MAORI LAND DEAL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 704, 16 September 1914, Page 2

MAORI LAND DEAL.

SOLICITOR CHARGED WITH FRAUD. A singular story of the alleged defrauding of an old Maori woman in the course of a native land deal was told in the Auckland Supreme Court on Wednesday, when Frederick Oliver Reuben Phillips, a young solicitor, of Otorohanga, was chargea with fraud and with fabricating evidence. The accused, who pbaded not guilty, was represented by &5r C. P. Skerrett, of Wellington, and Mr G. P. Finlay, of Te Kuril. The tasa was heard before Mr Justice Cooper. There were five counts in the indictment. Tbe first .charged the accused with obtaining a receipt for £277 from Maringi Hepi by falsa pretence, in-order to use the same as a valuable security. The second count alleged that by false pretences Phillips caused the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board to affix its seal to a transfer of native latid from Masringi Hepi to George Turner. Two other counts charged him with fabricating evidence given before tbe s Land Board, alternatively by means of and other thin by perjury, and the fifth count accused the prisoner of perverting and defeating the cause of justice. AN INCREASED VALUATION. The case for the prosecution, outlined by tbp Hon. J. A. Tele, K.C., was that the prisoner, a member, of the .firm of Broadfoot, Finlay and Phillips, of Otorohanga, acted for a half-caste named Turner in the purchase of 45 acres of land from Maringi Hepi. Accused desired to have an interest in the transaction, and besides acting-in his professional capacity as the drawer of the deeds of transfer. When the accused asked the Land Board to confirm the sale to Turner in October 1912, the purchase price was put down at £2 10s per acre, but the Board—a judicial inquiry among other things had to decide , whether the purchase price was adequate—discovered that tbe value of the property had been increased by the Government valuers from £ll2 to £277. Accused appeared before the Board end was informed that the transfer would be endorsed if he would producce evidence that the old woman had received the £277. Pretending to comply with the conditions laid down by the Board, tbe prisoner sent a receipt purporting to be an acknowledgment of the . £277 by the old woman, ,which was witnessed by the prisoner himseif. It would be shown that at the time she had only received £2O or £3O. On June 4th," 1913, the Board endorsed the receipt given two days previously, but later it came to their knowledge that the old woman, instead of receiving £277, had only been paid a total ?um of £9O. After acquiring the land Turner scld his interest in the land to the prisoner's brother, Clyde Phillips. Tbe Boarrt wrote to the prisoner, pointing out what had come to their knowledge, and Phillips sent what he (the Crown Prosecutor) did not hesitate to say was an evasive reply. Hltimately he was informed that an inquiry was to he held, and, although he asued for several postponements, the authorities insisted upon proceeding. ~ In the course of the inquiry prisoner gave evidence on oath and, in cross-examination, admitted that the old woman's statement was coreet, and that she had been defrauded of the greater portion of the purchase mrney. It is admitted that an old Maori womari named Maringi Hepe only received some £9O fo? land sold for £277, and that a receipt purporting to have been signed by the old woman, acknowledging payment of the full amount, was witnessed by the accused and forwarded by him to the Land Board. The main point in dispute is whether the accused or a half-caste named Turner, to whom the transfer was actually made, was responsible for the payment- of the money. In concluding his evidence, Turner alleged that he acted as interpreter when the old woman waa paid a cheque for £7o''and signed a receipt stating that the whole of the moneys due to her had beer paid. Ho further declared that after the money had been paid the figures were added to the receipt, and he sold out his Bhare in the transaction to the prisoner's brother, Clyde Phillips, for £SO, although the amount stated in the second transfer was £3OO. In cross-ex-maination Turner was asked whether it was not his trickery from first to last to avoid paying the balance of £165 to Maringi, and whether he had not,tried to. swindle a man named Coffin, the tenant of the land who had previouslytried to sell the land for the old woman. "No fear," replied the witness to both questions. Amongst the other witnesses called was the man named Coffin, who,in the curse of his evidence, Haid that he was of opinion that Turner had "undermined" him in his attempt to sell the land for the old woman at a price that would allow him to receive £3 per acre for the improvements fie had made upen the land, THE DEFENCE. Opening the case for the defence, Mr Skerrett pointed out that the charge against the prisoner, a young man on the threshold of his career, was of attempting to wickedly and wilfully cheat the aged Maori woman. Counsel suggested to the jury that the cBEe was a deliberate attempt to force the responsinility from the shoulders of the half-caste Maori, Turner, on to these of tho solicitor, Phillips. Commmenting upon tha evidence of Turner, cuunsel contended that the witness was an astute rolrh who had traded upon his blood relationship with the Maoris to negotiate native deals. Ki3 evidence was ts?e highly improbable story of a man who hud come to hide the truth. There was not a scrap of paper evidence showing that the prisoner had any interests in the matter, as had been suggested by Turner.

