THE CASE OF ARIHI TE NAHU.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5624, 28 February 1880, Page 3

THE CASE OF ARIHI TE NAHU.

Friday, February 27. (Before His Honor Judge Kenny, sitting • v aB Trust Commissioner.) This casewas'reßumed yesterday morning. Mr.Cotterill pilfc ill a declaration (which was read) from Mr Ollivier, a solicitor of Wellington ; also a declaration from Mr "Davis, an interpreter, of the same ' place, 'who were present when the disputed deeds were signed. The Hoii. Henry Robert . Russell, deposed that he was the porSon'mentioried in the, deed; of charge before the Court. He recollected Having transactions with" ArjhiTe.Nahu. He , remembered seeing Arihi in Wellington. The account marked "A," was in his (witness's) handwriting, andhe -was present when the account was signed, Messrs Maunsell and Hcbberley being also there. Witness saw Arihi sign the account. About March, 1872, Arihi made a lease with a purchasing clause of her share of Heretaunga in witness's favor. ,_„ The lease was for three years, arid the rental was £300 per annum, with a right of purchase for. £6000. It was agreed between Arilii and the witness that any money advanced to. her should be deducted from the purchase money. After considerable delays on the part of the Trust Commissioner, the hearing of the application for a certificate tobkplace, but the certificate was refused. Before the refusal considerable advances had been made to Arihi. The Commissioner refused his certificate on account of the land having been previously dealt with by Arihi. She still wanted advances, but witness required security for his money. Arihi came to W ell ington, and witness consulted Mr Travers, who advised witness to get security in the shape of a memorandum of charge. After the refusal of the Heretaunga certificate witness considered it necessary to get additional security, and asked Arihi what other lands she could include in the proposed deed. In addition to the sums then advanced she wanted money to live oh whilst the Heretaunga dispute was undecided. Witness reckoned up the sums already advanced when the memorandum was ready to be signed, and it was agreed that any further advances should be endorsed on the deed of charge. Witness's accounts with Arihi were 'made out and fully gone into. The accounts were looked into at an hotel in Wellington. Mr Maunsell, who was •well known to Ai-ihi and the other Hawke's Bay natives, having been brought from "Wairarapa to attest the lease of Heretaunga, was present, and explained.fully every item in the account, and they were all agreed to except one, namely " paid to Holder for harness," for which Arihi Said another party should be charged. The amount, £12 15s, witness deducted from the account. Mr Maunsell wrote the Maori on the document marked A, which was read to Arihi. The balance due to witness was £1484 93, at the time. Witness was in Wellington as a member of the Legislature. Would swear the account was correct. Various sums, were advanced to Arihi while in Wellington, and on her return from a visit to the Wairarapa she wished to return to Hawke's Bay, and urged witness to get the deed executed. This was accordingly done. The deed produced was the one. Witness saw it signed. Mr Ollivier and the interpreter were present, and it was signed in Mr Travers' office. Witness had several conversations with Arihi relative to the deed, and told her what were the difficulties in the way of regular mortgage in consequence of the Commissioner's decision, but told her that Mr Travers had thought of a way to meet the difficulty — by a deed, which would prevent the lands being , sold until witness's claim was satisfied. Arihi expressed herself glad that witness's advances should be secured. Witness told Arihi that he had already advanced her a large sum of money, but she had been so extravagant that thero was no end to her demands, and as she had threatened to go to Mr Tanner, if witness refused her demands, he thought it best to secure himself as far as possible. Previous to signing the deed the accounts were gone into, and prior to the execution of the deed witness informed Arihi that the sum owing to him was a little over £1700. She assented to the accounts as stated by witness, and appeared to understand them. When' the deed was signed it was read over to Arihi by Mr Davis, the interpreter. Arihi said she was satisfied, and put her mark to it. Witness agreed to make Arihi certain moderate advances to live on. She went back to Hawke's Bay shortly afterwards. Witness recollected Arihi saying that Mr Tanner had told her that witness was deceiving her, and she also, said that Mr Tanner wanted her to sell him the land. Witness repeatodly •told her that she could have her lands back when she paid the money. He never told Arihi that the sum of money mentioned in the deed was an incorrect one. He recollected the document marked B being signed at the same place at which , the accounts were settled ; the mark was made by Arihi. It was fully explained to her at the time. The document marked C was in witness's handwriting. Arihi put her mark to it. The amount in the document, £70, ought to have been included in the account settled on the 14th September, but it was omitted by an ■ oversight. It was explained to Arihi by witness in the presence of Hebberley. Hebberley was not in witness's pay then nor at any other time. f- Cross-examined by Mr Lascelles : Witness believed that all the amounts in the documents now in Court were included in a writ issued against Arihi eighteen . /.months ago, but, which had since been abandoned. He discontinued the writ on legal- advice., He considered, that Arihi was liable for the ' money she borrowed. It was never mentioned to her about her liability, being affected by her position as a married woman. Witness did not recollect anything being said to Arihi about , her position as a married woman at the : time of signing the deed. Arihi did not object to Raukawa being mentioned in the deed. Witness did not know whether the plans were on the deed at the time it :- was signed. He would not swear positively that the schedule was on the deed. [A copy of a judge's summons waa here • put-in, -but Mr Russell said it did not refresh his memory with regard to the proceedings therein alluded to.] Witness knew nothing about the result of the ' summons. To the best of his recollection he never heard of it. Witness could not Bate whether the money and the separate estate mentioned in the Judge's summons were those alluded to in the deed oE charge. Witness believed that the , aotiori mentioned in the Judge's summons was brought to recover the moneys secured by the deed of charge. He went on advancing money in , spite of the Commiss:.oner's refusal to append his certificate, as he thought it would be upset. He did not 'i t-iihk it necessary that Arihi should have a solicitor,- as Mr Travers could act for both. To the best of witness's recollection f - ; Mr .Travers" advised the deed several weeks before it was executed. He could not swear that Arihi had a copy of the . 1 accounts amounting to the sum charged ■- in the deed. He might have made them ' ' ■ o - .it himself. Ho could not swear that any . ■ iuterpreter was present when the accounts were given to Arihi. He was perfectly : competent to explain them to Arihi. . Between the time Mr Maunsell was in < Napier, in April or May, 1872, and the

time witness went to Wellington, which was after the 10th of August, 1872, certain deeds were prepared by Mr Lascelles", who was acting as witness's solicitor in native matters at the titrie; by which deeds certain native^ conveyed their interest in certain blocks to Henare Matua and witness on trust. The parties who executed the deeds were not indebted to witness in any way ; at any rate the deeds were not executed in consideration of any ' debts due to witness. At the time Arihi/ told him what Mr Tanner and others had said to her, neither Arihi nor witness considered that any sale of Heretauhga had 1 taken place to them. Arihi came to Wellington much to witness's annoyance. The deed was executed in Wellington because Arihi was on the spot, and her demands for money were so extravagant that wittiest thought it; necessary to get ( the best security be could, not only for the" amount already advanced, but alao to pay debts f or which she was pressed >in Wellington and elsewhere. The difference in the amounts in the deed, £212 11s Cd, was made up by advances made to Arihi prior to the 14th September. Witness could not say whether Arihi returned \ to Hawke's Bay immediately after the deed was executecL lie did not recollect having the deed hurried through in Wellington because if Arihi came back to Hawke's Bay she would be influenced by other people ; nor did he recollect having said that if the Apostles (meaning Mr Tanner and others) got a hold of Arihi they would not let her sign the deed. The Court then adjourned until Friday, ! 12th March.