cent. Are you acquainted with Colenso's land, at Taradale?—Yes. At what rate did he purchase it?—I cannot say; it was sold at £14 per acre, not long after. Was not that sale broken off because the rate was too high?—Yes, and the land was afterwards sold to Maney, for about £3,300, or £11 per acre. Is that land all improved?—Yes; all under grass, but it is Subject to floods. At how many years' purchase did land sell about that time?—I do not remember. Is not the value of Taradale materially increased since the new road was sanctioned?—Not that I am aware of. What is it that you consider will so materially increase the value of land during these years?—The railway. In all probability Tanner will have an extensive township on the block. What is the distance between Meanee and Heretaunga by road?—About ten miles. Can you state what proportion of the land is swamp?—No. Have you been into that part to ascertain whether it can be drained?—I believe a great part is drained at the present time. I have not examined it, to see; I have no page 142 interest in native land. Have you ever been off the road to look at the land?—I have been all over it; I was thinking of taking it as a sheep-run, many years ago. Can you state what portion was river bed?—Perhaps 1,000 acres. Can you see the whole of it from any given point?—Yes, from the Puketapu hill. Have you ever been there?—Yes. Since it was in Gordon's possession?—No; but I have been on the river-bed itself. Can you state what has been the rise in property during the last year or two?—Very considerable; but I cannot say—perhaps 50 per cent. The great cause has been the increase in the price of wool. What do you suppose has been the amount of the rise?—I believe, about Is. per lb. on washed, and on greasy, 8d. per lb. In 1870, what was the state of the sheep farming interest generally?—In rather a bad state. I was out of it myself; but believe that was the case. What was the state of farming at that time?—I do not know; but believe it was better than sheep-farming.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: Is any part of this laud suitable for agriculture?—Yes; the greater part of it.

By M r Commissioner Hikairo: Was it only in the Meanee district where you purchased land?—It is so long ago, I almost forget. I have purchased land there. Do you know the price paid formerly in that district?—About £6 per acre. Is it subject to floods:—Yes; and some, subject to floods, has been sold for £12. How far from Napier?—About five miles. Were you sheep farming during 1870?—No. Do you know the Waitanoa?—Yes. Did you hear how much that was purchased for?—£400, I believe. Was that superior to Heretaunga?—No, it was under water during a great part of the year. Heretaunga is much superior, then?—Far superior. You heard it was sold to H. R. Russell?—Yes. Did you hear what price was given?—About £450, I believe.

Henry Stokes Tiffen, examined by Mr Sheehan: You are an old settler in this distinct?—Yes, since 1849. Have you had experience in land dealings?—Very extensive experience since 1853; having held three different offices under Government, in relation to Crown Lands. Do you know the Heretaunga block?—Not intimately since 1857 or 1858, when the trigonometrical survey was made—I knew it very well at that time. Did it differ materially from the rest of the plains in quality?—There was great havoc at the south-western corner, by the Ngaruroro river, and a considerable proportion of swamps. When I last saw it, before it passed into European hands, the swamps were decreasing, and English grass spreading. There was some increase in the shingle-bed. What is the quality of the land?—Some portions are as good as any in New Zealand; other portions are rather shallow; the swampy portion has a hard subsoil, not conducive to present fertility; but likely to make good land hereafter. What would you consider the fair value of the land in 1870?—The value of the land was fully £3 per acre, if divided into sections; but I do not say it would have brought £51,000 in one piece. If it had been divided, there would have been no difficulty in finding purchasers at that rate. I sold 1,200 acres of my run, Home-wood, thirty miles from Napier, in 1869, in one block, at £3 per acre; in December, 1867,] sold 345 acres, on the Puketapu hills, for £5 2s. page 143 per acre; in December, 1868, I sold 364 acres of the Home-wood run, at £3 3s. per acre. These were bond fide transactions, in which I myself was concerned; and, in the case of Home-wood, the purchasers agreed to take the entire cost of fencing. What did the land originally cost you?—I bought it from Mr Tollemache, under a purchasing clause, at 30s. per acre; he bought it nominally at 10s. per acre, and paid for it in scrip. What is the comparative quality of the land?—Heretaunga is much the better of the two. Do you know how laud in the vicinity sells?—Two years ago, one of my tenants gave me notice, as he could get land of Tanner, for £5 per acre. His last year's rental was 30s. per acre. I would willingly have exchanged Home-wood land for Heretaunga, if the title had been good; but I have never dealt with native land, not trusting the title. Have you any idea of the rental of land within ten to twenty miles of Napier?—Various—averaging about 6s. per acre. Assuming that you were in possession of a block in 1870, that you had leased it in 1867 for twenty-one years, at £1,250 for the first ten years, and £1,750 for the remainder; what would you consider a fair price for 17,785 acres?—I could not put myself in that position—I could not have found a purchaser. I would have divided it into 100-acre blocks, and would not have considered I had done justice to myself if I obtained less than £4 per acre. (Mr Commissioner Manning: Supposing it bad been thrown on the market as a whole, do you suppose a purchaser could have been found at that rate?—No; there was a great depression in the value of cattle and wool. If it had been forced on the market at the time of Omaranui, it would, perhaps, not have fetched £12,000. I knew a good deal of property sold at one-fourth its value, about that time. At any time, preceding the sale of Heretaunga, did you hear that the natives were about to sell it?—No; but an agitation was raised for the Government to buy it for agricultural settlements. This panic, to which I have alluded, was only temporary.) If you had been the owner, would you have selected that as a favorable time for realizing?—No. Could you give no idea of the value of the land in 1870, leased for twenty one years, with about eighteen to run—the rent for the first ten years being £1,250, and for the remaining eleven years £1,750?—No. Taking the block in 1867, what would you have considered a fair rental?—I can only tell you what I was getting—from 4s. 6d. to 8s. per acre. Would 3s. be a low rental for Heretaunga, considering the improvement clause?—Yes; 3s. would be a low rent.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles: When did you buy the property known as Greenmeadows?—In 1857 or 1858. Where is it?—At Meanee; by the present road it is nine miles from Napier to the centre of the property. What did you pay for it?—10s. per acre for 900 acres; 16s. per acre for 2,400; for 60 acres, £11 8s; and for 70 acres, £11 18s. I have since bought 7 acres adjoining for £20. Do you know what Alley's land was sold for?—No, I know nothing about my neighbours' business. Do you know what was paid to the Government for the Hapuku block?—Nominally, 10s. per acre—some as low as 5s. This was in 1855. You have stated that, at the time of the sale, there was a considerable depression. If wool had remained as then, would you still value it at £3?—Certainly; because I look upon it as agricultural land. If the owners lay it down in pasture, that is their look out.

page 144

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: Did you not hear that Heretaunga was bought by a number of persons?—Yes, by the Twelve Apostles; but I did not know the names of all of them.

Re-examined by Mr Sheehan: You bought in 1857?—Yes. When did you pay these higher prices?—About 1867. The general price for land at the Meanee was about £15 per acre; it rose as high as £40. I have sold a number of blocks at £30 to £40, in dots of 10 to 40 acres; one lot was 60 acres. There was no village there then. At the time I gave 16s. per acre, I was letting land at 9s. Were there any special circumstances taking these out of the ordinary run?—Yes; the fact that there was no other land, in the vicinity of Napier, attainable, the plains being still in the hands of the natives.

Karaitiana, recalled, examined by Mr Sheehan: You sold a piece of land—the Pakowhai block?—Yes. In what year?—I do not know. Before or after Heretaunga?—A long while before. How much did you sell?—400 acres. At what price?—£10 per acre. To whom did you sell?—M'Hardy. (Mr Commissioner Manning: Was it sold to one man in one piece?—Yes.) Is it near Heretaunga?—It is divided from it by a stream. How came you to sell Heretaunga so much lower?—That selling was through fear. Was Pakowhai grassed when you sold it?—Grass was growing on portions; but it had never been sown—the cattle had wandered over it. How was the rent under Tanner's lease divided?—To Henare, £400, perhaps; he had the management of the money for Pahoro, Paramena, and Arihi; Te Waaka, £100; Noa, £150; Tareha, £100; Manaena, £100; and Matiaha's was included with mine, the other £300 was with us. Who paid the mortgage?—I do not quite know. I do not think it was paid out of the rent, but went on increasing.

The Commission adjourned to 9 a.m. on Thursday.

Thursday, 27th March, 1873.

The Commission opened at 9 a.m., and was occupied for about an hour with the Te Kiwi (Wairoa) complaint, which was then adjourned till the next day, and the Heretaunga inquiry proceeded with.

John Davies Ormond, examined by Mr Lascelles, deposed: I am one of the owners of the Heretaunga block. I originally held one share, 1,200 acres. I first came in under the lease, before the land went through the Native Lands Court, and continued interested in the lease till the time of purchase. I came into the lease about six months after Tanner. I have had nothing to do with the negociations for the purchase. I never spoke a syllable to a Maori on the subject. I knew very little of the negociations as they went on. I knew something of the purchase of Tareha's share, and a little about Alibi's. The only active part I took was this, I was deputed by the other purchasers to sign orders on Watt, on behalf of James Williams. I was at Wellington, attending the General Assembly, when Tanner came. I heard from him that Maney and Peacock were endeavoring to purchase Tareha's share. I advised Tanner to do all he could to prevent Tareha from selling in Wellington; but one day he came to me, and told me Tareha had sold his interest to Maney page 145 and Peacock, and also, that it was open to the Heretaunga lessees to purchase it for £1,500. At first I hesitated, but at last consented, so far as I was concerned, to take it at the price. My first objection was, that I did not like the purchase conducted in that way. I should have liked the block to have been bought from the whole tribe, as one large purchase. I also considered the price too high for one share. It had been understood, among the purchasers, that the block should be bought, if at all, at one operation. Why was that plan departed from?—Because one share, Tareha's, had been purchased by other persons, against the wishes of the lessees, and there was no alternative but to give the money, or allow the share to pass into other hands. I have heard Wilson's evidence. About a month ago, he called at my office, and told me of some money—a sum of £1,000, from Pakowhai, which had been placed in his hands in the way of trust, arid which Karaitiana was anxious to get, for the purpose of paying his debts. I said I would not advise him to pay it over, as Karaitiana's connexion with Pakowhai would probably be looked into by this Commission He said, "Then I suppose he must find the money somewhere else." I said, "I suppose so." Wilson said, "Yes; he has got plenty of property, and can sell some to pay his debts." I then replied, "You had better take care, or you will be charged, as I have been, with pressing Karaitiana to sell his land to pay his debts." I said this jokingly. I believe Wilson's rejoinder was, that it was a proper thing that he should do so. Such is my recollection of the conversation with Wilson, which I was much astonished to hear repeated here. Did Karaitiana ever apply to you for money to release his gig?—Yes, for Government money. I replied that the Government had no money for the purpose He then asked me to lend him money. I told him his credit was as good as anybody's; he should manage his own business. Heretaunga was not mentioned. It was once mentioned at Pakowhai, after Karaitiana returned from Auckland. I had gone to Pakowhai with F. E. Hamlin, the Government interpreter, I went, because I understood that Karaitiana was in a very sulky stale, respecting pressure being put on him about his debts. My object was to talk over these matters with him, and give him such advice as I could He then in the course of conversation, told me, that in Auckland, he had asked Mr M'Lean to give him money on account of Heretaunga, and asked if M'Lean had not sent money for that purpose. I told him I had heard nothing from M'Lean on the subject, and did not think the Government would advance money upon land in the way he indicated. I may add that I knew the position in which the land then stood—that Karaitiana and Henare had feigned agreements to sell; that other shares had been sold, and that it would be impossible for the Government to go into the transaction. Did he seem satisfied?—He made a few remarks more, saving he had understood that the money was to be advanced by the Government He also intimated that he would be coining to Napier It has been stated that you used your official position to urge the sale of Heretaunga—is that true?—Perfectly untrue. I never exchanged a word with any Maori about Heretaunga, except on the occasion I have just mentioned. The idea of my refusing to lend £40, as a means of pressure to sell Heretaunga, is simply ridiculous. Concerning Arihi's share?—I knew it was bought, and probably heard the price; but was not aware of any fixed page 146 date for payment. I heard from Tanner, by telegraph, that he was at Waipukuran He told me that Waft, Arihi, and himself were there. [Mr Sheehan: Is this the contents of the telegram?—Yes—Then it should be produced] Had you anything to do with the payment, or the meeting at Cuff's office?—No, I was only at Cuff's office once, and then there were no natives there. I was there with the other purchasers, I believe, to confer about some difficulty with Wilson concerning the deeds. What was the condition of the block at the time of the first lease?—It was in a very rough and unfit state for sheep, overgrown with fern and flax; but there was no grass on the parts I was acquainted with, except a little along the track from Awa-o-te-Atua to Pakowhai. We used it for sheep. Tanner kept has sheep separate, the rest of us ran our sheep together. We used it as a wether run—each purchaser being allowed, by arrangement, to run 500 sheep. Six thousand was as many as it was supposed to carry. This arrangement was continued until the land passed through the Court, and a legal lease obtained Was the return commensurate with the rent?—Not at all; but the lessees had obtained an improvement clause, by which they could go to expense, and make the land productive. My share was much above the average in quality, and after fencing it in, before the other improvements, I was able to run 800 sheep. The alteration of the river-bed has been advantageous to the land generally; only about 2,000 acres are now under water in time of floods; there used to be about double that amount. Do you know what extent was swamp?—Perhaps between 4,000 and 5,000 acres. Has any portion been offered for sale since the purchase?—Yes. Tanner was the first to open it for sale, to small farmers This occurred before the sale; he gave them a right to buy, if the purchase was completed, at £3 per acre, on deferred payments Were these sections fair average land?—Much above the average Above a year after the purchase, Tanner had that land open for sale at £5. During that time, I advised a friend of mine, Mr Canning, to purchase a block; but he considered the price excessive; he spoke of £4, but did not decide to offer even that much. These sections were in a good position. Are you acquainted with Pakowhai?—Yes, very well; it is the best piece of grass land I know of in New Zealand. At the time M'Hardy bought it, it is no exaggeration to say, that it would have kept from four to five sheep per acre. All, except a small portion, was covered with magnificent grass. Have the Government bought any from the natives?—Yes; the Government have bought all between M'Hardy's and the Meanee river. The Papakura block contained 2,363 acres; it was at first rented from the natives, at £600 for the first ten years, and £700 for the other eleven. Another block, the Hikutoto, containing 930 acres, was rented at £250 for the first ten years, and £300 for the remaining eleven. These blocks were cut up into small sections, and leased by auction—the lessees being promised, in case of the land being acquired from the natives, the preemptive right of purchase, at a price to be fixed by valuation. High rents were obtained; Papakura averaged 18s. 5d, and Hikutoto 16s. per acre. In 1868, the Government bought Papakura for £9,600. In 1869, they purchased Hikutoto for £2,600. The lessees began then to exercise their right of pre-emption. Mr Park acted as valuator for the Province, and the lessees selected a person to value for them. In the page 147 authority to the Superintendent there was a clause, providing that he was to decline any valuation if it would not cover the original price paid for the block. The price realized for these sales—which lasted till 1871, but principally took place in 1870—were as follow:—Hikutoto, bought at £2,500, realized £3,190; and Papakura, which cost £9,600, realized £9,568. These are the nett sums, after debiting the blocks with the expenses of survey. The only profit the Government made was on the rentals, which were ridiculously high. At the time this land was leased, there was a demand. On looking at the sums these lands cost, I find the highest price paid at the sale of Papakura was £7 per acre for a forty-acre section, the rental of which was £81. One other section was about the same, seventy-nine acres, sold for £556, the rental having been £142. The lowest was thirty-one acres, the rental of which was £31, and which sold for £65. Two sections, of 100 acres each, rented at £30, brought £150. The whole averaged from three to four years' purchase the lowest being one-and-a-half years' purchase. It was only a small portion of the block which was subject to Hoods; but the proportion applies to the whole. The quality of the land was very similar to Pakowhai, though not so dry. Papakura and Hikutoto were very different from Heretaunga, being fairly covered with English grass at the time of sale. Do you know a large section belonging to Henry Parker?—Yes. 232 acres, leased by him at a rental of £69 15s., and which was largely subject to floods. After paying rent for about two years, the land was valued at 5s. per acre, which I refused to accept, because if it had been accepted, Government would have lost on the whole block. I offered to let it go at £1 per acre. It was a very good section; the low valuation was on account of the floods. This was at the end of 1871. It was kept on till November 1872, when it was sold by auction and realized £725. Though M'Hardy declined to give £232, and about £40 additional to settle with Parker, the land afterwards brought £725. About 3,000 or 2,500 acres of Heretaunga are subject to floods, and at the time of sale, before the river changed its course, 5,000 or 6,000 acres were subject to floods. At the time of the purchase, sheep-farming properties were in a depressed state; there were many properties for sale, and few purchasers. What was the state of agricultural property?—There was no great amount of settlement going on, and no great demand for land. I knew the case of a run of 16,000 acres, about 13,000 freehold, with about 70,000 sheep; this was available for agricultural purposes. Nearly the whole of this Province—perhaps nine-tenths of it—could be applied to that purpose. At the time of the Heretaunga purchase, could it have been put to any profitable use, except for pastoral purposes?—Certainly, if money had been spent on it. The greater part is still used for grazing, except the native portion, which is farmed largely. Grazing appeals to be the most profitable purpose to which land can be applied in this province, even in small sections. Twenty acres are used for grazing to one that is farmed—the only large exceptions being in the case of the natives. These small holders have mostly tried farming, but found grazing more profitable. I know Alley's farm—very good pasture land. It was sold by auction in February, 1870, 270 acres, at £1,080, in grass, and subdivided. It has since been sold for £11 per acre—since prosperous times have come.

page 148

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: Do you remember the time you first joined in the lease of Heretaunga?—About six months after Tanner's original lease. How long before the land wont through the Court?—I cannot say. The first leasing was, I should think, a year or eighteen months before the land went through the Court. It would not be more than two years?—I do not think so. You were at that time a member of the Provincial Council and Executive?—Yes. From whom did the proposal emanate that you should be connected with the speculation?—From myself. I wrote to Tanner, telling him I had already been in the block; that I wished to have a place near town, &c He replied that I could have one share, and telling me the names of the other persons concerned. There were himself, Brathwaite, Captains Russell, Messrs. Williams, and Gordon. Purvis Russell came in shortly after; he called on me, and told me he was anxious to join, and that Tanner was willing. Were the conditions on which you joined, that you should take an allotted share, and pay your proportion of the rent?—Yes. There was nothing special in the terms of your admission?—Not that I am aware of. Did you pay any bonus to get in?—No. Do you remember, when the land was passing through the Court, a discussion as to whether it should be made alienable or not?—No. Had you no conversation with Tanner, or the others, on the subject?—No. Was not considerable objection raised by the Messrs. Williams to the admission of you and Purvis Bus-sell?—Not that I am aware of. At the time you entered, who had charge of the negociation with the natives?—I believe it was Tanner. When the rent was due, I used to have to pay in my share to his credit. And this arrangement continued till the land went through the Court?—Yes, and after. After it passed the Court, a fresh lease was granted?—Yes. It contained an improvement clause?—Yes, I heard of it after it was done. I lived in the country, was seldom in Napier, and was not consulted as to terms—I simply knew that a lease was to be obtained on the best terms possible. Were you surprised to hear of the improvement clause?—No, because it is usual in leases. After the completion of the title, your share was definitely ascertained?—Yes; the block was surveyed, and the selection took place. Mr Tanner had the first choice, and the rest drew lots. The meeting took place in Napier. Had not Williams the second choice?—I believe not; I believe he came second, but drew like the rest. I drew, and came third. I drew also for Purvis Russell. Purvis Russell sold out to Captain Russell, after a time—after he came back from England He received £1 per acre for his interest in the lease?—I believe so. What was your idea of the reasonableness of the transaction?—I did not think of it as a matter of value, but was disappointed at his selling out, after the trouble I had taken for him. Tareha's was the first transaction towards the acquisition of the freehold?—Yes. Had any understanding been, at that time, come to about the purchase?—I believe it was understood that, if we could buy for about £12,000, we should do so; I remember no meeting to discuss the subject. Can you remember who made the first proposal to convert the lease into a freehold?—No. Tanner?—It may have been; but I think it did not come more from him than from the others. Who conducted the business?—Tanner. The others were living out of the way; I do not remember any arrangement that he should do so; it was understood; I page 149 took it for granted that he would. Did you know that any one went in with J. N. Williams?—No; hut I imagined that the Rev. Samuel Williams was concerned with him. Did you hear that Tanner had been assisted much, in the matter of the lease, by Samuel Williams?—I do not remember so. When was the first understanding arrived at to buy the freehold?—Not long after the lease; before Tareha sold. Do you remember any negociation with the natives, before Tareha sold?—No. Then Tareha's was the first actual sale of which you had knowledge?—Yes, in Wellington, from Tanner. Had you received information, that Tareha was to be applied to?—No. What was your first intimation?—Tanner telling me that Maney and Peacock had come to purchase Tareha's share. I expressed my opinion that they should not have conducted the negociation in Wellington. Did Tanner concur with you?—I believe so. Did he tell you of his arrangement with Maney and Peacock?—I do not believe I heard of it till afterwards—I may base known of it before the sale. I advised that, if possible, Tareha should be allowed to come back to his people, and settle his matters here. That would be in 1869?—Yes. There was a change of Ministry dining that session?—No. You were a member of Government then?—No, not till much later. Did you express an opinion as to what steps should be taken to prevent Tareha yielding to these people?—I knew of no steps to take; I only recommended Tanner to advise him. My general recollection is, that Tanner agreed that it would not be desirable to finish the matter in Wellington, I do not know that M'Lean was spoken to. I heard, when the share was sold, that the price was £1,500. and, at first, objected to pay for it. Did you, and Tanner, and Williams meet?—I did not remember, till I heard it stated before this Commission, that Williams was in Wellington. After ascertaining from Maney and Peacock that the price would be £1,500, and before consenting, Tanner saw you?—I believe so. You objected?—At first. Did you suggest no arrangement to prevent carrying the sale into effect?—I was told that it was carried into effect, and that Maney and Peacock had another purchaser, if we did not take it. Did you not think it would be for your advantage, as well as Tareha's, to postpone the sale?—Yes, but that was not my reason. The understanding among the lessees was, that the land should be purchased from the whole of the grantees together. You knew Tareha was a friend of M'Lean's?—Yes; M'Lean has considerable influence with him. As your object was to prevent the sale in this isolated fashion, why did you not see M'Lean on the subject?—Perhaps I did—it is almost certain; and it is also excessively likely that he .spoke to Tareha on the subject. You are not aware that he did?—No. Was it the knowledge that another person was ready to purchase at the same price, that induced you to take over Maney's bargain?—Yes. The price paid was considerably over the margin allowed Tanner?—Yes; but Tanner pointed out that Tareha was one of the principal men. You remember an order being given to Tareha?—I do not remember how he was paid. Then it was in consequence of the knowledge that other persons were ready to step in, that you departed from the original understanding?—Yes. On your return from Wellington, did you hear of any other grantees having disposed of their share?—No, Did you hear of the purchase of Pahoro's interest?—Some time after it took place. Was there page 150 any meeting of the lessees after your return, to consider the sale?—No, I do not remember any. Were there any peculiar circumstances in Pahoro's case?—There were some trust deeds; I do not know when I first heard of them. I was told that Pahoro was a drunken fellow, who might at any time dispose of his interest. Were you consulted on the subject?—I believe not. Were you aware that, at the time the deed was signed, Pahoro only received £20 of the purchase-money?—No. Had you any consultation with your co-lessees on the subject?—I do not remember; if money was wanted, no doubt I was asked to pay my share. I have not the least recollection of any purchase, except of Tareha's and Arihi's shares. Between the time of your return from Wellington, and the conclusion of the purchase, had you no consultation about acquiring the freehold?—After Tareha's interest was acquired, we heard, privately, that Stuart was trying to buy shares; and it was then considered desirable to complete the purchase as quickly as possible. We did not suppose he wanted the land; but considered that his object was to bleed us. From whom did you hear that Stuart was in the field?—It was matter of common talk. Did Tanner tell you?—Very likely. Can you not recollect any communication from Tanner on the subject?—I cannot remember any. You remember Karaitiana and Henare going to Wellington, to meet the Prince?—Yes. Did you know that Stuart was a fellow passenger?—I do not remember. Did you not communicate the fact to M'Lean, and ask him to let them have money on account of Heretaunga?—I have no recollection of so doing,—I certainly would not. Henare says that M'Lean told him so, and advanced him money, and I find a sum debited in the account as paid by M'Lean—I never gave M'Lean any instructions on the subject; I carefully refrained from mixing M'Lean up with it. I possibly wrote him, telling him Stuart was in the market. Can you explain that item paid by M'Lean?—I have, on three or four occasions, let Karaitiana have money. I know nothing about that item, and never asked M'Lean to make any advance, in any shape, on account. Referring to the negociations at Pakowhai, in December, 1869: you were not aware they were taking place?—No; I believe I was away, attending to my shearing, at that time. You were aware that F. E. Hamlin was negociating and interpreting at that time?—I was aware of it, generally, through Tanner. What position did F. E. Hamlin hold at that time?—Government interpreter, with a fixed salary; also licensed interpreter He was allowed to undertake private business. When did you first hear of the negociations at Pakowhai?—I cannot say; I simply heard that the natives had signed an agreement. Was it about that time that Karaitiana applied to you for £40?—I cannot tell you. Was it before his visit to Auckland?—Before. Then you arrived in Napier shortly after the agreement?—I was Superintendent when Karaitiana called, so I must have been living in Napier. If you were in Napier, you would hear how the negociations were going on?—Yes. You would have communications from F. E. Hamlin?—I cannot say; I certainly did hear that Henare and Karaitiana had signed the agreement—most likely from Tanner. Did you not know of Hamlin's absence from town for three days?—I do not think I could have been here, or he could not have gone; I would have wanted him during those three days. Was it still intended to carry out the original intention page 151 of calling together all the grantees?—I should think, Tareha and some of the other grantees having sold, that we considered that question nettled. The idea must have been given up, knowing, as we did, that the natives were daily disposing of individual shares. I believe a bond fide purchaser, with money, would have stood no chance against one who operated through middle-men. I know of no purchase effected in any other way. These middlemen supplied the natives with stores, and they would rather sell to them than to a bond fide purchaser for cash. When we saw this, we did not neglect any measures for obtaining the whole. Do you remember Karaitiana applying for £40 to redeem his gig?—Yes. You refused the money?—Yes. Did you know he was about leaving for Auckland?—I do not know that I did. You were then aware that the agreement was obtained?—If it had been obtained, I was. I had repeatedly refused Karaitiana similar applications, previously. Did you ever use Government money or influence for a similar purpose?—Yes; but under different circustances. Karaitiana was a leading chief, was he not?—Yes, and better able to raise the money than I was to find it He was in receipt of considerable revenues. When you rendered similar assistance to Hapuku, he was also a leading chief?—Yes; but there was no money advanced. I became aware that Hapuku's gig was not his own property, and that the horse was the property of another person. Had not Karaitiana rendered the Government valuable assistance?—Yes. I heard, afterwards, that he just went across the road, and got the advance required. On his return, the fact that he was sulkily disposed induced you to go and see him?—Yes. I heard that he was sulky and angry at the pressure put upon his people to pay their debts. Were you not aware that Henare and he had signed an agreement to sell Pakowhai?—Yes. Were you not aware that he had gone to Auckland, to get assistance from M'Lean, to avoid the sale of Pakowhai?—No; I did not know what he went to Auckland for; I heard it was something about debts. Did you not hear that he objected to the sale, almost immediately after signing the agreement?—Yes, I must have heard of it about that time. Were you aware that proceedings were taken in the Supreme Court, to compel the fulfilment of the agreement?—I never heard of it before now. You were never consulted, then, in reference to the issue of the writ?—I never heard of it. Wore you not aware that he was using his influence to prevent the sale of Heretaunga?—I have no doubt I was aware of it. Were you not aware that one of the main reasons for Karaitiana's staying away was in reference to Heretaunga?—I did not think so at the time. Karaitiana asked me if he was not to have some money; saying M'Lean said I was to pay him £3,000 on account of Heretaunga. Have you ever had any communication with M'Lean on the subject?—No. Then you do not know, of your own knowledge, that his statement was incorrect?—I do not know, at all, what took place between Karaitiana and M'Lean. You assumed, without inquiry, that nothing of the kind had taken place?—Certainly, I knew I should have been advised of it. M'Lean had said, "E pai ana," did that mean so very little?—It was an answer that M'Lean has very frequently given. That is the common practice of the Native Office?—Not of the Native Office only. You have heard evidence of a letter, purporting to bear your signature?—I page 152 heard of it in this Court. [The Chairman said it seemed to him exceedingly probable that this letter, spoken of by Karaitiana and Henare, was the writ served by Cuff.—Mr Sheehan coincided with his Honor the Chairman in this view.] You were unaware, I suppose, that the Attorney-General was referred to?—I have a kind of recollection that his advice was taken on the validity of the agreement. Were you consulted before his opinion was applied for?—I believe not. And you are quite certain you were not referred to about the issue of this writ?—Perfectly certain; I never heard of it before. Were you aware of endeavours being made to obtain Henare's signature while Karaitiana was in Auckland?—No, I never heard that there was any difficulty in the matter. Did you not know that he had been asked several times, and had refused?—No. Did you know of the persecution of Manaena—how he was driven to take refuge in trees, and elsewhere;—No, never, till I heard it in Court. Were you consulted about the amount of the consideration?—At that time the purchasers had come to the conclusion that it would be about £15,000 for the whole block. Had you any information, or did you ever discuss the distribution of the purchase money among the vendors?—No, I had no concern with the negociations in any stage: I know, about the time the signatures were obtained, we decided to give £15,000. Tanner had a general assent to go to that amount, and was left to conduct the negociations himself. We had reason to believe that that sum would be necessary. Do you not remember being asked to sign orders, on the ground that the natives were coming in to sign the final deed of conveyance?—I must have been here at the time; and would be asked. I was not present at the payment. I believe a cheque was given for the balance. Had you, up to the time of the final settlement, received any information as to the distribution of the purchase-money?—I do not remember. Had you heard of the annuities—Yes, and approved of it. Before or after the deed was signed?—Before, I believe. How was it explained to you?—Simply that a certain sum was to be paid annually. I conducted the correspondence with the Government for the purchase of the annuities. Was it explained that the amount should be deducted from the purchase-money? Was it explained that it was for the advantage of the natives?—I considered so. Did you hear on whose behalf this foresight was to be exercised?—Karaitiana's, Manaena's, and Henare's. Was there no proposal to give the spendthrift Pahoro an annuity?—I never heard of it He was the man, of all others, to be protected against himself?—In his case it would have been only an additional drunk in the course of the year. Did you not hear of an extra £700, to be paid after the deed was executed?—Yes, after the whole purchase-money was paid. It struck you as singular?—It did. From whom did you hear it?—From Tanner. Sutton made this claim on behalf of the natives; we took advice, and were advised to pay it. Do you not remember, that claim was at first resisted?—No; it may have been. Did you ask Tanner for an explanation?—No doubt I did. What was his explanation?—I do not remember. Did you hear of an arrangement by which Karaitiana and Henare were to receive £1,000 bonus, over their ordinary shares?—I heard of it in Karaitiana's case, I do not think I heard of Henare's. It is a kind of mail that Karaitiana generally levies. We had to consider whether it was worth page 153 while to pay the extra £1,000. You were then Government Agent and Superintendent?—Yes. Did you not consider it objectionable in you to countenance such a proceeding?—It was levied from us; if we chose to submit, I do not consider it objectionable. (The Chairman: Did you understand that this £1,000 to Karaitiana should be secret?—No. My understanding was, that we had-to pay a bribe of £1,000 to secure his cooperation, and the simple question in my mind was, whether it was worth doing so or not; and I agreed to find my share of that £1,000) You understood that that was in addition to the annuity provision?—It might have been; but I knew very little about the negociation. You had known of Karaitiana making a similar stipulation in other transactions?—Yes, I know of one instance specially; and, from what I have heard, I believe it is his general practice—he stays back to the last, and demands some such consideration as the price of his consent. Do you consider that a fair practice?—Very undesirable—unfair, I should say, to the other natives; as regards the purchaser, he has simply to pay so much more than he otherwise would. But for the necessity of completing the purchase, you would have resisted it?—I would certainly have resisted it if I could. Your duties as General Government Agent were very extensive?—Yes; I had the whole of the Taupo operations under my charge. All of what are termed native affairs?—Yes, all within the East Coast district. Was it in consequence of your power in this capacity, that you interfered in Te Hapuku's case?—Perhaps it was The only connexion between my office as General Government Agent, and Hapuku, was this, that in my public capacity I had access to the law officers of the Crown, and communicated with them on the subject. Was it not your duty, as General Government Agent, to interfere in any case of injustice to, or oppression of, the natives by Emopeans?—It would be difficult to define the duties of a General Government Agent. I never assumed any paternal functions with regard to the natives. You remember a certain trust deed of Te Hapuku, to Purvis Russell and Wilson?—Yes. Did you not interfere in this case?—Yes, it came before me officially. The Trust Commissioner refused to register the deed; in sending his half-yearly report, he transmitted it through me, as a matter of official duty, and I referred to it in my report. I afterwards received specific instructions to take such measures as I could, to relieve Te Hapuku. The Heretaunga block contained, under lease, 17,000 acres?—I believe it was about that quantity. Having heard that Karaitiana was confining himself to his house, in consequence of pressure of debts, you went out as General Government Agent?—Yes. I told him he must not look upon the pressure of individual creditors as a grievance against the Europeans of Napier generally. You did not go into the subject of the debts?—No; I thought him able to manage his own affairs. I told him he ought to come to town. Do you remember Henare leaving, on an expedition to Taupo, far the Government?—Yes. Do you remember, when just on the point of leaving, a public spirited individual serving him with a writ for £1,000?—Yes. Did you not endeavor to get it withdrawn?—I used what influence I had to get it withdrawn or put off He gave this writ as a reason why he could not go; I obtained its suspension in some way, and he did go. You were not aware, then, that one of the first fruits of the Taupo expedition, to him page 154 was judgment by default?—No. Is it your impression that something was done to give him time?—My idea is that I sent some one, probably Hamlin, to Sutton, to ask him to stay proceedings for a while; and that some assent was given, or Henare would not have gone. You say you had no conversation with Karaitiana at Pakowhai about the debts?—No. Did you afterwards ascertain what the amount of the native debts was?—No; I do not know now, beyond that they were large. Supposing they were £5,000, would you consider it so large that the Heretaunga block should be sold to pay them?—I do not think it would have been easy, at that time, to raise that amount on the security of the block. If it could have been obtained, it could only have been at a high rate of interest. Did not you and your co-lessees obtain £24,000 from Watt on the same block, to complete the purchase? do you not think the £6,000 could have been raised as easily as you raised £24,000?—I certainly do not think so—the security offered would have been so different. You have said that Karaitiana was, at the time, in receipt of a large income?—Yes, and, at the same time, continually in difficulty. You have heard 1870 described as the last of a series of very bad years?—Yes. So that when Tanner began his campaign, in December, 1869, property had about reached its lowest value?—As it turned out. Then the negociation began about the worst possible time for the natives, and the best for the purchasers?—I do not know that; they had to pay much more for their money than they would have to pay now.

The Commission then (5.15 p.m.) adjourned to 9 a m. on the following day. During the whole of Friday the Commissioners were occupied with the inquiry into the Te Kiwi complaints,

Saturday, 29th March, 1873.

Josiah Pratt Hamlin, examined by Mr Lascelles: I am a licensed interpreter, residing in Napier. Have you had any interview with Paramena and Pahoro since the Commission sat?—Yes, in my office, on a Wednesday or Thursday, about a for might ago—just before Paramena and Pahoro gave evidence in this Commission. What took place?—Paramena, Tanner, my brother Martin, and myself were present—Tanner told me to ask Paramena if he remembered meeting him at Waitangi, and telling him that he had seen Noa, Karaitiana, and Henare, at Pakowhai; and telling him they had left the management of the Heretaunga block in the hands of Karaitiana and Henare. Paramena replied that he did not remember, and, in fact, did not wish to have anything to say about it He went out then, and Pahoro came in. I asked him the same question—if he remembered meeting Tanner at Waitangi bridge, and telling him he had left the management of Heretaunga in the hands Karaitiana and Henare He replied that he remembered the circumstance very well, and also remembered telling Tanner so He followed it up by saying, "If I should be called upon to give evidence, you will hear what I have to say, because Paramena and I are at variance with Karaitiana and Henare Tomoana." Was anything said about money?—Not a word, by either party, Was any such expression made use of by Tanner to Paramena as "How is it that you know me?"—No, nothing of the kind. Did Pahoro say, "If you persist that I say those words, you will have to pay me?"—No, nothing of the kind; on the contrary, page 155 he said he remembered the conversation distinctly. The interview lasted about a quarter-of an hour or ten minutes. Pahoro came in as Paramena went out. Paramena waited outside for Pahoro, and they had some conversation together, after the latter went out. Were you of opinion, from what Pahoro said, that he was to be called as a witness on either side?—No. Was anything said by Paramena about giving evidence, farther than you have said?—No He refused to answer the questions I put to him. Did you go to an hotel for Pahoro?—No. Just before, I saw Mr Tanner, who asked if I had seen Paramena. I said yes, he was in the Masonic Hotel. Tanner asked me to call him into my office, and I went into the hotel for him. Paramena said, "Wait a bit; I will come directly" Pahoro, and other natives were there. Did anything pass between Paramena and Pahoro in your presence?—Not in my hearing.

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: Have you been engaged in any way in the Heretaunga purchase?—No. I have been engaged by Tanner only so far as Arihi's interest is concerned. Are you not practically engaged for them, as regards the Heretaunga block generally? Do you consider yourself open to receive a retainer from parties of adverse interest to Tanner's?—Yes, except in so far as Arihi's business is concerned. [The Chairman explained to the witness that an interpreter can no more act for or against a man, than a dictionary can He could not understand how an interpreter could be retained in the interest of one side—he must have a dreadful tendency to slip into the position of a negociator.—Mr Tanner said the interpreters had a double office; they were negociators as well. This was a matter of necessity, as they were the only medium of communication with the natives.] I considered myself retained by Tanner, and others, on behalf of Arihi's share, alone, of the Heretaunga block. Are you in partnership with any person?—No. Your office is used by yourself, only?—Yes. Is it not also largely used by your brother, Martin Hamlin?—No. Are you not frequently associated with your brother in native business?—No. Are you not in this case of Heretaunga?—Yes, so far as Arihi's share is concerned. Did you receive any retaining fee?—No; I have been spoken to. But you expect a fee?—Decidedly. If any person of adverse interests to Tanner should ask you to do business in regard to Arihi's share, would you not be in a position to do it?—No. Other interpreters are in the habit of practising in this way, are they not?—[Mr Lascelles objected to the question—The Chairman allowed the question. For the general purposes of this inquiry, the Commissioners thought it necessary to ascertain, as fully as possible, the position assumed by the licensed interpreters]—I do not know how others act; but that is my practice. If a person asks for me to interpret the lease of a particular block of land, I consider myself retained, and not at liberty to act for a person with an adverse interest in the same matter. I ask for no retaining fee. (The Chairman: Do you consider the buyer and seller as holding a I verso interests?—I merely interpret what they say to each other.) You say Tanner sent you for Paramena?—Yes; he said, "I wish you would ask him to come into your office; I want to ask him a question." I went in, and said, "Will you come into my office, I want to speak to you." He said, "Taihoa." You did not say, "Tanner wants to speak to you"? page 156 —No. Did you not consider it inexpedient to mention Tanner?—No, I had no thought on the subject. I had not the slightest idea what Tanner wanted him for. Did you not suggest that Tanner wanted Pahoro as well?—Certainly not; I never spoke to Pahoro in the hotel. You were asked by Tanner to put those questions?—Yes. You put those you have mentioned, and no other?—Not that I remember. Did he remain long?—No; he was disinclined to answer, and left as Pahoro came in. Was he asked by yourself, or Tanner, if he was about to be called to give evidence for the complainants?—No such question was put. Was he asked if he was interested in the complaint?—No; I just interpreted what Tanner asked. You knew that Paramena was a grantee in Heretaunga?—Yes. And you had seen him about the Court?—Yes. It never struck you as proper to ascertain, before questioning him, whether he was a witness?—No. No satisfaction was got out of him, and he left, saving, that what he had to say he would say in Court?—Or words to that effect. Did you have any idea that Pahoro was coming?—No. Had you not spoken to him on the subject earlier in the day?—No. You were not aware that Pahoro was a grantee in the Heretaunga block?—No Did you hear anything said by Paramena to Pahoro, as they met?—No; they did not speak. When Pahoro came in, you did not think it necessary to ask him if he was a complainant, or called by the complainants?—No. You knew the man?—Yes. Have you not heard him described as of drunken habits, and requiting to be protected against himself?—I knew hint ro be of drunken habits. And he came from a public-house to your office?—Yes. How long did he remain?—About ten minutes. Not half-an-hour?—No, I can safely say that he did not. What Maori words did he use?—[The words were repeated by the witness] He followed that tip by saying, "If I am called upon to give evidence, you will hear what I have to say. Paramena and I are at variance with Henare and Karaitiana; they did not behave well to us." Were any further remarks made?—I do not think so; I remember nothing further. Your memory of the interview is clear and distinct? Yes. Pahoro then went out?—Yes, and met Paramena at the door. I believe I heard Paramena say, "Let us go." You did not hear any words expressive of an opinion as to what had been done?—No. Did you then leave the office?—Yes. Had you any further conversation with Tanner on this subject?—None. I was surprised, on reading the report, to find that the natives had told such deliberate falsehoods. You have been here eighteen months?—Yes. And, excepting Alibi's share, you have had no connexion with the purchase of the Heretaunga block?—None. The purchasers are clients of yours in another matter?—Yes. Regarding Arihi's interest: you have made several journeys to see her?—Yes. You took a document with you?—Yes, a conveyance of Raukawa, No. I., to Kinross. But regarding Heretaunga?—I took no document of that nature; I never saw any. Did you not enter into negociations with her, with reference to her interest in Heretaunga?—I Mr Tanner objected to this question. If his counsel did not object, he must do so himself.—Mr Lascelles said he objected to the learned counsels line of examination—he was fishing for evidence in another suit.—Mr Sheehan said he wished counsel would be more moderate in their expressions, had no such intention as that just imputed to him.] Are you em- page 157 ployed as negociator, so far as Arihi's share is concerned?—Yes. A a well as interpreter?—I have not been engaged yet, as either negociator or interpreter. My position is that I have simply been retained on her behalf And you have not negociated with regard to this particular interest?—No.

