SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5133, 5 September 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, September 4. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) THE WAKA MAORI LIBEL CASE. At ten o’clock, at which hour the Court opened asusual, Mr. Macassy called Mr. John Sheehan, who was examined at length in relation to the various transactions either intimately or remotely connected with the action in the hearing of which the Supreme Court has for the., past week been engaged. His evidence was important, as he was ultimately connected with all the circumstances of those transactions. He deposed on oath as follows :—I am a solicitor, at the present time practising in Napier. I went there first in 1873, and have been there off and on ever since that time. lam a member of the House of Representatives. Mr. Macassy : Now, how long have you been connected with the legal management of native affairs in Hawke’s Bay—the affairs of those natives of whom we have heard ? Witness: I have had business with them since 1873, but took the matter in hand permanently during the end of the year 1874. Mr. Macassy : It has been stated, Mr. Sheehan, that your office in Napier is in the Wananga office. Witness: Yes; I occupy the upstairs portion of the building. Mr. Macassy : Was the Wananga, newspaper started by the natives 2 Witness ; Entirely, and without my knowledge. It belongs to the natives. The whole affair is under my management; but I have nothing to do with the paper beyond exercising censorship over the Press. Mr. Macassy ; It has been stated that you were connected with the claims or complaints printed on behalf of the natives to the commission of 1873 ? Witness ; Yes. Mr. Macassy ; Do you know Hori Nia Nia. Did you see him in Napier about that time ? Witness : Yes ; 1 saw him in reference to the claim. His people were largely concerned in the complaints before the commission. I was engaged in relation to those cases, but I do not think I had anything to do with them before the commission. I had a general retainer for the whole commission. I was called by Mr. Justice Richmond the AttorneyGeneral for the natives. The witness, in the course of his examination, then proceeded to relate a conversation he had had with Hori in reference to the Waipukurau Reserve. It was at Patangata, about twelve Or thirteen miles from Waipukurau. He was there on other business, and was detained by a thunderstorm for three or four hours. He met Hori, who volunteered to talk to him. He said he had been sent for by Mr. Locke to come to Napier to talk about a claim which he had to 20 acres of land in the Waipukurau Reserve. Witness asked him if he meant to allege that Mr. Russell had promised him 20 acres> and refused to fulfil his promise ; and he replied that he had asked Mr. Russell for the reserve, but that gentleman had never promised to give it to him. -He wound up by telling witness that he did not intend to go to Napier again on the subject. He never had another conversation with Hori on the subject, although he frequently saw him.

T. Mr. Macassy : We have heard a, good deal about’.these claims or complaints preferred before the commission. Can you give us, the number of claims actually _ preferred by the natives against, the commission ? Witness : I 1 think they , were rather overestimated by Mr. Russell in hia evidence yesterday. 1 should say that there were seventy cases against Europeans. The .number is s welled to that stated by the fact that each man in' a grant in which ten might be interested would make a separate complaint in respect or the same claim, u, • ; ; , !- n Mr. Maoassy:. Speaking now of; those VO claims, against how many persons on the whole were they lodged ? . , Witness : .JL remember counting, them. tne ; other day, • and I made them out to be under a third of what is stated. I have heaid them described as amounting to 40. . The examination then went in the direction of Arihi’s affairs. In answer to questions, he deposed that there was an action m which Arihi’s interests are concerned in, the Supreme Court with regard to this Heretunga purchase. It was about' May, 1876, that he first ascertained -Arihi was disposed to throw Mr. Russell overboard. - She applied to him to advance her a sum of £35. He refused, and told her that he should advise Mr. Russell not to give her the money if she applied to him. Whereupon she said she.would go over to the Government. He said this because of the doubt which had arisen as to whether she was not a minor when the trust deed was executed. He should say that her interest in the block, if she was an equal owner, would he worth £20,000 ; but if, as he had been informed, she was the [owner of the larger portion of it, her interest would be worth from £30,000 to £40,000. The largest sum he had known offered for the settlement of her claims was £3OOO for her and £IOOO for himself. He had never known what the £IOOO to him meant, and he refused to act on the ground' that it was offered in the shape of a bribe. The witness was then examined as to the relations between Mr. Russell and Alice with respect to her removal .from the house mentioned among other things in her letter to the I Ydka Maori , and he stated that Arihi herself was quite satisfied with the result come to. With reference to the trust fund, he thought it quite unnecessary to say that the trustees, Messrs. Wilson andP. Russell, were persons of good position. He was present at the meetings held in 1875 and 1876, and could swear that no bribes had been held out to the natives to iuduce-them to sign, their names to deeds of, conveyance of lend. He also gave rebutting evidence as to the character of the meeting of 1876, asserting that there was nothing in the nature of a private “ talk ” with certain grantees prior to the general meeting ; but that, on the contrary, others besides those interested were permitted to take part in the meeting. The witness was cross-examined at some length ; and in reply to Mr. Conolly,- stated that he was retained by Mr. Gillies (not then Judge), on behalf of Mr, Russell. After he had been re-examined, Mr. Macassy stated that he had no further evidence to offer on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Conolly then addressed the Court, and had only just touched upon one branch of the subjeot up to a few minutes past 5 o’clock. As it was evident that the learned gentleman could not conclude his' address before 7 o’clock, the Court adjourned, to meet again next morning at 10 o’clock.