SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 24, 20 December 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TUESDAY (Before His Honor Judge Prendergast.) Rees was with DeLautour on the day they had applied for the deed. They had applied for the dee I of covenant on the d-*y it was signed. Forgot after the lapse of time whether he signed ft paper authorising Mr Rees to k *ep the deed. The deed was interpreted to him. He understood that the deed he wanted was ’o give back the land to the Maoris, but handed hack to Mr Rees in exch inge for shares in the c -mpanv for scrip If they had received the £l»000 in cash they would not have been satisfied. When the price was being discussed by Wi I’ere tho Natives wanted £12,0'10, and Wi Pere said ihe pi ice was too large to pay for the writing on the papers. That was why it was reduced to £9OOO. He had not kept a diary of Pa a mala, because there were only three who kept the records in that, block—viz., Te Huke, Turaphua, and Haeremahi. Cross-examined hy Mr. Rees—The document produced was read and explained to him. (Deed read). Witness heard the deed r«*ad when he signed it. Wi Te Ruke was present when he (witness) signed. There were several clauses in th»* agreementThe covenant contained all 'hat was agreed be tween the Natives and the Company. Th« only thing wan'ing was that the deed of covenant, was never in the Jatives possession. T'-e Natives wanfel the heed of covenant, so th*t they might lake it be f <>re a Court and see whether it. was ft good document If tho deed had been niven to them they would have taken it before a Court to see whether the document, would give the Natives back the land If'he deed had g'ven them ba k the land it will not he a fiaud. The pro mise was that th” Natives were to sign a document, making the land over to the company and that the company was, at the same time, to recover the lan-l back to the Natives. The first deed w*s to sign the land to the ■ ompany. an<l the deed of covenant whs for the company to sign tne land to the Native Committee, so that they might deal with t ■” land. The covenant whs all right, hut w at whs w-ong whs th it the covenant was not. hande.l t > the Natives The Natives had not signed the covenant and then hande I it to him (Hees) to get s-aled. His answer • elated to th” seal. The Maoris did not know about seals Mr. Rees t Id ’hem to keep their hands on the seal while they signed. The committee asked Mr. Rees to get the seal of the company and the signatures of Mr. Rees and the chairman, a-.d Wi Pere, put to the deed of covenants. Witness did not hear the Natives a«k Mr. Hees to keep ’he deed of covenant for them. He forgo' and did not remember now. Witness did not know, but. thought perhans a paper had been signed. Wa* not present, when the Na’ive Lands Court, sat ar. L’awa He attended before Judges Brookfield and Purkey. Wi Te Rake said he had not received any money. That wa< when he went to <’ourt. Te Ruke, Taraphia, and Haeremaihi kept the Paramatta accounts. Puke said he bad not seen any money paid to the committee, and had not seen himself. When the Court asked Te Ruke if ho had

received any money, he said “No, I have not received any money.” The Natives had agreed to purchase £B,lOO worth bf «h»i-e. in the company, in 66 il( e quanc8 J , •“"* “ 3 the • art. Th. MHori. did hot pj back from their word. It, Wn. l.ftU th. Native, as to What amount of Snares and cash tluy would nave. It whs left to the natives to either nave shares in the company or lo have twoHurds of the profits th the Paramatta Block ihat was what was said. The committee had power bl say how much should be so d, and n<»w much should be reserved to the Natives t etwelves. That was all that was said. Ihe committee was to out up the land. Wi Te Ruke and the others attended one meeting of m' e c ? m P an J ( tt9 *° Paramatta) in Gieborne. Hie first thought of upsetting these proceed ings after the ordsr was made by the Land Court The present proceedings commenced in April, 1883, but they had written to the Na'ive Lands Court before this, when they found that s .inethlhg wrong wa« being done with the libt of names m Paramatta, It was then he found he hud done wrong in letting the land to the company. They had urg”d the company to buy Mr Murphy out because Wi Pere and the company had pressed them to this. The thing did not emanate from t hemselves. Mince June Ist he found that Mr Ormond had a lease. Did not know the gentleman. That was hi* writing. Knew about the petition against the company. Mas employed by Captain Porter in the matter. Captain Porter d'd not ask him (witness) to get the Natives to s*gn a fresh lense. Captain Porter only asked them to sign a new le-ise. The lease whs to be sign- d for the purpose of breaking the sale to the company. Could o»>lv speak for himself. Di I not hear it. from any one else, but knew that the lea*e would bo antagonistic to the company. When he won’ to Napier he saw Mr Ormond. Could npt fix the date. Did not keep a diary. Thought Captain Porter had asked him to write to Puke and ask him (Puke) to