5

I.—3a

and had gone to an enormous amount of expense over the matter, and, if I may be permitted to say so, the benefit he got under the award was not a penny more than he was entitled to. There were two others admitted as entitled in Woodville whom I could not see my way to oppose successfully. The Kaihinu Block was investigated in 1871. We had the minute-book of the case and a list of the grantees of the block, and in some cases there was only one member of a family included. For instance,, Ihaia Whakamairu, of Masterton, was included, and his full sister left out. We all agreed should be admitted. For some reason only one of Erini's brothers was included, and the others conceded that my client should get three shares in favour of the one family instead of one. We adjusted the thing on a fair and just basis, and Ido not think we could have got a better adjustment. As I said, no one got really all he wanted, but in these cases they never do. The Chairman: I understand that Mr. Fraser, a member of this Committee, who is connected with this case, is not prepared to make a statement himself, but is quite prepared to give evidence before this Committee as a witness if called upon. 4:. Mr. W4 Feie.] Do you know the area of the land which forms the subject of the case which Nireaha Tamaki went Home about? —I cannot recollect it at this moment, and I have not got v single paper connected with the case with me. We were not dealing with acres, but were dividing a sum of money among the Natives awarded by an Act of Parliament. 5. You did not hear that it was 5,000 acres in area?-—lt may have been. I know it was a substantial area, but I could not say whether it was 5,000 or 7,000 acres. I believe they claimed about 5,000 acres. 6. Of course, you know there was no other 5,000-acre block which formed the subject of the case taken Home to England at that time ?—We were not concerned with any area, but with a sum of money. 7. I want to explain to you that this money was not satisfactory, and that it was a claim for 10,000, not 5,000 acres?— That may be so; Ido not know. 8. My reason for asking the question is this: It has been stated that it was through the act of Nireaha that proceedings were taken. He had the money,, and this case came before the Court; and, further, I would like to explain that in regard to the 5,000 acres, there was never a case brought forward. It was 1 personally who obtained the condition of the 5,000 acres which was the subject of the case taken Home. 1 discovered that. My reason for referring to this is because one of the reasons advanced why Hare Rakena should not be included in the land was that he had contributed no part of the cost of taking the case Home?— That was not the reason for throwing Hare Eakena's case out. There were others who had not contributed, but who were admitted to a share as their rights. 9. Was Hare Rakena's name left in ?—The arrangement had been made among these people themselves —that the children of one mother should confine their claims to one side of the Tararua Range, and the children of the other one to the other side of the range. Te Aweawe was the father of these children. 10. Was it stated in Court that an arrangement had been made ?—Yes. I cross-examined Hare Rakena on the question, and after the cross-examination we were not called upon to adduce further evidence. 11. Am I to understand that the land which Hare Rakena's people had a right to was outside the Kaihinu Block?— Those were my instructions, that Hare Rakena, by his arrangement with his family in regard to the succession, would not come in to the Kaihinu Block. I have explained that Te Aweawe made an arrangement that the children of one mother should make no claim for succession on one side of the range, and the descendants of the other mother should make no claim for succession on the other side of the range. 12. Was this arrangement made outside, or was it publicly made in the Court? —It had been made long before; I cannot tell you when. Those were my instructions. I am told that that arrangement has been consistently acted upon by the family. 13. Who instructed you that that was the arrangement?—Rewanui. 14. Rewanui Apatan : Did you correctly state at the Court at Woodville that Te Aweawe had the right to the land?—l can say that you told me so, and the cross-examination of Hare Rakena proceeded on that assumption. 15. Supposing we get the records of the Court, and find that it was stated in Court that Tarake had a right to the land I —l am not prepared to say that is not so. lam only stating my recollection. The minutes of the Court will show. Ido not know who Tarake was. I have no recollection of the name. 16. I want a direct reply. If these books are referred to, and you say that it was what I say, that Tarake was right, what would you say to that? —My recollection is that the arrangement was as to the children of the different mothers. My cross-examination of Hare Rakena proceeded on that assumption. 17. lam not satisfied with your reply to my question ?—Who was Tarake? I cannot carry the genealogy of the Natives in my head. The minutes of the Court will show. 18. Did I personally come and acknowledge you as appearing for me in the Court?— You personally instructed me. In every step I took you instructed me. and we consulted together as to every step I did take. 19. I want to know if I was actually interviewed, and whether I ever came to Wellington on any occasion to ask you to act as my lawyer?—l have not said so. Mr. Moffatt, your nephew, instructed me on your behalf, and on your mother's and sister's behalf. 20. Did I understand you to say just now that you had been five days in Palmerston ?—I did not say so. I got to Woodville on Tuesday morning, leaving town on the previous day, and stopping at Palmerston that night. 21. Do you say that I never at any time came to you and objected to the arrangement on