DISTRICT COURT.
The case of Tarelia and others v. Cashmore came before the District Court this morning Mr Stedrnan appeared for the plain tiffs; Mr Wilson for the defendants. Mr Wilson objected to the rule which was issued on Monday. He considered it impioperly issued, and applied that it should be set aside. It was absolute in form, and called upon bis client to show cause why certain action should not be taken by the other side, after that action had actually been taken by them. After some discussion, his Honor said that the rule was only issued for a temporary purpose, and vvas not at the present time in force. He had fully explained this at the time of its is-me. Mr Hamlin was sworn to interpret. Tarelia te Moananui being absent, Paora Torotoro was then called, and examined by his Honor Mr Eoehfort. He deposed : I live at Te Kohnpatiki, and am a chief of the Ngaitukuatemngi tribe. 1 know Tareha and Te VYaka Pauatini, the other plaintiffs in this suit. Tareba belongs to my tribe, he is now at Whakaari. I know Mr F. Sutton. I know the Mangaieretere West Block. I ha'-e an interest in that block, which in cerest I hare acquired from my ancestors. Karaitiana Tareha, Te Whaka, Manama, and others, are also interested. Their interest is similarly derived to mine, I have not sold any portion of this land to the Queen; neither have the other owners. We have received a Ciown Grant. Karauria, one of the grantees, is dead. I sold my interest in rhe land to Mr Suit op after the Crown Grant was issued, for £,500. [The witness was here examined as to his knowledge of the distinction between a conveyance of property and a mortgage, and gave answers from which it appeared that he understood the difference. The passage in the affidavit setting forth that he with others “ had been inveigled, by
divers misrepresentations," into signing a conveyance, believing it to be a mortgage was then translated to the witness, who said that at the time he signed .the deed of conveyance, he believed it to be a mortgage.] I signed that deed one time when Mr Sutton was at my place. Mr Sutton had three times previously asked me to mortgage my land to him, stating that some of the other grantees had already done so. When Mr Sutton came up, he said " I have come to get the mortgage of your land for some years." He did not mention how many. I asked him how many years the mortgage was to be for. He said he would that for me to decide. I said, " Lot it be for five years, and for £500." He replied, " All right " 1 asked him to give Cash more £200,, and to give me £3OO, to divide among those who had a claim on the land, but were not mentioned in the Crown Grant. Mr Button agreed, and said if I came into Napier next day, he would pay me the ,£3OO. Next morning T came down and said, " Give me this money"; write it out in two cheques, one for £2OO, and one for £2OO, and one for £100." He gave me two cheques, one of £lO, and one of £2O. I returned them to him, and said "There's your money." He said take it, and come down to morrow, when 1 will pay you the balance. This is all T can spare to-day." I took the £lO cheque, and left, the £2O. Next morns ing I went back and asked Mr Sutton { for tire baiauce ; he replied that he had not got it to give me. T then felt very much grieved on account of the claimants amangst whom I intended divide the money. I called once more and could nob get the money, after which I left off asking for it. I got some ammunition, shot and caps, from Mr Sutton, which was all the goods I got. I signed the deed on the evening Mr Sutton called. Mr Sutton brought some spirits with him. We drank a bottle between us, and I got very drunk. Te Waka, my wile, and my son (about 15 years of age) were present. By Mr Wilson : 1 do not know the signature to the deed produced. [Mr Siedman here said he was informed that the witness could not see well without glasses An eye-glass being handed to him, he recognised and identified his own signature.] I do not remember ever gi'ing any mortgage to Cashmore. The debt of £2OO I owed to Cashmore was for timber for building my house. [Another signature was here shown to the witness, which he said was rot his own.] The document produced is not the one I signed for Mr Sutton. I know Te Waka Takahari, s but do not know his writing. 1 know Woigan I do not know the yc ar when I signed the document for Sutton. It was signed in my own home, that was burnt down. My wife, Sutton, and I were in Waka's house some time previously. When the deed was signed only myself, my wife, and Sutton were present. Afterwards Worgan came in. Mr Worgan did not explain the deed to me. The price T sold it to Sutton for was £SOO. £2OO was paid to Cashmore, and I have never received the balance. I never received any money at all for it. Sutton still owes me the £3OO. 1 have never asked Sutton for it, except formerly, on the occasions I have mentioned. I asked five times, and not getting the money, I did not ask again. By Mr Stedmau : The paper I signed was not a deed like these produced ; I signed my name on one of the leaves of a pocket-book. When I sold my land to Sutton, I thought it was to return to me. It being non- a quarter past 1, the court adjourned to 2 p.m.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBT18711004.2.7
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1137, 4 October 1871, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,003DISTRICT COURT. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1137, 4 October 1871, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.