I.—2a

14

208. Do you not know that Mr. Sheehan really was the lawyer acting in the case, although James Ransfield was conducting it ?—Do you mean solicitor or counsel for the parties ? 209. Either outside or inside the Court ? —I know nothing of what took place outside the Court; but I know that inside the Court the entire conduct of the case was in the hands of James Eansfield. 210. The Chairman.'] Were there any circumstances at Cambridge, as to European dealings with Natives, which rendered that sitting exceptional ? —I have heard there were. 211. It has been told us in evidence that there were various transactions between Europeans and Natives outside the Court, which rendered that Court rather difficult to deal with. Could you inform us of any of these circumstances?— All I know about it is hearsay. Ido not know anything of it as a fact. What I might be telling might not be true. 212. Then, you could put it in the form of-a general rumour. We can put it in that form if you have no absolutely personal knowledge of what occurred, and perhaps we may be able to get from other sources a more exact account of it ?—I heard at Cambridge that there was a legal gentleman there who was receiving ten guineas a day and Is. 4d. an acre for all lands he succeeded in buying for a certain company; and that whilst he was apparently appearing in the Court on behalf of certain Native clients he had an engagement with other parties. 213. Were the ten guineas from the Natives? —I do not know. It was stated that there were two engagements: ten guineas a day from the Natives, and certain other guineas from a company outside the Court; and Is. 4d. an acre in addition for all lands acquired. 214. Were the interests of the Natives and the interests of the company for which he was acting conflicting—according to rumour; of course, I am taking it entirely in that way ?—That I cannot say. There was one case of a block of land which was six weeks before the Court, which contained 5,000 acres, and a fee of £820 (I think those were the figures) was paid to a solicitor by the company, but it was rumoured that it was to go against the purchase-money. 215. So that, although nominally the company paid, the Natives would really have to pay it in the end?—-Yes. 216. Is it considered right on the part of lawyers to take fees from different parties in the same case ?—From a Native Land. Court point of view ? 217. No; I want it from the general Court point of view. We have already in evidence that the Native Land Court cannot take cognizance of these things, but I want to know whether another Court could not ? —I am not a lawyer. 218. Have any other specific cases of extravagant charges either come under your notice, or have you heard of them on ordinary rumour, such as you have heard of those other cases ?—I think that was the only one; I cannot recollect another. 219. Here is a petition from an entirely different party in reference to this general subject. They say there was a block of land at Waikato, containing 12,000 acres, sold at 6s. an acre. The case was conducted by lawyers, and their charges amounted to £3,700; the price of the land was £3,600, leaving them actually £100 in debt. Did you ever hear of such a case as that?—No, never. 220. Could the services of lawyers and agents be dispensed with in the Court without serious inconvenience ?—I think so; although in many cases the assistance of a counsel or good agent would be very valuable to the Court in determining matters of subdivision, for instance, or in connecting the details of a difficult case to lay before the Court in a concise form. 221. We have a great many petitions from various parts of the country asking that lawyers and agents should be excluded from the Court. Now, supposing they were excluded, has the Court any machinery of its own by which it could arrive at a definite and just conclusion ?—I presume the exclusion of agents would not prevent the Native claimants or counter-claimants, or sets of counter-claimants, from conducting the cases on their behalf. 222. No. I would reckon that as the Natives conducting their own cases. For instance, supposing a tribe chose its chief, or any one that it thought could state the case fairly for it ?—The Court has all the machinery in itself to conduct the business. That was the system for five years : between 1873 and 1878 the Native Land Court conducted its business in that manner successfully. 223. You say it conducted its business successfully during those years ? —Yes. 224. Then, would there be any difficulty in reverting to that system —I mean, as far as the Court is concerned?—l think not. 225. Supposing you reverted to that system, would it have a tendency to cheapen law in your Courts ?—I think it would, as a general thing ; but some cases would be considerably prolonged, there is no doubt, beca/use amongst Natives there is a good deal of jealousy with one another. They are less liable to make concessions to one another than two learned counsel would be. 226. Supposing the Court came to a decision in the way stated—that is, without these agents and lawyers being in—would there be a greater or less chance of appeals, judging from your own experience ? At present it seems as if in every case where there is a claim and counter-claim the judgments are appealed against ? —I do not think it would make any difference in the number of appeals, for this reason: that from year to year the area of land is decreasing, and the Natives fight more eagerly for what remains to them now than formerly. 227. Mr. Postlethivaite.] Perhaps you would state what was the supposed value of the 5,000--acre block you referred to ?—There is just one point I ought to make clear. The block of land contained 5,000 acres; the fee was that to one legal gentleman alone, but, as there has been no title to the land yet given to the Court, it has not been a charge against the Natives. 228. Could you state what was the value of the land?— About ss. or 6s. an acre. 229. The CJwirman.] There may be considerably more expense as I understand, because the land has not yet passed through the Court finally ?—Very likely.

Note. —On looking over the Court notes I find I made an error in stating before the Committee yesterday, that in the Waotu South case, Mr. Sheehan had asked only one question. Ho cross-examined only two of th<i witnesses, and then took a back seat, i.e., he then simply watched the case on behalf of his clients, leaving the matter in the hands of Mr. Hemi Koropiri.—E. W. P.