Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13. 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1368, 13 October 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13. 1883.

Amongst the large number of discreditable (to use no stronger term) transactions which have been brought to light during this present sitting of the Native Lands Court, the one which came before His Honor Judge Brookfield on Wednesday last, stands out in bold and distinct relief, on account of its displaying an amount of facinorous rascality seldom witnessed even in the most degenerate schemers. We will proceed to mildly state the facts in a general way. Katerina Kahutia was called forward in the usual manner and informed by the Court that a deed had been produced by Captain Tucker purporting to. be a conveyance of a number of her interests in certain blocks of land, such as the Whataupoko and others, to the said Tucker for a consideration of £l,OOO, which sum the deed set forth she had received. His Honor asked her whether she understood the meaning of the deed, and whether she had received the consideration of £l,OOO as stated. Katerina Kahutia replied that she had not received anything whatever at the time of signing the deed, and all that she had received since was £35. She had fully understood that on signing she was to receive £I,COO down. Upon hearing ;this His Honor expressed surprise and directed Katerina to be in readiness to attend when called upon ; at the same time notifying his intention of thoroughly investigating the matter. If she had stated the truth some one was criminally liable, and he felt intensely dissatisfied with the conduct of Tucker, His intention was to see justice done in the matter, and with this view directed the Clerk to impound the deeds. On the Court resuming in the afternoon, Mr Tucker put in an appearance, and asked to be heard in explanation. Ho went on to say that Katerina Kahutia’s statement was a “ mistake ” and volunteered to give a history of the transaction, stating that at the time the first deed was executed a number of people were anxious to get hold of Katerina’s shares and that the conveyance to him was to protect her interests ; that after the deed had been executed, and before the Trust Commissioners certificate had been obtained, Katei.-I-a had been led to break through the arrangement with him, stating, as her reason that Mr McDonald would give her more; and that he had conveyed to Mr McDonald, who undertook to indemnify him (Tucker) against payment of the £l,OOO to Katerina, and also covenanting to pay Katerina £l5O per annum, He (Captain Tucker) also stated that there were further deeds in existence relating to the transaction. His Honor most strongly reprobated the whole affair and described the deeds as the most extraordinary documents which had ever come before him, and also remarked that if Mr McDonald had covenanted to pay Katerina an annuity of £l5O per annum it would be thought that he (McDonald) would have held the shares, but instead of doing bo he had conveyed two in trust to Riperata, Tucker, and himself, he (McDonald) receiving an annuity from this transaction of £65 per annum. There was little doubt but what a gross fraud had been perpetrated somewhere. He would make no awards on the deeds until the matter was thoroughly sifted and fully investigated. At present he did not think the sales were good, but, on the contrary believed them to be a fraud, and wished to express his great dissatisfaction at the poor attempt at an explanation made by Mr Tucker. It appears from Captain Tucker's lucid explanation that, like the objectionable clause in the Company’s Empowering Bill, Katerina’s statement and denial “crept in by mistake.” We say “Fiat just'diet, ruat caluin.