Henry Martin Hamlin, examined by Mr Lascelles, deposed: I am a licensed interpreter. You were considerably concerned in the negociations for the purchase of Heretaunga?—I have been interpreter a good many times. Can you recall the first occasion on which you heard anything about the sale?—The first time I had anything to do with it was after Henare's return from the Taupo expedition. Tanner and I had a long conversation with Henare, first about the expedition, secondly about the debts. Henare said he was very pouri (sad) about them, and thought he would have to sell Heretaunga; but would like to talk to his people about it. Tanner said he would be willing to buy it, if all the natives were agreed; but would not press them to sell. If the natives made up their minds to sell, he, and others, would buy. Had you more conversations of this kind?—I saw him nearly every day, but do not remember any further conversation on this subject. (Mr Commissioner Manning; Was this the beginning of the negociation?—I believed so.) When next were you concerned?—About the end of October, 1869. I heard then that Henare and Karaitiana bad signed an agreement to sell the Heretaunga block; I heard this from Tanner and my brother. I went with Tanner to Waipukurau. On our way up, we called at Coleman's station, and saw Paramena there: he had just finished shearing. We explained that we were going up about the sale of Heretaunga, to see Arihi; and also told him that Henare and Karaitiana had signed an agreement to sell; that Henare had signed a deed of conveyance, which we had with us, and asked him to sign He said he had left the matter in the hands of the others, and, that as they had agreed to sell, he was quite willing. The deed was then lead and explained, and he signed. (The Chairman: Was nothing said about the price?—The price named in the deed was £12,500. Was anything said about what he was to get himself?—Nothing) We went on to Waipukurau; we saw Arihi, and had a long talk with her that evening, in Purvis Russell's presence. We saw her next morning, Purvis Russell and Wilson, her trustees, both being present. They told Tanner they would not interfere with the negociation, providing the price was satisfactory. She was then asking £1,500 for her share; we were inclined to get the purchase effected for the sum mentioned in the deed, and leave the natives to divide the money. About 12 o'clock, Purvis Russell said it was no use talking any longer; he would not allow her to sell for less than £2,500. Tanner finally agreed, after some discussion. We had dinner, and the deed was signed between 2 and 3 o'clock. This took place in a little room in the Tavistock Hotel; Wilson, Tanner, Purvis Russell, Arihi, and myself were present; also Macfarlane, the chief clerk of the Bank of New Zeal and, who was called in as a witness. I saw Purvis Russell and Arihi sign; Macfarlane and myself then signed as witnesses. Wilson was asked by Tanner to sign; but refused, saying he could sign at any time, in Napier He made no objection to sign. Wilson asked Tanner to write out an page 158 agreement, to pay the money within a certain date. After this agreement, we left for Napier. I came as far as Pakipaki. Pera Pahoro was there; I told him we had been to Waipukurau, and explained what for He signed; I believe in the presence of Mr Harrison He did say something of some deed he had signed before; but agreed to this one, because so many were in it. Some time after this, Cuff and myself went to Pakowhai, to see Karaitiana relative to the sale of Heretaunga. It was on a Saturday. We had a talk with him on the subject; He knew that orders had been given, and asked what balance remained in the hands of the purchasers; but neither Cuff nor I could tell him He said he had not previously wished to sell Heretaunga; but Could not see what Henare would do with regard to the debts; and consented to the sale, promising to come into town one day during the following week—I think Wednesday. Cuff had some money with him—I do not know how much—and a writ of the Supreme Court against Karaitiana. Cuff gave the writ to him just before he left, telling him it was now a mere matter of form; but it was the last day on which a writ for the next sitting of the Supreme Court could be served,—that if he came in and settled the matter quietly, no more notice need be taken of it. Karaitiana said he would bring in five of the other grantees with him—Henare, Manaena, Noa, Paramena, and Pera Pahoro. I next saw him in Cuff's office, I believe on the Wednesday appointed. The order's were explained to the natives; it was explained what balance remained; I then read and explained another deed—the final deed—and the six grantees signed. Besides the grantees, there were present, Tanner, James Williams, and Cuff. A cheque for the balance was written, I think by James Williams, and laid on the table. Karaitiana took it up, and said, "You people have had your debts paid out of Heretaunga; I shall take this to pay mine." I afterwards saw the cheque, it was drawn on the Bank of New Zealand; I took it there, with Karaitiana, and he drew £1,300 and the odd money, leaving £1,000 in the Bank. The cheque was for about £2,370. Henare and Karaitiana beckoned Tanner into another room; Williams, Tanner, and myself went in with them. There was a talk about a reserve; how to tie it up, so that it could not be disposed of, or seized for debt. They asked James Williams to be one of the trustees, but he declined. They also asked Tanner to agree that Arihi should have no share in the reserve; but he told them that he could not promise them that. Henare spoke of the balance of his debts; he did not know how to pay them off He wanted Karaitiana to help him in the matter, and asked him to do so; else he would be forced to sell other land. I believe Karaitiana gave him £300 for the purpose. Did anything else take place there?—There may have been; but I do not remember It was very shortly after that, that I left with Karaitiana. The next transaction I remember was the purchase of Tareha's share; I believe this took place before what I have just related—before I went to Waipukurau. I omitted to mention this in my narrative—it occurred before Henare returned from Taupo. Parliament was sitting, and I went to Wellington, on behalf of Maney and Peacock. Tareha objected to sell his share; he would rather leave it till he came back; but, after three or four days, he consented. I saw him three or four times before he consented Who was present at the interviews?—Maney, Peacock, page 159 and myself. We were present when he consented He consented in the evening; but said he would not sign the deed till the next morning He came the next morning, and signed a deed of conveyance of his share of Heretaunga to Maney and Peacock. Were you present at subsequent interviews?—Tanner was in Wellington at the time, and they spoke to him about taking the share. Before he consented, he had an interview with Maney and Peacock, in my presence, and that of Tareha. Tareha was asked if he was quite willing and fully consenting to the sale of Heretaunga, and he said yes. Tanner asked if the money, £1,500, should be paid over to Maney and Peacock, and he consented. An order was written out, and signed by Tareha, for Tanner to pay this money to Maney and Peacock. Afterwards, he asked Maney and Peacock to give him some money, buy him a trap, and to give some money and flour to his people here. They gave him some money, and in Napier, on my return, I saw some money paid to his wife. I was present, also, at the arrangement with Waaka, at what date I do not know; Cuff, Lee, Waaka, Tanner, and myself were present, in either Cuff's or Lee's office, Waaka had, by some previous arrangement, made over all his lands to Parker. By this arrangement, all his lands were returned to him, except his share of Heretaunga, which he disposed of to Tanner for £1,000. Waaka appointed Cuff to see after his interests. Some of his debts had been paid by Parker, and he requested that Cuff should see to his interests in the repayment of this money. I acted as interpreter. This proposition, about paying Parker, came from Waaka. Waaka fully understood the proceedings. Were any accounts shown?—Yes; I believe the amount of Parker's payments, on his behalf, was £857. A few days after this, it was found advisable to obtain a direct deed of conveyance of Waaka's share to Tanner. It was signed in Sutton's shop. Worgan and I both interpreted the deed. Sutton and Worgan signed as attesting witnesses. I saw Waaka give Maney an order on Tanner for £100, shortly after the deed was signed. Rata te Houi was appointed successor to Matiaha, in the Native Lands Court. I explained the deed of conveyance to him, and saw him sign. A cheque of £1,000, for his share, was given to Rata, which Karaitiana took up, saying he would keep half of it. Rata seemed quite happy about it. Tanner, Williams, and a third person were present. Some time after the transaction was completed, Waaka complained that Parker had not paid all the debts as represented. I recommended him to appoint a person to go round and inquire. Did he make any other complaint?—On the day that Karaitiana was leaving for Parliament, last session, he complained to Tanner, in the course of conversation, that he had been paid £1,000 short, He thought the cheque taken to the bank was for £1,000 odd. I told him it was for £2,000 odd, when he said "Perhaps I have received it." I said that the cheque could be seen at the Bank, He said, "Well, leave it till I come back—but perhaps, in the meantime, it may be altered." I told him there was no danger of that—that it could not be done, even if the parties wished to do so. I have heard nothing further about it, (Mr Commissioner Manning: Why did he draw so large a sum as £1,300?—To pay his debts He drew the other £1,000 in the way of cheques, which he used to get me to fill up for him in English He kept a small bank-book at the time.) Do you know George Davie?— page 160 Yes. Have you transacted any business with him, connected with the purchase?—Yes He had been offering me from five to fifteen per cent, to get money in for him, at any time. I went up and told him that, if he wanted an Older from Paramena, he had now got the money He said he would be very glad of it; that Paramena owed him £30, but he would like to get £10, as he wanted to raise money; and he wondered if Paramena would do it. I said there was nothing like asking. We went to Paramena; I explained the matter to him; he was willing, and gave the order I had nothing further to do with it—I do not know that I saw it again. Did Paramena propose that he should give an order on Sutton or Kinross?—No; it would have been no use—they would not have advanced the money. Nothing was said, either by Paramena or Davie, about an order on Kinross or Sutton. No objection whatever was made by Paramena about giving Davie a little more than he owed—he said he would get it again. (The Chairman: Was this before the execution of the deed at Waipukurau?—After, I believe—after Paramena had signed. I had not gone up for this purpose; but called in as I was passing. Was the order dated the day it was drawn?—Yes. Have you any idea how long it was after Henare had signed, that you went to Waipukurau?—I believe it was the day after Christmas—there were races at Havelock.) When the deed was signed in Cuff's, in what manner did you interpret?—I first translated the deed as literally as possible, and then gave an explanation. Did you follow that course with the other grantees?—Yes; I told them the land was sold for so much, and that afterwards they would have no claim. Was any explanation as to the consideration given, other than what was contained in chedeed?—No. Was the cheque shown to any others except Karaitiana?—It was laid on the table. What did the others say when Karaitiana put his paw upon the cheque?—Nothing at all. (Mr Commissioner Manning: He also took Matiaha's cheque?—Yes. In neither case no one said anything?—No.) How long have you lived in this district?—From twelve to fifteen years. Are you personally acquainted with all the grantees?—[know them all well. Since this transaction, have any discussions taken place, regarding the purchase money?—I have heard none except Karaitiana's and Waaka's, already mentioned. Have any others applied to you for information regarding the accounts?—No, except Henare, at the time of the sale. But since?—None. When were you first aware that dissatisfaction existed?—When I saw it in the Gazette. Have you had any interview with Paramena lately?—Last Saturday week, in my brother's office. Paramena, Tanner, and my brother were present, and Pahoro came in after. Tanner asked Paramena if he did not remember meeting him between the Ngaruroro bridge and the Waitangi bridge He declined to have anything to say about it, answering, that what he had to say, he would say in Court He rose, and went out, meeting Pahoro. As he passed him he nudged him, and said something in a low tone I said to Tanner, "It it quite plain that he does not want Pahoro to say anything." The same question was put to Pahoro, who said he remembered meeting Tanner perfectly well, and remembered, also, saying that he had left the arrangement in Karaitiana's and Henare's hands. Was anything said about the money?—Not a word. Did he say that he would have to be paid if he was wanted to say that?—No. He page 161 intimated that he had grievances against Karaitiana and Henare, winch could wait till he came into Court. The term money was not used during the whole time. The statement that my brother said, "Why won't you consent to this talk?" is altogether untrue. I got my horse, and went home. I did not see which way the others went, after we broke up.

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: The negociation for Tareha's share was the first matter with which you were concerned in the purchase of Heretaunga?—I cannot say whether Tareha's or Waaka's was first. Had you anything to do with the negociations between Waaka and Parker?—I do not remember whether I had to do with it, or my brother. Did von not hear that Stuart was in the market?—I was told so. Were you not employed by him?—No. Nor any person on his behalf?—No, I think not. I heard it talked about, and may have been asked; but was not employed, and received no fees. Did you proceed to Wellington with Maney and Peacock?—Yes. Tanner was on board the same vessel?—Yes. Were you not aware that Tanner was going to await the result of the negociation?—I believe Maney and Peacock told me they had made the first offer, if they suceeded, to Tanner and the others. Had you no conversation on the subject on board?—Not that I remember. Did you go as interpreter?—Yes. Was any part of you work to assist in negociating?—I only acted as interpreter. You saw Tareha three or four times?—Yes. All the interviews, except the last, were unsuccessful?—Yes; he desired (hat the matter should be left till he came back. Was he very strong on that point?—Yes, at first. Maney and Peacock discussed the matter with him, I presume?—The argument they used was this—he was in their debt—they were very much in want of money, and he must find them some. Where did this last interview take place?—In the Empire Hotel. How long were you engaged with Tareha that day, before he consented?—About an hour. Did the inter-view begin before dinner?—No. And was not, therefore, interrupted by dinner?—So far as I. can recollect, it commenced after dinner. Can you remember what took place?—Not word for word. I. suppose the same arguments were used as before?—No; Tareha seemed much more willing, and had some quiet conversation about it, after which he consented, and said, "Let the matter rest till to-morrow morning." At what time would this be?—About 4 or 5 p.m. Did either Maney or Peacock leave, and return shortly after with Tanner?—No, they did not. Did nothing transpire of the fact that they were purchasing for the purpose of handing it over to Tanner?—I believe they were divided on that subject, for, after signing Peacock was in favor of selling to the highest bidder; Maney said, "Give Tanner the first offer." Did all the inter-views take place in the Empire Hotel?—I believe so; one might have taken place in the Maori kainga. Did they occupy considerable time?—Perhaps two hours—some shorter, some longer. During this period they urged, and he refused to consent?—He said he would prefer to wait till his return. Did not Tanner come very shortly after the signing?—Next day. Was only one deed signed?—Only one deed, and the order. Was that the only deed you were asked to interpret?—Yes; there may have been another deed, but that was the only one I interpreted. Would you not have noticed if, on the next day, a deed of conveyance to Tanner page 162 had been signed with the same formalities?—Yes; I do not recollect it. The conveyance, then, was to Maney and Peacock?—I believe so. Tanner did not appear till the next day?—Yes. Did you have any conversations with Tanner, while the negociation was pending, as to its progress?—I do not remember. I saw Tanner often, and if he asked, I would most likely tell him. Can you say whether you did, or did not, discuss the subject with him when you met him?—I may have done so; I do not remember. After the deed was signed, the order was given?—Yes. How long after?—That afternoon. Had Tanner then made his appearance?—Yes. Are you sure that, up to the time of signing, Tanner had not been a party?—He had nothing to do with it till after the signing. Then, after the deed was signed, and Tanner came from the hotel, that order was given?—Yes. Until the deed was signed, will you undertake to say that nothing whatever was said about the gig?—Possibly it was mentioned before signing—I would not swear that it was not. Do you recollect the conversation when the order was given?—It was to the effect that Maney and Peacock should get the money, give Tareha some, buy the trap, and bring some money home to his wife. Tanner had appeared when the order was given?—He said he was not acting for himself; that he would feel safer if an order was given. Was he present when it was given?—I think not. When did you knew that the sale was to Tanner, and not to Maney and Peacock?—Soon after the deed was signed. They told Tareha that if he sold, they would have to raise money on the land. Were you present at the conversation when Tanner came?—Yes. Was Tareha then aware that Tanner was the purchaser?—Yes. When Tanner first came in—this was his first appearance in the transaction—he spoke in English with Maney and Peacock. They had some argument about the price He then asked Tareha if he was quite satisfied with the price. Tareha was possibly told, then and there, that Tanner was the purchaser; he had possibly been told before. Were you present at any subsequent conversation about the money?—I cannot remember that I was. Was anything said about a portion of the purchase-money being left in the hands of Tanner?—Not in my presence. Your duty, throughout, was merely to interpret?—Yes; I was merely the mouthpiece for the others. What were you paid for that transaction?—I cannot say; my passage and expenses were paid. What besides?—I cannot say. Including your passage and expenses, it was not much less than £50?—I believe it was not much less. Who drew the deed?—I cannot say. The next matter you remember is in reference to Waaka's business?—I believe so An action was pending at the time in the Supreme Court?—I cannot say if it was pending at the time; I had heard of such an action I remember going with Waaka, to Wilson, to get a deed of Parker's upset; but I know nothing about the subsequent discontinuance of the proceedings. What is the first you recollect of the settlement between Waaka and Parker?—The meeting in Cuff's or Lee's office. You say there were present, Cuff, Lee, yourself, Tanner, and Waaka. Was Waaka represented by counsel?—Lee appeared for him; Cuff acting for Parker, Waaka asked Cuff to act for him in reference to the payment of the debts by Parker, to see if the accounts were correct. They had been explained to Waaka. Did the bill of costs of Parker's solicitor page 163 form part of these items?—I do not remember. Was Lee's account one of those gone through at the meeting?—I cannot say. In whose possession were the accounts left at the close of the meeting?—I believe Cuff took charge of them. Was any money produced?—I do not remember any. Had you anything to do with the negociation with Waaka, in reference to the settlement to be made of the suit against Parker?—No, not previous to the meeting. What document was signed at that meeting?—A deed, in which Parker gave up all claim to the lands; I believe, also, a second deed, consenting to the sale of Heretaunga. On whose behalf were you acting when Waaka's signature was obtained?—On behalf of Tanner. Since that time you have continued to act on his behalf?—I have. Was that before you became Government interpreter?—Yes. When did you become Government interpreter?—In 1872, or the end of 1871; I had, for five or six months previous, been acting for my brother, who was absent. Your next concern with the purchase was after Henare's return from Taupo?—Yes. Where did the conversation with Tanner and Henare take place?—In the street, and afterwards in Tanner's house. How long had he been back?—About a week. It was the first time you had seen him since he came back?—Yes. The meeting was accidental?—Quite. You were aware that the lessees of the block were desirous of acquiring the free-hold?—My impression was, that they were scarcely in a position to buy, and would rather have kept the lease. Your next active concern in the matter was going out with Tanner to Waipukurau?—Yes. You were aware of the agreement signed by Henare and Karaitiana?—Yes. You were also aware that Karaitiana was objecting, and wanting to get out of it?—I believe not at that time; but I will not swear. During three weeks, which had elapsed since the agreement was signed, had you not heard that Karaitiana was anxious to avoid the sale, and had gone to Auckland to prevent it?—I. will not swear. Where did you receive instructions from Tanner to go to Waipukurau?—I do not remember; it was a day or two before I left. Had you any instructions about calling on the natives at Pakipaki?—I believe it was arranged on the road. Did Tanner say anything then as to the necessity of obtaining the signatures—did he not say it was necessary to get them before Karaitiana returned?—Nothing of the kind. You saw Paramena first?—Yes, What took place?—No discussion took place; I do not believe the affair occupied ten minutes. Was the amount filled in at the time?—Yes In both deed and translation?—I will swear it was in the English one. Was anything said to Paramena as to the share he was to receive of the purchase-money?—No. Nor by him?—Not a single word. Had you then received any instructions from Tanner, as to the amount of the respective shares?—No; my advice to Tanner always was, not to go into that matter, but to let the natives divide the money among themselves. How came you to talk that over with Tanner?—In conversation between ourselves. I believe the conversation arose in consequence of some scheme proposed by Karaitiana, at Pakowhai. Did you understand that it was arranged at Pakowhai?—No; I looked on it merely as a thought of Karaitiana's own. Paramena received no money when he signed the deed?—Not at the time. What was said about payment?—That the money would be paid when all had signed Supposing all did not sign, page 164 what then?—Nothing was said about that. You then wont to Waipukurau, and the negociation commenced for Arihi's share?—Yes. A price was named for her share?—Yes, £1,500; it was named by the purchasers. That was a departure from your advice?—I cannot help that. Was any other person with Paramena when he signed?—He came into Coleman's house with Tanner and myself; Coleman and Fountain were also present. On your return, you saw Pahoro at Pakipaki; where did you take him?—To the hotel. Who was present?—Harrison, and I think some other European. No natives?—I think not. Was anything said by Pahoro, or to Pahoro, in reference to his share?—No. In what state was he?—Quite sober He never asked what his share was to be?—He did not ask He said nothing about the previous conveyance for £750?—He said he had been told that he had previously sold or mortgaged, but that it was false He now signed, because the others were joining in. Beyond this, no reference was made to the division of the money?—Nothing else. The next thing, on your return, was your visit to Karaitiana, with Cuff?—Yes. Where did you get your instructions to accompany Cuff?—From Cuff himself. Had you not seen Tanner on the subject?—I think not. Were you aware that Cuff was going out to pay the money, or serve the writ, according to circumstances?—He told me he had both the money and the writ. How long did you remain at Pakowhai?—Two or three hours. We told Karaitiana we had come about the sale of Heretaunga, and asked him to settle it. Was the money offered to him?—I cannot say. Did you hear what amount was there?—I cannot say. What was said about the writ?—Karaitiana asked for advice; Cuff told him it was too late to ask advice: he must make a settlement. And the writ was served?—Yes. Another European was with us—Cashmore. Karaitiana owed him money, and he went to see if he could get it. Karaitiana promised to come in on Wednesday. The writ was handed to him just before you left?—Yes. Who gave it to him?—Cuff, I believe. You translated it?—I explained it He came in according to promise?—Yes. Was that the day you saw him in Cuff's office, and the deed was signed?—I cannot say. My impression is that the natives were in two days. I was with them two successive days in Cuff's office. You do not remember being there three days?—I was backward and forward with them, but cannot say positively. How long were you there on the first day?—I cannot remember. What time in the evening did you break up that day?—I do not think it was a long meeting; I believe all the grantees were not in; I think Paramena and Pahoro were absent that day. You cannot recollect absolutely what prevented the business from being completed on the first day?—I really cannot remember. Were you long there?—If any of the grantees were absent, we were not. Your advice was being steadily pursued—getting the signatures first, and talking about the money after?—If I could, I would have had it so all through. On the first day—the second day, according to Mr Cuff—there was nothing settled, and I was not there long. The next day we met about 11 o'clock. All the six grantees were present. The first thing done was to read over the accounts they had drawn. Was any other business done?—Not that I can remember. The deed was then read over, explained, and signed. Was any objection raised by the natives to the orders?—None whatever. [The deed of final page 165 conveyance, dated the 27th March, 1870, was here handed to witness and identified.] It was explained that, although the whole block was conveyed by the deed, a reserve remained to them. Did you explain that to all the grantees?—Yes. You swear that—Yes. Was the acreage mentioned?—Yes; something like 1,700. Then they had nothing to show that they were entitled to the reserve?—Nothing in writing. Was anything said about the reserve, by any native present?—No, except in the private room. Did you retire to that room at the same time as Karaitiana and Henare?—Yes. And act as interpreter?—Yes. And the only matters referred to there were the matter of the reserve, and some request of Henare's about money?—That is all that I can remember. Karaitiana asked J. N. Williams to become a trustee—was that the first that was said?—I cannot say. Was it not said to Karaitiana and Henare that Arihi's trustees objected to the reserve being made over to them, and that it would have to go in the names of Europeans?—I do not remember that; I do not believe it was so—the principal topic of discussion was, how it should be tied up to prevent its disposal. I remember Karaitiana and Henare objecting to Arihi's name being in the reserve. Are these the vouchers produced at the time of settlement?—Yes. Was the work before signing the deed, showing each man, from these vouchers, what had been drawn against his account?—Yes Was there an order for every sum debited against the natives?—I believe so. After that the deed was signed?—Yes. Was there, for every large debit, some document in the nature of an order produced and admitted by the natives?—I believe so. Do you remember any voucher other than these?—I could not say whether these were all or not. Do you remember how much was debited to Henare Tomoana, or Karaitiana, or any one of the six individuals who signed?—No. How long after the deed was signed, was the cheque placed on the table?—Directly after. Who was sitting at the table?—Cuff, Tanner, Williams, and myself. Was Karaitiana?—I cannot say; all the natives were sitting round pretty close. Who produced the cheque?—James Williams He wrote it out at the time. Then Karaitiana took the cheque?—Soon after. I believe it laid there a minute or two, and he rose quietly and took it up. What was said when the cheque was laid down on the table?—The grantees were told that that was the balance. Did you hear Paramena say anything about the division?—Not in the room He complained outside. (The Chairman: He made no open protest?—Not in my presence. Did Noa take any, part in the discussion?—No; he simply acknowledged his orders. Did he make any remark when Karaitiana took the cheque?—No You heard no remonstrance from any of them when Karaitiana took the cheque?—No.) Was anything said in the presence of the grantees about the annuities?—I do not believe there was. Do you remember the statement of accounts by which the balance was arrived at—here are vouchers amounting to £4,713; can you recollect any other document being produced to account for the balance between this amount and that expressed in the deed?—No. You do not know how the £4,000 difference was accounted for to the natives?—No. Was anything said about the annuities, apart in the Masonic Hall?—I half fancy there was, but cannot say. Had you heard of these annuities before the meeting?—Yes. From whom?—I think page 166 from Tanner Long before?—A little time. Did you know of it when you went with Cuff to see Karaitiana?—I cannot say—I fancy Karaitiana did say something about the £1,000; but neither Cuff nor I could tell him anything about it. You only heard of Paramena's dissatisfaction afterwards, from a European?—Yes. Did it not become apparent, before the meeting broke up?—Not that I remember. Did not a letter come from Sutton?—It was from Sutton I heard of Paramena's dissatisfaction.

The Commission (at 5 p.m.) adjourned.

Monday, 31st March, 1873.

H. M. Hamlin, continued: I said, on Saturday, that I believed the deed signed by Tareha was in favor of Maney and Peacock. I am not quite sure, now, that it was not to Tanner. By Mr Sheehan: You mention that Cashmore was present at the interview at Pakowhai—when did he join the party?—In town He said he wanted to see Karaitiana, and I told him I was going. Did he mention that he wanted to see him about money owing?—Not at that time I concluded that that was his object, knowing that Karaitiana was in his debt. Did you tell Cashmore what you and Cuff were going for?—No, I do not think I did. Did you not tell him that it was a favorable opportunity, as you were taking him money?—I believe not. Was Cashmore present during the interview with Karaitiana I believe he was in the room the whole time. After our business was finished, Cashmore asked him, through me, when he could let him have some money He was then owing Cashmore, I believe, £670. You mentioned going to Wilson's office with Waaka, to take proceedings to upset Parkers deed; in whose interest did you accompany him?—In Waaka's own. Had you any previous conversation with him, as to what his grounds of complaint were?—If I remember right, Wilson asked me to get Waaka, and bung him to the office. Did you converse with Waaka at all, in reference to the matter of complaint?—I may have had a talk with him before—I cannot remember now. Did you then examine Waaka, in reference to the matter of which he complained?—I believe so, and also that there was some writing, giving Wilson instructions to act on his behalf. Can you recollect the general tenor of Waaka's complaint?—That he did not like the arrangement with Parker, and was drunk when he signed the deed. You know Waaka well?—Yes. It is a fact that he has been drinking heavily for years past?—He had been intoxicated at different times, but not more than other natives. Had he not contracted the habit of drinking frequently to excess?—He rather likes spirits, but I cannot say I have seen him frequently drunk. Did you often see him about town at that time—1869 or 1870—sober?—I did. After a fit of intoxication, I presume?—No, I cannot say, as I have heard said, that he was really in a continued state of intoxication. I understood you to say, that in your dealings with the purchasers of the Heretaunga block, you acted solely and exclusively as interpreter?—Yes. In Tareha's case, you were paid by Maney and Peacock?—I cannot say that I was. I believe they and Tanner made an arrangement, after they had settled their business, and that I was paid by Tanner. Was any reason assigned by Maney and Peacock, why they preferred your services as interpreter, at great page 167 expense?—No; I fancy their reason was, that they knew me, and knew nobody in Wellington. After that, you attended Cuff's office, in reference to the settlement of Waaka's business with Parker. Was that the only concern you had with Waaka's affairs?—I have no distinct recollection; I may have seen Waaka with Tanner. Have you any recollection of your payment?—My services were paid for at one time, when the business was completed. Your next service was your journey to Waipukurau, when you obtained the signatures of Paramena and Pahoro?—Yes. Next, your visit to Pakowhai, with Cuff?—I may have seen the natives between; I cannot remember Your next service was attending at the execution of the final deed, in Cuff's office?—Yes. Can you recollect any further service rendered by you in this transaction?—I cannot say that I do. What did you receive for your services?—My brother and myself received it together, in one lump sum of £300 between us. You received no sum on account, previously?—I had received part of the £300 previously. Had you any understanding what you were to get?—My brother made an arrangement for £300, if successful. I objected to this arrangement, as we might do a good deal of work for nothing. It was then finally arranged that we were to be paid fees for our trouble, if the purchase was not completed; but, if we succeeded, we were to receive £300. Who paid your expenses to Waipukurau?—Tanner. Most of our expenses were paid by Tanner. Your brother Josiah was not here, then?—No. What other licensed interpreters were there at the time?—Grindell and Worgan. Worgan was also engaged for the Heretaunga purchase?—Not that I know of, except in reference to Waaka's and Parkers affair, which he did to oblige me. Worgan left about that time for the West Coast?—A long time after. Grindell was also engaged for the Heretaunga purchasers?—I cannot say; I heard, in the first place, that he was engaged for Stuart. Did you hear of his engagement by your own clients?—I believe he was present at Arihi's signing, but do not know how he was employed. At what date in the transaction was the arrangement made for the £300 and expenses? was it about the time of the arrangement with Waaka in Cuff's office?—About that time, I believe; I am not sure. Before the negociations with Henare and Karaitiana?—My brother can say better than I can. Your services, and those of your brother, were definitely secured by that arrangement?—Yes. You would not have been open to accept any business as interpreter hostile to their interests as purchasers of the black?—I do not think I was. You have specified the circumstances and times no which you acted. Do you still say that your very large fee was for services as interpreter, only, and not as negociator between dinner and the natives?—No, I was simply a mouthpiece. Will you swear that you used none of your influence with the natives, and acted merely as a passive mouthpiece for Tanner?—I do not remember doing anything more. You heard of Stuart's negociation?—I heard he was trying to buy. Did you inform Tanner of that?—I believe I did not hear of it till afterwards. If you had heard of any other person negociating, would you have considered it your duty to tell your clients?—I do not know that; I would most likely have mentioned it. Your brother really made the arrangement for £300, though it was modified at your instance, so that, if unsuccessful, you should receive your fees. page 168 In what way did you expect you might he unsuccessful?—If the natives were unwilling to sell. Were you not informed that the natives had sold, and that you were only required to act as interpreter?—I do not know that I was informal that they had agreed. I saw Henare before my going to Waipukurau, on his return from Taupo. Did Tanner then employ you to see him, or was it purely an accidental meeting?—More by accident than anything else, so far as I remember. Had the arrangement for payment been made; at that time? I believe it had. At that conversation, nothing was done in reference to selling?—Henare seemed half inclined to sell, saying he did not know how to pay his debts; he wanted to see the others; that was pretty well all that passed. After that, your brother went to Pakowhai, with Tanner, and obtained the signatures of Karaitiana and Henare to the agreement to sell. Were you not aware, when he went to Waipukurau, that Karaitiana was repudiating being bound by that agreement?—I have been thinking about that, but cannot remember that I knew. I. knew Karaitiana was in trouble, but I attributed it to his being served with a writ, by Knowles. I believe that, when I went to Waipukurau, I had no knowledge of it. Was it any part of your business, if you came across the grantees, to discuss with them the sale of Heretaunga?—I should not have considered so, unless they brought forward the subject, and then to report what they said to the purchaser. Not to promote the transaction in any way?—Not in any way. The arrangement, in effect, was, that you and your brother were to get £300 and expenses, for obtaining the signatures of seven grantees?—No, of the whole of them. Will you swear that Tareha's affair was included in the £300?—Yes. If Maney has said that he and Peacock paid you, and that Tanner did not pay your expenses, would you deny it?—I do not know what arrangement may have existed between them. [The Chairman's notes were referred to, and Mr Maney's statement read, to the effect that he paid £25, being half of the sum paid to the witness, Peacock finding the other half.] Will you swear that you were not separately paid for your services in respect of Tareha's share?—I was not. (The Chairman: You were not paid £2 2s. a day for your services in Wellington?—No; £300" was the whole I received on account of Heretaunga, with the exception of sums for collecting debts.) Your expenses to Wellington were not included in the £300?—No. They were paid for you?—Yes. Was the arrangement for £300 on foot when you went to Wellington?—I do not think so; I cannot swear positively. Your services on that occasion were on behalf of Maney and Peacock, quite independent of any arrangement with Tanner?—Yes. Will you say you never did discuss the question with, the natives yourself, and recommend them to get rid of the difficulty by selling Heretaunga?—Not that I can remember. You and your brother have received no allowance or consideration from the purchasers beyond the; £.300 and travelling expenses?—No. [The deed from Waaka to Parker of December, 1868, was here handed to the witness.] You were the interpreter?—Yes. By whom were you employed?—Parker. As interpreter and negociator, or interpreter only?—Only as interpreter; I fancy the Parkers had had some conversation with my brother and Grindell on the subject. You had nothing to do beyond interpreting the deeds?—That is all, so far as I remember. Then all page 169 previous negociations or discussions must have taken place through other interpreters]—To the best of my recollection, I will not say I did not see him previously on the subject—it is a long while to remember. You cannot recollect whether you did anything in the way of negociation?—No. [Deed of the 20th July, 1869, produced, and handed to witness] That is the deed signed in my presence in Wellington. You are now in a position to say the conveyance was to Tanner and the other purchasers?—Yes. The agreement was made in the evening; the deed was signed next morning; and in the afternoon Tanner came?—Yes; that was the order of time. And Tareha, when he signed the deed, was well aware that it was a conveyance to Tanner?—He must have been. (The Chairman: Then the deed was signed before Tanner came?—Yes.)

Re-examined by Mr Lascelles: Was any agreement, or paper, signed by Tareha on the preceding day?—I have some idea that there was; hut I cannot positively say. Are you able to state whether Tanner had been present at any interview before the deed was signed?—I do not believe he was. Prior to your meeting Cashmore, had any conversation taken place between you and him on the subject of going out?—No; we met accidentally; I happened to mention that I was going to Pakowhai, and he said he thought he would go too. Did you interpret for Cash- more, in your interview with Karaitiana?—I do not think he said much; he had heard the interview; he came away with us.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: Do you say that Paramena signed without making any distinct arrangement as to his share?—Yes. What did he sign for?—The sale of the block for the amount named in the deed. £13,000?—I believe co. Did he expect to get the whole?—No; only his share; but no arrangement was made as to what, that share was to be. Was he merely throwing it away?—No, he expected to get some money. Did he not ask what he was to get?—No. Is he a common man, or a person of position?—At Pakipaki he is a person of position.

By Mr Commissioner Te Wheoro: When Karaitiana took the cheque, who was the money for?—I understood it was for all, until Karaitiana said he would keep it. How many cheques did he take away?—Only one that I know of—for the whole of the balance due. After this, was the £700 paid on account of Paramena and Pahoro?—I did not see any paid to them afterwards.

By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: Was it after it was laid on the table, that Karaitiana's name was written?—I think it was all written at one time. Was it in Karaitiana's name?—Yes.

By the Chairman: Where did your conversation with Karaitiana- about the £1,000 supposed to be deficient in the payment of the purchase-money, take place?—In the Superintendent's office.

J. D. Ormond's cross-examination resumed by Mr Sheehan: In mentioning the value of lands, you spoke of certain blocks leaded by the Provincial Government. Were not those blocks leased and sold by Government, under special regulations?—Yes; there was an Act of the Provincial Council on the subject. Were the regulations issued under that Act?—Yes. Were those blocks leaded by Government before the flood?—Yes. The valuations were post-diluvian?—Yes; but the flood did page 170 not affect some portions. "Were not considerable portions of the land underwater?—In the Papakura block. Were not great quantities of sand and shingle deposited on land previously good?—About 600 or 700 acres, at the outside, on the Papakura block. Being close to the high road, it looked worse than it was. Was the effect of the flood to reduce the price of the freehold of sections at Papakura?—I do not think the high rents would have been given if the floods had come previously. Do you remember the purchase by the Government of the Waikahu block, made about the same time?—When was the Taheke block bought?—About the same time as the Hikutoto; it was bought by the Province for a botanical garden, for £10 per acre; it is perhaps worth £20 or £30 per acre now. You mentioned the sale of Alley's land, at Taradale, for £4 per acre. Is not a portion of that property hill land?—Yes; it takes in the face of the hill. Is not the hill portion very inferior to the land on the flat?—I should think so. At first, you, and other purchasers, ran sheep over the whole of the block; but afterwards obtained a legal lease, and subdivided the land?—Yes. You found, after yen had fenced in the land, that it would carry 800 sheep to the acre?—Yes. Had it not considerably increased in value between the legal lease and the purchase?—It was, perhaps carrying 1,500 then. You remember being questioned as to the circumstance of J. N. Williams taking the second choice, without ballot, and could not recollect; do you remember the meeting in the old Club, before the land passed through the Court, at which Purvis Russell and all the other lessees were present?—I remember several meetings When there was some ballotting for interests?—I do not remember Pun is Russell being there; I believe I selected for him. [A paper is handed to the witness.] According to that, J. N. Williams would not have to ballot. Did he not have that privilege in consequence of the services of his brother?—I cannot say; I did not remember till I saw that document. Was there not considerable discussion at that meeting?—There must have been, if that document was drawn up—it is in Purvis Russell's handwriting. Can you not remember the circumstances under which that right of second selection was granted?—No. You had leased it before it went through the Court—the Native Lands Purchase Ordinance notwithstanding?—Yes; this district, Wairarapa, and other parts of the North Island, were settled that way, notwithstanding the prohibition. You say you had nothing to do with the negociation, but left it to Tanner; and that you knew nothing of the writ against Karaitiana?—Yes. You remember the Act of 1869, which provides that it shall not be assumed that the grantees have equal interests. When the House was sitting, had you any correspondence with Tanner and the other purchasers, as to the bearing of that provision on Heretaunga?—I may have done so; I do not remember. Did you not, while the Bill was going through the House, send a draft to Tanner, with alterations suggested by yourself, asking if that would cover the Heretaunga case?—I do not remember it. If I sent the Bill to Tanner, I would probably send copies to a good many other people. At that time there were three or four interests secured?—I was only aware of the purchase of Tareha's interest, and the alteration mentioned would have been rather against my interests. You mentioned that F. E. Hamlin was Government interpreter at the time of the Heretaunga page 171 purchase—had you any conversation with him about the progress of the negociation?—I have no doubt I have had occasional information from him; but did not know anything of the details. Did you hear of the three days' negociation at Pakowhai?—I think not. Did you hear the price determined on between Tanner and the natives?—[do not think so. Any conversation I would have with Hamlin would be as limited as possible—just as I avoided having anything to do with the purchase. You have heard of the claims of Henare, and others, on account of the Taupo expedition?—Yes. Has not Henare continued to urge that he has claims for a larger amount than he received?—On his return, when he received payment, he expressed no dissatisfaction He afterwards asked for payment for the horses shot, and has been paid for them. I heard no more, till he petitioned the House, last session—a committee sat, and decided that he had no claim. Were you present when the money was paid?—I believe I sent it out by Hamlin. You cannot say whether he complained, or not?—Never, to me. Had Hamlin a right to private practice, as a stipulation in his engagement?—I cannot say; I found him, when I came into office, practising privately, when it did not interfere with Government work. Did not the Heretaunga case interfere with his duties?—Not more than other cases. Did you know of the three days' interview at Pakowhai, when he went out with Tanner to Karaitiana?—I never heard that history till the Commissioners sat; I knew that Karaitiana had signed an agreement, which he wished to evade. I have already said that, if I had been here, Hamlin could not have been absent three days. Do you remember interfering with Hapuku, in the matter of a trust deed to Messrs, Russell?—I reported on the subject to the Government, in connexion with the Trust Commissioner's report.

Re-examined by Mr Lascelles: What did you mean by saying that the arrangement of the £1,000 to Karaitiana was unfair to the other natives?—That it was unfair on the part of Karaitiana. Was it only on the report of the Trust Commissioner that you brought Hapuku's matter before the Government?—Yes. Did you take any steps in the matter before you received that report?—I think not; but cannot say. By whom were the Papakura and Hikutoto valuations principally made?—In the first place, Weber, the Chief Provincial Surveyor, made a valuation, by sections, for the Government. These valuations were open to inspection by the purchasers, who sent a deputation to the Superintendent, complaining that the valuation was excessive. The Government then sent for Mr Park, who knew the district well, and who come up from Wellington, and made a valuation. Mr Weber's valuation, if adhered to, would have just secured the Government against loss; Mr Park's valuation came up to the purchase money; but did not cover the duty on the purchase. Mr Park's valuation was also refused by the purchasers; new valuators—competent persons—were appointed, and their lists of valuations are in existence. What is the comparative value of Hikutoto, Papakura, and Heretaunga?—Hikutoto and Papakura were far more valuable—Hikutoto the most valuable of the three. Papakura begins about four or five miles from Napier; Hikutoto, about six miles, by good roads. The best part of Papakura was covered with English grass; it was as good as any land in the Colony, and was valued page 172 by Weber and Park at £7 per acre. The whole block was, more or less, covered with English grass, and was capable of carrying a large amount of stock. Hikutoto was not so well grassed, but considerably better land. (Mr Commissioner Manning: It was not fenced?—No. All that M'Hardy and others had to do when they bought land was, to put up four fences, and turn their stock in.) Heretaunga, at the time of the purchase, had no English grass or clover, except along the roads, and was very rough. This is excepting a small portion, which had been improved. The average value put upon Papakura and Hikutoto by Weber and Park, was perhaps a little over £3 per acre. There was no great difference between the three valuations. Park's estimate was a little higher than Weber's, and Weber's than the final valuation. The value of Heretaunga could not then have been more than 1 in 3.

