NATIVE LAND CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1479, 13 June 1905, Page 1

NATIVE LAND CASE.

I REMARKABLE EVIDENCE. I At- (the Auckland Supreme , Court the I further hearing of the native land oaso, in I which Margaret E. H. Beale (Mr Martin, I instructed by Mr Beale) brought an action I against Tihema Te Hsu and others (Mr I Earl) and the Attorney-General (the Hon. I J. A. Tole) for theToseession of 8600 acres I of land near Mount Tarawera, and £IOO I mesne*profits;*was proceeded'with. I In support of his ease Mr Earl* called a number of other Maori witnesses. * One of these wore Hare Hare, a Maori, who eaid that be "was* one' of the'natives who at- [ tended the Native Land Court when the land'waß subdivided. l lt was asked-at the hearing, he said, whether there were any objectors, and ho stood up and said “ No.” He did so at tbe : instigation-of ‘ Burt, who promised him £3O and l some 1 land besides, if be would do so. Mr Earl : Did you 'ever receive that money from Bart ? Witness': No; As'soon*os the partitions were granted, and the Court "had finished I endeavored to find Burt,'but could not. I searohod in -vain.

His'Honor : You novergot the money? Witness : No. Mr Earl : It is still owing then ? . Witness : Still on mortgage. Mr Earl : I don’t [know if Mr Burt has mortgaged anything; unless it is his soul. Evidence was also given by Alfred Precce (aq interpreter), as to the natives' occupation, and by John Alexander Wilson (an'ex judge of the Native Land Court), who said that in 1889 he conducted au inquiry into the way in which the partition had been made. This closed the case for the defence.

Mr(Martin,oalled Harry R. Burt, licensed interpreter, who said that he had been : an interpreter for about 30 years. After Judge Wilson’s inquiry into tho partition of the land, witness’ license as an interpreter was taken away, but it was subsequently returned. During the whole : of that inquiry witness was represented by a solicitor, but none of the people were put upon their oaths, as it was only a Oourt of inquiry.

Mr Martin : How was it that only,three people applied (or subdivision ? Witness : It is so long ago that I cannot quite remember. Were any Gazette notices sent out ? It is so long ago that I would not like to say, although I feel quite sure that they were.

Do you know whether the natives had notice of the sitting of the Court at Ohinemutu ?

Yes. Two notices were given at -Te Mumuhu by Judge Clark. These were served upon the parties interested. The notices were put into separate, envelopes, which wore addressed by the judge to the respective tribes interested. His Honor pointed out that this was just like addressing a document to the oitizens of Auckland, and giving it to a man in the street as delivery. He did not believe that any judge would do such a thing.

Continuing, witness said that this Was but a day or two before the eruption' of Mount Tarawera. On the night of that memorable event he saw the natives upion the land in question, and they told him that several of them were going to attend. Only three of them, however, turned up when the Court sat. Mr Martin : Was the faot stated in Court that you had bought so much of this land ?

Witness : The statement wbb made by Pereniko to that effect.

So that the judge knew at any rate what he wbb doing. He was not misled ? He knew what be was doing.

Now the statement has been made that yon bribed Hare Hare to stand up in court and say that there were no objectors. Is that true ?

No. I paid him £1 per day, so that he would attend the Court.

Hiß Honor : Why ? Witness : To appear with his brother.

So as to make some show that there was an independent party there, eh ? He was there to get up in the audience and say, Hear, hear. Waß that it ?

He was one of the leading chiefs, was known by the judge, and I wanted him to explain. But Hare Hare did nothing more than say that there were no objeotors. Why did you not get him to explain ? I cannot say. Well, you say then that Hare Hare is swearing falsely when he Bays that you promised him £3O and some land as a bribe ?

I say that he is not telling the truth. I only promised to give him £1 per day during the time that he was engaged in attending the Court.