ENFORCING THE NATIVE LAND PURCHASE ORDINANCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 52, 26 June 1862, Page 3

ENFORCING THE NATIVE LAND PURCHASE ORDINANCE.

EXTRORDINARY DECISION. Monday, April 23. (Before A. H. Russell, Esq., C.C. & R.M.) William Colenso appeared to answer an information laid by the corporal of police, as follows:—That he (defendant) hath been guilty of using or occupying certain land, to wit, 10 acres of land situate at Awapuni, in the Province of Hawke’s Bay, and which land is not held under a license from the Government, and is not comprised within a grant from the Crown, by depasturing cattle on the said land, and by cultivating the said land at divers times between the 21st day of December, 1861, and the 19th day of June, 1862, contrary to the Ordinance in that case made and provided, viz., the Native Land Purchase Ordinance No. 19 of Session 7 of the late Legislative Council of New Zealand. The Crown Prosecutor, stated the case, and called the following witnesses:— Samuel Locke, sworn, deposed:—l know the land in the neighbourhood of Awapuni. I know the land that is enclosed there. I recognise the the map produced ’■s the district map of Hawke’s Bay, and point out the land on it. t cannot say whether the land enclosed is native land; I always understood it was land for missionary purposes. It is in the occupation of Mr. Colenso. William Rich, sworn, deposed:— l know a piece of land that is enclosed at Te Awapuni. I don’t recognise it on the map produced. There are three enclosures. I always believed that one was in occup; tion of Mr. Colenso. I have hr d deahngs with Mr. Colenso with respect to that land. I don’t think I can recolltct the 1. st, it is so long rgo. The defendant here pointed out that the questions were of a general character, whereas they should only have reference to the periods named in the information. Mr. Rich, in continuation, —I have had no dealings with Mr. Colenso between those dates, unless putting in a horse into the paddock once or twice may be called so. I have no interest in the place. I have some property there—a stack of hay. It was mrde 1 °t year. I ready don’t know what month —some time the end of the year. I bed no bargain with Mr. Colenso about the hay—it was from Mr. Wood thrt I bought it. It might have been the end of October. I have often seen horses in the p:ddock—horses in belonging to almost everybody. I have seen horses in it belonging to Mr. Colenso—l cannot say within the last sis months. The fence is very otten broken down. I cannot say whether I have seen Mr. Colenso there within the last sis months, I think it is more than that time since I have seen him there. The Couet. —Bo you know whether Ma, Colenso has exercised any act of proprietorship on that land between the two dates mentioned. Witness. —l believe he has, but 1 cannot say of my own knowledge. The Defendant. —ln any conversation you may have b r d with me on former occnions (for I have scarcely seen you between the two dates named) d!d you ever hear me rdmit or allow that the land in question was ho. ajide native land. Witness. —l did not. By Mr. Wilson. —Have you hrd, within the six months, any couversat’on with any one respecting this land. Witness. —I have. I rsked the natives what Was the boundary between their land and Mr. Colenso’s, and they pointed it out. By Deeendant. —When the natives pointed out the boundary to you what did they say. Witness.— They said that the boundary pointed out and marked by them wss the division between their lard and the land that they hrd given before to Mr Colerso for missionary purposes. James Wood, sworn, deposed;—l am a printer, res’ding in Napier. I know a piece of land which is enclosed at Awapuni. A great many persons have made use of it. A great number of horses and cows have been there. I have seen none of Mr. Colenso’s witlvn the 1 st six months. I have been there often within the list sis months. I cannot be qu : to certain whether I have seen Mr. Colenso there witlvn the list s’x months—l doubt whether I have. I submit that I am not called upon to say whether or not my own horses have been running there. I know Mr. Colenso has an inteI’estcd in the land in question. I am rot aware of his having derived any pecuniary benefit Arm it within the Irst six months. I do not believe he has dep stured cattle there within the If it six months. I am almost certain he h s not. I believe he has not cultivrted it within that period. I have seen a piece of rope t : ed round the fence by his authority, as I concluded. I do not recollect who it was that tied it. I have seen nothing done at all by Mr. Colenso on the plr.ee, except the mending of the fence, within the last six months. I have known Mr. Colenso give permission for a horse to be put into the p. ddock. I have not known him to give permission to other airmals to go there. The Defendant put the same question to this r~, to the former witness, relative to h’s having admitted the lard referred to to he native land, and received the same reply. H. S. Tiffen, sworn, desposed:—l am Commissi oner of Crown Lands. I know a piece of land that is enclosed at Waitangi. Of my own knowledge I don’t know in whose occupf tion it is. No grant has been issued for it. No license has been issued ‘n respect of it. The defendant put the same question to this witness as to the two preceding ones. Witness. —I fear I must answer in the affirmative; indirectly you have acknowledged the land in question to be native land. In a conversation 1 had with you, after I hrd sent you a copy of my letter of instructions, I recommended you to move away quietly, without bringing the case into court. You answered, how could you remove bricks, fencing, and each like, without great

