G— 2

71

this 3,500 acres ?—I do not think there will be any objection. I recollect that, on Warena making out the list, I told him not to put in all the children. I said, "You make out the heads of the people." 341. Can you give any idea of what number of days were occupied in the negotiations at Palmerston, in 1890, before Block 11 was called on in the Court for the purpose of partitioning it between Warena and Kemp? —I should think fully a week ;it might have been more. 342. These negotiations were attended by Honi Taipua?—l saw him there —the two principal negotiations ; it divided the land, and divided the people. 343. Can you say distinctly and positively whether the question of trust was raised at all during these negotiations ?—No. 344. Did Kemp say anything at all that would indicate, in his opinion, there was any trust ?— No; the first I ever heard of the trust was in the Court. 345. Your negotiations on behalf of Warena with Kemp were conducted as if they were owners, and could sell as they thought proper?— Yes. 346. I think you have said that in the negotiations you had in Woon's presence there was no mention of trust ?—No. 347. Was there anything to indicate to you, up to the actual opening of the Court, that there was any equitable right whatever in this block held by any persons ?—No. 348. In your opinion, up to that time, and till the question of trust was raised in Court, you were of opinion that Kemp and Warena were owners of the block ?—As soon as I became acquainted with the nature of the title. 349. But at the same time you were of opinion that it would be the duty of Warena, at any rate, to make provision for his people who were living on the land ?—Yes. 350. Do you mean the whole list of 1873, or only the persons who were there then, or who had recently been living on the block ?—I meant the residents. 351. Mr. Fraser.] When Warena signed the conveyance, Mr. Sheridan, or a representative of the Government, told you, did he not, that they could not pay the money because there was a caveat against it ? —No; no one said so. 352. This was your evidence in the Supreme Court: "When was the transfer to the Queen signed?— Over twelve months ago. Were you present when it was executed?— Yes; the purchasemoney was not paid then. Why not ?—I think, owing to some petitions before the House. The survey was not complete to get the transfer complete. Survey was not complete when sold. It was a simple survey. The creek had to be traversed—l mean for the subdivisional Court." That is correct ?—Yes. 353. Had you been connected with the Horowhenua matter from its inception, so far as the Native Land Court was concerned ?—I had known a great deal about it, and had been doing other business for the Hunia family ; I took no active part, but had known it well from 1886. 354. You tried, in 1890, to arrange by giving 3,500 acres to the two principals : at that time did you know that Kemp and Hunia held No. 11 in trust?— No. 355. This would be correct: " What was the reason you made the proposal ?—Warena had his connections on the land :it was not because it was a tribal property. I knew it would be difficult to turn, the people off. That was one reason. It would be contrary to Maori custom for a chief to turn the people off the land—the small portion the people were occupying. I did not know that Kemp and Warena had the land in trust " ?—Yes. 356. You were asked if you thought this a fair and equitable arrangement with regard to Block 11: was this fair and equitable only so far as No. 11 was concerned ?—Yes. 357. When you made this proposal as fair and equitable, it did not embrace any negotiations with regard to 6, 2, 4, and 12 ? —None whatever. 358. You still, as Warena's representative, were of opinion that Kemp had to give an account of his stewardship with regard to Nos. 2, 6, 4, and 12?— Yes. 359. It was only fair and equitable as regards No. 11?— Yes; and not wiping out the back rents. 360. When you came on to the block with Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Wilson, and others, did you meet any Natives ?—Yes; we met Hoani Puhihi; he is one of their leaders, and has always been prominent at their meetings. I could not say what others. 361. Did Hoani Puihi speak at all on that occasion? —He simply said, not to come down too close to his house with the line. I said, if the surveyors come too close we would shift back. 362. Was there any sign of opposition or discontent at the sale?— No. 363. With regard to the action instituted by Warena against Kemp, immediately after it was initiated, did not Kemp send in an application for partition of the block?— Yes; and Warena also. 364. You got £1,000 of the £2,000 ?—Yes; £500, and £500 owing to the bank for which I was security. 365. Was the £500 you were guarantor for for debts connected with the block?— Yes. 366. The remaining £1,000 you say was paid to the stores. Had there not been very heavy expenses incurred in connection with this block in investigations before the Native Land Court and before Parliament ? —Yes ; very heavy. 367. Are you in a position to say that the majority of this money went for liabilities incurred in connection with the block ?—Previous to their entering on this block they never were in trouble, and they had other sources of money, but the expenses of attending Parliament, attending Court, and meeting the people, caused them to incur these liabilities. 368. Had you anything to do with the pamphlet published by Warena?—Yes. 369. You remember he there protested against Kemp's actions in regard to No. 14?— Yes. 370. In answer to the question, " Was there any sign of disapproval or discontent on the part of the people when the land was sold," you said, " No." I direct your attention to what you said