Credibility of Witnesses.

Before proceeding to review the evidence now before the Commission, there is just one matter I should like to refer to. It is the practice—which has, I understand, become prevalent in the Native Land Court during recent years, and which has been adopted by Mr. Fraser, the agent for the Crown, on this occasion—of digging out the evidence given in the Native Land Court at various times, and confronting witnesses with what they are alleged to have said on certain points perhaps ten years before. This is done with the view of showing inconsistencies in the story, and of thereby discrediting the:: witness. Now, I submit this is very unfair, and for these reason) The evidence given in the Native Land Court passes through an interpreter—sometimes a very indifferent one—it is taken down by clerk who, as a rule, knows not a word of Maori—it is not read over to or signed by the witness—it is not revised by the presiding judge and there is no opportunity given to anyone of checking its correctness It is therefore in no sense whatever an authentic record of what the witness did say. Ten years afterwards—as in the present case passages are read from that evidence, and a witness is asked, "did you not at that time say so-and-so?" It would take more than the ordinary amount of moral courage for a Maori to repudiate what he is told is written in the Court Book ! He has then to cast about at once for some explanation of the apparent inconsistency, and he naturally says, "Oh! that was evidence in support of a particular case, and it was as strong as possible in that direction. We were governed by the questions put to us." I say, Sir, that it is most unfair to attempt to cast discredit on the evidence of a witness here on account of such apparent contradictions, seeing how utterly valueless the record is All through this case I have carefully abstained from doing this although supplied with copies of all the old minute-books. Of cource I am not referring now to such a witness as Paki Te Hunga (called by Mr. McDonald); because he boldly admitted that the whole of the evidence given by him in support of Warena Hunia in the partitions Court was concocted beforehand—that it was the result of a conspiracy to defeat the other side by means of false evidence. Such a man is obviously unworthy of the slightest credence now. It must be borne is mind, too, that there is always a tendency—among pakehas and Maoris alike—where witnesses have taken sides, to strain a point in favour of the side the witness happens to be on; but this is counterbalanced by the knowledge beforehand that the witness is not altogether a disinterested one. Under certain conditions all persons are prone to exaggerate—and often quite unconsciously. In illustration of this may mention an incident within my own experience. I was many years ago conducting a case in the Supreme Court before the late Mr. Justice Richmond, my client being the celebrated Hawke's Bay chief Renata Kawepo. Mr. Hamlin, the well-known Licensed Interpreter, page 7 was called as a witness. He was asked his opinion of Renata Kawepo, and be replied, "A real chief of the old school—-a thorough Maori gentleman." In cross-examination by Mr. Sainsbury, he was asked, "But, Mr. Hamlin, does not Renata tell lies?" The witness at first declined to answer; but on being pressed, turned to the Judge and said apologetically, "Your Honour, all Maoris tell lies." "Whereupon Mr. Richmond, with characteristic good humour, said, "Yes, Mr. Hamlin; but what about the pakehas ? Did not David say in his haste, 'All men are liars' ?"