In the witness-box the accused, whu said ha was 26 years of age, declared that although he had served Turner professionally in three land transactions, he never had a personal interest in them. He had nothing to do with the deal which was the subject of the charge other than drawing up the transfer for Turner, who paid tfie deposit in 1912. THE £277 RECEIPT. Later, when the sale was. brought before the Land Board for confirmation, he was informed by the president that a new valuation had been placed upon the land, and that the purchase price would have to be raised from £ll2 to £277. Turner agreed to pay the extra price, and witness paid Maringi on June 2nd £lO out of moneys he held for Turner, promising to conclude the payment when Turner, who was away, returned to Otorohanga. He asked for a receipt for the full amount tor £277, so that the* transfer could be passed by the Board, and made an entry in his journal (produced) that this was dsne. Wfeen Turner returned on June 24th witness told him that be would pay Maringi the balance up to £ll2, the original purchase price, and that he (Turner) would have to pay the other £165. The day -following Turner brought Maringi in and beBured him that he-had paid the £165. The exact balance of the £ll2, after deductions for prior payments had been made, worked out to £7B 18s. Witness waß writing out a cheque for this amount when Turner informed him that the old lady had made him a present of the odd £8 18s, and witness thereupon drew two separate cheques. Turner wrote a receipt in Maori, which was read over to the old woman. The same afternoon witness' brother stated that he bad purchased the land from Turner, and was going to pay £3O deposit. Witness drew up the transfer and paid a cheque for £3O, retaining the transfer as a receipt. He knew nothing further about the payment to Maringi until he received a letter from the Board. In the interim during which the matter had been inquired into the transfer to witness' brother fell through owing to Turner being a half-caßte, and he had to inform the Board that it would then be impossible to pay Maringi out of the purchase money which he was expecting from his brother, but that he would do his best to see that she was paid. When Turner attempted to get witness to pay about £2OO for a motor car out of money* he held for him he refused to do so, and in March, 1914, the final settling up with the halfcaste took place, the £3O which had been piad by witness' brother as a deposit being deducted. EXPEDITING BUSINESS. Explaining why hs sent the receipt of June 2nd, when bei had not paid Maringi the £7B 18s, to the Board, witness said that at the time the Board was sitting in Auckland and the next sitting was two or three months ahead, It did not occur to him that he was'doing a wrong thing. Cross-examined, witness declared that there was no suggested payment of £SO by his brother to Turner to buy out the interest of thi halfcaste. Howard Spencer Bannister, a clerk employed by Phillips, deposed to hearing the conversations in which Turner declared that be had paid Maringi the £165 balance. In bis summing up to the jury his Honour,said that there had been much irrelevant, evidence, but seally the ease resolved itßelf Bimply, into one point. The Land Board refused to sanction the transfer of the, land until Maringi was paid the full price of £277. A receipt of this sum, to which was affixed Maringi's mark, was sent to the board by the accused, an.l the board acted upon it. That the accused intended the board to act upon the receipt was quite obvious. Ihe only question for the jury to decide was whether the accused intended to mislead the board. The counts charging the accused with defrauding the Maori woman., said his Honour, need not be considered. After about an hour's deliberation the jury returned and announced that they found the accused guilty of attempting to mislead the Land Board, but not guilty of attempting to defraud the native woman. His Honour, after conferring with the Chief Justice, admitted the accused to' probation fcr twelve month?.