Q.—2&

26

only; I forget. My wife, Nepia te Tauri, Bipeka, and others were present when I paid Wirihana this £100. I paid him in notes. I did not take a receipt, not being in the habit of doing so. I think it was in 1887 I gave Wirihana the second £100. It was the year that Ngapuhi brought their treaty to Parliament. Wirihana lived at the Wellington Hotel. I was in lodgings. At the end of the session of that year I gave Wirihana £100, in two £50 notes, to pay his debts with. He said he was heavily in debt. lam sure this was distinct from the £100 paid in the Bank Hotel. I paid Court fees in 1886, but I forget the amount. I believe the supplementary account put in by you to be correct. I paid Palmerson and Scott £17 175., as per receipt put in. I paid £16 3s. 6d. valuation fees, not £12 125., as I said before. I ask Court to give me credit for these amounts. I also ask the Court to give me credit for £4 10s. paid to Davies for clearing fencing-line along the boundary between Horowhenua and his property. I am sure that I have made many other payments on behalf of the tribe during the last twenty-three years that I have forgotten. The statement of my expenditure as shown in the account is an under-estimate. Cross-examined by Hamuera Karaitiana. Witness: Some part of the £1,000 I sent to Makere was returned to me. I cannot, remember how much: perhaps £100, or more. The £1,000 was given to the tribe, and they, of their own free-will, returned me some of it as their chief. I paid Wirihana the £100 at the Bank Hotel to relieve him of his debts. He said he was in danger of arrest. Henare te Apatari : No questions. Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Witness : I do not know whether the four hapus returned me the money or whether some only of the hapus did so. It was the custom for all the hapus to contribute to the presents of money and food sent to me. Sir W. Buller stated that his case regarding the accounts was closed. Case closed. Hoeowhenua Nos. 6, 11, and 12. The Court said that, as Kemp was present, it proposed to take his evidence as to the existence of a trust in Nos. 6, 11, and 12. There had been a good deal of evidence given before former Courts that could be put in, in addition to the oral evidence that would be given now, in support of the contention that there was a trust. There were several applications before the Court to have a trust declared in these blocks. In order to save recalling witnesses it would be best to take that of Te Baraku Hunia. Mr. J. M. Fraser suggested that it would shorten the case if Mr. McDonald would admit the trust. Mr. McDonald said he admitted the trust in No. 6 and a moral obligation in No. 11, but he denied that there was any trust in No. 12, which he contended was given to Ihaia Taueki for himself. Application by Raraku Hunia. (No. 13, O. 78-55.) Sir W. Buller put in all the evidence in support of a trust given before the Native Land Court in 1890; Behearing Court in 1891; Supreme Court, Wanganui, in 1894; and before the Horowhenua Court in 1886. Mr. McDonald asked permission to put in any evidence that had a direct bearing on the case, either against a trust being declared or indicating the nature of a trust if it existed. Permission granted. J. M. Feasee on former oath. Witness: lam aware that certificates of titles under the Land Transfer Act have issued for Horowhenua Nos. 6, 11, and 12 [No. 11, vol. 29a, folio 130]. I have seen the titles for Nos. 6 '■and 12. I produce a declaration of trust by Kemp in No. 11 Block. It was signed by Major Kemp in my presence, and on the 31st March, 1890, was, in my presence, tendered to the Court at Palmerston by Mr. Baker. Mr. Barnicoat objected to the Court receiving the declaration. The Court declined to receive it, and stated this land is not held in trust for a tribe or hapu (vide vol. 13, page 268). The declaration of trust came back to my hands on the 31st March, 1890, and has remained in my hands ever since. I have searched the titles for Nos. 6, 11, and 12. There is nothing on the face of the titles to indicate a trust. There were no caveats when I searched the titles, nor any declarations of trust under Land Transfer Act. To Mr. McDonald: I first came into the Horowhenua No. 11 case on the sth March, 1890. The records of the Court show that question of trust had been brought before it before the sth March (vide vol. 13, page 85 :"It is said this land is subject to a trust," &c). I think the Court opened at Palmerston in January, 1890. With the exception of considerable adjournments it sat continuously till I was engaged in the case. Keepa te Bangihiwinui on former oath. Witness : I remember applying to Court in 1886 to set apart No. 6in my own name. The Court made an order in my favour. A certificate of title has issued to me. I hold the land for the people of my tribe who were omitted from the original certificate of Horowhenua, who I consider I should select. Ido not claim any part of No. 6 for myself, but I consider that I should select the persons to be put in the title. The title to No. 11 has been issued to Warena Hunia and myself. I hold No. 11 as trustee for the tribe. The land is theirs and mine. I have a right to share in it. I hope the Court will remain here until it has put the people on the land. A certificate of title has issued in favour of Ihaia Taueki for No. 12. He was put in as trustee. He will