THE HINE CHARGES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 272, 16 November 1910, Page 5

THE HINE CHARGES.

TE-AKATT BLOCK INQUIRY.

EOTf. JAS. CARROLL EXAMINED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLDW3TOX, this day. The Hine Committee resumed this morning. In answer to a question by the Prime Minister, the Hon. Jas. Carroll said a petition was presented to Parliament in 1905, asking for inTestigation into the title of the Te Akau land. Mr Kaihau moved a clause to that effect, which was carried, but not proceeded with that year. But practically the same clause was enacted in the following year. Witness opposed .the clause the first time, as it had not been before the Native Affairs Committee. Reinvestigation of the title of Ithe Tβ Akau block could not have been undertaken unless the clause had been enacted. Pepane had shown witness, an agreement between Kaihau and , the natives. Witness senlt immediately to Mr. Kensington, and put him on. his guard. Later he told Mr. Kensington personally to caution officers against paying anything to Mr. Kaihau or to recognise the agreement. Parliament might vote a special sum, but, otherwise, they could not make any such payment to Mr. Karhau. He thought the agreement too ridiculous to mention the matter to the 'head of the administration. If called upon to answer the question whether he had been personally interested in any dealings with the Crown, witness , answer -would be an emphatic denial. In December, 1905, the Land Court, sitting at Raglan, directed a surveyor to survey the Te Akau 'block, with a view to petition, but witness understood that the surveyor wae an interested! party, so, in accordance with authority, he wired to Judge Edgar adjourning —- sitting of the court. The natives to whom advances were given were included in the title which ever way the Appellate Court, decision went.

To Mr Allen: Mr. Sheridan never re ported to witness the result of his nego tiations with the Tainui natives.

To Mr. Myers: Witness said he did not question the relations between Kaihau and the natives, but simply desired to see thai each native vendor was paid the full amount. He understood that Kaihau was appearing for the Ngatitahingas in Court proceedings. Para offered in Kaihau's presence to sell to the Crown their interest in Te Akau. Witness did not discuas the price with .them, but later suggested £2 an acre to Kensington." and directed 3Hm to inquire of the natives at wliait figure they were propared to sell. He would c€rtalnly not have been a party to such a suggestion as Remana alleged Sheridan advanced.

■ Counsel asked witness if he thought the clause in the Act of 1906 would have been passed if Sheridan had, os empowered, already purchased the block from •the Tainuis, the then owners, and had paid them half the value of the land. Witness preferred not to venture an opinion. AVhen witness applied for leave of absence for Kaihau, on the ground of ill-health, -witness believed the re-, port of his ill-health was correct. To Mr. Skerrett: As far as witness was concerned, Kaihau did not in the least influence the purchase of the land ■or the price paid. Mr. Hemes (called by Mr. Maesey) said he was a member of the Native Affairs Committee, and was interviewed by natives concerned in Te Akau. One, of them took him aside and pushed a roll of notes into his pocket. Witness immediately returned tne notes. A wordy argument ensued here between Mr" Skerrett and Mr. Reed on one side and Mr. Massey on fche other as to the relevance of this evidence, but Mr. Hanan decided 'that the remark did not reflect on Mr. Kaihau.

Replying to Sir Joseph Ward, Mr. Herries said ihe voted with. Mr. Carroll in committee on the clause, but against hhn in the House, ac he had discovered fresh faots in the meantime.

The Committee has adjourned.