LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5473, 2 June 1879, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT. —Saturdat. [Before B. O. Barstoir, Eiq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —Two. persons were for this olTence. ' • Stjkalthq "Valuable Securities. —James Ingham and Thomas Mulvaney were oharged vrith stealing a. valuable security, worth £33, property in the estate of the late Hugh Tolty; also, with attempting to obtain the sum of £18 from the Post-office. authorities by means of certain false pretences. On the application of Mr. Fardy, the case was re-_ manded till Thursday, the sth inst. ' [Before R. C. Bsrstow, Esq., R.M., and G. M. SHtfotd, Esq., J.P.J , . MR. ROBERT GRAHAM AND THE GOVERNMENT: BREACH OF THE. LANDS PURCHASE ACTS. The hearing of this case was resumed. Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Tyler for the Government, and Mr. Hesketh for the fendant. Mr. Brookfield called the following evidence :— Hon. John Sheehan, Minister of the Crown, deposed: lam acquainted with the signature of his Excellency the Governor. The signature on the document produced is that of the Governor. I am aware that proceedings have been against Mr. Graham. I neither directly nor indirectly authorised Mr. Graham to occupy this land. I distinctly warned him that his occupation must be through the Government, and the Government only. I know this notification in the Gazette. I signed it myself. Mr. Tyler: Was it signed by the Go veraor? _ i Mr. Hesketh: If we want the originaldooument, it should be produced. Mr. Tyler: Lord Brougham's Act pro vides for a case of this kind (14th and 15th Victoria). Mr. Hesketh : I am quite ready to argue the question under Brougham's Act, if requisite. . Examination continued: lam head of* the department of the Government which has the control and management of Native Affairs. This notice would pass through my department. It is npon my advice that such documents are signed. If I called for this notification, it could be produced in my own, Office.

To the Bench: Whether it would be produced in a Court is a matter which I cannot distinctly say. Examination continued : The first proclamation was signed by myself. As to the Governor's signature, I cannot at present say. Cross-examined: I never gave Mr. Graham any authority to occupy this land or any portion of this land. I never had any conversation with him to such effect. Except on one occasion. I told him that there were three or four persons in this district whose holdings were guaranteed—but these were merely storekeepers. I never told Mr. Graham that there was a school reserve which I meant to put through the Court, of which he was at liberty to lease a portion from the natives. Quite the contrary. I told him that I would return to Rotorua shortly, to get this land through. He might then lease :om the Government. I never gave him any authority to acquire from natives. I was desirous of giving facilities for respectable peopla to go there and settle. Mr. John Charles Yonng, examined by Mr. Tyler, deposed : I am a Native Lands Purchase Commissioner for the Government. I know the land referred to in this inquiry. Mr. Graham has a good many tents on it, and he is putting up a substantial building there. I remember a meeting of natives held with regard to the acquisition of the land by the Government. There was a sum of £20 paid to a native named Grey. I paid a further sum of £5 to Henare Pukeatua, or Ngataria, his wife. I paid about £5 afterward in smaller sums to different natives, at different times. 1 have expressed an opinion to Mr. Graham that it was against the general interest he should remain there. The payment to Grey was a second payment. There was a previous payment. The payment to Grey was, to the best of my belief, for a lease. This was in 1874. I believe the money paid by the Government has been on account of leasehold. [The wit- , ness was examined at considerable length as I to his knowledge of the boundaries of the Te Koutou block, but he coald not speak of them precisely.] No portion of the Te Koutou block has been passed through the Native Lands Court.

Cross-examined : There were no natives reBiding on the ground when the money was paid. I believe that some Ohinemutua made objection to what bad taken place. They said they had been ignored, and negotiations should have been made with them. The Ohinemutu natives claimed to be owners. Some of them might, perhaps, have an interest in the land.

