49

G.—2

the hills. I don't know whether the meeting which gave No. 14 to Kemp was before or during Kahui's Court. No. 14 was given to Kemp after the order was made for the 1,200 acres at Eaumatangi. I say again that only Muaupoko tuturu were present at the meeting which gave No. 14 to Kemp. All the resident Muaupoko were present except those at Parihaka, and they gave their consent when they returned. All the successors of the deceased owners were present. I mean the Muaupoko proper. I am certain that the persons I say were present at the meeting of 1886 were present. Cross-examined by Henare Apatari. Witness: The Muaupoko proper gave the 1,200 acres to the descendants of Whatanui. The same people gave Kemp the land at Ohau for himself. All agreed when they remained silent, including Wirihana Hunia ;no one dissented. The people unanimously consented in the Court, and said that no one objected when the Court called for objectors. I think it was in the Court that Te Kiri gave her consent in words. She assented with the others in the barn. To Mr. McDonald : You were present at the meeting which gave the Ohau section to Kemp. I saw you there myself. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness : All the persons of Muaupoko proper that I have named were present when the land at Ohau was first discussed. It was proposed that Kemp should hold it as trustee. All Muaupoko consented. It was shown to the Court. The matter was brought before the Court. That is all I know of the arrangement. The parcel at Eaumatangi was also brought before the Court. The first piece brought before the Court was refused, and on that account it became necessary to take the other parcel into Court. Sir W. Buller did not wish to re-examine, and stated that Kemp's case was closed. He could call many more witnesses, but would not take up the time of the Court by doing so. He undertook to tender any witness the Court might require, and stated that, if after he had heard witnesses for the other parties he considered it necessary, he would ask the Court to allow him to call rebutting evidence. The Court asked Mr. Stafford if he was ready to go on. Mr. Stafford said Mr. Stevens was absent, and asked the Court to adjourn till to-morrow. He was taken by surprise, as he had no idea that Sir Walter Buller would close his case to-day. He asked the Court to intimate what the legal questions were that it intended to refer to the Supreme Court. The Court said that it did not intend to disclose them until the conclusion of the case. Mr. Stafford said he intended to submit certain questions of law and fact which would show that Sir Walter Buller's case was bad. If the Court consented to hear argument on legal points it might come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to proceed further. Sir W. Buller hoped the Court would adhere to its former determination —that the case should proceed to a conclusion. Mr. McDonald supported Mr. Stafford's application for adjournment, on the ground that it might result in the amalgamation of some, if not all, of the counter-claimants' cases. He would like an adjournment till 2 p.m. to-morrow. Sir W. Buller opposed any adjournment beyond 10 a.m. to-morrow. Mr. Baldwin said there were several points of importance to be considered by the Court. If these points were not to go to the Supreme Court they must be argued before this Court. If counsel were made aware of the points that were going to the Supreme Court their arguments might be unnecessary and time might be saved. Mr. Stafford considered Mr. Fraser was in an anomalous position. His clients had no interest in the case, and he should not be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Although nominally reprepresenting some of the Muaupoko, who supported Kemp, he was really acting for Kemp. The Muaupoko should be represented by independent counsel. The Court said it understood that Mr. Fraser represented a certain number of the Muaupoko who consented to a certificate being granted to Kemp. Mr. J. M. Fraser repeated that he was not acting for Kemp, and that he had nothing to do with him. He represented an independent body of Muaupoko, who said that by voluntary arrangement No. 14 was allotted to Kemp for himself. The Court said there was a good deal in Mr. Stafford's contention that Mr. Fraser was placed in an anomalous position by only nominally representing certain persons without opening a case or calling evidence, and the question arose whether, although the Court had complied with his application to be allowed to cross-examine, before the matter had been fully discussed that it would be justifiable under the circumstances to allow him to do so. Mr. Fraser stated that if this was the view the Court held he would not press the matter, but would like till to-morrow morning to consider whether he would open a case or not. Sir W. Buller pointed out that it was rather unfair to him that objection was taken to Mr. Fraser being allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on the other side. The Court pointed out that Sir Walter Buller's witnesses would have been subjected to being three times cross-examined irrespective of whether Mr. Fraser had received permission to crossexamine the witnesses for the defence or not. Mr. Beddard said if the counter-claimants had issues of law'to show that Sir Walter Buller's case was bad, then the whole partition of 1886 must be bad, and the whole of the Muaupoko would have a proprietary interest. The Court stated that it did not mean the whole partition was bad, but only the portions the titles to which were suspended by the Act. The Court suggested that McDonald might go on with his case.

7—G. 2.