2

G.—l4a

10. The material parts of the agreement were that Mr. Seymour was to get 4,500 acres in satisfaction of his purchases in a certain location, was to receive a new lease of some 3,000 acres adjoining, surrender his old lease, and make certain monetary payments and sacrifices. 11. The Commissioners reported that in their opinion it was " expedient that the necessary legislation should be enacted to render the said agreement valid and binding upon the Natives interested in the said block, and to enable the terms of the said agreement to be carried into effect." 12. Although legislative action was apparently attempted, nothing definite was done prior to the passing of the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act, 1893. 13. Upon the passing of this Act Mr. Seymour made application to the Validation Court, which was set up under it, for his alleged purchases to be validated, and it is out of this application the circumstances arose which gave rise to the petitioners' complaints. 14. The application was heard in due course, and eventually a decree was made, on the 6th September, 1894, which, reciting the agreement of the 27th June, 1890, awarded to Mr. Seymour 4,500 acres of freehold (now called Whangara No. 1) and 3,900 acres of leasehold (now Whangara Bl or B2) for twenty-one years from the Ist July, 1894, on the conditions set out in the decree. \ 15. Several other matters were mentioned in the decree, but it is unnecessary to go into these, except to see in what position the title to the balance of the land was left, and this was provided for by the 12th clause, which runs, " that the relative interests of the Native owners of the unsold portion of the said block —that is to say, 16,950 acres, more or less (the residue of the said Whangara Block after deduction of the said 4,500 acres now called Whangara No. 1 Block), shall be ascertained and declared by this Court after due notice given to all persons claiming to be interested to attend the hearing for that purpose." The 13th clause of the decree provided for the issue of decrees to the Natives attending. 16. The Natives gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision, principally on the question of the excess of 900 acres of leasehold beyond that provided for in the agreement, and on some of the money matters that did not, as far as this Court can ascertain, attack the award of 4,500 acres freehold or its location. 17. This appeal does not appear to have been prosecuted, but steps were taken to petition Parliament to prevent the decree becoming effective. The decree, however, remained on the table of both Houses, and eventually titles issued in accordance therewith. 18. In the meantime no decrees or titles had been issued to the Natives, and early in the year 1896 matters seemed to have been put in train, and on the 9th April, 1896, receivers were appointed by the Court to manage the residue of the block on behalf of the Native owners, with power (subject to the Court) to sell portions of the block to liquidate expenses, to allow the Natives portions for occupation, and to lease the balance. 19. About the same period of time the Natives began, under the supervision of the receivers, to endeavour to arrange the definition of their relative interests. It is not quite clear what principle was adopted in the arrangements, but it would appear that a committee of owners dealt with the matter, and that they first of all divided the whole block among about eight ancestors, and then divided out each individual according to his interest under the respective ancestor. Not only were the sellers included under this scheme, but also certain other persons not in the original title who were introduced by succession to dead persons. These ancestors did not take any portion of the deceased persons' shares, but were apparently treated as if they were original owners. 20. The arranging lists of names, shares, and locations appear to have extended over some months, the Natives mostly arranging them outside Court, the Court simply confirming or settling disputes where there were any. In the course of the proceedings the block was divided into several parcels, including a portion of land containing 3,487 acres and called Whangara C Block, which by decree of the 20th June, 1896, was vested in one of the receivers for the purpose of sale to defray legal and other expenses. Lists of names and shares for all these blocks (including C) were prepared, and decrees were made on the 19th August, 1896, vesting the remaining portions of the block in the respective Natives whose names are set out. 21. The Court has not been able to ascertain how the 4,500 acres were contributed —whether it was only taken off those who sold, or whether any others contributed; but it does appear that the question of the sellers being included in the block remaining to the Natives was not altogether absent from the minds of the Court or parties is evident from the following extracts from the minutes: — "30 May, 1896. (M. 5/94.) "Mere Kingi : I object because some of those who sold to Seymour have got shares. (Her objection was afterwards withdrawn.)" "30 May, 1896. (M. 5/104.) " Mr. E. T. Harris : Mr. Jackson and myself have gone into the question of the value of the shares. There is a point to which we wish to draw attention —viz., the shares of those who have sold to Seymour. Some of those who sold had no other lands. The area for the sellers is 6,102 acres more or less. The shares range from about 1 acre to 434 acres. The sale was made on the basis'of equal shares. It appears hardly fair that those who had large shares should make up the area for the small shares. There are many important questions to be gone into by the receiver, of which these are samples." " 3 June, 1896. (M. 5/114.) . "Mr E T Harris: There are certain difficulties which we have to bring before the Court. The sellers are awarded 6,100 acres—Mr. Seymour got 4,500 acres, which is equal to 9,000 acres all over the block, as I contend. The arrangement with Seymour was that he was to get 4,500 acres- eive up claim of £1,500 for surveys; pay his own costs of appeal, .£530, which he had recovered against Natives; pay Natives' costs up to £1,000; pay £1,250 back rent to both sellers and non-sellers and give up balance of his lease from 1891. The contention of non-sellers is that this was a settlement for all parties, and that they gave up part of their land to arrive at the settlement. In the sale the shares were to be taken as equal at 86 acres each.