SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 25, 22 December 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TUESDAY. (Before his Honor Judge Prendergast.) (Continued from our Supplement). them they would get LlOOO a year ; that they would receive more from the company than they were receiving then. Did not consider it his duty to explain the effect of the deed. The Natives were willing Io sell their land for L9oooand the deed of covenant. Could not say whether they would have taken L9OOO without the deed of covenant. Explained to the Natives that until the land was sold they could not get any profit. Did not tell that a sum of L2OOO would be debited against the block, or thnt the block could not be dealt with for six years to come, or that the company could keep on charging interest on the money advanced until the whole block was consumed. Did not know the articles of association. Had never told the Natives that the company could mortgage their lands to the Loan and Mercantile Company. The articles of association were never put before the Natives as far as he knew. Did not tell the Natives that before long the land would be swallowed up in interest. Told the Natives that the scrip would represent two-thirds of the profits. Saw the scrip given, but did not see any cheque passed the other way. Either witness or Mr Rees suggested that the scrip should be taken to the bank. Held the scrip of Pouawa, Waimata, and Waimata south, himself. The deed of covenant was lefj at Mr Rees’ at the suggestion of some Natives. Could not say whether the deed of covenant was signed by the company at the time. Mr Brooke Taylor, the other witness, was in Mr Rees’ office, and did nothing but Mr Rees’ work. It was the principle of the company to pay with scrip. In dealing with the Natives it was always the witness’ object to get them to take shares.

Cross-examined by Mr Rees : The Natives had the alternative of shares in the company or two-thirds profits. (Witness then read certain entries out of a private diary relating to meetings at which Mr Rees had addressed the Natives, giving them glowing accounts of the advantage to be derived by joining the company. Mr Rees had told Natives that

the company was not alone in a position to give money, but would make good laws. 1 he Natives asked when the land would come back, and Mr Rees said the land would not come back absolutely. If the company advanced money it would not be on the committee, but on the land, a portion of which would be set apart to pay that interest Henare Ruru asked how long the land would be before It came back to them.) Mr Rees sworn : Was a solicitor practising in Gisborne. Was requested by several tribes of this district, since 1878, to act for the natives in their lands. Wi Pere and himself were trustees. On the Pouawa Block coming before the N.L.C., the judge referred the case to the Supreme Court, to see whether by section 59 and 60 of the Act of 1873, they could deal with the lands as trustees. The Supreme Court decided that they could not. The N.Z.N.L.S. Company was then formed for the purpose of taking over Native lands on terms agreed between the Natives. They explained to the Tologa Natives what the objects of the company were and to get them to give their lands over if they would, In reality it was to be an agency company and to take over large blocks of land in the district. The Natives questioned as to whether the lands were to come back in u certain time. Was careful to tell them that the land went absolutely to the company, that the Natives would cease to be owners of the land, and that the rights they would have would be as shareholders of the company and as specified in a deed of covenant. They consented to hand over I‘araniata and other blocks to the company, and elected committeesand arranged as to payment. The prices were fixed. The reason why the sum of L9OOO was fixed was because of the lease to Mr Murphy, which had some 6 or 7 years to run, and they would have to allow his term to expire before they could deal with the land. The committee decided to receive L9OO in cash and the LB.IOO to be invested in the company. They were to have the choice of taking shares or two-thirds profits out of land. €>ne owner did not sign. The land was adjourned from Uawa to Gisborne for sub-division. L2OO was paid at Tologa Bay. The committee were instructed to take L9OO in money and buy shares for LB,IOO and to bring the L9OO back, and to get the deed of covenant signed by which t hey were to get the choice of two-thirds profits or shares, and to say what portion should be sold and what leased, and what portion should be reserved. The committee came down to Gisborne about March ; and it was arranged that the agreement should be carried into effect. The covenant was drawn up and submitted to the Natives ; the scrip purchased and the cheques handed over on the Ist April to the three Natives on behalf of the committee. They undertook that the cheque should be handed in at the same time as the L 8.250. All the Natives would not have consented to receive all in money. On the Sth of April the order for sub division