SUPREME COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3116, 23 June 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

WEDNESDAY JUNE 22

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) BEES V. BARKER.

W. L. Rees, examined by Mr Lee, deposed that he was a trustee with the plaintiff Wi Pere in the land called Whataupoko. The document produced constituted them trustees of the block. In February, 1879, a deed of mortgage in respect to the land was signed. The first dealing with defendant in reference to the land was about May 20, 1878. Defendant came to witness and asked if witness could not help him in the position he was placed in with regard to the title of his land. Witness was acting for some natives who were opponents of defendant. Witness told him he must do one of three thiogs—either contest the disputed titles in a court of law, or partition the land between himself and the natives, or sell out. Witness asked defendant if he would sell and he replied that he would, and in answer to a question as to how much he wanted, put the price at £40,000. Witness said he knew that the natives had no money, and that it would hwrttt

come out of the land. Defendant would have to give time for the payment of the money. Defendant agreed to that proposal and asked if it was a bargain. Mr Rees was examined at great length with respeeS to several other matters iv codnecilott with ths negotiation for the fiuf chase of the pf operty, and was crossfeiamihed by Bdtr, Smith; Percival Barker, the defendant' examined by Mr Rees, d.posed that in May, 1878, ha was in Gisborne, and remembered F2.i'ig Mr Re.3 at the old Courthouse buildings, along with Mr M'Donald Witness spoke to Mr Rees about Whataupoko. 'Mr Rees, he thought, bad sent for him, but he could not remember who came to witness or where he was &.Ut for from. Mr Reea said he had bean employed by the natives to investigate titles, and witness's case was the first he was to come upon. He said witness's title was no good. Witness asked Mr Rees if he would complete the title for him; that he would pay him well for doing it, and would pay a good price for all unsold shares. Mr Rees said he was employed by the natives, and they wanted their land back. Witness said, "In that case what will you give me ? " Mr Rees asked what witness would take for his interest. Witness replied that he did not know ; it would require some consideration. Mr Rees then said something about £40,000. When Mr Sees asked " What will you take ? " witness did not say to Mr Rees •' It is a bargain." Nordic! he say "Let's shake hands on it." Witness did not shake hands on the bargain. He saw Mr Rees after, when he asked witness if he had made up his mind what he would take. Witness said he had not made up his mind, but would let him know next day or the day after. Mr R.es waved his hands in witness's face in the street, and said he would blind witness with writs. Witness wrote a letter offering the land for £65,000. Mr Rees said it was a ridiculous pride, and witness replied that he Was willing to reduce it. Witness first reduced it to £50,000. Mr Rees said to that, " No, make it £47,500 and you shall have the land for three years rent free, but no interest to be paid on tbe amount. The letter witness wrote to Mr Rees was altered to £47,500, witness initialling it. Captain Tucker said, " You know what you've initialled ?" Witness replied, '"Yes, £50,000." Captain Tucker replied} "No \ you've initialled for £47,500." Witness could not read the writing, being without his .pectaclei, but understood he was initialling for £50,000. Witness did not agree that the amount should be altered to £47,500, and had no idea the letter was altered to that amount. He remembered mee'rug Mr Rees in Mr Burkes office. Mr Burfcg tnd Mr M'Donald rrere present. Witness remembered Mr Burke r--iyir-g t':-t ■witness owed £15,000 to the tank, nd that he (Mr Burke) would not r'lov? the sale to go on unlets the debt was rs '"d. Witness, however, never owed tie b?*jk £15,0C0 at any time, though he rlow_:l Mr Burke to say go. Witne■••i c v d not think it worth wh ? !o to contraci.t tbe statement. The re* on he did no*, cary out the offer contrr" _?d in tbe letter w~.s because it was Eg zee d to r-'.r it at tbe bank. If the contract of the 25th of May had brsn carried out Mr Rcea would not have had to pay tbe £15,000.

Mr Barker was by Mr Smith.