loss—or words to that effect. That was my reason for drawing the conclusion that you admitted the land to be native land. Dependent. —You were asked whether a license had been issued for this land. Didjyou ever know of a license being issued for the occupation of native lands ? Witness.—No. The Court.—ls it within your knowledge as Commissioner that the land in question is native land? Witness.—lt is. Dependent.—ls it within your knowledge that Mr, Kempthorne surveyed the block by order of the General Government? Witness. —lt is not; I was only aware that he was surveying somewhere in that locality. This closed the erso for the prosecution. The Defendant then proceeded to address the court. It could not fail, he said, to be ruled by the Commissioner that the information had not been supported— Mr. Wilson, before the case went further, would ask leave to amend the information by inse’ting the words “ and enclosing ” after “ cultivating.” The Defendant objected to such emendrtion. He was charged with cultivating and depasturing, but neither had been proved. Then, again, it bed not been shewn that the land referred to wr.s native land— Mr. Wilson. —lt is not necessary. It is sufficient that you occupy land not comprised within a grant from the Crown. Belides, under Jervis’s Acts, we are not bound to prove an exception. The Defendant was prepared to prove that it was rot native land ; and he would proceed to do so, unless the Commissioner ruled that the information had already fallen to the ground. The Couet thought it desirable that he should proceed. The Defendant then proceeded with his case at considerable length, the substance of which will be found in the following statement, entered on the records of the Court—■ I am not upon native laud, as shewn by documentary evidence—a deed of grant of the same having been publicly made by the native chiefs, the proprietors, in the year 1843 to the Church Missionary Society. Such deed was drawn up by the Bishop of Waiupu—the duplicate of which was left with the chiefs here, and is now in the possession of Karaitiana Takamoana. Such deed was obtained under the special directions of the Lishop of New Zealand and Governor Fitzroy; and such deed is referred to in Mr. Solicitor Brandon’s letter produced in Court (and marked A), and further alluded to in a memorandum of March last from the Bishop of Waiupu and other clergymen to His Excellency Sir George Grey. That in consequence of that Deed of Grant I have always considered myself as a tenant of land held by the Church Missionary Society, with the permission of the Crown. I have always held myself iu readiness to relinquish possession of it, should it be desired to re-convey the land to the natives by the proper authorities. All I sought at any time was compensation for any real property which cannot be moved. When the natives pointed out the boundary before-mentioned, by Mr. Rich, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, they acknowledged that they had formerly granted that land for missionary purposes, and pointed out the boundary to him.’ ; The Commissioner said that he had listened very carefully to what bad been advanced on both sides, and it appeared to him very clear that the land referred to was native land ; that it was occupied by defendant, and and that it was neither comprised within a Crown Grant, nor held under a depasturing license. The object of the Government was that possession of the land might be quietly given to the natives. He had received no communication from the Ministry on the subject, but he did not apprehend that the infliction of a heavy penalty was wished for by them. He would therefore inflict a fine of c£s, and require defendant to give over possession to the native owners. Upon such possession being given he would be prepared to hear an application for a remission of the fine. This decision of the Commissioner, so totally unexpected, was received with great dissatisfaction by those who witnessed the proceeding, which was manifested by a general hissing as they left the Court. [We are indebted to cotemporary for most of the evidence in this case, as the Court papers were required before we hail an opportunity of putting them in type.]