Hssist in upsetting the company’s deed. Knew that Captain Porter was agent for Mr Ormond. Letter produced was hie. Witness was paid for his work in the petition, but was not working for payment in this matter, as he waa one of the owners. Was told by the deed of covenant that the company whs to re assign the land back t » the Natives That was the talk all along Was told that in the first deed the lands were to be made over absolutely to the company, and that any claim the Natives had on the land was the covenant de**d. We were perfectly clear that the deed was to give t**e land over to the company, and 'hat the d ed of covenant was to give the land back to the Maoris. (Letter read). Never received the scrip. Knew Wi Te Huke’s signature. Scrip book posted to witness, who recognised Wi Te Huke’s signature. Wi Te Ruke said he had not seen the scrip. Whs quite clear on th s point. Wi Ce Huk” sai I the scrip reutaiued in the hands of Mr. Hees. Said thia last Friday. Ha l only signed hi* name on the back of the scrip. Had m ide a written complaint to the lawyers ab *ut this matter. The Natives did not write anything, bu'dictated the matter to the lawyers. Wi Te Ruke and himself and others spoke Wm chairman of the Mangapeia Block. Was displeased because the money was lost with the company. Had lost money and had been pulle i up for it. Whs not able to say whether ho had been in prison fur horse stealing. Had gone to Mr. Rees’ offle” and asked him (Hee*) for the deed of covenant. The Natives were always asking for the covenant, but could not get it. The committee might have said that providing they received the power of dealing with the land in conjunction with the company and received two third* of the profits they woul Ibe satisfied. Witness did nut say so Mr. Rees had not told them that he could not let them hare lhe covenant becau-e he wanted to produce it in Court, and they (the Natives) might lose it. The Nafiv-s had frequently asked for it. They had asked the company for it. They had asked Mr. DeLautour for it.* This was not before the cov> nant was made.

Wi Te Ruke, called and examined by Mr. Brnssey—Was o- e of the owners in the block <»f land called Paramatta, and had some dealings with tho •■ompany. Remembered signing tho deed produced (agreement of sale). Went Io the Native Lands Court in Gisborne to pass Paramatta. Ho was asked to go by Mr. Rees, Wi Pere, and the committee. The arrangement in the first instance was that ihe land should be conveyed to the company, upon *he understanding that the company should execute a covenant so that the land should go hack to the Natives. After his brother had failed to say that he received the money, Mr. Hees and Wi Pere asked him (witness) to go and say that he had received it. The reason they asked him to say this was because Puk” had said he had not received the money the thing fell t rough. Mr. Rees asked him to go to the Court. When Mr. Hees a*ked him in Court, if he had received the money he (witne-s) sail "Yes.” Knew the pap-r produced (marked D). Got it in the office from Mr Hee* or Mr Harris. Never got the £8,25C. That paper w-s tho only money he had ever seen. Went >o the bank with Mr. Rees and two other Natives The-e w-is no interpro ter with them. When ho went to the Bank he saw the manager (Mr Matthews). Went there to draw £399 10s, which wa* 'he balance of £9-M) which the company had been asked for. There was £4)O due them, but Mr. Rees told them that they had better leave U's, so as to leave the account op-n. The only money he had reonived whs the slip. After they had received the £4OO there was £B,IOO left in the bank. Mr. Rees signed the cheque. Witness and two Nativessignedthecheque (produced) marked E. There was another cheque, which was for £399 10n. When witness signed the cheque for £9.000 he had the deposit slip in his pocket at the time. Witness was tuld by Mr. Harris that the cheque (deposit slip) was fur £B,IOO. When Harris handed him the slip, he told him that it was for the other portion of the £9.000, part of which he (witness) had received. The £399 was the balance of the £9OO which had been paid. [A receipt was here put in purporting to be a receipt signed by the witness and two others on the Ist April, for £B,BOO ] The witness said that was his writing, but he did not remember signing it. He knew of a cheque for £8,250, but not one for £B.BOO. Apart from the deposit slip he (witness) could not remember whether he ever gave Mr, Harris a cheque for £B,BOO, which he said he had never seen before. When he (witness) was told he would receive a deed of coven mt from the company it whs explained by Mr Rees and Wi I’ere that it would have the effect of giving them back their land. The deed of covenant was signed hy all the committee, and was translated by Mr. Harris to them all. He was not perfectly clear as to the effect of it, because it was not in accordance with what was t<*ld us. They told us that the covenant would be executed to give us back our land Did not know any other lawyer in the case but Mr. Rees and the aged man. After he signed the deed of coven mt. We all asked for the deed soon after the land passed through the Court. Would not say it was the same day, but it might be the next. The deed of covenant was not given the same day. We asked for the deed so as to take it to the Land t’ourt. They asked Mr Ri*es for it. Mr R-ps said the I and* Court, could not give effect to it, but only the Supreme Court. Could not mention all those present, but remembered Karitiana and several other

