The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1882.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3489, 12 September 1882, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1882.

All our readers have heard of the Omaranui block in connection with Mr Sutton's name. Every time that there has been a general election since Mr Sutton aspired to a seat in the House there were dark whispers about " Glean hands." " going to Parliament for an object," and such like inuendoes. We trust we shall hear no more of this sort of thing now that the House has gone fully into the matter, a report of which has just reached us in Hansard No. 28. It is there reported that Mr Holmes asked the Government whetner it was

their intention to withdraw the caveat now sanding in the Land Registry Office at Napier against the trausfer of ths Omaranui block of land, or to take any steps, and, if so, what steps, with respect to such block of land ? He wished to briDg a few facts under the notice of the Government in connection with this question. No doubt it was within the knowledge of the Government, asreported in the New Zealand Jurist of 1875, that two natives, named Paora Torotoro and Rewi Haukore, were granted a piece of land containing 3.573 acres in the Hawke's Bay district. They leased £h portion of this land, 3,410 acres, to a man named Brathwaite, and subsequently, in 1868, they mortgaged a portion of it to a gentleman named Sutton to secure the payment of £500. In the year 1869 this gentleman got a conveyance of the land for the sum of £2500, representing debts to Sutton, £1200. and money advanced £1300 ; in all £2500. The deeds were prepared by this gentleman's solicitor, and the natives had no independent legal advice, and when the matter came to be looked into it was found that, instead of conveying 3410 acres, as intended, the deed conveyed the whole block of land which had been granted to these natives. A case aroße in the Supreme Court, and there was a finding by the jury that, as regarded one of the natives, he did not know that either mortgage or conveyance affected all the land in the block." Some discussion ensued on a question of "order," and being settled, Major Atkinson, Mr Bryce, and other members defended Mr Sutton from Mr Holmes' imputations. Colonel Trimble, however, put the matter in the plainest light, and we, therefore, quote his speech in full: — Colonel Trimble would uot have taken any part whatever in this matter but for the very serious imputation that was cast upon a member of the House. He did not mean for a moment to say that the honorable member for Christchurch South meant all that had been implied in his speech, but certainly a grosser charge could hardly be made than had been made. As soon as he (Colonel Trimble) heard of the matter being brought up he sent for a copy of the proceedings of the Court in 1875, to which reference had been made, and he could say that if the honorable gentleman had taken the trouble to go into the evidence he would either not have said what he did say, or it would have been quite clear that he was doing what he had no right to do. He acquitted the honorable gentleman altogether of having taken the trouble to go into the original documents, bat when the honorable gentleman had anything so serious to say he should certainly have got the original document and seen what was contained in it. He would only read one or two of the issues, and it would be seen that tbe honorable gentleman bad given a colouring to the case which was not warranted : — sa. Was the said mortgage-deed read over, interpreted, and explained to the plaintiffs before the execution by them, and did they understand the nature and effect thereof ?—Yes ; read over, interpreted, and explained; but no evidence that ifc was understood by Rewi Haukore. 9a. Was the said conveyance read over, interpreted, and explained to the plaintiffs before the execution thereof by them, and did they understand the nature and effect thereof ?—Yes : read over, interpreted, and explained to both ; but no evidence that ifc was understood by Rewi Haukore, but understood by P. Torotoro. Nothing could be plainer than thatThen, another question was this: — 16. Were the plaintiffs, Hohaia and other native persons, in possession adversely to the defendant before and ab the date of the issue of the certificate, and were they, or any of them, rightfully entitled to such l anc l p—Yes ; in possession adversely, and not entitled, as tho grantees had signed the deed of conveyance. If the honorable gentleman had gone through the evidence put before a committee of the House he would have seen that throughout there was no evidence whatever of concealment or of what was called " going behind the bush" on the part of tbe honorable member for Hawke's Bay. He had heard gross reflections cast upon that honorable gentleman before both in the House and in private—mainly in private. He was not there to whitewash the honorable gentleman, but he must say that, after the keenest adverse criticism and most hostile examination on the part of members of the House in the Native Affairs Committee, there was not one circumstance brought to light which showed adversely to the honorable gentleman. He said that very advisedly, and be said it after having attended every meeting of the committee in 1879, 1880, and 1881. And now as to why this caveat was lodged. The House was fold that it was lodged in consequence of a report of Judge Fenton. The honorable member for the Eastern Maori District had given a certain version of what took place in reference to this matter in the Native Affairs Committee. Five or six weeks ago he was asked by that honorable gentleman to see him, and he went out with Mr Hadfield, the Interpreter, and saw bim in one of the rooms upon this subject. He wanted to know whether tbe Native Affairs Committee intended to bring the matter up in the House. Of course he informed the honorable member that the committee could not do anything except upon motion, and he recommended the honorable gentleman to resort to either or both of two courses : one wa9 to move in the House in the matter, and the other was to ask in committee for those documents which he bad now in his hands, and which had been sent to him under a misapprehension. He said to tbe honorable member, *' I have certain proceedings of the Court, and if you will move in the Native Affairs Com-nittee I will produce tbem and read theua." These were a copy of Mr Fcnton's memorandum and a copy of the minutes of the Land Court in the Omaranui case. Mr Fenton's memorandum was as follows: — Send this to the N.M., and say I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Court made a mistake. Its order clearly included both sections (A, B) of the Omaranui Block, but ifc was not within its competence to include B (the smaller one), for ifc clearly is not within the claim. I think the grant might be repealed by scire facias. •This seemed to have been sent to the Native Minister on the 20th October, 1881. With regard to this, he had to say that there was not in the proceedings of the Court a single word from beginning to end to justify that memorandum ; and when he beard, after he came up to Wellington, that a caveat had been lodged upon this document he was utterly astounded, and he thought the honorable gentleman was very harshly and very badly treated. Now, what did this certificate finally say ? It gave the acreage as 3,573 acres. Throughout it dealt with 3,573 acres. The fees demanded by the Court were upon 3,573 acres, and also the lien for survey, and this 3,573 acres was the full area of the block. With regard to the maps produced before the" committee, there was nothing whatever upon those maps to , indicate that there was A or B before the Court. It was one block. A, B, meant this simply : that tbe natives were living upon a little piece of 163 acres on one corner of the pencilled line of the i

map. The other 3,410 acres were leased to Mr Braithwaite. Now, he said that the whole proceeding from beginning to end showed bona fides on the part of the honorable member for Hawke's Bay, and, in saying that he had no special desire to contradict the private rumors he had heard, because he knew nothing about them. The honorable member might be a rogue for aught he knew, but there was nothing in the proceedings of the committee to show anything of the kind— absolutely nothing—and he thought it was his duty to say this when the matter had been brought to the issue it had been by the question put by the honorable member for Christchurch South.