was made in the Land Court, and the new names put in. The covenant was signed by Natives on the 3rd, 4th, and sth April. Had to wait for board meeting to attach the seal of company. Natives went back to Uawa. Did not take all the L7OO back. Some objected to spending the money here, and agreed that L4OO should be given back, and that Mr DeLautour should go up and distribute money among the Natives. On the 6th was not present when tbe scrip was given. Went with Natives late in the afternoon to theßank to cash cheques for Ll5O and L 149 10s. The cheques were paid them in his office. Told them to leave lOein the Bank Natives must bo mistaken as to the amount they received. Never saw the cheque for LB.IOO, and wa« not present when the scrip was handed over. The Native* asked him to keep the deed of eovenant safe from fire. The Natives attended the meeting in last March, and asked him to go over to Kaiti. What the Natives had said about taking the cove nant before lhe Native Lands Court wt»s true, lold them that the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction now the land was the company's. Every step which had been taken had been with the full consent of all the owners. They knew the alterations which had been made in the company with respect to Nutivelands. Tt»e pas-age of the money was in accordance with the arrangements if the committee. Could not remember the date when Puki made the statement in court. Judge Biookfleld presided, Puki said he had not seen the money. The Natives asked him to get the case adjourne i at once. The case was adjourned, he believed, un'il next day. Tne Natives went to his office. Took no part in the talk between them. Puke Te Amaru asked witness whether these cheques had been giv«n. Witness said they had actually been given, and to the best of his knowledge he went down to the Bank with them. Puki was satisfied and went to the Court, and was present when Te Ruke answered the questions, Cross examined by Mr McLean — Puki asked whether the cheques had been given. Puki was a member of the committee. The payment of the cheque was a most important part of the proceeding, He (Puki) had to ask if the cheque had been paid. Albert McKay was the interpreter at the time. McKay was still with him. but was ill at present. McKay wa» in Gisborne on April Ist. Kefering to the late Bill before Parliament, the Bill was withdrawn, but the other lapsed. Bill was withdrawn in deference to the Government. Had thought fit to enrol deeds like the present in spite of the disproval of Government. If the deed of covenant was executed with the deed of conveyance it would not interfere with the dealing with the land. The alterations in the rules of the company were to give additional protection to the Natives. The committee approved of the alterations, Thej* voted at the last meeting. Told the Natives that the covenant was beyond the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. Would be surprised if he heard that Mr DeLatour had stated in the R. VI. Court that the land in question was still Native land. The reason why he did not wish to take the deed of covenant into the Native Lands Court was that he was afraid that a distorted version of the deed would be sent abroad and that it would poison the Native mind. Did not want the public to know a distorted version. It did not appear to him that all should be laid before the Court according to the 59th section of the Act, 1883. On the deed coining before the Trust Commissioner had stated that all the consideration money had been paid on the Ist April. Was in Court and conducted the case on the sth of April, when Wi Te Ruke said the money was paid in cash. Mangahia is different to Paramata. Know it was usual to pass the deeds through the Trust Commissioners Court. Could not swear that the deed was refused in the Trust Commissioners Court. Had not had deeds refused in the T. C. Court and then took to the Lands Court and got through. Never saw the cash paid on the Ist April. Took a receipt for the cheques. Tothebestof his recollection the cheque was paid on the Ist, although the receipt was dated the 6th. The Paramata Trust Account was opened on the 6th. There was no assistance given to the Natives to open an account until the 6th. The Natives would not consent to receive all the money in cash. Explained to the Natives that the land would not come back absolutely. The company was an agency company, and not fur the acquisition of lands to hold. There was no

