Poverty Bay Herald

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4714, 19 October 1886, Page 2

Poverty Bay Herald

PUB WISHED EVERY EVEN IN (, i [ GISBORNE, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1886. " THE KARAKA CASK The long pending Karaka case wan concluded yesterday by the decision of the Trust Commissioner, Mr Booth. The case although extending over some considerable time has not been uninteresting, for it has been full of startling disclosures from first to last, and those who have watched the case closely from its initial step soon came to the conclusion that "when rogues fall out, honest men get their own. " A worse case has never come before a Giaborne Court, and the state of things revealed in the evidence are extremely bad. "No wonder that Gisborne has got such a bad name, when auch land transactions are carried on." Such was the sentence uttered by the Commissioner, and no wonder, for in all his experience in native matters we do not suppose such a grogs attempt at injustice has come within his knowledge. The case, although it has been a long time before the Court, is a simple one and is not difficult to understand. Let us first take it from the applicant's point of view. Mr Brassey obtains the signatures of Mereana Paraone and her husband to a deed of conveyance of Merean;» Paraone's share in the Karaka block, the consideration money being £300, as set out in the deed. It was admitted from the first that that amount of money had not been paid, but its equivalent in work done and work to be done had been agreed upon. The deed waa transJated and read over to the parties, who were perfectly satisfied with it. Mr Brassey then borrowed some £130 from the Bank of New Zealand, giving the conveyance as security. Mr Hurrey, attorney for the Paraones, (says Mr Brassey) knew that the deed was for the purpose of getting money from the bank ; and all the parties knew that it was to alleviate his (Mr Brassey's) wants, by making gee u re what was due to him. He had done everything bona fide. The money was owinsj to him, and he had been paid it by a d-od of conveyance of Mereana's share. This is simply what Mr Brassey contends— a fair transaction enough until the other side is heard. Mereana Paraone, Wiremu Paraone, J. RHurrey, and G. Goldsmith mainly corroborate one another, and their evidence goes to prove conclusively that no money passed at the time, and that the land was to be re-conveyed. The evidence of Mr

