SIR W. BULLER, MR. FENTON, AND DEALINGS IN THE NATIVE LAND COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7824, 18 December 1886, Page 6

SIR W. BULLER, MR. FENTON, AND DEALINGS IN THE NATIVE LAND COURT.

What , we published a few daye ago on this snbjeot has oreated a great amount oi talk, as showing the relations between certain eminent gentlemen. We have received from London a copy of the letter and doc amenta which Sir W. Buller has forwarded to the Premier, with a request that they be laid before the House next session. We have already given the remarkable letter written by Mr. Fenton to Mr. Stadholme, in which he urged him to prevent Sir W. Buller from writing, as he might say something " which would put all the fat in the fire." Before the committee a telegram was produced from Dr. Buller to Mr. Dickey, of the Native Land* Court, stating that "Mr. Fenton has advised Studholme to make terms, with a view to withdrawal." Mr. Fenton said that he only saw this telegram months afterwards, and was much annoyed at it, as it was nntrue, and he thought it an impertiuenoe on the part of Dr. Bailer. After narrating all the circumtancea, Sir W. Buller, in the paper which he has sent to be laid before Parliament, thus proceeds:— Coupled with the suggestion as to making terms, there was (as I was informed) the assurance of Mr. Fenton—without whioh I would never have put my olient to the cost of • special trip to Taupo—that if the •'signatures" proved to be in the handwriting of one and the same person, he wouli recognise the same authority for withdrawal. Mr. Studholme doea remember Mr. Fenton telling him this. There must, therefore, have been a conference or meeting between these gentlemen, although Mr. Fsnton appears to have quite forgotten it. and now denies it altogether. Mr. Fenton says (p. 3) that he did not see my telegram for several months, and that when he did, he was "very much annoyed." But he admits having laft it on the official die without, noting any contradiction or making any remark upon it. This is somewhat remarkable, because Mr". Fenton states that it was his invariable habit to minute erery telegram and paper whioh came before him in his executive capacity. It is more remarkable still that, although I was in frequent communication with him for 6ve yean afterwards, and on terms of friendship up to the time of my leaving the colony, he never mentioned the snbjeot to me, or hinted in the remotest way that he believed me guilty of this deception. Even Sir R. Stout, in hie second memorandum, commenting on the evidence (p. 82), eaya:—" Mr. Fenton saw that telegram on a die of the Native Land Court, and though he considered the telegram impertinent, he took no means to do as Mr. Stewart suggested, to minute it as untrue, nor to complain to Dr. Buller of his conduct in sending a telegram to the Clerk of the Native Land Court that was incorrect."

It may bo objected that I ought not, in this statement, to have made use of Mr. Fenton'e letter of July 8. It was eent to me by Mr. Studholme without any restriction, and it is not marked "Private ;" but, even if it had been, I think I should have felt justified in using it in order to repel an aocuea* tion of falsehood. iL The next charge is one made by a native witness, Hiraka Te Rango, who, however, frankly admit) that it is mere hearsay. He states that I induced the applicants to withdraw by paying a sum of £50 to Topia Taroa, and sums of £5 e»ch to others. He honestly adds that I denied to him s,t the time having paid any money. In reference to this, I think it is only necessary to say that I did not pay, or promise to pay, a single shilling to any of the natives who signed the withdrawal. 111. The third charge is one rather of implication than direct accusation, in Sir Robert Stout'a memorandum of 18th of May, ISS6. He says (at p. 14):—" The impropriety of a solicitor or counsel accepting a retainer from both sides I need not poiot out." And again (at p. 20):—"I may further remark that, if the Native Land Court assumed that Dr. Buller was acting for Topia Taroa, and Hohepa Tamamutn, then they knew a barrister or solicitor was appearing for what was practically both plaintiff and defendant. I do not know whether this practice, con' demned in all Court i in all civilised conntries, has been usual in the Native Lead Court. Further, it is plain that Dr. Buller was the Messrs, Studholtno's solicitor as well." The effect, as against myself, of these wholly unmerited remarks, is thus epitomised in one of the local papers :—" Thrice happy Dr. Bailer, to be trebly retained and three times paid!" Although this memorandum impugned by implication my professional honour, Sir Robert Stout had not the courtesy to send me a copy. The Hon. Mr. Mautsll kindly did so, with the characteristic note: " Fair play requires that you should see this quumprimum." Now, stated shortly, the facts were these : —1. Aβ Sir R. Stoat and everyone else concerned appear to nave assumed, I had been for several yean acting as Renata Kawepo'e solicitor. The negotiation of the Owbaoko iease, however, and the completion of Mr, Studbolme'e title, were long prior to my being retained by Renata, and were matters in which I was in no way concerned. 2. At the time of the events forming the subject of Sir K. Stoat's coramenti, I was alao Topia Turoa'e solicitor, having some time previously received from him, at Murimotn, a handsome retainer in money, together with the tribal club " Tomore," which is still in my possession. 3. So far as I am aware, Renata and Topia had not been, up to that time, in any way opposed to each other. 4. When the notice of rehearing appeared, Mr. John Studholme came to my office and instructed me to protect bis interests as Renata's lessee; and I agreed to do my best to assist him, without making any stipulation as to costs or who should pay them. 5. After obtaining exact information as to what natives were aseooiated with Topia in the application. I proceeded to Napier to confer with Renata. It appeared to me that Topia was being made the " catspaw" of the Patea people, for I could not see what possible interest he or his tribe (tonld set up in Owhaoko. Adopting my view of the case, Renata wrote a letter to Topia Taroa, in which he appealed to their long friendship and to their common interests, and urged him not to play into the hands of the enemy, hat to withdraw the application for rehearing. 6. Armed with this letter I went to Taupe. Immediately on its perusal Topia agreed to withdraw. He said he had been led unwittingly into making the application, bnt that he was now determined to make common cause with Renata K&wepo. Hohepa was then sent for, and on this being explained to him by Topia, he entirely concurred, and joined bim in signing the withdrawal. He said that the other names had been pat to the paper by himself, and he would now sign them again ; and this was accordingly done. Mr. R. T. Warren, who haa some knowledge of Maori, was present' throughout the> whole of the interview. 7. My costs in this matter were paid by Mr. Studholme, with the knowledge and consent of Renata and Topia, who paid me nothing. Now, as to what afterwards took place in Court. Both 6ir R. Stout and Mr. Bell appear to have agreed that, on this point, Mr. Fenton was in a fog ; Mr. Bell remarking, •' I confess it seems to me a perfect muddle* and I. do not understand Mr. Fenton'* evidence on this point." Both Mr. Fenton'" recolleotioo and his notes are at fault as to the retainer having been handed in by me on the second day. The newspaper report is right The retainer by Topia and Hohepa was produced on the first day of sitting, whioh took place in the old Council Chamber, The next day's sitting was held in the Supreme Court House', and it would appear that Mr. Fenton did not make a uote of the retainer tili then. Mr. Bell seems to have had a clearer comprehension of what took place than either sir R. Stout or Mr. Fenton. He says in his address s■ " What did happen was this, and anyone can see that this is the fact; Dr. Buller appeared for Topia and Hohepa, and put in an application for withdrawal. Then, the next day, he appeared for Renata, and asked the Court; to affirm the original order.'" This is exaotly what,did occur. Bat even on Sir Robert Stout's assumption that I was appearing at one and the same time, for Reuata and Topia, Mr. Penton, on boing asked whether he would have allowed it, said (p. 49):-'' I should in this case, be. cause I dp not think they were diverse claimants after Hohepa had withdrawn his claim. I did not thiok they were on opposite side*,".