SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 23, 18 December 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Prendergast.) FRIDAY. J. TUTCHEN V. E. CAMERON. Mr Finn for plaintiff, aud Messrs Edwards and Brassey, instructed by Mr Ward, for the defence. Claim £3OO and possession of land. Case withdrawn by plaintiff at suggestion of J udge, plaintiff to pay £3O costs. [The above cose appeared in our last with a slight inaccuracy]. SATURDAY. RICHARD BEEINGHAN V. KINROSS AND GRAHAM. Mr. Kenny (of Ward and Kenny) for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brassey fqr A. Graham, and Air. McLean (Napier) for Kinross. Claim £9OO for debt and interest.

The special jury impaneled were C. Evans (foreman), J. Sunderland, Walker, G. Bruce, J. G. Henderson, H. E. Johnstone W. Ratcliffe, F. J. Piesse, J. Warren, J. R.’ Morgan, C. A. Brown, and E. J Oxley. In opening, Air. H. E. Kenny said Mr. Graham, the defendent in this action, vias well known as a man of the highest character

w ho had benefltted many; and Mr Kinrcs* ' v as a merchant of the highest integrity* *t would not take long to state the plain ‘acts of the case. The plaintiff was a partner with his son, and the two carried on a farm at Waeresga-a-hika, until about April, 1877, when the partnership was annulled. The son, Peter Breinghan had some business relations with Graham <fc Co, and Mr. C. Smith, who was acting for Graham 4 Co, conducted the sale of the farm. At the settlement it was agreed that £9OO should be allocated to R. Breinghan. For some reason this money was never handed over to him, but some time after, without any sanction from the father the money was advanced to the son Peter, who had never informed his father of the transaction. The action was brought to recover that sum. The plaintiff was a very infirm old man and experienced great difficulty in breathing, and he would ask that he might give his evide^. seated. He now called. Mr. Robert Breinghan, who stated that some time ago he was partner with his son in a farm at Waerenga a-hika. About April 1877, dissolved paetnership. The farm sold and unknown to himself hie money placed to his credit with Graham <fc never authorised his son to pay the Graham & Co. He wanted the pay to Read’s trustees, who held a over him. Air. Graham had gene When he back he came out to asked witness to advance the Witness positively refused, the money himself. Some time Peter came and asked witness to and he (witness) said he would do all 1® could for him, but he wanted the monej himself. He never gave his son any author ri’y to go to Graham and borrow the money. Witness told Graham he did not want to come down upon him, as he knew he wafc pressed. Some time afterwards he told' Graham he did not want to come on him too suddenly for the money, and that he would come for the money in a week or two, as he wanted it to pay off the mortgage. On the day of the land-sale when Graham told him that he (Graham) had borrowed the money of Ratcliffe at 9 per cent, he (witness) wai greatly astonished and asked was it not his own money. Mr Graham said Peter had got all his (witness') money and owed £3OO besides. Witness would not accept any money which had been borrowed from Ratcliffe, but wanted his own. He told Graham he had no right to lend his son Peter any money. Did not see Graham for twelve months afterwards, when he told him to pay E. Cameron the interest on the £9OO. Graham agreed. Witness told Graham that he would perhaps help Peter when he found out how he (witness) stood. Did not push Graham for his money because he (Graham) had suffered greatly from the Glasgow Bank failure. Read’s trustees had been very lenient with him until now, and that was the reason why he had not brought hie action before now. He (witness) failed to recognise the accounts produced. Graham had furnished hi in accounts from time to time, and he handed them to Cameron and Skipworth. Cross-examined by Mr Edwards—Whilst partner with Peter he (Peter) had all witness’) money with witness’ consent. The farm was sold about twelve months after the dissolution of partnership. Witness was not told what the farm realised. Mr C. Smith would not tell him. Saw in ths paper (Standard) what it was, The sum due to witness was L9OO, which was agreed to at the time of dissolution. The monev was placed in Graham’s hands withoS sanction. Let things diddle on day after day. Never went into the accounts with his son iu Graham’s office. Admitted having received accounts from time to time. Did not know that Kinross was partner with Graham, Mr McLean wished to know whether, under these circumstances, his further attendauce could not be dispensed with, as Mr Kinross might be struck out of the action. Mr Kenny was not disposed to accede to this, as Mr Kinross had subsequently been discovered. The Court did not see any use pursuing the cross-examination of such an infirm old man any further. Mr J. W. Witty, accountant and commission agent, had been employed to investigate the accounts between plaintiff and Graham and Co. Had