Mr. Tyler : I apprehend that the question of ownership can have nothing to do with an inquiry like this. That is a question for another Court. If It be a part of the defence that the Government had not dealt with the true owners, such a question cannot 'bs entertained in a proceeding of this kind, which is a breaoh of a particular statute, to deil with which the law gives the Coart summary jurisdiction. Mr. Hesketh: It would be a monstrous thing if a person were liable to punishment because other people made a mistake. This land had not been put through the Court. The Government, the same as other persons, took the risk of dealing with the natives. The presumption was that they treated with the native owners. If the natives whom they dealt with were not the owners, all their negotiations were of little avail. A proceeding like the present would have been absurd in such a state of things. And if these persons to whom the money was paid were not native owners, the Government were responsible for the risk they ran. Mr. Graham ought not to be punished for that. If Mr. Graham negotiated with other persons who were the owners, to whom no money was paid by the Government, he was not responsible for the mistake the Government made.

Mr. Tyler: I apprehend the Court will not inquire into the question of title. It has no power to do that. The statutes under which the present proceedings. were taken were framed with a view to protect the public interest. If a breach of the statute is proved, the question of title was Irrelevant. Mr. Keaketh : It is provided in this Act that it shall have no effect as against " aboriginal owners," so that the question of "aboriginal owner" or "owner" was very material. The Bench : The wording of the Act appeared to Bhew that the object was to prevent persona negotiating with natives when they knew that the Government was in treaty with any natives. There was a well-known instance of a native, the real owner of a block of land, who stood by while money was paid to two other perßons who had no claim to the laud, in order that lie might come in and demand more. That was a conspiracy. There the remedy would have been to prevent outside persons negotiating. Iha Bench was of opinion that it was not necossary to give evidence to shew that the persons dealt with by the Government were'owners. All that it waa necessary for the prosecution to prove wa3 that the negotiations were bona fide. The Court, would receive evidence aa to bona fides, although not as to native ownership. It would be competent to the defendant to shew either that the Government knew the natives with I

whom they dealt were not owners, or that they took no trouble to ascertain whether they were owners or not owners. Examination' continned : There was a memorandum of agreement signed when L paid the money. Ido not know that there was any other money paid since 1875. I have not been acting all the time. The matter is still incomplete. When I paid tha money it was for the acquisition by the Government of part of the land which Mr. Graham now occupies. The Court, at 1 o'clock, adjonrned for an hour. ' Sitting resumed. „ Tamati Hapimana, a native of Rotorua, was next called and examined : He described the boundaries of the Te Koutou block. He said the houße built by Mr. Graham was within the Te Koutou block. The witness received money from the Government. He received the money (£2O) from Messrs. Mitchell, C. O. Davis, and J. C. Young. He received- the money as "earnest " on the land. He meant as a deposit. A part of that land belonged to himself and other natives. Three hapus (his own being one) agreed to lease the land to the Government. The witness said that a committee was formed of natives at Rotorua. He was a chairman of that committee (" that tribunal for the investigation of laHd"). The Government had a hand on the land, because money had been paid by them on account of it. There was some dispute among the natives about the land. The " tribunal of the land " said it was not right to allow Mr. Graham to occupy the land, upon which Patera, a native, said, "Then leave him on my place," which I will give as a site for his house. To that the committee said, "It is well." Mr. Graham, however, • did not occupy Petera's piece. He occnpied another piece. The witness said -he-was not-aware that the natives of the Rotorua district were much annoyed by the prosecution of Mr. Graham. • Cross-examined by Mr. J. Russell: Knew a cultivation called Te Rainga. Mr. Graham's house was situated on that piece of land. Witness had also a claim to this piece of land. Witness received the money from the three persons named. He could not state which hand placed the money in his. He received the money not for himself alone. The people of Ohiwa were the owners of that land. He received it for the people of Ohiwa. The arrangement was to rent for £100 a-year. Witness had received no rent. Mr. James Russell: Either there is five years' rent due, or the negotiations fell through. Mr. Tyler: Ido not see that at all. The £20 was money as deposit. It does not | follow that, because there has been no rent paid, the agreement to lease is invalid. Cross-examination continued: Witness signed his Dame to a paper when he received the £20. Had not applied since for any rent. He was waiting until the land should be " adjudicated" upon. Told Mr. Davis to go to the Rotorua natives to obtain their consent to the arrangement for leasing to the Government. Mr. Davis went to the Rotorua natives, but witness did not hear whether they objected to lease to the Government.