Goldsmith even went so far as to prove that in Mr Brassey's absence he took up the deed of ro-conveyance which had partly been prepared, and at Wi Paraone's request read it to him until he came to the sentence that on £300 being repaid by Moreana Paraone the land was to be given back. Wi Paraone objected to this as his wife had received no money for the land All the witnesses are sure it was a parch, ment deed and had no translation on it Mr Brassey absolutely denies this, and says the deed seen on the table was a copy of the deed of conveyance which had been scorched. There was no deed of re-con-veyance prepared. Here someone nius 1 have sworn falsely, for Mr Goldsmith said the parchment document he read to Wi Paraone was a deed of re-conveyance and had no interpretation on it, whereas the singed one bore his translation. That there was to be a deed of re-con /eyance cannot be doubted, and that that deed was not executed is undisputed. Both Mr Hurrey and Wi Paraone said Brassey was to give him (Wi Paraone) £100 for signing. Mr Hurrey alleges that the promissory notes given to Brassey were only accommodation bills, and could not be included ii the consideration mentioned in the deed ; that the deed was signed merely as a transaction whereby Brassey could raise money, and that it would never have been signed had it not been clearly under- [ stood that Brassey was to re-convey. After this Brassey is telegraphed to for money, and it not being forthcoming the proceedings which have thrown such discredit over certain individuals has been the result. The case, put in its barest form, is simply narrowed down to this : Brassey alleges he bought for money owing and for work to be done, and the vendor, her husband, and attorney state there was to be a re-conveyance, and that the deed was given only for assistance. In the first instance the Commissioner could soon have disposed of the application, fur he must have known that he could nothave granted a certificate on a consideration of "work to be done." The Act states he has to see that the consideration purporting to be paid had been paid or given, and on Mr Brassey's own evidence he could not have done otherwise than refuse the certificate. The case having been fully gone into brings to light a state of things necessary for the public to know. It is only when rogues fall out that the eyes of the public are opened to the fact that outward appearance in no way constitutes honesty. Human nature is made up of many qualities, and day by day wo see those qualities more diversified. Hero have two men been closely connected with business for some time past, have, so to speak, walked arm in arm in the street, and have been engaged in transactions that will not bear the light of day thrown on them. In a moment all is changed ; both are bitter enemies, doing all in their power to injure one another, and dragging before the public things that they should blush to have been connected with. In the present transaction it is hard to say who is nmst to blame, Mr J. It. Hurrey, or Mr W. Brassey ; but we can confidently assert that both have been mixed up in a disgraceful proceeding, and that something like gross injustice lias been committed upon the two Maories who have been the unfortunate victims in the case. We have no hesitation in saying that what Mr Brassey was about to do Mr Hurrey knew of, and consented to. -It must be borne in mind that Mr Hurrey is attorney for the Paraone's, and as a shrewd businessman would have soon made himself acquainted with Mr Brassey's tactics — if such tactics were used ; and could either have put matters on a proper footing or have averted the trouble. Mr Goldsmith, in his evidence to Mr Brassey, stated : — " Aa far as I could see Mr Hurrey had as much influence iv getting Wi Paiaone to sign the deed of conveyance as you had. I believe Mr Hurrey could have stopped Wi Paraone from signing. I did not hear Hurrey say anything to induce Wi Paraone to sign. Everything appeared to have been settled as to signing the deed of lease and conveyance before I was called in." In his judgment the Commissioner said — "In going over the painful case the person as much to blame as Mr Brassey was Mr Hurrey who acted for the Paraones and who had arranged for the deed of reconveyance. The deed of purchase was signed in his presence, and the evidence of Goldsmith said the conveyance was made on Hurrey's advice, and he believed he (Hurrey) could have persuaded Wi Paraone not to sign. Hurrey knew what was being done, and that the deed was not to be a purchase ; and that when he could not get some money from Brasßey he made light the whole circumstances of the case." Mr Hurrey's conduct was no doubt bad, and the evidence would lead one to suppose that there has been a split in the camp, and not till this happened did he object to the certificate being granted. Then there is the fact that he allowed those he acted for to sign declarations that they had received £300 for the land sold in the deed, well knowing that no such a sum had passed. It would appear that Brassey was in want of money at the time of the negotiations, and that the only way he could see of procuring it was by getting a conveyance of Mereana ParaoneVshare in the Karaka, promising amongst other things tore-convey. In this Mr Hurrey assisted him, for what reason is best known to himself. At any rate — whether to his credit or not we will not say — it was through Mr Hurrey's instrumentality that a certificate was refused. The whole affair is a disgraceful one to both Hurrey and Brassey. To the latter more especially as he is one of that profession who are supposed to be above suspicion, and in whose hands business should be intrusted with implicit confidence. Much has been said against the legal profession, and not without just cause. How many discreditable actions have been lately brought to light ? In some cases disclosures have been made that would mean imprisonment to anyone but a lawyer. They have had many harsh things said of them, and have not vindicated their honor, and yet it is sometimes wondered at that Gisborne has a bad name — a name which will take a good deal of filtering to make pure. The disclosures made in the Karaka case add another speck to that already speckled name, and the parties who have contributed to it will have the consolation of being concerned in one of the most "painful" businesses ever brought before a Gisborne Court. A matter brought out during the proceedings shows that at least one of the parties have not alone been connected with one discreditable transaction. The Commissioner said during his judgment : — "Another thing which affected Mr Hurrey's character was that he got a certificate to a deed of conveyance from Wi Paraone to liis wife in the Matawhero block, the circumstances of the case being exactly similar to those of the case before the Court. That shows Hurrey has not alone been guilty in this transaction, but on another occr.sion by inducing Mereana aud Wi Paraoue to sii>n to them in consideration of what had not been paid, and he (Hurrey) got a certificate to that deed. Anyhow he coulrt not deal with that \ but he would forward the whok of the circumstances to the Government." It will be interesting to quote the evidonco of Mercana Paraone on this paint. She says, in answer to Mr Brassey *. — " Mr Hurrey asked me to sell the Matawhero land to him and his wife, it being agreed that it was to be re-conveyed to me. F signed my name to the declaration, but no money passed. Mr Hutrey explained to ■ c that that land should bo re-conveyed to me. I don't know what has been done with the tan<l. I have been asking th it it be re-con-veyed to me ever since, but it has not been done. I was owing Hurrey some money at the time ; not much, certainly it did not amount to £100. I don't remember whether the £1200 was read out to me as the consideration money. I continued to ask Mr Hurrey to make the re-conveyance after the certificate was gi anted to the deed. Then I

was ill. Since then I have asked Mr Hurrey ibout tho matter, and he said, "The matter is not finished ; Mr Mackey is away and is cauaiag the troubK" This transaction was exactly a similar one to the Karaka doid and there can be no doubt that the sharo of Mereana was procured by Hurrey, he well knowing that no money passed at the time. There is no doubt that Mereana is dissatisfied with that transaction and it is to be hoped Government will take some action in the matter. The Commissioner's language on this transaction is sufficiently clear, and hia comments are such as to lead one to suppose that he was misled in the granting '•f the Matawhero certificate. The Karaka case will lontr be remembered as a very fishy one; and, as we have said before, the persons interested are so much to blame that nothing too bad can be said of them. As to the Bank of New Zealand it is clear that it was an innocent holder, though how Mr Matthews could be so simple as to be gulled into lending money on an un- > certified deed is difficult to say. He no doubt had documents brought to him to lead him to the belief that the transaction was fair and reasonable. Tho conduct of the interpreter, Mr Goldsmith, should not pass unheeded, and the remark passed by the Commissioner at an early stage of the case as to the duties of interpreters, should act as a warning to the loose way the duties of interpreters are performed.