Tuesday, Apeil 14, 1868.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2669, 18 April 1868, Page 5

Tuesday, Apeil 14, 1868.

The Court opoued at 10 a.m. The further cross-examination of Tapa To Whata was proceeded with. On tho subject of the Himatangi block the witness said : — The Rangitano havo an interest in Himatangi. They had a claim there formerly, and they have since taken part in tho lease. Tho Ngatiapa, and especially Matene's hapus, have an interest in tho Himatingi block. They cultivated potatoes there at tho time of tho Haowheuua fight, and have continued ever since to exerciso the right of catching eels there. The rest of the cross-examination had reference to tho distribution of the purchaso money to the demands made by the Ngatikauwhata for reserves in tho ceded block, and to the proportion of that hapu who had signed tho deed of cession. By tho Court : I think there were about twenty men in my father's party when he first passed through tho Oroua district. Some of them were armed with guns, others wero not. To Whata obtained possession of the district known as Aorangi by gift of tho Ngatiapa. Hainuera, of the Ngatiapa has claims in the Ngatikauwhata land at Oroua. The boundaries I have referred to divide the land of Nepia and -Ngatiapa on one side from tho land of Ngatikauwhata and the Ngatiapa on the other. Ngatitupatawaand other hapus of Ngatiapa are associated with Nopia in the ownership of that land. Ngatiwa, Ngutitumokai, and other hapus of Ngatiapa are nssociatod with tho Ngatikauwhata in thoir ownership. The counsel for tho Crown intimatod to the Court that tho evidence of the surveyor who was now engaged in making a survey of the native cultivations on tho Himatangi block, and that of a native who had accompanied him, would complete the case for tho Crown. In this stage of tho proceedings, he requested to bo allowed to put in the following documents, namely : — Tho original declaration in .the Supreme Court in the case of Parakai v Featherston and others (July, 1866) fortified by the affidavit by which it was accompanied and placed upon tho files of the Supremo Court. Mr Williams said that he had communicated with Mr Izard on the subject, and was assured that tho whole matter admitted of very easy explanation. Mr Fox said ho must declino to accept of any second hand explanation. The documents which he desired to put in evidence were upon oath and authenticated by the seal of tho Supreme Court. They disclosed throe distinct perjuries on the part of Parakaia To Pouepa. If Mi Williams believed that Mr Izard could explain away these ; perjuries it would be necessary to put him in the witness box, and to give tho counsel for the j Crown an opportunity of cross-examining him. Mr Williams informed the Court that Mr Izard was now at Wanganui, and might be expected in Otaki on Friday evening next. Mr Fox said ho had no intention or arguing the question ut present, but ho would most certainly use these documents in his final address to the Court, to discredit tho whole of Parakaia's evidence in the present case. No other use could bo made of thorn in thiy Court, but it would be for the Government to determine whether Parakaia should bo prosecuted in another piaco for perjury. The dycuuionts were then put in and read in English and Maori. Mr Williams asked permission of the Court to ' hand in a letter he had received from Mr Izard on the subject. Mr Fox objected, the learned counsel contending that in a matter of this serious nature the Court ought to admit nothing but sworn testimony. Mr Fox said ho protested against the admission of this expiatory letter on two grounds : — Firstly, the agent for tho native claimants had closed his case, and had no right to re-open it by calling further witnesses ; secondly, he (Mr Fox) hud put in documents bearing the seal of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and ho had a right to claim that if met by other evidence it should be of an equally high character and upon oath. Mr Williams said that ho hoped by putting in Mr Izard's explanatory letter to exculpato his client from the serious charge of perjury which the learned counsel had brought against him. Mr Fox again protested against anything bo irregular. He said that the affidavit spoke for itself, and that no amount of explanation could alter the fact of the perjury. The president, of the Court declined to receive the letter, but said that tho Court had power to call further witnesses, and would use its discretion in the mat lei 1 . The rest of the day was occupied in tho reading (in Maori) af tho volumnious reports and correspondence', relativo to the Rangitikei Land Disputo, and the subsequent salo of tho block to tho Crown, which had boen .put in ovidenco during Dr Fcatherston's examination on tho 7th April. The Court rose at 3 p.m.