NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 345/1920, RELATIVE TO OWNERSHIP OF LOT 39, PARISH OF MATATA.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1922 Session I, G-06b

Gr. —6b.

1922. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 345/1920, RELATIVE TO OWNERSHIP OF LOT 39, PARISH OF MATATA.

Presented to Parliament m pursuance of Section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22.

Native Department, Wellington, 11th July, 1922. Re Malala 39a. —Petition 345 of 1920. Enclosed herewith I forward, pursuant to section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22, the report of the Native Land Court herein. It is clear that this land is not within the jurisdiction of the Court under Part Vof the Native Land Act, 1909, and there is at present no machinery applicable to ascertaining whether or not the land was originally intended to be held upon trust. A prima facie case for inquiry has been established, and I recommend that special legislation is necessary for the purpose. I would suggest that legislation should take the form of authorizing the Court to inquire and determine if the land comprised in a Crown grant dated the 25th September, 1878, and known as Allotment 39 of the Parish of Matata, in the Rotorua Survey District, and containing 13,675 acres, was either at or before the time of being so granted intended by the Crown, or the Confiscation Commissioners, or by the nominal owners thereof or any of them, to be held by the nominal owners in trust for persons not named in the title to such land, and to determine who, if any, are the persons entitled beneficially to so much of such land as has not been alienated, or exchanged, to the Crown, and the relative interests of all persons so entitled ; with power to the Court to order the inclusion in the title of the persons so found entitled, together with the nominal owners, and, if necessary or expedient, to cancel any partition or other order, and to repartition the land known as Allotment 39a among the persons so found entitled, and for the purpose aforesaid to order the cancellation or amendment of any existing instrument of title as may be necessary. No order made as aforesaid to invalidate any alienation heretofore made in respect of the above land or any part thereof, but all rights to which the nominal owners are entitled by contract or otherwise to pass to and enure for the benefit of the persons so found to be entitled. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge. The Hon. Native Minister.

