interested in the land under negotiation has been sought or deemed necessary by either party. In the case of the Waitara purchase, the common tribes, which were represented by Teira and others, claimed the ownership and right of disposal of the land, were treated with after careful investigation of title. The sellers claimed both ownership and right of alienation. The former was admitted by William King; even the latter can hardly be said to have been questioned by him as a matter of right. As a Chief, his influence, to some extent, might control the decisions of any section of his tribe, on any question affecting the tribe; while speaking, the sentiments of his tribe, his word would be law; but beyond that personal influence to away the minds of the people, no right as Chief would be conceded to him, in respect of lands not belonging to his own hapu or family. It is said on behalf of William King that he asserted the tribal right, as distinguished from the mere proprietory one, which he admitted to least to the parties selling. His right to interfere was ignored by the parties interested, independently of whom it could have no existence. It is clear that William King was not asserting a right, but was merely endeavouring to carry a point. His language to Mr. Harris, on the occasion of the payment of the £100 to the sellers, is unmistakable. He does not say the does not consent, - but - ''I will not let them (the owners) sell it.'' When urged to state his reason for opposing, he says, - ''I do not wish the land to be disturbed,''; and ''if you do (give the pay) I will take the land, and cultivate it myself.'' The case was simply this, - William King was an influential Chief. He owned a portion of the Waitara district; but he wished