THE OMARANUI LAND DISPUTE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3169, 25 August 1881, Page 3

THE OMARANUI LAND DISPUTE.

Y To the Editor of the Daily Tb&eghaph.] Sib,—Mr Sutton's strictures upon my letter of the 20th instant compel me to crave the favour of your open column for a reply. Without noticing Mr Sutton's coarse personalities, I will confine myself to the question. Mr Sutton saye, "Mr Weber knows nothing of the matter; was not connected in the slightest way with it." Mr Sutton has evidently forgotten that the survey of the land was made in 1866, while I was in charge of the Survey Offipe, and that the plan submitted to the Native Lands Court bears my signature. This plan, a certified tracing of which is at the Survey Office, shows the block as consisting of two portions.—Portion A, 3410 acres then occupied by Mr Brathwaite, and B, 163 acres, comprising the Waiuhakaata Pa, reserved for the natives. My knowledg of the subdivisions on the plan gave me the key to the subsequent disputes, and this, coupled with the evidence given before the Hawke's Bay Native Lands Alienation Commission, and the fact that Mr Sutton claimed ownership for the first time five years after purchase, has led some years ago to the conviction with me that the natives intended to sell only the portion leased to Mr Brathwaite, but that by some error the 163 acres with their pa were included in the conveyance to Mr Sutton. I come now to the principal point in Mr Sutton's letter. He challenges the " truthfulness" of my synopsis of his evidence before the Commission; he says "I do not see the clause "Mr Sutton parted with the whole block, as he bought it, at a profit of £500, reserving no portion for himself." . What does Mr Sutton mean by " clause ?" Does he mean that this sentence does not appear verbatim et literatim in his printed evidence ? The whole tenor of my letter shows that I merely gave the gist of the evidence, and that I have clone this correctly is proved by the report presented to Parliament by Mr Justice Richmond, the chairman of the Commission. On turning to page 31 under Moteo or Omaranui No. 1 Block we read, " The Mock in question . . . . . contains 3573 acres Paora agreed to sell Moteo to Sutton for £2500 Soon after completion of Sutton's purchase he sold to Brathwaite, who held a lease of the block, for £3000." This is Judge Richmond's summary, based upon the evidence reported on pages 115 to 121, including that of Mr Sutton, pages 119 to 121. Does not this coincide in substance with the tenor of ray " clause," the truthfulness of which Mr Sutton has challenged. It very much looks as if Mr Sutton has taken refuge in quibbles to avoid the question. He does not tell us what evidence he has given; he even does not say in what respect my statement is wrong ; he only cannot see this " clause." Let him wriggle as he may think fit, but he is forced to choose between very unpleasant alternative?. Either MrSuttonwasundertheimpression, when examined before the Commission, that he had sold all his interest to Mr Brathwaite, and he only discovered afterwards that the original reserve of 163, acres.is included in the deed to himself; but excluded from that to Mr Brathwaite, or he knew at the time that the 163 acres in dispute were his property by the native deed, and were excluded from the sale to Mr Brathwaite. As ■we must put the latter alternative out of the question, as it implies not only ■wrong evidence before the Commission, but as it would likewise prove guilty fear in the five years delay in claiming this valuable property, we are forced to the conclusion the pa was by some bungle included in the conveyance to Mr Sutton, and that he became aware of this fact Only after the commission of 1873.—1 am, &c, ''■■■••'•• Charles Weber. Napier, 24th August, 1881.