Gh—6b

2

In the Native Land Court, Waiariki District. —In the matter of Matata, Section 39; and in the matter of section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22. Report of Native Land Court herein. To the Chief Judge, Native Land Court, Wellington. An inquiry was duly held by the Court into this matter (Petition 345 of 1920, of Haki Tamati) at Whakatane on the 13th April, 1922, and I desire to report as follows :— 1. Matata, Section 39, contained an area of 13,675 acres, and was the .subject of a Crown grant (under the New Zealand Settlement Act, 1863, and the New Zealand Settlement Amendment and Continuance Act, 1865) bearing date the 25th September, 1878, in favour of (1) Hohepa Rokoroko, (2) Tomeniko te Otene, (3) Anania tc Otene, (4) Karaitiana Kahuwhero, (5) Harata Paraone, (6) Hirini, (7) Paora, (8) Raimona Petera, (9) Whakarau Petera, and (10) Rangitukehu, their heirs and assigns for ever, as from, the 2nd January, 1868. At the inquiry before me it appeared to be common ground that the land was confiscated because the owners were thought to be disloyal, and that when their loyalty was established it was given back to the ancestral owners. Whakarau Petera, who opposes the petition, admitted in his evidence that after the confiscation the land was returned to the ancestral owners. The whole question is, For whom was the land returned ? I have not been able to trace the minutes of the Compensation Court upon whose award the grant was issued, and I believe they were lost some years ago when the Government offices at Tauranga were burned. That Court consisted of Major Mair and Mr. Wilson as Commissioners, and Captain Gilbert Mair and Mr. H. T. Clarke were also present. After the grant the Crown obtained a conveyance from five of the grantees, and on the 23rd June, 1883, an application was before the Native Land Court to have the Crown interest defined. Captain Mair appeared for the Crown, and he was opposed by some of the non-sellers. (See Maketu Minute-book No. 5, pages 371-78. Copy minutes attached.) The following are important extracts from the evidence then given : — 1. Raimona Petera (a non-selling grantee), at page 372 : "I oppose any further surrender, as the hapus occupying the land refuse to alienate it. This was one of the first blocks dealt with by the Compensation Court. The ten persons named in the grant were really trustees ; they were nominated by those interested in the land." 2. Hataraka Patutohora (successor to Karaitiana Kahuwhero (a non-selling grantee), at page 374-: " I consider that 5,000 acres would be a fair allowance to the Government, leaving 5,000 acres to us five who had not sold, and the balance —3,675 acres —to the hapus (i.e., to those interested, but not named)." 3. Paora Patu (not Paora the grantee, and apparently not an owner), at page 375 : " I remember the first hearing of this case at Matata before Major Mair and Mr. Wilson as Commissioners ; Captain Mair and Mr. H. T. Clarke were also present. This was confiscated land. These parcels were returned by the Crown to the chiefs and their people— Rokoroko, Taminiko and others ; 1 was not included. . . Ido not think that the sellers ought to have done so without the consent of their co-grantees, and without a judicial subdivision of the block." The Court apparently considered that the wording of the habendum of the Crown grant excluded the possibility of a trust, (see page 373), and the Crown was awarded one-half of the block— viz., 6,837 acres 2 roods. The remaining half of the block (viz., 6,837-| acres) was, by order dated the 25th June, 1883, awarded to the following five non-selling grantees —(!) Raimona Petera, (2) Karaitiana Kahuwhero, (3) Paora, (4) Whakarau Petera, and (5) Anania te Otene—and called Matata 39a. At Whakatane on the Ist September, 1905 (Judge, Captain Gilbert Mair) an application was made to define relative interests in Block 39a, but it was adjourned, at the request of all parties, to see if it were possible to add to the title names of owners who had been left out. (Copy minutes attached from Whakatane Minute-book No. 8, page 337.) As I could not get the evidence of Captain Gilbert Mair, I deemed it advisable to write to him on this subject, as he took part in the war, and was present at the Compensation Court, and on other proceedings in Court concerning the land in question. A copy of his reply is attached hereto, and it shows that the grantees held the land for themselves and others by their respective sub-hapus. It may be, as Captain Mair mentions, that the large area of Matata 39 (viz., 13,675 acres) was given because of the unswerving loyalty of the grantees, whilst many of their hapus joined in the rebellion ; but that will be a matter for whatever tribunal is set up (should the title be reopened) to consider in allocating shares. At the inquiry before me, Haki Tamati, the petitioner, said that the title to the portion awarded to the Crown would not be attacked, so we are now only concerned with Matata 39a. This block has been subdivided, as a perusal of the Court file, 256 B.P. (enclosed herewith), will show. There are no confirmed alienations, but there is before the Board at present a resolution under Part XVIII of the Native Land Act, 1909, to lease Matata 39a No. 2e to Brian Chaytor and others. Further consideration has been postponed under Petition 348/1909 in order that the shares of dissentient owners may be cut out, and I have now, as President of the Board, directed that further consideration of the resolution is to be held over until the result of this petition to Parliament is known.

