G.-2

36

Q. The same question was put re the £3,000? — A. Yes. Witness : This was all before the deed of release was signed. [Horowhenua Commission, page 191, questions 234 to 236, read out.] That is right. I did not admit anybody's right to come in. That is my explanation of my replies to Mr. Baldwin's questions. I never admitted that any one could interfere with my Crown grant. My promise to lease Papaitonga to you before you left for England was a verbal promise. There was no consideration of any kind. It was Papaitonga Lake that I promised to lease to you. The land had not been allotted to me there at that, time. It is quite possible that if No. 14 had been confined to the east of the railway Sir Walter Buller may not have eared to have it. There was no area referred to in my promise to lease you Papaitonga. I did not write to you while you were in England in reference to my promise to lease Papaitonga to you. The meeting between Neville Nicholson, Taipua, Karanama, and myself took place in 1890, at a hotel in Palmerston. Nicholson and Eu Eeweti were quarrelling about their land. They had refused to exchange with me, and I put the matter into Taipua's hands to settle, as he was the rangatira of Ngatiraukawa. I made the offer to exchange to Eu Eeweti. Hare Pomare wanted me to give him a piece of land near the railway, but nothing came of it. This was also in 1890. [N.O. 90/1627 (letter signed by Kemp) read to him.] That is my letter. Mr. Stafford asked to be allowed to put a few questions to the witness with reference to the deed of release. The Court gave permission. Witness (to Mr. Stafford): I remember the deed of release. It was brought to me. Mr. Stafford reads from deed of release: "And whereas on the occasion of such division a portion of the said block containing 800 acres was by general consent of the owners, &c." Why was it necessary to put the 800 acres in the deed of release ? Sir W. Butter objected to question. The Court ruled that question could be put. Witness : I don't know why the 800 acres was put in the deed. Sir Walter Buller prepared the deed of release, and put the 800 acres in it. He considered it advisable to insert the condition about the 800 acres. He omitted No. 14, which there has been so much trouble about. I did not tell Sir Walter Buller about my debt to Sievewright. I did not know that there was anything wrong about the 800 acres. The tribe had given it to me. I don't know 7 why Sir Walter Buller put the condition about the 800 acres in the deed. I did not instruct him to put it in. I did not give him any instructions. After McDonald warned me about the moneys, I spoke to Sir Walter Buller. That is all I did, and he prepared the deed of release. The money referred to in the deed of release included the money for the township. Sir Walter Buller drew the deed as he thought fit. I simply accepted his advice. I was told proceedings were to be taken against me about all the Horowhenua moneys. That is why I went to Sir Walter Buller. Sir Walter Buller acted for me in preparing the deed of release. I was not present when the deed of release was signed. Don't know whether they had the advice of an independent solicitor. I did not pay the people anything to induce them to sign the deed of release. I repeat that I did not put any conditions in the deed of release. Sir Walter Buller made use of his knowledge to protect me. I had no knowledge, and did not give Sir Walter Buller any instructions. Mr. Stafford said the reason he had asked the witness these questions was that the Court had the power, under section 4 of the Horowhenua Block Act, to omit from any order the name of any person who, having been found to be a trustee, had, to the prejudice of the interests of the other owners, or any of them, assumed the position of an absolute owner in respect to any former sale or disposition of any portion or portions of the said block, or for any other sufficient reason. He explained that he had made reference to this section for the purpose of indicating to Sir Walter Buller that it was intended to go into the accounts, and he did not wish to take him by surprise. The Court stated that it had already pointed out to Sir Walter Buller that in defining the interests of the owners it might be necessary to take the question of accounts into consideration. Mr. Baldwin said it would be advisable for Sir Walter Buller to call evidence as to the accounts, because it would be contended by his side that Kemp had received large sums of money and appropriated them to his own use; and if this was not done they intended to call evidence in support of the contention, which Sir Walter Buller would not have the opportunity of rebutting. The Court stated that it had indicated at the outset of the case that Sir Walter Buller placed himself in a disadvantageous position by claiming the right to commence. Sir W. Buller asked leave to address the Court relative to the question raised by Mr. Stafford. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. of the 12th instant.

Friday, 12th March, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present : The same. No. 1, Horowhenua No. 14, resumed. Meiha Keepa asked to be allowed to reply to the threat made by one of the solicitors yesterday. The Court informed Kemp that there had been no threat made against him. It had been stated that he had put himself in such a position that it might be necessary, under section 4 of the Act, to inquire into the accounts, with the result that Kemp might be affected. Meiha Keepa expressed himself satisfied. Mr. Stafford stated that he had no intention to make any threats against any one. He had a duty to perform, and all that he had said was that he intended to do it.