difference between a company who land absolutely, and ono which did The statement in the Triist Oominissionerf Court, had not, like the objeotlonabl clause in the company’s bill when befo Parliament, ** crept |n by mistake The object of the company was jia for the purpose of acquiring laud. sR I Harris was in wimera’ employment] j but Mr Brooke Taylor was a special! servant. Did not know about the balance?fl sheet. Was a solicitor to the company, andl not a director. The Government made thU valuation of the lands. The consideratioifl money of £9,000 was a fair Value for thS block. The values of the properties were 1 increasing. The assets of the company were £280,713, and the liabilities £266,376, and the Paramata was scheduled at £15,000. The deduction for lease brought it down to £II,OOO. (Mr McLean: Would not the balance now put forth in the balance sheet; providing this rule be applied to all ths blocks in the company’s possession, be rs» duced to a deficit of £57,000 ?) The whole of th« company’s proceedings has been nonproductive up to the present. The lands were not mortgaged generally. Heard Mr Berry’s evidence as to the compound interest It would take seven years to swallow up the whole land in interest. The fact is that the two balanoe-sheets are compiled on thfl compound interest. There are twenty directors one of which is a native. Had failed to comply with the rule that one-flfth of tjM| directors should be Natives. If the tee and the corn park did not agree the would be idle and Would become ths company’s. The Natives would still have their 4 shares. Was sure that under that deed of 1 covenant that would be the result. I Mr Rees now addressed the jury for the | defence and said the stage arrived at in the case enabled him to say with the French leader “O, land I see”—the land now was Paramatta land. Much time had wasted and a lot of things imported case which were totally irrelevant to matter at issue. The case rested on the allegations of fraud against himself and Mr. Wi Pere. Mr DeLautour had noth* ing to do with the case. The jury re* presented public opinion, and with them rested the case. Mr Rees then went into a very long tirade against the Press in particular, and all the opponents of the company in general. The former he said had become an “ intolerable nuisance here." If the statements made by the plaintiffs in thlffl case were true be should not be fit to wear that gown or wig. The question to be decided was whether he had induced the Natives to part with their lands by gross misrepresentations and fraud ; and whether the consideration money had been paid. If Mr McLean addressed them they would have the pleasure of hearing a possible future attorney-general, a brilliant financier. If Mr Brassey addressed them he would tell them everything but the truth, and would endeavor to draw a red herring across the trail. These accusations had been made for years and spread broad-cast over the world. Papers had been printed and distributed everywhere, and even sent home. Now they thought then was a chance of substantiating their statements. They thought they could prove all they had stated in bringing this case. learned gentlemen then went through thll transaction, and said the Native committal ’ had full power to say what money they would receive, and whether they would receive 1 money or scrip. The Natives, he asserted) never expected to receive the land back by the deed of covenant. Captain Porter had been led to take the present action from malice, and because of certain disageementsbetween Mr Russell and Ormond The been taken at the instigation of Oapt. and the £lO per man offered and paid to the Natives who had signed the renewal of the lease was neither more or le«s than a direct inducement- to commit perjury, The sole object was the ruin of the company, and fishing for subjects for further actions. He hoped the verdict would show there was no sympathy with his opponents. Mr Rees con* eluded by a long panegyric ol the benefits attending the operations of the company. THURSDAY. Mr Brassey in addressing the jury said that not one word of Mr Rees’ pathetic appeal w is true, and was entirely wide of the pointe ut issue. Mr Rees had stated that Captain! Porter had been actuated in the matter by malice and interest, Such I was not the case. Captain Porter had’ taken action in the matter, not in the dark, but in the broad daylight, find was only actuated by straightforward and honest principles. Mr Rees had complained of the publicity given to the proceedings of the company by the press, and that report* of its proceedings were sent everywhere and also sent Home. Why did he object to this P Because che actions of the com# puny would not bear the light of day. They (the company) wanted to shut out all enquiry. Mr Rees taken the jury outside the facts of the caae for the purpose of lauding and defending the company. In 1878 Mr Rees had come here and told the Natives that his sole object was philanthrophy. He told the Natives that they were being and robbed of their lands, and that he would protect them ) that as he had no money to carry out his objects, it would be best to form a company. At that time the Natives had large and valuable estates, and Mr Rees and Wi Pere had got themselves appointed trustees. How had that trust (tarried out ? Hifk (Rees’) philantropy was displayed in fact that he had charged the Natives no less than L 474 for conveying this block to I the company. Why had not the company purchased the lease ? Because they had no money and only scrip to deal with, lhe company was said to have been formed for the purpose of protecting the poor Natives, and what was the company doing. Why, they were obtaining possession of land, and charging compound-interest on the money advanced, which would