A MAORI'S LANDS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 158, 23 March 1918, Page 8

A MAORI'S LANDS

CASE OF RANGI KEREHOMA

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY

SOME RAPID SPENDING

GRAVE CHARGES

A Commission cf Inquiry into certain matters connected with the estato of q young Maori, Rangi Kerehoma, opened yesterday. The Commissioner is Mr. 11. W. Bishop, S.M. Pangi Kerehoma is one of the fortunate Natives who have inherited lartre areas of land of considerable value. He is really wealthy. He succeeded to his wealth as a minor, and in his earlier years he was a ward of the Public Trustee. ,Some of his lands were situate in the Wairarapa district, and the work of tbn Public Trust connected with them was done through tho Masterton office, where the agem was one William Boyce Chennells. Early in 1013 Rangi Kerehoma came of age, and the Public Trustee had no I longer any tutelary powers over him or his estate. He proceeded to deal with 'his own money, and in order to do so with the more freedom, he took advantage of then recent legislation to become for legal purposes a "European." Having done this he disposed' of soni" of his nroperties to the families of William Bovce Chennells, and a. solicitor named William Gaseoigne' Beard, of Masterton. These transactions have been the suhiee.t of other proceedings against Beard. The, matter has been ventilated on many occasions in the Hou'c and elaewh°re by Mr. J. T. M. Hornsbv. member for Wairarapa.. and this Commission is probably +lie result of his representations. The scope of the Commission is to inonire into the circumstances under which Rangi Kerehoma, was Europeonined. into 'the transactions with Chennells and Beard, and as to the responsibility nf th« Pub]''- Trustee for .the acts of the a"*>nt Chennells!.

Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C.. -w'th Vm Mr. I). R. Hnap"».rfl. apneared for Mr. Hornshv; Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. M J. Crombie, annealed for Mr. W. B. Chennells; and Sir '.Tohn Findlay, K.C.. with him Mr. R, F. vdn Haast, ,annear"d for the' Public Trustee. Mr. H. M. Gore is secretary to' the Commission.

Statement of Charges. Mr. Morison opened the proceedings by stating the facts from the point of view of his client, and later he formulated charges against Chennells. He did not make charges of wilful wrongdoing against the Public Trustee, but lie did say that he considered that it would be difficult for the Public Trustee to clear himself from all responsibility for''the acts of his agent, Chennells. He. said that Rangi Kerehoma was a Native infant, under the legal guardianship of the Pnblio Trustee, -who administered his estate. For many years before Rartgi Kerehoma came of ago Chennells had been agent for the Public Trustee at Masterton, in which capacity he was in close touch with Rangi.

Mr.. Skerrett: He never had any dealings with Rangi Kerehoma until he came of age.

Sir John Findlay: There is a loan of £1800 the month that Rangi Kerehoma came of age, and it appears that the loan was made before ho came of age.

Mr. Morison said that Chennells acted for Rangi in all his business, and he suggested that it was by virtue of the influence he gained over the boy before he became of ago that he obtained the power of attorney from him after he attained liis majority. Six months after Rangi came of age Chennells obtained from him a power of attorney, and the document was prepared by W. G. Reard. Under it Chennells was to received per cent, on all moneys he received jn behalf of Rangi, and 6 per cent, on all moneys advanced to Rangi, or paid and advanced oil his behalf. Mr-. Morison said that it seemed that Chennells -was to receive 5 per cent, not only on the income collected, but on every principal sum which passed through his hands. To show the extent to" which"Chennells . controlled Rangi's affairs he would put in a statement of accounts furnished by Chennells on the revocation of the power of attorney on April 22, 1915. The accounts showed the most startling improvidence that could veil he conceived. This young Native was spending money a't the rate of thousands a year. The. Commissioner: What was' tho estate worth ? Mr. Morison said he was safe in saying that it was worth from £80,000 to £100,000. Tho annual incomo was then about £3000 a year. He thought the income now was close on £500() a year. A week after Rangi came of age he opened an account with the Bank of New South Wales. That account, showed that his expenditure from Julv 15 to the end of September was close on £12.000. Part of that was spent in purchasing a house at Masterton through Mr. Chennells. a house which, counsel understood, Ro'ngi fiad had rare occasions to us*. There also a payment to Mr. Beard of £2600.