received Mr Robert Breingan's accounts from the hands of Mr Nolan, and had received the other from Mr Peter Breingau. In looking over Mr Robert Breingan’s rendered accounts he found one showing a credit of £lOl, and the next one, without any statement as to how it oamo about, showed a debit of £169 12s 7d indebteness. Amongst the accounts handed to him by Peter Breingau he found pinned inside two sheets the missing account of Robert Breingan’s, which showed how the £BOI credit hud been converted in £169 12s 7d indebtedness. When he missed the statement from Mr Robert Breingan's accounts he asked Mr Graham for it, and Mr Mr Graham promised to furnish it. He would positively swear that he found the missing account (produced) amongst Peter Breingan's accounts, and not amongst plaintiff’s. Peter Breinghan, examined by Mr. Kenny : Was a partner with his father in the farm at Waerenga-a-hika. The farm was sold by Mr. C. Smith, who was then manager for Graham and Co. When the farm was sold, his father became entitled to £9OO out of the proceeds. The money was retained by Graham and Co. This was about April, 1877. Mr. Graham afterwards advised him to buy Taureka from Mr. Bousfield. Mr. Graham found the money. A portion of the money was witness’ father’s. Mr. Graham said he could not use his father's money unless his (witness’) father gave consent. Witness asked his father, who said he could not lend the whole of the money, but would lend part, if Mr. Graham would be responsible in the same manner as he had been in the \Vaerenga-a-hika farm. Told Mr. Graham that his father would find £2OO or £3OO. Never told Mr. Graham that his father would find all the money. Never told his father that Graham had advanced the whole of the £9OO, though he (witness) knew it. Graham and Co. took a bill-of-sale over the Taureka farm, and finally sold witness up. When he received the statement produced from Graham and Co., he found the before-mentioned account of his father's pinned insir’e. The account had been sent him in mistake. His own account was perfectly correct. Could not remember whether he had spoken to Mr. Graham about the account of his father’s which had been enclosed in his (witness’) by mistake. Cross-examined by Mr. Edwards—Witness got an account from Mr. Graham, stating that the whole of £9OO had been placed to his (witness’) credit, but had never told his father. Knew he was in po .session of all his father’s money, but concealed the fact from him. His father did rot krow w,.at he (witness) gave for Taureka. Knew perfectly well that the money advanced to pay for Taureka was his father’s, although he never told his father of the fact. Graham <t Co. took a bill-of-sale over the place in 1879. This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr. A. Graham, called and examined by Mr. Edwards—Was a partner in the firm of Graham aud Co. The Waerenga-a-hika farm was sold whilst witness was away in ’ England. On witness’ return the plaintiff and his son waited on him at his office, and

the accounts were fully gone into, and it was arranged that £917 should be placed to the credit of Mr. Robert Breinghan with the understanding that Peter was to have the use of it. At the time Peter bought Taureka he told witness that his (Peter’s) father was perfectly willing that he should have the money. Witness did not see Robert Breighan for some time after, when he (Robert) asked witness to try and borrow some money for him (Robert) to pay Read’s trustees. Witness said he would try and raise the money for him. The plaintiff never demanded the £9OO from witness. The account Sroduced, dated December 31, 1879, showed lr. Peter Breinahan indebted to witness in the sum of £169 12s 7d, Cross-examined by Mr. Kenny—The conversation between himself and Robert and Peter Breinghan was in April, 1878. The £9OO stood to Peter Breighan’s account until after the convteution, but after that it was placed to the of Robert. Witness never asked Robert to loan the money to Peter. The terms upon which Peter was to have the loan of the money were the same as those in the Waerenga-a-hika farm, —viz., 9 per k cent. Witness never advised or forced Peter the Tureka farm. Might have told IBbi that it was a good thing. Mr Bousfield, of Tureka, owed the firm of &. Co. about £I,OOO. By Peter the firm was enabled to the money Bousfield owed. ’ not actually to pa}' the money, by a transfer of accounts in the the transaction was completed about £IOO. No poition »«M[|Wircha9e-nionev was paid by Peter Mid the £175. Carlaw Smith, examined by Mr. In the year 1877 he was manager sale of the Breinghan’s farm at Waer- * Cross-examined by Mr. Kenny—Peter Breighan owed Messrs Graham <fc Co. a good deal of money at the time, and a large portion of the proceeds of the sale of the Waerenga-a-hika farm went to satisfiy that claim. Could not tell where the rest of the money went to. Ewen Cameron, settler, Tauranga—Went to Graham <t Co. with Mr. Robert Breighan, in November, 1880, when some hot words passed between Mr. Graham and Mr. Breighan. Mr. Breighan