member, of Uj. bnmnilttee. &em-mb.r«ii the deed Conveying the land to the company. Tho covenant was to give us back tha land. Recollected going to a meeting of the company asking for the deed of covenant. Asked that the d-munients might be translated so that the Natives might be clear, The documents were all in Knglish. Never asked Mr Rh«s to keep the deed in his p»ssesaiop, Remembered receiving the scrip from the company and wrote hie nam* on it. He left it in the office. Had nevex saw it siuce. Never asked to have the scrip left in tho Bank. Mr Rees aeked that it might, be left there, as the scrip repr-sent-d shares in the company. Th” scrip represented the £B,IOO for the land. Mr naid they ahoul < be left there a« land for us. Mr Berry, the clerk to the company, was there. Cross examined by Mr Rees—Ttad not taken tho scrip to the Bank himself, but had left it in the offi -e. Witness wrote the name on tho envelope handed to him. Could not say whether he signed the name in the offloe or tho Bank. What ho (witness) denied was that he took tho scrip 10 the Bank himself, The scrip was brought by Mr Rees to tho Bunk, and given by Mr Rees to the manager of the Bank. Wnlld swear that Mr Roes gave the scrip to the manager of the Bank. Witness’ two friends were there at the time. The money w«i drawn out at tho same time. Forgot who was the interpr tor. He hoard the manager called Matthews. There were others present at the time. He never told Rawiri that he had left the scrip with Mr Rees. Never said he Was dissatisfied with the deed of covenant after he signed it. Did not object to it. lie understood that was the covenant conveying the land to the company, and thought there would be another one executed conveying the land back to thk committao. The deed was read to him by Mr Havin and wat. talked over before beingsigned 4 There were several talks about it. The committ-'o signed the covenant prtduced. The covenant did contain all that the company promised to do when the Paramata land waiconveyedjto .them (the compiny). Puke Te Amaru was employed to carry the Pantmata through the court. Whs sure of that. Whs always the chairman of the committee himself. I’he committee was asked to take £9OO only in money, the remainder to be in company shares. The only reason why the Natives wore induced to sign the deed to the company was because the company was to re-convey the land back at once. That was what Mr Rees and Wi Pere always told them, but they found that the deed was an absolute conveyance of t'*e land to the company, but. there was another deed to reconvoy the land back to them. Did swear as a witness before the Commissioner that the deed wai an absolute sale of the land to the company, but siiit so at the instigation of Mr Hees and Wi Pere. Mr. Rees and Wi Pere asked him to say that he had rece.ived the money when he (witness) had not. Mr. Rees ptompted him to *ay this. This arrange I in Mr. Rees' office the same day that they returned from the Land Court. Tht office of chairman was taken from Puke Awaru because he cou<d nut swear false as he (Puke) was a lay preacher. It was tn the uffio” of Mr Rjes where it was arranged that he should swear this. 5 Some discussion having taken place a« to dates, the Court wished to know what was the date when Puke Te Anaru made such a mess , of it (laughter). iThe tub division had not taken place when Puke Te Anaru ma te the statement. Had already said that it was before his (witness') 1 appearance in court. It was when he (wit 1 nets) came from Tologa Bay, as he saw thenj coming out. of c >urt. The people wer • eonsing out after Puke had said that. This must have been in April, shortly after he went into the court himself. After Puke he (witness) J appeared in court. Appeared in eourt when the deed of sale whs produced, and swore 1 hat the whole £9OOO had been paid and the land to be passed t o the company He spoke ab <ut tho £899 LOt. This was the fourth j time that he had acknowledged that he had sworn this at the instigation of Mr R*>es. Mr. Rees also said that a deed of covenant would be executed to re convey the land back to the committee. That was the first time he (witness) had appeared before the Co orc, The first time ho went before the Court the deed was passed. The second time he spokg about the £4OO that Mr. DeLautour had paid to us. He said this to the Court on two occasions. It was before Judge Brookfield on the first and second occasion There wal some time between. The object of his (witness') appearance before the O >urt the sreond time was when he took the list of names. W en he appeared before the Court the second Hine the £9OOO had not