The Native Affiars Committee.

Manawatu Herald, 11 October 1892, Page 2

The Native Affiars Committee.

On the 29th September the Native Affairs Committee. bpgffght up their report on the petition of Herewini Te Toko and two others. We know from the proceedings in parliament that the , government have, beeji - moved to obtain from Mr John Lundon the sujna the j jejjtioners allege have been wrongfully detained by him for the purchase, of, the Kaitiia Block, north of Auckland. The report, which is printed, is very interesting:, ?eadipg v , , Mr^Lunfon undertook to purchaser the blotter the government agreeing to 'buy at 7s 6d per acre, and also to pa T him £50. Mr Lundon asserts ha ob tamed the Natives' consent to hiV setting the block at 4s 6d per acre, l>e to be allowed to retain the difference to pay expenses. He thus' obtained some £743 whereas he admi&'d he had only incurred costs of £130 and his own expenses which he valued at £100 The Natives, so he asierieq;, signed an agreement for<:him Ho act as their agent on the' very ddyfobel transfer was signed. The 'Native-si assert that they did -- not understand the arrangement/ ' The; - ; matter became public when one of ; the sellers by accident got *paid in full, some £217 10s whereas the others had only received £130 10* for their share. " H«nce ,'the-se tears. > >The natives were satisL'ed at the" 4s 6d an acre if the government had only paid that sum, but as they paid 7g ! 6d they thought Mr Lundon h.ad • retaiped too' much. The lucky party who got her money in full was Eaiha Tarnaho and when Wi Mkihana was being examined Mr Lundon asked him "Was there a sum of Euiha's money missing ?" . I and ! the/witness replied " Baiha's money was not lost, but it narrowly escaped' Ibeing taken by Mr Lundon.^ . There *as a question as to whether the cheques for the purchase money had been delivered direct to the Natives, He'-ewini Te Toko vras asked kl X)J4 you know at the time Mr. Milltfr handed those cheques over td "you" that tftev were for- a larger amount than you' had agreed to sell the land for ?" He replied " No, I did not." 4< Had you known, would you have closed your fist ?" . i He answered fi would never have let go," and we can quite .believe it. -During/ M£ Lundon's evidence he declared hej had acted' as . -he had-; done I from } f a; strong personal affection . r for the owners of the block, but this did no>fc prevent him • answering ' a' question-' put by one of th& owners by saying " I am sure you did not, beoause if you had I would have returned -the answer that you had victimised 'you']? own people." Mr Lundon' -aid* replied to the question whether taking fchts : ■sß?out$ jf gfe pei-sips; share was a good way * ofshowmg: love for the owners, " Yes, becauseI have shqwtn myself all Jove in other ways." This , reply s.eeps to need but little alteration ■ "' to be evpn accepted by the-'ownersiimte^ested^. It will be remembered that besides the £87 a share,' the 7 government paid Mr Lundon £50. One of JHe committee asked him "I heard ; you refunded the £50 you got from the government. "Mr Lundon re» plied"! did many foolish things, but I am not suoh a fool. -as that," • ■ ■ ■■ ■ i. ; ■" !■••: r.[.\i-.-: Still th 3 report of s the evidence needs reading in full as there are very startling contradictions of statements^ as, well, aa th^ evidence, which tlie commitjiee suggest that the government be 'asked to carefully note, in the apparently peculiar conduct of the offioialsv^n 1 the mance of their .duties in connection with the business.