wanted some money. Mr. Graham said there was some interest due to Mr. Breighan. Some time after according to arrangement, witness received the interest. Cross-examined by Mr Kenny.: Did not know what money the row was about. Had not been on good terms with Robert Breinghan for some time past. This closed the case for the defence. Mr Edwards said he would not detain the jury long. This was what he might call a sympathy case, as the plaintiff evidently relied entirely on their sympathy. They had seen how Peter Breinghan had given his evidence. This witness had acknowledged to having deceived his father all through. His testimony could not possibly be relied on in the simplest degree, and so he would dismiss his (Peter’s) evidence entirely. The whole of the reliable evidence was documentary, all of which had tended to substantiate Mr Graham’s story. If they decided against Mr Graham, they would sav that he (Graham) had defrauded this old man out of his money. Peter had said he had got his father’s money, and everything proved that the money had been transferred by arrangement, and with the k consent of all parties, and in no case had it shown that Mr Graham had assumed rany liability. L’he learned gentleman then reverted to the account discovered by Mr Witty, and left the matter to the jury. Regular annual statements of account had been supplied and vere - disputed. Proof had been given that the plaintiff had gone to Mr Graham ’r efflee and there given his sanction to Peter’s use of the money. The plaintiff had given a very unsatisfactory reason why he had not taken action in this matter before, He did not think it necessary to say more and would leave it to the com-mon-sense of the jury to decide, Mr McLean said that as it was Saturday and very hot he would not tire the jury’s patience by adding anything to his learned friend’s remarks. Mr Kenny said that it was true that it was Saturday and very hot, nevertheless he would do his duty. Mr Edwards had been very facetious in this case. The matter to be considered by the jury was certainly a very simple one, and laid within a nutshell. The question Was, did Mr Robert Breinghan authorise his Son Peter to have this money. He would ask them to consider whether such a thorough business man as Mr Graham would pay such a large sum of money away without a written authority. He dare say some of the gentlemen on the jury knew what these stati: n agents were. They sucked the life’s blood out of their hard-tuilmg clients. Then look at these men in the present action who were entirely at the mercy of their shrewd agents. The old man had no knowledge of accounts and did not understand them. The jury must see how it had been arranged so that this money never reached the old man’s hands, and it would be for them to judge. The learned gentleman then reverted to Mr Graham’s visit to Mr. Robert Breinghan and the old man’s astonishment when Mr Graham told him that he had borrowed the money from Mr. Katclifle at 9 per cent, and how the old man had exclaimed “ What! Is not the money my own p” A great deal of stress had been laid on the action not being brought before. The old man did not trouble himself so long as the trustees did not press him. Mr, Kenny then called the attention of the jury to the good thing Mr. Graham had made out of the Taureka transaction, by which he had recouped himself of a large aum of money, and'by which Peter Breinghan was ruined and had become insolvent. His Honor, in addressing the jury, said the question could be decided from the evidence. The thing for the jury to decide was, did the plaintiff authorise the transfer of the money. The facts of the case were very simple. The father and son were partners in a farm at Waerenga-a hika, and they dissolved partnership in 1877, leaving the farm in the hands of Peter for some twelve months longer, the son paying the father 9 per cent, for the use of his (the father’s) money, and it appeared that, by some means, Mr. Graham made himself liable as a guarantee between the parties for the sum mentioned. When *Mr. came home he found the farm ■ Bld. There was a credit of £I2OO, £9OO ci which was to be placed to the father’s credit. It appeared that the father did not object to leave this money in the hands of Messrs Graham and Co. The son had said that the father had agreed to lend him (the son) a portion of this money under the same conditions as those in the Waerenga-a-hika farm. The jury had heard the witnesses and would have to judge between them. In the Taureka purchase it would be seen than Graham had agreed to guarantee the interest of the £9OO to Robert Breingan. He would now refer to the documentary evidence. The accounts had all been admitted correcv, and the only one in dispute was the account which had been missing from the fat. e. and had been found, it had been asserted, amongst the son’s. His Honor then went through the accounts at so ne length, and concluded by inform’ - ig the jury that they v. a d have to dec’de whether plaintiff had agreed to the loan being made o. rot.