been p»id t only by the £899 and the documents which had been produced. He (witness) had perhaps received lhe cheques for £8,250 and £l5O respectively, anti gone with Mr Harris and others to see them paid into the Natives’ account. The three of them had sign d th”ir names at the Bank in a book. L’hey had received a cheque for £2OO before this, which left £ I »0 due. The witness thought that Mr DeLautour had been at Uawa before that time. (Receipt for £4OO date I Mav. put in). The last payment whs £ <99 10s in £1 notes at Tologa Bay, Did oot remember whether he purch *sed the scrip of the company for £8.900 at the request of the people. He (witnes«), Ropahia. and Mahia signed tho cheque (produced) for the shares 1 he reason why he said he had sworn falsely was because he had only received £9 >J. He did not think to get the scrip for nothing. The Maories knew nothing of scrip and shares; it was Mr Rees that persuaded them to got the shares. There was a meeting last Friday in Captain Porter’s office. Told Rana that he had written his nam” on the e cr ip left them in the office. Mr Rees, DeLaut »ur, and Wi Per* said the deeds were only meant, to secure the land fr -m ot rnr people, and not as absolute conveyances. The company wa* not to keep the land, but whs to covenant it ba<-k to them. Had »aid before that Mr. Rees was present When the £B,IOO was paid. It was Mr. Rees and Wi Pere who H*ked him to go to the Court and swear falsely. He considered Rees and Wi Pere as one. That was what he meant. The main desire was that they Hhould have the covenant and see whether it was good. Had already stated that the Natives wanted the deed to take before the Court. Mr. Rees said the only Court to •leal with the covenant was the Supreme Court. When we spoke to Mr. Hards about it, he said if we would sign an order we should get it. Spoke to Wi Pere at Uawa, and he said it wa* the Natives’ fault, as they could have got it if they had not been so late applying for it. When Mr. Harris and Wi Pere asked why the Natives were opposed to the company, we told him it was because they could not get the covenant. This was since the present action had been commenced. When he spoke to Wi Pere it was before the present action. Told Mr. DeLautour that their opposition to the company was hecnise they could not get the covenant giving them back the land. Mr. DeLautour then said th »t the covenant was at the Bank, where he (witness) and Mr. Rees had taken it. Paki te A mum. examined by Mr Brassey— Whs one of the owners in the Paramatta Block, and signed the deed of conveyance. Wi Pere and Reesinduee-t him to s gn. After sig'.ing the first deed he signed the other one (produ -ed). The Natives were told that they would reap great benefits by signing the

deeds to the company. I'he company said they would Bettie the lands by Europeans. Another thing was that the company pro* mised to re-convey the l»nd to the Natives Kemembered going to the Na'ive Lands Court here in tris borne. Went to to take the paramatta case before the Court. This was the first occasion on which it was brought before the Native Lands Court. On this occasion Mr Rees and others asked him to go there. Mr Rees appeared in the Court for the Natives. Made a statement to the Court. Mr Rees led him along and he answered him. Could not remember al), but Mr Rees a«kcd him all about the company and the committee, and he (witness) answered him. Remembered the judge asking him fome questions. The judge asked him about the L9OOO mentioned in the deed of conveyance. The judge asked have you received the whole of this money in youi hands ; has it been before you P” Witness replied “ the whole of this money, the £9OOO, had not been rec«ived in his (witness’) hands.” Stated that some money had been paid us, but there was a balance of £B,IOO due us. The case did not come on again that day. Mr Rees knew that he was an important person, and that he (witness) was a member of the committee, and so Mr Rees took witness with him. Was not clear why Wi Te Ruke was not there on that day. Did not think Wi Te Ruke was in the Court that day. He (witness) thought he went into Court again. The committee met that day in the office. Something was said to him about the mistake he had made in the Lands Court. He (witness) was to be put aside for another one to take the case in the Lands Court. Mr Rees said he (witness) should be put aside, as he could not state in the Court that the Natives had received all the money, and because he was a „ lay preacher he (witness) would not be strong enough Wiremu was appointed in his (Witness’) stead Witness did not go into Court the second time. Was at other meetings at Mr Rees’ office. Never heard the rules of the company might be translated. They never received the rules translated. That was his signature to the deed produced (deed read). Some of the arrangements made in the fLst instance were nnt embodied in that deed. Tn the first place the committee was to act with the company in deal ing with the land, and the land was to be reeonveyed to the committee. He did not know what the company