3

G.—6b

, From all the evidence placed before me, and which I have been able to find, I consider the petitioner has set up a strong case for the reopening of the title, and I suggest, that if special legislation for this purpose is introduced it should be upon the lines of section 104 of the Native Land Act, 1909, so that the tribunal should determine finally —(1) Whether the five owners named in the order of the 25th June, 1883, for Matata 39a were actually trustees for persons not named therein ; and, if so, (2) to determine who are the persons entitled beneficially to the said land, and their relative shares, &c Any legislation should be confined to Section 39a, as the title to the land bought by the Crown is not being attacked. Dated at Whakatane, this 27th day of April, 1922. H. F. Ayson, Judge. Extract from Whakatane Minute-book No. 20, Page 237. (13th April, 1922.) Matata, Lot 39. —Inquiry pursuant to Section 35 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1921-22, upon Petition 345 of 1920, of Haki Tamati. Haki Karawana (or Tamati): J. would like a short adjournment to explain to the persons present the nature of my case. (Court adjourned for an hour.) On resuming— Haki Karawana (or Tamati) : We held meeting and I explained position, and that in old day only ten were usually put in grant. Whakarau Petera still opposes, also Rangi Whakahaerea. I will now proceed with my case. I submit that grantees are trustees for their tribes ; they are also owners. They were put in grant as the leaders. Other rangatiras entitled, but left out, as grant limited to ten. Ido not intend to attack the part acquired by Crown—39b. I deal only with 39a (Native portion). Total area, 13,675 acres ; Crown acquired 6,837 acres 2 roods ; Natives' balance, 6,837 acres 2 roods. (Called 39a.) I refer to Maketu Minute-book No. 5, at page 371. Evidence of Captain Mair on partition order on page 378. Evidence of Raimona Petera (pages 372,373) that grantees were trustees.; also Hataraka Patutohora (at page 373). Raimona Petera is elder brother of Whakarau Petera. This was confiscated land : see page 375, evidence of Paora Petera (not grantee). Paora Petera is grandfather of Rangi Whakahaerea (admitted). He admits trust. This land was returned to the Natives because of their loyalty to the Queen. Some were officers, &c Persons in grant are owners, but there are others left out because grant limited to ten. Hapus agreed on these representatives. They represent certain hapus of N'Tuwharetoa, who remained here when the others went to Taupo. Tuwharetoa himself died on this block. His descendents went to Taupo. Buried in a cave named Te Atua Reretahi. Our people were on land before confiscation, and Crown thought they were disloyal. On finding out mistake Crown returned the land. The grantees and others were officers in the Queen's Army. About 1864—Te Kooti's rebellion. In 1916 block partitioned -30th June, 1916. Relative interests defined 24th November, 1911. Partition appealed against Waiariki Appellate Court Minute-book No. 1, page 277. Appellants were Rangi Whakahaerea and her sister, and Court adjourned matter until beneficial owners ascertained. 30th December, 1916. (Note by Court : The appeal was dismissed. —Minute-book No. 1, pages 330-35.) 1 raised question about beneficial owners. The grantees are heads of different families or subtribes. I wish to call evidence: — Te Ratu Renata (sworn) : This block was returned by the Crown for N'Tuwharetoa who were at Kawerau —about six hundred altogether. Kawerau is the block. 13,000 acres given because tribe so numerous. Trustees were selected by the N'Tuwharetoa for the grant. They were rangitiras, the grantees. The subtribes of N'Tuwharetoa were three — viz., (1) Ngaitamarangi, (2) N'Peehi, (3) N'Umutahi. These, occupied. Some of the grantees were officers in the army. Hohepa Rokoroko and Raimona Petera were sergeants. Land returned because of loyalty to same persons to whom it belonged before confiscation, and the grantees were simply leaders of the people. lam claiming a share. We occupied permanently on block under N'Tuwharetoa. The grantees were owners as well as trustees. We have an equal right, and we occupied too with them. Other persons besides the grantees and their successors are now occupying— viz. {inter alia), (1) Hunia Kirihi, (2) Rauwhiro. I have not occupied. Some grantees not on block. We always assumed we had a right, but grantees'would not admit our right. I lived on block prior and subsequent to the confiscation. The pa of my ancestors is called Moturoa, in a lake. There are burial-grounds there. I desire to be put in title. lam under N'Umutahi. No grantee is an Umutahi, but Te Wetini (a successor to Anania te Otene) is an Umutahi. Cross-examined by Whakarau Petera : I know Moturoa —3 or 4 acres. lam under Umutahi, who are descendents of N'Tuwharetoa. Grantees were selected, by the tribe. Area occupied by Umutahi, over 1,000 acres. Our occupation was —To Waha ote Parata, Rahitiroa, and Te Rui o Kawerau (a bush). I came under Umutahi in a block just adjoining, called Rotoma. My children are on Matata 39 in their own right, not through marriage with your people. I was too young to attend meeting when trustees were appointed.

