2

J.— l

Kemp agreed to admit the name of Warena Hunia (Wirihana's younger brother) as co-trustee with himself, and he then applied to the Court to join Warena Hunia with him in the order, which was done accordingly, there being no dissentient. 8. In giving his consent to the introduction of Warena Hunia's name your petitioner understood that he was consenting to have a joint trustee with himself in the management of the estate for the benefit of the tribe to whom it of right belonged ; and that was the universal belief among the owners then present in Court, who permitted the arrangement to be recorded unchallenged. 9. After the division orders hereinbefore mentioned had been made a survey of the block was made and a proper plan of the subdivision prepared for the Court; after which certificates of title were ordered to be issued in conformity with the provisions of the Land Transfer Act. 10. In the month of February, 1890, a sitting of the Native Land Court was held at Palmerston North for the purpose of further partitioning the said parcel of land known as Horowhenua No. 11 between Major Kemp and Warena Hunia, upon the application of the latter. It then became known to your petitioner and his people that by a fiction of law the land had become the absolute property of the two persons named in the ceitificate of title, and was unconditionally at their disposal as in their own right. 11. The Muaupoko Tribe, who all along fully understood and believed that their interest in the said block of land was held by Major Kemp and Warena Hunia in trust, now discovered that without any intentional consent on their part the whole estate had passed in law to the two persons named in the order of the Court, and that their ancestral home, on which most of them had been born—their houses, their cultivations, their burial-places, and their lake fishing-grounds—had passed away from them for ever. No warning had been given to them in Court that the effect of the order to be made would be to divest the said lands from the acknowledged owners, or that it was necessary or desirable that the trusts under which the said lands were held should be in any wav declared or protected. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the Court itself was unaware of the full effect of the order it had made : otherwise it is difficult to conceive how it could have allowed such an order to be entered up without a word of warning to those concerned. 12. At the sitting in February, 1890, notwithstanding that the trust in the said lands was insisted on by Major Kemp and admitted by Warena Hunia, the Native Land Court proceeded to partition the said lands as though the same were held by them in their own right, and, after causing a valuation of the estate to be made, divided the said block into two parcels, called Horowhenua No. 11a, valued at £13,392, and Horowhenua No. 11b, valued at £12,244, and awarded them to Major Kemp and Warena Hunia respectively. 13. Major Kemp, being dissatisfied with the said proceedings of the Native Land Court, appealed to the Chief Judge of the said Court for a rehearing, and a rehearing was ordered accordingly. This rehearing took place in the month of May, 1891, before Judges Mair and Scannell, when your petitioner, Major Kemp, again insisted upon the trust, and protested against the land being dealt with by the Court as a private property of the two trustees. In this course he was supported by the general body of owners then present in Court. 14. The said Judges declined to consider or inquire into the alleged trust, believing that they had no power to do so, and they made an order on the 10th day of April, 1891, confirming the previous order for partition. The following is a copy of the judgment delivered on the said rehearing :—■ Horowhenua No. 11 : Judgment. " This is a rehearing of a partition order at Palmerston North, on 10th April, 1890, at a Court presided over by Judge Trimble, deciding and allocating the relative interests of Meiha Keepa te Rangihiwinui and Warena te Hakeke, the two owners in the order of the Court for a block of land called Horowhenua No. 11, containing 14,975 acres, made on Ist December, 1886, on partition of the Horowhenua Block of 52,000 acres, and in which partition order, dated Ist day of December, 1886, and the Land Transfer certificate, dated 19th July, 1888, issued thereon, the said Meiha Keepa te Rangihiwinui and Warena te Hakeke are named as the sole owners. " Although questions outside the jurisdiction of the Court have been introduced into the case, the only matter with which the Court can deal decisively is the relative share o£ each owner as against the other, and on this the Court decides from the evidence of every kind before it that the decision of the original Court, that of 1890, should be confirmed, and con-