G.—2b.

(2.) That in the meantime, and until such determination by the Native Appellate Court as aforesaid, it may be ordered and declared that the question of validity of the said dealings cannot be adjudicated upon by this honourable Court. In the alternative, and without prejudice to and expressly subject to the questions of law arising upon the construction of "The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896," and hereinbefore set forth : — (3.) That the honourable Court may declare that it is the true meaning and effect of the said Act that the said Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui is thereby declared trustee of the said Division No. 14 of the said block for the persons named in the Second and Sixth Schedules to the said Act. (4.) That this honourable Court may declare whether or not the alienations and dealings set forth in paragraph 8 of this amended statement of claim are valid. (5.) For such further or other relief in the premises as this honourable Court may think fit.

c. Sir W. L. Buller's Statement op Defence. On Thursday, the 27th day of May, 1897, the defendant Sir Walter Lawry Buller, by his solicitor, Arthur Percival Buller, saith :— 1. As to paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, he denies the right of the Public Trustee to join in this action the plaintiff Wirihana Hunia, and he files this defence pursuant to leave granted by order of this honourable Court without prejudice to his objection to such rejoinder, and he admits that this action is the statutory action directed to be brought by " The Horowhenua Block Act, 1896." 2. As to paragraph 2 of the statement of claim, he admits the same. 3. As to paragraph 3, he admits the same, but alleges that the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui was one of the 143 owners named in the list. 4. As to paragraph 4, he admits the same, except the allegation that the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui became a trustee of the Horowhenua Block for the 143 persons mentioned in the registered list ; and he says that the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui became and was the certificated owner under the 17th section of "The Native Land Act, 1867," with all such powers and duties as are by law attributable to that tenure. 5. As to paragraph 5, he admits the same. 6. As to paragraph 6, he denies the several allegations thereof, and in lieu thereof he says that on the 26th day of November, 1886, the Native Land Court made an order in freehold tenure to the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for a part of the said block in the said order called Horowhenua No. 1, containing 76 acres 3 roods 26 perches, and an order in freehold tenure to the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for a parcel of land containing 4,000 acres in the said order called " Horowhenua No. '2," and an order in freehold tenure to the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui for another portion of the said block containing 1,200 acres in the said order called " Horowhenua No. 3 " ; and he specifically denies that the said portion containing 1,200 acres then before the Court was contiguous to tho southern boundary of the said Horowhenua Block and lying to the eastward of the railway-line, and avers that it was the portion of the said block now known as " Horowhenua No. 9." 7. As to paragraph 7, he admits the same except the allegation that an agreement was made between the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui and the late Sir Donald McLean, and avers that a promise was made by the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui to the late Sir Donald McLean, then Native Minister, and was a personal promise made by the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui as chief of the tribe on behalf of the tribe to the said Sir Donald McLean, and was not at any time binding in law upon the said defendant or the other registered owners. The said promise is in writing and is a record of the Native Office, and the defendant craves leave to refer to the express terms of the same. 8. As to paragraph 8, he admits the same. 9. As to paragraph 9, he admits the same. 10. As to paragraph 10, he denies the propositions of law therein stated. 11. As to paragraph 11, he denies the same, and in lieu thereof alleges that on the Ist day of December, 1886, the Native Land Court confirmed the order for the railway-line 76 acres 2 roods 26 perches, and for the 4,000 acres made on the 25th day of November, 1886, but did not then expressly confirm the order made on the 25th day of November, 1886, for the 1,200 acres intended to be given to the descendants of Te Whatanui, but then made an order in freehold tenure to the defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui of a parcel of land called " Horowhenua No. 9," containing 1,200 acres, so that the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui might carry into effect the promise made to Sir Donald McLean as hereinbefore alleged. 12. As to paragraph 12, he denies the same and every allegation thereof, and avers that on and prior to the Ist day of December, 1886, the descendants of Te Whatanui and Mr. Lewis, Undersecretary for Native Affairs, on behalf of the Government, had notified their acceptance of the block known as " Horowhenua No. 9 " as a complete fulfilment of the promise made to Sir Donald McLean as aforesaid. 13. As to paragraph 13, he denies the same and every allegation thereof, and says that on the 3rd day of December, 1886, the Native Land Court made an order in freehold tenure in favour of the said defendant Meiha Keepa te Eangihiwinui as the beneficial owner thereof of 1,200 acres called " Horowhenua No. 14." 14. As to paragraph 14, he denies the proposition of law therein stated. 15. As to paragraph 15, he admits the sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (c), and (/), but denies sub-paragraph (g) and every allegation thereof. He admits the sub-paragraphs (h) and (i).

8