119

G.—2.

I. W. FISHES.

43. What for? — Embezzlement of funds. 44. What year was lie prosecuted? —That I could not say from memory—it would be later than 1900. It would be seven or eight years ago. 45. And was he convicted? —Yes. 46. What sentence did he receive? —1 am not sure —nine months or twelve months. 47. The Chairman.} One witness, John Clarke, says he did not get on the land till January, 1899, and yet his name is on the list. He says he did not receive any notice, but evidently he made a mistake?—l feel satisfied he was there in 1898. If he was not a lessee, how could his name be on the list? There are some names which 1 heard mentioned —for instance, Bests'. It is very probable in their cases they did not receive individual notices, but a joint notice. 48. Mr. Zachariah.] The consent was given for transfev of lease to Clarke on 27th October, 1898? —He was in possession when the notices were sent out. He would be in possession prior to the consent being given, no doubt. 49. The Chairman.] I understood him to say he was on the land some nine months before he got consent?—He was recognized as one of the lessees at date notices were posted. In Bests' case only a joint notice was sent to them. That would come about owing to the fact that for the separate leases held individually they had already refused to come in under the Act of 1892. That notice was for the section they had in their joint names. They had a section each and also a section between them jointly. The sections that they held individually I am not prepared to say they received notices of, but a notice was posted to them in regard to the section held jointly. Mr. Bell: May it please your Worships,—Before I go on to review what has taken place at this hearing, as the end of the hearing is in sight, I should like to make some remarks which I am quite certain will be indorsed by my friend. I should like to thank, you both, sirs, for the very great courtesy and consideration which you have shown to us. It has been a very difficult question to deal with, a long and trying hearing, and neither my friend nor I have failed to receive the utmost courtesy. Mr. Welsh: I have very much pleasure in joining most heartily with my friend in his remarks. I entirely concur and indorse all he has said. We have received nothing but the utmost courtesy and consideration during the hearing of this case. The Chairman: We should like to say what we have to say when you have finished. Mr. Bell: Before I finally reply I should like just to refer to one point in my opening. 1 have read the shorthand report of my opening since I delivered it, and there is one point which I hope I made quite clear, although lam not quite certain that I did. I was making the point that it must have occurred to any lessee who looked at the 1892 Act, section 8, as to converting an 1881 lease into an 1892 lease, that a lessee converting was to come in on the basis of £5 of improvements belonging to him. I did not mean that in the 1892 Act there was the £5 limitation, and that is just the distinction. The provisions as to ordinary 1892 leases did not mention the £5 at all, but when we come to section 8 we find that the Legislature had in mind the £5 limitation in the 1881 Act, so it said, If you come in under the 1892 Act you start on the basis of only £5 of improvements belonging to you. I asked Mr. Andrews if he noticed that, and he said Yes, he thought it was odd, but he did not make inquiries. Now, Ido not intend to deal again at any length with the lessees' case, but there is the question of the knowledge of the right to convert, to which I again desire to refer. It is not one of the questions upon which you are asked to report, but it is one of the arguments used in support of the lessees' present claim. I argued—and I do not propose to repeat the argument —that even if the lessees did not know in fact of their right to convert, that would not really support their argument that they ought now to have the right, because, as I said, it was in the nature of a gift or concession, and the Public Trustee was not bound to let them know, and even if he was bound to let them know and failed, still his failure should not be compensated for out of the Maoris' pockets. Now, your Worships have heard this morning Mr. Fisher's evidence with reference to the sending of those registered notices. My friend cross-examined Mr. Fisher, and discovered that those letters were sent, if they were sent, by a clerk who has since had to serve a sentence for embezzlement, and I anticipate that my friend will suggest that the clerk in this case embezzled the moneys which should have gone to pay for those registered letters. Your Worships will not forget that "at least one of the lessees admitted that he received a notice in TB9B, and if the clerk embezzled the money which ought to have been spent in sending those registered letters he would have embezzled the lot. You have now abundant evidence of further discussion of the leases every time the right to convert cropped up, and you have abundant evidence as to the knowledge of the £5 limitation for improvements. Mr. Fisher entirely indorsed the argument I used in my opening. The matter was generally known throughout the district, and it was discussed every time a meeting of the lessees was held. Mr. Fisher also indorsed a point I made in my opening when he said that those two Acts reviving the right to convert did not pass themselves, but were passed as the result of meetings and agitation on the part of the lessees. Your Worships will remember that, after I left the lessees' case and before I came to deal with my own case, I dealt with the Public Trustee's position in the matter. I have tried to indicate that we do not think the Public Trustee has done anything morally wrong except in the failure to properly realize his position. I suggest now, and I tried to suggest it in my opening, that the Public Trustee's administration has been without backbone; he has not realized the responsibility that was on him of safeguarding the Native interests whenever a question of this kind cropped up. Directly the question as to whether the 1892 Act was to be passed cropped up it was his duty to go into the whole matter and see whether it met with the approval of the Natives. The Chairman: You mean that you think he should have consulted the beneficiaries?