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 74

Warena Hunia's Case

Warena Hunia's Case.

In the next place, I will notice Warena Hunia and his witnesses and I shall endeavour to be very brief.

In cross-examination by myself he was asked:—

Q. Are you aware that the Supreme Court has reversed the order in respect to these people and that they are put back ?

A. I hear you say so.

Q. Do you not know that the Supreme Court has put you and Kemp in the wrong and put the Muaupoko back on the land !

A. I do not know it at all.

Q. Will you swear you have never heard the result of the judgment at, Wanganui in the Supreme Court ?

A. I know that I was beaten in the Supreme Court at Wanganui and that I had to pay the costs.

Q. Have you paid those costs ?

A. No.

Q. Did you not hear that when the Court ordered you to pay the costs, the Court also struck out your name and Kemp's, and put back the whole of the original list on this land—No. XI ?

A. I know that, but I knew perfectly well the judge was on your side all through.

Q. That was the Chief Justice, was it not ?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you not heard that although the Chief Justice was on my side all through, the Judges of the Court of Appeal all confirmed afterwards what he had done?

A. Yes; because they all pull one way.

Q. But all the judges came over to my side?

A. Yes; but you are all sticking together.

Now, Sir, it is not difficult to guess whence Warena Hunia got his inspiration. Mr. McKenzie said in the House—when refusing to meet me in the Supreme Court—"What was wanted was a Royal Commission, which Sir Walter Buller could not get round, and which his money could not purchase."

I hope that when this Royal Commission has made its report and declared a trust, Warena Hunia will be able to add, with perfect truth "And the Royal Commissioners, also, they all came over to your side

This is Warena Hunia's view of the matter, as stated in his evidence:—

They (the people) had a right to it before 1886, but after 1886, when the land was given to myself and Kemp, they had ceased to have a right.

page 17

Q. Who told you that ? The lawyer ?

A. The law made in 1886; and the Court gave the order to myself and Kemp. The order never said that we were trustees.

Q. Who interpreted the law for you and said you were absolute owners ?

A. It was the decision of the Native Land Court that informed us we were owners, and it was the Native Land Court that divided the whole block, amounting to 52,000 acres.

Q. It was when you asked the Native Land Court to divide the 15,000 acres between yourself and Kemp that you discovered that instead of being there as a caretaker for Ngatipariri, it was yours ?

A. Yes, that is what I understood.

Q. Then if the Land Court had not told you that you were the absolute owner, you would have put all these people in as a matter of course ?

A. Yes, on my conviction. . . .

Q. But for the Court saying you were the two owners, you would have put in the names you say had a right to be there ?

A. Yes, according to my thoughts.

Q. Therefore, if a wrong was done to the Ngatipariri by being left out, it was not your wrong but the wrong of the law ?

A. Yes.

The next witness I shall refer to is Mr. Donald Fraser. He gave evidence generally in support of Warena Hunia's claims, he being Warena's attorney; but I have never heard a witness in any Court give his evidence in a more truthful or straightforward manner. It is very evident that Mr. Fraser has done his best to bring about an amicable settlement among the parties. He was paid well no doubt for his services, but that has nothing to do with the matter. He has given us a full account of the various proposals for a division of the land between the two chiefs and the Muaupoko people. And he brought out this fact very plainly—that Mr. A. McDonald, who now appears on behalf of certain of the Muaupoko, has on every former occasion—Native Land Court, Parliamentary Committees, and Supreme Court—given evidence against the existence of any trust ! But Mr. Donald Fraser admitted that, as attorney for Warena Hunia, he never made any demand on Kemp on account of rent. Why did he not do so? Before the Commission he said, "I never had the idea that the land (No. XI.) was Warena's own, and that he could drive the people off."

As for Wirihana Hunia—whose evidence in the Supreme Court was apparently entirely disregarded by the Chief Justice-all I need say is that the evidence he has given before the Commission consists of extravagant assertion and harmless romance. The circumstantial account which he gave of Kawana Hunia's action at the Court of 1873 is absolutely and wholly contradicted by Major Kemp and by Te Rangimairehau; and the minute-book of the Court is entirely silent about it.

The only other witness on that side whom I think it necessary to notice is Himiona Kowhai. He confirmed what he had said in the supreme Court:—

page 18

Q. Did you understand you were giving up all this (Block XI) to Warena and Kemp ?

A. Yes, we got our division, and we understood this was for Warena and Kemp.

Q. You gave up your father's bones to Warena and Kemp ?

A. Yes, they could do what they liked.

In his evidence before this Commission he said :—

At the Court of 1890 Kemp said he was a trustee. Warena said that the land was his own. I never heard Warena make any proposal to give back some of the land till the Court of 1891.