G.—l

3

memorandum of the 18th May, 1886. He says (at page 14), " The impropriety of a solicitor or counsel accepting a retainer from both sides I need not point out." And again (at page 20), " 1 may further remark that, if the Native Land Court assumed that Dr. Buller was acting for Topia Turoa and Hohepa Tamamutu, then they knew a barrister or solicitor was appearing for what waspractically both plaintiff and defendant. I do not know whether this practice, condemned in all Courts in all civilized countries, has been usual in the Native Land Court. Further, it is plain that Dr. Buller was the Messrs. Studholme's solicitor as well." The effect, as against myself, of these wholly unmerited remarks is thus epitomized in one of the local papers: " Thrice happy Dr. Buller, to be trebly retained and three times paid." Although this memorandum impugned by implication my professional honour, Sir Eobert Stout had not the courtesy to send me a copy. The Hon. Mr. Mantell kindly did so, with the characteristic note, " Fair-play requires that you should see this guam primiim." Now, stated shortly, the facts were these : — (1.) As Sir, Eobert Stout and every one else concerned appear to have assumed, I had been for several years acting as Eenata Kawepo's solicitor. The negotiation of the Owhaoko lease, however, and the completion of Mr. Studholme's title, were long prior to my being retained by Eenata, and were matters in which I was in no way concerned. (2.) At the time of the events forming the subject of Sir Eobert Stout's comments, I was also Topia Turoa's solicitor, having some time previously received from him, at Muriuiotu, a handsome retainer in money, together with the tribal club " Turnore," which is still in my possession. (3.) So far as I am aware, Eenata and Topia had not been, up to that time, in any way opposed to each other. (4.) When the notice of rehearing appeared, Mr. John Studholme came to my office and instructed me to protect his interests as Eenata's lessee ; and I agreed to do my best to assist him, without making any stipulation as to costs or who should pay them. (5.) After obtaining exact information as to what Natives were associated with Topia in the application, I proceeded to Napier to confer with Eenata. It appeared to me that Topia was being made the," catspaw " of the Patea people, for I could not see what possible interest he or his tribe could set up in Owhaoko. Adopting my view of the case, Eenata wrote a letter to Topia Turoa, in which he appealed to their long friendship and to their common interests, and urged him not to play into the hands of the enemy, but to withdraw the application for rehearing. (6.) Armed with this letter I went to Taupo. Immediately on its perusal Topia agreed to withdraw. He said he had been led unwittingly into making Llie application, but that he was now determined to make common cause with Eenata Kawepo. ifohepa was then sent for, and, on this being explained to him by Topia, he entirely concurred, and joined him in signing the withdrawal. He said that the other names had been put to the paper by himself, and he would now sign them again; and this was accordingly done. Mr. E. T. Warren, who has some knowledge of Maori, was present throughout the whole of the interview. (7.) My costs in this matter were paid by Mr. Studholme, with the knowledge and consent of Eenata and Topia, who paid me nothing. Now, as to what afterwards took place in Court. Both Sir Eobert Stout and Mr. Bell appear to have agreed that on this point Mr. Fenton was in a fog, Mr Bell remarking, " I confess it seems to me a perfect muddle, and I did not understand Mr. Fenton's evidence on this point." Both Mr. Fenton's recollection and his notes are at fault as to the retainer having been handed in by me on the second day. The newspaper report is right. The retainer by Topia and Hohepa was produced on the first day of sitting, which .took place in the old Council Chamber. The next day's sitting was held in the Supreme Courthouse, and it would appear that Mr. Fenton did not make a note of the retainer till then. Mr. Bell seems to have had a clearer comprehension of what took place than either Sir E. Stout or Mr. Fenton. He says, in his address, " What did happen was this—and any one can see that this is the fact: Dr. Buller appeared for Topia and Hohepa, and put in an application for withdrawal. Then, the next day, he appeared for Eenata, and asked the Court to affirm the original order." That is exactly what did occur. But, even on Sir Eobert Stout's assumption that I was appearing at one and the same time for Eenata and Topia, Mr. Feufcon, on being asked whether he would have allowed it, said (page 49), " I should in this case, because I do not think they were diverse claimants after Hohepa had withdrawn his claim. I did not think they were on opposite sides." 52, Stanhope Gardens, London, Ist November, 1886. W. L. Bullek.

Appendix. My deak Studholme, — London, 16th October, 1886. Be Oivhaoko. —As I am anxious to be strictly accurate in my statement of facts, I mention here those to which you can speak, and shall be glad to have this note returned with a line from you upon it, verifying its contents so far as you are concerned. In the month of July, 1880, you informed me that you had seen Mr. Fenton re the advertised rehearing of Owhaoko, and that he had advised you to come to terms with the applicants, with a view to withdrawal ; further, that he had suggested the possibility of all the signatures to the application having been written by one person (as is customary with the Maoris), in which case he would recognize the same authority for withdrawing the application. You then instructed me to do what was necessary to protect your interests as lessee. In consequence of what you had told me, I sent to Mr. Dickey the telegram of the 26th July, mentioned in Sir Eobert Stout's memorandum. I also went to the Native Office and obtained a facsimile of the application, from which it was perfectly clear that all the signatures (except perhaps Topia's) were in the handwriting of Hohepa