G.—6b.

1925. NEW ZEAL A N D

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1924. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 162 OF 1924, OF HEREPETE RAPIHAN RELATIVE TO TANGONGE BLOCK.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and Natire Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924.

Native Department, Wellington, 14th July, 1925. Petition No. 162 of 1924.—Kaitaia (Tangonge) Block. Pursuant to section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924, I enclose herewith a report by the Native Land Court upon the above petition. That report finds that the land became surplus land of the Crown by being included in a deed of sale to the Rev. Joseph Matthews, although not awarded to that gentleman ; that probably Mr. Matthews did promise to return part of the land sold to him, but that he had no power to do so ; and that the Natives in law have no claim to it. In view of this report I have no recommendation to make. If it is decided to return the land to the Natives, legislative action will apparently be necessary. The Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington. E. N. Jones, Chief Judge.

Office of the Native Land Court, Auckland, 25th March, 1925. Memorandum for the Chief Judge, Native Land Court, Wellington. Tangonge Block. Reference by you pursuant to section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and. Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924, in regard to Petition No. 162 of 1924, by Herepete Rapihana. I held inquiry into this matter at Ahipara on the 20th February last. Mr. Reynolds appeared as counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Darby for the Crown Lands Department. It will be observed that section 45 refers to the land as the " Kaitaia Block." This is an error ; the land is at Kaitaia, but the proper name is Tangonge. There is no doubt, however, as to what land is referred to in the petition. As the file shows, a, report in respect of this land was made by Commissioner Mr. Houston, M.P., on the 22nd July, 1907, but no action was taken on the report. Before me no further evidence was led, it being admitted that all available evidence for the Natives had been given before Mr. Houston, except that it was stated before me that at a meeting at Kaitaia about 1895 the Rev. Joseph Matthews was present and told the Natives to lodge a petition, and that he would give- evidence in their favour. He, however, died about a year afterwards. It is somewhat singular that none of the witnesses before Mr. Houston mentioned this meeting when the occurrence was comparatively fresh in their minds. Ido not think, however, it matters materially. I find myself unable to concur with the finding of Mr. Houston —that this land never became surplus land of the Crown, and that it was, and should still be, Native land vested in the Nativeowners. The Lands Department were not represented before Mr. Houston, and the proceedings were ex parte. That gentleman was, of course, a layman, and there was no one to direct his attention to the legal position.