Before retiring, the foreman of the jury asked whether they must be unanimous in their verdict. His Honor said “ yes ; but if after they had been shut up for three hours—why ” The jury immediately withdrew with some amount of consternation and amidst much laughter. After being absent for about half-an-hour, they returned into Court with a verdict for the defendant on all issues, costs to be taxed according to scale and to go to the defendant Graham. MONDAY. TT7TA NIHONIHO V. WABD. His Honor delivered the following judgment :— With regard to the claim made by the plaintiff for £62, as a balance of £lBO alleged to be due in respect of a sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of his share of the Hauturu Block, and services of the plaintiff to the defendant in connection with the sale of the interests of the other persons jointly interested with the plaintiff in the Block, the only conclusion I can arrive at is—that the plaintiff was to be paid £BO for his share in the land, and £lOO if he succeeded in inducing the whole of the grantees to sell their share. I conclude that the plaintiff at the settlement on the 27th March, 1882, did not object to the settlement on the ground of not receiving or oeing accounted with for the whole £lOO, and that he admitted him/self entitled on this account to no more than £lOO. There is much reason for supposing this to have been the original understanding. The amount of the shares was unknown, there having been no sub-division. If the plaintiff could have induced all to sell, a sub-division would have been unnecessary, and moreover, the defendant would have got the whole block without others participating in it. Any other couise would have left the matter indefinite. I conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff has been paid all that he could claim for his services, and I also conclude that though the plaintiff practically assented to the deduction of the £8 16s 6d, that is not binding upon him. The denot one he was in law bound to submit to. He submitted to it in ignorance of the facts ; indeed, as I think, upon a mis. representation of the facts, and also without consideration. The rest of the settlement of the accounts were satisfactorily proved. I am satisfied that the plaintiff knew that he gave the promissory-note and that it was for a loan. He is entitled to recover, therefore, L 8 16s as the balance of the purchase-money of the plaintiff’s share of the land. I cannot dismiss this part of the case without adverting to the culpable conduct of the defendant in the transaction. I see no ground for imputing fraud or dishonest conduct, it may be that no advantage was taken of his position. The fact that the plaintiff is suing to enforce the contract tends to show that is so ; but the facts remain that the defendant, being a solicitor of the Court, and having as it appears relations with the plaintiff as solicitor, entered into a contract for the purchase of the plaintiff’s land, and there is not a scrap of written evidence to show what the terms of the contract were, nor was there any evidence, written or otherwise (except the account given to the plaintiff on the other), as to what the contract was, either for the land or the services of the plaintiff. If an interpreter was engaged he w’as not examined as a witness in the matter. As to the second claim, I conclude that the plaintiff and some of the parties interested m Puketauhinu did on behalf of themselves and others interested in the block employ the plaintiff to apply at Auckland for a rehearing, and that they desired and he assented to go there, and that the fee should be for this service one hundred guineas. I am certain that the plaintiff knew that agents in Auckland (Messrs Jackson and Russell) were acting in the matter. The fee agreed for by the defendant must, I think, be taken to include the fee paid to the agents, £52 10s, and the money out of pocket, The defendant paid for his expenses to Auckland and £2O fee of the Native Land Court. The sum agreed for (£110) was therefore very moderate. The rehearing was obtained and fixed for September at Opotiki—£so on account of the £llO had been paid, This was admitted, So far the matter presents no difficulty, but at some time or other —at what time is, I think, left uncertain —the parties agreed with the defendant for a sum of £250, for the defendant’s services in the rehearing. I conclude that it was understood that this was to be an agreed sum, and not security merely, and was to include all services in and about the advocating, and as vesting the claim of the plaintiff and those interested with him in the land. There is no distinct evidence, but I conclude from such evidence as there is, that the £250 was to include the unpaid balance of £llO, I conclude that the defendant was not paid £6O at Page’s by the plaintiff. I place no reliance on the testimony of Tuta Nihoniho ; his evidence as to what took place at the settlement of accounts on the 27th March he must have known to be false. From this evidence, and from his conduct in other matters, 1 think him capable of making up a false story, and of doing what he could to induce others to support him. He had unquestionably at some time obtained money from and on account of his friends for payment of the £llO. He did not apply that sum. He falsely asserted that the defendant had agreed to apply an alleged balance due to the plaintiff uf £62 towards the costs. His false and scheming character—as evidenced by his letters to the defendant with reference to Kupene’s money —all this and the evidence generally induces me to conclude that the £6O was not paid as alleged. The result is that the plaintiff fails as to this part of the claim. Though this is so, I feel bound to observe that the plaintiff and those interested with him may, if they please, require the defendant to deliver a bill of costs, and may have a taxation of it, and if there is a balance due from the defendant after giving credit for the 1.300 he would be compelled to account fur it. The judgment will be for the defendant as to the sums of L5O and L6O. The judgment is for the plaintiff for L 8 16s, with such costs as he would be entitled to if the action had been brought for that amount in the K.M, Court. Wi TE HUKI AND OTHERS V. N.Z.N.L.B. CO, Mr. Brassey, instructed by Messrs Carlisle and McLean, for the plaintiffs, W. L. Bees for the defendant company. Claim to have a deed of conveyance of the Paramata Block containing 9,426 acres set aside Mr. J. Carroll was sworn in as interpreter. The following gentlemen were called and sworn as a special jury :—Messrs L. Valpy, Kempthorne, A. Graham, foreman, W. Common. W. F. Crawford, J. D. Osborne, A. Ledger, D. Murray, Nasmith, J. Bourke, G. J. Winter, C. D. Bennett, Skipworth, and Finneran. All the witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court.