Mr. Tyler said it was quite immaterial whether some natives objected. The bona fides of the negotiations were held by the Court to be sufficient. Mr. Hesketh : This Court would hardly say that the defendant should be precluded from the benefit of shewing that the Government had not negotiated with the whole of the native owners, and that they must have known that some of the natives would not consent. This goes to the point of bona fides, as already Btated by the Court, to be a point on which evidence may be admitted. Mr. James Russell: The defendant is precluded from shewing that he is there with the consent of the real owners. We say that the Rotoruas are the real owners.

Mr. Barstow : My experience is to the effect that very seldom can the whole of the native owners be at once found to negotiate with. And, if people went to one set of natives, they would hear from the rest they had nothiug to do with the land. But the object of the Act, evidently, is to Becure the negotiations of the Government from oatside influence until the business shonld be completed.

Mr. Hesketh: It amounts to this, that if the land were passed through the Court, and a certain number of persons were declared by law to be the real owners, a person could not negotiate with them.

Mr. Tyler : And it is so. Moreover, the Act provides that no person shall open negotiations until two months after the Government have notified that their negotiations have terminated.

Re-examined: Te Rainga is part of Te Koutou block, and part of the land for agreement to lease which £20 was received. All the people were present and assented.

Francis Scott, examined, said he had in a friendly way assisted Mr. Graham to acquire some of the laud in Rotorna. Mr. Graham was in possession of the land from January 7 to the present time.

Henry Mitchell, Native Lands Purchase Commissioner, deposed that he had assisted Mr. Davis in negotiating on behalf of the Government, for a lease of the Te Koutou block. Witness was present when the £20 was paid. He corroborated the statement made by the last witness. He said, further, that the negotiations were in abeyance in consequence of the Government having met with opposition to the survey of the block.

Cross-examined : Witness handed the £20 to Mr. C. O. Davis, and Mr. Davis handed it to the natives. Witness had paid another sum of £20 for the same object. Mr. Young paid some smaller sums afterwards. The money was paid as a " deposit for an agreement to lease." Witness got the signatures of some of the remaining owners. The survey had not begun. It was necessary to negotiate with natives before commencing the survey. Asked several of the chiefs to allow the survey to be made. They objected. Another reason why the Burvey had not been made was that the District Officer must give his consent. Paid Hapimana £5 three or four days since. Also paid his expenses to the Court. These were loans to him; they were not on account of Te Koutou. There was a great deal of differ, ence of opinion amongst the natives as to the lease of this block. They wished the title to be investigated, "by their own committee," and they were afraid that the cost of the survey would be charged to themselves.

Mr. Hesketh : Do yon not know that the negotiations have been abandoned, and for that reason the Government had paid no rent 1 Mr. Tyler : The question is not material. No one has a right to negotiate with the natives until the Government had notified that their negotiations had ceased. Witness was not aware that the Government had ceased to negotiate, or had intimated any intention of abandoning negotiations. Witness had received no instructions to cease negotiations. There wa3 an instruction in 1876 to hold negotiations in abeyance. But since then there was an instruction from the Government to proceed with them. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Hesketh rose to shew cause why the charge laid in the informations shonld be dismissed. Mr. Tyler said the Court had sat for three hours longer than usual on Saturday. He hoped the Conrt would adjourn. Mr. Hesketh requested that the Court would finish the case that evening. The Benoh was of opinion ihat, as the legal argument would involve much re-

ference to books, and as there was no light in the Court, it would be advisable to adjourn.;"} j" " ' > " j :"5 The Court"adjourned to Monday, at noon.'