Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY’ MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1371, 20 October 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY’ MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1883.

In another column appears the examination • if Katarina Kahutia before His Honor Judge Brookfield in the Native Lands Court. Mr Rees, assisted by others, appeared with, ami for Mr Tucker. No one appeared for Katarina. The poor woman gave her evidence in a clear and distinct manner. She acknowledged that she had sold all her shares to TuCKKR for £lOO ', but she likewise hwohj that she had never received th«" consideration money mentioned in the deed. “ I 'lid not take much notice of wha he read, I w-is thinking of the £1000.” Can it be. denied that she wag induced to part with these valuable shares for a certain consideration, which consideration she has wrper received. In the next p ace what a poor picture is drawn uf the constant b»-g beg, ths cautious, the covert threats, the pe-ierings, the coaxings, and pleadings used to induce her to sell, interrupted only by ner departure to Napier, where she fuuud two-aud-a half year’s peace from his incessant and persistent pleadings, but ouiy, alas, to be renewed on her return. “ I thought Tucker had left oflf bothering me, but he again oirne ami asked me to sell those shares ; I said to Tucker, ‘ldo tot know the reason of all this bothering me.’ ” i hen Tucker threatens her that if she does no» sign to him her husband would sign to Captain Read, and “ then she would never see them again.” This is the way io which she was cadj »led and forced into sigirng. What does Tucker admit? Why he says “It was i'dendel that I should pay the money down, but. I never said so " What an amount of cunning and duplicity the last four words show ! Tne po--r woman had been led io believe that she would receive the £ICCJ down on signing, “ but he never said so ” —or in other words he never me -nt to pay it. Could anything be more fa seor artful ? Was this fraudulent or not? Well might His Honor, evidently wishing to get inis paint clear, a k her “ Have you ever received that m'-ney?’’ The answer was “never to this day." Mr Alla-i McDonald now comes on the scene, and fre h tactics are adopted in lieu of paying 'he £lOOO The pesterings are again renewed by Mr Allan McDonald this time, but the poor victim is hone t and says “ I have sold all my shares to Tucker.” “ On, never mind,” says McDonald. “If you -sign tome i can get them.” “ He said he would gi e me £2OO I did not agree to let him have the shares, but went away, he following me about. She 'hen goes on to narrate how she, Wi Brown and Hurrey went into an hotel together, as she wanted Wi Br"WN to “invalidate the deed she had signed to Tucker.” McDon ald and Tucker then came in, but she did not understand what was said, but knew that it hail for its purpose the “ upsetting of the deed she had signed to Tucker. ’ Hukrey became afraid of McDonald and Tucker and l«‘ft, followed shortly afterwards bv Wi Br-iWN. VVhat took place then—“ Tucker 7o£ up and shut the door.” We have no evidence of whxt took place in that room, where the two had their victim caged, save the few words “ McDonald came over to my side and said ‘ do not agree to the proposals of Wi Brown and Hukrey.” What tricks, what seductive pursu.isioiis, what blandishments, &c., were restored to in that room can only be faintly imagined, but the result is plainly and distinctly shown When the woman had been prepared and successfully operated upon and all was arranged and re dy, she was pursuaded lo go into • lie r-om above. “'I UCKER then asked me to go into the room above." All was

ready, deeds and everything neoes sary had been prepared, uuthing had been neglected to ensure success, “We went into the room and KOGAN, NESBITT and Ferris came in. The deed was read over to me and McDonald asked me to sign it.” Whether the woman was in a tit state to understand what was being read to her or not is best arrived at by the manner in which the whole negotiation was conducted “ Ferris tuld me £l5O would be paid me fur signing this deed. After signing 1 came uuiside, and McDonald followed me and told me that the only shares he had were iu the Whautopoku, Kain, Puuawa, and Makauri Blocks, the other one Captain Tucker had ” .Now, setting aside ail this double dealing and trickery, the thm & resolves itself into two simple questions, the tirst that asked by His Honor the Judge, “ did you understand that you were to receive £l5O per annum ? ’ “1 understood 1 was to receive £l5O a year.” £he next question is did she receive lhe coUßideraLiuu mentioned in the deed ? Site lias nut alone swo.n that she has never done so, but even her opponents have never dared even to : _ert this much, lhe “very gentle cro-'S-examination ” of Mr REES elicited nothing whatever culculaied to, iu any material degree, shake Katakina’s statement, which, when we take into consideration the lapse uf time ( near 7 years) tne numerous ait.fices and cross-purposes, which were resorted to, and winch were enough Lu perplex the shiewdest lawyer, much less a pour ignorant Native woman, was must remaik tuie fur its clearance and tended to prove most conclusively that it was nothing out tile true and laitnlul reminiscences of ail that remained in the poor woman's mind respecting these multifarious and ambiguous transactions. Let it be remembered tnat this nuiutuied Native woman appeared in person with no one to bring uut the salient points, no ne tu lead her, step by step, tu disclose the dark and obscure portions uf tiie transactions ; and that she had pitted against her tne must subtle and shrewd, if nut tiie most scrupulous legal gentleman in tiie district, thoroughly versed in all those deep subtleties ant- ..lazy .ntncacies of the law.., and inure especially in conducting cases of this description, the likes of winch so frequently crop up in ihe ot the notorious Company, which he bo fitly rupnseuts. VVheii t.ns is all taken into consideration it must be aukiiowleiiged on ».J1 sides that had she not had the great force o. truth on her side Sue could never are auqu.tled herself in the manner in which she did As to the truth and ■jitict. O- Lue accusations alleged against this jan’s despoilers no m-ire confirmato y evidence wha 1 eve can possibly be adduced s rongcr than that onveyed in the cluse g word - of H-l H -nor Judge BuOOKFib.LD. “ led ner.” Said the judge, “that proVidit g sue receiuw all arrears ot her annuity, and that it is assured to her for the future, sue uug it to be content and -eiile this uilair.” Wuat do these words prove? Why it proves that Luis woman has beta induced to part with, Hi,G has been deprived uf, all her valuable freehold possessions for nearly seven years, and tnat. sue never received tiie conside-ation for which sue was induced to part wit-i her propeiiy Judge diiooaFiELw merely sits m that Court lo admimster tne law with respect to titles and interests in Native lands, but wore lie silling here administering tue c-inii nal law, the words wnich we have itbuve quoted, and with which he closed the exu.. tion, could have had no other effect tha.4 c.tut of being equivalent to a verdict of guilty. Ona q lesiion before we cluse—Wnat would have been lh« result to this poor woman hud not this enquiry been instituted - would the arrears of her annuity ever have been paid ? - Would the annuity ever have oeen assured to her? Never! And a successiul fraud would undoubtedly have been a coin idished had it not been brought to light by His Honor Judge Buookfield, and tiie would-be perpetiaiors fo ced to make restitution when caught red handed. But nothing can wipe out tne disgrace whi<4i attaches to those who appear in this transaction. The consistency of a precious effusion which appeared in a ** Public Print of Ihuisdiy evening, and which there is no room to duubt dribbled from the peu uf a deeply interested party, is best shown by its own wording. They say “it was quite painful to hear the poor woman contradict herself, and blunder out uf one inconsistency into another. In the main her story io<is f m its general outline, nut very Wide of the truth. ’ Lhey agaiu forcibly demonstrate whicti side they are on. Fortunately there is “ anotiie.' side ” totiiis question, and what that oLuer side is will be show aiu another place. Tne matter is not yet quite ended !