Francis Edwards Hamlin, sworn, examined by Mr Lascelles: I was a licensed interpreter at the end of 1869. and am at present Resident Magistrate at Maketu. At the end of 1869 I was residing in Napier. The first transaction respecting Heretaunga, with which I was concerned, was with the lease. I had a little to do with the original lease, but was more particularly concerned with the legal lease. The negociation was chiefly with Karaitiana and Henare, and the terms were, £1,230 for the first ten years, and £1,750 for the remainder of the lease. What first led to the negociation for the purchase, was the report that Stuart was anxious to purchase the block. From my knowledge of the parties employed—Worgan as interpreter, and, I believe, Sutton as agent—I think I am right in saving I was the first to report the matter to Tanner, who asked me to go out with him to see Karaitiana. We asked Karaitiana if he was inclined to dispose of Heretaunga, and he replied that he was not inclined, Tanner replied that he was perfectly satisfied with the terms of the leasee, and did not care about deviating from it; bat if, at any time, the owners felt inclined to sell, he asked for the first refusal, which was promised. At the conclusion of the interview, Tanner told Karaitiana that he had heard that Stuart was fully bent on acquiring the block. I do not think anything more took place that day. The next matter of consequence was about the time of Henare's expedition to Taupo—Sutton sued him for about £900. Henare told me that a writ had been served, and that he would be sued for the money. The Government were anxious that Henare and his people should go. Henare, at my request, showed me the writ. I saw there was a misinterpretation in and informed Sutton it was void. I tried to get the matter staved off, but failed to do so. Mr Ormond was applied to He asked Henare if there was anything in the account incorrect He said no; the account was perfectly correct; but he objected to be served with a writ just as he was going on the public service. I went over and saw Sutton, at Ormond's request, to ask him to stave the matter off till Henare's return. Sutton was rather saucy: he asked me what business I had to interfere; and recommended me to pay the money off, or find him good security for it. I explained that it was for the public benefit that Henare was going out, and asked him to wait till his return. Sutton said, "He is going into action; he may be shot to-morrow; and what is to become of my money?" However, Sutton did not push the matter then. The page 173 next thing, Karaitiana endeavored to go to Auckland, and was threatened with an action, which stopped him—this was after Henare's return, and before my three days' visit to Pakowhai. The next thing of any importance, was this:—one of Karaitiana's young men came to me at Clive, and requested my presence at Pakowhai. I said, "What for?" He replied, "With respect to Heretaunga." I said, "What of Heretaunga?" he answered, "To talk of selling" I asked if Tanner had been informed; he replied, yes; Tanner had been communicated with, and was coming. We met at Pakowhai on that day—myself, Tanner, Karaitiana, Henare, and Manaena. I believe the subject of the sale was opened by Karaitiana himself He said he had agreed to sell Heretaunga, on account of these people's debts—more particularly naming Henare. We then went into matters of negociation;—Tanner offered £12,000 for the block, less £1,500, Neal's mortgage. This was for all the shares—the whole block. Prior to these negociations, Tanner asked Karaitiana if he had had a meeting with the other grantees. I under-stood him to say, at the time, that they had, and that the other grantees had left the whole of the negociations in the hands of Karaitiana and Henare. An offer was made, on the other side, to sell for a larger sum—I think £20,000. After a good deal of general conversation, Karaitiana told us to come next day; in the meantime he would have an interview with his people. We returned on the second day, and resumed negociations—the conclusion being, to leave it an open question, whether Tanner should pay Neal's mortgage, in addition to the £12,000, or break off the negociation. We adjourned till next day, to consider the question. On the third day, it was decided that the block should be sold, including the reserve, for £13,500—in which sum the payment of the mortgage was included. It was understood that, although a reserve of about 1,600 acres was to be separated from the purchase, the whole block, including the reserve, was to be conveyed to the purchasers, and then, that the whole reserve should be re-conveyed, in trust, to Karaitiana and Henare. The negociation being so far completed, we sat on the malting, and a conversation began about the rights of the respective grantees. Manaena was not at this time present. When it came to this point, he very quietly walked out. We estimated Manaena's and Matiaha's interests at £1,000 each. The next was Arihi, and a little discussion ensued, as to whether she should receive £1,000 or £1,800: it resulted in £1,500 being put down to her. Next came Paramena and Pahoro, also put down, at first, at £1,000 each—this was altered afterwards. Next came Noa, £1,000; Tareha's share was estimated at £1,500; Waaka's interest, at £1,000; and we calculated that the balance would then be £3,000. Karaitiana said this would not do—it must be altered, and Paramena's and Pahoro's shares were altered to £500 each, making £4,000 to the good, which he said must be divided between himself and Henare. At this time Karaitiana said to Tanner, in a low tone, "You will have to do something more for Henare." Karaitiana then left the room, and Tanner and Henare went into the subject of the adjustment of accounts. Henare then gave a full statement, as far as his memory served him, of the actual amount of his liabilities. It was within £50 of the £2,000—so close, that he said there was nothing He wanted more, for himself, privately, naming first £1,000, page 174 and, immediately afterwards, £1,500. I said, jokingly, "What would be the use of giving you that money? you would be in debt again to-morrow." Tanner suggested that, instead of giving him £1,500, he should give him an annuity of £150 for ten years. Henare could not understand; so, I wrote £150 ten times in my pocket-book, and added it up, Henare being fully satisfied with the result. Tanner asked if a memorandum of agreement should be drawn up. I said everything had been so well understood, and in such good part, that there was not the slightest need. Tanner said he was not acting for himself alone, but for others, and it was necessary He drew out a memorandum of agreement, which was thoroughly explained to Henare, who signed it. Karaitiana then came into the room, the agreement was also read to him, and he got the pen, to sign it. For some unexplained reason, he forgot to sign for a time, and went out on the veranda. I was called out afterwards by Mr Tanner to explain what had taken place—that he had agreed to give Karaitiana £100 per annum for ten years. Karaitiana then came in and signed the memorandum himself. We left very shortly after. I afterwards got the deeds from Cuff, and took them up for signature. Karaitiana refused to sign, or allow the others to sign; but specified no reason. I reasoned with him on the subject, reminding him that he had signed the agreement, and done it in very good part He still refused to sign, and I left. Soon after this, he left for Auckland. During his absence, I went up for Henare's signature He agreed to come to Cuff's at 5 p.m., and sign; nothing else, of any consequence took place. I went to Cuff's, and waited till past six o'clock; finding he did not come, I went home. Later the same evening I was informed that Henare had been in town, but was hindered from calling, through other business; and that he would call on Cuff at an earlier hour the next day. We met there on the day following; some conversation took place in reference to the sale, and other matters, and Henare asked if we had the deed. It was produced; I translated it to him, after which I stated that it was now for him to sign, or not, as he pleased—and he signed the deed. No compulsion, or force, or anything of the kind was used. Previous to signing, he sat comfortably down to dinner, with Tanner, myself, and Mr and Mrs Cuff. Two doors were open on the veranda all the time, and he made no attempt to leave the room. Did you and he have any kind of struggle?—No. Did he say, "I may get the worst of it; but I will kill one of you?"—Nothing of the kind; it was as pleasant a meeting as possible, and if he had desired to leave the room, he could have done so at any time. You are certain that he had dinner?—Yes. Did he refuse a glass of wine offered by Cuff?—I think he took it. Was any business discussed before dinner?—No; he signed after dinner. At what time did you break up?—Early, about 4 p.m. I believe Henare went to Pakowhai. I returned to my own house. I believe the only matter after this, was a few days after—Tanner and myself going out to see Manaena. We saw him—I cannot be sure whether it was the first time, or afterwards, but I think it was the first time. Tanner gave him £100, on condition of his coming to town, and signing, on the next day He did not come, and we went out twice again; on each occasion he evaded us. Sutton was passing, a few mornings after, and called me to follow him to Pakowhai. I did so, and we had some discussion. page 175 Myself, F. Sutton, and E. Sutton, clerk, were present. Manaena said he knew that we were giving Karaitiana and Henare special considerations, and he wanted something similar. I argued with him that, having made an agreement, and received £100 on account, it was ungentlemanly of him not to carry it out He asked for £100 per annum. I told him I had no authority to promise it, and objected to it for some time; he then reduced his demand to £50 per annum, to which I agreed, on the part of Tanner, promising him he should have it for ten years. I then explained the deed, which he signed He asked Sutton and myself for money, and Sutton gave him an undertaking to pay him £20 the next day He wanted us to guarantee that, in addition to the annuity of £50, he should keep the £100. We would not have anything to do with this, and told him to see Tanner about it. The only thing further, which I remember, was going to Owhiti, to get Noa's signature. I explained the matter to him, and that Karaitiana had allotted him £1,000 He seemed quite conversant with it, and signed the deed. Soon after, I went to Noa, with Maney and Peacock, and he signed two orders, amounting, together, to very near the £1,000 He raised no objection whatever to their accounts. At the time of the opening of the negociations, it was Tanner's desire that there should be a general meeting of all the grantees. I understood that such a meeting had been held, and, until the present time, I have never heard anything to the contrary. Karaitiana has always been a leading man in these transactions; he is a man of a superior order, and in every transaction in which he is concerned, he manages to secure either a bonus or an annuity. How many years have you been an interpreter?—I was one of the first licensed. What is your mode of dealing with the natives?—I give them plenty of time, and let them use their own mind. If I were to use pressure, I should defeat my own object. Neither Karaitiana, Henare, nor Manaena, and very few of the others, could be dealt with in this way. Since Noa gave his evidence in Court, Hone te Wharemako has told me that Noa and Renata had a dispute, and that Renata asked Noa why he had made a false statement in support of Karaitiana. I have had a conversation with .Manaena, who admitted that his evidence was not strictly true in some particulars.

The Commission adjourned at 4 p.m.

Tuesday, 1st April, 1873.

F. E. Hamlin, continued: I wish to make a correction in my evidence given yesterday I did not take the deed to Karaitiana before he left for Auckland. After the memorandum of agreement was signed, a man named Beyer advised Karaitiana not to sell. I heard this from the natives themselves; Karaitiana and Henare stated that Beyer had advised them not to sign the conveyance. Grin-dell told me that he would oppose me in every way, in trying to get the land. The first occasion I went to Pakowhai, was when I went with Cuff, when Henare made an appointment to come at 5 o'clock the same day; at Cuff's private house. After I told Grindell that the memorandum of agreement was actually signed, he waived any objection he had previously entertained. [The Chairman referred to his notes, and read the portion of the evidence to which the correction applied.]

page 176

Cross-examined by Mr Sheehan: When were you first engaged for the purchase of Heretaunga?—About the end of 1869. You were Government interpreter at the time?—Yes. You were in partnership with your brother, in this case?—Yes, but not in general; we sometimes took opposing sides. In this case, we were together. Were you formally engaged by the purchasers, at the time Waaka Kawatini's business was settled?—I believe so. Were you paid for Waaka's business separately?—I believe not. Was an arrangement made as to what sum you should receive?—The first arrangement was, that if we succeeded, we were to get £100; it not, merely our ordinary fees. After Beyer raised an objection, and Stuart stepped in, it became more difficult, and it was arranged that we were to get £300 between us. When was the offer of £100 made?—About the time that Stuart stepped into the market. If you succeeded in what?—In purchasing the Heretaunga block Although Beyer commenced it, there were others, besides him. So, it became necessary to raise your fee to £300?—It would not have paid us, without. Your condition was, that if you succeeded in effecting the purchase, you were to receive £300?—Yes. Then your employment was not simply that of an interpreter?—I do not know that it was—it was very little more. You have heard his Honor's notes of your evidence read—that you went out to Karaitiana, and he refused to sign; that you reasoned with him, &c—are you now prepared to say that that is all imaginary?—No, I was confuting it with what occurred in town. Did you speak to him in town?—No. Then the whole account of your interview, reasoning with him, &c., is imaginary?—I have already withdrawn it; until Cuff's evidence was given, I had forgotten all about the matter. Will you swear that you had no such interview with Karaitiana?—To the best of my belief, I had not. How came you, then, to dream of it?—I must have confused it with an interview with Henare Tomoana. At the time Henare Tomoana applied to you, when he was sued, before going to Taupo, you were in the employ of Tanner. You have told us that the first arrangement was £100, but that, in consequence of Stuart, it was increased to £300. Are you aware, that while Stuart was working, the declarations of trust were signed by Pahoro and Paramena?—I remember a conveyance signed by them. Were you engaged at the time?—I believe I was. That was in July?—[Deed produced, dated the 29th July] Then, when he applied to you, this arrangement was on foot, and your fee had been increased to £300?—I could not swear that it had been increased. Was not that conveyance taken in consequence of overtures from Stuart to Pera Pahoro?—Not to my knowledge. Was not your arrangement on foot when this deed was signed?—I believe it was. When Henare applied to you in his extremity, you were under this engagement for £300?—I may have been. Were you not aware that one cause, which would lead to the sale, was the amount of the debts of the native grantees?—I was not at that time aware that it was, or I would not have taken the active part I did. You then became aware that Henare owed Sutton nearly £1,000?—Yes. Was there not a greater chance of purchase, if that debt was still kept on, than if it was settled?—I do not know that it was. Was Ormond aware of your engagement with Tanner?—I do not know; I never exchanged a word with Ormond on the subject. Did you arrange with Sutton to stay the page 185 By Mr Commissioner Hikairo: Did Stuart employ you?—He asked me to act for him; he told me he would go from £8,000 to £12,000 He took me into a room in an hotel, and made the offer privately; I went right off and told Tanner. Are you not certain about your taking the deed to Karaitiana, and his refusing to sign before he left for Auckland?—No; I believe the deed was not prepared. Have you no recollection of going to Pakowhai with Cuff, and Karaitiana refusing to sign?—No.

By the Chairman: Had you the deed with you when you and Sutton went to Manaena?—Yes.

By Mr Commissioner Manning: Did Stuart's coming in give you much extra trouble?—A very great deal. Do you consider that Stuart's competition raised the price of the block?—I believe it did affect it that way. On what grounds do you suppose so?—Because the general opinion was that the outside value of the block was £10,000. Do you, then, think it made £5,000 difference?—I should not like to say so. It would be hard to make an estimate; but it greatly increased the native idea of the value of the block.

By Mr Sheehan (by permission): What reply did you give Stuart when he proposed to you?—An evasive answer. And at once went and told Tanner?—Yes; I believe Tanner saw Stuart the same evening.

H. M. Hamlin (recalled): I wish to correct my evidence in regard to Tareha's transaction. On what point?—I stated, on Saturday, that it was a deed of conveyance which was signed by Tareha; on Monday I was not quite sure. A short lime afterwards I saw Sutton, who, when I said there was only one deed, asked me if I did not remember writing out a deed in Wellington I now perfectly remember that after Tareha's consent was given, in the evening, Maney wrote out for him a paper, consenting to hand over his share to Maney and Peacock. This was the deed executed by Tareha the next morning. (The Chairman: Had it a plan?—Not at that time. The translation was written on blue foolscap.) Tanner came during the day, and agreed to the price; a new deed was drawn out, and was signed by Tareha about three days after.

By Mr Sheehan: Do you recollect that I put the deed to Maney and Peacock in your hands, and you recognized it as the first deed by Tareha?—I remember recognizing the deed. You had the deed in your hand when you gave the answer?—Yes. Do you not remember being asked by Tanner if there was any other document, when you replied that you fancied so, but could not call it to mind?—Yes. How long after going out of Court did you see button?—About an hour-and a-half; I told him I had made a mistake about the deed. When did you first consider you made a mistake?—When the deed was put into my hand. Why did you not then say .so?—I wanted more time to consider. Did you see anyone else, beside Sutton, on the subject?—I mentioned it to Tanner. Did no one suggest to you that your evidence did not correspond with that of the other witnesses?—No. Sutton said, "Do you not remember Maney and Peacock writing a deed in the Empire Hotel?—I then remembered, and told him the whole story.

Mr Commissioner Hikairo: You appear to correct your statement a great many times—is this the last?—I hope so.

page 186

Henare Matua here came forward and asked what was to be done with the cases remaining unsettled—The Chairman explained that they must be left to the wisdom of Parliament. The Commissioner's had decided that the next case (if any) they would hear, would be that of Mangateretere or Ngatarawa.—Mr Lascelles said that Mangateretere would take longer than Heretaunga—Mr Sheehan said, no; only about a week—ten or twelve days, at the outside.—The Chairman said that would be too long.—Mr Sheehan said he knew of no important case that could be disposed of within a week. The Commission might take one of Henare Matua's cases, and bring out a fact not yet apparent—that signatures of children, often and twelve years old, had been obtained to conveyances of their Crown Grants.—The Chairman said that such proceedings were monstrous, it true. If they came into a Court, the purchasers would, of course, find their deed void. It was scarcely necessary to bring such matters before the Commission—any gentleman having a seat in Parliament, if well informed on the subject, might make use of his knowledge on that point.—Mr Sheehan believed the best, thing for the natives would be for the Commissioners to decide to hear no more cases. Quite sufficient evidence had been taken to lay before Parliament on the subject.—The Chairman: If we take any ease after Heretaunga, it will be either Ngatarawa or Mangateretere. We do not know, without consultation, whether we will take them.

Thomas Tanner, sworn, deposed: l am a sheep-farmer. My first connexion with Heretaunga began some time in 1864. I was travelling to Napier, and met Henare Tomoana, and several other Pakowhai and Karamu natives, on a cultivation near Pakowhai. They were mowing, at the time. They asked me if I would take a lease of Heretaunga.—I laughed at the idea, and asked why they did not offer it to the Government. They replied that they intended to have no more dealings with the Government about land—the block was open for lease; and if I did not take it, they would offer it to some one else. I asked if there was any dry land on it—if it was fit for sheep. They replied that it was, opposite the Wahaparata mill, on the old course of the Ngaruroro, and also a little grass land in the neighbourhood of where they were sitting. I replied that I would look at the block on some future occasion. Subsequently, coming down from the country, I took a ride right and left of the track, and, though the land outside the swamps was very rough, I saw there was room for a few sheep; the soil was good, and, by burning, I could soon increase its capabilities for carrying sheep. I met the natives again, about the same place as before; I told them I was satisfied that a portion would do for sheep, and asked if any negociations were pending in reference to it between themselves and other Europeans. They replied that there were not—there were only a few sheep of Ormond's on the land, waiting for shipment. I then asked them how much per annum they wanted. They replied, £600 for the whole block. I said it was a great deal too much; but that I might, probably, get some friend to join me, and told them I would take it. An arrangement was then made between myself and the natives, that I was to have the lease of the whole block for £600; and I made arrangements for sending sheep down. Before doing so, I went again to the same place, on my page 187 way to Napier. I saw the late W. Rich, in company with the natives. I told the natives I was going to send sheep down, and asked when Ormond's would he removed. They said they were going in a day or two. Henare then said that, as Rich was a friend of his, he wished him to have the portion next to Havelock—nearly all the grass land. Had I not already arranged to send the sheep down, I would have thrown the affair up; as it was, I told them it was not right, and asked for a reduction, equal to the amount of Rich's rent. Henare positively refused, and I had to submit. I had a lease, signed by a great number of natives in the presence of Samuel Williams, who was present at Karaitiana's request He had come to Pakowhai on Sunday, and this was on a Monday. The next event was the sitting of the Native Lands Court, in Napier. I asked the natives if they intended to put the Heretaunga block through the Court. I understood from Karaitiana that he was anxious to do so, and have himself constituted sole grantee. I had a discussion with Karaitiana and Henare, and urged that, as there were a great many interests in the block, they should have the full complement of grantees. Karaitiana said he looked on the block as his only; he had supreme control; and would not consent to any other persons' names being admitted as grantees, if it gave them any authority or control over the block. I told him that was a question for the Judge of the Native Lands Court He said he would, and did, ask the question. Mr Munro was the Judge; I believe I was present at the time. Karaitiana asked, if he allowed other names besides his own to be included in the Crown Grant, whether it would give the others any authority to sell, or deal with the block in any way. Judge Munro's answer was that one grantee could not sell without the consent of the remaining grantees. I remember that, distinctly. I believe he spoke in Maori, and that some one near interpreted. I understood the answer, at any rate. I took it to mean, that nothing could be done with the block, or any portion of it, to deal with it in any way, without the consent of the whole of the grantees. At that time, no one appeared to understand what position the grantees held Karaitiana then waived all objection, and went out, with others, to talk about the names. Very likely he considered himself an exception, but was satisfied, believing the land could not in any way be dealt with without his consent. I urged that all the chief men should be in the Grant—very likely Tareha, among others. I do not know that this was the first Court—it was an early Grant. I believe a previous application had fallen through—Karaitiana and Henare being unwilling that any names but their own should be inserted in the Grant; Karaitiana, in particular, insisting that his own should be the only name. After the block passed through the Court, I obtained a legal lease - just after the Court sat. The date of the lease, was the 24th April, 1867. The Crown Grant was dated the 1st April, 1867. An increase of rent was demanded by Karaitiana and Henare up to the terms mentioned in the lease. Karaitiana made a special demand, on his own behalf, at this time. After the terms of the lease were agreed on, and the deed prepared, he said he should require, for himself, over and above the terms agreed upon with the grantees, a bonus—I believe the amount was £200 to be paid to him at once, in cash, and £300 at the end of the first ten years, which we still have to pay. I heard, the other day, that the page 188 document of agreement still lies in Wilson's office. Karaitiana claimed it as supreme chief. This arrangement was not known to the others—it was privately made by himself outside of the bargain—at the same time it was to be the condition of his final acquiescence. No legal agreement had been drawn up before the deed of lease—the terms of the lease had been agreed upon, and the lease was drawn in those terms. When this lease was taken out to Pakowhai, for signature, this demand was made by him He took me aside, and made the demand, much to my surprise. I saw it must be at once acceeded to, or I knew he would refuse to sign the lease. The reserve was arranged about two years previous to the legal lease. In the terms of the first lease, after the agreement for £600 per annum, the natives told me that they must also have the right of running their horses and cattle, such few as they had, over the block, and their pigs in the large swamp. I was not surprised at the demand, and acquiesced. Before the original lease was finally made out, I had some friends interested in it. Samuel Williams, on behalf of J. N. Williams, was the first to join me in the lease. I had previously offered Captain Hamilton Russell a share in the block—it was too large for me, and too much rent for me to pay by myself He declined, saying it was too much for him. It was then that I asked Samuel Williams if he knew of any one who would join He agreed to do so on behalf of his brother-in-law, who he thought would be glad to have a portion. I spoke to Karaitiana, who expressed his willingness that it should be so. Captain Russell after wards told me he would like to lake a third share, which would be enough—a half being too much. I asked Karaitiana, who also gave his consent. When Karaitiana consented to Williams joining me, his consent almost amounted to a wish that he should do so—I having told him, from the first, that it was too much for me. It was then arranged that I should fence off, with Williams and Russell, the portion on which I was going to keep my sheep, and also, that we should arrange with the natives to define a reserve for themselves, on which to keep their stock; that they should fence it off, and keep their stock within its boundary. Some time before the fence of the reserve was erected, when I first spoke of the proposition to Henare, he went out with me, and showed me what the boundaries of the reserve should be He showed a boundary, comprising about 1,000 acres. Immediately previous to the erection of the fence, when the wire and timber were on the ground, the Rev. Samuel Williams suggested to me to ask Henare if it was fully sufficient for all their purposes, and to go out with him once more and see. I agreed to this, and asked J. N. Williams to accompany me. Henare and Manaena, and one or two boys, went with us. Henare then extended his boundary so as to include about 600 acres more. The fence was then erected, and remains unaltered to the present day. This must have been from eighteen months to two years before the legal lease. The next event was after the lease of 1867—towards the end of 1868. I got a notice from Parker, that he had acquired Waaka Kawatini's interest in the Heretaunga and other blocks, and requiring me to pay him Waaka's proportion of the rent I laughed at the idea, having heard the Judge's opinion. I went to Wilson, and asked if it was possible for one grantee to sell without the consent of the others. I understood Wilson that it was a doubtful question. I then ascertained the nature of the document page 189 from Waaka to Parker. I considered the transaction, on the face of it, improper, and asked Wilson if anything could be done to upset it. I considered it unfair to Waaka's heirs, and the rest of his hapu, as it gave them no interest after his death. Wilson said that, whether Waaka could, or could not deal with his interest, he could upset the deed, and he sent for Waaka, and offered to do it. A suit was then commenced, and when Parker saw that he was likely to be involved in a lawsuit, he came to me He said the last thing he ever contemplated was the purchase of a lawsuit, and that, rather than have anything to do with one, he would hand over to us his position, on condition that we refunded his advances to Waaka. I replied that I would see Waaka and his lawyer on the subject, and see what they would do in the matter. I saw Waaka, and told him what Parker proposed. I said, "If you consent to that, and will sell to me your interest in Heretaunga for £1,000; take hack from us your interest in all your other blocks, and stop the suit, I may do so." He said he was quite willing to sell his interest in Heretaunga, and that his people would be quite satisfied if all the other blocks were returned to him. I asked him if he would go with me to his lawyer, Wilson, and state the proposal, and his wishes in reference to it. We went to Wilson's, and told him the terms of the proposal. Wilson replied, that he had commenced the suit, and would not allow it to be stopped He said he did not care what the proposition was, and refused to discuss it. I then consulted Cuff, and Lee, and also told Parker what Wilson had said. Parker said he would not stand a lawsuit to gratify Wilson, if I would not take it, he would offer it to some one else—to J. M. Stuart, I understood. I then talked the matter over with Cuff and Lee, who thought the proposal very reasonable—Cuff, especially—Lee, I think, had been acting for Parker. We asked Parker to leave the matter open a few days, and we would see what arrangement could be made. I then went alone to Wilson, to discuss the subject, but he told me he did not mean to drop the action—he would carry it on. I then asked Cuff to go and see if he could get Wilson to go into the merits of the case He went, and was unsuccessful. I went again, myself; I told Wilson that Parker was going to offer the share to Stuart, and that if he sold to him, it would seriously prejudice my interest He said he did not care. I then told him I would act without further reference to him—Waaka being still willing He said I might do as I liked. I then suggested to Waaka to write a formal letter to Wilson, instructing him to discontinue the suit. In an upper room in this building, Waaka dictated the letter to Wilson, which was written by F. E. Hamlin He stated that the arrangement proposed was for the benefit of his people, and that, if Wilson carried on the suit, it must be at his own expense. These were the two principal points in the letter. Mr Carlyon afterwards appeared on the scene, as Waaka's solicitor and adviser, but not till some time after the negociations bad begun. During the early part of the negociation, Cuff acted both for Waaka and myself. Carlyon appeared as Waaka's solicitor long before the conclusion of the negociation. I met him, on one occasion, in Cuff's office, with Waaka, in reference to this settlement. I only recollect Carlyon as Waaka's solicitor—in no other capacity. Lee was acting as Parker's solicitor. We had a meeting, on, I think, the 2nd December, in Cuff's office, in order to page 190 ascertain that Parker's accounts against Waaka were legitimate and proper. I believe the settlement was come to on the 10th December. I have a receipt from Henry Parker, dated the 11th December; here is a memorandum front the Bank, dated the 8th December—"Paid in by Cuff and Carlyon, £789 6s. 8d." The accounts were produced, and Williams and I went into them with Parker. Waaka had been almost an inhabitant of Parker's house, and had drawn sums of money, and they were always on very good terms. Waaka never disputed Parker's account, but he disputed the accounts rendered by some of the shopkeepers. We said, "Point us out any items to which you object, and we will go with you to the shopkeepers, and make inquiry." He did not dispute the items, of which he seemed to have a good recollection, but disputed the totals, saying they were too much He refused to go to the shopkeepers when we challenged him, and we were then satisfied that he had no real ground of complaint. The discussion was then about the other blocks to be returned to him. We paid the amount, £789 6s. 8d, at Waaka's request; there were a great number of bills, paid and unpaid, about fifty, amounting to the sum named. Before making over the other lands to Waaka, I required the receipt produced, from him, for £789 6s. 8d. to Parker; £51 to Robinson; £100 to Maney; and £56 to M'Murray; amounting to £1,045 5s. 6d He knew his debts would swallow up all his interest in Heretaunga, and was glad to get his other lands back, free of debt. I frequently saw Waaka in Napier about this time, and he always expressed his entire satisfaction. Previous to the final settlement, there was a balance of rent due to Waaka, £120—this was all paid to Wilson and Carlyon. In May, 1870, we got the final conveyance from Waaka to ourselves. The first thing I. heard of the negociation for Pahoro's share was, that Grindell had gone one Saturday to Pakipaki, to see Pera Pahoro, about the sale of his interest in the Heretaunga block to Stuart He returned on the Monday, and I was told he had clone nothing. I ascertained subsequently, from Pahoro and others, that Grindell brought him a deed, conveying his interest to Stuart for £500; but nothing came of it, as both got the worse for liquor, and could do no business. I went to Wilson, and asked him if something could not be done, in the way of preparing a trust, to prevent Pahoro disposing of his interest in the block, as, evidently, he was a drunken fellow, and the share was not safe in his hands. At this time my eyes were open to the position of the grantees. The declarations of trust, for Paramena's and Pahoro's shares, were prepared by Wilson, and sent by me to J. N. Williams, who got them signed. We paid Wilson for the preparation of the deeds. Some time subsequently, I heard that Pahoro was offering his share for sale in town. Some one told me that the declarations of trust would not bar a sale. I went and asked Wilson the question He replied, "I do not know; I suppose they would." I said I had relied on his giving me something that would bar a sale without the consent of all parties He then said, "Who told you they will not?" I asked him, "Do you say they will?" He replied, "I will not say anything of the kind." I said, "In that case, if I find that Pahoro really wants to sell his interest, I will secure it, to prevent it falling into other hands." Wilson was then our solicitor; he offered no objection, and made no suggestion. I never had an opportunity of meeting Pahoro page 191 until J. N. Williams told me, on one occasion, that he had seen him neat the Club, when he expressed his determination to sell his share, and wanted to know why I never sought to buy it. Shortly afterwards I had an interview with Pahoro, who expressed his intention to sell. I offered him £750, being £250 more than Stuart had offered He readily agreed—I believe if I had offered £500, it would have been just the same. Some two or three of his people came in, I think about the time the deed was signed; they expressed their acquiescence in it; but wished that the amount of £750 should not be paid to Pahoro, but should remain till Heretaunga was sold by the other grantees,—a time they did not consider far distant,—and then they wished me to pay them, paying interest in the meantime. I agreed to this, and made them an advance on account of the interest. I first heard that Tareha intended to sell, from Maney He told me he was about to proceed to Wellington, to purchase Tareha's interest in Heretaunga. I asked what reason he had to suppose that Tareha would .sell He said he had already an agreement from Tareha to that effect, and was only going now to complete the arrangement—that Tareha and his people were very largely in debt to himself and Peacock, and that as they (he and Peacock) were pressed, they must complete the sale. I expressed my doubt strongly that Tareha would complete the sale in Wellington. Maney said he was quite sure he would, and as we were the parties in possession, he thought it only fair to give us the first refusal He need not press me, as he knew a party who would take up the share if we did not care to do so. I asked him who, and he said J. M. Stuart He told me the amount of the debts of Tareha and his people was £1,500, and he intended to offer him that amount for his share. I told him that that was a great deal too much; but if he left the matter open a day or two, I would give him an answer. Almost immediately after, I saw Henare Tomoana in town; I told him what Maney had said, and asked what he thought I had better do—if I had better go to Wellington, with Maney, to be there to get the refusal or purchase it. Henare said he did not believe Tareha would sell in Wellington; but I had better go, and purchase if he did. I saw Maney in a day or two, and told him what Henare had said. I said I would go to Wellington with him, but it would likely be on a wild-goose-chase; and we made the arrangement about the passage money already described; Maney at the same time distinctly understanding that I would not, in any way, interfere or assist in the negociation, and that it would be of no use for himself and Peacock to come to me, unless as the possessors of Tareha's interest. I lodged at one end of Wellington—they at the other; I had no communication with them, till one morning they came to me, and told me they had purchased Tareha's interest for £1,500, and, in pursuance of their promise, they gave me the first refusal. I told them I must first see. Tareha, and make sure that he was acquainted and satisfied with the terms of sale. Maney was quite willing, and, about mid-day, I met them at Osgood's hotel, were they were staying—Maney, Peacock, Tareha, and Martin Hamlin. I put several questions to Tareha, who replied that he was perfectly satisfied; that he and his people were largely in debt to Maney and Peacock for money and goods; and that he was quite willing and ready to sell his interest in Heretaunga to pay for it. I asked if he had any objection to sell in Wellington. page 192 He said he had, at first, but, knowing his people would be satisfied with what he had done, he had consented. I asked him if his people would consent to the sale; he said they would; and I made that a stipulation with Maney and Peacock, that they should get the endorsement of the principal men of his tribe, to the deed which I would get prepared for that purpose. I further required that Tareha should give me a written authority, to pay, then and there, to Maney and Peacock, the £l,500. After that, I went to Brandon and Quick, to got the deed prepared. They told me to call the next day, with Martin Hamlin, to give them the native names to be included. On the day following, the 20th July, the deed was executed. I was not present at the execution, but saw the deed subsequently. I paid about £500 in Wellington, the balance to be paid here, when the oilier natives had endorsed the deed. Some time before the final arrangement, I met Ormond and Samuel Williams in Wellington, just going into the House. They were discussing the advisability of requesting Tareha not to sign in Wellington. I told them I had nothing to do with the negociation, but if I met Maney and Peacock, I would advise them and Tareha not to do it. The first I saw of them, after this conversation, was one or two days after, when they came together to me, and told me they had purchased the share. It was partly that reason which made me satisfy myself that the tribe was willing. When I returned, the signatures of Tareha's people were procured, and I paid the balance. There was no stipulation that I should retain any of the money for Tareha—nothing of the sort; and I never undertook to hold £300 for him—neither did he ever request it, or speak to me on the subject, on any occasion whatever since he left Wellington. There was no such conversation as he has described near the Meanee Bridge, nor any such talk as he mentioned, outside the building since the sitting of the Commission. Until he mentioned it in evidence, I did not know he had any complaint. It is true that I once gave him a tarpaulin, or waterproof coat, in some wet weather, when I saw he had none—I never expected this to be turned against me. Some time after, I was talking to James Williams, and Tareha ran after me, and asked me for a suit of clothes, which I refused to give him. Some time in September, 1869, Arihi was greatly afraid her share in Heretaunga would be absorbed by Henare Tomoana; she conveyed her interest in Heretaunga, and other blocks, in trust to Purvis Russell and Wilson. She was then a married woman. We had notice of this trust, and I asked Purvis Russell, when I saw him again, what was intended by it He replied, not to bar a sale, but to provide that Arihi's portion of the purchase money, when the block was sold, should be secured to herself.—she being afraid that Henare Tomoana would take it all, and give her nothing. The first interview I had with Karaitiana was when he told me he was going to Auckland. I was going to my run at Karamu; I met him coming to town, and he told me he was going to Auckland; he did not say what for. We had very little conversation then. On my return, the same evening, I met him at the toll-gate, coming back. I have a distinct recollection of this, because I was much astonished. "Hallo!" I said, "I thought you had gone to Auckland." He said he was stopped by Henare's debts and his own, and was in great trouble about it. I did not understand that a writ had been served, but that it page 193 had been threatened. He said, "I shall not go to Auckland with a load on my shoulders, but I shall go back to Pakowhai, and see what can be done about arranging for the payment of these debts." I asked how he proposed to arrange, and he replied, by selling land. I asked what land; he said he was not sure; but as Heretaunga had been broken into by Waaka and Tareha, he should most likely sell that. I said it was entirely for their consideration; if they decided to sell it, they ought to send for Hamlin and me, to give me the first offer; and he said he would. Some days afterwards, a messenger came from Karaitiana, requesting me to go to Pakowhai; he had already gone with a message to Hamlin. I know the native—a short man, Karaitiana's factotum. I went, accordingly, the next morning; I overtook Hamlin between Waitangi and Pakowhai. We reached Pakowhai together. This was the beginning of the three days' negociation.

The Commission adjourned at 4.35 p.m.

Thursday, 3rd April, 1873.

On the Commissioners taking their seats, Mr Sheehan said he could not say that Ngatarawa and Mangateretere presented points essentially different from those in the Heretaunga case, though perhaps move aggravated. It was only fair to say that neither case could be disposed of under seven or eight days.—The Chairman said the Commissioner had made up their minds that they would take no more cases. It would be, in one sense, an incomplete work; and it would be for the Legislature to decide whether, at any future time, the work should be resumed.—Mr Sheehan said he wished it to be understood that he had advised the Maoris to accept this result, informing them that sufficient evidence had been taken to lay before Parliament—that they had cast their bread upon the waters, and it remained to be seen if they would find it after many days.—The Chairman said there was one more matter—the alleged withdrawals. He appointed Saturday morning to enquire into the subject, so that if they were bonâ fide, they might be struck out of the list, and mentioned in the report. There was still one short. Government case remaining unsettled; and the justice of the complaint had been admitted by Mr Locke.—Mr Locke engaged to report the case to Parliament—about forty two acres had been wrongly included in the survey. The native complainant had expressed himself satisfied.

