65

G.—2

did afterwards when he petitioned Parliament. Some of the Muaupoko were present. Lewis was also there, and advised me to give way on the question of the reserve. I don't remember what McDonald said about the boundaries, but he took part in the discussion. Ido not remember there being anything said about the land being sandy. Ohenga was spoken of. The seaward side of it is sandy. Kemp and I fixed the boundary of No. 9in the Courthouse. When we were discussing them we had a tracing of the block before us. Ido not know who prepared it, but Palmerson was the surveyor who laid off the subdivisions. I concluded that he made the tracing because he, Kemp and McDonald generally came into the Court together. The lines laid down by us are not on any of the plans before this Court. The boundary we fixed followed the bends of the Hokio Stream, 2 chains from it, until it reached Ohenga, where it turned to avoid Ohenga. The angle was an acute angle; from a point on the Hokio Stream it ran in a south-westerly direction to the eastward of Ohenga. This was the direction it took on the tracing we had before us at the meeting in the Courthouse. [Plan bearing Kemp's approval to alteration of boundaries of No. 14, produced to witness.] Those boundaries of No. 9do not correspond with the position of boundaries shown on the tracing used at the meeting. My consent was subject to the boundaries being laid down as we had agreed to them. It was not at my wish that the surveyor altered the boundaries of No. 9 on survey. Ido not know who has the tracing now that we used at the meeting. [Horowhenua Commission, page 163, question 142, read out.] I remember saying that to the Commission. I spoke at Mangakahia's Court first. The second time I spoke was about bringing the boundary to the Hokio Stream. I told the Court that there was a dispute about the boundaries. Kemp and Lewis informed the Court that the location of the parcel at Eaumatangi had been settled, and that the boundary towards the Hokio Stream was to be 2 chains from it. Then Kemp stated why he wanted the boundary 2 chains from the stream. After he had spoken I informed the Court that I had insisted upon the stream being the boundary, because the eel pas were in the stream. Lewis asked me to withdraw my objection, as the 2-chain reserve would be for all, and on this ground I withdrew my objection. It was after Judge Wilson had resumed his seat on the bench that this took place. That was the settlement of the matter, and was the giving of Eaumatangi to the descendants of Whatanui; but Kemp reopened the matter by objecting to our list of names. We have always been in occupation of Eaumatangi. I was in Kahui's Court when the 1,200 acres at Eaumatangi was awarded to Kemp for the descendants of Whatanui. I can swear that it was awarded to Kemp for that purpose. It was so stated in Court. The application to the Court was to award Eaumatangi to Kemp in fulfilment of the agreement between Kemp and Sir Donald McLean on behalf of the descendants of Whatanui. I had some talk with Wirihana about an exchange of the Eaumatangi and Ohau sections. This was at a considerably later period. The talk about Ohau going back to the people was immediately after the settlement of No. 9. I asked the question what would be done with the other section, and Wirihana replied that it would go back to the tribe. I said no more, as it did not concern me who the Ohau section went to. I did not understand at the time that it was to be kept as an alternative section, so that we might have it instead of Eaumatangi. It was after No. 11 was divided that Wirihana proposed to exchange sections. Eaumatangi is within the part awarded to Warena Hunia, and Wirihana said that if we would take Ohau it would save fencing. I declined, and asked Wirihana to give us the portion reserved between Eaumatangi section and the stream. He agreed, but asked me to wait until his troubles with Kemp were over. Wirihana was the only person who spoke of the exchange to me. I never heard any one of our party, either the direct descendants or the collateral descendants of Te Whatanui, say they would not have either Eaumatangi or Ohau. If any of them had said so I would have heard it. None of them have ever said that they would not accept Eaumatangi. Before the matter was settled Waretini said that he would like his share at Papaitonga. This was before the partition Court of 1886. I have never heard any of our party say that they had not made up their minds whether they would have Ohau or Eaumatangi. When I appeared in Mangakahia's Court I objected to our land being placed at Ohau. I don't think I could have asked to see the position, because I knew it. The tracing was on the agent's table. We had the same tracing when we had the meeting with Lewis in the Courthouse. It was much larger than W.D. 508. On consideration, I think it must have been a tracing taken from W.D. 508. The first time I saw the tracing was when it was brought into Mangakahia's Court. The Ohau section was shown on it as on W.D. 508. The Eaumatangi section was not on it when I first saw it, nor was it shown when we were discussing the boundaries. The railway, the township, and the Ohau section were shown on the tracing when I first saw it. Kemp laid down the boundary of No. 9on the tracing we had at the Courthouse meeting. lam not sure whether Palmerson was there or not. It was put on the tracing with lead pencil. I think it must have been either Kemp or McDonald who put it on. The Judge took his seat without our breaking up our meeting. The tracing was put before the Judge, and he made an order upon it. What I recollect most clearly was the 2 chains along the Hokio Stream. After the order was made the matter was settled, and we had no further claim on the Ohau section. I don't know who first proposed that we should have the Ohau section. If Kemp said he did I won't contradict him, because he told us it had been decided by him and his people. Kemp did not tell me on the way from Wanganui to Palmerston that it was intended to offer us the Ohau section. He told me at Palmerston before the Court sat, and I said that our elders would not agree, and wanted it at Eaumatangi. Lewis was present in Court when the order was made for No. 9. Ec-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness: The meeting in the Courthouse was after dinner. The application was made to the Judge for No. 9 directly the meeting was concluded. [Vol. 7, page 192, " Application from Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for 1,200 acres in his own name," &c, read, including description of boundaries.] That is not what Kemp and I agreed to. The agreement was that the line was to follow the bends of the stream. The minute does not represent what we said in Court. I wanted

9—G. 2.