3

G.—l4a.

" Mr. Rees : I dispute the correctness of that last statement: it is something new. " Mr. Harris :It is what Natives told me. 1 will put it this way : The shares of sellers range from 10 acres to 489 acres. "Mr. Rees: This is position—For purposes of sale the shares should be treated as equal, but the whole of the shares were not to go to Seymour. It was calculated that on this Seymoui would get 8,000 acres. He was awarded 4,500 acres, and the Natives themselves, sellers and nonsellers, fixed the place he was to get. He was to get also leasehold of not less than 3,000 acres — locality also fixed by Natives. He was to give up survey lien of £1,500; pay £1,000 towards the Natives' costs; pay costs on appeal, £530; give up promissory notes, and pay £1,250 back rents. He was then to give up lease over 1,300-odd acres, and the Maoris were to use that land to best advantage. There was no mention of 86 acres being the shares of the sellers. I submit that this was an arrangement by which both sellers and non-sellers received large advantages, and it is absolutely unfair to try and crowd the sellers entirely out of the block." " Mr. E. F. Harris : The question is as to the disposal of the 1,600 acres left over after 4,500 acres, the area sold, is deducted from the shares of the sellers. The proposal of non-sellers is that the questions of costs and survey lien should stand as they are. " Rauiri Karaha : It was arranged, amongst other things, that the sellers should get part of their shares back. They should not part absolutely with the whole of their interests. The sellers are really the persons who paid the burdens of Whangara, and now the non-sellers should pay them back. The non-sellers should pay the sellers the £3,030. Mr. Rees has stated my opinions, so I have nothing further to say. " The Judge : I am of opinion that the sellers have not parted with the whole of their interests. As to the division of the balance remaining over, I do not consider those who have small shares should be wiped out. As to the survey lien, the non-sellers are equally liable with the sellers. The same with the costs on appeal, £530. The costs of £1,000 cannot be placed entirely on the sellers. I think that the sellers should get whatever balance they may be entitled to in the 13,000 acres, and not in the 3,900 leasehold. It is now a matter of arrangement. The liability as between the sellers and non-sellers can be ascertained in the £1,500 survey lien, £530 costs on appeal, and £1,000 Natives' costs. It can then be settled what area of the non-sellers to meet this liability shall be transferred to the sellers. The non-sellers up to the present have contributed nothing towards these liabilities, which have been borne entirely by the sellers. " Rauiri Karaha :I do not agree that I should not come into the 3,900 acres. (Rauiri was a seller.) " The Judge : I will not make it a hard-and-fast rule that the sellers shall be outside the 3,900 acres leashold." 22. It must be self-evident that the taking-out of nearly 9,000 acres for sale must have considerably disturbed the ancestral rights of the parties, and it is one of the grounds of complaint that such ancestral rights are disturbed, inasmuch as persons without right in one section have been placed therein, their rights being in another part of the block. Even the non-sellers in the blocks disposed of had to be provided for somewhere, as well as those sellers who had shares returned to them and the new owners admitted into the block. 23. Similarly, too, for reasons connected with the leasing and mortgaging of Whangara Bl and 82, persons were inserted in these lists who had no ancestral right in that portion. Possibly it would have saved trouble, and excluded at any rate the sellers from the list, as the Natives on seeking a partition of Bl and B2 found themselves in conflict with persons who could not show rights through the particular ancestor, and it seems that many then realized for the first time what the result was. 24. The Validation Court, whatever its merits as a tribunal to inquire into and validate alienations, was scarcely a suitable Court to ascertain and define the relative interests. As the Judge who dealt with the matter was also a Native Land Court Judge it is probable he adopted similar procedure, but the Natives would not have the same facility in getting any wrong rectified as they would have had in their own Native Land Courts. 25. In similar cases where the Native Land Court has had to find the owners of the remaining land after a portion has been taken off for a decree of the Validation Court, the former Court has always assumed that the Natives parted with their whole shares, and has treated the balance as belonging to the remaining owners. There were, however, circumstances in this case which may have made a difference, and it is not for this Court to say that the Validation Court, which was cognizant of those circumstances, was not right in its dealing with them. 26. The effect of the proceedings in the Validation Court, however, is that an injustice was done to the Native non-sellers by crowding persons who had no right there into the portions owned by them (non-sellers). The Court cannot see how it could be well rectified or adjusted after this lapse of time without reopening the whole matter, in which case care should be taken to protect proper dealings. It was proposed to eject the sellers without ancestral rights from the Whangara Bl and B2 portions (the leasehold). This would, no doubt, go far to alleviate the position, but possibly other injustices might be created. 27. The Court has been asked to represent other matters in connection with the Whangara Block to the authorities. These touch the management of the block being taken out of the Natives' hands by the Validation Court and vested in a receiver. There is no doubt that that Court has in its dealings with the block brought upon the Native owners some burdens and disadvantages in addition to those noted above; but, while the Judge who is reporting has never been able to understand why it was necessary to apply all the paraphernalia of the Validation Court to the administration of this block, he does not feel justified in referring (beyond mentioning it) to the matter in a report upon the present petition referred to the Court. 18th October, 1911. R - N. Jones, Judge. Approximate Cost of Paper— Preparation not given ; printing (1,400 copies), £255.

By Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l2. Price 3d. ]