G.—2a

16

land belonged to him, but Warena meant that it belonged to him and his people. It was because Warena contended that the law had given the land to him that Kemp went to law to ascertain what the law was, but Warena set apart a portion of the land for his hapu. Kemp did not follow his example. Ido not admit that Kemp was justified in going to the Supreme Court because the law had given the land to Warena, and Kemp contended that I and my brother had no right to the land. Kemp should have provided for his people out of his share of the land, instead of going to the Supreme Court and Parliament. The Supreme Court has held that Kemp and Warena were trustees in No. 11, and put the people back on the land, but Parliament has cancelled the decree of the Supreme Court. It is the function of this Court to decide whether Kemp and Warena were trustees. I say that Warena is not a trustee. He is the chief of the land and the people. In my opinion Kemp should be declared to be a trustee, because he has had so much of the land. The land is his, inasmuch as he is a chief. If he is a chief the people are his also. The real reason for Kemp going to the Supreme Court was because we beat him in the Court of 1890. It is because Kemp went to the Supreme Court and Parliament instead of arranging privately with Warena that I object to the amounts he has charged for legal costs and expenses. I object on behalf of Ngatipariri, whether they consent or not. They are wrong in consenting. The Ngatipariri were with Warena in previous cases, and Warena paid all the expenses. It is only lately they have gone to Kemp. I object on behalf of Himiona Kowhai, Warena, and Bihipeti. lam not authorised to speak for Bihipeti. I object also on behalf of Kingi Puihi. He has asked me to allow him to join my case. Pane Korana has authorised me to speak for her. I object on behalf of all those for whom Mr. McDonald appears for, as well as those Mr. Fraser represents. They were with me when the expenditure took place, although they have left me now. Ido not know why Ngatipariri have left me. I admit all the items charged to me in the account rendered by Kemp except the second £100 in Wellington. Kemp gave me £100 in Wellington at time of sale of township in 1887. Ido not remember his giving me another £100 at the Wellington Hotel in Wellington. Kemp gave me the money without my asking him. Ido not remember his giving me money just as we were leaving Wellington. Be-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : A rangatira is the chief of the land and the people. A trustee is, in my opinion, a guardian of the land and the tribe. Although the land was awarded to Kemp and Warena absolutely, they were still, as chiefs, under an obligation to provide for their people. The position of Kemp and Warena in No. 11 was the same as mine in No. 3. I had not to account to any one for anything I received from my 105 acres in No. 3. Kemp and Warena were not accountable to any one in No. 11. The land was theirs, but as it was a large area they could consider the people if they chose. To Court: I contend that No. 11 belonged to Kemp and Warena absolutely, but they could consider the people if they chose. That is what I meant by my replies to Mr. McDonald. I do not know why the Ngatipariri have left me. It may be because I have always claimed that No. 11 belongs to Warena and myself. [Horowhenua Commission, page 57, question 321 and reply, read.] I reaffirm that reply. The same terms would not apply to me if I kept to myself the benefits derivable from my 105 acres. Bihipeti Tamaki sworn. Witness : lam one of the 106 owners in Horowhenua No. 3. I have never had any of the rent or royalties from Horowhenua. I consider myself entitled to participate in them. Ido not think that my share of the rents of Horowhenua should be charged with any part of the costs incurred by Kemp, because we did not agree to his incurring the liability. The £100 paid to Bangimairehau should be charged to him personally. The same principle should be applied to all amounts paid to individuals. Ido not live at Horowhenua. I reside at Hamua with my husband. Ido not claim any of the moneys paid to Muaupoko direct before 1873. I claim a share of all rents paid direct to Muaupoko or to Kemp since the Court of 1873. Hamuera Karaitiana : No questions. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Sir W. Buller. Witness : I have never asked Kemp or any one else for money derived from Horowhenua. The Court adjourned till the 27th instant.

Levin, Tuesday, 27th Apeil, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. Inquiry re accounts resumed. Objectors' case continued. Mr. McDonald said he did not propose to call any more witnesses excepting on one point—viz., the moneys paid to Muaupoko at Horowhenua. He understood that Waata Muruahi could give some information on the matter. The Court reminded parties again that under section 4 of " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," it had the power to limit the interest of or wholly omit from any order made under the provisions of the Act the name of any person who, having been found to be a trustee, has, to the prejudice of the owners, assumed the position of an absolute owner in respect to any former sale or disposition of any portion or portions of the block. Kemp had been the sole administrator of the estate, and charges of misappropriations of the moneys derived from the land had been repeatedly made against him, in Parliament and out of Parliament. It was necessary, therefore, to inquire fully into the matter, and settle it once and for all.