was to get. He felt pleased at the arrangement. The Maoris were to get two-thirds and the company onethird of the profits. Never gut the deed. Saw a cheque. The cheque he thought was for about £II,OOO. Was not clear about this. Cross-examined by Mr Rees—Was not a lay preacher now but was still afraid nf his oath. Had ceased to be a lay preacher since last August. Was certain that the land was to be uiren back to the Natives. Wi Pereand Mr Rees said so. It was said all through. The great talk was that the Natives were to sell the land to the company. a r «d that the company was to re-eonv-y the land by deed to the Natives The money the Natives had received was to be paid back. The money was to represent shares. They were to give the shades back. Witness, as a member of the committee. knew nothing about the scrip. Went, with two other Natives to the Hank with the pared (produced) nf scrip. He did not see Wi Te Ruke sign his name to the scrip in the Bai k. Did sign hi* own name on something. Was not dear on that point. Was quite correct in raying that the company retain rd the serin. Admitted that they went wto the Bank with the scrip. The committee never had the scrip. Mr Rees al* ays had the scrip. If they had taken the scrip to Tologa Bay they would have been in possession of it, bu» they never had it The deed produced was read to him before he signed it Be did not object to sign the document. The document (produced) did not form the cause of action. (The witness here explained that he thought the deed he had been speaking of. and which he held in his hand, was the deed nf conveyance to the company, and not the deed of covenant). Whs present at a meeting on Friday last, where Mrßrasseyand Captain Porter and others were present. Heard Wi Te Ruke say that Mr Rees had the scrip, and that he signed the scrip in the office. Himself and Captain Porter suggested the present action. Captain Porter explained matters, but he (witness) had taken objection to the company before that. Had objected to the enmpany by letter to the judge before that. The letter to the chief judge was before that letter (produced) was written. Mr Ormond had purchased Mr Murphy out. They were asked by Captain Porter to grant Mr Ormond a new lease. Captain Porter did not say that the object of the new lease was to defeat the company’s claims. (Letter read to witness). Captain Porter made two V'sbs, and he (witress) could not say whether he received the letter before or after I is visits. There was an arrangement as to costs of this action made between certain parties. Mr Ormond was to find the money and the Natives were to repay him. They were to Set £lO each if they signed the new lease to fr Ormond. The object of making the new lease whs to set aside the deed of covenant. Captain Porter told them that the effects of signing the new lease w«s to keep the !a»»d in the possession of the Natives, tnd from the company, (Letter produced by Krg st rar of Native Lands Court, and dated April, 1883. That was the letter witness sent to the judge of the Native Lands Court. Forgot the name of the lawyer who wrote the letter, but it might be Turton. Captain Porter told him what to write. Was not clear whether it was not himself signed the letter (produced). If the company’s deed was not br ken down they (the Natives) were to pay Mr Ormond the money back. Captain Porter wade the arrangement with them and explained matters *hry (the Natives) were not clear about Captain Porter said that if the Na'ires did not succeed in this action they would have to p**y the costs of the rase. There was a written agreement between the Natives and Captain Porter. The first, deed contained nearly the whole of the names of the original owners, making 104, in the Paramafa Block. In the second deed there were only 18 signatures who were authorised to sign on behaif of the whole number of Natives. Captain Porter suggested that Mr Ormond should find the money for the action. The Maoris did not, select the lawyers. It was only now he heard about the costs. Captain Porter and Rnwiri were appointed attorneys for the Natives. Th*re were only two persons who disagreed, and they had two sides—twi faces He (witness) only had one side. Henare Ruru did not sign. If Henare Ru -u had signed he (Ruru) would have got £lO. Did not hear Ruru offered more than LlO to sign. The new lease wa< for the same rent.,—viz., £350. Had not got a copy of the lea»e. When he was examined in the Native Lands Court he had not asked the other Natives whether they had received the money. T hey told him (witness) afterwards that, the money had been pd-l. Witness was not making any objection now. What, he told the Court, was most true. He had never seen the money. Be knew he went-t«> the Court as an important owner. Knew that Wi Te Ruke and two others were acting f- r the committee. Did say that he was satisfied when Mr Rees took him and show, d hiip the cheque. When Mr De Latour went to Uawa he asked the Natives w'-y thev were fightingagainst thecompany and he (witness) said it was because the fTb be continued in our next.j