G.—2

70

Court in 1886. I don't remember hearing Hori te Pa and Charles Broughton speak at the Pipiriki meeting. I heard Ngataahi speak of the rerewaho block. I did not hear her refer to No. 14. The only person I heard speak about No. 14 was Waata Muruahi. I heard Mohi speak at the meeting, but not about No. 14. The discussion before the meeting resulted in it being decided that Kemp and Warena should be asked to give back No. 11, Ihaia Taueki to give back his piece, and Kemp to return No. 14. Waata Muruahi was selected to make the requests at the meeting. All Muaupoko who were at Pipiriki resolved on this course. It was before the meeting was called, and before the arrival of Kemp and others, that it was proposed to ask for the return of the lands. I have mentioned Waata Muruahi was nominated at the same time. Kuku, Hema, and others were present, and took part. It was the desire of Muaupoko that Waata Muruahi should make the requests. Eangimairehau may have made the first speech when Kemp arrived at Pipiriki meeting. I don't know how many others spoke before Waata Muruahi. I remember Eaniera speaking. Those who spoke did so on behalf of the tribe. I can't say whether it was towards the end of the meeting that Waata Muruahi spoke, but he said what I have stated. I am quite clear that the Ohau section was one of those Waata asked to be given back. I don't quite remember on what grounds Waata asked that this parcel should be given back, but it was the general opinion at the time that it should be given back. 1 did not hear Waata explain that as descendants of Whatanui had chosen No. 9 the Ohau section should be given back to the tribe. I was not surprised at the request, although I understood that No. 14 was for descendants of Whatanui. I did not hear any one say at the Pipiriki meeting that Kemp was still holding No. 14 for descendants of Whatanui; I heard that stated in Palmerston in 1886. I did not hear any one state at Pipiriki meeting that Kemp was a kai-tiaki in No. 14. We knew that he held it for descendants of Whatanui. I don't know why Waata Muruahi asked that No. 14 be returned. I don't know whether the registered owners of Horowhenua, who were in Wairarapa and elsewhere, knew of sitting of Court in 1886. They have never told me that they did not know of it. I was not present when Muaupoko were told that Nicholson and some of the other descendants of Whatanui wanted their land at Eaumatangi. I think I was down here, and when I returned to Palmerston I was told that it had been agreed that the land should be located at Eaumatangi in compliance with their desire. I heard nothing more about the Ohau section after Nicholson had refused it. From 1886 down to the present time I have never spoken to Kemp about his being a trustee in No. 14, because I did not know that the descendants of Whatanui had decided not to take it. I knew that descendants of Whatanui had chosen No. 9in 1895, because they were wrangling about it. It was in 1895 I first ascertained that the descendants of Whatanui had accepted No. 9. I did not speak to Kemp about No. 14 after that, because we were too much taken up with the dispute between Kemp and Warena over No. 11. For the same reason I did not speak to any of the Muaupoko about Kemp being a trustee in No. 14 until time of Commission. I heard that in 1894 the Supreme Court had given a judgment putting all the people back on No. 11. I heard that Warena Hunia appealed against the decision and that it was affirmed by the Appeal Court. All the disputes about Horowhenua were inquired into by the Eoyal Commission. I was not clear after decision of Supreme Court and Appeal Court that the people were definitely put back on to No. 11. I was not sure that the matter was ended. When I knew it was settled that the descendants of Whatanui were to have No. 9, then I thought the road was open for the people to get back No. 14, but I was not clear what steps it would be necessary to take. It is only now that I perceive a way to get back No. 14. Since the Act under which this Court is sitting was framed. It was stated before the Commission that No. 14 was held in trust and should come back to the tribe. It was from what was said before the Eoyal Commission that I began to cast about for means of getting No. 14 back. I can't remember when I first heard that you were in occupation of the Ohau section. I may have known it when I went to Wellington to give evidence before a parliamentary Committee in 1892. I have seen you frequently since then, down to the present time. Down to the time of the Eoyal Commission I never told you that the Ohau section belonged to Muaupoko and not to Kemp. I heard that Kemp had sold you some small portions of the section at Otomuri. I heard that you had paid Kemp £110 for two small pieces of it. I have never applied to you for part of the purchase-money or for a portion of the rents, but I am doing so now because the road is open to me. I heard that Kemp had sold the timber off part of the Ohau section to Peter Bartholomew for £300. I have never applied to Kemp for any part of the £300, because I did not know how to proceed. lam going to do so now. I did not think of applying to you or Kemp for any portions of these moneys, because I did not know of any road until the Horowhenua Block Act was passed, which gives us the means of compelling Kemp to account for all moneys. I did not tell Muaupoko that Kemp was a trustee in No. 14 because they all knew he held it for the descendants of Whatanui. I did not tell them so after I knew that the descendants of Whatanui had chosen No. 9. I have never applied to you for the rents or purchase-money for the Ohau section, because I did not know how to. For the same reason I did not apply to Bartholomew for a share of the purchase-money for the timber over the Ohau section, or the £500 paid as royalty for timber off what is now the State farm. I repeat that I have never told you that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I would never have applied to you and Kemp if this road had not been opened. Ec-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I said in my evidence before the Commission that it was our fault that No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena without conditions. When No. 11 was awarded to them the tribe did not tell them that they were to hold it as trustees. In some of the other divisions the questions of trust was made clear. They held No. 11 to do with it as they thought proper. I thought we had nothing more to do with the land in consequence of our having made no conditions. According to Maori custom the land was to be for them, and they could consider their people.