G.—6a.

1925. NEW ZEALAND

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1923. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 328 OF 1922, OF WIREMU RIKIHANA, RELATIVE TO THE APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSORS TO THE INTEREST OF MIKAERA URUTUTU IN OPANAKI 2k NO. 1 BLOCK.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 31 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1923.

Native Department, Wellington, sth August, 1925. Petition No. 328 of 1922. —Opanaki 2k 1. Pursuant to section 31 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1923, I herewith forward the report of the Native Land Court hereon. After perusing that report and its findings, and although I may seem to differ from them, there can be no doubt that the Native Appellate Court, upon the material before it, came to a proper decision in admitting the relative of the mother of the deceased into the succession order. The allegation that the whakapapa under which he was so admitted was a fabricated one is not touched upon by the reporting Court, and apparently there was no evidence given in support of it. The Native Appellate Court did not find that the deceased's right was ancestral. It found his next-of-kin were entitled, and hence included both parents' descendants. I think the reporting Court must have overlooked the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Native Appellate Court to the effect that upon succession the Native custom which applied to gifts does not apply to land derived under will. But in reviewing the evidence I have gone carefully into the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the succession was correctly made in view of the material which was upon record. When the Opanaki Block was investigated it was by arrangement vested in Parore te Awha and Te Rore Taoho, and it is quite clear that was done for the purpose of facilitating dealings with the Kauri Bush. Parore te Awha readily admitted others besides himself were entitled, but Te Rore Taoho did not do so. Later the Court ascertained that Te Rore Taoho held his portion upon trust. Among those who claimed to be admitted into that portion as being part of the Opanaki Block were people in occupation upon Parore te Awha's portion. It was then stated that these claimants were placed on Parore to Awha's portion in recognition of their military services rendered on former occasions to Parore and his people. Probably if this section had urged their claims for inclusion in the title at the hearing an award would have been given. It may be that the will of Parore te Awha was therefore but a recognition of these rights and to confirm them in their occupation. If this be so, then there is some evidence to show that according to Native custom the deceased would derive this land through Urututu, as a member of the hapu entitled to such land, and not through his other parent. If so Hipiriona would be excluded from the succession. This question was not raised in the Native Appellate Court, although it is evident the petitioner has in his mind something akin to it in alleging that wrong whakapapa have been given. It seems only right that an opportunity should be given to have the question tested, and I recommend that legislation be promoted empowering the Native Land Court to rehear the application for succession, and either confirm, cancel, or amend the order, or to make such order as the circumstances of the case may require, and with power to effect all necessary amendments in the title. The Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge.

Opononi, 2nd May, 1925. Report of Court. Application 80. —Opanaki 2k 1. Reference by the Chief Judge to the Native Land Court, under section 31 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1923, for inquiry and report upon the claims and allegations made in Petition No. 328 of 1922, of VViremu Rikihana, in re the succession of Mikaera Urututu (deceased). The hearing took place at Opononi on the 2nd May, 1925, there being present Wiremu Rikihana, Rakuera Topia, and Hipiriona Topia ; while the fourth and remaining successor, Poroa Puhipi, is dead. Mr. John Webster represented the Hon. Wiremu Rikihana, M.L.C., the petitioner. Rapata Katete represented Hipiriona Topia. After hearing the evidence and perusing the old records, the Court found it to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the right of Mikaera Urututu in this land was not ancestral at all, but that Mikaera was put into the title by Wiremu Rikihana out of aroha. The Court found it to be proved