G.—2a

28

of the tribe. If the Court had told us that its order vested No. 11 in Kemp and Warena absolutely we would not have agreed to it. We were under the impression that the same law was in force as that which existed in 1874. Wieihana Hunia on former oath. Witness : I was present at the Court of 1886. I am aware that Kemp asked that this land— No. 6 —should be vested in him, but not for himself. It was intended for the Muaupoko who had been omitted from the title of 1873. All Muaupoko understand this. I was present in Court when No. 11 was awarded to Kemp and Warena. It was awarded to them for themselves only. Muaupoko agreed to this. They were in the Court, and none of them objected. The Court explained to Muaupoko that it was going to award No. 11 to Kemp and Warena for themselves alone. The theory of a trust is new. No one objected. No. 11 was and is in the constant occupation of Muaupoko, but so was No. 2, which has been sold. With the exception of a small area of No. 2, the houses and cultivations of Muaupoko have been on No. 11 from time immemorial. It is not usual for Maoris to give up their kaingas and cultivations to others who do not occupy them. No. 11 was not given to Kemp and Warena to protect from Te Whatanui and Ngatiraukawa. The action of my father removed the mana of Te Whatanui from the land, and so secured to the people their kaingas and mahingas .-on No. 11. I do not think that No. 11 was placed in the names of Kemp and Warena to hold in the same manner that Kemp had held the whole block since 1873. Mr. McDonald, who was Kemp's agent at the time, fully explained the law to the people. Kemp also understood the law. Judge Wilson's evidence before the Supreme Court in 1894 is, in my opinion, unreliable. He was speaking from memory only when he said that Kemp and Warena were put in as trustees. If Warena's name had not been put in No. 11 I would have applied for a rehearing of all the other parcels. I said this at the time. I was present in Court when an order was made in favour of Ihaia Taueki for No. 12. It was awarded to Ihaia Taueki for himself only. None of the Muaupoko objected. It was not agreed outside that Ihaia's name should be put in because he was honest and would not prejudice the rights of the people. It was first proposed to vest No. 12 in Kemp and Warena. Baniera objected to this, and suggested that it should be given to the tribe, as Kemp and Warena had No. 11. The Court told us to try and settle the matter outside. Next morning the Muaupoko met. Hoani Puihi told me that several people wished the land awarded to them. I stood up and said I would not agree to Muaupoko having the land, as it was mine." It belonged to me and my hapu, the Ngatipariri, only. Ihaia Taueki asked me for it, and I gave it to him for himself absolutely and entirely. Kemp expressed his approval of what I had done. When the Commission was sitting I told McDonald and Stevens not to put in a list of my people for No. 12, because I had given it to Ihaia. I consider my father recovered this land for the people by burning Te Whatanui's houses. To Hamuera Karaitiana: No. 6 was set apart for those of Muaupoko who were omitted from the original title, and for the children born before 1873. I think McDonald explained this at the time. A list of names was prepared, but Kemp did not put it into Court because some of the names were disputed. Ihaia Taueki has never occupied No. 12. He has always lived on No. 11. McDonald explained the law to Muaupoko in 1886. I did not tell them that all their kaingas and cultivations were going to Kemp and Warena. It was unnecessary, because they knew it. The Court told them. There was nothing said about a trust. I have not heard of any other tribes giving up their possessions to others. I knew what the effect of a subdivision of 1886 was, but I have not turned the people off the land. Their stock are running on Warena's land. To Henare te Apatari: Peeti te Aweawe assisted my father in protecting this land from Ngatiraukawa. To Mr. McDonald : I hope the Court will determine the interests of persons entitled to these three blocks, and locate them also. I acted for my brother Warena in 1886. It was never in my mind to turn any one off the land who had a right to it after Warena got a legal title to the land. I state positively that Kemp did not give No. 12 to Ihaia—l gave it to him. To Sir W. Buller : Neither Warena nor I ever intended to turn any one off No. 11. We could have done so by law. I was present when Warena gave evidence in the Court of 1891. [Vol. xiv., pages 95, 96, Warena's evidence, " Have Muaupoko, since 1886, asked you to return them their land," &c, down to "rights in this block," read.] I remember Warena giving that evidence. I approve it. Fraser was trying to lead him into a trap. Warena was wrong in saying that according to Maori custom the Ngatipariri had no right. I repeat that I gave No. 12 to Ihaia Taueki for himself. It belonged to me and my hapu (Ngatipariri) absolutely. If a chief made a present of land to another chief the gift was valid. If I had chosen to have given No. 11 to Ihaia Taueki I could have done so in the same manner that I did with No. 12. My gift would have been valid. I included No. 12 in my application so that it might be ascertained why the expenses of the Commission were charged against it. I do not ask to participate in No. 12. If the Court decides that is Ihaia's I will not complain. To Assessor ; A chief would not take advantage of his position as sole legal owner to defraud his people of their rights. The Court announced that sufficient evidence had been elicited on the question of trust in Nos. 6, 11, and 12. The Court adjourned till the 3rd May.

Levin, Monday, 3ed May, 1897. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Present: The same. HOEOWHENUA No. 11. The Court stated that it proposed to deal first with the question of relative interests in No. 11,