G.—6b

4

(Case.) Em Hamiora and Patikura Wetini. admit grantees were trustees. Against—Wharangi Hamiora, Huriana te Waaha, Rangi Whakahaerea, and Whakarau Petera. (Objectors' case.) Whakarau Petera (sworn) : Mr. Galvin's (Haki Tamati's) ancestors are those who have sold. I think grantees are owners because in 1893 no power to ascertain beneficial owners. When Crown grant issued I was too young to know position. I think that the Maori way or custom was to put in the rangitiras, but I cannot say as trustees. If there were no pakehas or pakeha law the rangatiras would have had the say as to whether hapus came in. These ten are all rangatiras of one family except Rangitukehu. If no confiscation I cannot say what would have been the position. My brother, Raimona Petera, is older than I —less than ten years older. He was the elder in our family at time of grant. He was a man of standing. (Evidence of Raimona Petera in M.B. 5/372 read, and witness disagreed with it, although he stated Raimona was a man of standing). If there were no title and this were an investigation case I do not think we would claim as tit present for the ten grantees only. I will give a whakapapa. After confiscation land returned to the ancestral owners. Tuwharetoa I Rongomai te Nganana I Tatapiriau I Rongoteahu I I'iri I Tunono L_ I" " 1 Umutahi Turangitukua I To Rangitautalianga I Ngapuia I Te Wharetuku I Te Uoro I. alio I Te Kahutienga I Maria I Whakarau Petera Raimona Petera. Hohepa Rokoroko and all grantees from Turangitukua. Tuwharetoa was the ancestor to this land. Umutahi got a part inside 39, but towards Rotoma side. They should, get this small piece here. But they got a big piece outside called Rotoma East. The Crown grantees are descendents of Turangitukua, and I think the land came from him. Raimona probably knew more than I did. Cross-examined by Haki Karawana : 1 admit Hohepa Rokoroko is from your side ; also Taminiko te Otene, also Anania, also Karaitiana. I know of Kahuiwaho the elder, brother of Umutahi (from Tunono). Ido not know Rangikotuka. I have heard of Taratikitiki. Ido not know reason that Taminiko sold was because of money advanced to the grantees under a lease. Rangi Whakahaekea (sworn) : I object on account of occupation prior to confiscation. lam about fifty years of age. I was born in 1868. Paora te Amorangi (grantee). Te Rini Paora Te Orunui Paora I j 1,11 _ ! I I Te Whareake. Tukiwaho. Peri. Mihi te Rini. Rangi Whakahaerea. Wiha te Orunui. Paora Patu was my uncle on my mother's side. He was a rangitira. I heard from my elders that they were instrumental in holding the land before the confiscation. Government returned it for our elders. The ten grantees were the owners, and not trustees. If this had been an investigation of title the ten grantees would have got the land. I think land came back to ancestral owners after confiscation. Cross-examined by Haki Karawana: The grantees represent Ngaitamarangi and N'Peehi. The four grantees, Hohepa Rokoroko, Taminiko te Otene, Anania te Otene [not sold], Karaitiana [not sold] are from your side, but they sold. I cannot trace myself and those four from Kahuiwaho. Harata Raimona came under Raimona Petera. (Savage family under will). Patikura Wetini : I come from Anania te Otene (Haki Tamati's side). I admit Haki Tamati is entitled to come in.

5

G.—6b

(Case.) Haki Tamati (or Karawana) (recalled and sworn) : No part leased or sold —not confirmed. I will trace :— Tuwharetoa | I , "I Manaia Wharepu Rongomai to Nctanana I I Tutaramarae Tutepiriau. I Ranga=Rongoteahu I Piri I Tunono I I, " , I I ~~' I Kahuiwaho Turangitukua Umutahi Others. Rangikotuku I Takuna I Taratikitiki I I .1 I " I Takiwhenua Hirihia Other Kurawhangakai. I Te Rongo __ „ _J I " I Te Rongoiria Ihikiera 1 ! 1. Hohepa Rokoroko Rangimurua Te Waka 2. Mereana = Hataraka Patutahora m•„ I I I Toiruniko te Otene Rupine Karaitiana Kahuwhero. Anania te Otene. 1. George Soutligatc ) -rr i• m *■ , < ■ n i ±r q t,, ." p ° !• Haki lamati (claimant) and others. IS. Anania (of Matata) 4. Taitimu te Whetu 5. Heni (deceased). I claim that all under Tunono should come in. Whakarau Petera :No questions. I admit the genealogy. Haki Tamati (continues) : The general occupation was some time ago. The trouble has been over the title. I say present owners are the same as before the confiscation, and that grantees are their representatives. (Report to be sent in.) Extract from Makelu Minute-book No. 5, Pages 371-76, 378. (23rd June, 1883.) Parish of Matata, Lot 39—Crown Claim. Captain Mair appeared on behalf of the Crown. Gilbert Mair (sworn) : I apply to the Court for an order declaring the interest, of the Crown herein. I put in a Gazette —No. 60, of 12th November, 1874—vesting this block of 13,675 acres in ten Natives as owners. Five of these have sold their interests to the Crown —viz., Hohepa Rokoroko, Tomeniko te Otene, Harata Paraone, Hirini, and . The Crown has made advances amounting to £1,419 6s. 9d., having originally negotiated for a lease of the block, which was never completed, and then it was agreed to purchase the freehold for £2,500. The Crown had thus paid more than half of the entire sum first arranged for to the five who had sold. I only pray for an order for the amount of their five interests —amounting in all to 6,837 acres 2 roods. I put in a conveyance. I have been trying for several days to arrange with, the non-sellers for the subdivision, but they refuse to give the area which I claim as justly due. We have agreed as to tho direction the dividing-line is to take ;it is shown in pencil on the plan endorsed on the deed put in. (General direction of line east-north-east to west-south-west.) Some of those who now refuse to sell have received money direct from the Crown on this account. I know the whole of the block. The southern portion, which I ask the Court to award to the Crown, possesses no special advantage. The northern part would indeed have been preferable, but the Government waived their choice in consequence of the northern part being contiguous to the other Native lands. Three of the five non-sellers are present. Raimona Petera, as representing the non-sellers, desired to cross-examine.

