Or.— 2

50

Mr. McDonald urged that if the adjournment was granted it might be possible to shorten the case materially. The Court had no objection to grant an adjournment till to-morrow morning, if necessary. Meantime Messrs. McDonald, Baldwin, and Stafford might discuss the advisableness of amalgamating their cases. It did not consider it necessary to hear legal argument at present. Mr. Stafford hoped the Court would not rule that it could not hear counsel on the law and facts as they stand, contending that Sir Walter Buller bad not proved his case. The Court stated that counsel would have an opportunity to refer to the law and facts alluded to in their opening address, but it did not seem necessary to hear argument in support of these points until after evidence for the defence had been adduced. The proposal to close the case without calling evidence appeared to be premature, and was entirely at variance with the attitude taken up by Kemp's opponents on the Court announcing shortly before Judge Wilson's examination was closed that it might be unnecessary to proceed further with the case until certain legal and technical points had been decided by the Supreme Court. On that occasion it had been pointed out that it would probably prove very inconvenient if the case was interrupted at that stage, especially should it be found necessary to take further evidence on receiving the decision of the Supreme Court that a trust did exist in respect of Section 14. It was further urged, in support of the contention, that the Court could not then come to a satisfactory decision in the matter if it only heard part of the evidence, as it would not be in full possession of both sides of the case. The position had not been altered in any way since that opinion had been expressed to render it unnecessary now to adhere to the course then approved of. The Court adjourned till the 18th March.

Thursday, 18th March, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. No. 1, Horowhenua No. 14, resumed. Hoani Puihi said Sir Walter Buller was acting for Kemp, McDonald for Himiona, Stevens for Wirihana Hunia, Mr. Stafford was assisting Mr. Stevens, Mr. Baldwin was acting for the Crown. Eihipeti and Te Paki were also represented by conductors, whereas the tribe were not up to the present time represented at all. They wished Mr. J. M. Fraser to act for them, and had chosen him to act for them. The Court told Hoani Puihi to say more definitely who he spoke for. Many of those in the body of the Court, in reply to Hoani Puihi, assented to what he had said. The Court read out the retainer to Mr. Fraser, and said that, as the people were present, it considered it expedient to ascertain whether they all consented. Mr. Stafford wished to know whether it was necessary to do so now. The Court said it might have something to do with Mr. Fraser's request yesterday to be allowed till to-day to decide whether he would set up a case. Mr. Fraser stated that on meeting his clients last evening they had expressed the strongest desire to be represented, and asked to be allowed to do so. The Court said, if Mr. Fraser's case was identical with Sir Walter Buller's, there did not appear to be any necessity for his setting up a case. Mr. Fraser said there was no doubt Sir Walter Buller's case and his were practically the same. His case was based on an agreement. The receiver under the agreement had been before the Court, and he submitted that the givers had a right to be heard. The Court said they undoubtedly had if they set up a case. Mr. Fraser said, in order that the tribe might be satisfied, he would ask permission to set up a case which would be similar to Sir Walter Buller's, except that it was for the giver instead of the receiver. The Court would remember that Sir Walter Buller's side had been charged with conspiracy. Evidence might be led in that direction, and the people would be at a disadvantage. His case would be of the shortest possible duration. Mr. Stafford contended the matter had not changed. They alleged that there was no trust, and it was for them to prove it. There was no precedent for allowing Mr. Fraser to set up a case. He had admitted that his case was identical with Sir Walter Buller's. The Court, he submitted, had no power to allow Fraser to set up a case. His side had not charged Sir Walter Buller's clients with conspiracy, but merely with irregularities. Mr. Beddard reminded Mr. Stafford that he had said that all the owners should be represented. Mr. Stafford said he had meant that they should be represented if the Court decided that there was a trust. The Court said, if Mr. Fraser's case was identical with that of Sir Walter Buller's he would not have the right to cross-examine. In order to do so he must put himself in a proper position. Mr. Fraser said he intended to set up a case, as the giver was entitled to be heard. The Court asked why Sir Walter Buller had not called other witnesses. He could have done so if he had considered it necessary. The whole question was whether it was likely to serve any purpose if Mr. Fraser opened a case. Mr. Fraser said his evidence would confirm that brought by Sir Walter Buller. The Court asked Mr. Fraser if he did not consider Sir Walter Buller's evidence sufficiently full on the question of voluntary arrangement. Mr. Fraser said he did, but his clients asked that they should have the privilege of crossexamining witnesses who said that there was no arrangement.