A EUROPEANISED NATIVE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 161, 27 March 1918, Page 9

A EUROPEANISED NATIVE

INQUIRY CONINjI . ' CASE OF RANGI KEREHOMA PART PLAYED BY PUBLIC TRUST .... A .MISSING WITNESS - The Commission of Inquiry which is investigating certain transactions in the lands of a Native, Rangi Kerehdma,, was continued yesterday. This "' young, man-was Eurbpeanised under . then recent legislation in 1913 on his own application, ' \ '

Mr: H. W.'Bishop, S.M., is the Commissioner. At the inouiry Mr. C. 13. Morison, ■ K.C., with Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared for Mr J.'.T. M. Eoi-ns-hy, M.P., at whose instance mainly the inquiry was set'im: Mr. C, P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. M. J. Crombic, for W. B. Chennells,- and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. H. F. vori Haast, for the Public'Trust-Office.' Mr. Horasby .Was in attendance also.

' Mr. Ronaldson Gives Evidence. T. S. Ronaldson, Deputy Public Trus'tee,' said that the .affairs of, .Rangi Kerehoma had beon very speciallv watched by the Public Trust Office. On the eve of his coming of age witness suggested to. the then Public Trustee, Mr. J. W.i Poynton, that an -ndeavour should .bo. made to.induce the boy to create an irrevocable trust .to be' held for him by the Public Trustee. The Amount he: suggested .was £25.000, and a trust deed covering this amount was executed. Chennells, he believed,' did aiot then know.Rangi. Some time later lie learned that .Chennells:had obtained a private power., of attorney from llangi. He believed that Chennells did exhibit .this power of attorney to one Smythe, head of, the -wills branch in ithe office, but he-had no knowledge of ithis. Smythe was since dead.' After .jthata letter from. Chennells stf.ting '•that ■he' proposed toi acquire some of Ranges lands came to the office.' Tho Public Trustee was away ill, and he .minuted the lotter with.a note that this .was a matter between Chennells and DRangi, and that Rangi's' affairs w;ere out of,control of the.Public Trustee. •'This was the- actual position. . Later. Chennells assured him that he had klonc everything ih proper order. _. He knew no more of ';lie matter'until he heard,of tho complaint, from -Strang and Hodge, that they could .not get renewals of their leases. -In connection ..with the Europeanising of Rangi there ivas a letter. from tho Native Department regarding Rangi; and a letter camo to him for signature answering the various questions asked. He said that 1 the letter gave the information desired, and he signed it accordingly., The policy of tho office was to refuse, to .'act; for persons in; New Zealand eo long ,as they were.Under no disability. ;

Kerehoma's Youth.

.To . Mr..'vph Haast :• The ■ office waß ■ tiof concerned .with Rangi Kerehoma's '.- .person or unbringing, but only with his, property; Witness, however, .did look after- his schooling to some extent. He ..visited Rangi often.;-at, the State , school at Ma'rtinborouglij'/and later'had. him sent. to". Wanganui .Collegiate School. He ran. away from there and . .later was .sent,.to Clareville ~ College. •-. Th'erb- were'.sonic, irregularities, there, ~ and he had to leave. \ After 'that, wit-| • ness tried to"get: bim sent .to-,, other ■schools,-, and at length sent him; to;' St. Patrick's College, taking such, steps as he could to prevent him from falling under evil influence- in'Jiis vacations. ■In 1908 Rangi-; stopped"going, to .college, and in July, 1909, ho came.of age. Witness- warned Rangi not to waste. his money, and on no account to, sign iniy documents. He was .awaro that '.the Native.Minister, Sir James.Carroll, ltiifcw a good deal about Rangi's' case.- - [About-this time (before'and soon-after the coming of v age) and when he re-i •ceived a letter from the Native Office asking simply for information; he judged that be had fulfilled his duty when lie replied giving that information without comment. . It was the Native Office. ' particularly that was concerned-with' the FjUroneanisation of Rangi Keratoma, and not the Public Trust Office..

Ohennolls Was Trusted, , AVi.tness was satisfied that Rangi wa's acting under the guidance of Chenhejls, and witness believed from his experience of Chennells that Chennells would watch the interests of Rangi. Dr. Fitchett had suggested that it.should have been the duty of some' officer of the' Public Trust to induce Rangi to 'hand, over all his - wealth to the. Public Trust. answer to this was

that it was contrary to tho policy of tho office to act as attorney for a person who. was not under disability, and he did not consider that Rangi was under a disability. Witness had taken such steps as he could to protect Rangi's money; the laud could not he dissipated, he thought. At the. time when these affairs wero going through 'witness was .a very busy man, owing to the continuing illness of Dr. Fitchett. Witness trusted Chennells, who' was always regarded as the best agent the office had. '■

To the Commissioner: For about a year or eighteen months before Dr. Fitchett _ left the office relations between him and witness were not cordial. Witness did'not know the reason. He had tried to get to the bottom of the trouble, tried to get an explanation, but without success.

