REMARKABLE CASE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 100, 5 April 1884, Page 2

REMARKABLE CASE.

mb. McDonald, m.h.r., in court. HEMI TE AWAHUKA V. P. BARKER AND A. m’donald. (Continued from our last.) P. Barker cross-examined—(No 1 deed produced). It is confirming an annuity to Hemi. I know McDonald’s signature to the deed, I don’t know Hemi s. I think he (Hemi) had had £l7. He received a cheque for £7 and also some clothes. The cheque, I thought at the time, waspaid for a share in the Makauri With regard to the clothes, I received a note from Mr. Rees stating that Hemi wanted his annuity paid up. I called on Mr. Rees, and asked him the meaning of it, as the forty five grantees bought me out of the block, and appointed Messrs. Rees, Wi Pere and Riperata as their trustees. Mr. Rees told me that if I bought Hemi the clothes I would never be troubled again by him. I could never find a deed between Hemi and myself, with regard to the Makauri. The £7 was paid for his interest in Makauri. I have not paid Hemi any other money for the Whataupoko interest. (No. 2 deed produced.) I know the signatures to the deed. By Mr. Kenny—The letter produced is the one I received from Mr. Rees re the annuity. The deed produced (No. 3), is the one in which Mr. W. L. Rees, and the trustees, bought out my interest in the whole block. (Mr. Kenny here quoted the deed, and a memorandum of agreement between Mr. Barker and the Land Company, which he put in as evidence, with two other deeds.) The deed I have is the dissolution of partnership between myself and McDonald. It was sometime after the deed was executed before I completed my arrangements with the trustees. The other deed I have is between my. .If and the trustees, which was signed first by the Natives and then by myself. Mr. W. L. Rees—The arrangements of the deed between myself, the trustees, and Mr. Barker were executed about the Sth June 1878. The Natives signed the deed first and Mr. Barker afterwards, this was to secure Mr. Barker. I know the memorandum of agreement, Mr. Barker and the Land Company are the parties to it. Ido not remember settling the agreement with Mr. Kenny. At the time of the execution of the trust deed nothing was said about the annuities of the various portions of the Whataupoko Block. Mr. Barker is mistaken when he says that I told him no further trouble would be given him, if he bought the Native (Hemi), the clothes. To Mr. Kenny. I remember the first memo, of agreement, when that was made out I was acting as solicitor to the Land Co. That transaction was not understood to mean that all the annuities were done with. Mr. DeLatour here mentioned that the Company had paid annuities which they had no right to do. This was all the evidence for the plaintiff, provided His Worship did not grant the other side a nonsuit, on account of the non-payment of the money not having been proved, they could prove that by producing Hemi. Mr. Kenny said this was a very roundabout way of conducting a case, they should have produced Hemi at once, to prove the non-payment. Mr. DeLatour replied that it was really proved, because had not the defendant’s admitted, on their oath, that they had not paid him the money. His Worship agreed to adjourn the case until Wednesday, the 16th of April. Counsel’s fee and costs being allowed to the defendants.