Mr W. tt. Tucker deposed that he was a licensed native in'er prefer, end was formerly clerk to 'be Cook County Council. He knew defendant, and ateo remembered Mr Re_3 foing in Gisborne in May, 1878. Witness saw Mr Rees and Mr Barker together in that month at tbe old Cou;;-house, nad was present at tbe conversation with r-:--:pcjt to the Whataupoko block. Mr Aiiau M'Donald was -zhi pi..3nt. Defendant proposed to make terms of some nature with Mr F '•.?, and vwtne.9 could remember Mr B;es eajing to defendant that there were three courts or an to him—sub-division of the block, lit or to coll out his interest to th. natives. Defendant ultimately agreed to -oil out his whole interest for £40,-.30. Mr Barker named the sum. Mr Rees a-most immediately laid, " You shall have it." Defendant said, "Is that a bargain ?" and they shook hands on it. Either on the same day or the day after defendant proposed some condition about interest, or something of that nature. Mr Rees said that was not the understanding between them at all. Then defendant intimated that the matter was at an end. A day or so after, as Mr Rees was leaving for Napier, he showed witness a letter from defendant containing an offer to sell the block for £G5,C.0. Defendant and Mr Rees diseased the matter, and an arrangement was ultimately arrived at that the amount mentioned in the letter should be altered from -G6S.GCD to £47,5.0. Witness thought he made the alteration in the presence of both parties. Each agreed that the figures should be so altered. Witness believed that defendant initialled or signed the alteration, and the letter was to Mr Rees, who immediately left for Napier. By Mr Smith: Witness's uaur! occupation was that of a licensed interpreter. He had an office in Mr Rees' office. He was also an articled clerk to Mr Rees. In the year IS7B, when he took part in the interviews with defendant and Mr Bees, be had no business connections with Mr Rees. Witness had never interpreted any cases for Mr Rees. If was quite possible that when Mr Rees offered £47,500 defendant said he would not take leis than -550,000. He wonld, however, swear that defendant ultimately agreed to take the lesser amount. He did not remember any conversation with defendant as to what he had initialled. He would Bwear that the conversation sworn to by defendant about the initialling did not take place. The Court adjourned until next day.

THURSDAY, JUNE 22.

His Houor took !,i_ seat at. 10 o'clock. Wi Pere, called rid e::i__ir."l by I'lr Rees deposed tl-at be was 0~0 cf A:e plaintiffs in tbe ration. He '■.)•:■ he deed of trust prof.u.sd. his .re was'o it. 11. Lnew the pur .:; for which the diced v;n mau 1 . r *. r i c\-_d was made by tha TT o;is rr] "? A,._];;v. In 1879 it was wr.'Vvn v? •';. < .! .•■ rj'. Ir Regan. It was a d of vl.?a'_: p. i..~3, Mr Rees, and Tie; •■a, w n ro vu i v :*:;i':.'3d trast:.s for a -jis.. ,; land, ' •; e*>r.-y cut all terms connect;;. v;ith the land in crcler that the owners of i.;n h_<l sLonlu derive a living thereby, a. 1 thn.t tha natives and Mr Barker mh_"t have a thorough understanding, and no farther disturbance about that i.ieea of land. They pureed to [jive Mr i -rl.er £47,500 to put an e_d to all disputes. On Mr Barker a£i:;ing to take that sum all parties were agre-.-tVo. Mr Barker promised that he wo-i'i.! support tbem in cairying on!; the inters: 'ens of the dcod. When the de::l w__ Mu--? negotiated they did not think there *.: '..id be any further disput,?. His rea.DJ for paying this was tbat *i. the time the deed was mide be asked far five yeara. Mr Rra-ker said it was very good— t'isy would it down at two years. He (BarL.r) onld always support tbe trustees in the matter; if it was found

; necessary to extend the time to fire years i h. would be quite agreeble to extend, it if the trustees were strong enough to .carry oat the intentions about the laDd, to mak. the bridge, subdivide the land, end make the road. They were to pay Mr Barker a certain sum of money on account. He did not .peak English. Mr Barker did not speak Maori. There were,interpreters who interpreted what Mr Barker said; lie bad seen the deed of mortgage produced before. He knew tLe deed of conveyance produced before; it was for 2500 acres. They gave the 2500 acres first to Mr Macdonald for £15,000. Afterwards Barker took over tbe land; it was a portion of the £47,500. After thi. a portion, consisting of 1000 acres, was given to Macdonald as a mortgage. This concluded the payment of £20.U00 to Mr Barker. He was in Mr Rogan'S office when the dfieds were signed. A conversation took place between Mr Barker and himself. Barker, Macdonald, Rees, Rogan, Hall, and Jury were present. Hale and Jury are interpreters. Cross-examined by Mr Smith: He could understand a little plain English. He could not talk English. He had not held conventions in English of any length at Gisborne. He could not talk to Mr Barker about the deeds in English. The English language was as heavy as a stone to him. What he had stated was that 1000 acres had been given to Macdonald for £5000, making in all £20,000, leaving £2'7,oti6'. Barker hdd the 2500 acres, and the. proceeds of the land given to Macdonald went to Barker. He received no money from Macdonald on account of the 5000 acres, that money was for Barker. It was understood that Barker taking the 2500 acres it was to be valued as £1500. Afterwards Barker said he would not allow more than £1200 for it, This was the reason they sold the portion of the land to Ma9donald. After Barker found Macdonald had got the land he was angry with Rees. £1500 out of the £5600 mentioned in the mortgage to Macdonald was paid to tbe trustees. He did not see the money paid. He never saw Macdonald pay the £5000 to anyone. The mortgage of £6500 to Macdonald had not been paid off to his knowledge. The reason the money was not paid was that they had arranged not to pay the money until all the arrangements about tbe land were completed. The trustees had not conveyed the 1000 acres absolutely to Macdonald free from the mortgage. The £6*500 was still owing to Macdonald on that mortgage. He knew Mr Gannon. He could not say if he was present at Rogan's office when tbe deeds were signed. He was very likely present. He believed Jury was present. Jury was one of the perrons who interpreted on that occasion. Hde wps the licensed interpreter, and both he and Jury interpreted. W. U. Burke , e?"-nined by Mr Rees, dspoc:"!: He knew Mr Macdonald and Mr Barker. He remembered Barker comir-s to Napier in June, 1878. He saw Barker about come land at Gisborne. The conver?ci.on referred to the .de of Barker's interest in the block to Rees. He (witness) objected to the enVe. Barker was villing to modify the matter in any way to protect t : ".br.-k. The first thing that oame to r ? s knowledge was that some document in re:cr*w} to that land had been registered. He objected to the terms of that dc-rrcent. Barker then came down, and fi-ve'i PVYF'.ngemenfs were entered into. An interview was arranged between Barker, Roe*, Macdonald, and himself. The interview wai at the bank. Witness .aid at that interview that he objected to the fo:aie? agreement. He objected becirse pror Ti-y w?s bjing dealt with that tha bnak had security over to the extent of £15.000. The bank had that security. If Mr Barker had made a point of carrying out the first arrangement he would probably have allowed it. An agreement dat-d tbe 10th of June was afterwards come to. The agreement produced was the one. It Mr Barker had insisted upon carrying out the first agreement the new ono would not have been made. He had some conversation with Barker about purchasing the block. Barker said that Rees was desirous that he (Barker) wanted him to take a portion of the land in part payment. There were various prices mentioned for different portions of the land. The sum of £12,000 was mentioned by Mr Barker. He advised Mr Barker several times not to give too high a price for the land. He remembered a meeting at Mr Wilson's private house. The conversation had reference to a portion of the land.