A discussion here took place as to certain issues in the case, there being 12—some of which were disposed of. [n opening’; the case Mr Patrick Sterling McLean (of Carlyle and McLean, Napier) stated that the action was brought by Wiremu Te Ruki and other Natives, of Taloga Bay, against the N. Z. N. L. 8. Company. The plaintiffs applied to have a certain deed of conveyance relating to the Paremata Block set aside. The grounds were that the plaintiff and others were induced to sign the said conveyance on the representations fraudulently made to them

from time to time, both before and after the defendants, Rees, DeLautour, and Wi Pere had admitted that they were agents for the New Zealand Native L<*nd Settlement Co. The first ground, therefore, of the application to set aside the deed was that the owners of the Paremata Block had been by the fraudulent representations of the defendant induced to sign the land deed. The second ground was that certain promises made by the said defendants Rees, DeLautour, and Wi Pere, as agents of the Company, were never fulfilled. The third ground was that the consideration (L 900 stated in the deed had never been paid. The fourth ground was that the order for freehold tenure granted to the company by the Native Land Court had been obtained by the defendants by means of fraudulent misrepresentation. The company had been formed for the purpose of carrying out important transactions, and the basis of its operations was set forth in its Articles of Association. The principal element in its acquisition of Native land was that the Native owners gave up their land to the company, the Natives being supposed to re-invest the purchase-money in buying scrip. The learned counsel then proceeded to explain to the jury the provisions of the Native Land Acts in force for regulatingthe acquisition of Native land, as well as the common law of England bearing upon the purchase of real estate, and contended that in the present ease the defendants had not complied with either one or the other. The first witness called was—

Rawiri Karaka, of Uawa (Tologa Bay), was an owner in a block of land called Parainata, which was held by a certificate of title under the 17th section Native Lands Act, 1878. Was one who owned under his mothe \ Remembered entering into certain transactions with the company in connection with other Natives. The person who he first had any conversation with about the matter was Mr. Rees and Wi Pere. All the owners of the block were present. Wi Pere and Rees came to them. The interview took place in Tologa Bay. The conversation was that Paramata should be handed over to the company. The land was to be conveyed over to the company, so that the company could have control over it There was a lot of talk. The land was to be conveyed to the company, and they (the company) were to buy out the present lense. The lessee was paying about £350. There was a deed signed. He signed the deed. (Mr Brassey now put in a deed of memorandum of ownership dated March 15th, 1882— marked A.—setting forth that in consideration of £9,000 the Native had assigned the block). After they had the talk they went to enquire of the company about the matter. When they went to meet the company there were a good many persons present — Mr Rees and Mr Dargaville. All the names were not signed on one day. The signing took several days. The deed of conveyance produced referred to part of the block, which was signed by eighteen Natives on May 3rd, 1882, and was made after the sub-division of the block in the Native Land Court, and was a copy of the deed enrolled in the Native Lands Court purporting that the land had been conveyed to the company for the sum of £9,000 which had been received. Remembered signing the deed, but could not remember the date. He had signed several documents in the matter. (The second deed was here read to the witness). He signed the deed in the office of the company. He remembered some of the conversation which took place. He could speak as to some of the conversations, All the conversation, both before and after, was the same from first to last. He could tell the Court what took place though ha could not remember the date. All the thing seemed eu good that they signed the documents. There were some conversations in Tologa Bay and some here in Gisborne. Some before the signing of the deeds and some after. He would not fix the date of the conversation between the signing of the two deeds. Before the land went to the company Wi Pere was the only one who came out there, At first Wi Pere was not known to be connected with Rees and the Company, but Wi Pere was a committee to settle any trouble m the land, The Native owners laid their grievances with respect to Paramata Block before Wi Pere for arrangement. Wi Pere pointed out the way by which the owners could relieve themselves from their trouble with the Europeans and butter themselves by getting more money for