Thomas Tanner, continued: A day or two before this message arrived, on going to my run at Karamu, I met Paramena and Pahoro. T asked them if they had seen Henare or Karaitiana lately. They said Henare had sent for them to Pakowhai; that they went, and found Noa there, and had a talk about Heretaunga I asked what was the result of the meeting, and they told me they had agreed that Heretaunga should be sold, and had left the matter in Henare's and Karaitiana's hands. I asked Pahoro if Karaitiana had said anything about the deed given to us. He said yes, that he must revert to the tribe. I asked Pahoro if he was agreeable to that; he said yes, he would take his chance with the rest—meaning, as I understood, that he would just take what Karaitiana would give him. Pahoro was the chief speaker; Paramena said very little, but did not offer any objection to what Pahoro stated. As far as I remember that was all that passed. I now come to the interview at page 194 Pakowhai. We mot there early in the forenoon—F. E. Hamlin and myself. We went to Karaitiana's house, and found Karaitiana and Henare there, Manaena came in some time after. We talked upon every subject, except the one we came about, till some time after dinner, which Karaitiana hospitably had prepared for us. Karaitiana commenced the subject; he said they had had a talk with the others about the sale of Heretaunga, and had agreed to sell it. I asked him then about Pahoro's deed, not mentioning that I had met him. "Oh," he said, "that must be thrown up, and I will give him his proportion of the purchase-money." I do not remember any mention that day of the amount of the purchase-money, but really the discussion about Heretaunga was comparatively very short. In the afternoon, Karaitiana said we had opened the subject—he was not prepared to go farther with it that day; we had better come again the next morning. We went the next morning, Karaitiana and Henare were present, also, a part of the time, Meihana and Manaena,—not one of them remained steadily to a business talk; they were all in and out—Henare remained the longest time of any. A great deal of desultory talk took place before we touched on the subject of the meeting. It was always my practice to allow them to begin. I believe Henare was the first to speak on this occasion—whether before or after dinner, I cannot say. He said they were going to ask some price—something between £15,000 and, £20,000, I believe—for Heretaunga; more than I was prepared to give. I then said what I was prepared to give—£12,000, based upon the highest sum I had heard Stuart had offered. I made the offer, quite expecting to have to rise. I considered he had made his highest demand, and I made my lowest offer. Borne further conversation took place, in which Karaitiana took very little part, about the price. The negociation took a very short period of the time. Karaitiana and Henare told me they had heard my offer, they would talk it over with their people that night, and I was to come again next morning. I came, and found Manaena Karaitiana, and Henare there. Manaena was present at the beginning, but did not remain long. Henare began the business earlier than on the second day—before dinner, I believe. He began by saying they had talked the matter over, and that I would have to raise the price. Almost immediately after this, Manaena rose, and left. Reference was then made to the mortgage. It might have been mentioned the afternoon before, but I think not. They said I should have to pay off the mortgage, in addition to what I had offered. My offer was for the whole block, including the interest of all the grantees—I counted money already paid as part of the purchase-money. This occupied, I think, till about dinner-time. After dinner, Henare said, "Let us get pencil and paper," and we did so. He sat on the floor with paper and pencil, Hamlin and I did the same We had previously been sitting on chairs. Henare and Karaitiana wanted to see what they would be likely to get out of the money, according to their ideas of apportionment, and I asked them how they intended to apportion it. They said their idea was £1,000 a share for each, themselves included. They gave us the names, and we wrote it out, explaining the total amount and the balance remaining. Karaitiana said the balance was not so great as it ought to be, and we must alter Paramena's and Pahoro's shaves to £1,000 between the two, leaving a balance of £2,500 page 195 —including Arihi's shave at £l,000—which balance Karaitiana proposed to take for himself and Henare, in addition to the £ 1,000 already allotted. I then told them that, as Arihi had handed over her property, in trust, to Wilson and Purvis Russell, I was sure they would not take £1,000, and asked them to allow the odd, £500 to be added to her share. Henare opposed this, for a little time, but after some argument, he consented. Henare commenced to talk about the debts; Karaitiana then rose, and left the room, and in going out, he said to me, "You will have to do something for Henare." Henare told me some of the amounts of his debts, arid I knew others—between us, we reckoned them to be about £3,000. Henare said, "You see, I shall have nothing left; my proportion of the purchase-money will be taken to pay my debts—you must give me another £1,000," urging, as his reason, that he owned nearly all the block, and ought to have more than his brother—that the sacrifice was greater to him than to any other grantee, and that he never would have given it up but for his debts. He now wanted something for himself—not to give up Heretaunga and have nothing to show for it. Hamlin told him it was no use giving him money; that he would spend it, and be in debt again in a very short time. I then suggested to Hamlin that it would be a good plan, instead of giving him the amount in a lump sum, to divide it over ten years, at £100 per annum. This was explained to him, and that he would thus have something to show for the sale during that period He replied that, if I would give him £1,500 that way, he would be perfectly satisfied. After some little discussion on this point, I agreed; Hamlin showing him that £150 for ten years amounted to £1,500. He then stated that all was settled, so far as he was concerned. I have a very distinct recollection of this transaction in all its particulars; I never had any other similar transaction with the natives. I then told Henare I should want their agreement to tell in writing. We went to the table, got the desk, pen, and paper, and I wrote the agreement produced. We had some little discussion about what should be put in. I told him I should mention in the agreement the main sum, £13.500, and also the amounts that had been received on account, to which he agreed; also the £1,000 to Waaka, and the mortgage of £1,500, which we should have to pay off. It was fully explained by Hamlin, and it was apparently quite understood, and Henare signed, without any objection. One or two natives were in the room all the time, I think Meihana, Karaitiana's brother, was one. I asked Henare, after signing, to bring Karaitiana. Karaitiana came in, and F. E; Hamlin told him Henare had been satisfied, and had signed. Karaitiana then sat down in the chair and took the pen; Hamlin explained the agreement, all of which Karaitiana had previously understood. He commenced, as I thought, to sign. Henare was sitting at the table, and I think Meihana was in the room, Karaitiana threw the pen downy jumped up, with every appearance of anger on his lace, and walked out. I suspected it was feigned—I had had some experience of him in regard to the lease—and, from a remark made by Henare, I understood the position. After a minute or two I walked quietly into the veranda, where he was waiting for me. I asked him what was the matter. He replied that I had satisfied Henare, and he naturally expected something for himself. I was not at all taken by surprise; He asked what I had page 196 agreed to do for Henare. I told him, to give him, £150 for ten years. He said it was quite right, that Henare was deeply indebted, and would require it all. He would not ask so much—he would be content with £1,000. I told him that, if he would take it in the same way as Henare, I would consent. He told mo as an argument that the matter was entirely in his hands—that he could control or stop the Side, or give me a great deal of trouble, if he chose, and had therefore a good right to the £1,000. 1 told him I should like F. E. Hamlin to be called out, and hear that he was now perfectly satisfied. I called him out, told him what I had done, and requested him to ask Karaitiana if there was anything more on his mind in reference to the sale. Karaitiana replied that he was for a long time unwilling to part with his own interest; but as I had now acceded to his request, he had no further feeling or objection in the matter, and expressed himself as perfectly satisfied. I then asked him if he would go in and sign the document, which was a sale of Heretaunga. I told him it was not a sheepskin, but had the same effect, and he could sign the sheepskin afterwards. He then went in and signed, without further delay. I told him I would have the deed prepared in a few days, for his signature, and the others. On the first day, Karaitiana told me he had sent for Paramena, Pahoro, and Noa, and that they had gone back to their own places, leaving the matter to himself and Henare—the whole question of the sale and terms. He did not confine himself to Noa, Paramena, and Pahoro, but mentioned his own people, to whose consent he seemed to attach more attention than to that of the other grantees. After this, Hamlin and I got our horses and rode away. A very short time after this, I heard of a hitch—that some one had advised Karaitiana not to carry out the sale. I saw Karaitiana three or four days after this in town, just about the time we had the deeds prepared. I was near the Post Office and saw him go into Wilson's office. I waited about half an hour in the Government grounds till he came out. I called him, and brought him into the Provincial Library. He followed me in, and I asked Hamlin—F. E. Hamlin, I believe—to ask Karaitiana if what I had heard was true. He said that both Beyer and Wilson had recommended him not to sell Heretaunga—that Wilson said he knew he must sell some land to pay his debts, but advised him not to sell Heretaunga. I asked him if he had told Wilson he had signed an agreement to sell. He replied that he had not told Wilson he had signed anything. I said that if he had, Wilson would have given him different advice. I asked him if he would refuse to sign the parchment, and he said he would not do it till after his return from Auckland, as the steamer was about to leave immediately, and he might sign it when he returned. I said I would not press him then, and that closed the interview. After the signing of the agreement, at Henare's request, I told Sutton and others that Heretaunga was sold, and that when all the grantees had signed the deed of conveyance, which I expected would be very shortly, we would be in a position to pay their orders; and I mentioned this fact to Karaitiana in the library. He made no particular remark, merely admitting that it was correct. When the deed was ready, a day or two after, Karaitiana having started for Auckland, I asked Cuff to get ready to go out with Hamlin, and get the signature of Henare, Manaena, and any other grantee present. He page 197 told me he would go in a day or two, and then went, but having other business I did not accompany them. In the afternoon of the day on which Cuff went, I saw Henare in town. I met him at Newton's comer, and asked him if he had signed, and who were there. He said Le had not; that he had to come into town on business, but had sent word to Cuff and Hamlin that he would meet them at, Cuff's house at Waitangi on the following morning, and told me to go there also. He asked me for money, and I believe I gave him some. I went accordingly next morning; and I got to Cuff's about 11 a.m., meeting Hamlin on the road by Cuffs gate. We went to Cuff's house together and found Henare and Cuff together. The usual salutations were given, and as usual we spoke of all subjects excepting the one we had come on, which was not hinted at till dinner. I did not speak much with Henare, but with Cuff. Hamlin was in conversation with Henare till dinner. We all sat down to dinner, Mrs Cuff being with us. Being a hot day, all the doors were open. Henare was very agreeable and polite. After dinner, when Mrs Cuff retired, we began to smoke, and chatted for about another half-hour. Henare then, after a pause, said, "You have got the deed; you may as well produce it; there need be n0 further talk about it." He added, with a laugh, "If I am to sign my death-warrant, I may as well do it at once." Cuff got pen and ink, and laid the deed on the table. Without any discussion he took the pen and signed, Cuff standing by and witnessing it. He then made some such remark as this: "There, it's done. I wonder what Karaitiana will say when he knows I have signed—perhaps he will be angry, but meaha"—never mind, or what does it signify. He then asked about the 100 acres for his son Panita. Previously I had asked Karaitiana to give me about 100 acres of the Karamu reserve, next the Awahou, for 99 acres elsewhere, to facilitate fencing, and it was agreed upon. Henare had asked that this hundred acres should be granted to Panita, his son, and the exchange had been agreed to; it was agreed further that Panita's name should be put upon it; but I had nothing to do with that. At Waitangi Henare merely referred to it, but the subject lapsed by mutual consent, and the engagement to convey it to his son was never carried out; but the exchange was effected, and my hundred acres became part of the reserve. No other alteration has ever taken place in the Karamu reserve. Nothing else was spoken about. I am aware that Hamlin stated there was some discussion about Henare's debts, but I heard none. The business did not occupy more than ten or fifteen minutes. Henare told us, after signing, that we might tell Sutton he had signed the deed. Before dinner he might have said something to Hamlin unknown to me, but after dinner certainly nothing took place, beyond what I have related. We then had a few minutes chat on other subjects, and left for our respective homes. It was the most friendly meeting I have ever had with Henare Tomoana. I never saw him in a better temper. His story is pure imagination; he did not attempt to leave the room, and no language such as he has described was used nor anything approaching it. Of all men I ever came in contact with, Karaitiana and Henare are those who would most impede a negociation it they say any desire to hasten it. That was my reason for always allowing them to open the negociation, and making them feel that the page 198 act was their own. There was nothing to prevent Henare leaving if so desired, and we would have made no remark nor opposition if he had desired to go. The next event was I believe my journey to Waipukurau with Martin Hamlin to see Arihi. F. E Hamlin had gone up a day or two previous with the deed and instructions to sec Purvis Russell, the trustee, and Arihi, to tell them that Karaitiana had allotted £1,500 as her portion, and to offer that amount to Arihi and Purvis Russell Wilson, the other trustee, had done very little in the matter. Martin Hamlin came back and reported to me that £2,000 had been demanded. I told F. E. Hamlin to get ready to go next day. He could not go, and I got Martin Hamlin to accompany me. We went, and found Purvis Russell, Wilson, and Arihi there. We agreed finally for £2,500; obtained Arihi's signature, and Purvis Russell's signature, and returned. On our way up we saw Paramena at Coleman's. Martin Hamlin showed him the deed, read and explained it, and told him that Henare had signed. Paramena said it was all right, and signed without hesitation. He made no inquiry as to what he was to receive, nor did I tell him, Karaitiana and Henare having said that the division of the money was to be left to themselves. On our return to town I remember I stayed with Samuel Williams, and Hamlin went on. In town he told me he had obtained Pahoro's signature, and gave me the deed. I then arranged with F. E. Hamlin to go to Pakowhai and get Manaena's signature. We went and found him at home, outside his own house. I told him what I had come for; he asked who had signed; I told him, and he did not at first express any willingness to join, I saw there was some hesitation in the matter; I smelt a rat; and prepared for the consequences. He asked us into his bedroom. He told us he knew all about it from Henare; that he was quite willing to agree; but was not so greedy as Karaitiana and Henare—a small bonus would suffice him, and that if I gave him £100 he would agree. I agreed, and wrote a cheque for £100 and a receipt, containing an agreement to sign. He made no other allusion to the purchase-money, but appeared quite satisfied; and said he was coming into town next day, and would sign. The cheque was handed to him, the receipt read and explained to him; he signed, and we left. Next day he did not come in. Two or three days after, I went out with F. E. Hamlin to see what had become of him. We could not find him, and asked where he was; his people said he was not at home; but they looked mysterious, and I suspected some trick. We said we would call again, and did so; we found him playing draughts in Henare's whare. While we were speaking to Henare, Manaena left. After a while, being told he was in Karaitiana's house we went there and saw the minister, who told us he was not in. Seeing that he was avoiding me, I left the deed with Hamlin, and determined not to go again. A day or two after, I saw Sutton, who asked if Manaena had signed. I told him the circumstances, and in conversation I said I would not have refused £50 per annum if he had asked it. Sutton said he would have to see him himself about a debt, and if I consented to let, Hamlin go and take the deed, authorizing him to offer £50 per annum for ten years, he would likely sign without hesitation. I said "Very well; you may do so" Next day Sutton and Hamlin returned and told me that Manaena had signed at once, and that he had page 199 asked also to retain the cheque, and they had replied that they had nothing to do with that. I met him on the following day in town; he told me what had been agreed on. I said it was all right. He then asked me if he might keep the cheque as well. I said no; I could not consent to that—he might take his choice of the cheque or £50 per annum, but I could not consent to both. He asked if he might have half—£50. I told him if he liked to take it as the first instalment of the annuity, paid in advance, he might do so. He agreed at once, and handed me the cheque, which I tore up; and he accompanied me to Sutton's, where I wrote a cheque for £50. He then told me Sutton had promised him £20, which was paid, and I afterwards refunded the money to Sutton. I have since had no further demand from Manaena, or discussion with him on the subject. I do not know how long it was after this when Karaitiana returned—he went out at once to Pakowhai. More than a week elapsed, and he did not come into town. I believe I asked Cuff to go and see him. I had heard from the natives that he had gone to Auckland to raise money, and had not succeeded, and that he was keeping out of the way. I told Cuff to tell him that all the others had signed, and that I looked for him to complete the deed. Cuff told me he would come in. (The Chairman: Did you instruct Cuff to take proceedings?—I instructed Cuff to take all legitimate steps, if necessary, to obtain Karaitiana's signature, and at the same time to avoid legal proceedings if possible.) Karaitiana came into town some days after Cuff left. I went so far as to give Cuff a portion of the purchase money—I do not know how much—to tender to Karaitiana. Before Karaitiana came in there was a discussion between Wilson, my solicitor, and myself about the deed already signed; Wilson considered it a bad one. Wilson was then instructed to draw a deed which would give him satisfaction, and he did so. This deed had been prepared when Henare came in. I was determined to have a good and valid deed. All the natives came in, and we met at Cuffs office. Karaitiana came in before the others—his sourness seemed to have passed away, and he saw various Europeans in town. At the appointed time, all the six grantees were there. The first day was occupied by discussions among themselves about their debts and accounts; I showed them their accounts, which I had with me, and how they were made up. Henare said he did not know my account was so large as £383, but offered no objection. I showed him my advances written in full on a sheet of bill paper, and gave it to him, just keeping a memorandum of the total. I did the same with Karaitiana and Manaena, telling them whose bills I had paid, and showing them the bills, and cash advances. Karaitiana's bill with Robinson, of which I had no memorandum, amounted to over £60. J. N. Williams and myself went into the accounts of the natives who had drawn orders on us; but not much of this occurred on the first day—the orders were gone into more fully on the second day. The discussion on the first day chiefly related to my accounts, and was conducted by myself. We met on the second day, and went regularly into all the orders, showing how the different amounts had been paid, to whom, and what was the total; and the deed was signed at the close of the talk—on the second day—having been produced and read over by Hamlin. This is as it happened, to the best of my recollection; I page 200 believe I am quite correct. J. N. Williams stated the balance; £2,387, wrote a cheque for the amount, and laid it on the table. The deed was then read and explained by Hamlin, and I think Karaitiana was the first who was asked to sign I believe he motioned to some of the others to sign first. The deed will show—I believe he pushed it to Henare, and told him to sign. The deed was signed by all present without discussion. After this there was a pause—a dead silence—for, I suppose, a minute or two. Then Karaitiana told the natives that as their debts had absorbed all their proportion of the purchase-money, he would take what was left, and pay what few debts he had. I expected he would do so—I was not taken by surprise—he had said to me the day before that whatever the balance of the purchase-money was we must leave it with him to deal with. He told me not to interfere with his arrangements, and I then suspected that he meant to appropriate the money. I told him that was his business and not mine. When he took the cheque he said nothing, and no one else spoke. A dead pause ensued, for some little time. Henare asked me to go into the adjoining room; Karaitiana took the cheque, folded it and put it in his pocket, and followed us. The consideration money was filled in—£15,000—before the deed was signed. The totals were made up by Williams, he undertook that part; I went through them at the time, and found them right; but my part was to attend to the general business (The Chairman: Were the annuities taken into account in this £15,000?—Yes. It was not intended to do so at first. £12,500 was taken as the basis of calculation, not £13,500. I am sure of that. The amount was put in a minute or two before the deed was signed. Cuff had not mentioned it before, but he then said, "Is there any bonus or gift? because it must all be included." I will not be quite positive; it was rather an exciting time. Cuff put the question to me privately, in English; he was aware of the annuities. I replied that there was nothing but the £3,000 bonus, and then it was included. Was this balance explained publicly before all the natives?—The balance of the purchase-money, as between us and the natives, had no reference to the annuities—they were in addition to the £2,387 balance. Were the annuities mentioned at all in the outer room to the natives?—No; not by us.—Then you could not have explained how the £12,500 was arrived at, because you could not possibly have arrived at the balance.) We did not regard the extra £1,000 to Arihi as affecting the amount between the other natives and ourselves; we knew we should have to pay it. I believe the mortgage-money was excluded from the deed by mistake, as we did not know that duty had to be paid on it. I never went into the calculation from that time till the sitting of the Commission, and cannot now exactly state how we arrived at the balance. The total amount was read to the natives, and no one noticed the discrepancies between the total amount, £15,000, mentioned in the deed, and the subdivision of it. Cuff afterwards said it was a mistake of his, in tilling it in. It was not discovered till Mr Sealy found it out in assessing the duty on the deed. When we retired into the inner room, Henare and Karaitiana stated that there was some little difficulty—that Arihi's trustees objected to Henare and Karaitiana being appointed trustees for the receive. I do not know whether Hamlin was present—J. N. Williams is a good Maori page 201 linguist, and I think Hamlin was not present. They asked Williams to be trustee, and I understood him to give a conditional consent. Henare also spoke to Williams of the balance of his debts still remaining unpaid, and I understood him to ask Williams to try to persuade Karaitiana to make some advance. No further discussion took place. When I went outside, I saw Paramena, who told me he had not got enough out of the purchase money. I told him he had better ask Karaitiana, as he had the distribution of the purchase money; he did not seem to like the idea, and walked off. The same afternoon I got a notice from Sutton, which has been produced in Court. I believe I received it outside Cuff's office—I was in and about there for an hour after. Sutton backed up the notice by a personal interview and repeated demands. I replied that we had nothing to do with it. He said Pahoro's deed was still in existence, and that he could still claim under it. I then had a grievance against Cuff, as I had some time previously instructed him to prepare a he conveyance to Pahoro. When Sutton said this, I saw that we were liable, and subsequently, by consent of all parties, £700 was paid, being satisfaction in full for Paramena's and Pahoro's share. I saw Karaitiana and Henare next day, and also other natives. Henare said he had not enough to pay his debts, by about £300, he told me, and asked if, instead of re-conveying the Karamu reserve, I would give him that amount for it. I told him I could not do so as it was part of the reserve. Throughout the transaction I dealt with Karaitiana and Henare; they would not allow me to deal with the others. The rent was always paid to Karaitiana, and, till I heard it in Court, I never knew how it was apportioned. As far as I was concerned, he was agent for the purchase as well as the lease; I knew of no alteration in my relations with him. I never had any conversation with the other grantees as to the specific amounts of their respective shares, nor was I ever questioned by them on the subject. Since the sale, I have had two interviews with Karaitiana at my house. He came on one occasion, about eighteen months ago; he came with his wife and Henare; Brown, the half caste came as interpreter. The subject of discussion was this—whether the whole of the money due to him was included in the balance. Williams was not there, and I told him I did not know what the balance was, but that Williams could explain, and a day was appointed for him to meet Williams at my house. When we met again, Karaitiana said he did not understand how the purchase-money was made up, he wanted an explanation, and thought £1,000 had been short paid. It was explained to him that the £1,000 he was receiving in instalments was no part of the purchase-money; but in excess He still failed to understand, and we recommended him to appoint some European, in whom he had confidence, to go into the accounts with him. He said he would do so. After a friendly interview, and a promise of some trees, which he afterwards sent for, we separated. Henare was with him, an attentive listener, but look no part in the discussion, and made no demand on his own behalf. The only other conversation I had with Karaitiana on the subject, was previous to his going to the General Assembly, last session. I asked him if he was now satisfied, or whether he intended to carry out our recommendation of appointing a European to meet us. This was outside the Council Chamber. He said he could not understand, and he asked me page 202 one or two questions, which not quite understanding, I brought him into the office where Martin Hamlin was. Hamlin asked him, for me, what he wanted to know, and he replied that he still was not clear that he had received as much, by £1,000, as he expected. I told Hamlin to ask him what he had received, and he said about £1,300. Hamlin then told him that he went to the Bank with him, and lodged a cheque for £2,300. Karaitiana said he had almost forgotten, but if that was the amount, he believed he had received all. Hamlin told him he was quite sure, "but he could easily ascertain on application at the Bank. Karaitiana said he would not until he came back from Wellington, and suddenly added "Perhaps they will tamper with that cheque while I am away." We laughed at the idea, telling him it was impossible; and I have had no conversation with him since on the subject. He has been very friendly with me since, and I have made both him and Henare small advances. Henare never made any claim at all since the settlement, and I never heard anything of the £500 and the 300 acres, except in the Gazette. He did once ask me if I would return him a portion of the land instead of the annuity, but I replied that my land was mortgaged to an agent, and I could not. Recently I saw Pahoro in J. P. Hamlin's office. Hamlin's account of the interview is substantially correct. My questions were with a view to calling him as a witness; I did not tell him so, lest the other side should get him. I said, "Would you be afraid to say these things in Court, if you were asked." He expressed himself as very brave, and said he would be glad of an opportunity of giving evidence against Karaitiana. We did ride away part of the way together. We had then very little discussion; but I asked them why Karaitiana and Henare assumed the mastership of the block, and acted as if they were the sole owners, all through? They replied that it was in consequence of their victory over Hapuku, and by native custom, had a right, to exercise this authority. Tareha's, Noa's, and Renata's claims are at the western end of the block. Karaitiana and Henare have always been in their present kainga. (The Chairman: Was your interview with Karaitiana, when baulked of his journey to Auckland, your first conversation with the Pakowhai natives, with respect to the sale?—No, I had heard Henare, and others, speak of it before. The sale was in contemplation when Wilson's Utopian scheme was drawn. I knew that we could not buy if they were not willing to sell. I have a recollection of Karaitiana coining frequently to my house, before the sale, for advances of money and goods. He used to say, "Oh, you will get it all back again when Heretaunga is sold.") Regarding the value of the land, the block was in a very rough state when first purchased. My portion was the best, for I had burnt and drained considerably. From the time of the earthquake, the river had begun to turn; but it did not take its new course till June, 1870. In the flood, just previous to the purchase, my part was nearly covered, and about 1,200 of my sheep drowned. It has cost me £1,500 to drain this swamp. Not more than one third of the whole block was available for sheep, without cultivation. Our purchase consists of 16,500 acres. About one-third had native grass on it, and that very thin. Nearly all the native grass was on my portion. As soon as I got a legal lease, I began to improve. Before the thistles came I could keep one sheep to the acre, but after the thistles came J could keep two, The page 203 portion I lately sold to J N. Williams, was for £9 per acre—by private arrangement it may be £10, but it stands at £9 at present. Mr Canning rode over the land some time ago, and said he would not think of giving more for it. I sold the good-will of the lease of some sections before I acquired the freehold, for £3 per acre, to be taken out in ploughing—if they ploughed three acres for one, they need pay no rent, and they were to take the benefit of the improvement clause: if we became possessed of the freehold, they were to get it for what I gave. This was the pick of the land, never subject to floods. In one block, of 120 acres, I made the purchaser a present of 20 acres of inferior land, which he would Dot buy. The occupiers say that grain crops do not pay, and that they find it pay better to lay the land down in English grass. The land is a sandy loam, better suited for grazing than grain. When this land was purchased, the market for landed property was very low. The highest offer for the land was Mr Stuart's, £12,000, and this was intended to include the whole of the Karamu reserve. [The witness, in illustration of this point, wished to put in a private letter of Mr Stuart's, but the application was disallowed, as he was not at liberty to state from whom he received it.] I was the only person empowered by the lessees to treat for the purchase. As far as I know, Samuel Williams had no share in the negociation. I never authorized any person to treat for the purchase. Just about the time of the legal lease, I sold the lease of one share—a valuable block of 1,230 acres of the best of the block, adjoining the Karamu reserve, to Mr Ormond, for £1 per acre; this was transferred to Mr Nelson, afterwards, for the same sum. I then bought a share from Brathwaite, at something less than £1 per acre—giving him 1,000 ewes for 1,230 acres. Purvis Russell, some months after the legal lease, sold his share to Captain W. Russell, for £1 per acre. It was necessary for Captain Russell to purchase this, as his double share of 2,460 acres was nearly all swamp, and he could not find enough dry ground for a residence; and Purvis Russell said he was well out of it. The swamp, gravel land, rough, and tutu land, would at this time be two-thirds of the block. There is now from 1,500 to 2,000 acres of light gravelly land, and there would then be about 4,000 acres of swamp. I have expended nearly £12,000 in improving my share, and the others' expended in like proportion. My share is about one third of the whole block. There were originally twelve shares—hence the soubriquet of tire "Twelve Apostles." There never were twelve engaged. Tiffen's estimate of £3 per acre—for a good title, with no incumbrance, and in Small blocks, is about fair. At that time, if cut up, a large portion could not have been sold at all. I was employed as the principal valuer for the purchasers of Hikutoto and Papakura, and received a regular fee of £2 2s. for each section. I valued these Hikutoto sections at from £3 to £4 10s. per acre in 1869, and most of them were bought at my valuation. They were then laid down in English grass. They could not now be bought for £20 per acre, and some of them would bring as high as £30. A section, bought from the Government at £3 10s., has been recently sold for £20, cash down. I frankly admit that I did not consider at name title as being of the same value as a Government title. I would direct attention to the value of the Papakura sections, in English grass, adjoining the' one M Hardy gave £10 for—they were valued at £5 per page 204 acre. One, of these, very rich land, was valued by Heslop at £7. M 'Hardy stated that he had given a great deal too much for Karaitiana's section; but was obliged to do it—as he could get no other place on which to put his stock. Some of the sections further off were valued at about £4 per acre. The only grass land on the Heretaunga block at the time of the purchase, was on the margin of the two creeks, and on the sides of the track; and it required a large expenditure of money to make the land profitable at all. The flood of 1870 turned the course of the river, and trebled the value of my land, as, if it had not taken a new course, it would most likely have passed through the swamp, dividing the land into two islands. A flood, since the Commission sat has carried away a fence across the old river-bed, but did not flood the block. Eighteen months ago, I sold a number of fifty-acre sections at £5 per acre—£2 cash, and the remainder on deferred payments, at 8 per cent At this time Hikutoto sections were bringing £15 per acre, partly owing to the difference in title.

As this concluded Mr Tanner's statement, Mr Sheehan suggested that the Commission should now (4 p.m.) adjourn. By so doing, they might shorten the cross-examination. As the Commissioners were rising, Mr Lascelles stated that he claimed to appear on behalf of certain complainants, who wished to withdraw their complaints. Mr Sheehan said that he claimed the complainants as his clients, and he therefore requited that Mr Lascelles should hand in the names of those to whom he referred. The Commission then adjourned.

Friday, 4th April, 1873.

Before proceeding with the Heretaunga inquiry, the case of the Tamaki block was called—complaints Nos. 26 and 138, Henare Matua, complainant. The Chairman said that Mr Locke had reported on this case. The complaint amounted simply to this—that the Native Lands Court had been made an instrument of land purchase by the Government—that the persons willing to sell had been admitted into the Grant, and that those objecting were excluded. Mr Locke's report was ordered to he handed, to Mr Sheehan—observations in reply, if any, to be received on the following day.

Reverting to the Heretaunga inquiry, the Chairman said he still failed to understand how the balance was arrived at—he could not make the figures come right anyhow. From the information now before him, the purchasers seemed to have paid £1,500 more than the balance.—Mr. Tanner said they had paid more than that amount over—perhaps £2,000; Mr. Williams had raised some strong objections to this overpayment at the time. Large sums had been paid to the natives, of which no account had ever been kept.—The Chairman said that if this was the actual state of the case, the fact ought to be laid before the Commission—Mr. Tanner: I did the talking, and Williams the calculating, and I have never gone into the subject since. The accounts were confused and complicated; but we were satisfied that we had paid a great deal more than was expressed in the deed. I never understood it myself, and never shall—all I know is, chat I have paid a great deal more than was agreed upon. Independently of the annuities, I have paid upwards of £17.0,00.—The Chairman said that whether right or wrong, it should be shown how the balance of £2,300 was arrived at.

page 205

Mr. Tanner continued: I wish to add to my evidence yesterday a remark regarding the question of value. Mr. Tiffen has stated that he purchased land from Tollemache, 35 miles from Napier, at 30s. per acre. I would explain that that purchase-money was to remain for ten years at three per cent, interest—this reduces the value to 9s. per acre. Tollemache said it would have paid him better at 10s., at ten per cent, interest. The purchase of Heretaunga at ten per cent, interest—the rate at that time—would have made the rental £5,000 per annum, which no one could have paid. I could produce native evidence on the subject; but it would be unfair to the witnesses, as they would be persecuted by the other natives.—Mr. Lascelles said that this morning a native had come to him complaining of ill-treatment by the chiefs, in consequence of his having been seen speaking to Tanner.—The Chairman said that wherever we met with a tribe or a clan the practice of intimidation would be found to exist among them. If the Commissioners had been sitting in Tipperary they would have had instances of the same thing—it was the necessary consequence of a certain state of society, which a higher civilization would do away with.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sheehan: Your connexion with the land began about 1864?—Yes. How long had you been in the country?—Ten years or more, off and on—I had been to England in the meantime. Had you much to do with the natives before that time?—I had seen a good deal of them on the West Coast, and learned their language there. At the time of your first speaking to the natives about this land, had you any European with you in the matter?—No one at all, and their request took me quite by surprise. At the time you obtained the written agreement you had?—I. think not. The Rev. S. Williams held service one Sunday, and he came on the Monday and witnessed the signatures, as I have stated. He was just looking on, and took no part in the proceedings. Can you state that no conversation took place between you and Samuel Williams on the subject of himself or his brother having an interest, before the signing of the lease?—I cannot swear, but think not. How long after this was it when you and S. Williams came to an understanding on the subject?—I cannot say whether it was before or after. Do you know where it occurred?—In Napier. How did it come about?—I had made up my mind that the undertaking was too large, and first of all offered to Captain Hamilton Russell to undertake a portion. I believe this was about the time that some rent became clue. Captain Russell said he would like it, but did not then feel disposed to undertake it. I then met Samuel Williams in town; I told him of my difficulty, and asked him if he knew any one who would like to join me—that 1 had offered it to Captain Russell, and understood him to decline. Williams said, "You had better give him another chance, and it he still declines, give the next refusal to me; I think I would be glad of it for a relative of mine." On Captain Russell again declining I offered it to Samuel Williams, who agreed to join, and also to assist me in paying the forthcoming rent. I have a distinct recollection of this conversation. Was not all this before the signing of the lease?—I cannot, say positively, but believe not How long after was it finally agreed between you and the natives, that you should take the land?—I cannot say. Did you understand that S. page 206 Williams was to have any interest in the block himself?—No. He spoke of his brother-in-law, J. N. Williams. Was J. N. Williams absent from the province at that time?—I think not; I believe he was at; Kereru. You are aware that, he was absent from the province one time for eighteen months? Yes, he went to England; but I believe it was after we agreed he should be a co-lessee. S. Williams gave me to understand that he was not acting for himself, but for J. N. Williams. Was it with S. Williams that you dealt, during the absence of J. N. Williams?—He found the proportion of the rent. There were several conversations between you and the natives before the final agreement to take the land: did yoy accept the position of guardian?—No. Henare asked me to become his matua, a request which I fully understood. I had then been eight years in the province. I knew that the request meant that I was to keep my purse-strings open to the most extravagant demands, and I laughed at the idea. You have heard the statements of Manaena, Henare, and Karaitiana, that you offered to be their parent, and guardian—are they true?—No; they pressed me to accept that position. You practically accepted it by making advances?—Yes. Did you present Henare with a horse and two guns?—I believe I gave hint a colt of "The Bishop's;" and sold him a gun, for which I had a permit. This took place years after the lease was signed. You undertook the lease single-handed?—Yes. The first man who came in with you was Samuel Williams, for his brother-in-law?—Yes. Who was the next?—Captain Hamilton Russell. Who was the next?—I think three were admitted together—Ormond, Brathwaite, and Purvis Russell. When was the block divided into twelve shares?—I cannot say. Was it your idea to divide it?—Yes. The other gentlemen were admitted entirely as an act of friendship on my part. How long after Williams' and Russell were these three gentlemen admitted?—I cannot say—perhaps some months. Brathwaite was manager of the Union Bank?—Yes. And Purvis Russell and Ormond were members of the Provincial Executive?—Ormond was; I cannot say about Purvis Russell. Purvis Russell had done me a service regarding a Maori lease while I was in England; Brathwaite was a particular friend of mine; and Ormond wrote a letter asking to be admitted. I don't remember Purvis Russell ever being in the Executive; I know he was in the Council. Was there any opposition on the part of the other proprietors to the admission of these three?—No; I simply told them I wished it, and they acquiesced. I thought it my duty to inform Karaitiana, and he required, £100 rent per annum additional. I told these gentlemen of it, and they agreed to bear the £100 extra among themselves. Had there been a division of the land, or were the shares undivided?—Undivided. When Samuel Williams came in, to what extent was he interested? I had selected nearly one-half, about 6,000 acres, and left the other portion of the block to be divided between Williams and Captain Russell. My boundary was the old track through the block. When Williams first associated with you, before Purvis Russell came in, what interest did Williams take?—We went about halves; I told him he might take all the land on the other side of the track, if he paid half the rent. When Captain Russell came in it did not alter your boundary?—No, lie divided the reminder with Williams, We both agreed to his admission. After page 207 your return from England you gave Brathwaite, Ormond, and Purvis Russell shares?—Yes; Brathwhite's came out of my lot, and Purvis Russell and Ormond were quartered with Captain Russell and Williams. This distribution was made by ballot, Before the ballotting took place, the block was surveyed and laid out in twelve shares, altering my boundaries entirely. Four shares were laid off within my old boundary, of which I. took three, and Williams' and Captain Russell's portions were divided into eight. James Williams held two, Captain Russell two, Captain Gordon two, Ormond one, Purvis Russell one, and Brathwaite one. Does not this paper contain the history of the transaction?—Yes, that is about right, Then you took three shares without ballotting?—Yes. And Williams two shares without ballotting?—Yes. And the rest look to the ballot-box for order of choice?—Yes, No objection was made to the extension of the proprietary?—No; I desired it, and spoke with authority. The rent was increased in consequence of the admission of the last three?—Yes, from £600 to £700; £200 was afterwards added, and so it remainded—£900, till the legal lease, You maintained a friendly interest in putting the land through the Court?—Yes. The first lease was signed by a great many natives, whereby you knew there were many owners?—Yes. Why did you concern yourself with the names in the grant?—I did not do so. I saw that Karaitiana and Henare were anxious to get their own names alone in the block, and urged, out of fairness to the other owners, that the full number of names should be inserted. I was anxious that the land should pass through the Court, in order that I might obtain a legal lease. It was, if anything, against your interest to increase the number of grantees?—I should think so. And you had reason to believe the Karaitiana and Henare Tomoana wished to get the grant entirely to themselves?—Samuel Williams also spoke to me, suggesting that I should ask Karaitiana and Henare to allow the full limit of grantees. (The Chairman: If I had been in the Land Court I should never have allowed a grant with, less than the full number of names. It is utterly abhorrent to native custom to say, this block belongs to one man.) Williams was scandalized at the idea of Henare and Karaitiana going in to the exclusion of Noa, Renata, and the others. Did you suggest any of the names?—I may have suggested Tareha, but certainly no others. Did you suggest the names of Paramena or Pahoro?—Certainly not; I knew nothing of them at that time. (The Chairman: They may have signed the lease without your knowledge?—Possibly.) You were present when the land went through the Court?—Yes. Do you remember any refusal to make the block inalienable?—No; I only remember the question by Karaitiana already mentioned, about single grantees being unable to sign without the consent of the others, and remember his satisfaction with the answer. Ten names were agreed to and inserted?—Yes. Where were the negociations carried on in reference to the legal lease?—I do not remember. By whom?—By myself; but I do not remember any particular circumstances. One circumstance was the increase of the tent from £900 to £1,250?—Yes, for the first ten years, and £1,750 for the next eleven years. You do not remember who were present at the negociation?—No. After this, the lessees divided and improved their respective interests?—Yes. When did you first take page 208 action to acquire the freehold of the block?—I cannot say—it is a very indefinite question. At the time you acquired the legal lease, had you any intension of acquiring the freehold?—No, though I contemplated the purchase at some future date. Did you not consider that I he improvement clause would have the effect of improving the natives out of the grant?—did you ever say so?—I might have been so facetious, but do not remember. My sole object in that improvement clause was to protect: myself in making those improvements without which the land would be valueless. What was not flax and raupo swamp was mostly rough fern, toi, and tutu land. Wilson drew the improvement clause, and thought it reasonable. You had a conversation with Wilson, which led to the preparation of what you call the Utopian scheme?—Yes, I presume so; but have no recollection. Did you never speak to him about the best means of acquiring the freehold?—I do not remember. Was not that proposal made in consequence of a conversation with you on the subject?—I really do not recollect; if he says so, he is most likely correct. I have a very indistinct recollection of it. I had forgotten it till it was brought up by Wilson. I abandoned all idea of it when Waaka broke into the interests Up to that time I believed no single grantee could dispose of his share. Was that the first instance of the kind you became aware of?—I believe it was. Wilson states in effect that after a conversation with you, at your request he made this draft, and submitted it to you, and that you declined to act upon it?—No, my belief is, that he simply drew it as his notion of how the sale should be effected if the grantees ever became inclined to sell. Was not that draft prepared in consequence of a conversation with you?—It probably was, because early in 18G9 there was some talk on the part of the natives, about selling Heretaunga, which would naturally lead me to talk over the matter with my solicitor, and ask him his idea, of the best means of doing so. When Wilson showed you his idea, you rejected it?—I cannot say I did. You did not act upon it?—The results have shown that. What opinion did you express on the draft to Wilson?—That is more than I remember. Did you then consider it Utopian?—At the time I probably approved of it; but the circumstance of Waaka selling his interest to Parker altered my views on the subject. Do you remember the date of that transaction? I find it was prior to the preparation of the draft; but I did not know of that transaction till some time after. Parker kept it quiet for some months, till the rent became due, when he sent me notice. I then went into the subjection which Wilson had a doubt, whether a single grantee could sell. Time solved those doubts?—Yes. The first dealing of yours in reference to those interests was with reference to Tareha?—Yes. What was your arrangement with Maney and Peacock?—That if they purchased Tareha's share, and sold to me, I was to pay their expenses, and if not they were to pay mine. Was that arrangement reduced to writing?—I believe not. You arranged to take Tareha's share for £1,500?—No, I went down to get the first refusal. You knew the price?—They told me they would possibly offer him £1,500. It was agreed that I was to have the first refusal. Was the condition not this, that if they failed to make the purchase they Should pay your expenses there and back?—If the sale did not take effect. If they failed to effect the purchase from Tareha?— page 209 They were to pay my expenses; and if I did not accede to their terms I was to pay their expenses. You knew they intended to offer £1,500 when you left?—Yes, and had told them it was too much. You went to Wellington with them in the same steamer?—Yes. Before this, about the time that the Duke was there, Karaitiana and Henare had gone to Wellington?—I do not remember. You have an item in your account, dated April, 1869 :—"Cash advanced by Mr D. McLean in Wellington"?—Yes. Now do you remember the circumstance of their going?—No. Do von remember seeing Henare Tomoana, when he told you of some overtures made by Stuart?—I do not remember; his account of that may be correct—it is very likely; but I do not remember it. Do you remember their going to Wellington in company with Stuart?—No. You may have advised them not to take money from Stuart? Very probably. And did you add that if they required money in Wellington they might obtain it from McLean?—Quite possibly—McLean was a personal friend of mine. Did you communicate with McLean, informing him that overtures had been made by Stuart for the purchase of Heretaunga?—I do not remember, and should think it highly improbable. You will not swear that it did not take place?—No; but it is improbable. McLean had no interest in the matter, and I never spoke to him about it You had regular business agents in Wellington, had you not?—Yes: they were, however, very strict at the time, and 1 only had authority to draw strictly for station expenses. You therefore communicated with McLean?—Yes; I either wrote or telegraphed to him on the subject. Heretaunga was mortgaged at that time—Yes. The mortgage was given about six months after the land became subject to a Crown Grant?—Yes. Do you know how the debt came to be worked up?—Yes. Money advanced, horses, ploughs, tobacco, dray-loads of goods, £400 for the Club, £250 for fencing Karamu, &c., supplied by me as stated by Henare. Any spirits?—No, not to my knowledge. The bulk of the debt, then, was owing to you?—I believe so. You applied to them, I suppose, for payment?—Yes. And that was one cause why the mortgage was given?—Yes. The other lessees had agreed to take over part of the debt, and deducted the interest of it from the rent; but this, proposed by me, was found inconvenient; and it was suggested that the land should be mortgaged. Who negotiated the mortgage?—Wilson. Did you not put him in motion?—I cannot say; I have no distinct recollection. Then when the mortgage was given, the money was to repay your advances?—Yes; the other lessees had already divided the amount, and refunded me their shares. How many days were you in Wellington before you heard that the bargain was made?—I believe it was within a week. Did you previously see any others interested in the lease?—Yes; I met Ormond and Samuel Williams. Accidentally?—I believe so. Had you met Ormond previously?—I cannot say; I believe it was the day before Maney and Peacock came to me; it may have been two days before You don't think you had previously consulted either of them in reference to the subject?—I have no recollection of meeting them. You were waiting to hear the result of the negociation between Maney and Tareha?—Yes. What passed at this meeting?—It was said, both by Ormond and Samuel Williams, that it would be proper to endeavour to advise page 210 Tareha not to dispose of his share in Wellington. Did you first inform them of your business in Wellington?—Yes; but I don't remember the words. Was not something said about seeing McLean?—I believe Ormond said he would see McLean. Did you say you had come down under an arrangement with Maney and Peacock, and repeat the terms of the arrangement?—I think not; I don't believe I mentioned it to any one. I only told them that Maney and Peacock had come to purchase Tareha's share, and I had come to watch the result, under the arrangement that if they purchased it they would offer it to me. Upon that Ormond made the suggestion; very little was said. If you bad not met Ormond, you very likely would not have communicated with them?—Very likely not; I possess a good deal of self-reliance. Did you not refer to them again in reference to the matter?—Not to my recollection. Did you concur with them that it was not advisable that Tareha should sell his interest in Wellington?—I did; I did not even know that he was willing to sell; I did not place implicit reliance in Maney's statement, when he said he was quite sure he would succeed—I thought not. Will you swear that you did not refer to them again?—No; I believe I did not. 'When you agreed to purchase, and the money had to be paid in cash, how much did you pay?—I cannot say; I believe about £500. Who found the money?—My agent, I believe. No part was advanced by Ormond or Samuel Williams?—No, I think £120 was advanced by Captain Russell; I had forgotten this, but have a note of it. I found .£300 on the 21st July, and made a further payment of £197 on the 24th. The balance was to be paid in Napier, on Maney obtaining the assent of the principal men of the tribe. When I returned to Napier, the other lessees found the money. Did not Maney and Peacock receive in Wellington an order from Ormond on G. E. G. Richardson?—I do not remember it. After that accidental meeting, then, you left Wellington without communicating further with Ormond or Samuel Williams?—Very likely; I have no recollection of so doing. You concurred in the propriety of their recommendation?—Yes. Why did you not advise Tareha not to sell till he returned to his own people?—Because I never saw him till I met him by appointment at the Empire Hotel. Could you not easily have found him if you had wished?—I cannot say. Maney came and acquainted you with the fact that the deed had been done?—Yes. At what time of day?-After breakfast. You accompanied them to the hotel?—I think not; I believe I said I would follow, and did so. Did anything take place between you and Maney?—No, though Maney said he believed he showed me a cheque or some notes; I have no recollection of his having done so. He told me had purchased the share for £1,500, and that if I liked I could have it for that amount. I objected to the amount, and I believe he was rather anxious that I should take it, for he said, "If you do not, some one else will." I said I must see Tareha first, and be satisfied before I would consent. This matter had been discussed before you and Maney went down?—Very shortly. How long after would it be that you followed Maney to the hotel?—It might have been an hour or two. Is this all that took place? To the best of my recollection. In the hotel you found Martin Hamlin, Peacock, Tareha, and Maney?—Yes. After you satisfied yourself that Tareha had agreed to sell, what page 211 next took place? I required his authority in writing to pay the money to Money and Peacock, and obtained it. I told Maney and Peacock that I should prefer a deed of conveyance direct from Tareha, and gave Brandon and Quick instruction to prepare it the same afternoon. When the proposal of Maney and Peacock was made to you, did you not communicate with your co-lessees?—I think not. I had a general supposition that my action would be acquiesced in by them. I was not anxious to extinguish the native title; but was forced to do it in self-protection. I knew if it passed into the hands of European speculators, I should have great difficulty in acquiring the freehold if I desired to do so. It was not to protect your leasehold title?—It did not affect the leasehold title. Did Tareha, in your presence, say nothing about leaving it till his return to Napier?—He said that was his first wish, but he had given it up, as his pakehas were entitled to the money, and would want it at once; that his own people would agree, as they had shared the goods. Was anything said of the way the money was to be divided?—No. Did you hear anything about what part, if any, of the £1,500 was to be handed back to Tareha himself?—No; there was no discussion on that point at all in my presence. Did your conversation with Tareha, as to his willingness to sell, take place in the presence of the others?—I believe not; my impression is that Hamlin and I saw him privately, first. Was nothing said, between yourself and Tareha, as to any monies to be payable to him after the sale?—Nothing whatever; the only discussion about money matters was, my requiring him to give me a written authority to pay Maney and Peacock the £1,500. Did he ask you for any money?—No. Did he tell you that Maney and Peacock had agreed to let him have any portion of the purchase-money?—No. Did you see him after the deed of conveyance had been signed?—I have no recollection of so doing. About £500 was paid, between the time of sale and the 29th of the same month—what was the arrangement as to the balance?—That, when the sub-claimants had endorsed the deed, Maney and Peacock should receive the balance of the purchase-money. Was that agreement expressed verbally, or in writing?—I cannot remember; most likely verbally. You cannot say that the balance was not given in an order payable in Napier, so soon as the necessary signatures were obtained?—I have no recollection of it. How long did you remain in Wellington after the deed was signed?—Not long; possibly a week. How long after your return to Napier, was it, when you next saw Maney and Peacock in reference to the matter?—I cannot tell. How were, they paid the balance of the purchase-money?—I suppose I paid them myself, but believe I got a proportion of the purchase money from the others. Did you know that Martin Hamlin was to accompany Maney and Peacock as interpreter?—Very likely I did; I know he did go. Was it any part of the arrangement between yourself and Maney and Peacock how his expenses were to be paid?—I believe not; he was engaged and paid by them, and I believe those expenses were never paid by me; Hamlin's expenses were certainly not paid when I gave them the cheque for their travelling expenses. After hearing Martin Hamlin's evidence, you are still of the same opinion?—Yes; I have not the slightest recollection of paying. At that time had the arrangement been made between you and the Messrs. Hamlin?—I believe not; it was not page 212 until after the purchase of Tareha's share, that I considered I he purchase at all present or near. Would it be long after when you engaged them?—I cannot say. Had the engagement been made when the negociation was instituted for the purchase of Pahoro'? interest?—I cannot say. Do you know where it was made?—I have an indistinct recollection of offering to employ him, when I met him once on the road. I believe I offered him £100, as it was likely to be a divided or troublesome arrangement, and retained him to give me any such assistance as I required. Have you heard Hamlin's account of the transaction—that he was to receive £100, if successful; otherwise, the ordinary fees?—That was not my impression—it was new to me when 1 heard it. If they had not been successful, I should still have paid them the same fee. It is not likely; I considered that the success did not depend on them, but upon myself; I only looked on them as instruments. Have you a distinct recollection of the arrangement?—No, I have not; but my recollection of the arrangement does not correspond with the account given. The arrangement was not contingent on their success—it may have been on mine. I may have told them that, if I succeeded in obtaining the whole block, they should have £300. I never left the Hamlins to negociate without distinct instructions from myself—I conducted the whole arrangement myself. Do you remember F. E. Hamlin informing you of a proposition having been made to him by Stuart?—Yes. Then the arrangement with Hamlin was on foot at that time?—I cannot tell you—I should say not till after. Do you remember when the agreement between you varied as to the price to be paid?—No. Can you not recall a single incident in connexion with raising the interpreter's fee from £100 to £300?—No; I had quite forgotten it till I heard it in Court. Is it correct?—I believe so. Might the arrangement have been made with any other person?—I think not. If that did take place, you have entirely forgotten it?—Yes. If any condition was made as to success, it referred to yours and your co lessees?—To my own success, entirely. I had the sole control of the negociation. Have you any recollection of what they were to get if it was not successful?—It has passed out of my mind; I never attached much importance to it—they are more likely to recollect it than me. When you first heard that Stuart was desirous to buy, did you hear of any persons acting for hint?—I cannot call any to mind. Do you not remember Grindell, in connexion with Pahoro's share?—Yes. Did you afterwards engage Grindell's services?—Yes. What were the terms?—That, if he did nothing to prejudice my purchase of Heretaunga, I would give him £50—I looked on it as a retaining fee, to prevent him acting for any one else. You were aware of his acting previously to your prejudice?—Yes. Of his visit to Pakipaki, and carousal at Havelock with Pahoro?—Yes. And you then went and engaged him on the terms mentioned?—No, not then; it may have been two or three months after. Will you swear that it was more than a week?—No; Grindell, after this exploit, told me he would not act further for Stuart, and was not engaged for any one in the matter. You went to see him?—Yes. And you then promised him this retaining fee?—Yes. You have since paid him?—I suppose so, long since; but I have no distinct recollection. Did this take place before the purchase of Pahoro's interest?—I believe it was page 213 after, and before the purchase of Arihi's interest. Grindell was paid only to be inactive?—Yes. About this time you were rather anxious about acquiring the freehold?—I was anxious that no one else should acquire the freehold. Did Grindell ever act for you as interpreter?—No; the first thing he did was to interpret Alibi's deed to Watt—he was conscientious, and refused to interpret that deed till I arrived. Was he net employed by you to promote the sale of Arihi's share?—No; he, on that occasion, acted as interpreter for a deed against which I protested; but he had declined to do it before I came up, or without my permission, as he considered he was retained by me. Purvis Russell asked me my opinion of an interpreter's duties; I replied that my opinion was, that he had no right to refuse to interpret a deed—my fee was only to prevent him negociating. He then interpreted the deed. You went up on the day before Christmas?—I do not remember the date. Will you swear that you never employed Grindell as negociator for the purchase of the Heretaunga block?—I will not positvely swear, but I have no recollection of so doing. Is this letter in Grindells handwriting?—1 cannot say; I once asked Grindell to write to some one. I have an indistinct idea of so doing You asked him to write to one of the grantees, to promote the sale?—If you mention the name of the grantee, I might tell you. [The letter, addressed to Arihi, and dated December, 1869, was here read in English, by the interpreter. It bore Mr Grindell's signature, and tells Arihi that Mr Tanner is her friend, that the amount she asks is too much, and will injure him.] That is Grindell's letter, not mine; I believe he suggested that a letter should be written. Mr Grindell, then, did something more than remain simply passive?—I believe that is all he ever did Tor his money. You know Mr G. Worgan?—I do, by sight. Was he not also employed by you in this purchase?—Never. Not in any way engaged by you?—I will swear it, positively; I never employed him in this, or any other business, and never spoke to him on the subject. I have never spoken to him for years, and I did not employ him. Was he not employed by any of your co lessees?—I will swear that, if so, I had no knowledge of it. Was he employed by any of the persons whom you engaged to make the purchase?—I believe not; not with my knowledge or approval. Why did you consider it necessary to retain Grindell?—Because I knew he had been acting for Stuart, and narrowly escaped buying a share, and that he might be more successful another time. And you thought yourself justified in buying up his services?—Just as I would be in buying yours. (The Chairman: It is a matter of the greatest importance that the position of interpreters should be clearly defined. An attempt to engross the negociators would not be half so serious as to engross the services of the interpreters, thus closing the market to the natives. It is of cardinal importance that interpreter's should not be allowed to sell their services to any particular interest. The regulations require to be made much more strict than at present.) You heard from Hamlin about Stuart's offer?—Yes. About what time?—I cannot say. From whom did you first ascertain that Pahoro was in town, and willing to dispose of his share?—From J N. Williams. This share had been previously attempted to be bought by Grindell—from whom did you hear of these overtures of Grindell?—From himself, some time afterwards. When you were engaging his page 214 valuable services?—Very likely. Was it not long after you retained Grindell for, £50, that you heard from him of his negociation with Pahoro?—No. When Williams informed you that Pahoro was in town, and anxious to dispose of his interest, you made it your business to come across him?—Yes. What interpreter was employed?—One of the Hamlins, I believe. Can you recollect whether they were then under engagement?—No. Did you pay them any fees?—I never paid them any fees except the £300, in instalments. What took place between you and Pahoro, when you met him?—I asked if it was true that he was offering his share for sale; he said it was—that as Tareha and Waaka had sold their shares, he did not see why he should not sell his. The price, £750, was then mentioned; I offered that sum, and that, I believe, is all that took place. Did you instruct any person to make out a conveyance in the terms of that agreement?—I believe I went to Cuff; but am not quite certain. Did you see any interpreter, and ask him to interpret the deed?—I believe I went to one of the Hamlins, but have no distinct recollection. You are aware that the deed is simply a conveyance for £750?—Yes. And you gave the interpreter no special instructions?—No. Hamlin has said that he interpreted the deed, and added that the purchase-money was not to be paid then, but to stand over till the rest had consented, interest to be paid on the purchase money in the meantime—did anything of the kind take place?—There was an understanding of that nature. Rota, Patarika, and others, came in, and asked that this arrangement might be made. They said, "Do not pay Pahoro, he will waste the money, and we will get no benefit; let the purchase—money stand over, at interest, till the others sign." Then, the first suggestion to hold the money came from them?—Yes. Were the other natives included in the deed of trust, present when the deed was signed?—My impression is, that I told Pahoro to bring in his people on a day appointed; that they all came in, and signed together. I believe some interest was then paid in advance. Do you remember giving money to Pahoro, on the day the arrangement was made?—I do not. Was not the deed signed by Pahoro on one day, and by the hapu on another day?—I do not think so. You mentioned your reason for obtaining the declarations of trust—that Pahoro was improvident and intemperate—had not Stuart, at this time, begun to move in the matter?—I believe so. This was one of the causes which induced you to take action?—Possibly it may have had some influence that way. You have heard Hamlin's reason for the increase of their fee from £100 to £300—that in consequence of Stuart, their work would be increased—Stuart was at work when these declarations were obtained?—I think he was at rest then—he had been at work. Was it not very likely that the Hamlins were not then under engagement to you?—It is just possible. Had you any information about Pahoro, from Samuel Williams?—I have no recollection of it. Did you not ask him to see Wilson on the subject?—I may have done so. Are you aware whether he saw Wilson?—I have an indistinct recollection that he did. Are you aware that he was the bearer of a message to Pahoro and Paramena?—I have no distinct recollection, though I heard him say so. Had you anything to do with the discussions with the natives on the subject?—I believe I asked J. N. Williams to do that. Were the instructions to draw the deeds given by page 215 you or by S. Williams?—By myself, I believe. This was a protective measure?—Not exactly, for I was aware that, if the trust deeds were of any value, they would be a bar to my purchase, as well as any others. In reference to Waaka Kawatim's matter—you heard, by receiving notice from Parker, that he had purchased Te Waaka's interest—was that your first intimation?—I believe so. What did you first do on hearing of it?—I went to Wilson, to ask his opinion on the subject of the legality of the transaction. Not for the purpose of ascertaining if it could be set aside?—That would be subsequently, no great length of time after. To set it aside, for what reason?—On the ground, chiefly, that it appeared to be a very improper transaction. Was not one ground to do away with the adverse interest acquired by Parker?—Not if I had thought Parker's deed proper; I would have dealt with him. Wilson considered it illegal; I thought it should be upset. Did you request Wilson to try to do so?—No, I did not; he said he would, and sent for Waaka, and offered to do it for him. Proceedings were taken?—Yes. What was the first step in the direction of the settlement of the action?—Paiker coming to me, to say he had no intention of purchasing a lawsuit—that all he wanted was the repayment of his advances to Waaka; and he offered to hand over his position, on condition that these advances were to be repaid. Did you see Waaka?—Yes, but I cannot say when. Did you ascertain from him that this settlement would be agreeable to him?—He was asked if it would suit him and his people; he said he was agreeable, and his sub-claimants would be satisfied. The result was that you took Parker's position?—Yes. Subject to the payment of Parkers advances, stopping the suit, returning the land, and paving £1,000 for his share of Heretaunga?—Yes. Did you see Wilson?—Yes, to explain the arrangement; but he refused to be any party to it—I doubt whether he listened to all the particulars, he was so impulsive. When you could not get his assent, what did you do?—I sent Cuff to him, who was not more politely received than I had been. 1 met Wilson again, outside the Government Buildings; I told him if he would not join in the arrangement, we would act without him, as Parker would sell to some one else. He shouted at me, that I might do so. Do you remember what arrangement was made as regarded Parker's costs in defending the suit?—I know nothing about them. Did you not inform Wilson that, out of Waaka's £1,000, was to be paid Parker's costs of suit?—I have no recollection of it; I remember a sum of £100, owing to Lee, but whether it was the costs of the suit, or not, I do not know. Did you see Wilson before you saw Waaka on the subject?—I think it very probable I did; I cannot say positively. You then took Waaka in hand yourself?—Yes; I went to Cuff. You took Waaka aside in this building, and the letter was written to Wilson?—Yes. Lee was appointed to apply for the dismissal of the suit?—Yes. You were aware that Lee was Parker's solicitor?—He was also Waaka's solicitor, but I did not go into the consideration of his position.

