1.—2

28

No. 307 of 1881.—Petition of Waata Piaka and 19 Others. Petitioners state that the Land Court wrongfully divided Whakatahataha, and declined to place names in the certificate of title that ought to have been included. They say that the case was before the Court both in 1878 and in 1879. They ask for another hearing, that certain names may be included with their own. I am directed to report as follows: — That there was an informal application for a rehearing, but it was not so understood at the office in Auckland, and thus the time for granting a rehearing had lapsed. The Committee would recommend the case to the consideration of the Government. 12th September, 1881.

[Teanslation.] No. 307 of 1881. —Pukapuka-inoi a Waata Piaka me etahi atu 19. E ki ana nga kai-pitihana i he te wehenga a te Kooti Whenua Maori i Whakatahataha, a, kaore hoki i whakaae ki etahi ingoa tika kia uru ki roto kite Tiwhikete Whaitaketanga. E ki ana ratou ite aroaro ote Kooti taua whenua ite tau 1878 me te tau 1879. E tono ana ratou kia whakawakia tuaruatia taua whenua kia ahei te whakauru etahi atu ano ingoa ki roto. Kua whakahaua ahau kia ki penei : — I te tononga kia whakawakia tuaruatia taua whenua kaore i tika te tono ; engari kaore te Tari i Akarana i mohio he tono whakawa tuarua taua tono, na reira kua pahure i naianei te takiwa tika hei tono nga whakawa tuarua. E mea ana te Komiti ma te Kawanatanga c whiriwhiri te tikanga o taua whenua. 12 Hepetema, 1881.

No. 60 of 1881. —Petition of Hoei Eopiha and 5 Others. Petitionees claim Eakaiatai and Te Ohu as theirs, and complain that timber is being taken therefrom. They ask that the land and timber may be given back to them. I am directed to report as follows: — That the land referred to belonged to ten grantees, the interests of six of whom have been purchased by Government. The Government having stopped the plunder of timber that had been going on, and placed a policeman at Eakaiatai to prevent a recurrence of the trespass, the Committee has no recommendation to make. 13th September, 1881.

[Teanslation.] No. 60 of 1881. —Pukapuka-inoi a Hoei Eopiha me etahi atu c 25. E ki ana nga kai-pitihana na ratou a Eakaiatai me Te Ohu, c ki ana hoki kei te tangohia nga rakau o taua wahi. Kua whakahaua ahau kia ki penei:— Kotahi te kau nga tangata i uru kite karaati mo taua whenua, a kua hokona c te Kawanatanga nga paanga o etahi o aua tangata toko-ono. Kua whakamutua etc Kawanatanga taua mahi tahae i nga rakau, a kua whakaturia hoki he pirihimana ki Eakaiatai hei arai i te haere pokanoa ki reira, kua kore he kupu ma te Komiti. 13 Hepetema, 1881.

No. 304 of 1881.—Petition of H. K. Taiaeoa (No. 2). (Eeport No. 2.) On this petition I am directed to report as follows : — That the application made in the report upon the petition of Mr. Taiaroa, laid before the House on the 23rd August, for the report and evidence of the Middle Island Commission, be renewed, and that this resolution be reported by the Chairman to the House this day 17th September, 1881.

[Teanslation.] No. 304 of 1881.—Pukapuka-inoi a H. K. Taiaeoa (Nama 2). Kua whakahaua ahau kia ki penei mo runga i tenei pitihana i — Me tuku hou atu ano te tono mo runga i te pitihana a Taiaora i tukua kite Whare i te 23 o Akuhata kia tukua te Eipoata me nga korero a nga kai-whaaki kite Komihana mo te Waipounanrj; a ma te Tiamana hoki c whakaatu tenei whakataunga kite Whare i tenei ra. 17 Hepetema, 1881.

No. 61 of 1881.—Petition of Paoea Kaiwhata and 6 Others. Petitionees say that they had been living on the land at Ngatahira for several years; that Mr. Bryce and Mr. Eolleston had visited them with a view to settle disputes about ownership; that certain arrangements for exchange of land had been made, but not carried out; that they have not heard from Government; and therefore pray that the land may be returned to them. I am directed to report as follows :— That inquiry should be made to ascertain whether or not it was by the default or neglect of the Native Land Court the evident intention of the Native owners to preserve their tribal settlement was not given effect to, the consequence being that a large number of Natives have been evicted from a piece of land which they imagined had been secured to them by authority of law That, in the opinion of this Committee, the Native vendors and the European purchaser considered they were dealing only for the land leased to Mr. Braithwaitej which contract would have excluded the land