Paramatta. Then the Natives agreed to let Wi Pere manage all the land. Could not say how long it was after when Wi Pere and Rees got together. The name company was not known then. When Wi Pore and Rees came they were not known as the company. He thought they called themselves trustees. When Rees came as the company he talked the same us Wi Pere had done at first. Some time after, when Judge Heale came as the Judge of the N.L. Court, they were known as the company. Wi Pere then began to suggest that the laud should be handed over to the company, and the company would subdivide the laud and lease, and lay off portions as towns, &c. Wi Pere said we should convey the land to the company by deed, and that the price should be mentioned in the deed. But when the company got the land they were to reconvey the land by deed at the same time to the Natives. With this understanding the Natives signed their names to the document, The owners were to elect nine to act as a committee to represent the owners and to manage the land. At the time they were told that all the Maories who sold the land to the company would become owners in the company, so they appointed nine as a committee to represent the owners in the company. Out of the nine selected, one was to be chairman, and to take the deed into the Native Lands Court. We then appointed Paki te Amaru as chairman, and he took the first deed into the Court, so that the Court could convey to the company. When the deed was taken into the Court by Amaru the Court would not consent. All the owners who had become company men sent the deed to the Court. Mr. Rees appeared in the matter. Did not know any other lawyer in the case, Mr. Rees acted for the Maoris. The Court would not give its sanction to the deed of sale. The reason why the deed fell through was that the Court asked Puki if he had received the money, and Puki said he had not received the eash. The Court asked Puki if he had received any money, aud Puki said, No, he had not. On going outside, Puki’s brother Wiremu was appointed chairman. The case was again taken into Court. Mr. Rees was the lawyer. On this occasion, the answer to the inquiry as to whether the money had been received was “ Yes, £9,000.” After this stage the second de d (ma rked B) was signed by myself and others. I signed my name. (Mr Rees he e produced deed dated May 4, 1882, which stipulated that the sum of LB,lOO should be indented in the company’s shares, and that the company should be empowered to dispose of, sell, etc., all lands in the block). Between the time Puki had left the Court and the time of makiug the second application a conversation took place beuween several persons in Rees’ office. Wi Pere, Rees, and others were present. The members of the Paramata Committee were present. Could rot say what other Europeans were present. The talk was about Puki having failed in the Native Lands

Court. Wi Pere said it was natural that Puki should be afraid on his oath because he was a lay preacher. When they asked Puki why he had not given a different reply Puki said that he could not because the the Almighty could not be deceived, though men might be. It was fox this reason that the younger brother was appointed in Puke’s place. Wi Pere and Mr Rees were the persons who did all the talking. Wiremu was instructed to say yes, if he was asked whether he had received the money, because it was on these points that the deed rested. When the matter was again taken before the Court, the answers were given in the affirmative, and the land thus passed over to the company. At the ti ne of the matter coming before the Court the Natives had received about £9OO in cash. This was not all paid at once, but at different times. The £9OO was to be returned to the company with interest. It was to be paid back again. The Committee applied to the company for the Deed of Covenant. He was not present at the first application, He himself had applied to the whole of the directors of the company, in their offices, when Mr Buchanan was Chairman. He applied for the whole of the deeds, and also for the money which the company had to pay, and they told him that at another meeting they (the company) would inform him what to do. Had also applied to Mr DeLautour at Tologa Bay. There w r ere many people present. Henare Ruru, Puki, and others were present. Te Hapi Hiniki went at that time to count Mr Murphy’s sheep at Tologa Bay. This was after the meeting of the company in Gisborne. Had no diary in connection with the matter. Could not remember the time, but it was on the 26th of a month. Remembered on account of receiving a letter from Mr Rees about the meeting. Could only say that it was after the other meeting. At that meeting the deed was applied for, and the balance of the £9OO. Mr DeLautour said that the matter should be attended to as soon as he got to Gisborne. The balance of the £9OO, —viz., £2OO should be paid at once, (To be concluded in our next.)