The Commission adjourned at 4.45 p.m.

Saturday, 5th April, 1873.

The Chairman said that this was the day which had been fixed for the bearing of the alleged retractations.—Mr. Sheehan claimed notice of page 216 the particular cases referred to. Such notice the other side had failed to give.—Mr. Lascelles said that Mr. Sheehan was not entitled to notice, never having been retained by the natives.—The Chairman said that these complaints were sui generis. Some of the natives had sent in complaints as the agents of others, and if Mr. Sheehan had been instructed by these agents he was entitled to notice. The proceedings differed from those of the ordinary Courts.—Mr. Sheehan reminded the Com—missoners that Mr. Lascelles had undertaken to give the required notice, without any reservation. The Court was aware of the circumstances at the time the order was made, and in failing to give notice, the other side had shown a great want of courtesy, besides prejudicing the case.—The Chairman asked if Mr. Sheehan was prepared to go on.—Mr. Sheehan replied that he would do so.

Mr. Lascelles said that he appeared for Ihaka Kapo, [unclear: Airini] Takamoana, Paora Nonoi, and Ropata Whakakari, to repudiate all the complaints lodged in their names. The Chairman: Call the first complainant—Ropata. The onus lies on Mr. Sheehan to prove his instructions.—Mr. Sheehan said the Court had said it would not determine these cases without seeing the parties themselves.—The Chairman said that this was the only satisfactory way.—Mr. Sheehan claimed that the parties should be produced.—Mr. Lascelles said that being instructed by them, he considered their personal appearance quite unnecessary. Ropata was somewhere in town.—[Ropata here entered the Court.]—Mr. Sheehan said that before the case was called, he would state that his own instructions came from Henare Matua, who had received instructions in writing from Ropata to prefer the complaint.—The Chairman: That will get rid of the question of repudiation, and leave only the question of retractation—Mr. Sheehan hoped the Court would express its opinion as to the correctness of the practice followed by the other side. In this case, where absolute notice had been given to the parties, as a matter of ordinary professional decency the complainant ought not to have been taken behind his counsel's back to the office of another solicitor, and a statement extracted from him.—Tho Chairman said he was not prepared to give an opinion until further acquainted with the facts of the case. If Mr. Sheehan could produce primd facie evidence that the party he represented was entitled to lodge the complaint, he had a standing in the case, and was entitled to cross-examine Ropata on the subject.—Mr. Lascelles quite agreed with the ideas of professional courtesy expressed by Mr. Sheehan; but the case was different where the party came and said, "I have not engaged a solicitor at all"—The Chairman said it was not time to go into that point yet; when these cases had been gone further into, the Commissioners would see their way better.

Henare Matua, sworn, examined by Mr. Sheehan: Did you prefer certain complaints on behalf of Ropata Whakakari, in the case of the Mangaroa and Mangarau blocks?—Yes. Why did you do so?—Ropata gave me those lands to send in. The document I produced is the letter Ropata sent to me. Have you seen Ropata himself in reference to these matters?—After his letter I spoke to him, and he to me. Did he say anything about his letter?—He spoke about it, saw it, and said it was his. (The Chairman: Did Ropata see this paper?—Yes, it was shown page 217 to him, and he admitted it to be his. (The Chairman: Before proceeding further, we had better call Ropata, and ascertain whether he acquiesces. We will require Henare again.)

Ropata Whakakari was then called, and a letter bearing his signature was handed to the Commissioners by Mr. Sheehan. The letter was read aloud by Mr. Commissioner Hikairo, and at once recognized by the witness, who, when it was finished, said "Yes; that is correct." The letter, which bore date 10th June, 1872, was then read aloud in English by Mr. Young, the interpreter to the Commission. The letter stated that he placed his land in the hands of Henare's committee; that he knew nothing of the mortgage; that, all he had received was—for Mangaroa, some goods and eight gallons of rum, and for Mangarau, twenty bags flour, two boxes soap, and some goods; and that it was a false statement by the pakehas that he had mortgaged Raukawa.—The Chairman: Who wrote that letter?—Ropata: I, myself. With your own hands?—Yes.—The Chairman said that there was enough evidence to put the letter in.

Henare Matua, recalled, examined by Mr Sheehan; Have you, since that letter, received any document from Ropata, recalling, revoking, or limiting it in any way?—No; I received no letter after this; I saw himself. Did you, up to the time of the formal complaint, receive any instructions from Ropata, altering those instructions?—No; all he did was to ask respecting his letter. His letter asked me, "Have you not my petition?" I said, "Yes, perhaps they are among the other documents." He brought a paper of Kinross's, for me to write on, saying I had no petition of his in my possession. I said, "Wait till I have searched." I did so, and found it. I brought it to him, showed it, and said, "Here is your letter." I have no more to say. He did not say he wanted me to withdraw the complaint, but Kinross brought me a document for me to withdraw it. This was after the complaint had been sent in?—It was after the complaints had been gazetted. Before the complaints had been gazetted, was anything said by Ropata about the withdrawal?—No, nothing of the kind was said till the complaints had been seen in the Gazette.

By Mr Lascelles: That document, then, is the authority on which you made these complaints?—What is contained in the document is one, and his speaking to me is another. Was the Commission known, when that document was written?—No; but the work of Henry Russell and myself, about land which had been stolen and mortgaged, had been commenced long before.

The Chairman said he did not think they ought to look very critically at this. Henare was an agitator before the Commission was appointed; many natives had apparently placed their affairs in his hands, and when the Commission sat, he simply brought them for ward, being, as it were, retained.—Mr Commissioner Manning: Any native would take that letter as an authority to take such steps as he thought proper.—Mr Lascelles said he would show that the authority was given for a totally different purpose—The Chairman said that if the Commissioners found that Henare was authorized to right a supposed injustice, he would, in their opinion, have authority to act, though it might be a year after.—Mr Lascelles said he would ask Henare if it was upon the authority of this letter that he disputed all the alleged alienations.

page 218

Mr Lascelles (to Henare Matua); Did you infer, from that letter, that Ropata disputed all the sales?—It was not for me to do that—tho complaint was his own; the Committee merely gave all the land to the Commission to investigate. Ropata, in his letter, gave, the land to the Committee. Did you ever acquaint Ropata with the terms of the complaint?—

The Chairman: You had better not put that question—our minds will not be affected by it. Speaking for myself and Mr Commissioner Manning, I have no doubt that the land was handed over for the very, purpose of making a complaint. This letter, if it justifies anything, justifies a general complaint on the common grounds. The way is quite open for retractations. In a state of society such as is here presented to us, intelligent men will take the lead.—Mr Commissioner Manning: It is more than a mere general authority. Henare is that man's chief, relation, and protector; it is an authority to Henare to do the very best he can for him; and no blame can attach to Henare in the matter.

Cross-examination of Henare continued by Mr. Lascelles: Did you not ask Locke to strike out that complaint if Ropata had any objection?—I am not aware of that—if Locke has any document saying so, let him produce it. Did you not say so to Locke?—I am not aware of having done so. Did you not write on the leaf of a pocket-book that Ropata could withdraw his complaint if he liked?—No; what I wrote was that I did not think f had Ropata's complaint in my possession; bur when I found it I went to him again, and said, "Friend, I have that document."

The Chairman: This is totally beside the purpose. Ropata had a perfect right to retract if he thought proper.—Mr. Sheehan: Henare Matua, two or three days ago, told me that he had no objection to the retractation if Ropata desired it; but that he required it to be made in open Court, for his own protection, that it might be shown that he had perfect authority to make the complaint.—Mr. Lascelles (to the witness): At that time were not certain deeds being drawn referring to Mr. Russell and yourself——The Chairman: Perhaps so, but I am against the question being put—it does not affect the matter. You seem disinclined to accept the ruling of the Commission. The only point remaining to be prove I is, whether Ropata retracts. Let hint stand up and say so, if it is the case. This authority was enough to justify Henare in lodging the complaint. I propose this—let him simply he asked if he retracts. Questions may be put to show whether in so doing he is a free, voluntary agent, or not. Any means which may have been used to induce him are outside the question; the point is whether he now retracts with his free will.—Mr. Sheehan: The Court is now aware that Henare is a representative man, and was duly authorized to make these complaints. I wish to show among other things, that the idea of retractation was suggested to the natives by Mr. Kentish McLean, a Government officer, subordinate to the Hon. Donald McLean, and that some of them have received money for so doing—one of them being a man of weak intellect and advanced age. The Chairman: We are loth to enter on such a point—it would open the way to extensive investigations. These are civil proceedings, and open to compromise.—Mr. Sheehan: In a court of equity it would be a page 221 subject of inquiry were proceedings of such magnitude suddenly abandoned. At the time of complaint, it will be found, the complainant was under the opinion that he had not been fairly dealt with, and gave a reason for that opinion.—The Chairman: Do you wish him treated as an infant or incapable person?—Mr. Sheehan: The Court would find him so in the course of a short examination.—The Chairman: To follow the course of examination you suggest would involve going into the whole subject, and would raise all the collateral issues.—Mr. Sheehan: This would have been the proper course, if time had allowed.—The Chairman: The only retractation we have had yet was publicly made by a man who can take good care of himself, and that is the only kind of retractation I contemplate. To go into the question which you have raised would lead to an investigation of which I can see no end—Mr. Sheehan: I have been instructed by Henare Matua and Hapuku that improper influence was used to lead him to sign the withdrawal.—The Chairman: On the whole, it seems to me that if the retractation is worth nothing, neither is the complaint.—Mr. Lascelles said he wished to ask Mr. Locke whether Henare Matua did not give authority to strike out the complaint if Ropata desired.—The Chairman: It is quite unnecessary. Nothing that Henare Matua could do would effect Ropata's right of withdrawal. A majority of the Commissioners are of opinion that we should limit the inquiry to the point whether the complainant really does withdraw, and will not go into the inquiry as to what induced him to do so, because that would involve an investigation into the whole matter.—Mr. Sheehan: I am satisfied if that is the reason; and not because the Commissioners consider it is not a proper subject of inquiry.—The Chairman: It may be a proper subject of inquiry.

Ropata, examined by Mr. Lascelles: With regard to the complaints made in your name to the Commission—would you wish them withdrawn?—Yes—only my complaints. (Two documents, withdrawals of complaints, produced) Is that your signature to these papers?—Yes; that is the signing of the mortgage.

Mr. Sheehan: This is a scientific mode of stopping a lawsuit. Ropata cannot now raise a question concerning these land transactions without committing perjury. Proof has already been given of general authority, and here we have a contemporaneous document put in, by which all possible ground of complaint is disposed of.—The Chairman: These documents, in my opinion, are entirely irrelevant to the present inquiry.—Mr. Commissioner Manning: The documents are of such an astounding character that I do not know what to think of them.

Ropata, examined by Mr. Sheehan: You have preferred complaints respecting Mangaroa, Mangaran, Ngatarawa, and Raukawa?—Yes. Do you withdraw your complaint regarding Ngatarawa?—Yes; but there are many other owners of that land. Do you withdraw your complaint concerning Mangarau?—Yes; I have the reason within me for that withdrawal. (The Chairman: If the reason is within him, it is all right.) Regarding Mangaroa?—ft is only one piece of land all through. Do you abandon your complaint in reference to Raukawa?—Yes—I am not the only person on that land; you will hear from others. Why do you wish these complaints withdrawn?— page 218 Mr Lascelles: I object to the question. Is the Court prepared to open up the whole question?—The Chairman: The question may lead to nothing; but it may lead to something of which we cannot see the end.—Mr Sheehan said he thought it only fair that the Court should ascertain the witness's general reason. He would, however, withdraw the question.—The Chairman: Be satisfied with having asked the question, and the other side objecting. You are at liberty to make what little you can out of that. You are at liberty to show the fact if compulsion has been used, as in that case, the witness would not be a voluntary agent; but you cannot go into the question of inducement. Even if improper inducement had been used—say two gallons of rum—we would not enter into it, as the witness would still be a free agent. If an answer were given respecting the inducement, counter-evidence would be at once offered. The witness had a perfect right to withdraw, and the moral value of his withdrawal is not a matter for the Court at all—Mr Lascelles: If the man should drop anything tending to show inducement or intimidation, I would feel it my duty to call Mr Kentish McLean and Mr. Kinross.—The Chairman: Of course it would be your duty; and we could not keep the question of intimidation out of Court.

The Chairman (to Ropata): Do you come here freely, not being forced by any oilier person?—Yes. It is my own complaint; there are plenty of other people who own the land.

Mr Sheehan: I would point out that this witness always mentions other people, who he seems to expect will carry the matter out.—The Chairman: It is a question of inference. We are in this predicament—that we are dealing with individuals, when the tribe is concerned.—Mr Sheehan requested the Chairman to take a note of the reason why his question was disallowed, which was done.

Mr. Lascelles: With regard to Ihaka Kapu's matter, I retract in his name all complaints.—Mr Sheehan objected to this proceeding.—The Chairman: In older to make the retractation of any moral value, you must have your man here—Mr Lascelles asked if this would apply also to Paora Nonoi, who was physically unable to attend.—The Chairman: "We have already laid down the rule that no retractation can be accepted unless the person retracts his complaint openly in Court; and in this case Mr Sheehan has a standing to prove his authority. I am sorry that the length of these matters will oblige us to adjourn the Heretaunga case till Monday at 10 a.m.—Mr Lascelles: I will now call Ihaka Kapu; and have to state, in the first place, that it is a case of simple retractation.—Mr Sheehan: I wish it understood that the other side do not allege that these complaints were laid without authority—Mr Lascelles said that Ihaka applied to withdraw all his complaints against Mr McLean in all cases.

Ihaka Kapu, examined by Mr Lascelles: Do you wish to withdraw all your complaints against Mr McLean'!—Yes.

By Mr Sheehan: Do you withdraw your complaints against Mr McLean in respect of the Ngatarawa, Mangaroa, and Manukaroa transactions?—Yes.

By the Chairman: Do you withdraw these complaints of your own free will, and without compulsion?—Of my own will.

page 221

The Chairman: This is a case of clear and simple retractation; and the press should draw a clear distinction between repudiation, which goes to the root of the complaint, and retractation, which admits that the complaint was properly made.

Mr Lascelles said that the next case was that of Paora Nonoi. He handed in a certificate from Dr. Gibbes that the complainant was ill, and could not attend the Court.—Mr Sheehan: It is only fair that the inquiry in this case should be made personally, as the evidence is contradictory. Karaitiana and Hapuku have asked that Paora should be examined by persons appointed by the Court; and if no pressure is used on either side, he will confirm his complaint. When the agitation commenced, Paora handed over his land to Hapuku. His sister came to town with the complaint, and is here to testify to it. Within the last twenty-four hours Nonoi has confirmed the complaint.—Mr. Lascelles would agree to the proposition that the Court should appoint some one to take evidence.—The Chairman: Never was a Court in such a difficulty as this—we have to decide not only on litigation, but on the litigants. Could a person be sent up this afternoon?—Mr Sheehan: Yes. The Chairman: The Commissioners are disposed to entertain the application.—Mr. Sheehan: To show that the preliminary proceedings were taken with Paora's authority, I would wish to call his sister and Hapuku; but as it is necessary that the personal application should be made without delay, I will consent to take that evidence after the return of the parties.

Mr Young, the interpreter to the Commission, was appointed to represent the Commissioners; and after considerable discussion a series of questions was drawn up by the Chairman, to be put by Mr. Young, who received definite instructions for his guidance, and was directed not to stray beyond the limits laid down for him by the Court. To accompany Mr Young, on behalf of the respondents, Mr Lascelles appointed Mr J. P. Hamlin, interpreter; and Mr Stevens, interpreter, was appointed on the other side by Mr Sheehan.—The Commission then, at 1.30 p.m., adjourned.

Monday, 7th April, 1873.

Cross-examination of Mr Tanner, resumed by Mr Sheehan: Who negociated this business with Waaka?—I was the prime arranger of it all; I left it to Lee and Cuff to say whether it was a good arrangement; for Waaka, as well as myself; they talked it over with him. In the arrangement with Waaka, had you any discussion with him about the price he was to receive?—No, the discussion we had was principally in reference to his debts to Parker, for advances, and bills paid. Waaka, by this arrangement, knew it would take his interest in Heretaunga to pay his debts—neither he nor I knew that it would take the whole; but his object and desire was to get his other property free. Was no higher price asked by Waaka, than the .£1,000?—Never; he asked no price at all—I made him the offer. Was no other sum ever mentioned?—No other sum. The first overtures were made by yourself?—Yes, I told him what Parker said, that we were willing to take over the lands; that we only wanted Heretaunga, for which we would give, £1,000, and re-convey the other blocks to him. That offer was made by yourself?— page 222 Yes. You did not give Waaka to understand that he would have to pay Parker's costs in defending the action?—No, I knew nothing about that. Was there any statement of terms in writing, before the deed was signed?—Not that I remember. Who was your solicitor?—Mr Cuff, in reference to this arrangement. Was Mr Lee employed, or retained by you, in any way?—No. Do you remember whether you saw Lee, in reference to his application to discontinue the suit?—No, it was understood that Waaka was to do that; I presume that Lee acted with Waaka's consent, to carry the arrangement out. Was anything said by you to Lee, in reference to his fees?—No. (The Chairman remarked that the proceedings must have been anomalous and irregular.—The Registrar produced the Supreme Court books, and referred to the minute of the 24th November, 1869. Being sworn, he stated, that no order was drawn up on this minute. The minute of the 24th November was the only entry on the subject.—The Chairman: This is a kind of case showing the virtue of the ordinary forms, distinctly stating who acts for whom. Every regular order does that.) Have you had any conversation with Waaka since the arrangement?—Frequently. Has any reference been made to the money for his share?—No; always in reference to the rent, which he says Wilson stole Was there any reference to the alleged conversation in which you told him of an immense pile of notes he was to receive?—No; I have a recollection of some pantomimic action of his; but cannot say when it was. It had no reference to this transaction. I have an indistinct recollection of meeting him on the road, and he asked me to what height a pile of notes, of a certain amount, would reach. This occurred near the Big Bush. There was some discussion in reference to the distribution of the .£1,000?—Yes. Have you any recollection of the amounts which went to make up the £1,780 claimed by Parker?—Accounts with nearly every shopkeeper in the place. Nothing for legal expenses?—I know of an amount of about £100, in Lee's name; what for I do not know. Waaka never raised any objection to that item in my presence, though objecting to the totals of others. Was it not nearer £200?—No. Have you any idea as to the person in whose custody these vouchers were left?—Cuff's I believe. .I notice, in the account, a sum of £15, legal expenses to Cuff, chargeable to Waaka Kawatini.—That was for the deed of re-conveyance of the other blocks to him. Was no portion of it for going through Waaka's accounts?—No, that was debited to us. Then Cuff was doing work for Waaka, and looking to you, in the first instance, for payment?—Very likely. You cannot remember whether Henare Tomoana told you that overtures had been made by Stuart for the purchase of the block, and you told him not to sell?—No; it may have been so. When did Henare Tomoana first broach the subject to you of disposing of the freehold?—I cannot say; a long time ago. When were you first aware that Henare and the other grantees were in debt?—Long ago; after Neal's mortgage, in 1869, they began to get into debt with me, and I knew they continued, as before, to draw goods and supplies from other people. Within a few days before the three days' negociation at Pakowhai, did you make any inquiry as to the extent of their debts?—No, and previous to the conversation on the floor, I had no idea of the extent of their liabilities. Did you make no inquiry whatever on the subject?—No. Not of Mr page 223 Sutton?—No, the first I beard of that was the amount of the judgment, and that, to the best of my recollection, was the only debt of which I was aware at the time. At that time, every native who held a Crown Grant, was getting as much credit has he could. Had you any conversation with Henare, after his return from Taupo, and previous to his return to Pakowhai, which would lead you to expect a message similar to that you received?—Yes, when Henare came down from Taupo, I had no doubt that Heretaunga would be sold; he expressed no hesitation on the subject, but frequently used it as an argument to get further supplies from me—that I knew Heretaunga would be sold, and should be able to pay myself. Can you remember any single instance?—No; there were several. He always gave me to understand that Karaitiana was the only one who had any objection. I knew that Henare was a much larger owner than Karaitiana, yet he always played second fiddle to him, and would never act on his own responsibility. You have told us of a meeting between you and Karaitiana at the toll-gate, after he had abandoned the idea of going to Auckland?—Yes. He referred to his being pressed for amounts owing to Europeans—did you know who were pressing him at that time?—No, I believe I had heard that Knowles was one. How had you heard?—From himself, I believe. Had not applications been made to you, by Knowles, or other creditors, to pay their amounts out of the rents of the block?—No. How long would it be, after Karaitiana's return in this way, that you were sent for to Pakowhai?—I believe it was within a week. What was the message?—For me to go out the next morning. I asked the youth if he had seen Hamlin; and he replied that he had seen him too. What time did you reach Pakowhai on the first day?—Some time before dinner. And what time was it in the afternoon when you left?—Some time before dark, I would not attempt to state how long—perhaps about 4 or 5 p.m.; it might have been two hours later—I have no distinct recollection. Can you remember how long you were at Pakowhai?—Perhaps between two and four hours. What was the position of affairs on the afternoon of the first day?—The subject had been broached, but nothing was settled. One of the subjects spoken of, was the visit of Noa, Paramena, and Pahoro, who had left the matter entirely in Karaitiana's and Henare's hands. You said that Karaitiana, Manaena, and Henare were present?—To the best of my recollection. Others were there, too, but I could not say who Was any advice given as to the advisability of limiting the discussion to yourself, Henare, and Karaitiana?—I believe I recollect, on the last day, Henare giving Manaena a hint to retire.

The Chairman: No doubt, in English law, if an agent for a sale was to stipulate for a secret bounty, it would vitiate the sale. But there is a difficulty in applying this rule to native cases—some of the natives made an independent bargain for their own share, and all repudiate the alleged agency. Arihi, Paramena, and Pahoro, all made independent arrangements; and Manaena, also. There remains only Noa, whose case presents some difficulty. I throw this out, to shorten the cross-examination. Taking the indubitable principle of equity, I strongly recommend purchasers to make no secret bargains with vendors. Such are made at their peril, and entail great risks. The Commission will be page 224 of value, if it results only in stopping this practice. It is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of equity, and in an English case, would certainly vitiate the bargain. Our reports will comprise no opinion as to the equity of the case, in a technical sense.—Mr Commissioner Manning: The chief of a tribe something more than an agent.—The Chairman: I quite agree; and a Court of Equity is not so rigid, that, when a new case is before it., it will not make a new rule. The vice of the existing Acts is, that they make no distinction between native and English title. There is nominally an English title, yet we find it is really native title all through. This unfortunate confusion has arisen through neglect to draw the line between the titles. The Native Lands Act, of 1869, is one of the most signal confessions of failure on the statute book. The unfortunate state of things existing is greatly due to the fact that the Act induced people to believe that they could deal with separate shares. The best lawyers in the country have been puzzled to know what the 23rd section means.

Cross-examination continued: In your evidence in-chief, you said, that no reference was made to the Karamu reserve. When was that spoken of?—I cannot say, positively; I think on the second day. By whom was the question introduced?—I cannot say; most likely myself; I remember telling them that the reserve must be secured, so as to prevent alienation by the grantees. I suggested that it should be conveyed to us with the rest of the block, that it might be re conveyed by us to trustees. Were any trustees named?—Yes; Karaitiana and Henare were anxious to have it conveyed to them, as they would prevent the other grantees selling. Was any limitation made of the parties to be beneficially interested in the block? Did you not agree to convey it to Karaitiana and Henare, for themselves?—No, I did not bear of it till it was stated in Court. Not to them without restriction?—Most positively not. Was it not understood that it was to be handed to them, leaving them to apportion it as they thought proper?—No; as trustees for all the grantees and persons entitled to be interested. Did you hear Hamlin's evidence, as to the limitation?—I took the view that all the grantees, who had not already disposed of their interests, were concerned. This did not include Waaka and Tareha, as we had already bought their interests in the whole block, including the reserve. Is that account given by Hamlin, correct?—Substantially so; his recollection is not so detailed as mine. Did not Karaitiana and Henare ask for a larger reserve than 1,700 acres?—No; 1,600 acres was the size of the reserve, and they did not ask for more. Can you recollect the conversation in which it was settled?—No. I can recollect the details of the arrangement. Henare and Karaitiana expressed a wish to be trustees, as they would take care that none of the other grantees should dispose of the block, or encumber it in any way. Karaitiana remarked that, if they mortgaged or sold any part of the reserve, they would come to him to keep them on his property at Pakowhai. I considered that they would make good trustees, and made no objection. I told Karaitiana that I was actually in possession of two tenths of the Karamn reserve, which I intended to give up. Did you not leave it entirely to Henare and Karaitiana, to do what they thought proper with the block?—No, I discussed the subject. I said all the grantees, except Waaka and Tareha, page 225 were entitled to a share. Karaitiana said, "Arihi shall not have any of it." I told them her trustees would decide that—she was entitled to a share. He said he cared neither for Arihi nor her trustees—she should not settle there. Was it at this time that the arrangement was made about convening 100 acres to Henare's son?—I believe not; it was a long time subsequently, to the best of my recollection. Was it not part of your arrangement, then?—Certainly not. The entry in Cuff's diary is on the 8th December—the same date as the instructions for engrossing the deed of covenant. On the 6th December, the agreement was made; and two days later, instructions were given to Cuff, to prepare the conveyance of 100 acres to Henare, in trust for his son—is not that the case?—I should have said, a long time previously—not, a long time subsequently; under the lease, at the time Karaitiana had the land surveyed, and divided into 100-acre sections. I say, positively, that this arrangement was not entered into at Pakowhai, at the time of the negociation for the purchase. You proposed to exchange 100 acres of your lease, for 100 acres within the reserve?—Yes, to facilitate the boundary. How could you arrange to convey 100 acres in trust, when you were still a leaseholder?—(The Chairman: There are two distinct things—the agreement to exchange, and the agreement to convey in trust.) Was it not on that occasion, at Pakowhai, amongst other things, promised to Henare Tomoana that 100 acres would be conveyed to him for his son?—Henare told me—I cannot fix the time when—that he should like the name of his son, Panita, on the 100 acres exchanged. I believe the proposal to make him trustee, emanated from Cuff. You have told us that, before you went to Pakowhai, you made no direct overtures for the purchase. Will you swear that it was not stipulated at this meeting?—I will not swear; it may have been. I have no recollection. Panita's name had been put by Henare on the 100 acres, near the gate, at the time of the purchase. You were aware that the reserve had been subdivided?—Yes. Did not Karaitiana and Henare say they intended to locate their own people on this reserve?—No; from Karaitiana, and from Henare, I understood it was to be for all who had not sold, and for sub-claimants. Was that the basis on which you undertook to convey to them as trustees?—Yes. Can you recollect the instructions you gave Cuff, in reference to this?—No; but I can remember the general nature of the arrangement, and Cuff was fully aware of it. Was he aware of the arrangement to such an extent, that you had only to say, prepare the conveyance?—I believe so. I have no distinct recollection of what took place at Pakowhai; very likely nothing more was said than, "You will have that deed prepared." The deed of the reserve?—Yes. Yet you have said that Hamlin's evidence was substantially correct.—It was only substantially correct—the terms of the arrangement were. What I mean is, that the arrangement, the only substantial part of the matter, was spoken of there; but it might have been settled before. I have no distinct recollection of what took place. Will you still swear that Hamlin's statement was substantially correct?—Certainly, so far as regards the arrangement. If not at Pakowhai, where was the arrangement made?—I should say it was made there and then—finally arranged; but I believe I had spoken of it previously, on several occasions. Before Karaitiana spoke of going to Auckland, he had spoken of selling land. page 226 It would not have been more than casual conversation?—Perhaps not. The land was subdivided previous to the arrangement of the 6th December?—Yes. Did you know the people to whom it was allotted?—Only a few; I do not know, to this day. This disposal of the land was in force at the time of sale?—Yes; it is merely arbitrary; the persons are only cultivators. Was it not to maintain and confirm this distribution, that the land was to be conveyed in trust to Henare and Karaitiana?—I do not say so. It was Karaitiana's idea that the sub-claimants were to be located on the block, to make up for their exclusion from the Grant; bat I had nothing to do with that. The deed was to be in trust to Karaitiana and Henare, for the owners of the reserve. I thought Cuff, as a lawyer, would know exactly what kind of deed to make out. Cuff was to give it legal form; Karaitiana and Henare to hold the land in trust for all the owners of the block. Karaitiana had told you of his arrangement, and you considered it very fair?—Yes; and I did not presume to interfere in the arrangement at all. Was it any part of the arrangement of the deed of trust, that it should exclude Waaka and Tareha?—No. He knew that Waaka and Tareha had disposed of their interests, and I just gave him general instructions. Also instructions to convey the land, in trust to Henare, for his son?—Yes. You say that the arrangement fell through—in what way?—I cannot remember exactly. Some time before the final settlement, Cuff told me that, according to the arrangement they were making, it would not be necessary to prepare a special deed—that it was entirely a matter of option with Henare and Karaitiana, what they would do with these matters,—they having taken them entirely into their own hands. At the time the arrangement at Pakowhai was signed, it was agreed that you should convey this hundred acres to Henare's son?—Yes. On the 8th December, you went to Cuff, and gave instructions to prepare the necessary deeds?—Yes. Did you not also instruct him to take the deeds to Karaitiana for signature?—Very likely. Do you remember Karaitiana coming to town the second time to go to Auckland?—Yes. Were you not then aware of Karaitiana's refusal to sign?—I cannot say. [Mr Sheehan reads from Cuff's book; "December, 10th: Attending with Hamlin all day at Pakowhai; Karaitiana refusing to sign."] I do not recollect that visit to Karaitiana; but I know now, that I was quite aware of his refusal, when he left for Auckland. Can you not recollect whether you heard from Cuff, that Karaitiana had refused to sign?—I cannot say. [Mr Sheehan read: "12th: Attending yourself, Ormond, and Locke. Karaitiana still refusing to sign the conveyance.'] Can you remember these meetings?—No; I can only remember my meeting with Karaitiana in the library, already mentioned. You were aware, then, that Karaitiana was unwilling to sign. Do you remember hearing that one of Karaitiana's advisers was Beyer—referred to as a foreigner and a gunsmith?—Yes. I am not sure that Beyer's advice to him was before or after Karaitiana went to Auckland. Do you remember whether you had any conversation yourself with Beyer on the subject?—No. Are you aware whether Beyer was applied to by any person connected with the purchase, in reference to withdrawing his opposition?—I think Watt made an application to him. At this time, then, Watt had assumed the position of finding the funds?—Yes. You say you were aware of some page 227 application by Watt to Beyer—what are you aware of, in reference to that matter?—Only from hearsay—I have heard that Watt offered to give Beyer something to induce Karaitiana to withdraw his objection to carrying out his agreement to sell. From whom did you hear that?—I think I heard it from Watt himself, after the whole thing was settled. Was not Watt in such a position regarding yourselves as to be consulted in this matter?—No; Watt had collected a great number of orders from various storekeeper in his debt, and gave them credit for these amounts; and when he heard of this hitch, he became anxious, on his own account, to have the matter completed. At the time Karaitiana went to Auckland, was not Watt in a position to be consulted by the purchasers?—Yes. Was he so consulted?—I cannot say; I think it unlikely. Had you no conversation with Watt on the subject?—I have n0 recollection. Had it not been decided that it would be advisable to see Beyer, to get him to use his influence to persuade Karaitiana to sign?—I cannot say; I simply do not recollect. Have you never heard, from any of the purchasers, that they had so requested Watt to see Beyer?—Not to my recollection. Was not the advisability of seeing Beyer, a subject of conversation between yourself and the other grantees?—Not to my recollection. You were informed by Watt, afterwards, that he had seen him?—To the best of my recollection, Watt told us he would charge us with £100, promised to Beyer. Was it paid?—I believe not; neither by Watt nor myself. If I remember right, Watt told me Beyer refused to receive Did Watt tell you what the £100 was offered for?—To induce Karaitiana to carry out the agreement. I do not know that it was promised; I did not understand that it was a bargain between them. I believe Watt showed Beyer the nature of the transaction; that Beyer was satisfied that Karaitiana ought to sign, and used his influence to induce him; that, in consideration of that advice, Watt offered Beyer £100, which he refused to accept. I did not understand that a bargain had been made with Beyer, for advice—I believe he conscientiously used his influence with Karaitiana, and refused payment for so doing. From whom did Cuff receive instructions to issue the writ?—From myself. The matter had gone very far, then, and I was very determined that he should carry out his agreement. Did you consult the other purchasers?—I believe not; I was not in the habit. You know their names appeared with yours in the matter?—Yes, of course. You gave Cuff instructions to take it to Pakowhai?—Yes; but only to use it as a last resource. It would have been a very serious matter to me, if the sale had not been carried out then, under my engagements He was also the beater of a sum of money?—Yes. Do you remember the amount?—No. Have you any means of ascertaining?—I believe not; I have no idea of the amount. I have discussed the matter with Hamlin and Cuff, and neither of us can recollect what it was. You also gave Cuff instructions to see Henare Tomoana, and obtain his signature—do you remember when those instructions were given?—No. Had Karaitiana then gone to Auckland?—Yes. You were present at the meeting on the following day, at Cuff's house?—Yes. Was anything said by Henare Tomoana, at the time he was asked to sign?—He never was asked to sign. It would have been in contradiction to your general policy to have asked him?—Very much so. You met him on the previous day in the street?— page 228 Yes, and asked him if everything was complete—I was then under the impression that he had signed, and was surprised that he had not. He told me he had business in town, and appointed the next day. "Was anything said by him, at the time of signing, about desiring to wait till Karaitiana's return?—After he had signed, and not before—I am quite clear about that. It was about this time that you saw Sutton in reference to obtaining Manaena's signature?—Some time after, when I returned from Waipukurau. Where did you see him?—In his own store. Who first broached the subject?—Most probably Mr Sutton. What was said?—I cannot recollect the actual words. There was a reference to Manaena's keeping out of the way, and, as far as I can remember, the suggestion came from Sutton, that he would most likely want something by the year, in the same way as Karaitiana and Henare. And you gave Sutton to understand that there was a difficulty in getting Manaena's signature?—I told him just what had happened—that Manaena kept out of the way. Did you tell Sutton what you were giving to Karaitiana and Henare?—He knew all about it. How?—It might have been from my telling him, or some one else. Then Sutton suggested that he should receive something in addition?—No, that he should receive something by the year, like the others. What did you reply?—I cannot say; I probably replied that I would be willing to give him something by the year. Was any amount suggested, or agreed upon?—"Very likely; I am more indebted to Sutton's account., than my own recollection. Is that account correct?—It struck me, at the time, as being to the purpose; but I should not like to say, without hearing it read. I have no doubt that I gave Sutton authority to offer £50 per annum, as he has said Can you not recollect the instructions given to Sutton?—No. Sutton's first thought was this—that he should go out, and see Manaena on his own account, about his debt of £600; but in the course of the conversation which followed, he made these suggestions, and they were acted upon. What was he authorized to offer Manaena, for signing the deed?—£50 per annum. Will you swear that you did not tell him Manaena's amount was £1,000, and that he might offer this £50 in addition?—To the best of my recollection, no, and for this reason, I had not the slightest idea what Manaena was to get. I had no right to say so, or to apportion the purchase-money. So far as I understood the apportionment by Karaitiana and Henare, it was simply a mere proposal, to see what was to be left to them. If Sutton says that you told him to offer £1,000, as well as £50 per anuum, what would you say?—That he had made a mistake. I would not have thought of guaranteeing one of the grantees any particular sum out of the purchase-money—for anything I knew, it might have been all absorbed by the principal chiefs. (The Chairman: It appears to have been understood as an apportionment of £1,000 each for the shares, but not for the share-holders—Mr Sheehan: So it seems to have turned out; but it was a very extraordinary arrangement.) Karaitiana gave me distinctly to understand, throughout, that I was not to interfere with the internal arrangements. At Waipukurau, was not a defined sum of £1,500 offered to Arihi, with your knowledge?—Yes, and Karaitiana's consent When given?—At the time Karaitiana apportioned the money, and I told him that £1,000 was insufficient; Karaitiana then gave me authority. In page 229 what way did that authority differ from the authority to offer £ 1.000 to Manaena?—I was never authorized in Manaena's case; I had special authority in Arihi's case, because her share had been handed over to trustees, and she was looked upon as an outsider. He gave you that authority by apportioning £1,500 to her?—Yes. £1,000 was kept in hand for Matiaha's share?—Yes. Was the authority the same for this?—Yes, and I was authorized at the time of the sale. Would you have retained it if Karaitiana had demanded it?—Yes; it was explained to Karaitiana that a successor had not been appointed, and that the money must be retained. If the successor had been present, would you have paid it all in one cheque?—Yes. Did not the attempt to put Paramena and Pahoro off with £1,000, fail?—No; we never allotted £1,000 to them. Why, then, did you pay them £700?—Because Pahoro's conveyance had never been re-conveyed, according to my instructions, and I saw, at a glance, that we were liable for £750. You had paid them £270, already; how had you to pay £750?—There was a declaration of trust of Paramena's on the register, which we were informed it was necessary to get off, as a blot on our title, and the remainder of our money went that way. You omitted, then, to obtain the signatures of the other natives in the deed of trust?—Yes. We attached no value to the deeds of trust, till we were informed that they were a blot upon our title. You said you were not aware but that Henare's and Karaitiana's debts would absorb the whole amount of the purchase-money—am I to understand that the bargain was so interpreted, that if Karaitiana and Henare had applied, by order, for the whole of the purchase-money, that they would have got it?—I cannot tell you. As a matter of fact, I knew that the others had all drawn more or less, so that the question could hardly arise. Which orders you had accepted?—Conditionally on the purchase being effected. And these orders were in the hands of Watt?—Yes. (The Chairman: Did not these come out of the share of each individual claimant?—No; out of the purchase-money in general. With the authority of Karaitiana?—No.) Then you had provisionally accepted all these orders on account of the purchase-money?—No. I kept no accounts, and did not know, until the day of settlement, how much I had advanced. You considered Karaitiana and Henare the only persons qualified to deal?—Yes. Yet you dealt to the extent of one-half of the money?—Yes; but Karaitiana and Henare were aware. When did they become aware?—That I cannot say. Did you see Karaitiana at all on the subject of the purchase, after his return from Auckland, until he came in from Pakowhai?—I think not. (The Chairman: In the case of Noa, who drew more than was apportioned to him; Arihi, Pahoro, and Paramena, who got all they expected or agreed for; the matter seems to be closed; but Manaena came short, and appeared to sec it; and, with his gigantic good temper, says, "I suppose Karaitiana got it."—Mr Sheehan: Good temper should not be construed into acquiescence.) On the occasion when he saw Paramena, Hamlin stated that Henare and Karaitiana had agreed to sell; did he speak as your mouth piece?—I have no recollection of what took place; I do not believe I was present. You were not present at the signing by Paramena, at the explanation of the deed, or at the interpretation?—Not that I recollect—I may have been. [At Mr Sheehan's request, the Chairman read his page 230 notes of a portion of Mr Tanner's examination in-chief.] In your examination, you spoke as though you were present; and now you say that you have no recollection of being present, at all. On the face of that statement, just read, what inference would be drawn?—That I was present; and I do not say that I was not present. As to the explanation, I remember some short discussion before they went to the house to sign. Then you qualify your former statement by saying that you have a very faint recollection. What do you recollect?—That a short discussion took place between Hamlin and Paramena. Hamlin said that Henare had signed; a short discussion ensued, and they went to the house to sign—I have no clear recollection of what followed. Why did you not state in your examination-in-chief, that you had not a clear recollection of what took place?—I spoke of what I was aware of, though I might not have been present. I may have been present, perhaps talking to Coleman at the time; but do not remember. Whether I went to the house or remained at the woolshed, I do not positively state. I said, in my evidence, that Hamlin interpreted the deed, and Paramena signed it, because if I did not see it, Hamlin told me, and I could depend upon him. [Mr Sheehan: It is a matter for fair inquiry, as this is his strange view of evidence, how much more of his original statement is on the authority of credible persons.] You were not present when Pahoro signed?—Not that I recollect. Did not Hamlin state, as an inducement to Paramena, that Karaitiana and Henare had agreed to sell, and that Henare had signed the deed?—I do remember Hamlin saying that Henare had signed; he may also have said that Karaitiana and Henare had agreed to sell—I cannot say. After Pahoro signed, Karaitiana returned?—Yes. At the time that Karaitiana was away from Napier, sulky, had you any conversation with your partners, as to the action to be taken?—Not that I remember. You were of opinion that that a writ should be issued?—Yes. Why did you send money out?—To represent the suaviter in modo, as well as the fortiter in re. Have you any recollection of the amount?—No; I believe it was a sum on account. Next came the final settlement; what natives were present?—I cannot say; I believe all were there; but I have not a distinct recollection. Have you a distinct recollection of what you did on the first day?—No; I believe we were examining accounts, and hearing and answering questions—showing the natives the different amounts of the debts contracted, and the accepted orders. Will you swear that this was done on the first day?—No. Who was the interpreter present?—I cannot say. You remember that Cuff mentioned three days?—Yes; it was on the third day that Henare had the long talk about the debts. (The Chairman: Do you remember the discussion on the first day, as to the division of the money?—I cannot say; I do not remember.) [The Chairman here read from his notes the witness's evidence regarding the first day's proceedings] Will you swear that that is correct?—To the best of my recollection. You say that the account against Henare Tomoana, amounting to £781 4s., was submitted to him that day for inspection?—To the best of my recollection, that was the case; but I had previously spoken to him on the subject. That you submitted an account for, £781 4s., which was agreed to by him, and deducted from the purchase-money?—Yes. You did not keep any regular account?—A very irregular account; what I put down page 231 was right; but I omitted a good many accounts paid. I had an old memorandum, on bill-paper, which I destroyed some time ago, and transferred to a card in my pocket-book. I made the memorandum on the card at the time of payment, from this I transferred it to a piece of paper, which I have not now in my possession. I remembered the three items quite well. Then these three items are from memory?—Yes. At the time of the settlement, you handed over to Karaitiana and Henare the accounts, retaining only for yourself the totals?—Yes. You have since endeavored to rake up the items of which those totals are composed?—Yes. I see a number of entries, seven cheques, for different sums—what reason have you for believing they were chargeable to Henare Tomoana?—They were cheques made in his name. How do you know that?—From my bank book. During all the time the account was running, had you no occasion to give him credit for payments in reduction of rent? How do you know that the account began with this particular item to Boylan?—Because I had no account with Henare Tomoana from the settlement of Neal's mortgage to that date. Where you have pledged a considerable amount of the natives money, before even an agreement was come to, we have a right, on behalf of the natives, to examine into details—can you find any entries relating to this transaction?—I can swear to the correctness of the totals; beyond this I cannot go. (Some little discussion ensued, Mr Sheehan expressing great dissatisfaction with the replies given by the witness.)

