77

G.—2

boundary on the Hokio side being mentioned in the Court in the morning. The meeting in the hotel was to discuss the Hokio boundary only. I believe the Ohau section, the township, and the railway were mentioned in the Court by McDonald that morning before w r e went to the hotel. I believe McDonald referred to the three blocks that had previously been dealt with by Mangakahia's Court. 1 believe that orders were made for the three sections before we met at the hotel. That is what I think. I was at the Court. I don't think McDonald made any application. I think he merely pointed out to the Court what had been done by the previous Court. I think the Judge asked McDonald to explain to the new Assessor what had been done by the previous Court. I don't know whether fresh orders were made or not for the sections dealt with by Mangakahia's Court. I think McDonald brought them before the Court in the following order : (1) Railway-line, (2) township, and (3) the 1,200 acres for the descendants of Whatanui. I cannot remember whether McDonald made any statement about the 1,200 acres on- that occasion. I think Mr. Lewis was there, and that he and McDonald talked about the 1,200 acres. I don't remember being present at a meeting between Muaupoko and the descendants of Whatanui in the Courthouse to discuss the boundaries of the Eaumatangi section. If Nicholson says there was such a meeting I will not contradict him. It is possible I may have attended the meeting. Ido not remember the Hokio boundary being discussed in the Courthouse. Lewis was not present at our meeting at the Royal Hotel. Kemp was. It was then settled that the boundary of No. 9 should not be within 2 chains of Hokio Stream. This was before we had dinner. Te Aohau was not present. It was a meeting of Muaupoko only. None of the descendants of Whatanui attended the meeting. The meeting decided that the boundary should start from a peg on the Eaumatangi 100 acres, and not to approach within 2 chains of the Hokio Stream at any point. I think this was what was resolved upon. I repeat that Ido not remember any meeting in the Courthouse about the Hokio Stream, but I will not deny that there was such a meeting. I may have forgotten about it. I think I went to the Court after the meeting I have spoken of. lam sure I went back to the Court after dinner. I think No. 9 was dealt with then. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 were dealt with in the morning of the first day of Kahui's Court. No. 9 was ordered in the afternoon. Ido not know whether anything was said about the Hokio Stream. I do not remember McDonald saying anything about it. He made the applications in Court. Ido not remember his saying what the block was for. I think there were other blocks dealt with after No. 9on that day. No. 10 and No. 11 were dealt with on the same day as No. 9. No. 12 was called on, but was not settled. Himiona Kowhai was mistaken if he said I asked to have my name put in No. 11. I heard the award made for No. 11 in favour of Kemp and my brother. It was not intended at that time that they should be trustees. It was for themselves absolutely. The question of trust was not raised until 1890. It was set up by Kemp for the purpose of injuring me. I gave No. 12 to Ihaia Taueki for himself alone, not as a trustee. It was mine. The whole of Horowhenua is mine, and I am the chief of Muaupoko. Kemp is not their Chief. I have the mana over the land. I said before the Royal Commission that I had given No. 12 to Ihaia Taueki, and that I did not want to claim any part of it. I think I said this in the Court of 1890, but am not sure. [Vol. 13, page 177 (Kemp's evidence), read : " No. 12 is in Ihaia Taueki's name. It was left to him because he was the chief of Muaupoko. I gave it to him to dispose of as he chose," &c] I may have heard Kemp say that. Ido not remember. lam glad that you have read it. It is not true. If I had been asked by my lawyer I would have said it was a false statement. I gave it to Ihaia Taueki myself in the presence of Muaupoko. I gave it to him for himself. If I had heard Kemp make the statement I would have told my lawyer to contradict him. I have contradicted many of his false statements. [Vol. 13, page 177 (Kemp's evidence) :"lam in No. 9. This was cut off for the Ngatiraukawa," &c] I have forgotten whether I heard Kemp say that. [Vol. 13, page 177 (Kemp's evidence) : " No. 14 is for descendants of Whatanui."] I said yesterday that I heard Kemp give that evidence, and that I understood he held the parcel under agreement in 1886. I now reaffirm it. I swear that I heard it. I cannot account for my not remembering Kemp saying, " I am in No. 9," &c. I forget some things and remember others. If we had not the books we would not remember anything. I may have been outside the Court when Kemp said, " No. 12 is in Ihaia Taueki's name," &c, and perhaps my lawyer did not tell me it had been said. I spoke the truth yesterday when I related what took place between Kemp and Kawana Hunia at the Court of 1873. It is true that it was arranged secretly in a tent to put Kemp's name in the certificate of 1873. The story I have told the Commission and this Court about what took place at the Court of 1873 is true. [Vol. 13, page 272 (Wirihana Hunia's evidence) : " Major Kemp was friendly with the Government at the Court of 1873, that is why his name was put in the certificate," &c.] That statement was given me by Donald Fraser. I told Donald Fraser that it would not be right. Fraser said he heard it from Kawana Hunia. We disputed about it, and I told him what I had heard as I stated it yesterday. He said it was wrong, and I accepted his statement because I knew he did Hunia's business. I went into the box and gave the evidence you read knowing it to be untrue. Sir W. Buller said, after the last reply given by the witness he did not consider it necessary to put any further questions to him. Re-examined by Mr. Stevens. Witness : The boundary of the 1,200 acres at Raumatangi was to start from a point on the 100-acre section, 2 chains from the Hokio Stream, and not to be nearer than 2 chains from the bends of the stream. Ido not know whether it was to be a straight line or to follow the bends of the river. It was done so that Te Aohau and party could not reach the river. The people hoped that if the descendants of Whatanui could not get the Hokio Stream they would choose the Ohau section. Another objection to their having the Raumatangi section was that it was in the middle of our land, and the fencing would be expensive, I do not know of any other reason. I have