Cms-examined by Mr Smith: It was rather a stormy meeting at Mr Wilson's. Mr Rees, he thought, was trying to rsrsuade Mr Barker to give somewhere about -320,C00 for some land. He did not remember Mr Rees saying, "Barker, if you don't do this I'll ruin yon." He remembered Barker telling him in the back that he had been offered 2000 acres for £15,000. Witness told Barker he would be a fool to give that sum. Barker owed the bank £15,300 on the 4th of June, 1873. A little over £10,000 of that would really be owing by Barker, and the remainder by Macdonald.

Allan Macdonald, examined by Mr j Reeß, said he was in partnership with Barker in 1878. He dissolved in March, 1878. He was in Gisborne iv May, 1579. He was present at an interview between Barker, Rees, and Tucker in May, 1878. They were speaking about the block. Mr Rees remarked that they would either have to sub-divide tbe land, or make some arrangement to buy Barker out, or fight it out in Court. Mr Barker said he would sooner sell. Rees then said, " what do you want for it?" Barker said he wanted £40,000. Rees said he would take it at that. They then shook hands, He left then. No definite time for payment was mentioned at the interview. Had a conversation afterwards with Barker about the purchase of a portion of the land. It was before Barker went to Dunc_in. He entered with Rees into negotiations for the purchase of a ' nation of the land, 2500 acres, round th. L.meatead. He was present in the bank parlor at the interview between barker, Burke, and Rcos. The subject of the ...le of t.,3 'and was brought up. was r.igry, a.id paid he held w-'oc.*:- liu-j' j for the £15,000 as well as

<A']:"V, end that the arrangment would throw tl - . bank out for three years. He 'Al Vc could not get any cecurity unless /.Ii crra were made. Witness .Id 'Jrn be thought some arrangements ■u'd le r.iade with Mr Rees. At that

A:■■\') ho entered into negotiations with I. *.3 f:-v 'he purchase of a portion of the 1 v.k Kiu.d the homeßtead for 15,000,

: .'. .-3 r.r*;i'.'.at'.ons were not carried out. :;ark..-"rr.:.'t Urn :n the street, and said he -..ant'! A, . land, and he would carry out L-.1-i aian£..nent with Rees for tbe £15,030 ' *:.y t E ,<; Bank of New South Wales. C* ; r ;r: I lo tbe arrangement. He was c-.;.:n of the sum. After tVs Mr Rees cxuie to him at Gisborne and showed him a pap*r. Negotiations were then recommenced. He bought the 2500 acres from Rees, and afterwards sold it to Barker. Barker afterwards came to him and said be would pay him all the expenses and a good profit if witness would give him

good long terms. They then went to Mr Ward's office, and an agreement was come td. He was to take it at £20,000. He then said he would get the trustees to give & portion of the land aa security for tbe £5000 profit, and for the £1500 which witness had advanced to the natives and knock it off tbe original price. Barker came to him two or three times. He (Barker) was not forced to take the land. Those terms were agreed to. The examination of this witness was being continued when our report left.