SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4743, 17 December 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Bo'ore His Honor Sir J. l'reiiderjjaal, C.J.) YESTERDAY. T. Goldsmith and M J. Gannon v. tke N.Z.N.Ii S-ttlement Company and Read's Tuustees. Claim possession of land. Mr (in !y nid Mr Kenny for plaintiffs, Mr DeLauLour for Read's Trustees, and Mr Kees for the Company. The following is the continuation of the evidence given in tho above case : — Hirini Moetau : Mr Burton objected to the sale of Time- alias Kaupau as he was a minor. I believe I signed Rawiri's name to the deed at the request of Read and his people. To Mr Rses : I think I signed Rawiria's name, or some one else. 1 forget. Ke-examined by Mr Gully : I know nothing about the signature of Rawiri Timo on the deed produced. I don't know how old Rawiri was when the deed was signed. Rutene Ahinuku : I live at Oweta, and have lived in this district for many years. I knew Meihana Hohoa. He has been dead a long time — since 1871. I knew Rawiri Hokeke. He died in 1870. My child also died in that year. I knew Rawiri Timo and his father and mother. He is dead. I knew Riria Topiiau. She is dead. 1 forget when she died. 1 knew Matene Toute. He is dead. I knew Komaro. He is dead. I knew Paora Matuakore. He died in 1885. Wi Pere : I live at Matawhoro 1, which block I own a part of. I am one of the grantees of the block. I occupy 400 acres myself, and others occupy with me. I never sold to Read. Read said I did sell, but I deny that. I knew Matenga Toti. He died in 1883. . To Mr Rees : I knew Hamiora when alive. 1 was in the Native Land Court when Hamiora was examined as to his sale in Matawhero No. 1 to Read. I heard Hamiora say that he had not sold. He ad- | mitted that Hiriir got the money for his share. Ehu deposed : 1 knew Taupuru. He died in October 1877. He lived at Ivaparo near Matawhero No. 1. Matene Kaipau : 1 knew Koroniho ; Komiro. He died abouc three years ago at Matawhero. I knew Meihana Hohoro. He is dead. I know Matawhero No. 1. Hohoro was my grandfather. My mother is on tho block now. I claim Mehana's share for my mother. Wi Pere told me to go on the block to secure Mehana's share. To Mr Rees : My mother is living on the 400 acres occupied by Wi Pere. Wi Pere said my grandfather's interest was still alive. M. J. Gannon deposed : Am a licensed interpreter and one of the plaintiffs in this action. I know the Matawhero No. 1 block, and the parts occupied by Hamiora and Goldsmith. The cultivation (a small place near the woolshed) was on the Matawhero No. 1. There were proceedings taken in reference to this block in the Native Land Court. In 1880 Rahia Taketake made an application to the Court. The land was surveyed by Captain Winter and application wa3 made to have Hamiora's share allocated. The deed of 1870 to Read was produced. Judge Halse granted the land to Read's Trustees, and that decision was appealed against, with the result that it was held that the Native Land Court could not deal with land under the Poverty Bay Grants Act. The matter also came before the Trust Commissioners, and the certificates from Hamiora to Raiha and Raiha to Goldsmith were granted. The copy of the conveyance (produced) is from Goldsmith to me. I agreed to re-convey the land on the payment of £700. To Mr Rees : I have a recollection of seeing some notes paid by Goldsmith to Raiha, but I think the money was paid before the Trust Commissioner. For the defence Captain Tucker was called to provo that consideration money ha«l been paid to Hamiora' for his share in Matawhero No. 1. Captain Winter gave evidence as to the boundary, alleging that the houses of Goldsmith and Raiha were not on the Matawhero block. This evidence was supported by Mr John Allen. After counsel's address the following issues were put to the jury : — 1. — Did he (Hamiora) agree to sell . 2. — Did he receive the purchase money ? 3 — Did he execute the deed of conveyance of IS7O V The jury returned the following answers to the issues : — 1. — There was no actual agreement. 2. — Money was advanced him against the share, but there is no evidence to show what the purchase money was. 3. -No. THIS DAY. j Judgment was given in the case of Tucker v. Joyce and Kennedy this morning. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs on the lowest scale. REYNOLDS V. ORMOND AND SWAINSON. This was a claim for £154 Ba. Mr DeLautour for plaintiff and Mr Gully and Carlisle for defendants.