Mr. Carlyon wished to be allowed to make an explanation regarding the Mangateretere complaint. It had been said that the features of the case were similar to those of Heretaunga. He wished to state that it bore no resemblance, so far as one grantee, whom he represented, was concerned. The complaint of the other nine might be similar; but the complaint of the tenth severed completely from the others, and was in fact hostile to them.—The Chairman said he had not understood Mr Sheehan's statement to mean more than that the case presented no new or peculiar features.—Mr Carlyon: I wish also to know if I may be permitted to put in writing a few remarks concerning the institution of licensed interpreters.—The Chairman: It is quite possible that your suggestions on this subject may be of value; and we will be glad to receive them. We will read and consider them, and may possibly find some suggestions which we may incorporate in our general report. As a matter of necessity, we must go very fully into this subject.

Mr Sheehan said he had just been informed that certain natives, whose names had been appended to the withdrawals published in the Gazette, had come into town, and were anxious to come into Court and disavow those withdrawals—never having authorized their signatures to be attached to them.—The Chairman said it would be more convenient to hear them in the morning—he did not wish to break into the cross-examination. He would hear them at the close of Mr. Tanner's examination, before the addresses of counsel.

The Commission adjourned at 5.15 p.m.

Tuesday, 8th April, 1873.

On the Commissioners taking their seats, at 10 a.m., Mr. Young's report of his interview with Paora Nonoi was read. According to the page 232 report, Paora was lying very ill, but his intellect appeared unaffected, and in addition to answering the questions he made an explanatory statement. The following were the questions put to him, with his answers:—Did you hand over your land to Karaitiana and Hapuku to protect?—Yes Did you leave it with them to do what was necessary?—Yes. Were you informed by Maata that she had gazetted your complaints?—Yes, excepting Ngatarawa. Do you withdraw your complaints?—I have no complaint against McLean or Ngatarawa. Paora then added a statement as follows:—"McLean is a parent of mine; I will not banish him. I complain against him in regard to Mangaroa, Mangarau, and Raukawa; I leave those lands to the Commission. McLean has been a father to me during my illness; therefore [will not banish him from Ngatarawa."—The Chairman: This seems to dispose of the complaint against McLean so far as Ngatarawa is concerned.—Mr Lascelles: Mr McLean has no concern with Mangarau or Raukawa.—Mr Kinross said he wished to explain that Mr McLean had a small leasehold and freehold interest in Mangaroa.—The Chairman: I think undue importance has been attached to these alleged withdrawals. As a rule, as is well known, the Maoris are in the hands of the leading chiefs or their European advisers.—Mr Sheehan said that Henare Matua complained of the manner in which those notices which appeared in the Gazette as repudiations had been obtained. In each case the parties had fallen into the hands of the parties complained of, or interpreters in their interest, and after some very friendly conversation, in which money had passed, had been induced to sign pukapukas, which ultimately found their way into the Gazette as retractations.—Mr Lascelles said he was not prepared to go into this matter in the absence of Mr Hamlin, who had gone to Mohaka. He thought we had heard the last of these matters last week.—The Chairman: As regards the offer of money, we are not in favour of going into the subject, but will [unclear: conline] our inquiry to the point whether the retractations have been made freely.—Mr Lascelles: In justice to the interpreter, to Mr Kinross, and Mr Campbell, it is necessary that Mr Hamlin should be present.—Mr Sheehan: The examination need not extend beyond the question—"Are you willing to withdraw the complaint, or do you wish to go on with it?"—The Chairman: Purely because we are so near the close of this inquiry, we will confine our examination to this one point.—Mr Sheehan: I will withdraw my statement regarding money being offered—not that it is untrue, but because the rules of the Court prevent the other side from going into it.

The first case called was that of the Pekapeka No. 1 block, a notice having appeared in the Gazette, dated 22nd February, bearing the signatures of Merania, Hemi Purei, and Pane, stating that they had nothing to do with the complaints lodged in their names. Merania and Pane were females.

Merania, sworn, examined by the Chairman: Are you one of the grantees of Pekapeka?—Yes, of Pekapeka No. 1. Had you a complaint against it?—Yes—perhaps. Who made that complaint?—Myself. Did any rangatira make it for you?—No. Did you put it into anyone's hands to take care of for you?—Yes. Whose?—I did not give that land to the Commission. Did you give it to Henare Matua to page 233 take care of?—Yes. Did you ever see J. P. Hamlin about this complaint?—Yes. [The retractation, which was witnessed by Mr. J. P. Hamlin, was read to the witness, and the signature shown to her.] Did you sign that paper?—Yes. Did Hamlin read the letter to you?—The words are not mine. The words are good, that is the reason I consented. Do you wish to withdraw them?—I wish to hear them again. [The document was again read, when the witness asked, "Whose complaint is it that I should object to?"] The Chairman: Henare Matua has sent us a complaint about Pekapeka—do you wish it to go on?—Witness: I wish it to go on; and I wish to know whose complaint is spoken of in that letter.

Hemi Purei, examined by the Chairman: The Commissioners have received a panui from Henare Matua in your name, regarding Pekapeka No. 1—do you wish to withdraw it?—it is well that it should be investigated—it has not been sold or anything else.

Pane, examined by the Chairman: Henare Matua has lodged a complaint in your name regarding Pekapeka No. 1—do you wish it investigated?—The complaint is correct—I wish it to be gone into. [The witness, an elderly dame, was beginning to enter into her grievance, when she was informed that this was all the Commissioners required, and that she might stand down. This she declined to do, making a long statement, in a loud voice, and with great volubility. The interpreter explained that she was expressing her indignation at the Commission refusing to hear her complaint, when she had, in answer to their inquiry, expressed her readiness to go on with it at once. She considered herself insulted, after coming to town expressly to have her complaint investigated. If they did not intend to investigate it, why did they ask her if she wished it gone into? If she had known she was to be treated in this way, she would not have answered the Commissioners, &c., &c. She was informed that this could not be tolerated, and that she must leave the Court. She did so, still talking in the same strain, and continued her complaint, in the open air, for a considerable time]

The next case called was Pekapeka No. 2. In this matter a withdrawal, signed Paurini te Witi, had been published in the Gazette.

Paurini te Witi, examined by the Chairman: You haves sent in a complaint regarding Pekapeka No. 2?—Yes. Do you wish the complaint to be withdrawn, or gone on with?—I wish the matter to be investigated.

Thomas Tanner continued: If I gave the Court the impression that I was not present when the deed was read to Paramena, it was not my intention to convey that impression. I believe I was present, but would not swear to it.—Cross-examination by Mr. Sheehan resumed: What am I to understand as the extent of your knowledge of the interview with Paramena—was your statement in your evidence-in-chief from actual knowledge or mere impression? It was to the best of my belief. We will now resume the subject of the accounts. £781 4s. was the amount of the account submitted to Henare Tomoana on the first day?—I will not swear positively that it was on the first day; it might have been the second; but it was shown before the settlement. He remarked that he did not think it would have been so much; but he page 234 was satisfied of its correctness. You will not swear whether this was on the first or second day?—No; to the best of my recollection, it was the first. Will you swear that the account of £781 4s. was given to him, and the items shown to him?—Yes. Will you swear that the item of £30 cash advanced by McLean, in Wellington, was included in the sum?—I will not swear to any one of those items being included—to the best of my recollection they all were. Regarding the item cash, advanced in Wellington by Ormond, £25, you give the same answer?—Yes. Will you swear that you repaid McLean £30, and Ormond £25?—Yes. If these items were not included, they ought to have been. How is it you charge both these items to Henare Tomoana?—Because he asked for them. Did you pay them for Henare or for both Henare and Karaitiana?—That I cannot say I repaid them to Ormond, who remitted McLean's amount to him. If Karaitiana was interested it was not brought to my notice. (Copy of Newton and Irvine's account produced) What was your practice with storekeeper's accounts? My practice was to go into the store with the natives and order goods for them. The invoice was given to the native, and I would take a memorandum of the total in my book. The three largest items were—Boyle, £110, Newton, £194 13s. 5d., and Robinson, £93 5s. I always kept note of the storekeeper's name along with the total. Have you a distinct recollection of writing in these three amounts?—Yes. I had a separate memorandum of Boyle's account as well. I saw it on the old piece of paper which I copied from the card. "August 25—Cash £5." Where did you get the information for that item?—I cannot tell you here. This account has been specially written for the Commission?—Yes. Will you swear you have a distinct authority existing for that item?—Yes—it may have been a cheque. You say that all these cheques from November 17th, 1869 to January 6th, 1870, were paid to Henare Tomoana.—Yes. I have them all in my pass-book. At the time you applied for this account of Newton, Irvine, and Co, were you aware of the total charged to him?—Yes. You say you gave an account to Karaitiana of £307 additional; and you have handed into Court a memorandum of some of the items, amounting to £119?—Yes; he also shares in Newton's account, and in miscellaneous accounts. You charge apparently Newton and Irvine's account, £194 13s. 5d., and also the larger item of £267 8s., against the whole?—Yes, and I presume that is the way in which it was divided. But you charge the whole £194 in addition to the whole amount of £267 8s.—Where? (The Chairman: It does not appear to be so.) Ten successive payments to "natives " in Newton, Irvine, and Co.'s account are put down to Manaena, Karaitiana, and Henare. How do you know that they were necessarily incurred on their behalf?—Because they were the grantees I dealt with. Am I to understand that for every one of these items you have a memorandum of some kind?—Yes. [Mr Sheehan: Because if Mr. Tanner will produce these memoranda I will leave the cross-examination here.—The Chairman: Do you think you can do that, Mr Tanner?—I believe I can. The item of £20 to S. Row for horses is from memory; I have a distinct recollection of it; also of the item to Tuxford.—Mr Sheehan: All I require is that you will produce the sources of information from which the account is drawn up, that we may judge of its value.—The Chair page 235 man: This seems a fair challenge.—Mr. Sheehan: The recollection of the witness is a new element.—Mr Tanner: I will undertake by documentary evidence or living witness to prove every item.] the signatures were taken on the second day, according to your recollection?—Yes; hut without reference to the book I could not have told you. I have a distinct recollection only of the signatures being obtained. Have you a clear recollection of the proceedings on the day of signing?—Yes, of all important ones. The first business was going through the orders and arriving at the balance. Martin Hamlin was interpreter?—Yes. Cuff attended to the legal business?—Yes. And you and Williams were attending to the accounts?—Yes. All statements in reference to the accounts were made either by yourself or James Williams?—Yes. You say these orders were shown to the natives and admitted by them: were they shown by yourself or Williams?—I think by Williams—he might have mentioned some; and I others. You debited Noa Huki with £1,012 12s. 8d.?—I cannot say from memory—I have only a general recollection. Were the two orders produced in Court shown to Noa?—Yes. Manaena was charged with £143 4s. Gd.—were these accounts shown to him?—Yes. Was the account fixed at that amount then?—I will not swear to the individual amounts. (The Chairman: It has already appeared that Mr Tanner cannot recover the original settlement, nor show how the precise balance was arrived at. It has also been shown that orders, accounts, and advances were all charged against the total purchase-money, and not against individual accounts.)—Mr Sheehan: I am examining with reference to the totals to each individual. Is your explanation of the discrepancies in the accounts this—that by a blunder you paid £1,500 too much?—That is the case. That yourself, James Williams, Cuff, and Hamlin, after going for two days through the accounts, and striking a balance, made a blunder of £1,500 in favour of the vendors?—Yes; and it arose through our not paying Neal's mortgage till six months afterwards. In the first account there was no mention of the item of £142 4s. 6d., which appears in the second.—How do you account for this?—It is simply an omission. Was it a charge against Manaena at the settlement?—I cannot say; if it was not it ought to have been. Was it explained to him at the time as the amount due to you?—The account was explained to Manaena, but whether this item was included and taken into account in striking the balance, I have no distinct recollection. You recollect the cheques for Henare and Karaitiana's debts to you?—Ye. There was no such cheque in reference to this account of Manaena's?—No; I believe it was paid by order on Watt. A similar omission, of £29, occurs in the account against Pahoro?—Yes. The total amount paid to the vendors was £19,920 9s.?—Yes. Your arrangement with Watt included the bonus of £2,000 to that gentleman, and £1,000 paid him on account of Arihi's share?—Yes. That is £22,920.—We paid the survey of the whole block, properly chargeable to the natives—another £100, which does not appear in the consideration. There still remains £5,000 to account for.—Of that £1,000 went to interest. Do you know the total amount paid to Messrs. Hamlin for interpretation?—£300. No bonus or gratuity over and above?—No. Grindell, also £51, I see by the order here. Then a considerable sum was paid as duty under page 236 the Native Lands Act?—Yes, ten percent.—£1,650. The sum payable to Guff and Stedman?—About £250—I cannot remember precisely—perhaps £150—perhaps £350. That would still leave a difference of about £1,700, and you can only account for the discrepancy in the balance by supposing £1,500 to have been over paid?—Yes. And that conclusion is the result of your examination into the matter since this inquiry commenced?—Yes. Do you suppose that you and the other purchasers remained till this time in ignorance of the important fact of having paid the large sum of £1,500 in excess?—We were quite aware that we had paid a large sum in excess, but did not know the amount. Are you quite sure it really was agreed at Pakowhai that Neal's mortgage was to be deducted?—I am quite sure that £1,500 for the mortgage, £1,500 for Tareha's share, and £1,000 for Waaka, made up the £4,000 received. You are quite clear that if Neal's mortgage had been deducted at the time of settlement there would have only been £800 to hand to Karaitiana as the balance?—Yes. Was not the amount knowingly increased—none of the purchasers having the courage to offer him £800?—Had the balance been £800 we should have had courage to hand it to him. In point of fact it was £800?—In point of fact it was. After the accounts were explained, the deed was read over, and explained to the natives?—Yes. The consideration was filled in as it appears in the deed now, and the signatures obtained?—Yes. Had there not, previous to this settlement been an interview between Williams, Karaitiana, and yourself as to what should be done with the balance?—I remember a conversation between Karaitiana and myself in town somewhere, Williams was not present. I remember Karaitiana telling me I was not to interfere with the disposal of the money, but leave it entirely to him. Karaitiana then told you he would appropriate the money?—He did not say so—only that he would undertake the disposition of the money; and I was not surprised when he appropriated it all. In cross-examining Karaitiana, did you not ask him this question: "Did you not tell Williams and myself not to discuss the division of the money, as you intended to appropriate the balance, after paying the debts, to your own use?"—I do not bind myself to my questions in cross examination. Were not those questions from your recollection?—They were, but from a very rapid Hit of recollection. Something of the kind was said to me by Karaitiana; I will not swear that it was in William's presence; I have no distinct recollection, beyond that there was a discussion to that effect. You did not object to it?—I did not interfere at all. Did you inform the assembled grantees that Karaitiana would take the balance?—No. What he told me was, that he should dispose of the balance as he chose, and did not wish me to interfere. Was it not well understood between you that he should receive the balance after payment of the debts?—No. After the settlement of accounts, payment of the balance, and signing of the deed, there occurred this conversation in the inner room?—Yes. One of the matters was the subject of the reserve?—Yes; the conversation was in reference to the trustees. Arihi's trustees had objected to Karaitiana and Henare as trustees, and Henare asked Williams if he would be trustee. Had it not been intimated to you by Arihi's trustees that they objected to Henare and Karaitiana? I cannot, say; Henare page 237 and Karaitiana might have told me. Did you not tell them that the arrangement could not he carried out because Arihi's trustees objected to them as trustees?—I believe not. (The Chairman: What was the purpose of the retirement to the inner room?—Henare called us, and I believe it was to discuss who should be appointed trustees instead of Henare and Karaitiana. He also spoke of his debt, with a view to obtaining assistance from Karaitiana) Can you swear that Henare called you in?—Yes; he beckoned to us. Did not the annuities form part of the discussion? To the best of my belief they did not. When were they informed of the alteration from deed of covenant to Government annuities?—That I cannot say. Had any intimation been given them at this time as to the alteration in the method of paying them?—I cannot say. Had the arrangement then been made?—I believe not; it might not have been male till a twelve-month after. Then on the completion of the conveyance in March, 1870, what security had the natives for this annuity?—These deeds of covenant were on the tapis. But not on the register. Had they no security?—Our word; and one deed of Henare's was signed. We did not wish to encumber the property with a second charge, and were casting about for some better method of securing the annuities. This plan had been thought of some time before it was carried into effect. Then while you were casting about, the natives had only your verbal security. You will not undertake to say that the annuities were not discussed in this inner room?—No; my impression is that they were not. It has been stated that a solemn silence ensued after the disappearance of the cheque.—How long after this did you retire?—I cannot say—a very short time. Was anything said in the meantime?—Not a word, before we retired. Did Noa Huki not say anything?—No. Not to the others?—Not to my hearing. I can remember it well, it was an exciting moment. Why exciting?—Because I did not know that some of the others might not rebel. I waited in anxious silence. With the exception of Paramena, outside the office, you say no objection was made?—None whatever. How long did you remain in the inner room?—It might have been half-an-hour. When you returned were any of the other grantees waiting?—Yes. Did any of them speak to you?—No.—In reference to the partition of the money at Pakowhai, what amount was set apart by Henare for himself?—Finally, £2,000. And the same amount for Karaitiana?—Yes. Did any conversation take place between yourself and Henare in reference to any alteration in this sum?—No. Subsequent to that, and before the final payment, did any conversation take place between you and him on that subject?—None whatever. The account you have handed in shows appropriations by you on his account of nearly .£3,000?—Yes, but until that time I had no idea it was so much. You knew of the accumulation of these separate accounts?—I had never taken any memorandum of the amounts we guaranteed. I knew the advances were in excels; but had no idea that they were so largely. Karaitiana was to receive £2,000 also?—Yes. And the account shows appropriations to £2,790 odd?—Yes. At the appropriation of the money, Karaitiana and Henare set aside £ 1,000 for Arihi; you objected, on the ground that her trustees would object, whereupon it was altered to £1,500?—Yes. And you considered yourself page 238 authorized to offer £1,500?—I told Karaitiana I would, and he agreed. Your recollection is clear on that point?—Yes In consequence of that you at first offered £1,500 to her trustees?—Yes. Can you swear that such a conversation ever took place?—Yes. And you have never given a different account of it to the trustees?—Never. Orally or verbally?—Not to the best of my recollection. That, I think, is your hand-writing?—Yes It bears date, December 7th, 1869, the day after the agreement-at Pakowhai—will you read a portion? (witness reads): As regards Arihi, her proportion will be £1,000. The legal opinion is that the trust is valueless, but I will rely on your co-operation." That is your statement to Purvis Russell, the day after the agreement. Which statement is correct—that which you have given in evidence or that which you made to Purvis Russell?—I should say they were both correct. The statement that I make on oath is correct that Karaitiana consented to £500 being placed on Arihi's share. It was a piece of finessing on my part; I tried to get it for £1,000, and the other £500 would have lapsed to Karaitiana and Henare. I had great difficulty in persuading them to agree to it. You have said that you stipulated for £1,500, and on account of that you were able to offer her a named sum for her share. And the day after, you write in the terms I have read. Is that a correct account of the proceedings at Pakowhai?—It was an offer from me. Have you not repeatedly said that the amount offered was £1,500, being the amount, set apart at Pakowhai?—Yes, it was offered by me on the day I went up—Henare and Karaitiana had consented very unwillingly. Did they not specially authorize you to give £1,500?—It was you said that they authorized me; I did not. I felt that, if I could get it for £1,000, it would be more satisfactory to Karaitiana and Henare, and, accordingly, I tried. After seeing that letter, do you still distinctly say that you had such authority—I still say so. I felt it a kind of duty to get that share for £1,000, because Karaitiana and Henare looked upon the extra £500 as their own. I did not tell Karaitiana and Henare that I was going to ask for it for £1,000; but after their reluctance, I knew they would be very well pleased if I got it for £1,000. You knew that Henare was to receive £2,000, and £1,500 as an annuity, and Karaitiana, £2,000, and £1,000. Yet you would say that you sought, as a volunteer, to get the share for £500 less, for their benefit?—No, it would have gone to the general balance. Did you ever negociate for Arihi's share before the meeting at Pakowhai?—Before December, 1869, before the deed of trust, I had met Arihi several times. She was willing to take £1,000, and only stipulated that it should be paid into her own hands, lest Henare should get it. You say that your instructions to Hamlin, throughout, were not to negociate with Arihi, except through the deed of trust?—Yes. Did you not attempt to negociate yourself, with Arihi, directly after the deed of trust, and before the Waipukurau business, for £1,000?—I met Arihi and Poitu at the toll-gate, I believe, after the deed of settlement, when she again asked that her £1,000 should be paid to her, and not to Henare. After an express sanction from Henare and Karaitiana to offer £1,500, you felt justified in attempting to get the share for £1,000?—It was the reluctance of their consent that made me feel justified. You have been here since 1853 or 1854?—Yes. And about 1864 page 239 or 1865 you became lessee, according to native custom, of the Heretaunga plains?—Yes. Was not that occupation the subject of public discussion for some years?—It was for some time. Was it not urged that you and others were squatting on land fit for agricultural purposes?—Who knew it was? Previously to your acquiring the freehold, was not a proposition made among you to give up a portion to the Province?—I believe there was; but Karaitiana and Henare would not hear of it for a moment. [The Chairman considered the question irrelevant.—Mr Sheehan: I ask with reference to the point of value.] You were in occupation of the block between two and three years before the legal lease was obtained?—Yes. And your co-lessees had been in occupation with you?—Part of the time. Colonel Whitmore had refused to give £400, and it was offered to Brathwaite, and other gentlemen, for £250, who described it as an immense morass, and would not look at it. Yet Brathwaite was glad to get a portion of it after?—When it was improved. (The Chairman: He might have been a good banker, yet not a good judge of land. We can also understand the objection to a native lease.) You have told us that Heretaunga was passing some time before it did go—that the owners were incurring debts which they were unable to meet?—Without selling something. Was it not at the time of selling—between November, 1869, and March, 1870—a matter of as great importance—financial life and death—to you to buy, as for them to sell. Were you not so situated that, if you had not obtained the block, you could not have kept your head above water?—[The Chairman objected to the question.]—My circumstances did not force them to sell; it was their own. [Mr Sheehan considered the question a proper one.] "My position did not benefit by it—it only added £8,000 to my debts, and it is still a question whether we were prudent in converting a good lease into a freehold.

The Chairman: If you could prove the purchasers to have been on the verge of insolvency, it should not prove that the property was undervalued, or obtained by unfair means. It is against general experience that it is poor men who drive a hard bargain, it is the rich man—the millionare In a criminal court it is never held that a man being in a state of poverty, can be taken as an inference that he has committed an illegal act. The question was ruled to be irrelevant, and a note taken of the ruling.—Mr Sheehan said he could not finish the examination tonight—he would require to go extensively into the point of the £1,500, now, for the first time, alleged to have been paid in mistake.

The Commission ajourned at 4.50 p.m.

Wednesday, 9th April, 1873.

Cross-examination of Mr Tanner continued, by Mr Sheehan: I under stood you to say that you had no copy of Watts account?—Yes. Has not one been obtained?—Not to my knowledge—nothing more than has been produced in Court. Referring to the meeting with Pahoro and Paramena on Waitangi bridge, described in your evidence-in-chief—can you quote the native words used by Pahoro, signifying that he would take his chance with the rest?—He said that the land was to revert to the tribe, "whakahoki ki te hapu," I believe were the words used. I remember this, because it was the first I had seen of the grantees since page 240 the meeting, and I was anxious to know what resolution they had come to Before the arrangement with Watt, had not a negociation been going on with the New Zealand Trust and Loan Company to furnish the necessary advances?—I cannot say, without consideration. The first time Watt came into the field was when he and H. R. Russell took possession of Arihi's interest?—I do not think so; I never had any arrangements with the Trust and Loan Company. I never heard of any on the part of the other grantees.—No other arrangement was made with any other company or person for the purpose of advancing the money?—No. Was there not such an application to the Trust and Loan Company, who refused to advance?—Yes, but not until long after. They refused to take an incomplete title. Before the legal lease was obtained, you purchased out Brathwaite for 1,000 sheep?—Yes; at the then value of sheep, 15s. to 17s. 6d.—that was under £1,000. What was the extent of Brathwaite's interest?—1,236 acres, three-fourths of which was under water. After the legal lease, and before the completion of the purchase, you disposed of certain small areas of your share, subject to the lease?—Yes. Ploughing was not £1 per acre, but I gave them one acre for each three acres of ploughing; I continued to pay the full rent, and guaranteed to sell the land at the close of the lease for the price it cost, find, if not, give them the advantage of the improvement clause. Two of these sections were the best of the whole block, and it was light land which was given to them to plough. I had sections open, on these terms, for two or three months before any of them were taken up. This was in 1867 or 1868. Since the completion of the freehold, you have also sold sections?—Yes, near the Karamu reserve, on deferred payments. Was not one of them paid in cash?—It was taken on deferred payments, but was subsequently paid for by the purchaser assigning me a mortgage on other lands. These sales were at £5 per acre; £2 down, the remainder at five years, at eight per cent. What area do you think you have sold on this principle?—250 acres. These sections, I believe, were inferior?—Ferny; but I do not know that they are inferior. Do you consider these sections as good?—Portions of them. A narrow river course, no wider than this room, ran through the whole of them. Were they not inferior samples?—One or two, perhaps; the remainder were equal to any part of the block. The inferior ones were ferny; but some farmers consider fern land the best and strongest. How long is it since you arranged to sell Williams 600 acres?—Last spring, about six months ago—the very best land on the block. Having extinguished Brathwaite's area, what was your share?—I at first had three shares, of 1,236 acres each; I afterwards acquired one more from Brathwaite; I afterwards sold one share to Ormond, at about £1 per acre; and bought Rich's share, 2,000 acres, from his executors, for myself. What would be your area at the time the legal lease was taken?—About 5,600 acres. Was it not over £1 per acre you received from Ormond?—A little over—somewhere between £1,200 and £1,300 for the whole, I believe. There was a great difference in the land when it went through the Court, from its original state?—Yes; it had been greatly improved by burning, &c. Anil at the time you extinguished the native title, it was still more improved?—Yes. At that time what number of sheep would your area have carried?—About 7,000 or 8,000 sheep, perhaps. Is not that a low page 241 estimate?—Not at that time. I have not 10,000 on it now, with all improvements. A good deal of pasture is still new, and will not carry many. At what time do you expect to be able to make full use of it?—Perhaps in two years. Do you know the amount of stock carried by your neighbors?—No. Shortly after the completion of the purchase, you obtained money on the security of your interest in Heretaunga?—Yes. What amount?—About £3 per acre. Very shortly after you had completed your title?—Yes; my agent took it for advances. Did you not transfer the mortgage?—Yes—to Tollemache, about eighteen months ago. For a larger sum?—His loan amounted to about £3 per acre. The block was security for about £16,000, at first, was it not?—Yes, including the purchase-money. Have you ever, while holding the lease, calculated what you were paying per acre?—No; I considered it a handsome rent, more than any single individual would have paid. It was Is. 4d. per acre; and previous to the legal lease it was 9d. or 10d. The 1,000 acres of shingle-bed is still the property of the grantees?—Yes; there is also about 1,500 acres of shingle land within the purchase, which, being in patches, we could not exclude. Also an enormous quantity of swamp?—Yes, at least one-fourth of the whole block. And another largo area covered with fern and tutu?—Yes—the whole, excepting the swamp, and a small quantity of grass land within my boundary. You are now speaking of the land under the native lease?—And also at the time of the legal lease. We had been burning; but did no draining till the legal lease was obtained. It was not till after the flood, in June, 1870, that the river took its new course. Were it to return to-morrow, the block I sold to Williams would not be worth £1 per acre. The land belonging to Russell is still swampy, and subject to heavy floods—four or five feet deep, in parts. The most disastrous flood was in 1864, when a great number of sheep were lost. Gordon's section is also subject to floods?—Yes. Can you name any block in the vicinity, held at a similar low rental?—I do not know a single block in the Province that paid so high a rental. I allude to cases of native title. Did you receive, from any of the creditors with whom you settled, any bonuses or discounts for yourself?—None whatever. Not even a wagonette?—Most certainly not. The only one I ever had I bought from Nelson, for £100. You never received any allowance, discount, or bonus?—None whatever. I never thought of such a thing. Do you remember, after acquiring Pahoro's interest, going out to see Karaitiana and Henare on the subject—to tell them, and, I presume, obtain their approval?—My impression is, that it was before I acquired the interest; but after Stuart had negociated. I remember seeing Pahoro and Paramena in Karaitiana's garden—I am strongly under the impression that it was before the purchase. Were you never in their company after Pahoro's share was obtained, when Henare threatened that he would deal summarily with any grantee who should sell?—I heard of the threat, but believed it was in reference to Stuart's negociation. How long was it, after the matter was settled, before the freeholders had a meeting, for the purpose of settling accounts among themselves?—I believe there was such a meeting, in Ormond's office, I should think, shortly after; but my recollection is very indistinct. I believe James Williams himself calculated it all out, and simply informed us of the results. I believe the Russells were not page 242 present, nor Messrs. Gordon. We calculated their amounts, and sent word to them, and they paid their proportion. And upon that arrangement, the accounts were paid by the various parties?—I presume we satisfied ourselves it was correct. You did the negotiating business]—Yes. Who did the book-keeping, if any?—There was no book-keeping, but the accounts were worked out by J. N. Williams. Are any accounts existent of that final settlement?—I cannot say; I have none. In whose custody would such an account be?—I cannot say. In J. N. Williams's?—He might have kept them; I do not know. [Mr Sheehan: I am expecting a copy of the account from Watt, which has not arrived. With respect to all the other points, the examination is finished. I desire, if I am permitted, to call G. Worgan, to show that he had refused his services to Stuart, and that, therefore, all avenues of access to the Maoris were closed to Stuart.—After some debate, the application was allowed—Mr Tanner said he would then ask leave to call Mr M'Kenzie, another interpreter.—Mr Watt's account being handed in to Mr Sheehan, the cross-examination of Mr Tanner was resumed.] This is the agreement between the purchasers and Watt, dated February, 1870?—Yes. Watt's account amounts in its total to £25,014 12s. 7d.?—Yes. Could you find if it includes Tareha's account, it you look into it?—I cannot say; I might, with the assistance of J. N. Williams.

Re examined by Mr Lascelles: Wilson's scheme provided for the signatures of the sub-claimants. How many do you suppose there were?—One hundred, at the least. Would it be practicable to get the signatures of the whole?—No; but I do not think Wilson intended that more than the leading sub claimants should sign. You have stated that you only bought in self-protection. As regards your financial position; would you have been in preferable circumstances as a leaseholder or a freeholder?—Instead of having a load of debt on my shoulders at present, for which I am paying eight per cent, interest, I should now, as a leaseholder, have been out of debt. As a speculator, I would be in a better position; but as a sheep-farmer, deriving a revenue from wool, I am in a worse. (The Chairman: I cannot appreciate the distinction) Regarding your engagement with Grindell—did he make any objection to it?—Stuart had withdrawn from the contest, and Grindell was free, when I retained him. A Maori letter of Grindell's was produced; were you acquainted with that letter?—Grindell told me he would write to Arihi; but I knew nothing of the contents of that letter, till I heard it in Court. Regarding Parker—was the notice from Parker absolutely your first intimation that Waaka had parted with his share?—Yes. You say that Wilson considered it was not a legal transaction?—Yes. Did he then express an opinion that it could be upset?—Not till a subsequent occasion, I believe. What was the condition of Waaka's intellect when sober?—Pretty sharp; the last three years—the last year particularly—has made a wonderful difference in him. In these transactions concerning the withdrawal, did he understand, and enter into them?—Fully—he dictated his own letter, quite unprompted. (The Chrirman: Had you prompted him beforehand?—No. I. will not say that the idea might not have been previously mentioned in conversation. Who was Waaka's regular lawyer?—He has tried all. He appears to have formed an unfavorable opinion of the profession?—Not until his rent dis- page 243 appeared in a way he could not account for.) Regarding the letter to Purvis Russell—what led to your writing that letter?—Knowing Wilson to be hostile, and suspecting Purvis Russell, I considered it necessary to state what was absolutely correct, and no more—that £1,000 was apportioned for her share; and I determined not to mention the extra £500 if I possibly could help it. I therefore felt justified in writing as I did. These sums you charge against the natives, you say were paid you by the other purchasers,—did you give them any detailed statement?—No, I only gave the totals, stating that the natives admitted them; I had all the vouchers then in my possession, and had shown them to the natives. Has any question been raised on these accounts?—No, with the exception of Karaitiana's difficulty about the £1,000. Have you had transactions with them since?—I have made them several small advances. On Henare's last visit to Wellington he got me to get for him a gold chain and a piece of greenstone, that he might appear as a swell in Wellington—it cost. £7, and has never been repaid Since the sitting of the Commission, Henare has got an alpaca coat from me at Stuart's store. I believe he is now in my debt about £25. We have always been on very friendly terms.

George Buckland Worgan, examined by Mr Sheehan: You were a licensed interpreter in Napier, in 1869 and 1870?—Yes. You know the Heretaunga block?—Yes. In 1869, had you any commission given you by any individual in reference to the block?—Yes, by James Meliss Stuart. In September, of that year, he sent for me, and asked if I could undertake the negociation for the purchase from the native", and what my terms would be if I carried it through. Mr John Buchanan was present. Stuart complained very much of being unable to obtain the services of any interpreter. I told him I would endeavor to see what the condition of matters was; I made some inquiries; I again saw Stuart, and discussed the terms on which I was willing to do the business for him. He said he was willing to go as far as £12,000; and accepted my terms—a commission of ten per cent.—giving me carte blanche to take such steps as I thought fit. Was £12,000 the absolute limit?—It was the price to which he was willing to go. Did he say anything about going further?—He intimated that I might go further if I chose, but my commission would be reduced £100 for every £1,000 extra. What became of that projected purchase?—After taking some trouble about it, I abandoned it. What were the causes of that abandonment?—Purely personal; I did not wish to interfere with a number of gentlemen who had taken already a great deal of trouble, and had vested interests in the block, and to upset the arrangements of a large number of tradespeople, who were depending on their success. I have no shadow of doubt that I would have succeeded if I had pushed the matter, though perhaps not for £12,000. £15,000 was, I believe, Stuart's outside limit. I wrote to him on abandoning the matter, briefly giving my reasons. Had you any communication on the subject of the negociation with the Heretaunga purchasers or their agents?—None.

Henare Tomoana, recalled by Mr Sheehan, by permission: In the accounts handed in by Tanner, there is a sum charged to you, in Tanner's name, of £781 4s. Do you know anything of that amount?—I do not page 244 quite know about those debts. Do you remember anything being said, at the time of settlement, about that amount?—Yes. What do you remember in connexion with it?—Tanner said my debts to him were £700, at the time we were all sitting in Cuff's office. He showed me that debt. In what way?—By saying my debts were £700. I said to him, "Give me the paper showing the amount of money I have received, and the goods which make up that amount." (The Chairman: Did he do it?—He said it would not be right; I was always asking him for money, and he was always agreeing to giving it to me; but he got angry about it.) Did you ever agree to that sum of £781 4s.?—I did not agree; I was not strong enough to finish the talk; because he became angry. When I agreed to the mortgage, it was that all my debts should be finished; they were all finished then, and I had no more debts standing; therefore I was quick to ask where the debts were to make up the £700. Then you did not agree, at that time, that £781 4s. was due?—No.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles; Can you state how long before the sale this mortgage took place?—I do not quite know—perhaps a year, or a year-and a half. Between the mortgage and sale, did you not get advances and things through Tanner?—Yes. Do you remember what things?—I do not quite know. I received cash in various sums, £2, £3, and £5. Any goods?—Yes. Did you owe James Boyle any money?—Yes. How much?—I do not know—something above £100. Did you owe anything to Robinson, the draper?—Yes. Had you any goods from Newton?—Yes. Have you any idea how much you owed Newton and Robinson?—I cannot say. I did not know the amounts of those things from Newton and Robinson, till Tanner showed them to me at Cuff's, and I then agreed. It was the £700 account that I wanted from him, and he did not give it to me. I agreed to Robinson's account, but it was the account of Tanner's own debt that I wanted. I was shown Newton, Irvine, and Co.'s account. Did you get a number of staples from Boylan?—Yes, but Tanner did not pay for them. Did you?—Yes. Did you have 500 galvanized iron bolts for fencing?—Yes. I know of all my debts to Boylan; I paid for all those. That was after the sale of Heretaunga—a ton-and-a-half. We are speaking of two years before the sale.—I do not remember any. Did you receive money in Wellington, from M'Lean?—Yes, £30. Did you receive any in Wellington from Ormond?—No. Do you remember receiving from Tanner, on the 4th August, 1869, £14 in cash?—I do not know of it. Do you remember getting some wire from Richardson, at the Spit, on an order from Tanner?—I do not know anything about it. Do you remember getting a cart-horse from Roe?—Yes. What did it cost?£50, perhaps. .It is only £20 in the account.—Perhaps so. Do you remember a horse from Hague, the butcher?—I do not remember that. You know Tuxford?—Yes. Did you have a plough, and other things, from him?—Yes.

Re examined by Mr Sheehan: Do you know which of these things were obtained before the mortgage, and which after?—Newton's and Robinson's were after the mortgage—it is Tanner's £700 I want to know about. (The Chairman: It is a singular fact that the cheque for £210, is dated the day after the cheque given to Karaitiana, for the balance. It possibly may have been on the rent account.)

page 245

Karaitiana Takamoana, recalled, examined by Mr Sheehan: Among the accounts handed in by Tanner, is one for £307 8s, said to be for money and goods, obtained by you from Tanner-do you know anything about it?—I do not quite know about it. Do you remember anything being said about it at the time of the sale?—No. Did Tanner show you any account, making up that total?—Perhaps he did; I cannot say. Do you remember any such account being shown or explained to you?—I cannot say; there was only one person there to explain the accounts—Air Williams. My debts ended with Neal's mortgage. You do not know of such an account?—I do not quite know.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles: Do you remember how long the mortgage was before the sale?—No. Was it before the land went through the Court?—I think it was after the new lease. Between the mortgage and the sale, had you any money, or goods from Tanner?—Not that I am aware of. Had you not goods from Robinson, to the amount of £60?—I do not know the amount. Had you £31 worth of fencing wire from Kinross?—I do not know; Kinross was always putting down goods I received in my own name. I was continually taking wire from him. Did you ever get wire from Richardson?—Not that I know of; it was from Watt and Kinross that I got wire. Did you receive ten bags of sugar from Sutton?—Yes. Did you receive any cash from Tanner, before going to Wellington, about two years ago?—I do not know of that money; at that period I had money. Do you remember receiving any other sums of money from Tanner?—Perhaps so, who is to know? I never asked him for it; he was the person who asked me if I would have any—that is what I would consent to. Have you received any that way?—I believe I have; but cannot remember. Did you ever get twenty-one wethers from Tanner?—It is correct that I got sheep; but I do not know the number.

The Commission adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

Thursday, 10th April, 1873.

The Commission met at 10 a.m.

Mr. Tanner male some further explanations respecting the items of his account with Henare Tomoana.

