2

G-.—2b

3. On the same day an order was duly made by the Native Land Court, pursuant to the provisions of the said seventeenth section of " The Native Land Act, 1867," for the registration in the said Court of a list containing the names of 143 aboriginal natives of New Zealand, including the plaintiff Wirihana Paeroa or Hunia, as the owners of the said land, and the said names were registered accordingly. The finding of the said Native Land Court upon which the order mentioned in this and the last paragraph hereof was based was that the said 143 persons, being members of the " Muaupoko," the " Eangitane," the " Ngatiapa," and the " Ngatikahungunu " Tribes, were entitled to the said land, and the said list included members of those tribes. 4. On the 27th day of June, 1881, a certificate of title under the provisions of section 17 of" The Native Land Act, 1867," was, pursuant to the said orders, duly issued by the Native Land Court, under the seal of the said Court and under the hand of the Chief Judge thereof, in favour of the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for the said Horowhenua Block, and he thereby became a trustee thereof for the 143 persons mentioned in the said registered list. 5. On the 25th day of November, 1886, the Native Land Court sat at Palmerston North for the purpose of partitioning the said Horowhenua Block upon the application of the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui under section 10 of " The Native Land Division Act, 1882," he being the sole certificated owner under the aforesaid certificate of the 27th day of June, 1881. The said Native Land Court in the said proceedings acted under" The Native Land Court Act, 1880," and " The Native Land Division Act, 1882." 6. On the 25th day of November, 1886, the said Native Land Court made an order for the issue to the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui of a certificate of title under the provisions of " The Land Transfer Act, 1885," and its amendments for a part of the said block, and in the said order called " Horowhenua No. 1," containing 76 acres 2 roods 26 perches ; and an order for the issue to the said defendant of a certificate of title for a parcel of land part of the said block, and in the said order called " Horowhenua No. 2," containing 3,988 acres 2 roods 32 perches ; and an order for the issue of a certificate of title to the said defendant for another portion of the said block, containing 1,200 acres, and called " Horowhenua No. 3," contiguous to the southern boundary of the said Horowhenua Block, but lying entirely to the eastward of the railway-line hereinafter mentioned (being Subdivision No. 1). 7. The first of the orders mentioned in the last paragraph was made so that an agreement for sale of the said parcel of land called " Horowhenua No. 1 " made by the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui to the Wellington and Manawatu Eailway Company (Limited,), whose railway is in part built upon that parcel of land, might be carried into effect. The second of the said orders mentioned in the last paragraph was made so that an agreement for sale of the said parcel of land called "Horowhenua No. 2 " made by the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui to Her Majesty the Queen for the purpose of a township now called " Levin " might be carried into effect. The third of the said orders was made so that the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui might carry into effect an agreement made between himself and the late Sir Donald McLean in 1874 to give to certain descendants of Te Whatanui (a Ngatiraukawa chief) who were not then ascertained 1,200 acres of the said Horowhenua Block in settlement of a long-standing dispute between the Muaupoko and Ngatiraukawa Tribes. 8. After making the orders mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7, the said Native Land Court adjourned until the following Saturday, the 27th day of November, 1886, at 10 a.m. 9. On the said 27th day of November, 1886, the Judge of the said Native Land Court who presided at the sitting of the Native Land Court on the 25th day of November, 1886, attended for the purpose of continuing the said proceedings; but no Assessor of the said Court attended, and in consequence thereof the said Judge purported to adjourn the further hearing of the said proceedings until the following Wednesday, being the Ist day of December, 1886. 10. The plaintiffs allege that all orders purporting to be made by the said Native Land Court after the said adjournment of the 27th day of November, 1886, were invalid, because the said proceedings lapsed on that day, and the said Judge had no jurisdiction to adjourn the said proceedings as he purported to do. 11. On the Ist day of December, 1886, the said Native Land Court, without proper notice to the persons interested in the said Horowhenua Block, purported to continue the partition thereof pursuant to the said alleged adjournment, and confirmed the orders for the railway-line and for the township made on the 25th day of November, 1886, but did not then confirm the order made on the said 25th day of November, 1886, for the 1,200 acres intended to be given to the descendants of Te Whatanui as aforesaid; and made an order for the issue to the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui of a certificate of title under the provisions of the Land Transfer Acts for a parcel of land part of the said Horowhenua Block, and in the said order called "Horowhenua No. 9," containing 1,200 acres, so that the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui might carry into effect the said agreement made between himself and Sir Donald McLean hereinbefore referred to. 12. The plaintiffs allege that the reason why the Native Land Court on the Ist day of December, 1886, made the order referred to in the last paragraph for " Horowhenua No. 9 " was that, subsequently to the making of the order as to " Horowhenua No. 3 " on the 25th day of November, 1886, it was uncertain whether or not the descendants of Te Whatanui would accept that subdivision in performance of the agreement entered into between the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui and Sir Donald McLean; and, in order to afford a choice to such descendants, the •said order of the Ist day of December, 1886, was made so that they might accept either the 1,200 acres which had been ordered on the 25th day of November, 1886, or the 1,200 acres which had been ordered on the Ist day of December, 1886. 13. On the 3rd day of December, 1886, the said Native Land Court, purporting to sit as aforesaid, made an order confirming the order made on the 25th day of November, 1886, for the 1,200 acres to be given to the descendants of Te Whatanui, which was left unconfirmed on the Ist