have thu effect of swallowing the whole up in about six years. If the jury went into the matter they would find that the expenses and charges against the land would amount to £9OOO in about six to seven years. The Natives had to pay all expenses and keep the company going in funds. The company was absolutely kept afloat by and at the cost of the Natives. Was there ever such a company before in this world ? Had not the Natives been induced to part with their lands under the false pretences that they were to receive immense benefits ? What were the facts. Why, the Natives were dispoiled of their lands, which were gradually being swallowed up in expenses. In proof of that, take the balance-sheets for the two years, 1881 and 1882, and they would see that, instead of an increase in the value of the lands, they were decreasing by several thousands yearly, and this would go on until the whole of the lands were consumed. Where were the profits of the company ? The whole lands were being swallowed up in expenses incurred in the working of the company. Mr Rees had said the company was purely an agency, but if such was the case why should the company get an absolute conveyance to themselves. Mr Rees had stated that the committee had power to select the amount of cash, and also to arrange with the company how much of the land should be disposed of ; but in the event of a disagreement with the company, what would be the result? Mr Rees had told them the result. The result would be that the land would lie idle until by charges and interest, and it reverted tor

the company—the company the sole gainers and the Natives the sole losers. Had the deed been taken before the Native Lands Court and all the matter explained, no judge would ever have dared to pass it. The cheques were merely a farce, and had merely been used as a means for obtaining the land for worthless scrip. The £9OO paid to the Natives out of the £9030, and which had been sworn to as part of the consideration money, remained at compound interest. Whether Mr Bees was or was not fit towear the gown did not matter to the jury. All they had to do was to decide the matter before them according to evidence. They had nothing to do with the effect of the verdict. It had been proved that part of the money (£400) nad not been paid until May, and yet the Natives had been induced to swear, before the Lande Court, in April., that all the money had been r*-epived in fibujL The jury could see the great diffi Culty of getting at Ihe facts of the case. Mr Bees had no right to go into the Lands Court in the dual capacity of solicitor for the company and Natives, and cause o' permit them to swear that the money had been received when he knew perfectly well that sueh was not the ease. When Puki conscientiously refused to state what was not true he was taken down to Mr Rees' office, and it was ultimately arranged that Te Ruke should go and make the requisite statement. Mr Bees had asked the question ano heard it answered in the affirmative, although he knew perfectly well that it was false. Could it be doubted that the Natives had been induced to state what was false ? The deeds were drawn in such a way that no Native or even a business man could understand them. Wi Pere and Mr Harris had acknowledged they could not understand them. No one had explained the Articles of Association to the Natives, and Mr Harris said he had never even seen the articles, much less interpreted them to the Natives. The Natives were entirely ignorant of the fact that their lands could be mortgaged by the company. The Natives had come to that Court and asked that their lands might be given back, as they had been wrongly taken from them. The Natives were carrying on the suit at their own expense. There had been no stabbing in the dark in this matter, as pathetically stated by Mr Rees. All had been done in the clear daylight by Captain Porter, who was endeavoriug to get the land back for the Natives. Mr Rees had said the new lease would be used as a weapon over the Natives, but such was not the case. Mr Rees had been stung by the truth of the assertions and had led them (the jury) entirely away from the points at issue, and had appealed frantically to their sympathies and called himself a persecuted man. How had this persecuted individual behaved to the poor unprotected Natives ? In his (Rees’) speech he had called them “wretched Natives.” This was somewhat different to the honied words with which he induced them to part with their lands. There had been ample evidence that the Natives never understood they were absolutely and irrevocably parting with their lands (On the the learned gentleman reverting to the scrip, his Honor remarked that they had heard enough about this ecrip. One would think they were bank notes, whereas “ they were absolutely valuless ’). From the facts before them the jury could not fail to see that the Natives had been deceived and cajoled, and he felt confident in leaving the matter in their hands, subject to his Honor’s directions.

[The summing up of the judge, and the verdict in this case, we are compelled to hold over until our next issue.)