TRUST COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1194, 7 November 1882, Page 2

TRUST COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

[Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] Mata wn ero No 1. This was the appeal case, Phillip Bond v. the application of Read’s Trustees, to have a lease of certain paddocks on the Matawhero No. 1 Block, certificated to them. Messrs. Rees and Whitaker appeared for Read’s Trustees, and Messrs H. E. Kenny and W, R. Robinson for Mr Phillip Bona. Aften some considerable argument, Mrtißees objected that no rent had been paid by Mr Bond to Wi Haronga. This Mr Kenny met by stating that he was prepared to tender the amount immediately. Wi Haronga, sworn, deposed—l am an owner in Matawhero No. 1. I know abotit signing a lease to Bond, The deed produced is the one I signed ; since sighing I ha Oleceived no money on account of it from Bona. It was on account of not receiving the rent from Bond,that I leased to Read’s Trustees. I remember receiving £5 from Bond ; it was not on account of rent. I asked him for it. j I was to repay it out of rent. I did not tell him so, but it was my intention. The reason I signed the lease to Bond was that I was in doubt about Read's trustees. Bond was living on the land, having been pqt there by Read ; when the land was subdivided tne portion that I should get would be 100 acres. The thought of my mind was to give leases to different persons. Bond came to me and asked about the division of the land. I said I did not agree with the Trustees' idea regarding subdivision. I signed this deed in order to fight the Trustees J Bond knew of that, (Here Mr Kenny objected to the line of procedure as trending in a totally different direction to the recorded objections.) When my dispute with Read was over I was to get the land back. It was agreed so. There was no agreement that 1 was not to receive any rent until the fight between the Trustees and I was over. (Mr Kenny here tendered through Mr Woon £55. This Wi Haronga refused, saying that he would not go against the goodness and kindness he had received from Read’s trustees in giving him back his land. By Mr Kenny : When the time expbM that 1 was to recive rent from Bond I repay him the £5. I have not repaid the £5. 1 did not say to Bond that this sum was to be paid out of the rent. When I got the money for my rent I should repay the £5. Bond and I were to fight the trustees. I don’t know his cause for fighting. I have explained mine. Robert Cooper interpreted between Bond and I when we were speaking on the subject, previous to the signing of the lease. Read’s Trustees are giving me back Makauri, Taruheru, and Whataupoko to get rid of Bond. Their money is £3O more than Bond’s. I have received the money from Read’s Trustees since May, 1882—since signing the lease—lB or 20 months. I have been to Bond and asked him for the money. I got none ; he told me to wait. I made the lease in good faith. Bond was hard, and I shunted him. There were two or three interpreters. Mr Robert Cooper was one, and} I think James Carroll

was another, and I think Mr Gannon was another. I had been to the Archdeacon. - Mr Gannon, Jas. Carroll, and Robert Cooper jl were the three interpreters. I had two interpreters when 1 went about this work, Carroll and Gannon. It was James Carroll who was clear to interpret between' myself and Bond as to the agreement respecting the fighting Read’s Trustees and my subsequently getting back the land. Cooper also interpreted; there were many occasions. When Carroll was away I looked for Gannon, but not regarding this matter. Philip Bond : I remember making an agreement in March, 1879, with Mr Lawrence on behalf of Read’s Trustees. The agreement produced is the one. The 1000 acres mentioned in this agreement includes the 2 paddocks mentioned in my agreement with Wi Haionga. That 1000 acres mentioned did not include the whole of Matawhero to my knowledge. I did not know it. To the best of my belief Tamati-o-terangi and Matawhero are one and the same. I agreed with Lawrence to take all the land at Matawhero No. I adjoining Tamati-o-terangi. I had doubts about the 43 acres < being included. Mr Lawrence told me that in taking this land Wi Haronga would give me his own. Mr Skipworth may have been present. If that is the agreement Skipworth drew it it supposed to be destroyed, and I v have another lease of 200 acres, drawn by Mr Ward. The lease now produced is it.