G.—6b

6

Cross-examined by Raimona Petera : The first payment made by the Crown on this account was £259 6s. 9d. You received £15 on one occasion out of it. I have already said that this was first paid on account of rent. Afterwards about £1,200 was paid on account of purchase of this block alone —none of this was on account of Lot 31. It was all paid to the owners of this lot. Re-examined : The Crown have promised certain reserves out of this block, but did so in the expectation of purchasing the whole. If the non-sellers obstruct the settlement I think the Crown will be held discharged from any obligations so contracted. I produce, the Crown grant. Raimona Petera desired to give evidence in opposition. Raimona Petera (sworn) : We agree to give; 5,000 acres in satisfaction of the Crown claim. 1 oppose any further surrender, because the hapus occupying the land refuse to alienate it. This was one of the first blocks dealt with by the [Compensation] Court. The ten persons named in the grant were really trustees —they were nominated by those interested in the land. The first dealings with the land were of the nature of a lease to a private party ; then the Government interfered, denying the legality of that lease, and accepting one themselves. This lease lasted some time, rent not being paid for the whole time. Then purchases were made, not openly, but by separate dealings with the individual grantees, of which the remainder knew nothing. It was not till all the money so received had been spent that this came out. I therefore oppose any further surrender of land in satisfaction than the 5,000 acres. Cross-examined by Captain Mair : I had conversations with you at Whakatane and elsewhere, but refused to consent to alienate. I heard of your having conversations with Hataraka and others, but was not present. I did agree, to the general direction which the line was to follow. You first demanded. 6,000 acres, and promised some " consideration " ; then you asked half of the block, and we demanded £300. Other propositions have been also made, one of them involving the surrender of the Tuwahawata Reserve. After some discussion as to the nature of the grant and the position of the grantees under the " habendum," in which it appeared, that no trust whatever was expressed or implied in it, Raimona called — Hataraka Patutohora : I come into this grant by succession. There has been much disputing over the sale of the land. It all began with Tomeniko and the Crown officers. I objected to the sale from the first. Tomeniko alone at that time agreed to sell. As for Harata, the rest of us assigned her a portion of 1,000 acres and cut it off for her. Tomeniko then induced the four others to sell. I think it ought not to have been sold at all without the consent of all tho ten grantees and their hapus behind them. The ten ought to have consulted their people. 1 opposed the sale at Whakatane, before any money had passed on account of the purchase. I then offered to refund the rent-money paid by the Crown, but this was refused at first, but eventually accepted on my insisting. I asked three years' time to collect the money, but this was not agreed to. The time asked for was reduced successively to two years, one year, eight months, then to six months, and that was allowed me. Soon after this Tukehu agreed to return our own land to us, and we soon afterwards went back to it. Then there was a meeting on the subject of this land at Otamarakau, and Tomeniko and ! met there. I maintained my refusal to alienate this block. The Crown Agent then joined us. Soon after this Tomeniko took payment for his interest. Then I had an interview with Mr. Bryce, but would not change my mind. I consider that 5,000 acres would be a fair allowance to the Government —leaving 5,000 acres to us five who had not sold, and the balance —3,675 acres —to the hapus (i.e., to those interested, but not named). If not, let the Crown give us £300 and take the half of the block to the south and east, leaving us that to the north and west, where there are hot springs, and near which lie our settlements and cemeteries. Paora Patu (sworn) : I remember the first hearing of this case at Matata before Major Mair and Mr. Wilson as Commissioners. Captain Mair and Mr. H. T. Clarke were also present. This was confiscated land. These parcels were returned by the Crown to the chiefs and their people— Rokoroko, Tomeniko, and others. I was not included. Messrs. Mitchell and C. O. Davis negotiated a lease for twenty-one years, but it did not run out, because the parties began to sell. Then Harata Paraone asked for her share, and the other nine assigned her 1,000 acres, which, she sold to the Crown, and we have our offer of 5,000 acres to the Crown upon this transaction. I do not think that the five sellers ought to have done so without the consent of their co-grantees, and without a judicial subdivision of the block. I concur in the offer made by the last witness for the settlement of the question. Raimona Petera applied for adjournment of the case till 2 p.m., with a view of adducing additional evidence in support of his contention. Captain Mair opposed the application. The Court declined to allow any additional evidence to be brought forward, on the ground that the case had been deliberately closed on Saturday, but consented to postpone the delivery of its judgment till the afternoon sitting. The Court announced its decision. They could not admit that the mere extra-judicial agreement among themselves, by which the interest of Harata was estimated at 1,000 acres, was anything more than than a mere private transaction, which could not affect the equality of the interests of the whole of the ten grantees. The judgment of the Court must therefore be for the amount asked on behalf of the Crown by Captain Mair—viz., 6,837 acres 2 roods.

