Other formats

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


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 71

VI—Hoera Ranginui's Cask

VI—Hoera Ranginui's Cask.

There are two Native owners in the Puhatikotiko blocks, both of whom claim the name and shares of Hoera Ranginui. One is a grown man named Ranginui Pero, but according to the evidence for Mr Tiffen, he also calls himself Hoera Ranginui. The other is an infant named Hoera Ranginui. The infantand the adult are both in the list of No. 7 block under their respective names of Ranganui Pero and Hoera Ranginui. Only one of them is in this block No. 1, and is called in the list Hoera Ranginui, and the question is whether the name in No. I belongs to the adult or the infant. Mr Woon, as agent for J. G. Kinross, bought these two shares standing in the name of Hoera Ranginui, one in No. 7 and one in No. 1, from the adult Ranginui Pero, but Mr Woon took Pero's signature to both deeds of sale in the name of Hoera Ranginui, and not in the name of Ranginui Pero. In the form of declaration, however, that was signed by that vendor when he was signing the said deeds of sale, Mr Woon describes him as "Hoera Ranginui, or Pero." It is therefore quite clear that Woon knew at the time of the transaction that the man selling to him was Pero, and that his signature in the No. 7 block was for the share owned in that block in the name of Ranginui Pero. It is likewise probable that Woon then also knew that there was an infant, "Hoera Ranginui," an owner in the same block No. 7 whose share Pero was not entitled to, for as purchase agent Woon must have supplied himself with a list of owners from the Court files, as all purchase agents necessarily do. But whether Mr Woon was deceived or not he could not buy from Pero what belonged to the infant Hoera Ranginui in No. 7; therefore the only question for the Court is whether the share in No. 1 in the page 6 name of Hoera Ranginui belonged to the infant or to the adult.

We have considered the voluminous evidence given on both sides as to the identity of this Hoera Ranginui, and we have no doubt whatever that the Hoera Ranginui who owned in No. 1 was the minor, and not Ranginui Pero. When he conveyed his share in that block as Hoera Ranginui, instead of the name in which his own share stood, we believe he did it to give a colour to his sale in the other block, and to his pretence that the share in that block belonged to him. A number of small circumstances too numerous to be set out here have satisfied us that Hoera Ranginui in the No. 1 block was the infant, and therefore that Ranginui Pero when selling that share sold it without right to sell it.

We will therefore certify that the shares of Hoera Ranginui in both blocks belong to the infant Hoera Ranginui unsold, and we will certify in the No. 7 block that the share sold by Ranginui Pero in the name of Hoera Ranginui was the share of Ranginui Pero himself, held in his name of Ranginui Pero, and that the said share ought to pass to Mr Tiffen under the deed signed by Ranginui Pero in the name of Hoera Ranginui.