I The l.and Transactions. J Mir. Skcrrebt interposed that his [client contended that the agency of the Public Trustee for Rangi Kerehonia' terminated when he became of age, and from the date on which ho I received payment from the Public ' Trustee of certain moneys by cheques,. ; and.that Cheunells was acting privately | —he being in private practice as au I agent—.is the agent for Rangi Kerej homa, and not as representing tho I Public Trustee. ! Mr. Morison referrer] to the trans- | actions in land by which Beard and ! Chennells obtained from Rangi Kerehoina certain valuable lands in the I Wairaraiw. which transactions, lie 1 said, had led to tli« revocation of the i power of attorney. Those transac- ; tions had been set aside or varied by tile payment by Beard and Chennrlls of n large sum of money. Rangi lierehoma commenced an action in the Supreme Court, but the case did not go to trial; it was settled by the parties, Chennells r.nd Beard agreeing to pay to Rangi Kerehoma sums of money. The "Euroiisanisihg" of Rangi. Application was made to Tiavnßnuci Kerehomn "TCuropcanised," and when t.lie apnlieahinn was heard before Judge Gilfedder, the Judge was kept in ignorance of the fact that this young Native was an absolute spendthrift, quite unfit to conduct his own He OTr. Afor^"' 1 fotild I'ot understand Chennells. holding a position of trust, sitting h.v in court, and allowing ail protection to be taken from this voup<: Native tlvit wns nrovided for him by the Native land laws. C.learly the "Kiimneanisatinn" was not uiideriaken in Ttaiwi's interest; it enuld not have been taken in his interest. Then they must discover in whose interest it was taken. He would suggest that the application to "Enroiieaiiiso" Rangi was made the interest of Mr. Chennells and his family and of Mr. Beard and his family. After this 'he ne n nle who wished to ret Rnnsi's lands from him did not let.the grass grow under their feet. The land transactions with Be-rd and Chennells began within weeks afterwards, arid the various stares were eomnleted within a short period. There could have been no nossihle objection to Mr. _Chennells buying the land from Rangi provided

tile price was a proper one, and that Rangi acted under separate and competent advice. Under these conditions it was permissible for :i trustee to purchase from a. person in a fiduciary relation to him. It was alleged by Chennells that Rangi had separate advice. There was a colour of support for this statement, tmt only a colour. Beard asked .Mr. Hallett, nl' Hastings, to act for Rangi, but Mr. Hallett's instructions were only to be sure that Rangi understood what was in the documents he was signing. Mr Hallett had 110 evidence as to whether the prices to be paid for the land were fair and right—a very important condition in all transactions between a trustee and a person for whom lie held property in trust. Mr. Hallett could not advise Rangi on this, because he had no means of knowing what the value of the land was. ' This could not he called separate and competent advice. He could not advise Rangi as to whether the transactions were fair and right, nor was he instructed to do so. His instructions were that this was the arrangement that had been made, and that he was to see that the documents carried out the arrangements, and that Rangi understood them. From Mr. Hallett's affidavit' on the matter it was clear that he had not been Rangi's adviser in the making of the agreements dealing wilii the land. The Court of Appeal had declared that Rangi was not separately and competently advised, and the purchases were for this reason vulnerable. The outcome was that the prices to be paid for the land were increased considerably, to make the payments more nearly approach the real value cf the land.

Fast Spending. In the course of documentary evidence produced a letter was ;ead showing that in eighteen months after his coming of age Rangi spent £12,000 in cash, his income of £3000 a year, and got into debt to the extent • [ £'5000. Rangi wished to raise £3000 to pay his debts, and Chennells took a mortgage over somo lands of Rangi's and advanced the sum of £2000 at £6 per cent., promising other advances. A bill of costs sent by Chennells to Rangi showed that in four years after Rangi attained his majority he spent £12,000, which he inherited on coming of age, £3000 a year of income, and v-as in debt to the amount of £10,000 or £12,000.

