(*.—2

53

am the applicant in this case," See.] I admit that these minutes are correct, though meagre. I wish to call attention to certain sentences only. I stated to the Court that three subdivisions were going to be asked for on the 25th November. I draw attention to this : "The applicant desires . . . The immediate application is the railway-line." (Vide Vol. 7, page 183). The Court asked for explanations about the railway-line and then made the order. (Vide Vol. 7, page 184.) Then I requested that No. 3 be taken before No. 2, as the Under-Secretary had not the agreement for No. 2. Apparently I had obtained leave of the Court to take the township before the 1,200 acres. Mr. Lewis then gave evidence as to the 4,000 acres. (Vide Vol. 7, page 184). The Court then made an order for the 4,000 acres, position to be delineated on the plan. Mr. Lewis was then examined on his former oath as to the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Whatanui. (Vide Vol. 7, page 185). I desire to draw special attention to part of Mr. Lewis's evidence: "I cannot remember that the locality was expressed, but the area was." Objectors were called for; none appeared. Order made (page 185). The words inserted in red were not used at the time, nor did the Court order refer to No. 9, as now shown on the Court plan of Horowhenua Block. I state now, on my oath, that the 1,200 acres shown upon that tracing, and immediately after put upon the Court plan, was that now known as No. 14. That was the section before the Court shown upon the tracing produced by me and transferred to the Court plan, and was the section referred to in the order. On the same day, and before we left the Court, it was put by Palmerson on the Court plan. Whether it was at that time given a number or not I am not prepared to swear, as I cannot remember distinctly, but I will point out that it was the third order made on that day, and I am told that the figure "3" still appears upon it under the figures "14." I will now explain that the Court will find by the minutes that I told the Court that Kemp would apply for an adjournment to enable other subdivisions to be agreed to. Apparently that adjournment was granted, because it is noted in the minutes that the Court adjourned till the Saturday morning. The Court resumed on Saturday, the 27th November, and adjourned till the Ist December, because there was no Assessor. The Court met on the Ist December. The first entry is " Keepa te Eangihiwinui wishes Mr. McDonald to conduct his case." (Vide Vol. 7, pages 177 and 178.) I made no application to the Court at that stage on the morning of the Ist December with reference to the proceedings of the 25th November. I made no reference at all to those proceedings at that time. [Eeads minutes on page 188, " The third was 1,200 acres," &c] I now say that as the Court uttered these words I intervened. I said, " Stay " ; the result of my intervention being that the Court said, " This Court does not propose to delineate on plan," by which I understood that the Court did not confirm that particular division, as it had done the two previous ones —Nos. 1 and 2. The next sentence purports to report something I said. It does not appear very intelligible. The Court will observe that on the 25th November, after the order was made respecting the 1,200 acres, a man got vp —it was Nicholson—and made some objection to the land shown upon the tracing. Personally I'thought nothing whatever of his objection, holding, as I did, that it was a most gracious act on the part of Muaupoko to give any land at all; but the Court will observe that between the 25th November and the Ist December there is an interval of five days. During these five days the Ngatiraukawa objection assumed a very different aspect. I had several casual communications with young Nicholson. Mr. Lewis was there, and talking a good deal about the matter. I think the agreement had arrived during the interval, and contained these words; "Near the Horowhenua Lake." I had been intimately associated with different hapus of Ngatiraukawa, and I strongly suspected that their object was not solely to get 1,200 acres in any particular place, but to have the finding of 1873 set aside by Parliament, and the whole Horowhenua Block made papatufju again. I considered it right, therefore, to caution Kemp, and suggested to him the allotment of an alternative section to satisfy the agreement of 1874 and close the mouths of Ngatiraukawa in the event of their going to Parliament. [ was under the impression that Kemp was influenced by my representations, and the allotment of 1,200 acres adjoining the 100 acres at Eaumatangi was proposed to Muaupoko by Major Kemp. The proposal was discussed exactly as all others were, and not otherwise. It was not till the dinner adjournment of the Ist December that it was finally agreed by Muaupoko to make that alternative allotment. At 2 o'clock on that day I took the application into Court, and made it, explaining to the Court at the time why it was made. It will be seen that there is an entry in the minutes of the afternoon of that day as follows: "This order made as prayed," &c. (Vol. 7, page 193). I will proceed now to last day of Court (Vol. 7, page 200) : " Application from Major Kemp . . . The order is made as prayed," &c. This is one of the allegations I said in my opening I would bring evidence to contradict. I say that I personally made that application, and that no one else did, and what I had in my mind when I made it was that that third order, made on the 25th November, was left unconfirmed on the Ist December ; and though I pretended to know nothing of the legal aspect of the matter, as the Court considered it necessary to confirm the others, I thought it safest to get this confirmed. The effect of it was that Kemp had two alternative sections in his hands to satisfy the agreement of 1874 with McLean. I state on my oath that 1 never heard any proposal by Kemp that the 1,200 acres now known as No. 14 should be allotted to him as his share of Horowhenua, at any meeting or anywhere else. I was present in Court on every occasion on which Horowhenua was before it, and I swear positively that Kemp did not, on the 2nd December, or at any other time, apply in open Court for 1,200 acres for himself. In my view at that time, and as I understood the law, the order of the Court had the effect of absolutely vesting the legal estate in the person or persons named in the order; or, rather, that the certificate which followed the order did so. It was also my opinion of the law as it stood that the Court could not make an order for a piece of land otherwise than as an order in fee-simple. Consequently I was of opinion that the Muaupoko people were showing absolute unlimited confidence in Major Kemp.