I.—Ba.

4

Baldwin that he was to satisfy that claim by the payment of the sum of £60, and I understand that that matter has been settled between Mr. Thompson and Mr. Baldwin. There was also a bill of Mr. Baldwin's for £118, and I arranged that that claim should be withdrawn. There was a bill of costs also put in by Messrs. Brandon, Hislop, and Johnston against Rewanui. 1 believe it was approximately £80, but as to that lam subject-to correction. That 1 also arranged that Mr. Baldwin should pay. I considered the question as to whether the Natives would get any advantage by contesting the costs which had been incurred in the action of Tamaki v. Baker. The costs had been paid, and, after consideration of the claims, I saw that it would cost them more to get the bill reduced and to obtain repayment of any reduction than the amount they could possibly get out of it. That is the conclusion I came to, rightly or wrongly, and 1 acted upon it. I understand that Rewanui has said that I had no authority to act for her. I wish to say that I took no steps whatever in this matter without interviewing her and her mother and sister through the nephew, Mr. Moffatt, and every clause and every term in the agreement was explained fully and agreed to by her without any qualification whatever. Now, with regard to Hare Rakena, who is a half-brother, I understand, to Erini: The principal person who instructed me to oppose Hare Rakena's claim was Rewanui herself. In fact, Mrs. Moffatt expresed sorrow for her halfuncle, and said she would have been inclined to meet him out of Aroha, but Rewanui was obdurate. Hare Rakena was a half-brother of Erini te Aweawe; they had the same father but different mothers, and I was instructed that an arrangement had been come to by which the lands on the western side of the range should go to the descendants of one mother, and those on the eastern side of the range should go to the descendants of the other mother. That arrangement had evidently been acted upon, and was based apparently upon the genealogy. Hare Rakena was in Court and was cross-examined by me as to his claim, and no doubt his evidence will bo before you, as it was taken down by Judge Brabant. I might say that the Judge and Mr. Nicholson dismissed his claim without calling on me for any further evidence after his cross-examination. I say this: that the ovie person who instructed me to oppose Hare's claims strongly was Rewanui herself, and 1 now understand that she has said that she did not. If she has said so I say her statement is absolutely without foundation. I was particularly careful in this matter to see that tjiey all thoroughly knew what they were doing. Further, there was no suggestion from my clients at Woodville of the least objection to the whole arrangement —there was no indication of it. When the agreement was come to there was one man supporting a claim before the Court with regard to whom there was a little difficulty. He wanted an extra share for some reason that we thought wholly insufficient. We contested this, because it appeared to us that he was rather taking advantage of the occasion to break up an arrangement if we did not come to terms. We were obdurate about it. and the Judge supported us. The arrangement was discussed in open Court, not once, but several times, during the course of the period from Tuesday to Friday afternoon, when it was concluded. The proceedings took four days, and on the Friday afternoon my recollection is this: that we met late in the afternoon, and the terms of the arrangement were stated to the Natives present in Court. Ths Court was adjourned until the evening to allow the agreement to be made more complete, and the agreement was read over, and interpreted by Mr. Grace, to all the Natives present, and none of my clients had the slightest objection to offer. Rewanui got up in Court and told the Court something to this effect: that with regard to the claims it must be understood that she did not proceed on her ancestral takes, implying, as I understand, that these were not affected by the arrangement. What I understood to be in her mind was that whatever allocation of the moneys was made in connection with the block was not to be taken as an admission as to the relative interests in the adjoining blocks. That was confirmed subsequently at an interview I had in Wellington, when I was instructed by her to write to the Chief Judge and object to Hare Rakena's appeal, which I did. Ido not think there is anything further that I can say in the general outline of the case. As to the fairness of the arrangement, I might say that I should not have agreed to it if I had not thought it was a fair one. It was an arrangement of a give-and-take nature in which no one got what he actually wanted to get, but the Natives were likely to take several weeks in useless litigation over a mere relic of what had been a substantial interest, and I am sure that no one who had any idea of what was fair and proper in the matter left that Court without feeling that the Natives had had a very fair and satisfactory arrangement made for them. I think I have given a fair outline of the position, but I may say that I left all my papers with Mr. Moffatt. There was some talk of an appeal, and I told Mr. Moffatt that he had better keep all the notes and papers together, and if an appeal came along from Hare Rakena he would have them available. Rewanui having, as I was informed, disputed my authority in the Appellate Court at Hastings to act for her in the matter, Mr. Moffatt saw me a day or two ago, and said that he had in his possession her written authority, signed by her, her sister, and her mother. I have not seen the document myself, and I did not take the trouble to get the authority, because I thought I was dealing with Natives who belonged to a very high class, and was instructed personally by the whole three of them. If Mr. Moffatt sends the authority down to me I will have it sent to this Committee. That is all I have to say in the matter. 2. Mr. fferrie*.] This arrangement was appealed against?-—Yes, to the Appellate Court. I did not appear in the Appellate Court; I had no instructions. I understand the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, and I heard afterwards that Rewanui, before the Appellate Court, repudiated my authority and all that 1 had done. 3. AVho appealed?— Hare Rakena, I understand, appealed; also Rewanui. I think the difficulty was this: that Rewanui got an impression that Nireaha's mana was raised a little more than Rewanui's. I explained to her, at an interview in Wellington subsequent to the Court in Woodville, that an arrangement of this kind was no acknowledgment of mana or anything of the kind. The point was that Nireaha had been the nominal plaintiff in the main action against Baker. He did not find all the funds, but he was chosen for some reason as nominal plaintiff,