Mr. Lascelles then addressed the Commission on the whole case. Before summing up the evidence he felt he would not be doing his duty to his numerous clients if he did not advert to the position in which they had been placed by the institution of this Commission. While on their behalf acknowledging with gratitude the uniform patience and courtesy, with which the inquiries of the Commission had been conducted, he could not refrain from comment on the state of things which had made such an inquiry possible—under which any and every man might be called upon to defend not only his title to his property, but his character and reputation; and in which if successful his success would be limited to clearing himself at his own loss and expense. This, he urged was a matter which should be brought prominently before the notice of the Legislative, if at any future time it should be proposed to call this Commission once more together. In this special instance a most searching inquiry had been made; extending over a month, and under page 246 circumstances making the defence a matter of special difficulty. The complainants had been called on to reply to a series of specific charges, which during the course of the inquiry had been almost abandoned for others of a totally different character. In ordinary fairness, the respondents, being called on to answer charges seriously affecting them in every way, should if successful in defending themselves, be entitled to recover their costs from the complainants; and he fully believed that if such a regulation had been made at the institution of the Commission, it would have had the effect of reducing the list of complaints by nine-tenths. Throughout with the natives it had been a game of "heads, I win; tails, you lose"—they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by this investigation. It might be urged that his clients need not have come forward to defend themselves—that they should simply have let the matter alone; but he submitted that no man with ordinary self-respect would allow such charges as had been made in this case to go forth unchallenged and without an attempt to defend himself in public estimation. Such charges as these could not be left alone. His clients' enemies would be quite ready to say that they dared not defend them, knowing they would not bear investigation. In the present case, speaking for his clients, he could say he was happy that the complainants had been so well represented—by a gentleman of such undoubted ability and knowledge both of the law and the Maori character—not only to support their case, but to cross-examine the respondents—any flaw in whose armor, if it existed, could not fail to have been detected. If the natives had been unsupported by counsel or badly 'represented, it would have been far less satisfactory to the respondents. He could appeal also to the Commissioners and ask with confidence if the natives had not been allowed every latitude. The learned counsel for the natives had stated that the case of Heretaunga was typical of the rest—that they differed from it, not in kind, but in degree. He was perfectly willing to accept this statement. This ease was certainly typical—and of what? It was typical of the uniform generosity with which the vendors were treated, of the thorough publicity and openness of the whole transactions—and typical also of the duplicity and falsehood with which the natives had supported their complaints. In meeting this case he was confronted at the outset with a difficulty which could not have arisen in the ordinary course of proceedings in a court of law or equity. Such proceedings were always based upon a definite declaration and pleadings, and on the points therein set forth there was no difficulty in summing up the evidence. The difficulty hero lay in the manner in which the ground had been shifted throughout. Taking Henare's complaint as gazetted—the Court would find it very short and easily dealt with. He had not received 200 acres of land and £300 promised to him at the completion of the bargain. Other points had been raised by Karaitiana, equally definite; these two men were the leading men in the grant, and if the inquiry had been restricted to these complaints it would have presented but little difficulty. Passing now to his learned friend's opening, he found an allegation of fraud by Karaitiana and Henare upon the other grantees. Did Karaitiana and Henare, he would ask, complain of a fraud committed at their own instance?—for it was from their evidence entirely it was sought to be set up, and was page 247 not even hinted at by the other grantees. He further complained that the interests had been attacked separately. There was no point on which the natives were more jealous than of one grantee selling without consulting the others; yet no such complaint had appeared in the Gazette. A further statement had been made by his learned friend, and only partially withdrawn, under the head of unfair influence—that persons holding high positions under the Government had made use of their position to push the sale; yet no word of it had been given in the Gazette. This again was evidently an after-thought, suggested to the complainants themselves. The present matter was of such great importance that in its consideration it became necessary to bring prominently forward the character and position of both sellers and purchasers, and from thence to pass to the character of the transaction as a whole. Cases had come before this Commission in which parties had dealt with the natives singly and privately; but in this matter he would ask the Commission to call particularly to their attention the protracted nature of the whole negociations, and the open manner in which they were conducted. They began with conversations between the parties—and it was a fortunate circumstance for his clients that on these occasions there had always been more than one European present. First it was between Henare Tomoana, Tanner, and Hamlin—the former staling that he would be obliged to sell Heretaunga to pay his debt. It was in evidence that the sale of the block was looked forward to by storekeepers and others as a means of payment of their claims. Not only was it known to the storekeepers and the interpreters, but to the public generally; and it was also evident that there was competition for the purchase. It had been set up that hindrances had been placed in the way of Mr. Stuart to keep him out of the field; but, taking the whole of the evidence on this point, what did it amount to? There was not one single iota of proof of the statement, or that Stuart had so much as £1,000 or even £100 to carry out the purchase. There was only one statement,—that, of Henare Tomoana—that he had offered money; but the witness could not say whether it was for his particular interest or for the whole block. Clearly such negociation as this could not have been in a very advanced state. The evidence went to show that £12,000 was as much as Stuart was prepared to give—one of the witnesses had suggested that he might have given £20,000 out of spite—but whether a man's spite would lead him that far he would leave the Commissioners to judge: as aground of negociation by the interpreter it was evident that £12,000 was the amount fixed upon. Mr. Worgan had mentioned £15,000, but carefully refrained from saying that Mr. Stuart was willing to give that amount. Even if he had been—if, as had been alleged, the purchasers had absorbed all the interpreters, and closed every avenue by which he could obtain access to the natives—had they sustained any damage? had they received any less? Even if Mr. Stuart had been prepared to give £15,000, it was very considerably less than the purchasers had given. Great labour had been bestowed to prove this point—which really did not touch the case at all—that the interpreters had been engaged as agents, had been induced to act improperly, and been prevented from working tor others. Yet the charge had not been proved. There were four interpreters in the page 248 place, and it was not until Mr. Grindell had entirely ceased to act for Mr. Stuart that his services had been retained by the respondents. No adverse influence was brought against Mr. Stuart. Mr. Worgan said plainly that it was for his own private reasons alone that he withdrew from the purchase; and we had no need to ask those reasons when we remembered that very shortly afterwards the present purchasers were negotiating the purchase for sums varying from £13,500 to £15,000. Thus the charge that the respondents engaged all the interpreters fell to the ground, and called for no further reference. Imputations had been cast upon the Messrs. Hamlin for agreeing to receive an extra sum contingent on the success of the negociations. He need not go further into this subject than to remark that it had always been and still was the custom, in engaging an interpreter, to agree to pay him an extra sum in the event of his success. From his own experience he could state that it was still the practice at the Thames, even in cases where the interpreters had been engaged by the Government. Until a very late date such a course was not only considered unobjectionable, but perfectly legal; and there was certainly nothing illegal in it at the end of 1869, when these transactions took place, even if it was held that the Messrs. Hamlin were actual agents of the purchasers. But he maintained they were far less agents than was usually the case The two purchasers who principally conducted the business, Messrs. Williams and Tanner, were both acquainted with the Maori language, and though they were frequently accompanied by an interpreter, we found them also holding negociations and conducting conversations entirely on their own account. Further, Mr. Tanner in his evidence distinctly said that he himself was the sole negociator throughout, and that with the single exception of the case of Manaena, the interpreters acted simply as mouthpieces. In that case was the interpreter the agent? No. Mr. Sutton was the party who proposed to go and negociate for Mr. Tanner, and who did so. This was shown by the oiler of the annuity. Mr. Hamlin would not take upon himself to make that offer, but considered that Mr. Sutton must have been authorized to do so. The Messrs. Hamlin, then, acted simply as interpreters; and the only thing in any way tending to controvert that assertion was the fact that the special remuneration was not in relation to services rendered; but a fixed sum, in the event of success. On this point Mr. Tanner had said that the success would not be attained by the interpreter, but by himself, and this statement was in strict accordance with the fact; Mr. Tanner being the real negociator throughout. Such an arrangement would be perfectly fair to all parties. In no cases did Mr. Hamlin appear to have departed from his position as Mr. Tanners mouthpiece except in the instances of Manaena and Pahoro. In both those eases, it was evident, no negociation was required—it was a concluded business. Manaena had actually received £100 earnest money, and the purchaser, finding the matter drag unduly, requested another party to take the matter in hand. It was only by the smallest possible thread of inference that it could be assumed that the Messrs. Hamlin were agents of the purchasers; and he could say with confidence that in no case had any act of negociation on the part of the interpreters been established. Leaving these merely collateral circumstances, he would now proceed to the page 249 actual counts. First, that undue and unfair pressure had been used. That there had been very heavy pressure leading to this sale from the first, he fully agreed—extreme pressure—but it had been placed upon the purchasers. They were forced by this pressure either to purchase the land or allow a state of affairs to arise such as prevailed in the case of Mangateretere—the separate interests to pass into various hands—perhaps of mere speculators; continual disputes about the apportionment of rents; and finally to see the labour of a life-time pass into the hands of unprincipled land-jobbers, who would compel them, if they purchased the property, to go far beyond its real value. In all these leases there was no doubt they had the idea of ultimately acquiring the freehold—it was but natural that (hey should—but the other side would find it necessary to prove something more than this—that unfair treatment or undue pressure was reported to to induce the sale. It had been seen that the pressure was on the other side. At that time property was in a depressed state, and money at 12½ per cent, and at this high rate the purchasers had to borrow money to effect the purchase. The land was in the market—brought there through the insatiate cravings of a drunkard, and requirements of a gambler—and one share had been already disposed of before the lessees had taken a step towards acquiring the freehold. Te Waaka's property had passed into the hands of Parker—and if that individual was at all like what he had been represented, the sooner he was got rid of the better. In the case of Tareha, the sale had been already agreed on. The complainants had failed to connect the lessees with this arrangement; and the facts were plainly against it. We find at the last moment one of the two purchasers ready to break his implied pledge to them, and wishing to hold the interest as a speculation; while the other, Mr. Maney, held a kind of commission to acquire the interest for another party—his only reason for not offering to transfer it to Stuart being that he considered it just and equitable that the occupiers of the land should have the first right of purchase, and that others should not be allowed to buy it over their heads. It was stated that the put chasers took advantage of the low value of property. But were they responsible for this? Was it their fault that property was low, and money high?—that Waaka had fallen into the hands of Parker?—that Tareha was in the books of Maney and Peacock—that Pahoro was a drunkard?—and that Karaitiana and Henare were both deeply in debt? The inquiry, he submitted was not into the circumstances concomitant with the transaction; but the respondents' own conduct. Were there any circumstances, he would ask, to link them with the state of things he had described? The disadvantages which they suffered, through others endeavouring to obtain the land, had to some extent been shown in the process of inquiry. The instance in which, after they had agreed to buy a share for £2,500, it was sold over their heads for £1,000 additional, was a practical specimen of the kind of dealing I hey had to expect, if they allowed the freehold interests to pass into other hands. Excluding Arihi, and Matiaha, who was dead, there remained eight grantees. Regarding Tareha—if the question of pressure came before a court of equity and good conscience, or even of simple honor, it would be dismissed without hesitation. Tareha, being pressed by his creditors, had page 250 already agreed to sell his share to one of them, Mr. Maney, who had already been engaged by an opposing party to effect the purchase. On Maney's going to Wellington to complete the transaction, he was accompanied by Mr. Tanner, who wished to secure the first refusal; and the simple proviso regarding the passage-money did not favor the view of a foregone conclusion. In fact, out of the whole transaction it would be found utterly impossible to construct anything like a case of agency. It was impossible for the strongest intellect or keenest memory to retain all the details of a transaction of past years; but as regarded all the main points, the evidence of Mr. Tanner, Mr. Hamlin, and Mr. Maney was in direct contradiction to the account given by Tareha; and he could only characterize the statement that Mr. Tanner was to retain £300 of the £1,500 for him as a wilful and direct falsehood. The account as furnished on the one side was suspicious and highly improbable, and on the other side was clear and succinct. The transaction with Tareha reflected the highest honor on the purchasers We had here a gentleman of high position and influence—Mr. Ormond, upon whom the other side had dared to cast their aspersions—using his influence against his own private interests. He was probably unaware of Tareha's overdue promissory notes, and endeavoured to persuade him to wait till his return to his own people before signing the conveyance. Nothing but the inexorable necessity of his position induced Tareha to sign at last. Though the parties negociating were pledged to give Mr. Tanner the first refusal it was the only pledge they had entered into; and even that Mr. Peacock considered he might sec-aside. Next in order of time was the purchase from Waaka Kawatini—and he feared the law had interfered much to the disadvantage of this poor old man. It was probably from philanthropic motives that the annuity arrangement was sought to be set aside; but what was Te Waaka now?—a beggar. He did not know that it was sought to connect his clients in the smallest way with the original transaction with Parker; but the circumstances of the lawsuit were worthy of consideration. They found this native—unable, it was stated, to comprehend the simplest business matter—pledged to an extensive lawsuit. There was other evidence that the old man was not so ignorant or stupid as represented; but on the contrary possessed a particularly good share of shrewdness and acuteness. It was a matter of extreme doubt whether a court of equity would have felt justified in setting aside the arrangement with Parker—at any rate Waaka had no desire that this should be done, and looked to his £1 per day for his supply of waipiro and other requirements. We find him plunged into this lawsuit—his solicitor declining to discuss any grounds of settlement, when they are suggested. It was plainly stated in evidence that Mr. Wilson positively refused to listen to the subject at all; and could not be induced to discuss the matter in any of its bearings. It had further cropped up that Mr. Wilson had a strong personal feeling against Parker, who had threatened him with personal violence; and we were therefore at no loss for an object—Mr. Wilson had no wish to part with the means of subjecting Parker to very considerable annoyance. We next find the case settled, and £120 of Waaka's money gone in legal expenses—and we find the old man still harping on this one string—"What has become of my £100?" At the very least he was entitled to page 251 a bill of costs, in such language as he could understand, to supply the answer. What wonder that to this hour he spoke of the rapacity of the lawyers, and understood much better his grievance of the £2100 than his complaint against Parker. If the signatures of either Tareha or Waaka had been obtained unfairly, they had each a solicitor at the time who would have taken charge of their interests. Where was Tareha, too, at the time his signature was obtained? A friend of the pakeha—a protégé of Mr. M'Lean—a member of the Assembly, then in session—if by course of law or equity there was any means open to him to resist the pressure brought on him, he was in the position of all others the most favourable to obtain the best advice and assistance. Other evidence showed the truth of one little statement made by Tareha—"I came to complain when I heard this discussion going on." He did not assert that he was pressed or defrauded; but "I want my £300." (The Chairman reminded Mr. Lascelles that Tareha said the transaction was a kohuru, because he was off his own ground.) It was true that he sold when from home, and considered it a hardship; but it was inexorable necessity which compelled him to do so; and he no doubt looked upon it as a great hardship to pay his debts at all—to do anything beyond giving one promissory note after another. He now came to Paramena and Pahoro; and must confess he totally failed to see any hardship in their cases. Pahoro—a drunkard, who flaunts his share of Heretaunga for sale in all the public-houses—is persuaded by the lessees to execute a deed of trust in favour of his hapu, a document as much in the way of their becoming possessed of the interest, as of any others. He and Paramena are dissatisfied with the settlement, and their discontent merges into an authority to an intelligent European, who demands, £700 in full payment for their share. The demand is complied with and the money duly paid—they draw on it, and a small balance still remains. Then on what ground did they now come into Court? He could only account for it on the supposition that the idea of wholesale repudiation had taken possession of the minds of these unfortunate men; and it was doubtless in furtherance of the same idea that they had concocted the account of the interview in Mr. Hamlin's office, in which they alleged bribes had been offered them to give false evidence. A negative falsehood was had enough—a simple denial of fact; but if there were degrees in falsehood, a possitive concoction of this kind was far worse, and would have the effect of casting considerable doubt on the whole of their statement. There still remained four grantees—Karaitiana, Henare, Manaena, and Noa. As regarded Noa, no pressure had been alleged. He and Renata owed money and paid it honorably—and seemed to have regretted it ever since. Their equivocation in the witness-box must place these natives in a very unfavourable light. But he was now only dealing with the subject of pressure, of which in this case there was not the slightest evidence. He now passed on to Manaena, and it was with difficulty that he could speak seriously on the subject of the statement made by this chief—a man large enough in body, but apparently with a very small soul, who was fain to hide in a willow tree when sought by his pakeha friends. No pressure had been shown; yet because Mr. Sutton went in a friendly manner to speak about his debt, it would no doubt be assumed page 252 that pressure was used. Manaena had since continued dealing on friendly terms with Mr. Sutton, who testified that he always found him open and honest in his dealings—and the only fact upon which any inference of pressure could he hung was that his signature had been obtained by a creditor. He would direct attention to Manaena's receipt, in which he acknowledged himself perfectly satisfied with the arrangement; and the Court would no doubt infer that alter having made a satisfactory arrangement he came to hear of Karaitiana and Henare's little matter, and hung oft coyly to make his signature of greater value, and so obtain a bonus for himself. Mr. Tanner had at this time very considerable reason to obtain Manaena's signature. Large sums had already been paid on account of the purchase; Manaena had already received £100; and from the view of his character which had been shown in Court, he was the last man to leave with an unfinished transaction. He now came to Henare and Karaitiana, and he wished their evidence had been such as to enable him to speak of them in the same terms as of the others. But he was obliged to speak of them in a very different tone. Before a jury their statements would not be entitled to a moment's credence—they were reeking with falsehood and foul with perjury throughout the whole. First there was Karaitiana's denial of the interview with Tanner concerning the sale of Heretaunga, at the toll gate, after being baffled in his attempt to leave for Auckland. Next, he denied throughout any knowledge of the interview with Tanner and Hamlin, who both spoke of the circumstance of sitting on the ground and making their calculations—this was also denied by Henare, who said, "If it had occurred I should have remembered it." The next statement to which he would advert was made by Karaitiana, and was one which took every one by surprise—the letter alleged to have been sent to him at Pakowhai by Mr. Ormond. It had been suggested that the writ was intended; but that was a document of such a nature as could never have been mistaken for a threatening letter. Upon its face it purported to issue from the Supreme Court, and was moreover accompanied by a full Maori translation. Where, then, was this alleged letter? He was entitled, also, to remark upon the equivocation of the witness at this point. It was Karaitiana who produced the writ—it had been all the time in his possession—yet lie had never mentioned it in his evidence. Instead of saying candidly—"I signed because legal proceedings were instituted, and a writ sent to me," he endeavoured to account for his signing on the ground of a threatening letter from Mr. Ormond. Throughout the whole proceeding he had shown an utter want of candor, and his evidence was marked by equivocation throughout. When acknowledging his signature, it was qualified by the statement, "but the words are not mine." When he went to Auckland, though lie and Henare were pledged to sell, and Waaka's and Tareha's shares had been already purchased, he made no mention of these facts to Mr M'Lean, from whom he was endeavouring to obtain an advance of money on the block. On his return, during his interview with Mr. Ormond, lie still refrains from reference to these facts; and his whole line of conduct showed that he would have evaded his engagement if possible, and that nothing but an appeal to the law decided him to fulfil his pledge. He was at this time page 253 a wealthy chief, In the habit of obtaining legal advice, and could If he had thought proper, have engaged professional assistance when served with the writ; but he was perfectly aware that he was entitled to no relief—that a court of justice would only compel him to carry out his bargain,—and accordingly all he did was to keep out of the way at Pakowhai. The initiation of a suit for specific performance, he being in a position to defend himself at the time, could certainly not be construed into unfair pressure. In Karaitiana's case, then, there was no indication of pressure on the part of the respondents; it might be urged that there was in Henare's case, and some shadow of it had been advanced in Manaena's; but as regarded Karaitiana there was no proof that they were cognizant of his debts before his departure for Auckland. As regarded Henare Tomoana, it had been urged that a portion of the debts for which he was pressed had been incurred in lighting for the Government. Against this we had Henare's own admission that the debts were incurred beforehand, and a high tribunal—a parliamentary committee—had already decided this point against him. So far from the evidence linking the respondents with the pressure brought to bear by Mr Sutton, it tended the other way. When served with Sutton's writ, Henare applied to Mr Ormond. Hamlin calls upon Sutton—first as a private friend of Henare's, and secondly as a delegate from Mr Ormond, and although Henare is going into circumstances of great danger, and the very possible contingency of his death would seriously affect Mr Sutton's chance of being paid—he requests him, on public and patriotic grounds, to stay proceedings till Henare's return. Whatever Mr Sutton's reply may have been, the practical result was that the application was successful; for we find judgment not entered until a month after Henare's return from his expedition. Mr Sutton's evidence regarding Henare's and Karaitiana's method of business was worthy of note—they never paid until they were either summoned or threatened with a summons—and this being considered, together with the fact that Henare was about to go into circumstances of unusual danger, gave ample reason for Mr Sutton's action. The respondents could laugh at the imputation that they were parties to Sutton's action—it was even in evidence that Mr Tanner himself had gone to persuade Mr Sutton to withdraw the writ. What would have been more justifiable in Mr Ormond than to have declined to interfere between a debtor and creditor, especially when the former was starting on a dangerous expedition, and the latter was naturally anxious to secure his debt? What would have been easier than for Mr Tanner to have pressed Sutton to apply for execution against Henare's property, and forced his share of Heretaunga into the market? What it would then have realized, the Commission were in a position to judge. The next point alleged—undue and improper influence on the part of a Government officer—had been sufficiently disposed of by Mr Ormond's evidence, and Karaiana's distinct withdrawal. He now passed on to a matter small in comparison with some of the accusations—that the interests had been attacked separately. As a general rule he did not see how, otherwise, the claims of the different grantees could be dealt with, and the course, if followed, would have been quite justifiable; but in this instance, the contrary was the case. Waaka and Tareha had page 254 already sold, and the lessees had been forced into the purchase of their interests; but, as regarded the remaining shares, the whole weight of the evidence went to show that they were dealt with through Karaitiana, in the block. He was not prepared to account for all the strange hallucinations of a Maori brain, or how Karaitiana's estimate came to be fixed in the minds of the others as a definite arrangement: bat the evidence was entirely against the supposition that the shares were separately bargained for. It might be said that such was the case as regarded Manaena; but the evidence showed that the final arrangement, and the payment of a lump sum, as balance, was absented to by him without complaint He did not know whether the fact that the signatures of Paramena and Pahoro were separately obtained, would be urged in support of this theory; but even if the runanga was denied, there was evidence that, before they signed, the approaching sale of the block had been discussed, and was known to each grantee. The negociation with Karaitiana was carried on in his own house, with natives passing in and out the whole time, and nothing to prevent the whole Pakowhai world being present if they had thought tit. The evidence of the Rev. Samuel Williams showed that Noa told him there had been a meeting, at which the disposal of the block was placed the hands of Karaitiana and Henare; a similar statement was made to Mr Tanner by Paramena and Pahoro; and, still later, the statement was confirmed by Pahoro in Mr Hamlin's office. All this was strong evidence in favor of the supposition that they knew a lump sum was to be paid, the division of which rested not with the purchasers, but with the principal grantees. Throughout the whole transaction it was clearly proved that Karaitiana not only claimed the right to divide the money, but to deal with it when divided—as was shown when he took possession of the half of Matiaha's share. At the settlement of accounts, there was no attempt on the part of any of the vendors to say, "How much of my share remains?" or, "Where is my £1,000?" but the whole dealing showed that Karaitiana was recognized as having the supreme right to deal with the land. On this point there was the clear evidence of four witnessess—Messrs. Cuff, Tanner, Williams, and Hamlin. Noa's statement, that he spoke at the meeting, was denied by them all. After the close of the meeting, Pahoro and Paramena objected; but this could be accounted for. A distinct bargain had, at one time, been made with them, and though it had since been set aside in favor of the general arrangement, it was possible that they might still think they were entitled to something on their own account—at any rate he was willing to grant them the benefit of the supposition. Karaitiana, it was evident, took the cheque as representing the distinct balance due; and never disputed the transaction until long after, when the idea occurred to him that £1,000 had somehow gone astray. No proof of anything of the kind had been attempted by the complainants; and, on the other side, it was positively and clearly denied. As for Noa, who afterwards said he wanted £100, this was accounted for by his ineffectual attempt to obtain Mr Peacock's consent to retain £100 [unclear: out] of the order paid to him. The whole course of circumstances, as well as the evidence, tended to prove that, with the exception of the two shares originally acquired, the whole block was dealt with in a lump, and a lump sum was agreed upon, and paid. It had been stated that the documents had not page 255 been explained by the interpreters; but no evidence had been adduced in support of so serious an accusation. On the contrary, it appeared that all the documents had been most carefully read and explained. The only important document which had come before the Commission, on which any question had been raised, was the agreement to sell, and the only part of this which was disputed, was the acknowledgement of £4,000 on account. Against this denial we had the clear and distinct evidence of Hamlin and Tanner. Full details had been given of the various alterations in the agreement, until it was finally embodied in this document, drawn up, and signed, first by one, and—after some reluctance, and a private bargain—by the other of the two chief owners. Karaitiana distinctly stated that he was to receive £2,000 of the purchase-money, and £1,000 additional, to himself. Henare stated that the £12,000 was to be divided equally between himself and Karaitiana—an arrangement of which Karaitiana knows nothing—not even, he stated, knowing the total amount. Henare's evidence, even from Karaitiana's statement alone, had been shown to be thoroughly unreliable. Compare and contrast these contradictory statements with the testimony of Messrs. Tanner and Hamlin; and it would be at once evident that Henare's evidence was a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. In the first place, he had attempted to make out a preposterous inducement, offered to obtain his signature, and then, finding it did not correspond with Karaitiana's statement, he said that Karaitiana was not present during the interview. What really took place, regarding the appropriation of the money, he had totally denied. He would have but little more to say regarding Henare's evidence. With regard to his version of the interviews at Pakowhai, and at Waitangi, the same remarks would hold good as he had applied to Pahoro, with regard to a falsehood elaborately concocted, with circumstantial details, lie stated that he signed an order at Waitangi which it was dearly shown was signed in Mr Sutton's shop, some considerable time after. His story, as to how the appointment was made, was false in every detail. That he was led to Mr Cuff's house by a false representation—that be was forcibly prevente I from leaving—that he threatened violence—that he was offered a glass of wine, which he refused—that he would not partake of dinner—all these allegations were disproved in the clearest and most complete manner, He was not even solicited to sign—Mr Hamlin, after translating the document, adding, "Now you can put your name to that, or not, just as you please." In view of such a mass of unblushing falsehoods, he asked the Court to discard Henare's evidence, entirely, in forming their conclusions on this case. There was no word—no hint—in Henare's complaint, that his signature had been obtained under pressure; and, admitting, for a moment, that such had been the case at Waitangi, why did lie sign the second deed, in Mr Cuff's office? When asked, by one of the Commissioners, why, after being, as i e alleged, coerced to sign, lie had not complained to some Justice of the Peace, Henare had gone on with his foul aspersions.—"It would have been of no use; they were all alike"—or, in other words, that no justice or redress was to be obtained in the Province. He should not further advert to the evidence of this witness. He would now take up the point on which the Court had perhaps laid the most stress, and to which they appeared to attach the greatest weight page 256 —that of the alleged secret bargains. If this objection had been urged in an ordinary plea, by Karaitiana, he would have been barred from coming into Court to support it, for a complainant must enter a court of equity with clean hands, lie who seeks equity, must do equity. On whose behalf, then, was this plea brought forward? Karaitiana, Henare, and Manaena were barred, for the reason already given—they were the perpetrators of the wrong, and could scarcely demand an arrangement to be upset, made by them for their own advantage. Waaka and Tareha were unaffected by the arrangement, their transactions being long previously closed, and Arihi was also unaffected, her share being the subject of an independent arrangement. The number alleged to have suffered injury by this secret bargain, was thus cut down to three—Paramena, Pahoro, and Noa. In a court of law or equity, the two first would have no position. They had made an independent claim, subsequent to the settlement, which had been acknowledged and paid, and they were thus taken out of the general arrangement by their own act. The parties aggrieved were thus narrowed down to a single claimant, Noa, to whom the arrangement could not only have been no secret, but who appeared to have acquiesced in it. It was in evidence, that, before any such bargain was made with Manaena, he was fully aware of the terms of the others. It was also in evidence that, during the negociation, natives were constantly passing in and out, one of whom—Meihana, brother to Karaitiana—had been mentioned by name. Noa, who had been to Pakowhai, and had heard all particulars, must therefore have been a consenting party. But he had another and stronger ground than this, on which he relied—a ground that he believed would hold good in a court of equity. The chiefs had been spoken of as agents for their people, and it had been contended that if an agent makes a private bargain for himself, in carrying out a transaction, the party for whom he acted had ground for an application for relief. Such was the law on the subject. But who, in this case, was the agent? By far the largest owner of the property, whose share had never been defined. If any of the grantees in this block sought to obtain their specific share of the purchase-money, what court of equity, he asked, should decide on the proportion due? The amount of the annuities, it was shown, had been included in the purchase deed, which was read out on the occasion of the settlement, and to which all the parties had consented. The £3,000 annuities formed part of the £13,500 mentioned in the deed, and it was thus quite clear that there could be no concealment. He was quite ready to admit that no explicit explanation of the point was made on this occasion—the affair appeared to have been broken up too suddenly, owing to Karaitiana's arbitrary conduct in taking the cheque, and the retirement of Henare and others to an inner room. It would appear, too, that on a sum amounting to £1,500, native duty and stamp duty had been paid twice. There was not an atom of reason for concealing the fact of the annuities—the only party in a position to dissent from the arrangement being Noa. (The Chairman observed that Mr Cuff had said it would never have done to let the rest know of the annuities—they would all have wanted them.) He still maintained that there was no positive concealment, though an explicit statement might have been neglected; the natives, in fact, did not ask for the information and it was not offered. page 257 In dealing with the land, and paying the money, it must, throughout, have been taken into consideration that Karaitiana, Manaena, and Henare were the leading men, and the annuities could not, therefore, be looked upon as a douceur, but as an extra consideration on account of an extra share. If, in dealing with an agent, it had been said, "If you agree to my terms, I will give you so much," it was one thing; but to say to an owner, whose share was not clearly defined, "I will give you £1,000, or £1,500, in addition to your general share, if the bargain is completed," was another thing. Unless it could be shown that the extra consideration had never paid duty, there was no ground for the imputation either of concealment or fraud. Still further, he must urge upon the Court that, outside of this extra consideration, a value had been attached to each share in the minds of the owners, and it was not until the whole was arranged, that it was decided to give additional consideration to the chief owners, and that this sum entered into the amount of the general consideration, and appeared in the deed. On one point he would be obliged to revert to Henare's evidence—the question of tie Karamu reserve—and, on this point, the statement of the Rev. Samuel Williams was very strongly against him If it bad been shown that Mr Tanner promised 1,600 acres of land to Henare and Karaitiana as a free gift, it would have supported the charge of impropriety, brought by the other side. But it was spoken of as a reserve, and what did that term imply? That it was to be for the whole of the grantees. Plainly, the agreement was, that it should be conveyed to Henare and Karaitiana as trustees for the whole of their people, and the grantees generally, with the exception of Waaka and Tareha, who had disposed of their whole interest already, and possibly one man beside. What the other side sought to make out was a second secret promise to Karaitiana and Henare, and in this they wholly failed. It was not altogether clear, nor had it been fully explained, to whom the reserve was to apply; but it was quite clear that it was only to be held for the benefit of others. Henare's evidence principally related to the subject of the hundred acres, and the sole point apparently at issue on this subject appeared to be, whether the hundred-acre block referred to, way to come out of the original reserve, or Mr Tanner's portion. At any rate, this arrangement, whatever it was, had been abandoned; the grantees were now in quiet possession of the reserve, and, up to the time of the sitting of this Commission, the question had never been raised. The fact was, that Henare, having a recollection of this hundred-acre arrangement-which, to be of any weight in law, should have been reduced to writing—had attempted to hang an accusation upon it. Another complaint was, that the consideration was not in money—but to what did this amount? If, when an order was shown to a party, and acknowledged by him, it was not considered sufficient, it ought to be, and would be, in any court of law. The next subject was the question of price The Commission would remember that the learned counsel opposite had said that there was nothing objectionable in the lease. The fact could not he disguised, that the whole Colony had taken a prodigious stride since this purchase was effected. Only yesterday, a transaction had come to his knowledge, in which a loan of £6,000 had been effected, on real security, at six per cent., and it was in evidence that the rate then ruling was 12½. As regarded the valuations, page 258 he attached little importance to the evidence of Mr Take; but the opinion of Mr Tiffen, who was fully competent to judge, was as much in favor of the respondents as of the complainants. He said that, if the land had been cut into convenient sections, and brought gradually into the market, it would have been worth £3 per acre; but lie gave no idea of its value as a whole, and subject to the lease. The increase in the value of land when improved, and judiciously subdivided, was so great as scarcely to require comment. What was the basis, he would ask, of the great land societies and estate investment companies in England, but this well known fact. He quite agreed with Mr Tiffen as to the value of the land under the circumstances described; but the value of the block, as circumstanced at the time, was reduced to the simple test of the value of money. With money at 12½, the rate of fifteen years' purchase was an exceedingly handsome price for the land. Its present value, after the general increase in the value of properly, and when nature itself had been working in favor of the respondents, were very different questions. Even now, if the river should ever return to its old course, and resume its depredations, Mr Williams might find the land he had bought at £10 per acre, a very dear bargain. He regretted that one fact in this connexion had not transpired in evidence—that upwards of £40,000 had been expended on the block. Under the improvement clause, the grantees would have been entitled to that amount of credit. They had heard comparative evidence of the value of land, almost within a stone's throw of the town, and also of the Pakowhai block, adjoining Heretaunga. But it was shown that there was no lease, or other incumbrance, on Pakowhai, and that it was covered with natural grass, and ready for the reception of stock. He could ask, confidently,—Was Heretaunga worth more than fifteen years' purchase, even calculating its increased value at the end of the term? He now reached the question of accounts, and, in considering this, it was only fair to remember that, though in other cases before this Commission, very clear accounts had been handed in; the dealers for the land were regular traders, who kept proper books for their own protection, and placed against the land the amounts received by the natives—in some cases even emploving a professional accountant for that special duty. In this case we had a gentle-man settler, making small advances from time to time, keeping but imperfect accounts of his disbursements, and doubtless leaving out many items. Here we must deal with the broad question of general correctness, and not look for precision. It was, indeed, a matter of surprise that, after a general settlement of the matter, followed by a strict inquiry into the title, so many of these little documents and vouchers had been retained—the purchasers being without a shadow of suspicion that they would ever be called on to account for every advance of £5 here or £2 there. How very vague must have been Henare's idea of the matter, when, after admitting Newton and Irvine's bill, and the other items making up Mr Tanner's account, he said, "I know all these; but. What is Mr Tanner's £700 for?" He had still another point. He had produced vouchers for every item, excepting some of Mr Tanner's advances; and even if Mr Tanner's account were struck out entirely, it would still be seen that the natives had received more than the amount agreed on—for no less a sum than £1,500 had been paid them, over and above the page 259 recognized consideration—an amount actually recoverable, by the purchasers, at law. This sum should clearly be placed to their credit in the transaction, so that even if Mr Tanner's account were expunged, a balance would remain in their favor. But the greater part of Tanner's advances had been proved, showing that the purchasers were not in the natives' debt to the extent of one penny. In conclusion, he would draw attention to the fact, admitted by all, that Karaitiana and Henare had the whole and sole control of the lease, and appropriated the money as they pleased—Karaitiana's motto, throughout, being apparently, "Hoc volo, sic jubeo," as shown by his going to Auckland, and there dealing with the block as though it were his own individual property. Finally, he would remark, that if Maori evidence was to be accepted in a court of law, and the property, character, and lives of British settlers were to depend on native testimony, their false statements should not be allowed to pass unpunished. Both as a deterrent to evil doers, and an encouragement to those who did well, they should be brought to account for the perjury they had committed. In some cases, he was ready to admit, Europeans had taken advantage of the ignorance of the natives; but such could not be asserted in this instance, where the utmost equity, good-faith, and honor had prevailed throughout. And he could add that, in no case of their dealing with Europeans, had they sustained such damage, as they had, by their false testimony in this case, inflicted on themselves, in tendering themselves objects of distrust and suspicion to their British brethren.

