G.—6.

(c) Ttotana Ropiha Reihana —- According to the transfer executed on the 3rd November, 1916, this Native sold the shares which she derived as successor to Ropiha Reihana and as a part successor to Hori Winiata—together 67/132 share —but by a collateral agreement she reserved to herself half an acre. The consideration expressed for the whole interest was £345, but for that interest, less the half acre reserved, it was £230. By memorandum executed on the 28th February, 1917, she surrendered the right to retain the half-acre and was paid the sum of £115, being the balance of the price stipulated in the original transfer. No increase in the valuation had then taken place. The prices for the interests sold compare favourably with the value of such interests calculated on the valuation in force. Rotana Ropiha Reihana, however, had a further one-sixth share which she derived from Reihana Terewai. This interest she sold to the Crown by transfer executed on the 23rd February, 1917, the consideration being £63 4s. Id. It appears that this figure was arrived at on the basis of the unimproved value, less the sewerage compensation. On the unimproved value the amount payable is £92 Is. Rotana Ropiha Reihana is entitled to be paid the difference between that amount and £63 4s. Id.—namely, £28 16s. lid. —and I recommend payment of that sum. (d) Mere Paora Tuhaere — It will suffice in this case, without detailing in full the manner in which the Native's interests were transferred to the Crown, to say that for the interest which passed under the transfer executed by her on the 3rd December, 1915, and for the three-quarters of an acre and the quarter of an acre which were surrendered under agreements executed on the 22nd December, 1916, and the 17th December, 1917, respectively, she was paid prices which were all in excess of the amounts at which those interests were valued. (e) Merea Kingi— This Native owned 63/176 share in Orakei No. 1 Reserve. In consideration of the sum of £101 16s. 2d. she executed, on the 14th February, 1918, a transfer of three-quarters of her interest (189/704 share) to the Crown. It seems that the value of the interest was calculated as on the unimproved value of the block less the sewerage compensation. If no account is taken of the compensation, she was entitled to receive the sum of £148 ss. 6d. for the partial interest sold to the Crown. All her interest having been partitioned on the 11th October, 1918, into Orakei No. 1 Reserve B, Merea Kingi executed, on the 14th December, 1918, a transfer in favour of the Crown covering that interest. For the quarter-interest which remained to her from the previous sale (63/704 share) she was entitled to be paid on the basis of the special valuation made in May, 1918. The value of her interest, on the valuation referred to, was £55 17s. lid., but in completing the negotiations with her, the Purchase Officer made an additional payment of £25 for her interests in the land, in view of the fact, according to the correspondence, that the bulk of the purchasemoney in respect of the land had been calculated on a valuation made some years before. Summarized, then, the position is as follows : — £ s. d. £ s. d. Consideration payable .. .. .. 148 5 6 55 17 11 204 3 5 Amount paid .. .. . . .. 101 16 2 80 17 11 182 14 1 Difference .. .. .. .. .. 21 9 4 I recommend that the sum of £21 9s. 4d. be paid to Merea Kingi. Other Deficiencies. 48. The purchase-prices paid to two other Natives—namely, Te Hira Pateoro and Hiria Paora— are to be noticed :— (a) Te Hira Pateoro — Te Hira sold 9/220 share for £15 10s. 6d. on the 29th September, 1919. The price paid was clearly below the value of the interest as ascertained by reference to the valuation then in existence. I see no reason why his interest should have been purchased at such a figure. He received a price less than that generally paid at the time, and I conclude that, the price being less than the valuation supports and less than that generally paid, he has been underpaid and has not received a fair and reasonable price for his interest. The sum of £25 lis. should have been paid to bring the purchase-price up to the valuation, to bring it into conformity with that paid to others, and to bring it up to a fair and reasonable price. No reason appears for this difference. It may well be due to a calculation error, but, whatever the reason, I find in terms above. For his remaining interests he received prices which, in total, are very slightly in excess of the value. I recommend that the sum of £10 os. 6d. be paid to Te Hira Pateoro's successors.

24