97

G.—2

465. He did not receive any ?—No. 466. Did Warena's father have a house erected anywhere on this block in his own separate right ?—I do not understand what house he had built there. 467. Did he never have a house erected? —He had a pataka at Otaewa ; and that is the only thing I know of. 468. Did he occupy it ?—No; tents were his occupation. 469. Did he have any cultivations ?—He cultivated no food there ; he was there a very short time. 470. Did he catch eels there in the lake and stream ? —No; he did not either by fishing or eel-baskets ; but the people gave him some. 471. If the people gave him all this, why did they allow him to erect a pataka ? —I do not know what his purpose was. 472. Therefore, he had a right to erect it?—lf you go there, you can see the pataka; it is a little one. 473. Supposing we bring witnesses to say that it was a dwelling house and not a pataka, would you think you are mistaken ?—1 would say, " Let us go and see it," and you will see for yourself. It is erected on posts like & pataka; it is a very small place. 474. You know that Hunia came there and brought timber, and built the house —call it whatever you like ? —He brought timber from the great meeting-house at Parawanui down to Horowhenua, and it was left there and rotted there, and was never required at all, because the Muaupoko objected to the erection of it; so it rotted there. 475. You wish the Court to believe that Hunia never dwelt at Horowhenua; that this was erected for food, and was not used as a dwelling-house ? —I did not see Hunia living there; what I did see was, him living in a tent with his two wives. 476. Supposing I accept your invitation to go and see if there is evidence of Hunia having lived there, and we find blankets and clothing, and boxes, and so on in the house, would you say it was a pataka ? —I did not see blankets in there, but perhaps you put them there now, for the-purpose of misleading the Commission. 477. With regard to putting Warena's name into No. 11, how was it done ? Was Warena invited by Kemp to have it put in, or did Wirihana insist that it should be put in ?—lt was by the insistence of Wirihana that it was put in as haitiaki. 478. If Kawana was not a chief, why did Kemp agree to the insistence of his son that his young brother should go in, if there were no chieftainship? —It was Wirihana who insisted in putting his name in, and Kemp said, " Very well; let him come in ; we do not care." 479. Then, after Warena and Kemp became owners in No. 11, there was application made to divide the block, was that not so ? —Yes ; there was a Kahiti, advertising that application, and when we got to the Court, we discovered there was nothing for us there; it was gone, because the law said they were owners, not kaitiakis. 480. Did Kemp, after the division of the land, offer his section of the people a Crown grant or title for any portion of that half of No. 11 which was held by him ? —Kemp said, " I am a kattiaki; the land belongs to the tribe." Warena said, " No; the law has given us the land." 481. Did Kemp, after the division being made, say, " There is my portion of the land for the people"? —Yes; he said so; but we did not approve of that; we wanted the whole to be given back. 482. How much did Kemp offer ? —I do not know how many acres, and do not want to follow the example set to us, when we were told we would get 105 acres and did not get them. 483. You cannot say that Kemp made any offer?—No; I cannot say what number of acres he proposed to return to us. 484. Did you, on behalf of the people, ask Kemp to vest land in you or give you individual titles to any portion held by him ?—No ; we did not ask for individual allocation. 485. Not for the whole of the land given to Kemp out of No. 11 ?—-No; all we asked for was to get it as a whole. 486. Considering that Kemp was on one side and Warena on the other, if the latter agreed to give back the whole land to you, what would have become of the section of the people who were cleaving to Warena?—We were all of the same request. Warena's side were asking to have the land returned to the tribe, and we were asking the same thing. 487. Were Warena's people asking to have the land held by Kemp for the Muaupoko, to be given to the Ngatipariri? —No ; I did not say that. 488. Do you expect that the whole of the tribe were satisfied with Kemp's action?— Yes; Kemp always said, " The land belongs to the tribe." Warena said, " I have no tribe; the land belongs to myself." 489. If they knew that Warena wished to stand alone, why did they not object to him being put into the title?—We did not discover till long afterwards that such were his intentions. 490. When did Warena say he was going to take the whole land for himself in his own name, and ignore the people ?—lt was at the time when the land was divided between Kemp and Warena. Kemp said, " The land is the tribe's." Warena said, " I have no tribe ; the land is my own." 491. Where did Warena say that?—l am certain he said it in Palmerston, in the Square; all the people heard him. 492. Do his subsequent actions show that his statement now is a correct one ? Did not Warena offer 3,500 acres to the people ?—Yes; afterwards, when he found he was in the wrong, he proposed to give 3,500 acres on the sandhills. 493. If I give evidence to show that he proposed not to give this on the sandhills, but to give a fair division of light land with sandy land, what will you say to that ?—I am speaking the exact truth —that all was sand that he proposed to give to the tribe. 13— G. 2.