The other one was supposed to be destroyed. I was only put in possession of 200 acres at Matawhero which did not include the pad’ docks I now apply for. To the best of my belief I stated so before on my oath. I first said Wi Haronga after the new Trustees came in, I went to Wi because I could not agree with them. I spoke to Mr Coleman after seeing Cooper and Wi Haronga, and told him I had a chance of leasing Wi Haronga’s land and I should take it. I only had 200 acres to hold for the trustees, not 1000 acres. That agreement was supposed to be destroyed, I had no possession given me of 1000 acres. I had no possession given Me by Read’s Trustees of eitner of the paddocks. Robert Cooper gave me possession of the one paddock, and I put stock on the other. I rented 200 acres from the Trustees, It was not agreed between Lawrence and I in Skipworth’s presence that I should hold 1000 acres for the Trustees. 1 think 1000 acres would include the whole block. I have never paid any rent. The Trustees demanded possession of these two paddocks in July, 1880. I gave Mr Coleman verbal notice in May, 1880, that I had the option of lease from Wi Haronga, and should take it if he couldn’t give me a lease of these paddocks. He either said he codld’nt or he would’nt. They then gave me notice to quit, and in September I got the lease from Wi Haronga. I claimed wages from the Trustees from 1879 up to May, 1880, for work done at Matawhero, fighting the Natives over the 200 acre block. E. ff. Ward, sworn : I w r as solicitor to Read’s Trustees in 1879. I know the circumstances of the agreement between Lawrence and Bond, although I was not here when it was signed. I heard Mr Bond giving evidence this morning. Bond was in possession of the block for Read’s Trustees. He and Mr Allan. I know that he has made a claim on the Trustees for wages. I wrote to Bond on the 28th July, 1880, demanding possession. This meant the whole block that had not been dealt with. I cannot say whether it included the paddocks. Bond never set up any claim independent of Read’s Trustees to my knowledge. The arrangement with Mr Lawrence was that possession was to be given up to Read’s Trustees on due notice being given. The notice from my office was in accordance with that agreement. The paddocks referred to are included in the plan produced. By Mr Robinson: Bond took possession under the 1000 acres agreement. There is another one dated 15th, but it was not drawn till later. I don’t know anything about the first one being supposed to be destroyed, I This agreement, dated 15th March, 1879, was engrossed in my office. I was not here in March, and I can’t tell clearly, but I don’t believe any other agreement of the same date was drawn in my office. It was not signed on the 15th March, 1879, although it purports to be so. lam certain that Bond and Allen held possession of the whole of the block for Read 8 Trustees under the agreement of the i 16th Match. I believe that the subsequent agreement took the place of the one of the 16th of March, but Bond and Allen entered into possession on the strength of the agreement of 16th March. I don’t think the second agreement was given to Bond so that he might come into Court and fight the Maoris with a good title. I don’t believe I said on my return from Wellington, when I saw the agreement drawn up by Skipworth, that I would draw out a fresh agreement, and we would antedate it. There may have been another agreement, but I don’t know. I was acting for the Trustees in September, 1880. At the time I drew the agreement now handed to me I was not acting for Read's Trustees. The agreement was drawn long before the date of execution. I simply obeyed instructions in drawing it out. I did not advise Mr Bond.

