G.—2

5

Sir,— Hastings, Hawke's Bay, 21st March, 1910. llniii i<- Vrunga, deceased. I have been instructed to bring before you the following facts : — On or about the 30th August, 1898. Eemi te Uranga died, and on the 10th December, following the N.L. Court, sitting at Hastings, made succession orders in favour of Anaru Tuhua and Tanguru Tuhua affecting Whiti-a-tara and Rakautatahi No. 3b. That there was a grave injustice done is clear from the following genealogy : — Para I I. i Ngarangiemana 'J'uhua ■ I II Hemi te Uranga Ahipene Irimana Hiraka Tanguru Anaru Tβ Hoko IMatiu Irimana is dead, but Te Hoko and Matiu (the children of Ahipene) are living, and they were entitled to be in found as successors in the same way as Anaru and Tanguru. The Land Titles Protection Act seems to bar the way to redress, but I trust the authorities will agree that this is a case in which the Governor in Council may make an Order exempting it from the provisions of that Act. I would, therefore, respectfully ask that this matter may be brought to the notice of the Hon. the Native Minister, and that you be so good as to inform me as to whether the authorities are likely to grant my requesi . lam acting for the two Natives who claim redress. I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant. David Si annell. The Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington. Application came to hand too late to allow of consideration before the 31st March, 1910, on which date the Land Titles Protection Act, 1908. was repealed by the Native Land Act, 1909.

Dear Sir, — Hastings. Hawke's Bay, 21st March, 1910. Hemi Ngarangiengana, deceased. On the 24th March, 1899, the N.L. Court, sitting at Hastings, "ranted succession to this deceased to Anaru Tuhua and Tanguru Tuhua, as tenants in common in equal shares in respect of the interest of the deceased in Kaimotumotu East No. 4 (minute-book, Napier, 46, page 78). The applicant was Tanguru Tuhua, and there does not appear from the minute taken by the Judge to have been any contest or any other evidence taken than that of the applicant, who, as you will see, was appointed one of the successors. The existence of Te Hoko and Matiu —niece and nephew of Tanguru Tuhua —seems to have been entirely overlooked, and they now ask for redress. Apparently the Land Titles Protection Act, 1908, bars the way, unless an Order in Council be granted exempting the case from the provisions of that Act, and my clients —Te Hoko and Matiu —instruct me to apply for such Order in Council. The genealogy below shows that there can be no question as to the justice of my clients' claim : — Para I Ngarangiemana Tuhua I I I I I I Hemi te Uranga Ahipene Irimana Hiraka Tanguru Ad am Tβ Hoko Matiu Hemi te Uranga appears to have piedeceased Ngarangiemana. The oversight appears to have taken place also in the case of Hemi te Uranga's succession, and in yet anot her case, which being within the ten years I am in communication with the Chief Judge about. Yours faithfully, The Under-Secretary, Native Department, Wellington. David Scanxell. Application came to hand too late to allow of consideration before the 31st March, 1910, on which date the Land Titles Protection Act, 1908, was repealed by the Native Land Act, 1909.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not Riven ; printing (1,50 i copies), _4 15b.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9lo.

Price 6d.]

2—G. 2.