RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 33, 30 July 1857, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Summary of Evidence given by Native Horopota and John Davis, in the case of Horopeta ». Davis. Claim, £7O.

Horopeta, after being duly affirmed by the sworn Native Interpreter, Mr. J. J Piercy, stated as follows :—

The money was handed over to Mr. Davis, to buy a vesssel. I gave £4O as payment for a boat. That was the entire amount I gave him; but Mr. Whittaker also gave him on my account £3O to be placed in the bank. Both sums were for the same purpose, namely, tc purchase a vessel; I also gave £lO besides the £4O as payment for what he had done ; I gave him the £lO at the same time that I gave him the £4O; I am quite certain that the £lO was for services rendered; he never paid me back any portion of the money; Mr. Davis purchased the vessel called “Phantom,” and I worked her; Mr. Davis now has her; the £4O came out of my claim at the Big Barrier ; the Ngatinaunau gave me the £4O ; that was all the money they gave me, and it was for my claim in the Barrier ; I afterwards got the £lO to give to Mr. Davis, from the same source ; the Ngatinaunau gave’ me in all £5O; I gave the £lO to Mr. Davis’for the Ngatinaunau ; I did not tell Mr. Davis that I would give him half of whatever I received from the Natives as his remuneration; I never told Mr. Edward Davis that I had given Mr. D. B. Davis, £2O, or would give him £2O;

I deny having made the statement in the paper produced and signed by Mr. Davis. - After that £4O was given 1 applied to Mr. Edward Davis to buy his boat—the price was £4O ; the £3O paid by Mr. Whitaker was after the Phantom was purchased. Charles Oliver Bond Davis on his own part, said I am an interpreter ; I know the plaintiff; I received some money arising out of a land claim of his at the Barrier; in the first instance, from the Ngatinaunau ; plaintiff is rot one of the tribe, but he had a claim ; be employed me to get his money ; I was to get half the money I obtained from then? ; £4O was received for Horopeta's share ; the whole sum for the claim was £lOO ; I divided the money into fifties ; I asked Horopeta whether £lO was not to be taken from his share, and added to their share, in order to satisfy them; tho Ngatiaunau were dissatisfied with tbefirst division of the money and this was done to satisfy them; I divided the money; h& would not have got one farthing, if I had not exerted myself in his behalf; I retained the ■ £4O; plaintiff first questioned my right to tie money in the Native Secretary’s-office, about a month or six weeks ago—l refer to £2O; I never beard any doubt raised about the right to the £2O till about a month ago; the other £2O was to be appropriated to the burying a boat at Manukau—it was my brother’s boat; it was arranged that the boat was to be carried across to Otahuhu, and £2O was to be given for the purpose; I received £3O from Mr. Whitaker on account of Horopeta;it was not to pure! aie a vessel, but s'mply to tai £ care of, because if his own tribe knew he had ii, they would take it from him; I was employed at the time to extinguish Native title at the Barrier; I was drawing Government pay at the time; I was allowed to do private work, and was employed by Mr. Whitataker and Mr. Graham ; I bad a special permission in this case; plaintiff is a redeemed slave : he was liberated when about eleven years old, and was free when this transaction took place; the Ngatinaunau did not take their £5O and feel satisfied at first; I had not the £lOO safely lodged in my pocket when this display took place; it was not put into the bank; the discussion was prior to the receipt of the money; I supplied the plaintiff with many articles; the charges for them are fair and reasonable.

Readers have here placed under their eyes the substance of what was said by the plaintiff Horopeta and Davis. A verbatim report of all that has been said by all the parties sailed upon to give evidence not only in this and in other cases of Horopeta v. Davis but in various cases of Davis v. Horopeta would fill our paper, and leave the reader as little enlightened as he can possibly find himself at present. A completer jumble of conflicting ard totally irreconcilcable evidence could not easily be imagined. Hereafter, we shall sum up that evidence, and give the best judgment we can ; for although .all proceedings in the several claims pending between Davis v. Horopeta and Horope-a v. Davis are by mutual consent stayed, the parties crying quits, we cannot cry quits wbh Intcrpretter Davis in this matter.