Sir. Ronaldson was cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett as to how the Public Trust Office proceeded in dealing with Rangi Kerehoma's affairs • before he came of age, and in the collection of bis rents and the forwarding of his moneys after he came of age. Witness said ho did not agree with the statements-that Rangi had paid an excessive.price for his property near Masterton. . To Mr. Morison: At the time Rangi purchased the property witness thought ho knew that Chennells had the pro-, perty in his hands for sale. Witness did not know that the. owner of the property was a relative of Chennells.

No Responsibility. Witness was appointed Deputy Public Trustee on February 15, 1911. Previously he had been inspector for tho office, and was much absent from Wellington. Witness believed that neither the office nor himself had any responsibility for Rangi after he came of age. It was impossible for the office, to discharge such responsibility if he had ever supposed that it existed. Up to the time when Rangi came of age he had no knowledge whatsoever of business, and he would no doubt leave matters wholly to Chennells, trusting him no doubt-implicitly. Witness, although lie held .that the Public Trust could not restrain Rangi in-any way, did take sonle ■ action personally by speaking- to Rangi, and writing to him, about certain reports which had come to him regarding Rangi's extravagance. • To Mr. Skerrett: The reservation of. £25,000 for Rangi was entirely witness's idea. No one else had'any part in it. It was done wholly in Rangi's interests.. To the Commissioner: Rangi's college reports were very good, bui his education was perhaps somewhat broken and superficial. But Rangi's- school marks showed that he had real ability. Mr. Morison: A young man who was evidently dominated by his ' environment! . Land Values.

Oliver Smith,' valuer, of. Masterton, 'gave evidence of the value of- the Maungahuia Block, acquired by Ohennells and Beard from Rangi. He considered that in 1913 the value of the land was £11 ss. per acre. In 1916 he valued a part of the laud for Mr. Beard at £12. • He-gave'evidence of other. valuations ; he had made -with-the object of showing that £11 6s. was a, fair value for the Maungahuia land at that time.

To Mr. .Morison: He did not a'gree with the. valuation made by Mr. Frank Cameron of £15 per acre. He was not aware that John Strang, a competent farmer, was prepared to pay 15s. an acre rent for the lahd, but he agreed that. 15s. was too high a rent to pay for land worth £11 ss. an acre. '■:•

Air. Morison put it -to the witness that, later, Cherinells and Beard did ■ pay .nearly £15 an acre, some £3 an ] acre more than the original purchase j price. .-.- |-. Mr. Skerrett urged r that this was unfair, as the circumstances wore' suchthat Beard and Chennells had to pay what they: .were, asked. They, had i bought' the Rangitaua block, and subdivided the whole area, and stocked it. ■...'Mr..'Morison did not pursue.the Jnatter::.- !■...,,■.■ .'. Mr. Skerrett'. did not call Mr. Chennells.- ■~■'•..-.•..

"Hamlet" Without Hamlet. • : .The Commissioner asked what 1 ought to be done' about Rangi Kerehoma. He had been subpoenaed, and had not ap;oeared. • Mr. Hornshy said that "as the author of this' Commission," he would ask that Rangi Kerehoma be brought before the Commission. , Mr. Morison said that he did not think Rangi could help tlio inquiry in any .way: ' . ! Sir John Findlay said that the Public. Trustee required tho fullest possible inquiry, and for this reason he would ask that Rangi Kerehoma be called. Mr, Morison -said that, he would' not suggest that Rangi* Kerehoma should not be called, but. merely that it was possible that Rangi's evidence woyid not. help the inquiry.'_ Tho Commissioner, said that he would not alloiv the subpoena tobe disregarded unless counsel were in"• unanimous agreement that Kerehoma- need not be present. He thought it. would .help

him very much to lmvc Kerchoma before the Commission. He could never report properly on the matter without seeing Rangi. A discussion followed as to how best Rangi could bq induced to appear before the Commision. It was suggested that perhaps it might bo necossary to go to hear his evidonco at Hastings. I'Mak'o the adjournment until the date of tho next race meeting in Wellington I" suggested Mr. von Haast. Mr. Morison: "That will be in April. You will get him that way." The Commission, was adjourned to sit again on April 20 in the Supreme Court, Wellington, at 9.30 a.m. I