7

G.—6b

Extract from Whakatane Minute-book No. 8, at Page 337. Whakatane, Ist September, 1905. Gilbert Mair, Judge. Claims 596 and 598—Lot 39a, Parish of Matata (Kawerau), 6,000 Acres.—Application fop. Definition of Relative Interests. Harata Raimona and others, Te Tatihti Kingi and others, applicants. All parties ask the Court to put off this case, as they wish to see whether it is not possible, to put in some of the owners who appear to have been left out of the title. The Court states it will adjourn this case as requested to a future Court. Case adjourned accordingly. 3rd Avenue, Tauranga, 21st April, 1922. Dear Judge Ayson,— Re, Section 39, Matata. This and adjoining lands belonged to the Tawera Tribe, or a section thereof, many of whom joined the rebellion. Indeed, they could hardly do otherwise, through fear of destruction when about 1,400 rebels from the east coast as far south as Tolago Bay overran the country on their way to attack the lakes and Maketu in March, 1864; but when this large force was signally defeated by the loyal Arawa at Te Kaokaoroa and driven back, these people eventually returned to their allegiance, the whole of their lands being included in the; confiscated boundary. Of course, provision would necessarily have been made for them under the provisions of the New Zealand Settlements Acts, but so large an area as 13,675 acres would never have been allocated but for the unswerving loyalty of the ten grantees. The negotiations for sale to the Crown were arranged at a general, meeting of the interested parties held at their settlement on the block, and, as far as I can remember, no protests were ever made. I think it must be conceded that the ten grantees were each selected to represent the individuals comprised in the several sub-hapus of that branch, of the Tawera Tribe. I can testify to the very full notes taken by my late brother as Judge of the Compensation Court, and am sure the minute-books would have shown clearly the individuals represented by each of the ten, but, unfortunately, all these valuable records were destroyed in the Tauranga fire. Some of the selling grantees, I know, divided their share of the purchase-money with relatives ; others did not. Raimona Petera and the other non-sellers unselfishly declared from the very first that they would never sell, as their people had so little land to live on. The shares were made equal. It would therefore seem only fair that in the event of the title to this land being reopened the non-selling grantees shares should be much larger than those of any persons hereafter to be admitted, whose elders had received portions of the purchase-money. Raimona Petera was the leading young chief of these people, and was a most intelligent, upright man. Therefore his statement that the other grantees with himself were merely trustees cannot be lightly overlooked. Yours, &c, Gilbert Mair.

Approximate Coxt. of Paper. —Preparation not, given ; printing (-150 copies), £9.

Authority : W. A. G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.—l922.

Price 6dA