Philip Bond, recalled, and cross-examined by Mr Rees : The second agreement (for the 200 acres) dated the 15th March was signed about three or four months after the one dated 16th March which refers to the 1000 acres, and was signed as dated. It was in- j tended by Lawrence that 200 acres should 1 pass to me under that lease. When the lease | of the 16th March of 1000 acres was signed I . was to take under it the 200 acres mentioned in the lease of the 15th March, and I was to pay rent for it. Mr Lawrence said the lease of 16th March was to have been destroyed as it gave me too much power over the property. Mr Skipworth wrote it and I think Mr Lawrence signed it before he read it. He objected to it afterwards. I will not swear it was not written by Skipworth in my presence at Lawrence’s dictation. The agreement was not to be carried out although it Was signed. Lawrence gave me possession of 200 acres only before the agreement bearing date 15th March, was signed. It was agreed with Lawrence about the 15th March, 1879, that I was to take the 200 acres with Allen at £l5O a-year. as sc m as the row with the Natives was settled, taking a bona fide ; lease. The rent was to commence when I got peaceable possession. I have demanded wages from Read’s Trustees. I was not turned out of any portion of the land except the 200 acres. The deed of the 15th March was signed after I was turned out of the 200 acres. It was agreed by Lawrence and I that I should not pay any rent. I went into possession of the 200 acres, which do not include the paddocks in question, to hold the land against the Maoris for Read’s Trustees. From March 15th, 1879, to May 18th, 1880, I liave charged them 10s per diem, or £lB4 10s. This is definitely for holding that 200 acres against the Natives. I think the last time I was in possession of that 200 acres was in November, 1879. Since then I have had no possession. The Natives have been in possession ever since. On Dec. 6th, 1879, we went in and we were turned out on the Bth Dec., 1879. I drove some cattle for the Trustees afterwards. Haronga signed the lease to me on the 9th Sept., 1880. It was Wi Haronga’s own proposal that I should not pay rent until my stock went back on the ground. This agreement was made after the Trustees impounded my cattle. Here Mr Kenny suggested that the case was, according to the Act, out of the Trust Commissioner’s jurisdiction. The Trust Commissioner disagreed, and called attention to the evidence of Wi Haronga, if whose evidence was true, certain fraud was disclosed. The enquiry would proceed. Cross-examined by Mr Kenny : I was not put in by Wi Haronga to fight the Trustees and hand the land back to him when the fight was over. There was no understanding to that effect. Nothing passed between Wi Haronga and I that could bear such a construction. Mr Gannon, Mr Ferris, and Mr R. Cooper had a share in the interpretation. I don’t remember Carroll having anything to do with it. I never authorised any Interpreter to say I would give the land back. Cooper and Wi Haronga came to me together. It is not likely I would make such an an angement with Wi Haronga. Cooper and Wi Haronga came to me and asked me to take the lease of Wi Haronga’s share. I appointed a day to go with Wi and see the locality of his share. There was nothing said about fighting Read’s Trustees—never. Carroll, to the best of my belief, never interpreted between me and Wi Haronga. There was nothing said about my leasing it .to enable Wi Haronga to fight Read’s Trustee-, or my giving the land back afterwards, at any time, either directly or indirectly. I heart I Wi Haronga give his evidence,* and I sav it is false. I thought Wi Haronga and Read’s people owned the whole block. I claim sole possession of the two paddocks under my lease from Wi. F. G. Skipworth, sworn, deposed—l am a licensed interpreter. I was in the employ

i of the late Captain Read, and of his trustees, 1 I recognise the document of the 16th March. I remember being present at certain interi views between Mr Lawrence and Bond, the i result of which was that Bond and Allen were to take possession of Matawhero No. 1 (all unoccupied lands) to hold against the natives for Read’s Trustees. This inclnded one of these paddocks in question. The other was occupied by Noko. Allen and Bond entered into occupation of the whole of unoccupied land at Matawhero No. 1 under the foregoing circumstances. I think there were about 20 Natives owners. Read’s Trustees claimed *ll the estate except Wi Haronga’s share. These two paddocks, agreed to be leased by Haronga to Bond, are included in the order of the Native Lands Court as awarded to Read’s Trustees. By agreement of counsel the enquiry was adjourned until Wednesday, 29th inst., for the production of witnesses, and also to enable Mr Whitaker to fulfil his other duties in Auckland. The Court then adjourned. The Court resumed at 2.30 p.m. The adjourned application of Mr Rees in the application of Messrs Rees, Wi Fere and Riperata Kahutia, re the conveyance of 12,400 acres of the Whataupoko block to the New Zealand Land and Settlement Company. The application was opposed by Mr Brassey, along with Mr W. R. Robinson, on behalf of Mr M, J. Gannon and Mr A. Graham. Mr Brassey contended that the present application could not be dealt with by the Trust Commissioner. After some argument this view was upheld ; the Trust Commissioner ruling that fresh application should be put in. The case, therefore, stands adjourned until Monday next.

Scottish Chief, a recent purchase of Mr T. E. R. Bloomfield, arrived this morning by the s.s. Omapere, looking well, and evidently none the worse for his journey. The horse is a handsome flea bitten grey, and shows both quality and strength.