Charges. Mr. Morison said that he had been invited to specify whatever charges could be made against officers of the Public Trust Office. After going through the evidence he had satisfied himself that the only person against whom charges could be made was William Boyce Chennells. This charge was that while lie was trustee as agent for the Public Trustee, and later as attorney for Rangi, he ipersuaded Rangi to sell to Beard aud Chennells areas of. land at much less than their real value, Rangi not being separately and competently advised. But for 'the fact that they took advantage, of their hold over- Rangi, and did not see that he had separate advice, the purchases could not have been attacked. He could not find that the Public Trust Office was to blame except that it could not be quite dissociated from blame ii; respect of the actions of its agent Chennells. He considered that the documents produced laid the onus of reply to charges heavilv ttnon Chennells.

Question of Procedure. Sir John Findlay said that the purpose of the; Commission was not to try Chennells, but. to investigate the conduct of officers of the Public Trust. He therefore claimed that Mr. Morison should put all his evidence before the Commission before the Public Trust Office should be called upon to say anything. He could not take the responsibility of calling either Dr. Fitchett or Mr. Ronaldsou until he know exactly what there was to meet. The matter was one of extreme gravity to the Public Trust Office. ■ This point arose because Mr. Morison could not produce his evidence until Tuesday next.

The Validity of the Inquiry,

Mr. C. P. Skerrett made come observations ou the scope of the inquiry. He urged that the Governor had not power under statute to direct an inquiry such as that now ordered. The Commission had no power to investigate the 'circumstances of tile Europoiinisatioii of Rangi Kerehoma. Another matter on which the Commission was asked to inquire was as to whether the Public Trustee or any officer, servant, or agent of the Public 'frost Office was concerned in tho application of Rangi Kerehoma to he declared a European. Mr. Skerrett argued that the Commission could inquire oi.ly into the conduct of a public officer, and'into his conduct as a public officer only. He contonded that after Kerehoina attained his majority Chennells did not act for him as an officer of the Public Trust, but as an agent privately cmployed by Rangi Kerehoma. The only allegation that might be Made against Chennells as a Public Trust ofiioer was that during Rangi's minority he obtained great influence over him, which influence he afterwards used to Rangi's detriment. All the transactions complained of occurred after llangi had attained his majority, and therefore after ho ceased to be a ward or tlie lublic Trust Office. He contended that the Commission could not inquire into the conduct of Chennells after he ceaso»l to act for the Public Trust Otlice. The relations of Beard and Chennells with Rangi Kerehoma had already been investigated by tlie Supreme Court. It was true that the tin ling cu the court affected Beard only, and was not binding upon LhcnneUs. ler- ! haps Chennells was implicated, but that was a quarrel between Chennells and the Native, into which the Commission could not inquire. He would suggest that the inquiry should be limited to tho connection ot the Public Trust Office at Masterton with this matter. _ . .. Tlie Commissioner said that lie would express no opinion on the points S by Mr. Skerrett, but lie said that some of tliein had not taken him completely by surprise. Mr. Morison argued that Chenneil.i was clearly within the scope of_ the Commission, because he remained an j a.rent of the Public Trustee during j part of the time that lie was making ] these deals with Rangi. uu j was an officer of the Public Trust he acquired influence over Rangi., Later he h«l dealings with Rangi . while still an aceiit ot the Public ; Trust, but Mr. Skerrett said ] did not do it as agent of tho I üblic Trust. Mr. Aforison urged .hat this contention could not be snstvncd, !>»d that Chennells's conduct during ..his period did come within the scope of the inquirv. . It was clopi'lorl to adjourn the Commission' until Mondav evening at S o'clock, bv which time .Tii'W f.dfedder (a witness in the case) will he in Wellington.