173

G.—2a

arrived afterwards, and the Chairman asked me if I could identify the plan that was before the Court in 1886. My strong impression still is that the 1,200 acres at first extended across the railway to Waiwiri. . . . Nothing was said in the Court of 1886 to indicate that No. 9 had been accepted unanimously by the descendants of W T hatanui. I did not hear any such statement made. I would not have paid any attention to it if there had. Lewis was the only person there, who could accept it, and he did not do so. If Judge Wilson says that No. 9 was definitely accepted by the descendants of Whatanui, he says that which is not true. My story, I consider, is a wonderfully full and accurate one, considering the time that has elapsed. My memory has been refreshed by reading the minutes'. Wherever my letter to the Manawatu Farmer agrees with the minutes it may be taken as correct. Any part that does not coincide with the minutes is wrong. I wrote it entirely from memory. ... I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in Section No. 14. Evidence given before the Native Land Court in 1895 cited : " There was very great discussion about 1,200 acres in fulfilment of an agreement between Kemp and Sir Donald McLean. It was for the successors of Whatanui. Ngatiraukawa would not accept the 1,200 acres proposed to be given, and another 1,200 acres was given, and Kemp kept the first 1,200 acres." I do not think it possible that I could have used those identical words, but it appears to be how the minute is taken. (Same evidence in Judge Scannell's notes.) The division shown on tracing No. 1 would in the natural course of things be identical with the one applied for in Court if there was no objection to it It appears that I did not mention in the Supreme Court that alternative sections were set apart. ... I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I was never questioned about No. 14 on any occasion on which I gave evidence before 1896. I have told what I believe to be true in this Court; my being here as representative of a person who raises the question of trust has not influenced my evidence. I have never before been questioned specially as to the alternative allotment. I have given a general narrative. No such communication was made to Ngatiraukawa, so far as I know, about the alternative section. The Muaupoko understand clearly that the two sections were to be awarded to Kemp, and he was to convey to Ngatiraukawa whichever they chose. . . . The question of making the alternative section was finally decided during the, dinner-hour of the Ist December, it having been lengthily discussed during the previous five days. I merely had a suspicion in my mind that the Ngatiraukawa might go to Parliament. That is why I suggested to Kemp that another section should be set apart. No. 14 —namely, No. 3 —had been awarded before I made this suggestion. I never applied for it as an alternative allotment. When I applied for a confirmation of No. 14 on the 3rd December I was not aware that Ngatiraukawa had any objection to it. I knew that some of the persons who said they were descendants of Whatanui had made an objection. I did not know that the descendants of Te Whatanui collectively had objected. Under examination by Sir W. Buller the witness stated :No suspicion arose in my mind as to Ngatiraukawa going to Parliament before the 25th November. I cannot say exactly when the suspicion arose in my mind, but the first point was given to it by Nicholson's objection in Court. Then the further information that the agreement had the words " near the Horowhenua Lake " further intensified my suspicion, and I considered it advisable to recommend Muaupoko to lay off the other section. By the other section I mean the Baumatangi section. The Muaupoko agreed to my suggestion. I used the word "confirm" before the Commission in the sense that the voluntary arrangements required confirmation. Mr. Lewis declined to make a choice of the sections, although I urged him to do so. I still adhere to my statement that Mr. Lewis refused in express terms to me to select either section. I am not prepared to contradict Judge Wilson as to what Mr. Lewis said to him. It was finally determined to provide a second section because he (Lewis) would not make a choice I swear that I made the application on the afternoon of the Ist December. I had not then been made aware of the terms of the agreement of 1874. I understood that there had been some objection to the section at Ohau. I was aware at the time of the purport of the agreement. I assume that I became aware of it on the morning of the Ist December. ... If Judge Wilson says that Kemp made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December I must differ from him. My memory was not so definite in 1890 on material grounds as it is now since I have perused the minutes and my memory has been refreshed. When I applied for what is now No. 14, on the 3rd December, I indicated that I wanted confirmation of the order made for it on the 25th November. I cannot remember what the number of it was on that date. It was still No. 3, as far as I know, on the 3rd December. It was the section that was No. 3on the 25th November. No part of the list referring to No. 14 is in my handwriting. I admit that it appears to have been handed in by Kemp on the 3rd December. I believe it was the first put into the Court on the 25th November. When I applied for confirmation of the order for Ohau section on the 3rd December I did not tell the Court I had seen the agreement. I repeat that I made the application for the Ohau section on my own responsibility, very likely without consulting Kemp. I consider that I had authority to do it, and I supposed it was necessary to have the former order confirmed I do not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I have never during the period told any member of Ngatiraukawa that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. Until a few days before the Commission I never mentioned to you that I regarded Kemp as a trustee for No. 14, although I knew you were in occupation of the land, or part of it. . . .1 do not remember any special occasion on which I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat, but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time that I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I cannot remember the time, but I feel sure that I must have done so, or Mr. Fraser would not have known