G.—6a

2

Judge Butler's Court, in giving judgment on the 27th July, 1896 (M.B. 9/288), in respect of an application under section 11 of the Native Land Claims and Boundaries Adjustment and Titles Empowering Act, 1894, states, " The conviction has been forced upon us that many who have similar rights to those in the title, both ancestral and occupatory, have been wrongly excluded, whether intentionally omitted by the persons who appeared for them or by accident we do not pretend to say ; but there has evidently been an injustice inflicted on these persons, and their only hope of redress is to make an application under subsection (10) of section 14 of the Native Land Court Act, 1894." It was afterwards found that the last-named subject had no application to this case. It was probably this expression of opinion by the Court that encouraged petitioners to take the present action. After careful consideraton of the facts elicited, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that insufficient reason has been advanced to justify the disturbance of the title at this late juncture. The original hearing was commenced on the 22nd November, 1881. The case was contested. On the 28th of the same month the Court gave its judgment, which was that " the whole [of this block] belonged to those descendants of Tapuae who continued to occupy it at and immediately before the coming of Christianity and of law." On the Ist December, 1881, Hamana Tiakiwai handed in a list of names, and, " after much discussion, the Court said it would accept it and make the order." It is particularly to be noted that no attempt has been made to prove occupation by the petitioners. Mr. McGregor, who acted for them, stated " There has not been a great deal of actual occupation on this block. Most of it is limited to occupation of eel-pas, &c." Later on he said, " I have not attempted to prove occupation by the persons named in my lists, but suggest that, if their brothers or sisters are in, they also should be included." This Court is of opinion that descent from the ancestor set up is alone not sufficient to establish a right to the land. There are many other persons who can trace their descent from the same ancestor who have not claimed a right. It is also necessary to prove occupation, but the petitioners have not even attempted to do so. One other aspect of the case should be remarked upon. One of the agents concerned handed m a list of persons whom he represented. Another pointed out that these people had brothers and sisters on whose behalf no claim was made, because they had not contributed towards the cost of the case. This surely goes to show that the Maori of to-day is hardly justified in charging with inconsistency his predecessor of forty-five years ago. The recommendation of the Court is that no further action be taken in the matter of the petition. Enclosed will be found a Land Transfer search of the title, two copies of the evidence taken and of the whakapapas and lists submitted, and also the Native Department file 1925/347. As witness the hand of the Commissioner and the seal of the Court. W. H. Bowler, Commissioner.

Approximate Cost of Paper.—Preparation, not given ; printing (475 copies), £2 2s. 6d.

Authority : W. A. G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.—l 927.

Price 3d.]