Mr Sheehan said it now became his duty to contribute his portion towards closing this inquiry, by directing the attention of the Commissioners to some of those points to which they would no doubt find it necessary to refer in their report. When he considered the extreme length to which this investigation had extended, he felt he could not help congratulating the Commissioners on the prospect of the speedy conclusion of their arduous labours; but at the same time, looking back on the five weeks through which this inquiry had extended, he saw no reason to regret that it had been so prolonged—nor would the other side have any reason for objection, should a decision be given in their favor after an inquiry in which every material fact connected with the whole transaction had been evoked. He had come into this case himself almost without notice, and it was scarcely necessary for him to remark upon the difficulty of arriving at anything like a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances upon which the complainants relied, in a transaction of such magnitude, at the outset of the case. It bad been repeatedly stated during these proceedings, and the statement had been triumphantly brandished in his face, that up to a very recent date these complaints had not been heard of. In reply, he had only to refer the Commissioners to the printed records of the colony for the last three years, which afforded ample evidence of the storm which had so long been brewing. In 1870 there were many symptoms of dissatisfaction on the part of the natives, which appeared in an aggravated form in 1871, and during last year they had so greatly increased as to necessitate the appointment of the present Commission. He trusted the Commissioners would carefully consider the reports of page 260 Major Heaphy and Colonel Haultain on this subject. In both reports would be found a number of very important facts bearing on native land transactions in this province. Coming now to the case before them, it appeared that about 1864 or 1865 the Heretaunga block was still in the hands of the natives, a small portion being occupied illegally by Europeans. In a very evil hour the natives came across Mr. Thomas Tanner, the principal respondent, who made proposals for a lease of the block. He was aware that on this point there were two different stories of this negociation before the Commission—which was the most correct was a point not greatly affecting the general inquiry—the lease was secured. In opening the case he said that other persons, unknown to the natives, were interested with Mr Tanner in the lease. Having since found this statement to be incorrect, he now withdrew it. Mr Tanner, it appeared, entered into this negociation single-handed, and when others joined him, it was with the knowledge and consent of the natives. He was not prepared to describe the whole proceeding as a conspiracy on the part of Mr Tanner and his coadjutors; but there could be no doubt that almost from the beginning their plans included the ultimate acquirement of the freehold. With this object, the dispositions made by Mr Tanner, were, it must be admitted of a masterly kind. His first holding, being illegal, was liable at any moment to be terminated either by the act of the native owners, or the interference of the Government. The first contingency was sufficiently provided against by the admission into the bargain of the Rev. Samuel Williams, a gentleman of great influence with the natives; and so far as the Government .were concerned, the admission into the confederation of Mr. J. D. Ormond, a member of the Provincial Executive and of the General Assembly, was a material guarantee that there would be no interference from that quarter. But no possible means of strengthening his position was overlooked by Mr Tanner, and in the admission of Mr J. B. Brathwaite he acquired the additional security afforded by the capital and influence of a Bank. In course of 'time, and after two failures, arising from Karaitiana's objection to the proceeding, the property is put through the Native Lands Court. There was one circumstance in this part of the proceedings which called for some comment—the active part taken by Mr Tanner in reference to the appointment of grantees. It appeared that though he looked on Henare and Karaitiana throughout as the men possessing the sole right to deal with the block, he was unaccountably anxious that other names should appear in the grant—and it was remarkable that the man whose name Mr Tanner was mainly instrumental in placing on the grant—the chief Tareha—should have been the first to dispose of his interest to the Europeans. In connexion with the proceedings before the Land Court, there were two facts which were not disputed—first, that an application was made to render the land inalienable; and second, that Karaitiana applied to the Judge of the Land Court for information as to the position of grantees, and was informed that one native could not sell his interest without consent of the other owners. These facts were important, proving a desire on the part of the natives that whatever other blocks might pass from their possession, Heretaunga should still remain for their support. The block was passed through the Court, and a legal lease obtained in place of the old arrangement. As he had said page 261 before, be had no great objection to urge against the lease. In a merely temporary transaction of this kind, the disparity between the value of the land to lease and the rent paid would not have justified the interference of a court of equity. From 1867 to the sale of the first share little of importance occurred excepting the mortgage to Neal—and it was worthy of note, as showing how little qualified the natives were to be entrusted with the management of large properties, that this day they were under the impression that Mr Tanner, and not Neal, was the sole mortgagee. The first dealing with the freehold was by Tareha, a chief who had been admitted to the giant only after considerable opposition, on the ground that in some previous inter-tribal quarrels, he had belonged to the defeated party. The circumstances in connexion with that sale ought to be taken into account by the Commissioners. Mr Maney's evidence showed how this sale took place. Tareha, being largely indebted to Messrs. Maney and Peacock, Mr Maney called upon him to urge a settlement, and obtained an agreement to sell his share of Heretaunga. The Court had expressed a desire to have this agreement put in evidence; but it had not been produced. It appeared that at this time Mr Maney had a commission from Mr James Meliss Stuart to purchase interests in this block, and not a commission merely; for though his learned friend on the other side had said there was no proof that Mr Stuart possessed £1,000 or even £500 to complete the purchase, it was in evidence that Mr Maney held Mr Stuart's cheques to the extent of £2,000, and afterwards made use of a portion of this money in effecting the purchase. There were some discrepancies in this part of the story; but it was abundantly clear that shortly after obtaining the agreement Mr Maney met Mr Tanner, informed him that he had made arrangements to purchase the share on Mr Stuart's behalf, and gave him the first offer, at the same time informing him that unless he agreed to buy, the share would be handed over to Mr Stuart. This Commission, sitting as a court of equity and good conscience, would thus observe that the very inception of this business was a transaction of a nature into which no man of honourable feelings would have entered. To complete the purchase Mr Maney proceeded to Wellington, and here he must note the very curious circumstance that though Mr Hamlin was engaged only as interpreter, and there were interpreters in Wellington whose services might have been secured for a fee of two or three guineas, Mr Hamlin was taken to Wellington, his passage, expenses, and hotel-bill paid, at a cost of about £50. This, it must be confessed, was a very curious circumstance indeed. From Mr Maney's evidence, we further learned that in Wellington lie saw Tareha on at least three occasions before obtaining his signature to the conveyance; that on the first two occasions he objected strongly to selling; but the third time, on the amount of his debts being represented to him, he consented to sign. Mr Tanner was a passenger to Wellington with Messrs. Maney, Peacock, and Hamlin, and on what grounds he undertook the journey had not appeared. Charges of perjury having been made so freely on the other side; he felt himself here called upon to remark that Mr Tanner had not clearly accounted for the reason of his going to Wellington—that it could not be said he had given such a straightforward and explicit statement on this subject as the Commissioners were entitled to receive. page 262 According to Mr Tanner's statement, he met in Wellington two gentlemen interested with him in the lease, Messrs. Ormond and Samuel Williams; hut no conversation took place respecting the position in which he stood with Maney—Mr Tanner throughout his statement having indignantly repudiated the suggestion that he received either advice or assistance from the other lessees. Mr Tanner having mentioned that Maney had come to purchase Tareha's interest in Heretaunga, Mr Ormond objected to Tareha being asked to sell in Wellington. He (Mr Sheehan) concurred with Mr Ormond—he thought all were agreed that it was a very improper proceeding. At all events Mr Samuel Williams concurred with Mr Ormond, and Mr Tanner also assented. This being the case he submitted that it was a most inexplicable circumstance that nothing whatever was done to prevent this transaction taking place, though a word from Mr Ormond, or a stroke of his pen would have been sufficient. Did Mr Tanner go to see Tareha and dissuade him from signing? No—he did not know where he was living. Tareha, followed up by his importunate creditors, and signing to get rid of them, could scarcely have been informed that as a member of Parliament he was free from arrest during the session and for a certain number of days after his return. The truth was clear—there was no real desire on the part of these gentlemen to hinder him from signing. Mr Tanner had better have said at once that, finding an attempt had been made to acquire Tareha's share, he sought only to protect his own interests. The accounts of the transactions given by Tareha, and by Messrs. Maney, Tanner, and Hamlin, differed in several important particulars, and here he would join with his learned friend, in remarking that it was a fortunate circumstance that in Mr Tanner's interviews, there always happened to be two or three Europeans present, on the one side, and one solitary native on the other. Tareha stated that, out of the £1,500, £300 was to remain in Mr Tanner's hands for him. Against this was produced Tareha's order in favor of Maney and Peacock, for the whole amount. If Tareha had been a European, he would simply have said to him, "There is your order, and you are bound by it." But Tareha was not a European; no disinterested person was there to advise—there were Maney and Peacock, on the one hand, waiting to pocket the £1,500, and Tanner, on the other, anxious to obtain the share. When the Commission took into consideration that. Tareha was an old and tried friend of the Europeans—a man whose character was unexceptionable on almost every score—they would not believe that his statement was entirely devoid of truth. Great merit had been claimed for Mr Tanner, because he would not accede to the transaction till the consent of the hapu was obtained but he greatly doubted whether his real object was the benefit of the hapu. Mr Tanner was perfectly aware that Tareha's name only appeared on the Grant as a representative, and that there were others behind him with an equal claim, whoso interests were also entitled to consideration. The next sale, in order of time, was in connexion with the chief Waaka; and in reviewing his opening speech., he could not see a single expression, regarding this transaction, that he would wish to withdraw. He had spoken of Waaka's transaction with Parker, as one of the most extraordinary in his experience, and the motives of which, on the part of the European, were open to great page 263 suspicion. He was gratified to find that, in this opinion, he was supported by Mr Tanner, the Rev. Samuel Williams, and several other respectable gentlemen. The old chief, who was the representative owner of a number of important interests, besides Heretaunga, had been induced to sign a conveyance of the whole of his land to Parker, in consideration of an annuity—a document of so intricate a nature that an educated European would have hesitated to sign it without professional advice. As one of the native witnesses properly put it, under this arrangement, Parker took the place of Waaka's child; and, in the event of the old man's death, the annuity was to cease, and his property to pass unreservedly into Parkers hands. This transaction was so remote in its date, that it might well have been dismissed from the present consideration, had not the present purchasers stepped into Parker's place. Te Waaka's disposal of his property, when it became known, excited much virtuous indignation; and the first, apparently, to move in the matter, was the Rev. S. Williams, who we find consulting Mr Wilson as to whether something could not be done to upset this very improper bargain. Not Mr Williams alone, for others of the purchasers were equally anxious—not tor the benefit of Te Waaka, but to remove a serious obstruction in the way of acquiring the title. Waaka, repenting of the bargain, saw a solicitor on the subject, the Government were consulted, and an action for relief, in the Supreme Court, set on foot. The suit had progressed for some time, was ripening for judgment, and would soon have come on for trial. Parker becomes uneasy in his mind—he finds he has bought a lawsuit, and is desirous to part with it—an! to whom does he go in his difficulty? To Mr Tanner, who offers to relieve him, and who goes about the business in a very improper manner. It had not been denied that, for all practical purposes, Waaka had been taken or it of Mr Wilson's hands before Mr Tanner saw him on the subject. Mr Tanner, from his own statement, appeared to have been in a position to lay before Mr Wilson the full particulars of the proposed arrangement between Waaka and Parker, to which Mr Wilson had refused to listen. If Mr Tanner had taken the ordinary course in this proceeding, he would not have had to complain that Mr Wilson scouted the whole transaction, and told him to be off. The next step we hear of is this—Waaka is taken by the Government interpreter into a Government office, and there dictates a letter, ordering his solicitor to withdraw the suit, and telling him that, if he carries it on, he must do so at his own expense. Next, in the Supreme Court, an application to withdraw the suit was made for Waaka, by a gentleman who had been acting for Parker—so that plaintiff and defendant were both represented by one person. It was a fair subject for the consideration of the Commission, how far this proceeding was in accordance with equity and good conscience The application was granted, and the case withdrawn, after a strong affidavit by Mr Wilson, which had already been in the hands of the Commissioners. The respondents' case had at first been conducted as if Te Waaka was a man whose word could never be believed, and who was hopelessly stupid; but, as it proceeded to this point, it gradually appeared that he was blessed with great ability, and remarkable wit. (Mr Lascelles: At times.) Then we must assume that the old chief had a lucid interval, during which he closed this matter with Parker. It page 264 was still a fair subject for inquiry, who advised Waaka through this affair; it had not been shown; and he had been rather amused at the efforts made by the other side to create a solicitor for Waaka from the materials at their command. Mr Cuff was first suggested; then the pea was shifted, and it appeared to be Mr Lee; another change, and it was Mr Carlyon, who represented Waaka's interests in the withdrawal of this action. This discrepancy was the more suggestive, as the Commissioners had expressed a strong desire to be properly informed on this point. There was no doubt that such an application could not be made unless the plaintiff was represented; and, so far as the evidence went, including the records of the Supreme Court, it appeared that he was represented by Mr Lee. It had been said that Waaka was under the advice of a member of the profession, and the choice, as he had said, had fallen upon three—Mr Cuff, Mr Lee, and Mr Carlyon. Mr Cuff did not admit the position—Mr Lee and Mr Carlyon might have been called, but were not; but he had the authority of the latter gentleman to state that he did not act as Waaka's solicitor. Thus it appeared that this unfortunate old chief—who had been called the Peter Peebles of litigation—was taken out of the hands of his solicitor, induced to terminate an important lawsuit, allowed to dispose of a valuable property, the whole of the purchase-money going to pay alleged debts—and throughout the whole, so far as disinterested advice was concerned, he was left to follow his nose. He had already laid stress upon the alleged fact that part of the money for Waaka's share of Heretaunga was devoted to the payment of the expenses of Parker's defence, and the absolute silence of the respondents upon this head, was the strongest proof of its being true. He need not explain to the Commissioners the utter impossibility of obtaining from To Waaka an explanation of what became of the £1,000; and he was entitled to demand a full explanation of the manner of disposal of that sum, from those who undertook to administer it on his behalf There was no doubt that Mr Cuff was Tanner's solicitor; yet we find him acting for Waaka—attending him, and examining his accounts, and also executing deeds of re-conveyance; for which, altogether, Waaka has to pay £15. So, the purchasers of Heretaunga not only oblige the old man by spending his money, but debit him with the cost of attending and showing him how it went. Again, Waaka was to receive £1,000 for his share in Heretaunga. Accounts had been offered as showing what had been done with that money. One of the items was £789, debts to Parker. He would not say that the advances, payments, &c., of which that amount was composed, did not apply to that purchase; but this he did say, that where a purchaser took upon himself the responsibility of paying the accounts, and undertaking the business generally of a native, the least he could do was to keep and furnish correct accounts—in fact, that in equity he was bound to do so It had been said, that Waaka had sent a man—since dead—who looked through the accounts for him; but he could not receive from Waaka himself any information on that point. The whole circumstances were of a very suspicious kind, and the only satisfactory answer—that Waaka acted under the disinterested advice of some competent person—was not forthcoming. The next matter, was the purchase of Pahoro's interest. They had heard a good deal from the other side, of the complainants shifting their ground—but he thought page 265 the respondents were certainly liable to a similar charge in the present case. As originally explained, it appeared that Mr Tanner, in the purchase of Pahoro's share, was actuated by a fatherly interest in his welfare; but as the evidence went on, the paternal part of the business faded away; and it appeared in the light of a mere bargain, arranged by Mr Tanner for his own wise purposes, and his own sole benefit.. he had already described the general drunkenness which prevailed among the Maoris about this time; but Pahoro, it appeared, was an exceptional native—a terrible example—illustrating a passage of Milton, "And in the lowest deep, a lower deep." Drunken and improvident as Pahoro was represented on all hands to be, it still appeared that, though he had many conversations with Mr Tanner, and signed a number of documents at various times, he was uniformly in a state of perfect sobriety when dealing with Mr Tanner and his friends. Such was not the case when hostile agencies were at work, as had been shown by the singular narrative of the failure of a negociation on behalf of Mr Stuart, the peculiar circumstances of which he was sorry had been brought out. This attempt, it was shown, had failed, and before another could be made, the Rev. Samuel Williams—prompt, as in every instance where the good of the natives was at stake—called on Mr Wilson, and suggested the necessity of protecting the interests of the hapu from the thriftless Pahoro, and—the reason of which did not so plainly appear—from Paramena also. Mr Tanner, again assuming the paternal character, has deeds of trust prepared, which, being placed on the register, would have the effect of preventing hasty sales. The Rev. Samuel Williams calls on the natives, and prepares them for a visit from his brother, who duly arrives with the deeds, and obtains the signatures. It had been argued that this transaction was evidently bonâ fide, inasmuch as the trust deeds would not only act as a barrier to outsiders, but to the lessees themselves. He confessed he could not see it in this light. Possessing the influence they did, with the advantage of being in possession of the block, they would necessarily be able to acquire the interest of a native like Pahoro, on better and easier terms than any competitors. We next drop on Pahoro, either just after a heavy debauch, or meditating one; for he is met by Mr James Williams in the neighborhood of a public house, expresses his anxiety to sell, and asks why Mr Tanner Las not bought his share. Mr Tanner meets him, and comes at once to the point—either his great policy was not then initiated, or it was departed from in this instance. As at first described, Mr Tanner's object was not to acquire, but to protect the native interest; but by this time that suggestion is done away with—the protection is to be effectual only till the interests are merged in the deed of sale. The evidence of the interpreter furnished the particulars of the intricate bargain made with Pahoro. He is asked to sign an absolute conveyance, a verbal provision being made that the purchase-money is to bear interest till the other grantees should sell; and the deed is produced and executed. It was worthy of note that, while Pahoro was in the box, the subject of interest was not mentioned. The deed is promptly placed on the register, and the startling fact remains that this native has divested himself and his hapu of their property, without receiving a single shilling in consideration, and has received nothing whatever of a binding character to show that he is entitled to it page 266 at any future time. If people undertook, like Mr Tanner, to bargain with natives who were unrepresented by an independent solicitor or interpreter, they should at least do their business in a way that would bear investigation. In this case, it turned out that the other grantees did sell, and Pahoro's money was paid—under pressure: but this was by mere accident. If the other grantees had refused to sell—if Mr Tanner had failed by reason of his enormous speculations—it he had left the Colony, or suddenly departed this life—where was Pera Pahoro to go for his purchase-money? or what proof did he possess that he had not already been paid in full? As an illustration of his position, he would ask what would have been the effect of an assignment, by Mr Tanner, with not a particle of evidence on the register-where in equity and good conscience it should have been—that Pahoro's share was still due and owing. The native, by this transaction, was placing an amount of confidence in Mr Tanner and his friends, to which, as ordinary settlers, they were not entitled. He had one more reference to make to Pahoro. It appeared that shortly after this Mr Tanner proceeded to Pakowhai, to intimate that he had already acquired Tareha's and Waaka's interests, and was desirous of acquiring others. This was in July, 1869, a time when the natives were very unwilling to sell—a fact shown by the emphatic veto of Henare Tomoana—that whoever disposed of his share in the land would be shot. At this announcement, the phenomenon of a dead silence, which appeared to have followed several incidents in this transaction, war manifested upon Mr Tanner and Pahoro. The latter at length, stammered out that he had not sold—a statement neither confirmed nor denied by Mr Tanner. As to the sale itself, and the interpretation of the deed, the circumstances were so similar in all the instances, that to refer in detail to this one would do away with the necessity of commenting upon the others. The deed was drawn in the office of Mr Cuff, and executed in that of Mr Hamlin; no person being present to represent or advise the native. Mr Hamlin was present—not as an officer under the Native Lands Act, but as an interpreter representing the purchasers on terms aptly described by the Commissioners as "No cure, no pay,"—entitled, in the event of the failure of the negociation, to ordinary fees, and to a handsome reward in case of its success. It might be said that the native testimony was open to objection; but he thought the remark could not be confined to their testimony. Without imputing any misrepresentation to the interpreters, the Commission would not jump at once to the conclusion that when Pahoro and Paramena said they did not understand the deed, their statement could not be relied 011. It was quite possible for an interpreter to fulfil his duty up to the full limit required by the Act—to read the deed throughout in Maori, and to obtain the signatures, without making the native understand the nature of the document. In the case of Rota Porehua, a respectable native, it would be evident that the mere reading of a deed to him in his own language, would not be sufficient to make him understand its effect. Admitting the truth of his allegation that he did not understand the deed, it was easy to believe his further statement that he did not consent to the sale. (The Chairman said that if it was explained by the interpreter that the sale was contingent on the act of the other grantees, there was 110 real conflict of testimony on this point.) The next matter page 267 was the meeting of Tanner and Pahoro at Waitangi bridge, which was of importance as being set up by the other side to prove the alleged agency of Karaitiana and Henare Tomoana. This, he might remark, appeared to be the solitary instance, in which, at an important juncture, two native witnesses happened to be present, to one European. From what he saw of Paramena, lie considered him a straightforward witness. His statement was consistent; it was delivered without reference to the way in which it affected his own position, and was unshaken in cross-examination. He would here note that the questions put by Mr Tanner in cross examining this witness, fell far short of the account of the interview afterwards given by himself. In common fairness he should have distinctly stated those matters on which he was about to give contradictory evidence, more especially as this conversation was brought forward in support of two points very material to be proved—the question of agency, and the disposal of the existing deed of conveyance. This omission by Mr Tanner was certainly matter for comment. (The Chairman said there was no doubt these remarks would be fully justified in reference to a cross examining counsel; but it was scarcely fair to try Mr Tanner by a professional standard.) He would not attempt to do so; but he held, also, that Mr Tanner's conduct in regard to the interview with Paramena and Pahoro, in Mr Hamlin's office, was an act of very questionable propriety. He would here correct a mistake of his learned friend, who made it appear that Paramena and Pahoro had made the same statement regarding that interview. Such was not the case—Paramena simply stated that what he said was, "I will have nothing to say about it here; my statement will be made in Court"—a very praiseworthy resolution. Considerable stress had been laid by the other side on the assumed fact that they were not aware that Pahoro and Paramena would be called; but from the manner in which their grievances had been spoken of at the opening of the case, it must have been well known, and to communicate with them under such circumstances, was a proceeding of a very suspicious nature. He did not, however, purpose to dwell on this point, having more important matters to bring to the attention of the Commission. Pahoro further stated that at the treaty of Waitangi, it was agreed that he was to receive, £1,000 for his share. According to Mr Hamlin, no such promise was made. At any rate the purchasers had no intention of paying this sum, for we find at the final settlement, Paramena and Pahoro are simply debited with their orders, and told that there is nothing more for them. If this had really been the case—if the transaction had been thoroughly fair and above-board—he did not think the purchasers would have been willing to go to so large an expenditure as £700, rather than defend the case. He now came to the interests of Henare and Karaitiana. The first applicant appears to have been Mr J. M. Stuart. We find him making certain overtures to Henare, who mentions them to Mr Tanner, and is by him recommended not to sell. At this time it did not appear that Mr Tanner was negociating for any further interests in the block, though the arrangement with the Messrs. Hamlin was then on foot. It appeared that a conversation took place between Mr Tanner and Henare, in which Heretaunga was mentioned, but nothing definite took place till Hamlin and Tanner's expedition to Pakowhai. He would pass over page 268 the matter of Sutton's writ against Henare, merely remarking that as to time to pay having been given, the evidence was conflicting—Mr Sutton's own account being that lie did not give lime. It had been said that the request to go to Pakowhai and consider the subject of the sale of Heretaunga came from the natives; Mr Tanner said a message to that effect was brought by a boy; but it was altogether improbable that Karaitiana would give a message of such importance and expressed in such detail into the hands of a youth. Here, too, be observed a discrepancy in the accounts given by Mr Tanner and Mr F. E. Hamlin. It was not a great matter, but in doubtful cases these small contradictions were worthy of note. He would point out, also, that no endeavor had been made to find this messenger, and although Mr Tanner professed to have recognized the man at the Court door, he was not called. Before this time, it appeared, Karaitiana had attempted to leave for Auckland, and had failed to return to his settlement; and in connexion with this Mr Tanner had reported a conversation with him, of which Karaitiana had no recollection. He now came to the three days' campaign at Pakowhai—one of the salient points of the case, regarding which the evidence was contradictory. While he should not like to say-that the story told by the persons he represented was a thorougly straightforward one, he thought the other side were certainly not in a position to claim the merit of absolute truth for the account they had given. The fact that the negociation occupied three days was alone sufficient to show that there were many difficulties to overcome; and the evidence all went to show that Karaitiana was exceedingly unwilling to part with the block—which was borne out by his subsequent action in coming to Napier and leaving for Auckland. The evidence did not justify him in saying that Henare Tomoana was willing; it appeared that he was prepared to sell if Karaitiana acquiesced—at what price was a matter for comment. Four witnesses had given detailed accounts of this negociation—Karaitiana and Henare on one side, and Hamlin and Tanner on the other. In their accounts of what took place on each day no two witnesses agreed; and it would be a matter of impossibility to construct from the evidence a chronological account of the progress of the negociation. Some points, however, were perfectly clear—one of which was that the first and second day's were resultless, and that the ultimatum was delivered on the third day. It was alleged that Karaitiana and Tanner sat down and apportioned the purchase-money among the various grantees. Great stress had been laid on this point, for if it could be shown that this was purely the act of the natives, without consulting Mr Tanner, it would go to set up a right on the part of Karaitiana to distribute the purchase-money as he thought fit. But the evidence, even of Mr Tanner himself, went to show that he had more to do with this distribution than even Karaitiana or Henare—it was shown that he had done the actual figuring. It was stated that when the shares of the other grantees had been allotted, only £3,000 wan found to remain for Karaitiana and Henare, that this was objected to as insufficient, and that Paramena and Pahoro were accordingly put off with shares of £500 each, that more might remain for the principals; that the agreement was then drawn up and signed by Henare, but that Karaitiana left the room exceedingly dissatisfied, from which Mr Tanner page 269 inferred that he wished for something more on his own account-Assuming that Karaitiana had full disposal of the money, it was unlikely he would act in this way—he would have been able to stipulate openly for a larger consideration. The truth appeared to be that Mr Tanner had been reckoning what would be due to each grantee—a very fair thing to do, and it was very clear that the arrangement come to was looked upon by both parties as binding. In reference to the £2,300 balance, lie would remark the £1,500 of that sum had not been at all accounted for in the original distribution; and the only suggestion offered in explanation by the other side was that that amount had been paid by mistake. According to the apportionment described, Karaitiana's share was £2,000, with £1,000 annuity; so that he did not therefore receive one half of the excess, the bulk of which fell to Henare. He confessed himself unable to explain Henare's statement about the £6,000 each—there appeared to be some misunderstanding on this point; the evidence was uncorroborated by Karaitiana; and to that extent at least it must be admitted to be incorrect. The subsequent dealings by the purchasers, by which Henare received £4,600, and Karaitiana £3,500, showed that the consideration was not what had been alleged. He was not content to take the explanation that these advances had run up, they did not know how. Looking at the fact of the length of time over which the negociation extended, and considering that all the arrangements were not reduced to writing, but some of them designedly left to memory, he was not prepared to admit that the £1,000 annuity was the only sum agreed upon outside the expressed consideration. The interpreter on this occasion was Mr F. E. Hamlin, the Government interpreter, whose mere presence was a violation of equity and good conscience. It had been fought for by the other side that Henare and Karaitiana were the agents of the other grantees. In that case, then, the purchasers wait upon the agents and offer to buy the block for £13,500, getting over the difficulty raised—that the price is insufficient—by .secretly increasing the portion due to these men; or, as Mr Ormond justly expressed it, giving them a bribe. The evidence showed that when the agreement was drawn, purchase-money to the extent of £2,500, on which duty was afterwards paid, was left out; as also a highly important arrangement in reference to the Karamu reserve. The agreement disclosed the sale of the Heretaunga block without a word regarding the reserve; and altogether the evidence as to the agreement, and the document itself, were widely different. Another matter which did not appear in the agreement was the conveyance of 100 acres to Henare's son. He submitted confidently that this arrangement was made at that time; for while .Mr Tanner's memory was fresh from the interview we find the instructions given to Mr Cuff to prepare the deed of conveyance in trust—on the same page of Mr Cull's journal as the instructions to prepare the deed of conveyance of Heretaunga, and the conveyance of the reserve to Henare and Karaitiana.

At this point the Commission rose. On account of the following day being Good Friday, the proceedings were adjourned to Saturday, 12th April, at 10 a.m.

page 270

Saturday, 12th April, 1873.

Mr Sheehan continued his address. In reference to the negociations at Pakowhai he would point out that the attitude of Karaitiana throughout, so far as he took part in the proceedings, was that of an exceedingly unwilling man. There was a wonderful difference between the statements of Mr Tanner and Henare Tomoana, both as to the amount of the consideration, and the amount each party was to take. According to Mr Tanner, the consideration expressed in the deed was not the real amount, but there remained outside it considerable sums of money to be paid to Karaitiana and Henare. But, he would again ask, if the whole matter was in their hands, why were they so anxious to receive this secret service money. While we were told by Mr Tanner that there was a distinct allotment of £1,500 for Arihi's share an absolute setting aside of that sum, and specific authority to offer it—that statement was entirely at variance with that given by the natives: and while Mr Tanner's theory was that he dealt only with Karaitiana and Henare, it was greatly damaged by the fact that his statement of having offered £1,500 for Alibi's share from the first, on the express sanction of Henare and Karaitiana, did not correspond with the facts elicited in cross-examination. On the day after the negociation, while it is still fresh in his memory, we find him writing a letter in which he states that Arihi's share is £1,000. In his explanation of this, he said it was a piece of finesse—that he sought to obtain the share for £500 below the allotted sum in order that there might be so much more for Henare and Karaitiana. On the grounds of equity and good conscience this proceeding could not be defended for a moment. While statements had been made all round of the rapacity of Karaitiana, only to be appeased by a secret bribe, we had it in evidence that Mr Tanner,—not even under pressure—voluntarily attempts to reduce the amount payable to Arihi, for Karaitiana's benefit. In fact, to borrow rather a strong metaphor from his learned friend, while Henare and Karaitiana were reeking with annuities, and foul with secret service money, Mr Tanner goes out of his way to still further gorge these worthy gentlemen with an extra £500, to be "finessed" out of the sum, which he tells us they had agreed to set apart for this girl-an orphan and a minor. He maintained that this narration was sufficient to cast, suspicion on the whole statement. He could have better understood it if this had been made a condition by Henare and Karaitiana, and would not have thought so badly of Mr Tanner; but that he should have acted as a volunteer in so discreditable a transaction, was almost beyond belief. He submitted that this agreement was contrary to sections 15 and 16 of the Native Lands Act Contradictory as that enactment was, one thing it plainly provided—that a binding contract could only be made by a majority in value of the owners. The agreement was a violation of equity and good conscience, as it did not show the full amount of the purchase money; thus prejudicing the interests of the other grantee; and even supposing it fair in other respects, it was objectionable as tying down the natives to convey the land, while silent as to three material points of the consideration. As regarded the reserve, the testimony was conflicting, but Mr Hamlin's statement showed that some conversation on the subject took page 271 place when the agreement was signed; and Mr Tanner stated that it had been previously surveyed and allotted to the people. The agreement was then to confirm the allotment already made; that there was a reservation was not denied by Henare or Karaitiana; while the natives distinctly said it was to be placed in the hands of Henare and Karaitiana for their immediate people. He had already referred to the very King-Jar entry in Mr Cuffs journal, made the day after this agreement. Mr Tanner's instructions appeared to be very full and ample to the effect that an absolute conveyance of the reserve was to be made to Henare and Karaitiana; while in the case of the 100 acres to Henare's son, the fact of the conveyance being in trust appeared plainly on the face of the instructions. He had very grave doubts as to the value of this agreement, either as a basis on which either a decree for specific performance, or a judgment for damages could be obtained. But there was one point which the purchasers had been wholly unable to explain, though they had tried in various ways—the singular fact that so much more than the consideration money expressed should have been paid. If the Commission referred to the papers respecting the assessment of the duty they would find that no such mistake as that alleged had been made. After the various sums composing the consideration had been there set forth in the way shown in evidence, there appeared a further item, "Balance, £1,500," on which duty had been paid—thus showing that so soon after the transaction as the registration of the deed, the purchasers were fully aware that they bad paid that sum over and above the consideration expressed. The theory of a mistake of this magnitude in the calculation could not be entertained for a moment—it would be against all their experience of Mr Tanner to suppose him guilty of it. (The Commissioners here obtained the papers referred to from Mr Turton's office, and found the items as quoted by Mr Sheehan.—Mr Lascelles considered that it was too late to refer to documents not put in as evidence.—Mr Sheehan replied that the facts to which they related had not come out till towards the close of the respondents' case; and the papers, being public records, might be properly referred to.) The day after the signature of this agreement we find Mr Tanner giving instructions to Mr Cliff to prepare three documents—a deed of conveyance of the Heretaunga block, a deed conveying the Karamu reserve to Henare and Karaitiana, and a deed conveying 100 acres in trust to Henare's son. Mr Cuff appeared to have carried out the first part of his instructions with great alacrity, for a few days later we find an entry respecting an expedition made by him to Pakowhai, in company with Mr F. E. Hamlin, taking the deed with him for signature, and Karaitiana's refusal to sign. In Mr Hamlin's evidence, before making his correction on the second day, we found a corresponding statement. Looking at the great importance of the sale to Mr Tanner at this time, he could no' fail to be acquainted with the fact of Karaitiana's reluctance, and this fact was confirmed by his conversation with him in town, and his virtuous determination to enforce the agreement. It was true that the next day after giving his evidence, Mr Hamlin corrected and withdrew so much of his statement as showed that he was aware of Karaitiana's reluctance to sell before he left for Auckland; but the evidence otherwise placed it beyond the necessity of discussion—it was page 272 well-known to both Mr Tanner and the Hamlins that Karaitiana was unwilling to sign. Almost if not quite alone in the position of a disinterested and trusted adviser of the natives at this time, it appeared, was a man named Oskar Beyer—referred to in the evidence as a foreigner and a gunsmith. His influence had not been favorable to the completion of the purchase; and it was admitted on the other side that an offer of a considerable sum of money was made to him to induce him to use his influence with Karaitiana to persuade him to assent to the sale. (Mr Lascelles said that this was not with the privity of the purchasers) It could scarcely have been otherwise, Mr Tanner being in direct and constant commuication with the person by whom that offer was made; and such being the case, this attempt to extinguish the one man in whom the natives had confidence, and induce him to betray his trust, was a very significant circumstance indeed. It was abundantly established in evidence that it was well known before Karaitiana left for Auckland that,—rightly or wrongly he would not now inquire—he did not intend to carry out the agreement; but directly he had left we found the other parties pushing on to obtain the other signatures. The first attempt was made on Henare at Pakowhai; this failed, and a second and successful attempt was made on him at Waitangi. Of that incident very diverse accounts had been given, and without claiming the merit of correctness for the story told by Henare, he would call the attention of the Commissioners to certain circumstances which required to be taken into account in estimating the truth or otherwise of his statement. It would be well to bear in mind first the fact, in itself suspicious, that the interview took place in Mr Cuff's private house, at a distance from Napier; that the native, on his part, was as usual alone, and that the other three persons present were all directly interested in the execution of the deed. First, there was Mr Tanner, the purchaser, to whom the completion of the transaction had by this time become a matter of the utmost importance; next, his solicitor, eager for the completion of a matter in which he was very profitably concerned; and, thirdly, the interpreter, retained in Mr Tanner's interest, and the amount of whose remuneration depended materially on the signatures being obtained. He would not take the responsibility of deciding how far Henare's account of the proceedings was true; but though it must be admitted to be exaggerated, the circumstances were sufficient to show that it was not all exaggeration, and that a certain amount of restraint had been used by the purchasers. Assuming all parties on the other side to have spoken the truth, there was not the slightest foundation for this view; but he would now proceed to examine those statements. The parties met early in the forenoon, and the interview lasted till 3, 4, or 5 p.m. If the object had been to negociate, in compliance with the fundamental policy laid down by Mr Tanner, he could well understand how four or five hours might have been allowed to pass at first in idle conversation; but there was no need for that in this case. If the account given by the other side was to be depended on, the sale was an accomplished fact—the matter had been already taken out of that region where it would have been dangerous to have opened the subject at once. Henare having come by special appointment to sign, the delay could not be accounted for by a reference to the general policy which characterized the negociations—the mischief page 273 had been already done, and nothing remained for him but to execute the deed and receive the purchase money. He would next refer to the very different accounts given by the three witnesses on the other side, as to the manner in which the time was employed. Mr Cuff stated that the time was occupied in consideration and discussion of the question of the reserve, and that this conversation was general—an account which seemed more reasonable than the others. Mr Hamlin said there was a conversation between Henare and Mr Cuff, in which the others took no part, on a different subject—which would tend to show that he was unwilling to sign the deed, and wished to avoid carrying out the agreement. Mr Tanner said no discussion of any kind took place; but that after dinner was over, and some smoking and chatting bad taken place, Henare said, "You bad better bring the deed for me to sign." When the accounts given by three intelligent Europeans showed so wide a difference, bethought the Court would be justified in withholding its judgment on the alleged untruthfulness of Henare's statement. There was, further, this important circumstance as bearing on the subject of pressure at this time—next to Mr Sutton, Mr Tanner was Henare's largest creditor—Sutton's account being £1,100, and Tanner's over £700. Was it an equitable proceeding, that Henare should be asked to go to the very place of all others where he would have the least chance of obtaining independent advice, to discuss this important subject with three people all directly interested in obtaining his signature? (Mr. Lascelles: Henare was not invited there) He was aware that there were two accounts of the way in which this appointment was made. Henare's account was that he was met in town by Mr Cuff, who asked him to go to Waitangi to talk his affairs over there. It was true that there was one witness against three—but let the Commissioners consider how the Europeans world be affected if they wavered for a moment in denying Henare's account to be true. They knew well what the consequences would be if that account was accepted—not only would Mr Tanner's purchase be hopelessly vitiated, but the results to both Messrs. Cuff and Hamlin would be serious in the extreme. Therefore it did not surprise him that Henare's story was denied absolutely. The next signature obtained was that of Paramena, to whose case he had already referred in considerable detail. With regard to Manaena, if had been graciously admitted that so far as his evidence did not clash with that of the other side, it had been very truthfully given; but that in several important portions it was not to be believed. Before entering into this case, he was totally unacquainted with the witness, and from what he had heard of him regarding the manner in which he had disposed of a sum of £1,000 received in another transaction, was inclined to regard him with some suspicion. He must say that the witness appeared to be thoroughly straightforward and candid. Two points came out very clearly regarding him—that he was very unwilling to sign, and wished the matter to stand over till Karaitiana's return. He was not going to follow this witness in his various attempts to evade Mr Tanner's pursuit—which led him to take refuge on one occasion in .so dangerous a locality as a powder-magazine—but would pass at once to the circumstances under which his signature was obtained. Mr Tanner had failed two or three times in the attempt to obtain it, when by a singular and suggestive coincidence we find him in the store of Mr Sutton, page 274 who enviously enough is a creditor of Manaena's to the extent of £600. By pure accident the fact is mentioned by Mr Tanner that Manaena had not completed his agreement to sell. Mr Button being, oddly enough, about to visit him with regard to his little bill, is prepared at the same time to suggest mildly the desirability of executing the deed of sale to Mr Tanner. Mr Sutton, in evidence, plainly stated that in the interview with Manama which followed, he had Mr Tanners authority for the terms offered, and did not in any way exceed that authority. From this two things were apparent—that £1,000 was offered to Manaena as his share of the purchase money, and that the £50 per annum was offered to him in addition, with the knowledge and consent of Mr Tanner. It was remarkable that the only instance in which Mr Hamlin appeared to have found his conscience prick him with the suggestion that he was passing from the position of interpreter into that of negociating agent, was the present one, in which he was not the negociator at all, but the mere mouthpiece of Mr Sutton, Mr Tanner's authorized agent. That Manaena had some knowledge—or as Mr Tanner had put it. "smelt a rat,"—regarding the private arrangements with Karaitiana and Henare, there could be no doubt. He suspected that their palms had been greased, and like a discreet man, set about to find means whereby he might have a similar operation performed upon himself. But he did not think it could be asserted for a moment, though Manaena was nearly related to the other chiefs, that he had any distinct knowledge of the terms of arrangement. He had given a very candid account of the whole matter, in which he stated that he did not know till he called on Mr Cuff about his own deed of covenant, the precise amount Henare and Karaitiana were to receive—thus showing the secret nature of the treaty, the particulars of which a man standing in so confidential a position towards Henare as Manaena did must have occupied, could only guess. With regard to Manaena, the other side did not deny that £1,000 was fixed for his share; and both Noa and Paramena stated that that amount was named to them. This was denied by Mr Hamlin; but he gave as his reason for denial that he had advised Mr Tanner not to make any such arrangement with individual grantees. But on the other hand, there was no witness on either side whose veracity was more unquestionable than that of Noa Huki, on which point they had the testimony of the Rev. Samuel Williams. Noa was informed by Mr F. E. Hamlin that Henare and Karaitiana, Paramena and Pahoro, had all agreed to sell—a statement true in the letter, but false in spirit, it being at that time perfectly well-known that Karaitiana had refused to sign, and sought to evade the agreement. Noa should have been frankly informed of this fact. If, as the other side alleged, the other grantees had left the matter in the hands of Henare and Karaitiana as their agents, as a matter of equity they were entitled to be informed of the precise position those agents had assumed. In regard to the question of delegation, every native witness had given the same account, and this evidence would have the more weight as he was unaware until the case had been some days before the Commission that the other side would set up that there had been an express delegation. Manaena, who had given a very fair narrative, repudiated any such transaction; Noa Huki had never heard of it, and told the Rev. S. Williams so in the course of a conversation page 275 during one of his pastoral visits. (The Chairman corrected Mr Sheehan. The evidence of the Rev. S. Williams was to the effect that Noa had admitted the agency; and Noa, while remembering a conversation, bad no recollection of this taking place) Noa at all events denied the delegation in his evidence in-chief; Paramena and Pahoro denied it, and an additional color of truth was given to that denial by the fact of a petty fend existing between them and Henare and Karaitiana—it being very unlikely that they would place such an authority in the hands of men with whom they were on bad terms. It was in evidence that Henare had made a very emphatic declaration as to the summary way in which he would deal with any grantee who should sell; but this assumption of a right to forbid the sale was quite a different thing from the suggestion of agency, and the power to forbid a sale was quite a different thing from the authority to make one. In equity and good conscience the purchasers should have required something more than an assurance from Henare and Karaitiana themselves that they had been appointed agents—such a statement would never have been accepted in a transaction between Europeans, and precaution was doubly necessary in the case of natives. (Judge Manning said that he doubted whether the authority of a chief could be said to be delegated; it was inherent.) It was at any rate the duty of the purchasers to ascertain if the authority was recognized by the other natives, but they did not do so. On the face of the agreement of December 6th, there was no statement of any such delegation; but it was supplemented by a statement in the interpreters attestation, that Henare and Karaitiana then and there stated that they acted with the authority of the others. This he supposed was intended to be taken as part of the document, but why it was drawn in this form had not been explained. He denied such an authority. He admitted that the influence possessed by these chiefs was such as largely to affect the others; but nothing beyond this. Assuming in the first place, that there was no agency, the payment of these sums to the others was a fraud on the face of it. (The Chairman: Surely not, except on the assumption of agency.) He maintained that it was—a certain fixed consideration having been nominally agreed upon for the whole block (The Chairman presumed that his argument was that by a secret consideration the leading men were induced to enter a kind of decoy pen—the understanding being that the land was to be sold for £13,500, when the real consideration was that amount plus £2,500 annuities.) This was his argument, and he maintained that it was a sound one, though he admitted it would not hold good in the case of Europeans. While they were not prohibited by law from selling, they looked to Henare and Karaitiana for advice and direction. They represented that they had agreed to sell for £13,500, and Mr Tanner, as a party to that misrepresentation, was liable for the consequences. Any one of the grantees, hearing that Henare and Karaitiana had agreed to sell the block for £13,500, would be very likely to consider that they best knew the value of the block, and give that assent which he would have witheld had be been aware of the private arrangement. (The Chairman asked to which of the grantees these remarks would apply.) To all except those who had already sold. (The Chairman: Surely not to Manaena?) He included Manaena in his argu- page 276 ment, though he was quite aware he had put himself out of Court on this point by subsequently making a private, arrangement on his own account. He could understand the purchasers dealing with the separate shares in a fair and equitable manner. It would have beeen quite possible for them to have said, " We desire to purchase Heretaunga; Henare and Karaitiana have agreed to sell; what will you take for your share?" Such a proceeding would have been consistent with equity and good conscience. Bui they went further, and said, "We are giving £13,500 for the whole block, and ask you to concur in that arrangement." The concealment of £3,000 of the consideration money was sufficient to stamp the transaction as inconsistent with equity and good conscience, and it was not denied for a moment, that the whole of the signatures to the Waitangi deed were obtained on that representation. He had shown that three material items in the consideration were concealed; and maintained that thereby the transaction became inequitable, the purchasers having obtained the signatures of the grantees on the faith of a distinct representation, which they knew to be untrue. (The Chairman said it appeared to be a question whether the grantees cared much what the amount of the whole purchase-money might be, so long as they were satisfied with their own share. Paramena, for instance, appeared to have troubled himself very little about the gross amount; but was discontented when he found nothing coming to him, and went out pouri. The individual grantees might have left the leaders to fix upon the total, reserving a right to decide upon the sufficiency or otherwise of the portions allotted to them.) There was no doubt that the fact that two or three shares had already gone, and that Henare and Karaitiana had been applied to for theirs, had been the subject of conversation at Pakowhai, and the decision of the general question of sale had been left by common understanding with those chiefs, without any agreement that they were to sell, and absolutely dispose of the purchase money. (The Chairman did not think that any such plenary authority had been set up by the other side.) Yet the amounts, which had been settled with considerable trouble at the Pakowhai meeting, as the portions due to each share, could scarcely have been unknown to the grantees when they gave their consent. He would now look at the transaction on the supposition of agency on the part of Henare and Karaitiana. If lie had the time and inclination to enter into the subject of their assumed veto, lie would doubtless find interesting matter for consideration. It certainly rested on no legal power. (The Chairman said that, in dealing with a race like the Maoris, in a state of transition from barbarism, their ancient theory and practice, that might constituted right, must necessarily be to some extent acknowledged. Legal title was an idea of difficult appreciation by barbarous peoples; though some of the natives appeared, by this time, to be gaining a pretty distinct conception of it.) He was not prepared to admit that the ancient theory and customs of the natives could be relied on in this case—it was against the policy of the native land laws to allow them. The Native Lands Act professed to provide a means for wholly extinguishing the tribal title. He would first consider the case as stated by Mr Hamlin, that Henare and Karaitiana possessed a full and ample authority, by virtue of which they could execute a binding and valid conveyance. In that case, he could say at once, the page 277 transaction was wholly indefensible, and was, in point of fact, a fraud on the other grantees, to which the purchasers were parties. He was not there to defend the characters of Henare and Karaitiana—it was part of his case that they had acted improperly; and even if this bargain had been made without the knowledge even of one man interested in the block, it would give that man a right to be heard in a court of equity, sitting with power to determine the case upon the evidence. There could be no doubt of the nature of the transaction—Mr Tanner knew what was coming. He had previously—in the case of the lease—under-taken privately to pay Karaitiana £500, part of which was still due and owing. Karaitiana does not remain while the arrangement is being completed, but retires discontentedly to the veranda. Mr Tanner, an experienced practitioner, understands the symptoms, follows him, and administers very efficacious medicine. (The Chairman; Scarcely so—a mere anodyne, apparently.) the arrangement was neither more nor less than it had been characterized by Mr Ormond—a bribe. These men, possessing either express agency for, or very considerable moral influence over, the other owners, contracted on behalf of themselves and others, to part with the block for £13,500, and gave that consent for a private consideration of £3,000. So far as Henare and Karaitiana were concerned, he would not say that they had a case, or were entitled to be heard on the grounds of equity and good conscience, though circumstances might be urged in mitigation of their conduct. It was quite evident that, in consequence of this bargain, the purchase had been effected at a much lower rate than had otherwise have been the case. It was very true, as Mr Cuff had said, that it would not have done to have let the others know of the bargain—the mere idea made the witness smile, it was so ridiculous. Karaitiana goes to Auckland, and finds on his return that, practically, the land has gone—Henare, Paramena, Pahoro, Noa, and Manaena have signed, Arihi has come to an arrangement with the purchasers—and his share and Matiaha's are the only interests remaining to be disposed of That he was still unwilling to sell., notwithstanding Mr Tanner's patent medicine, was evident. He goes to Pakowhai, and secludes himself there, assuming an attitude so gloomy and desponding, that Mr Ormond, in the public interest, feels it necessary to visit him in his capacity of Superintendent. At that time he appears to have known well what the trouble was. The next we hear is, that a writ of summons is served upon him by Mr Cuff, to compel specific performance. It was a very singular fact that the issue of this writ appeared to be known to none of the purchaser?, except Mr Tanner, who took the conduct of the proceedings entirely into his own hands. Such was his confidence in his own abilities, that he took action in the Supreme Court, in the name of all the lessees, without consulting one of them. (The Chairman remarked that Mr Tanner appeared to consider that the mana of the block rested with him.) He had already stated his opinion, with which the Commissioners had coincided, that this writ was the letter, supposed to emanate from Mr Ormond, to which reference had been made by Karaitiana The document described was not one to which M r Ormond could, by any possibility, have assented; but his name appeared, with others, in the writ—a document containing ague expressions, well calculated to give rise to the mistaken idea which it page 278 appeared induced Karaitiana at last to consent. In addition to the writ, Mr Cuff took out, and offered Karaitiana, a considerable sum of money. It was strange that, of the three witnesses who mentioned this fact, not one could give any idea as to the amount—he was loth to believe that it could not be ascertained. The writ, apparently, had the desired effect—it brought Karaitiana into town to sign the deed, and be had a conversation with Mr Tanner, Mr Williams, and others, in Mr Cuff's office. It was quite hopeless to attempt to form, from the evidence, a statement of the course of the proceedings in the order of time,—a fact which was easily accounted for by the lapse of time since the transaction, and the fact that none of the parties expected that the interview would ever be made the subject of minute investigation. One or two broad facts had, however, been clearly established—one of which was, Karaitiana's coming in, signing the Waitangi deed, and receiving £100. He would now advert to the position of the purchase-money. If the original agreement had been carried out, there would only have been a balance of something like, £800 to pay over to Karaitiana—a fact in itself sufficient to account for the mysterious sum of £1,500 added at the last moment. If, on the balance being arrived at, Karaitiana, a principal claimant, bad found that he was to receive less than any other of the grantees, there could be no doubt that, even at the eleventh hour, he would have refused to sign, and have returned once more to the seclusion of Pakowhai. According to the respondents, the vouchers were produced and gone through, and admitted by the grantees; the total was ascertained, and a balance of £2,387 made out as remaining. In that discussion it had been admitted that the annuities were still kept secret from the natives; and also the terms on which the reserve was to be handed back. From the evidence of Mr Hamlin, it appeared that these points were the subject of a private conversation in the inner room, between Henare, Karaitiana, Mr Tanner, and Mr Williams. It further appeared that, from remarks made by Karaitiana, in a previous conversation with Mr Tanner, the purchasers were prepared for the appropriation by him of the entire balance. As a matter of equity and good conscience they should, before paying the balance, have made this known to the assembled natives, and thus given them a chance of objecting, instead of allowing them to be overcome by that solemn and impressive silence, with which, according to several of the witnesses, the unlooked-for result was received. It was an improper proceeding, to place the whole balance on the table in a single cheque, to be seized by a single owner. Where, he would ask, was the advantage of individualizing the native title, if the dealing were still to be conducted in the old savage fashion. (Mr Commissioner Manning remarked that though the titles had been individualized, it did not appear that the purchase-money had.) This deed was signed by the grantees, in ignorance of the existence of the annuities, and in the faith that they were to receive the amounts originally allotted to them. The next matter to which he would refer, was the secret interview in the Masonic Hall—the very place, doubtless, in which to bold a secret meeting. Why should the subject of the reserve be secretly discussed, if the arrangement was of such a nature that it might have been brought forward openly? The fact was, that with the exception of the Pakowhai natives, the grantees were in total ignorance of any arrangement on the page 279 subject. The native account of the interview was evidently the most truthful. Arihi's trustees had objected to the reserve being vested in Henare and Karaitiana, and it was discussed who should be appointed in their place. He now came to the attitude of the natives after signing the deed. There could not be the slightest doubt that Noa Huki did, then and there, protest against the summary way in which the purchase-money was seized, though neither the purchasers nor the interpreters seemed to have heard of it. But whether he complained or not, it did not affect his actual position. The silence, of which they heard no much, was apparently shared in by Mr Tanner, and he accounted for this by saying that it was an exciting moment. Why .should it have been an exciting moment, if the proceeding was quite fair and straightforward? If it had been, he would have had no need for apprehension as to the eff