“LOOK AFTER THE PEOPLE”

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12509, 27 July 1926, Page 7

“LOOK AFTER THE PEOPLE”

MAORI CHIEF’S DYING REQUEST WOMAN HOLDS TRUST MONEY STORY OF TRIBAL FEUD Absolute non-resistance—to turn tlie other cheek to the smiter—were the teachings of the late Te Whiti, Maori chief and prophet. But just lio«w difficult it became to practice these principles when a bitter feud sprang up in the society of which they were members was manifest in the Supreme Court recently, when Noho Te YVhiti and two others proceeded against Pirini Te Whiti, a native woman, on behalf of a Maori society called the Raukura, claiming a declaration that sZle bel* money in trust for the society. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, represented by Mr Smith, and the defendant, represented by Mr. Bennett, jesterday applied for a rehearing of the case. The Raukura, which was established by Te Whiti, had as a badge a raiukura, or white feather worn in the hat or in the hair. According to the evidence these teachings are based upon the Bible, the dominant note being glory to God on High peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind. It is said that he preached absolute non-resist-ence—to turn the other cheek to the smiter. TOO OLD FASHIONED His Honour Mr Justice Reed in giving judgment for the plaintiff in the original hearing said that whatever his teachings may have been they seem to have very little effect at the present time, at ail events as regards those who were before him as in the case. There was a bitter feud between two sections of the Raukura, the plaintiffs and their friends on the one side, and the defendant and her friends on the other. Hfe was quite satisfied that very few of the native witnesses on either side during the prolonged hearing of the case—seven days and six evenings—told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The bitterness between the parties was intensified by two of the three plaintiffs being respectively a brother and a discarded husband of the defendant.

The evidence of the plaintiffs was directed to showing that Te Whiti had established a trust fund, the objects of which were to carry on his teaching. Evidence was led to show that Te "Whiti placed the fund in the hands of a chief named Waitara. Waitara married the defendant, who as already stated was a daughter of To Whiti. Waitara was a man of some wealth, and devoted a considerable part of his private fortune to improve the conditions of the natives who resided in Te Whiti’s pah—Parihaka. He erected a reservoir for the supply of pure water, introduced sanitarv reforms, and built a large meeting house. The 18th of every* month was eet apart for the assembly of the Raukura. For two days before and on tho 18th food was free to all. The Raukura came from far and near, bringing presents in accordance with Maori custom. These consisted of money, food in various forms, and live stock. GIFTS AT THE FEAST For the plaintiffs it was contended that these presents were of two classes: (1) Moni a te iwi, (2) no te ahi a nga tamariki, and that the people, when making gifts, specified to which class they should belong. The first class, it is said, was the people’s fund, that is the special fund established by Te Whiti, whilst the second class was for the expenses at the meeting. He was not satisfied that any such distinction

was usually made by the visitors. He thought, however, that something was done by the recipients, that is the chiefs in the pah, towards allocating a certain part, probably the surplus, when there was such, after providing tor the entertainment of the guests, to a reserve fund which became known as the people’s fund or moni a te iwi, and of which Waitara was the trustee. From the mass of contradictory evidence (a large part of which was untrue;, each side ny embellishment, in order to better its own case, endeavouring to carry conviction by inventing details, there are certain outstanding facts that enable me to come to a definite conclusion. KEY TO TREASURE. Wditara died on July Bth, 1910. Amongst his possessions was a safe. In that safe was a large sum of money. The defendant, as his widow, took'possession of the safe and its contents. She admits that there was something over -63260 in it. Of this, she says £IOOO belonged to herself. The balance, about £2200, she says belonged to Waitara. She denies that it was a fund raised by contributions from tho people, but says that it was his own personal property. She further says that, shortly before he died, ho gave her the key, and said: “Be strong in carrying out what I have always in my mind, to lock after the people.” Tn effect, her evidence is that the money, being Waitara’?* personal property, he entrusted her with it to

spend on behalf of the people, and that she has so spent it. The feud commenced through Pereni entering into marriage relations with a half-caste named Wiremu Daymond, after which tribal and family trouble was commenced. WHERE THE MONEY WENT. Pereni was called upon to state the position of the trust fund, and that, by what she said, she satisfied the people that the fund was intact, with the exception of a sum of £BOO, which she stated she had spent in repairs to the meeting-house at Parihaka. Nolio, her brother, says she stated tho balance in hand was £3700, after paying the £801), and that he told her she had no business to spend the £BOO without authority. Pereni, on the other hand, stated that she told tho meeting that all the money was spent, and that it had been expended on repairs to the meeting-house and entertaining the people. This, His Honour thought, was quite untrue; though the people were reassured by her at that meeting as to the safety of the fund. “However,” lie continued, “even if she had satisfied ■ the court that she had expended tho trust monoys on these repairs since July 23rd, 1921, that would be no answer. It was a breach of trust to expend them without authority.

“There will be a declaration that tho defendant holds the sum of £lBlO in trust for tho benefit of the Raukura, and subject as to its disposal, to the

order of the elders of the Atiawa tribe. There will bo an order that she pay that money into court, within 30 days to abide the further order of the court. There will bo an order that she be removed from the position of trustee.”